The Lee Miller Studio, Inc.
According to Lives and its progeny, Lee Miller navigated her way through the storm of passion, but eventually she decided that it was time to leave Paris. By the summer of 1932 Lee had lost the support and referral business of Man Ray, her roommate and friend, Tanja Ramm had married an American and had left Paris and the Depression had reached and entrenched itself in France. Although Lee was still working as a “slave” at Vogue and may have received financial assistance from her father, Theodore, there does not appear to have been any discernable income from her photography in 1932 (1). It was time for Lee to seek some other opportunity.
The story goes that Lee, while still in Paris, decided to form a New York corporation and issue stock to finance the venture. On closer examination, the story does not appear to have been as described. By correspondence from Lee Miller to Julien Levy in the early fall of 1932, it is clear that Levy and Lee worked closely during that summer, not only on their relationship, but also on establishing Lee in New York. Levy committed to offering Lee a solo exhibition at the Levy Gallery, an established photography and modern art gallery in New York, and to act as her agent.
Levy provided Lee with a safe harbor. The Levy Gallery had already provided mixed exhibitions for Picasso, Max Ernst, Salvador Dali, Joseph Cornell and the photographers Man Ray, Eugene Atwell, Berenice Abbot, Edward Steichen, Alfred Stieglitz and Margaret Burke-White among others before Lee’s exhibition of December 30, 1932 to January 25, 1933. Although it is described as her first (and only) solo exhibition, half of the gallery was devoted to the painter, Charles Howard.
The success of the Levy Gallery, particularly with his introduction of Surrealism to New York was an ideal platform from which to launch Lee’s exhibition and career. Levy’s promotion of Lee was, as with all of his artists, relentless. Even without knowing Lee’s work, he had previously displayed her photos a year before as support for a Man Ray exhibition. Her work was shown alongside of Man Ray’s photographs of her as a model. When Blood of the Poet was released in 1932, it was Levy who screened and promoted it in the United States.
Levy worked hard to promote Lee and the Lee Miller Studio, Inc. Lee signed the corporate documents on October 24th, 1932 which coincidentally was the same day the promotional Ruth Seinfel article appeared. In light of her recent arrival, a few days earlier in New York, it is likely that either the Smith group or Julien Levy arranged for the formation of the corporation. This would not be the first time that Levy helped Lee in a legal matter. Contrary to what has been presented as her dispute over “the most beautiful navel in Paris” by the Times magazine, the case was not based on slander but misrepresentation since Lee was not the subject of the photograph. Theodore did write a letter to Time magazine but as is evident from telegrams and correspondence between Levy and Joella, Man Ray and Levy’s wealthy and well-connected father, the legal machinery was put into play by the senior Levy.
Although not a word had ever been published about Lee prior to a few weeks before her exhibition at the Levy gallery, a marketing campaign started soon after her arrival in October, 1932 when a spate of promotional articles suddenly appeared. Lee’s biographers reference extensively the reviews and articles that appeared, but to really appreciate the significance of these quotes, or lack thereof, it is helpful to look at the small squibs in context and even smaller bits written in the squibs specifically about Lee Miller.
In addition to the foregoing, in a May, 1934 edition of Vanity Fair, Lee was included as one of, “seven of the most distinguished living photographers”. The thrust of the article, not withstanding the name, was actually the choice of a woman by photographers who the photographers thought were the most beautiful. Lee had a photo credit but she is not mentioned in the body of the blurb. Her inclusion as one of the seven most distinguished photographers might have had to do with her recent shooting of the cast of the play Four Saints in Three Acts which was reviewed in the same May 1934 edition of Vanity Fair.
Even the brief mention of Lee in the squibs are suspect because, late in life, Levy gave an oral history to Paul Cummings on behalf of the Smithsonian where he said:
“PAUL CUMMINGS: What did you do as far as, you know, launching the gallery went mailing lists, advertising...?
JULIEN LEVY: ….I thought the critics were very important. As I say, I forgot the customer in a way. I thought of the critics much more. And I called on a couple of them, Henry McBride was very sympathetic and a pleasant little man. He was charming. And then I wrote Press releases. I’d learned to write press releases at Weyhe’s which you mimeographed and sent.
So, I changed that system and I took the style of each—and they flunked me in freshman English [at Harvard]—and I did very well by it—critic and mimicked it and wrote a miniature review in his style with a little note on it saying, “in case you want to use this in toto, this is not sent to other critics.”
PAUL CUMMINGS: Oh really!
JULIEN LEVY: “This is especially directed to you. The others have something else.” This is the same show but they have another aspect of it.
They often didn’t come in at all but just used that because they found out it was true. So if they like the review and were lazy they could put in excerpts from it just like it was in their style. [Emphasis added]
PAUL CUMMINGS: Reviewing your own exhibitions [Laughs] (2).
Nothing printed during this time is not suspect, including the exhibition introduction by, allegedly, Frank Crowninshield.
These dozens or so promotional bits actually constitute the bulk of what was written about Lee during her lifetime, (prior to the book Lives in 1985) other than wedding announcements and the like. In the 1940’s Lee was discussed by her mother in the Vassar student newspaper in Poughkeepsie and the hometown newspapers concerning photographs she contributed to a World War II propaganda book, Grim Glory and there were reviews of another photographic contribution she made to a British book about the women’s auxiliary force, the Wrens. She is mentioned in sundry articles such as the Millers temporary housing of a British child or Roland Penrose showing some art work at Vassar that he had safeguarded in Poughkeepsie during the war and other minor matters that might be of hometown interest.
From the age of 55 until her death, Lee is mentioned time to time but only in the context of history or other people’s lives. She is referenced in Man Ray’s 1963 biography, but briefly as a romantic interest without reference to any of her life experiences or accomplishments. There is also a sidebar in the Tampa Bay Times by Nancy Osgood in 1969, a couple of paragraphs that Bridget Keenan wrote in 1977 Women We Wanted to Look Like (re: “Angel on the Outside, Devil on the Inside”) and a few lines about her beauty with no mention of accomplishment in the Julien Levy biography. The Mario Amaya interview was published in Art in America in 1975. It is striking how little was written about Lee in her lifetime. From 1907 to 1985 if everything that was written about Lee Miller was assembled, it would not fill a half dozen pages. If one excludes the promotional articles of 1932-33, it is doubtful that a half page could be filled. This of course excludes the 1975 Amaya interview which was the only lengthy substantive article written about Lee and which may have been in effort by Amaya to gather exposure for Lee for the biography he was planning to write. Although it is conjecture, it seems reinforced since the New York and London Man Ray exhibitions had already passed by the time the article was published. Thus, the need to build a narrative. It is rather like the published photographic evidence from 1928 – 1934. There are only a few sittings for U.S., French Vogue and British Vogue along with brilliant, but unpublished photos of her by Man Ray with the exception of a couple that made it into surrealist publications and commercial ads for mainstream magazines.
Later in life, Julien claimed to Roz Jacobs, (a friend of both Lee and Julien) that he took Lee from Man Ray (3). This statement is likely correct for the opportunity presented rather than a romantic point of view. Once Levy was back in New York with his wife, Joella, there is no evidence that the affair continued.
While Levy was preparing for Lee’s arrival, she was exploring avenues in Paris. It was not until she met with the Smith group that the concept of the Lee Miller Studio, Inc. appeared. The idea of the Lee Miller Studio, Inc. was not Lee’s, nor did she form the corporation and issue stock as the owner. The proposal was that Lee would be the face of the venture and an employee of the corporation. Apparently, this proposal was finalized after her 1932 correspondence outlining the concept to Levy and only a few weeks before she returned to New York. The corporate archives of the State of New York, for 1932, in fact, reveal that Lee Miller Studio, Inc. was incorporated and the corporate shares were issued from the corporation to Lee Miller, Clifford Smith and Christian Holmes (4). Lee appeared alone to sign the Articles of Incorporation Smith and Holmes’ proxy appeared together subsequently and before a different Notary Public.
A corporation is, essentially, a fictional person created primarily for shareholders to avoid personal liability and various tax or operational reasons. Lee, as a shareholder, only owned her minority shares of the stock. Ownership of all of the tangible and intangible assets were owned by the corporation. For this reason, control of the majority of the stock is essential since all decisions of significance are made by the majority, such as the ability to sell the company, hire and fire, rent or own real estate and the like. Consequently, Lee’s financial backers, Smith and Holmes owned the majority of the Lee Miller Studio, Inc. and, effectively the corporation, unless and until they decided to sell or liquidate. Lee, was in essence, an employee of the corporation with only minority shares that had as a practical matter no value because, without control, there is generally no market as opposed to a publicly traded security. It is a common maneuver for small, non-publicly traded corporations to attract or keep employees with minority stock shares in lieu of salary. The naive employee often confuses ownership with control.
There are a few things of note in the corporate records. The corporate documents indicate that all intellectual property would be owned by the corporation and not by Lee. As a practical matter, the copyright of the photographs taken by Lee for the Lee Miller Studio, Inc. would belong to the corporation and not her personally nor her estate.
The Lee Miller exhibition at the Levy Gallery resulted in failure. It is not confirmed that even one photo was sold. All of Lee’s photos were held by Levy in storage for the next forty-five years. These photos consisted of all her Paris so-called Surrealist work and photos that she may have produced at Levy’s request to accompany an earlier Man Ray exhibition. Judith Thurman of The New Yorker has observed:
“Few artists achieve lasting renown without a body of work that is cumulative in its power, and Miller wasn’t capable of sustained ambition” (5).
This is absolutely correct. Before Lee’s death in 1977, Julien Levy contributed thirty-six of her photos to the Art Institute of Chicago (6). Currently, the Art Institute has 14 of them. After his death, Levy’s estate contributed the remainder of the photos to the Philadelphia Museum. In other words, between 1929 and 1932 there are approximately one hundred of her Paris photographs. One hundred photos represent her body of work for the five years between 1929 and 1934. This does not include the photographs available from the Lee Miller Studio Inc which do not appear to be more than a few dozen photos.
Contrary to the story told, the Lee Miller Studio not only failed to produce a return on investment, it was liquidated by the State of New York for failure to pay taxes (7). The leasehold and corporation were simply abandoned by Lee with her brother, Eric removing whatever possession remained in the studio. As Lee, herself said:
“It was 1931-the time of the moratorium. It was very hard work because I had to do all the work myself. There was no money to pay anyone to help. All contracts were being cancelled. Someone should have read my horoscope and warned me” (8).
In light of Lee’s own words, it is difficult to understand how it is maintained that Lee’s studio was a success. To this day, the Lee Miller archives represents a stock certificate of the Lee Miller Studio, Inc. to be evidence of her achievement of Lee in the business world. This evidence is curious. (See also: Antony Penrose in a Hepworth Wakefield 2018 presentation on YouTube [20:22]). Although the stock has an “old fashion” appearance, the stock is extremely similar to what present day attorneys order when they form a corporation. It can be obtained on-line or from legal stationeries with any corporate name or par value requested, for a nominal cost. Typically, the corporation documents and stock certificates would remain with the attorney and, certainly, not handed over to a minority shareholder. It is noteworthy that the stock is neither endorsed or issued to a named shareholder, it is numbered “18” which is interesting since only three shares were issued. It is possible that Lee would have her shares, but that is not what is represented. Why Lee would save shares of a corporation that had been dissolved for failure to pay taxes is another question. Without more, the stock representation is, at least, questionable as the Condé Nast/Georges Lepape cover girl representation. The story of the formation, ownership and success of the Lee Miller Studio, Inc. is yet another “footprint” that has been endlessly followed.
Footnotes:
(1) Amaya, Mario My Man Ray Art News In America May/June 1975 (page 59)
(2) Cummings, Paul in an interview with Julien Levy conducted (1975) for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian.
(3) Schaffner, Ingrid & Jacobs, Lisa (1998) Julien Levy: Portrait of an Art Gallery MIT Press Cambridge, Mass (page 166)
(4) Lee reported that Christian Holmes wanted to be a silent partner and it is surmised that Ida Porter signed with Clifford Smith as Holmes’ proxy. Research reveals that she was a legal secretary.
(5) Thurman, Judith (2008) The Roving Eye: Lee Miller, artist and muse The New Yorker
(6) Burke, Carolyn (2005) Lee Miller: A Life. Knopf, New York (page 364)
(7) The corporation was dissolved by operation of law for failure to pay taxes and fees according to an archivist at the New York Division of Antiquated Corporation Archives.
(8) Osgood, Nancy (1969) Accident was Road to Adventure Tampa Bay Times
Can You Help?
There are very few photographs available from the Lee Miller Studio. Those that are available are generally portrait photographs of friends within the circle of the actress Clare Luce who was the wife of the investor, Clifford Smith, or Julien Levy. There are also a few commercial photographs. There does not appear to be any work produced in 1934 leaving a production time of only slightly over a year for the Lee Miller Studio, Inc. (1) This seems impossible unless the Studio survived pretty much exclusively on the initial capital investment, which could be the case. Any lead to photographs other than those already published in Antony Penrose’s Lives or Carolyn Burke’s Lee Miller: A Life would be helpful and greatly appreciated.
(1) Lee took the still photos for Gertrude Stein’s Four Saints in Three Acts which was first shown at the Hartford Atheneum in February 1934. However, the photos taken of the cast by Lee were in 1933.