In Twenty-First Century Perspectives on Nineteenth-Century Art: Essays in Honor of Gabriel P. Weisberg, Diane P. Fischer asserts that the U.S. spent more money than any other visiting nation in order to “announce the new status of the United States, not only as a burgeoning power, but also as the next heir to the legacy of Western civilization.”
Notes from President McKinley’s papers indicate that a congressional budget provision from July 1, 1898 put the sum at $650,000 for the installation of “suitable exhibits by the several Executive Departments, particularly by the Department of Agriculture, the Fish Commission, and the Smithsonian Institution, in representation of the Government of the United States.”
According to Fischer, this was an opportunity, unlike previous expos, for the U.S. to position itself as a key player in the production of fine art. To that end, the work of painters Thomas Eakins, Winslow Homer, George Inness, James Whistler, John Singer Sargent, and Childe Hassam at the Decennial International Exhibition of Fine Art, helped to do just that and viewed as a success. However due to limited audience access, (the paintings were situated in a remote location on the second floor), the pressure on American architects to present a unique style was even greater.
In the background of these discussions, was also the fact that the pavilions space allocation had after much wrangling had finally been increased from 157,000 square feet to over 200,00 square feet. As a result, Ferdinand W. Peck (U.S. Commissioner General for the Paris Exposition) began the enormous task of selecting architects for the projects.
Colonial revival styles were submitted by three architectural firms: Holabird and Roche, Wilson and Marshall, and Shepley, Rutan, and Coolidge. However, Peck, who had also served on the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair, rejected all three proposals. What is interesting though is that French officials began to lobby heavily for a skyscraper, which to date, had not existed in Europe. Along with the “skyscraper aesthetic”, it was posited that architect Louis Sullivan’s decorative style could highlight American iconoclasm. Instead, a neo-classical design resubmitted by Charles Coolidge of Shepley, Rutan and Coolidge was selected for the pavilion’s structure.
Coolidge focused on a modified version of Richard Morris Hunt’s 1893 Administration Building in Chicago, a building that echoes the U.S. Capitol building and the White House. Coolidge describes the design as a “structure in the classical style, with pilasters similar to the White House, surmounted with a dome and cupola and supplemented in front with a high portico.”
While, the classical style originated in Greece, it is clear that the U.S. wanted to not only position itself according to its newly wrought ideals of triumph and democracy (note the statue of George Washington at the entrance of the pavilion in the image above) but to situate itself as artistically comparable to European architecture. However lofty these aims, critics panned the exterior of the buildilng as a failure. Critic Royal Cortissoz labeled it “ungraceful and too large for its plot.” Cortissoz’s point is accurate in that the building was shoved in between Turkey and Austria. Cortissoz goes on to say that “from top to bottom, the outside speaks of a tenth rate Power, and the inside recalls a cheap hotel.”
Despite this and other excoriating critiques, the pavilion’s use of a large dome and an functioning elevator, could still be read as indicators of the “skyscraper aesthetic” that ironically Peck had previously rejected in earlier discussions.
.
