AESTHETICS No.13 (2009)

The Japanese Society for Aesthetics / 111

The Art Competitions in the Modern Olympic Games:
Rethinking the Boundary Problem between Art and SportYOSHIDA Hiroshi
Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto

1. Prehistory: Coubertin and the Classicistic Idea of Olympic
Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937), best known as the principal founder of the Modern
Olympic Games, was born in Paris into an aristocratic family. After abandoned his military
career, he then found his way to the educational world. From 1883 to 1887, he visited toEngland for inspection, where he got strongly impressed by the advanced level of amateur
sports, and, after returning to France, he organized and encouraged the societies for amateur
sports.
In November 1892, at a meeting of a local sporting association at the Amphitheater ofSorbonne, he announced the reestablishment of the Ancient Olympic Games in Greece andwon approval from the present members, which were mainly constituted of the high society
people in French. This “aristocratic” origin of the Modern Olympic Games accounts well for its
quintessential nature: the so-called “amateurism.” Having its origin in the aristocratic societyof the 19th-century England, the ideology of “amateurism” in modern sport culture has
fostered the belief that a sport, unlike “labor,” should be played in leisure time, and it has thus
kept the physical working class - labeling them the “professionals” - away from the arena ofamateur gentlemen. [1]
In Coubertin’s view, the principal players of amateur sports should be collage students.
He zealously pursued, as an educator, the coordination of “body and soul,” often inspired by
the ancient Greek’s pedagogic ideal. In an article of the Revue Athlétique (1891), he regrets thatthe present athletes have lost “all feeling for the beauty of the classic authors” and suggests “acompetition in literature among athletes” in order to restore the intimate relation of “muscle
and mind.”[2] We can thus say that Coubertin’s introduction of fine art into sport events was,just same as his project of the Modern Olympic Games itself, motivated by and sustained upon
his classicistic idea.
In May 1906, summoning up the International Olympic Committee (IOC) members toParis, Coubertin organized a “Consultative Conference on Arts and Letters.” At the opening of
this conference, he gave a lecture entitled “A Grande Marriage,” where he emphasized theneed “to reunite a long-divorced couple - Muscle and Mind” and invited the members’ views
on “to what extent and in what form the Arts and Letters could take part in the celebration of
the modern Olympiads.” Then he proposed “the projected creation of five competitions inarchitecture, sculpture, painting, music and literature designed to be awarded every four years
for unpublished works directly inspired by the idea of sport.”[3] This proposal was, although
it must have sounded surprising, approved unanimously by the attendance, the fact showing a

112

YOSHIDA Hiroshi

firm initiative of the President Coubertin. [4]The decision of this 1906 Paris Conference, that is, inclusion of the five competitions of art
into the Olympic Games, will have a strong effect on the IOC members and each of theOrganizing Committees of Olympic Games, far beyond Coubertin’s retirement and death.

2. Introduction of the Art Competitions into the Modern Olympic Games
2-1. London 1908
Just after the Italian Organizing Committee cancelled the Olympic Games on the groundof the financial difficulties caused by an unexpected eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 1906, theIOC elected London to succeed the plan. It was miraculous that the Olympic Games in
London won success in such a short preparatory period. But, as to the Art Competitions, its
positive outcome was only the foundation of the rules.
The regulations for 1908 Games lists the Competitions of Painting, Sculpture andArchitecture in this order, and, modifying the registrations of the 1906 Paris Conference, omits
those of Music and Literature. The bias towards the plastic arts apparent here shows that the
Art Competitions could only be understood as kinds of “exhibition,” not “performance,” as the
sports events are generally considered. The common “classical” themes were given to bothgenres of Painting and Sculpture, for example, “the battle of the Greeks and Amazons” or“Discus throwers.” Only one winner in each competition will be awarded a Gold Olympic
Medal, and hence no silver and bronze medalists.
2-2. Stockholm 1912
The members of Swedish Organizing Committee were totally negative to the Art
Competitions, in spite of all precedents in the 1906 Conference and the 1908 Regulations. What
perplexed them most was the problem of judgment. As the Royal Academy of Stockholm andother Swedish artistic and literary institutions had refused to accept the role of refereeing, theOrganizing Committee announced to the IOC that they could not but renounce the Art
Competitions. The Swedish Society of Arts, one of those rejecting institutions, clearly expressed their view that an art competition under given themes and guidelines must be
unfruitfull, because an artwork should be judged on the criteria of “art for the art’s sake.”
Although he at last succeeded in persuading the Swedish Committee into holding them,
the President Coubertin had to organize the Art Competitions in the Stockholm Olympic byhimself, without any local cooperations. He tried to communicate, only futilely, a classicistic
idea on the art and sport to Victor Balck, the Swedish supervisor, as follows:“There is only one difference between our Olympiads and plain sporting championships,
and it is precisely the contests of arts as they existed in the Olympiads of ancient Greece
where sport exhibitions walked in equality with artistic exhibitions.”[5]The Art Competitions in Stockholm were doomed to failure. Only 35 artists registeredfrom all over the world, there included no Swedish names. And a more fruitlessness: the Gold
Medalists in the Literature Competition, George Hohrod and Martin Eschbach - definitely

The Art Competitions in the Modern Olympic Games

113

German names - turned out to be a pseudonym used by Coubertin. What’s nonsense that the
President got to be a Gold Medalist for himself!
2-3. Antwerp 1920
As the Berlin Olympic in 1916, only destined, was cancelled by reason of the World War I,
the next Art Competitions in the Olympic Games were held in Antwerp, 1920.
Probably because the Olympic Games were now beginning to linkage the international
affairs, some countries never received an invitation to Antwerp: Germany and its wartime
allies; neither Bolshevik Russia did, while Czarist Russia did. [6]
In contrast to the negative reaction provoked in Stockholm, the Belgian Organizing
Committee welcomed the Art Competitions, in view of the postwar rehabilitation of theirnational prestige as “the land of art.” The Belgian weekly Ons Land used the Art Competitions
as a justification of the Olympic Games held in “the land of gothic churches, the land of
Rubens (…).”[7]In the Art Competition of 1920, the Belgian artists won 6 medals, more than half of thetotal number, and thus the Belgian people succeeded in enhancing their prestige of the “nationof art.” The artists from 18 nations took part in the Competitions, twice number as did in thelast Stockholm Olympic. The Art Competitions enriched their details, and three kinds of
Olympic Medals - gold, silver, and bronze - were awarded in full, for the first time. [8]2-4. Paris 1924
Here the Paris 1924 Olympic should be mentioned only briefly. Worth noting are thefollowings: 193 artists from 24 nations took part in the Art Competitions: much greater number
than in the past two Olympiads. Some artists from the Soviet Union submitted their works, inspite that the Soviet Union was not officially invited to the Olympic Games from the French
Organizing Committee, for some political reasons. The famous French artists - Paul Claudel,
Paul Valéry, and Maurice Denis, for example - headed the juries of the Art Competitions,attracting public attention from the world. In the Music Competitions, particularly, outstanding talents joined in the judge, including Stravinsky, Honneger, Fauré and Dalcroze. But noprizewinner was announced there, maybe because the judgments were too severe.
The poor result about which the famous juries in Paris had brought urged the IOC
members to reconsider the method of judgment, and then, in 1926, they determined to appointan International Jury for the Art Competitions from among its own members.
2-5. Amsterdam 1928
After Coubertin retired from the President of IOC, the first Olympic Games were held in
Amsterdam, 1928, under the direction of the new President Henri de Baillet-Latour (1925-42), a
Belgian aristocrat. He faithfully took over the spirit of Art Competitions from his predecessor,
and the Dutch Organizing Committee also saw them as an integral part of the Games.
Within the 1928 Olympic, the Art Competitions were increasingly enriched by subdividing the five main categories and adding new competitions: Town Planning was added to
the Architectural contest; Reliefs & Medallions to the Sculpture; the Literature subdivided into

114

YOSHIDA Hiroshi

three-fold, Dramatic, Epic, and Lyric & Speculative; the Painting contest also into three-fold,
Drawings, Graphic Arts, and Paintings.
By virtue of such extension of Competitions, over 1,150 (!) artworks were submitted on thewhole, and the total number of the Olympic Medals more than doubled as compared to 1924.
Germany, having returned to the Olympic Games after sixteen years’ absence, sent a fullnumber of participants into the Art Competitions and won 8 medals out of 29 in sum awarded
there.
In the Art Competitions of the Amsterdam Olympic, some considerable changes occurredwith regard to the way of exhibition of the prizewinning works.
Firstly, the prizewinning exhibition held in the Municipal Museum of Amsterdam wasorganized into the classification by nations, rather than by the categories of Competitions. As aresult, the prizewinning works by German artists occupied a special showroom. After the
Olympiad had closed, this “German Room” was transported to Düsseldorf and attracted publicattention there. It might arouse an enthusiasm for the unification of sport and art among theGerman people, which would form a background of a fanaticism for Art Competitions
observed in the 1936 Berlin Olympic.
Secondly, a more serious point, most of the prizewinning artworks were sold after theexhibition. The registration form issued by the Dutch Organizing Committee had had achecking column saying, “Is the exhibitor desirous of selling the work?” It means that theparticipants were not obligated to sell their submitted works, but, after all, most of theawarded works were sold at exceptional prices after the Olympiad. The IOC members
censured that severely for violating the Olympic idea of amateurship, and afterwards, they
stepped forward to prohibiting the sale and restricting the copyrights of the submitted
artworks. That issue unexpectedly betrayed an essential difference between art and sport,
which could foresee a serious deadlock of the Olympic Art Competitions in the near future.
2-6. Los Angeles 1932
The Los Angeles Olympic in 1932 also organized the Competitions of Arts. In spite of the
far geographical distance from the European Continent, no less than 1,145 works weregathered, nearly equal to the precedent Games. Both the U.S. Government and the Organizing
Committee supported them with the financial privileges of the custom duty and carriage fee.
As to the result of the Competitions, the total number of the prizewinners increased, since the“honorable mention” awards (without medals) were established in every Competition. [9]While the Los Angeles Games were in preparation, two items were added to the rules for
the Art Competitions: “Works must have been executed during the course of the IXth
Olympiad [since January 1, 1928], and must not have been exhibited at the Games of the IXth
Olympiad at Amsterdam.”That new regulation tells us that the U.S. Organizing Committee and the IOC recognized
how essentially dissimilar art and sport must be, and they nevertheless did not abandon theeffort to bridge the gap between them. But the result was that the Art Competitions were only
modified into the generally accepted formats of sport competitions, and not vice versa.
Just before the opening of the Games, they were still debating on another new regulation

The Art Competitions in the Modern Olympic Games

115

that entries had to be by “living artists.” Seen from the fact that this rule will be finally adopted
in the 1948 London Olympic, it is likely that even “dead artists” not merely had the right toenter, and but probably entered somehow, for the Art Competitions up to 1932. While thevalue and quality of the artwork is normally judged by itself independently of the author’s
physical presence, the nature of the Olympic Games required the “living athletes” also in theCompetitions of Arts.
2-7. Berlin 1936
It is widely known that the 1936 Berlin Olympic was politically abused by Adolf Hitler
and the Nazi government; however, that is not the point here. As regards the Art Competitions, what was most striking in 1936 is their maximum expansion.
The German Art Committee, by direction of Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Public
Education and Propaganda, contrived to change the official regulation in order to broaden the
categories of Competitions.
At first, they asserted that a section of the film art should be newly organized. We caneasily suppose that this proposal had anything to do with Leni Riefenstahl’s popular sport film
“Olympia.” But the IOC and Coubertin, who still served as its Honorary Head and the founderof the Art Competitions, rejected this proposition. As a letter from Theodor Lewald, thePresident of the German Organizing Committee, to him implies, Coubertin seems to havetaken care of Olympic’s symbol number “five” - as represented in the five rings or pentathlon- also in the Art Competitions.
Subsequently, the Germans suggested to add the Gold & Silver Smithing and Dance
sections to the Art Competitions. The IOC again rejected it. Confronted with the IOC’s
inflexible policy to keep the five traditional genres, they changed their plan to expand thesubcategorization in each of the five genres.
As a result of that subcategorization, Music Competitions - which had ever been virtually
only a single contest - had now the three contests: Compositions for Orchestra, Instrumental
Music, and Solo and Chorus Vocal. The Germans’ great enthusiasm for music was also
manifested in the fact that the prizewinning works were not merely awarded but also
performed in public, for the first time in the history of the Olympic Musical Competitions.
Furthermore, 4 medals out of 6 in the Music Competitions were given to German artists. In the
Sculpture Competitions, also for the first time, the three contests in full were conducted:
Medallions, Reliefs, and Statues; and German artists earned 2 medals there.
In the Art Competitions of the Berlin Olympic, as the result of their expansion abovementioned, the total number of the medals and honorable mentions recorded a sudden
increase, although the sum of the submitted works, 810, amounted less than the last Olympiad.
The top five countries in the sum total of the medals were Germany (12), Italy (5), Austria (4),
Poland (3), and Japan (2). Those included, whether accidentally or not, the three Axis nations
and the two neighboring countries which Germany annexed in the soon future. In contrast tothem, the USA artists only got one silver medal (in the Town Planning), whereas the USA
athletes in the Sports Competitions got 23 medals more than the Germans (21) did.
We can hardly judge what such a result really meant, especially because the criteria of the

116

YOSHIDA Hiroshi

Art Competitions were much vaguer than in the case of sport competitions. Then, in the 1948
London Olympic, the Organizing Committee was forced to introduce a strange regulation tocorrect this “national bias” in the Art Competitions, as will be considered below.
2-8. London 1948
After the two Olympiads, only scheduled, were cancelled during the World War II, theIOC selected London for the first postwar Olympic Games.
The British Organizing Committee was enthusiastic for the Art Competitions from theoutset. We can recognize that from an article titled “Muscle and Spirit,” in the IOC Official
Bulletin, written by Britain’s Lord Aberdare, a chief member of the IOC and representative of
the Organizing Committee. There, probably in anxiety about a long blank, the author reconfirms the idea and the merit of Art Competitions, honoring Coubertin’s historical achievements. He states that “the Olympic ideal itself represents a synthesis of these two principals; astrong muscular culture, supported on the one hand by the chivalrous mind, and on the other
hand, by the notion of the esthetic, toward a culture that is both beautiful and gracious. (...)
The Olympic Games are themselves a work of art.” [10]However, the Art Competitions in the 1948 London Olympic were essentially changed
from those in the prewar Olympiads, although the British Organizing Committee held them inorder to follow the tradition established by Coubertin. And further, these changes also
account why the Art Competitions terminated with the London Olympic.
What has to be noticed first is that the two items were added to the regulation. The first is,
as mentioned above, a regulation that entries must be limited to “living artists.” The second is,more effective, a kind of “citizenship” item. According to it, all the artworks exhibited in theCompetitions must be “previously approved by the Olympic Committee of the Nation underwhich the artist claims citizenship.” And moreover, accompanied with it, a limitation was set
for the total number of works each country could submit. Although its primal aim was toprevent “national bias” in the sum total of Olympic Medals, as occurred in the 1936 Berlin
Olympic, this limitation of nationality would drastically change the nature and condition of
the Art Competitions.
In former times, participants in the Art Competitions submitted their works directly toeach of the Organizing Committees. At that time, artists without citizenship, and even artistsof countries which did not officially participate in the Olympic Games, had the right to enter
there. The first case is the exile artists of Czarist Russian in the 1920 Competitions, and thelatter the Russian artists in 1924. But now, after 1948, artists are required to submit their works
to each of the National Olympic Committees according to their nationality, and then each of
the National Committees forwards the submitted works to the Organizing Committees, after
ranking them and adjusting the sum number of works in each contest.
As the result of this new entry system, the submitted works in the Art Competitions
became endowed with more “national” characters than ever. A notice appeared in the Bulletinof IOC reads: “Only nationals or naturalised subjects of a country invited to the celebration of
the Games are eligible.”[11] An original and simple regulation for the first Competitions in1912 - “artworks inspired by or related to the idea of sport” - might be any longer insufficient.

The Art Competitions in the Modern Olympic Games117

In the Art Competition of 1948 London Olympic, accordingly, most of the prizewinningworks had “national” or “ethnic” subjects, especially in the contests of plastic arts. “The
Quagga Race” by Walter Battiss (South Africa) and “Riding” by Hsiao-Nan Chen (China)
represent the typical examples (Both awarded the Honorable Mention in Painting). While thejudgment and ranking became highly difficult, many counties almost equally reached the
Olympic Medals. There was a four-way tie for first place among Britain, Italy, Austria andFinland, each with 4 medals; and no country became eminent as Germany did in Berlin, 1936.
At the first sight, it seems rather strange that such a “national” regulation did not appear
in the Olympic Art Competitions until the post-World War II period, but we should notice thatthe international system in the postwar age had been tightening the unit of “nation” forcibly
more than ever.
Thus the artworks submitted in the London Olympic generally acquired the characters of“national representative,” and, as the result, the Art Competitions came to be akin to a symbolof the international friendship, far distant from the real, serious competitions equivalent to theathlete sports. It was only too natural that the history of the Art Competitions ended with thisLondon Olympiad.

3. Exclusion of the Art Competitions.
It was in the 1948 London Meeting when the IOC first took up for discussion the exclusionof the Art Competitions. The most serious issue was the amateurship, which had frequently
been violated there. The worse was that they detected that the Italian National Olympic
Committee had offered prize money for their domestic contests, which had been conducted to
select the works to send to London.
In the next year, 1949, the IOC meeting was held in Rome. Although only some fractionsof the IOC members were present there, the meeting unfairly voted that the next Olympiad,scheduled for 1952 in Helsinki, would adopt the “Art Exhibitions” in place of the “Art
Competitions.” The shift from “competition” to “exhibition” meant that artistic contests wereno longer awarded the Olympic Medals as official Competitions supervised by the IOC.
According to the report of Rome Meeting, the points were the followings: (1) An association ofsport and art should be formed indeed, but that is not a function of the IOC and the Olympic
Games; (2) Since participants of the Art Competitions are practically all professionals, theOlympic Medals must not be awarded there. This event should be in the nature of an“exhibition.”
Over the legitimacy of the negative decision in Rome, the IOC was soon split into the two
opposing groups: on the one side, those who rammed the Rome decision, represented by the
new President Johannes Sigfrid Edström (Sweden) and the first Vice President Avery
Brundage (USA); on the other side, those who advocated the continuation of the Art
Competitions, not the “Exhibitions,” organized by Ferenc Mező, a Hungarian poet, and Alex
Walter Diggelmann (Switzerland), both of them were Medalists of the past Olympic Art
Competitions.
In the very midst of a confused debate, the Finnish Organizing Committee could not but

118

YOSHIDA Hiroshi

give up organizing the Art Competitions after all. The 1952 Helsinki Olympic then arranged
the “Exhibitions” of artworks, instead of the “Competitions.”
The fierce dispute was finally settled in the same year, when Brundage was elected as new
President of the IOC. As an ideologue of the amateurism, he had been keeping the initiative in
the negative campaign against the Art Competitions. In July 1953, he addressed a circular to
the IOC members, in which he exhaustively demonstrated the difficulties of the Art
Competitions.
In addition to the violation of amateurship, too much cost and labor, and the indifferenceof the general public, Brundage pointed out as grounds to abolish the Art Competitions thelack of objectivity in judgment and the advanced ages of the artists. On the first point, heaccounts as the following: “Even if the [architectural] competition is limited to sport building,
how can you compare the design for a stadium with that of a metropolitan athletic club, or aboathouse, or a swimming pool? (...) In music there are songs, choruses; compositions for one
or more instruments, operas, orchestral works, etc. How can one compare folk songs withsymphonies? How can one compare Oriental or Arabic music with music of Western, or forthat matter the bagpipe with the violin?” As to the second point, he firmly believed that theamateurship in the sport culture must be tied up with the youthfulness. While sport can only
be practised till about the age of 35, most of the medalists in the Olympic Art Competitions
were well over the middle age, and the aged artists were usually established professionals.
Brundage once suggested the idea “that Art Competitions [should] be confined to students
and/or that an age limit [should] be fixed in order to promote art among the younger
generation,” but now he abandons it, concluding that “this would probably [only] lower thequality of the entries.” The Art Competitions, Brandage thus attacks, contradicts with the ideaof Olympic Games in the double meaning.
In the end, the IOC Meeting in Athens, April 1954, confirmed that (1) each forthcoming
Organizing Committee should organize an “Exhibition” of art, in place of the “Competition,”(2) it should be held under the care of the Organizing Committee, independently of the IOC,and (3) it would mainly represent the art of the country where the Olympiad is being held, notas an international competition.
This resolution was soon reflected in the Olympic Charter. A new article was added there:“The Organizing Committee will organize a demonstration or exhibition of Art (architecture,music, literature, painting, sculpture, sports philately [collection of postage stamps] andphotography) (...) The program could also include ballets, theatre performances, operas or
symphony concerts.” (Article 31) [12]This article has led to the regulation of “Cultural Programme” prescribed in the Olympic
Charter of today: “The OCOG [Organising Committee of the Olympic Games] shall organise a
programme of cultural events which must cover at least the entire period during which theOlympic Village is open. Such programme shall be submitted to the IOC Executive Board forits prior approval.”[13] Herein we can hardly find any vestige of the Art Competitions, once
fought earnestly by the Olympic artists from all over the world.

The Art Competitions in the Modern Olympic Games119

4. Conclusion
It is true that the Art Competitions can be called abortive flowers in the history of themodern Olympic Games, which were nourished by an illusion - not to say an ideology - ofthe classicistic idea of unifying muscle and mind. And it is hard to believe that they had any
positive influences on the fine arts and artists, nor on the Olympic athletes, of course.
However, as this article has shown, a close historical study of the Art Competitions will lead
us into a critical reconsideration of the generally accepted notions of art and sport, sharpening
an analytical view on the essential differences and boundary between art and sport.
As we have seen, those who sought the abolition of the Art Competitions advocated the“youthfulness,” together with the amateurship, as essential idea of the Olympic sports. It is
undeniable that the Olympic artists were not always so young, and it is also the fact that theoldest Olympic medalist in history was awarded in the Art Competition: John Copley, at theage of 73, when he won a silver medal in the 1948 engraving and etching contest. But, we
could not immediately conclude, based on that fact, that the art contest is much different fromthat of sport, if we considered that the second oldest was a shooter, Swedish Oscar Swahn,
who won his last medal at the age of 72 in 1920. We know that rather elder athletes often
received prizes in the shooting, or riding contests. Should they be, then, excluded from the
Olympic Games? Of course, we say no. Thus, the definition of sport is open too, exactly alikein the case of art. We cannot sufficiently define a sport only by the factors of rigid rules,
objective judgments, youthfulness, or amateurship, etc., although some of the IOC members
believed that they could do so.
We use the same words, “play” or “player,” when we talk about both art and sport. Itmeans that we are usually feeling that they share the essentials, regardless of their manydifferences and incompatibilities, as the same kind of human activities. Then, when and where
could we discern a true diverging point between art and sport? That will be our next issue,
after closing this paper.

This paper is partly supported by Grants-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (No. 20720033)
granted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.

Notes[1] In the history of modern sport, the requirements for amateurship first appeared in 1839, at the“Henley Regatta,” a rowing event on the River Thames. It consisted of two contrasted events: a
Town Challenge Cup for watermen, with a £30 purse, and a Grand Challenge Cup for amateur
gentlemen, with no purse.
[2] Stanton. The Forgotten Olympic Art Competitions. pp. 2-3.
[3] Stanton. op. cit., p. 11.
[4] Coubertin was the second President of IOC (1896–1925), succeeding Demetrius Vikelas (1894–
1896), a Greek businessman and writer.

120

YOSHIDA Hiroshi[5] Stanton. op. cit., p. 22.
[6] The invitations were customarily issued by each of the Organizing Committees of the hostcountries, not by the IOC.
[7] Ons Land. October 12, 1919. cf. Stanton. op. cit, p. 57.
[8] Only the incomplete records survive for the 1920 Antwerp Olympic, because of the financial
shortage of the Organizing Committee. On the Art Competitions, no official records exist except
the names of prizewinners.
[9] A Japanese name, although unidentifiable, appeared in the record of Art Competitions for the
first time: Eijiryo Naga, honorably mentioned in the Prints Competition.
[10] Lord Aberdare. “Muscle and Spirit.” in: IOC Official Bulletin (April 1947).
[11] “Arts and Music Competitions.” in: IOC Official Bulletin (July 1947).
[12] K. R. Goddy and G. L. Freedman-Harvey (eds). Art and Sport. p. 14.
[13] The Olympic Charter (Version September 1, 2004). Chapter 5: “The Olympic Games,” Section 40:“Cultural Programme.”

References
The past Official Olympic Game Reports including the Art Competitions and the Olympic Charters,
the most important primary sources for this article, are available in the PDF format on the following
website: http://www.olympic-museum.de/Pierre de Coubertin. Olympische Erinnerungen. Edited by Carl Diem. 2nd edition. Frankfurt am Main:
Limpert, 1959.
Jean Durry. “Pierre de Coubertin: Sport and Aesthetics.” in: Olympic Review. No. 225 (July, 1986), pp.
390-6.
Karen R. Goddy and Georgia L. Freedman-Harvey (eds). Art and Sport: Images to Herald the Olympic
Games. Los Angeles: Amateur Athletic Foundation of Los Angeles, 1992.
Bernhard Kramer. “In Search of the Lost Champions of the Olympic Art Contests.” in: Journal of Olympic
History. Vol. 12, No. 2 (May, 2004), pp. 29-34.
Richard Stanton. The Forgotten Olympic Art Competitions: The Story of the Olympic Art Competitions of the20th Century. Victoria, B.C.: Trafford, 2000.