Impressionism: colourful, coarse-brushed aesthetic distraction from modern life

 

 

FEATURED: JMW Turner (1770-1854) The Scarlet Sunset (c1830–40). Watercolour and gouache on paper, Support 13.4 x 18.9 cm, Tate Britain

Surely an Impressionist painting, but from about 34 years before the first Impressionist exhibition.

 

a2

Claude Monet (1850-1920). 1869, La Grenouillère, oil on canvas 99.7 x 74.6 cm Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

a3

Pierre Auguste Renoir (1841-1919). 1869, La Grenouillère, Oil on canvas. 66.5 x 81 cm, Nationalmuseum, Stockholm.

Two pioneering “iconic” Impressionist paintings.

 

1/ The essence

  • Impressionism, as an art movement, has two aspects.
    • The historic French experience
    • A generic defintion.
  • It was a subset of Realism, aiming to capture transitory scenes, but with a strong aesthetic purpose.
  • Thus Impressionism was radical in its painting style but not modern in its content.
  • Rather it appealed as a nostalgic Neo-Romantic antidote to then emerging rude Modernity.
  • But avoiding the reality of Modernity in favour of Pretty Pictures was nonetheless a valid response? Remind us not to forget the aesthetic.
  • The main official Impressionist painters were „Impressionist“ in varying degrees.
  • And there were unofficial Impressionists, major painters who painted some Impressionist works.
  • From the Impressionist period arguably some of the best paintings were non-Impressionist? Because they said more.
  • Some earlier painters – proto-Impressionists – pointed to Impressionism? Like JMW Turner.
  • Impressionism spread beyond France. But less than is commonly canvassed. The term is now over-used for marketing purposes.

 

2/ Preamble – Impressionism the first major modern movement

Following Manet’s one man kick start of Modernism Impressionism led the modern art revolution from the mid 19th C, from late 1860s through c1880, for the protagonists as a conscious radical break from then mainstream art, especially as represented by the official Salons.

Thence Modernism marched on, fanned out in the late 19th C in a variety of reactions to Impressionism, first under the broad banner of Post Impressionism (cf Paul Gauguin, Van Gogh, the term coined 1910 by Roger Fry) in the 1880s, thence Neo-Impressionism (the Pointilism of Seurat et al), the Nabis, Symbolism and Expressionism (cf Munch).

 

3/ Dissecting the movement

 

A. Impressionism the historic experience and a defintion.

Impressionism as an art movement, has two aspects.

a/ The historic experience

First it applies to the historic experience, the paintings of a small group of loosely affiliated French artists over a period from the late 1860s to around 1880, but a group diverse in style and subject matter, some of whose art was Impressionist, and who werer united principally by their opposition to the then dominant Salons.

The group of about 9 painters, together with some other artists, exhibited at 7 official exhibitions over 12 years, 1874-1886.

Conventionally the movement concludes around the early 1880s, and was succeeded by Neo-Impressionism, a term coined  by critic Felix Feneon after at the 8th Impressionist show in 1886, where Seurat’s famous „Sunday Afternoon etc“ was hung.

Success came slowly, and especially helped by the single-minded commitment of dealer Paul Durand-Ruel (1831-1922) who held his first Impressionist show in London 1870, 4 years before the official launch. Later he successfully took the brand to New York.

b/ A generic defintion.

Secondly, from the original French experience we can extract a two point generic definition of the movement;

1/ content or subject. Impressionism can be seen as a subset of Realism.

Its essential aim was to depict the ephemeral here and now, the fleeting or transitory moment, especially natural effects outdoora, and especially appealing, stimulating light effects. Hence they mostly favoured outdoors plein air painting.

Their aim in depicting ephemeral scenes was to convey a version of reality, not apply some preconceived interpretation.

The main objective was overarchingly aesthetic, not instructive, not didactic or polemical or narratory. It was art for its own sake.

In a sense the Impressonists can be seen as heirs of the Barbizon Realists, except their main purpose was narrower, being aesthetic, whereas Barbizon painters had a wider mission, instructive, sometimes polemical.

2/ there was clearly an Impressionist painting style.

Pigment application, usually in oils, was 1/ loose, coarse textured, divisionist“.and 2/ generally more colourful.

 

B. Impressionism was radical in its style but not modern in its purpose….

The curious implication of points 1/and 2/ is that while the Impressionist movement was radical in its art style, in breaking from convention – was a modern avant-garde movement through its pioneering relaxed colorful painting style which jarred with the then favoured subdued traditional Salon styles – it was not  modern in its purpose and content.

Thus it did not deliberately seek to depict Modern Life, let alone engage instructively with it, seek to comment on modern life. They did paint some recogniseable scenes from modern life (eg like Monet (1840-1926) and Gare St Lazare in Paris, like Pissarro (1830-1903) in his later street scenes from Paris, also Rouen), but more for the aesthetic possibilities. Also Pissarro painted his many city images later when coping with reduced mobility.

 

C. … rather it appealed as a nostalgic antidote to then emerging, burgeoning rude Modernity.

So in broad terms the purpose of its painting was not modern or progressive, but rather the reverse. Its focus on the aesthetic was fundamentally Neo-Romantic.

And one could go further and argue that for some of its leaders (Monet, Pissarro, Sisley) their aesthetic mission was a reactionary, anti-modern gesture, seeking therapeutic escape from, an antidote to, the blunt noisy disruption caused by emering Modernity, the sudden 19th C eruption and spread of industrial and urban life.

After famously struggling for recognition in the early days, championed by lone figures like the dealer Paul Durand-Ruel, eventually Monet and his friends were proved right.

Thus Impressionism‘s eventual success was fanned precisely by avoiding the modern world, the travails of modern life, and rather by dishing up mostly fetching atmospheric rural nostalgia.

The Pretty Pictures were entertaining nostalgic pleasurable visual distractions from the unpleasant side effects of burgeoning modern industrial life, easy to swallow, to „understand“,

And the movement remains widely popular today for the same reason, for aesthetic distraction from the pace and intensity of modern life.

 

 

For some Impressionists the aesthetic mission persisted, grew more important with time, particularly for Monet, the most famous exemplar. Thus his outdoors landscapes generally became less descriptive and more stylised, pursuing the aesthetic criterion, climaxing at Giverny early in the following century. Pissarro also stayed close to the aesthetic mission.

It’s ironic that one reason for the lush colorful floral vegetation at Asnières-sur-Seine,  just north of Paris, evident in Monet’s 1880 painting of his garden at Vétheuil, is the then growing discharge of sewage effluent into the Seine!

 

D. Avoiding reality, Modernity‘s wider impact, was nonetheless a valid response?

Impressionism’s aesthetic preoccupation basically avoided engaging with Modernity, its obvious disruption to traditional life, the costs as well as benefits.

Was this in a sense irresponsible? Because it avoided ‚reporting the facts“?

But it can be argued this response was valid because firstly it indeed gave the viewers some visual satifaction, relief from the ugliness, and second, it reminded viewers of the importance of having an aesthetic component in a balanced life?

This latter view, the virtue of the aesthetic, was the hallmark of Henri Matisse’s art two generations later.

 

E. The main Impressionists were „Impressionist“ in varying degrees…..

Looking at the cadre of the original French Impressionist painters the generic definition of Impressionism applied to varying degrees to the main protagonists, more to painters like Monet, Pissarro and Sisley, sometimes to Renoir, but less to Degas.

Thus for each painter not all their works were ‚Impressionist‘.

Among the main Impressionists Edgar Degas (1834-1917) was the most different. By far his favourite subject for the „ephemeral moment“ was not a spring hillside or a weather affected sky but a classical dance studio, or performance theatre. He dismissed plein air painting. He painted many people, in portraits or group interiors.

And he never embraced the colorful divisionist Impressionist style of paint application.

Pierre- Auguste Renoir (1841-1919) painted a number of Impressionist masterworks, some Impressionist works till near his end, but also painted lots more people, even Wagner in 1882.

 

F. … and there were two major contemporary painters not labelled Impressionists who painted some Impressionist works.

The important contemporary painter, the transposed American JM Whistler (1834-1903), painted some clearly Impressionistic images in his so-called nocturnes, mainly in London, works which above all were trying to capture an atmospheric moment, if not wholly in the Impressionistic „divisionist“ style. But he was in no way an„officially“ part of the Impressionist movement.

The pionering Modernist Edouard Manet (1834-1903), painted some clearly Impressionist works, but rejected approaches to join the official group. He remained his own man and arguably painted better for it, many of his works having a far wider purpose than boats on the sunny Seine.

 

G. From the Age of Impressionism some of the non-Impressionist works said much more?

Notwithstanding the subsequent popularity of a High Impressionists like Monet, the works of many other contemporary painters – Impressionist and non- Impressionist – were arguably more important and interesting precisely for their non-Impressionist content? Because they said much more.

This includes particularly many paintings by Manet (eg The Railway of 1873), and also by the masterly Paul Cezanne (1839-1906), and Edgar Degas, and also the someime Impressionist Gustave Caillebotte (1848-94).

 

H. Proto-Impressionists? Some earlier painters pointed to Impressionism?

Some work by some precursors might be called proto-Impressionist, particularly by JMW Turner (1775-1851), but also occasionally by John Constable (1776-1837).

Clearly many of Turner’s later atmospheric „ethereal“ works are Impressionist in their aesthetic intent, their capturing evanescent atmospheric effects, and even in their fragmented painting style.

 

Impressionism spread beyond France. But less than is commonly promoted.

Impressionism as a movement was very influential. Many painters beyond France picked up the style to a greater or lesser extent.

Thus there is mention of „Impressionism“ in the US, Britain, even Germany, Australia and Scandinavia.

However the term is often applied too loosley, applied to art which does not really fit the generic definition.

Many so called „Impressionist“ works are more naturalistic, in painting style.

This is basically done for marketing reasons, to take advantage of the now pervasive popularity of the French movement, ironic considering its slow beginnings.

 

I. The original cast…

From the „official“ Impressionist painters, ie who were hung at any of the 7 official exhibitions, the popularly accepted 5 main historic protagonists were Edgar Degas / Claude Monet / Camille Pissarro / Pierre-Auguste Renoir / Alfred Sisley.

And on the periphery were 4 others: Frederic Bazille / Gustave Caillebotte / Alphonse Guillaumin / Berthe Morisot.

However the definitional boundary is grey and beyond the „official“ list other important contemporary artists who also painted Impressionist works were Edouard Manet and Paul Cezanne, and also Dutch landscapist JB Jongkind (1819-91, ie 21 years older than Monet) and JM Whistler (1834-93, 6 years older)

 

a4

 

JMW Turner (1775-1851) 1842, Snow Storm: Steam-Boat off a Harbour’s Mouth, oil on canvas, 91 cm × 122 cm, Tate Britain.

A precursor to Impressionism, and abstraction.

a5

Claude Monet (1840-1926), 1872, Impression, Sunrise, oil on canvas, 48 X 63cm, Muséem Marmottan Monet, Paris.

The painting which gave the cause its name.

 

a6

Camille Pissarro (1830-1903). c1871, All Saints’ Church, Upper Norwood (London), gouache on paper 18.2 x 22.8 cm, Private Collection

a7

JM Whistler (1834-1903). c1872-73, Nocturne; Battersea Bridge, pastel on brown paper, 18.1 x 27.94 cm, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.

Two from London, one by an unofficial Impressionist artist.

 

   a8

Paul Cezanne (1839-1906). 1873-74, A Modern Olympia, 46 x 55.5 cm, Musée d’Orsay.

a9

Alfred Sisley (1839-1899), 1874, Regatta at Molesey, 66 × 91.5cm, Musée d’Orsay, Paris..

Cezanne’s image hung in the inaugural 1874 exhibition and is certainly impressionistic. Sisley was a front rank but narrow official Impressionist painter.

 

a10

Pierre Auguste Renoir (1841-1919). Dance in the Moulin de la Galette (Bal du moulin de la Galette), 1876, Oil on canvas, 131 x 175 cm, Musée d’Orsay, Paris

a11

Giuseppe De Nittis (1846–1884). 1878. Westminster Bridge. Pinacoteca De Nittis, Barletta, Italy

 Renoir liked painting people, and well, far more than some of the others. The Italian painter worked in Paris.

 

   a12

Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841-1919) 1879, Seascape Near Berneval, oil on canvas, 54 x 65.4 cm. Private.

a13

c 1916, Anenomes, oil on canvas, 14 × 31 cm, Museum of John Paul II Collection (Porczyński Gallery).

 The prolific Renoir painted some landscapes, and later, when old, a number of Impressionist floral scenes.

 

a14

Claude Monet 1891 Poplars on the Banks of the Epte, oil on canvas 100 x 65 cm Private

a15

Claude Monet, 1899-1901. Charing Cross Bridge, London, Saint Louis Art Museum.

Later Impressionist works by Monet.

 

a16

Max Liebermann (1847-1935). 1918. The birch avenue in Wannsee Garden, looking west, 85.5x 106cm, Hannover

a17

Claude Monet, 1920–22, The Japanese Footbridge, 89.5 x 116.3 cm, MOMA

A much later German Impressionist painting, by then nostalgic, by when the avant-garde had raged far ahead, into abstraction and Cubism.

And a very late work by the unrelenting narrowly focussed Giverny-based Monet, now bordering on abstraction.

Advertisements

Camille Pissarro (and friends) – if you could only invite one to tea?

 

The Impressionists‘ engaging aesthetic „special effects“ man.

(Jacob Abraham Camille Pissarro, July 1830- November 1903, 73)

 

FEATURED IMAGE:   1874 Bad Weather, Pontoise, Snow Effect, oil on canvas, 50.5 x 61.6 cm, Private Collection.   COMMENT: textbook Pissarro, from the year Impressionism was formally launched at the first (of 8) official Salon challenging group exhibition in Paris. Thus through bare trees we see some “structure”, and the coarse brushwork captures snow flurried by wind.

If we can choose only two paintings …. .

2  3

1877, The Côte des Bœufs at L’Hermitage (Pontoise) Oil on canvas, 114.9 x 87.6 cm, National Gallery London. COMMENT: this is a relatively large painting, and the reproduction does not do justice to the dense fine impasto texture visible up close. Many paintings he composed around trees. And concealed, camouflaged in the shrubs are two women, near his then home.

1889 Shepherd in a Downpour, tempera on canvas, 60 x 73.3 cm, private Collection. COMMENT: more trademark Pisssaro, after the effect of rain beating a lone shepherd and flock, but through a pared simple zig-zag composition he sometimes used later, after meeting Georges Seurat, .

 

SUMMARY

The gregarious multi-cultural outsider Camille Pissarro (Danish-French, of Portuguese-Sephardic Jewish descent) was important early, played a leading role in formally launching the Impressionists group in 1874, and then showed at all 8 of the group exhibitions to 1886.

Unlike some peers he relaxed creatively so apart from one interesting detour his painting style more or less trod water across 30 prolific years, as variations on Impressionism.

But he left us many „beautiful“ paintings, evident especially in the flesh. And many there were, mostly engaging aesthetic distractions from modern life.

For despite his „anarchist“ proto-socialist political sympathies Pissarro was in practice – like Monet (1840-1926) – a true Impressionist, basically a neo-romantic aesthete, preoccupied with aesthetic purpose.

Even his many cityscapes (especially the various series, painted later when ill health compelled him to paint only from indoors) are more aesthetic than realistic.

He preferred the country, lived near all his life there, and landscapes predominated, often chasing natural outdoors atmospheric “effects”, like snow or fog or frost, but usually built on some manner of compositional structure, especially trees.

But as a sociable person, known for empathetic relations with other artists, he also painted many people, in small or larger groups, particularly later:  family, friends (cf Cezanne), rural workers, and also himself.

Ironically his late 1880s„detour“ to Neo-impresionism produced some of his most „modern“ images.

 

ART

Pissarro’s art

Pissarro, as the oldest in the official group (43 in 1874), and the only one then to show at all 8 exhibitions, is noted for his important role in helping launch Impressionism, especially with Monet, his friend since 1859, and both not long back from London. They, with Degas and Renoir, played a leading role in organising the seminal April 1874 Impressionist show.

The painter credited with first floating the idea of them forming a group, the engaging, generous Frederic Bazille, a close friend of Monet, sadly was killed 1870 in the pointless Franco-Prussian War so never reached the starting line. Pissarro (with Paul Cezanne (1939-1906)) knew Bazille from 1863.

But having become a committed Impressionist painter, Pissarro more or less remained there stylistically for rest of his life, about another 30 years. He toyed with Neo-Impressionist Pointillism in the late 1880s, but only for a year or so, and ignored the Post-impressionists like Van Gogh and Gauguin, then the 1890s Symbolists.

However in later years there was generally more variety in his style and subject. He painted more people (like La Ronde (1884) and the many market scenes), he painted coarse colorful works (View of the Village of Bazincourt (1889), Sunset, Bazincourt Steeple (1890), Flood, White Effect, Eragny (1893), and The Dunes at Knokke (1894)), and he painted subtle subdued works (Valhermeil near Oise – Rain Effect (1881), Shepherd in a Downpour (1889), Rouen, Fog Effect (1898)).

Pissarro liked to build his paintings around some manner of “structure”, using trees in particular, also roads and buildings, and shadows, and sometimes rivers and bridges.

Ironically, his brief detour into Neo-impressionism (Pointillism) after meeting Georges Seurat 1885 produced paintings which are arguably his most „modern“ in terms of painting style and stylised composition, if not modern in subject, like Flock of sheep, Eragny sur Epte (1888). Ile Lacruix, Rouen: Effect of Fog (1888), and Old Chelsea Bridge, London (1890). Some of these works also reflect his interest in Japanese prints.

 

Pissarro was prolific, and landscapes predominated, as for his more famous friend and associate Monet, but his subject span was wider than Monet‘s, more interesting for it. Thus he painted far more people, especially later, after c1880, including himself (leaving four notable self portraits), his family, and many outdoors genre scenes showing working people, mainly women, in villages, markets, the countryside.

Monet’s Rouen cathedral series inspired him to also paint a number of “series”, ie repeated images from the same vantage point, starting 1896 with 16 paintings of Rouen. About then his failing health forced him to work inside, so the “series”made a virtue of necessity. Other series followed, like Dieppe, and in urban Paris, especially of Boulevarde Montmartre, also from his window over Pont Neuf.

 

Pissarro responded to modern life, painted far more views of modern life than Monet, like factories and changing urban Paris. About the 1896 Rouen series he famously wrote (to his son): “what particularly interests me is the motif off the iron bridge in wet weather with all the vehicles, pedestrians, workers on the embankment, boats, smoke, haze in the distance; it’s so spirited, so alive.”

And in Paris, working on his famous Boulevarde Montmartre series, he wrote 15th Dec.1897 to Lucien: “It may not be very aesthetic, but I’m delighted to be able to have a go at Paris streets, which are said to be ugly, but are [in fact] so silvery, so bright, so vibrant with life […] they’re so totally modern!

But nonetheless (and notwithstanding his “it may not be very aesthetic”!) this interest in the “modern” is primarily aesthetic rather than „realistic“ or clinical.

Pissarro’s reaction to „modern“ life contrasts with Fernand Leger’s (1881-1955) for example. The neo-romantic Pissarro was more interested in the aesthetic effects of the „modern“, and the countryside, while Leger on the other hand embraced the modern industrial age, seemed to think modern life was a good idea, despite even after serving at the front in World War 1.

 

Pissarro ultimately may have been less radical than say Monet, more conservative, but in relentlessly pursuing his aesthetic mission he did paint many “beautiful” pictures, particularly among his many landscapes and cityscapes. As often the case this is more evident when seeing some of these paintings in the flesh, when the detail can be better appreciated, as for many other artists (like Jackson Pollock).

 

Monet

Monet, also prolific, was more narrow than Pissarro in his subject matter – painted relatively few people pictures, especially later, and painted very few „modern“ subjects –  but he is now understandably more famous for pushing his aesthetic obsession with landscapes, through the famous „series“ of the 1890s (haystacks, the Rouen cathedral facade, river bank trees, on the Epte) to the legion of later radical large quasi-abstract images from his base at Giverny, many watery, like his early days by the Channel.

 

How hard was it! Monet letter 10 March 1879 to Georges De Bellio:

„..I am absolutely sickened with and demoralised by this life I’ve been leading for so long. When you reach my age [39!] there is nothing more to look forward to. Unhappy we are, unhappy we will continue to be.

Each day brings its tribulations and each day difficulties arise from which we can never free ourselves. So I am giving up the struggle once and for all, abandoning all hope of success……

(Richard  Kendall, Monet by Himself, (Macdonald & Co 1989, updated  Time Warner Books, 2004)

 

Influences

Pissarro’s relentless pursuit of the aesthetic is odd in some ways first because he was apparently a “socialist” (see below) and, second, because he was influenced early by the various pioneering French social realists in Paris, particularly the older Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot (1796 – 1875), who tutored him, encouraged him to paint plein-air. He cited Corot as his teacher in the catalogues to the 1864 and 1865 Paris Salons.

The bolder realist Gustave Courbet (1819 – 1877) was important too, also Charles-François Daubigny (1817-78) and Jean-François Millet (1814 – 1875) from the Barbizon school.

So early on he also developed a keen appetite for landscape, which never left. Here he was influenced too by recent older British painters RP Bonington (1802-28) and John Constable (1776-1837). Constable’s work influenced the French Realists, especially after it was shown at the 1824 Salon.  Pissarro was aware too of the then ageing Eugene Delacroix (1798-1863), like his use of color.

 

Like many colleagues from the late 1860s he also became fashionably keen on Japonism, eg through Japanese prints, though this is less obvious in his art than for others?

 

1869-71: Louveciennes and London, forming the Impressionist painting style

Pissarro’s Impressionist painting style clearly emerged when he was based at Louveciennes (about 18km west of Paris, on the road to Versailles) for about a year, from May 1869 through July 1870 when the war with Prussia broke out. Pissarro moved to Louveciennes from Pontoise, was joined in the area by Monet (based at Bougival) and Renoir, then Sisley, also Guillaumin.

During the early 1870s Pissarro, Monet and Sisley [and Renoir?] developed a communal style and collective artistic identity..” (“Camille Pissarro”, catalogue, Art Gallery NSW, 2006).

This area, the Seine below Louveciennes, became an important nursery for developing Impressionism, epitomised by Monet and Renoir famously painting side by side at popular riverside café la Grenouillère (The Frogpond) in summer of 1869, on the island of Croissy, just up the river by Bougival. Their paintings were milestones in the birth of Impressionism.

Oddly for an “Impressionist” Renoir painted a heap of portraits, and not many landscapes.

Pissarro also painted a view of la Grenouillère in 1869 but the style of his image is behind Monet and arguably it was soon after this, painting with Monet at Louveciennes winter 1869-70 (especially scenes of the road to Versailles), that Pissarro’s Impressionist style developed.

The same local scenes were painted repeatedly, in varying conditions, the same scene by the same artist (like the road at Louveciennes by Pissarro), and the same scene by different artists (like Louveciennes by Pissarro and Monet).

One popular feature was the aqueduct for Louis XIV’s Versailles water displays, fed by la Machine de Marly.

Then Franco-Prussian War, erupting July 1870, upended the productive Louveciennes association.

 

Impressionism – making sense of a definition: aesthetic realism

From its problematic formal beginnings in the mid-1870s Impressionism is now one of the most popularly appreciated art movements, though this popularity was hard won.

But it is also a term bringing some confusion?

 

The style is best described as  aesthetic realism“.

It was radical then first because of its unidealistic, frank, informal, everyday realism, striving to paint everyday, mundane landscapes in particular – and sometimes people – „realistically“, as they really appeared.

Some logically extended this approach and painted the same scenes at different times, in different weathers, and they savoured rich visual effects like snowy fields or fog or sunny treescapes or sunsets. Though Renoir did tell dealer Ambroise Vollard “But then, even if you can stand the cold, why paint snow? It is a blight on the face of Nature.”!

The radical nature of their subject matter is quickly evident when compared with typical paintings favoured by the official Salon, mostly still preoccupied with improbable obscure otherworldly history topics, like Gérôme’s The sword Dance (1868), or idealised landscapes.

Second, it was radical in its pioneering coarse, colorful, broad brush, „unfinished‘ painting method.

 

Impressionism’s aesthetic realism“, sometimes then called „naturalism“, stood in contrast to the by then well established and pioneering French school of „social realism“, which dated back to Théodore Géricault’s (1791-1824) Raft of the Medusa (1819), thence through Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot (1796 – 1875), the Barbizon School (Jean-François Millet (1814 – 1875)), then especially Gustave Courbet (1819 – 1877).

The long unappreciated and less well known Barbizon “cattle painter” Constant Troyon (1810-65), who met Barbizon leader Theodore Rousseau in 1843, impressed Monet at the 1859 Salon (with 6 works), and it’s easy to see why, the light and atmosphere, the color and the brushwork (cf The Return). We also see Pissarro in Troyon (cf Road in the woods, mid 1840s, Met NY)

Encouraged by freer thinking after the 1848 political unrest, the Barbizon school painted nature and rural life, including peasants, for its own sake, rather than as a back drop to dramatic events, historic, mythological or otherwise. And they painted the scenes directly, realistically. Thus the Barbizon artists were early advocates of en plein air (EPA) painting, from about the 1840s, ie working outdoors, a method facilitated by 1/ the arrival paint pigments in tubes (versus traditional method of mixing pigment with linsed oil in a studio), and 2/ the portable French box easel, with built in paint box and palette.

Impressionism’s „realism“ by contrast – its artistic mission – was overwhelmingly aesthetic rather having any polemical or moralistic motive.

So it was, above all, essentially a neo-romantic movement, mostly preoccupied with „pretty pictures“, if anything seeking aesthetic distraction from the disruptive turmoil of modern life rather than to comment or reflect on it.

Striking it is that even the „political“ Pissarro, socialist /anarchist, was nothing of the sort in his art (with one isolated exception, below).

Eventually, after a long and arduous battle for popular acceptance, Impressionism succeeded, and then emphatically, because of the demand for “don’t worry, be happy” paintings.

By contrast, for example, the long lived English painter George Frederic Watts (1817-1904), whose work span covered the whole back half of the 19th C, including the birth and slow spread of Impressionism, was hugely popular then for his purposeful painting – visionary, moralising, exhortatory – but is now quite forgotten.

 

Impressionismemergence

From 1862 Monet, Renoir and Sisley, then Bazille from 1863, painted together at Gleyre’s atelier in Paris. Monet had learned much from marine painter Eugène Boudin (1824-98) c1859 at his then seaside home town of Le Havre, then from summer 1862 from Dutchman JB Jongkind (1819-91), another seaside painter.

1863 is famous for the birth of Salon des Refusés, ordered by Louis-Napoleon after wide protest against the intolerant conservative Salon that year. Pissarro and Cezanne showed at Refusés but Manet’s (1832-1883) famous Déjeuner sur l’Herbe caused the real sensation, a candidate for the first important “modern” painting, for its subject depiction not its painting style.

After Gleyre’s studio closed 1864 the quartet painted a time in the Fontainebleau woods, outside Paris, near the Barbizon painters.

As we saw above 1869-70 found a number of the key painters working in the Bougival area west of Paris, Monet, Renoir, Pissarro and Sisley.

In Paris during the 1860s the Café Guerbois on Rue des Batignolles (north of centre, west of Montmartre) became an important socialising venue for some of the group, fostering a semblance of commonality. It was dominated by the quarrelsome Manet, where Degas, Monet and Bazille contributed, also the critics Louis Edmond Duranty and Emile Zola, and Renoir and Sisley perhaps less so. Pissarro and Cezanne appeared only occasionally.

Two group portraits from 1870 celebrated the group’s presence: A studio in the Batignolles quarter by Henri Fantin-Latour (1836-1904) includes Manet, Renoir, Zola (an important supporting art critic, and writer), Bazille, and Monet; and, poignantly, Bazille’s Artists’s studio (Rue de la Condamine) which includes Bazille (“Manet painted me in“), Manet, Edmond Maître, and possibly Monet and Renoir. Bazille added a number of Impressionist paintings on the walls to stress the point.

Then the Franco-Prussian War intervened, claiming Bazille’s life, but persuading both Monet and Pissarro (with Danish citizenship) to decamp, independently, to London by late 1870.

London proved providential for Monet and Pissarro. Fellow refugee French painter, and friend, Charles-François Daubigny, introduced Monet January 1871 to art dealer Paul Durand-Ruel (1831-1922), also sitting out the war, and then setting up a gallery in New Bond St. Durand-Ruel revealed Pissarro’s presence in London to Monet, and he started to buy their paintings, becoming in due course a major supporter of Monet (who before the war was financially struggling) and many other Impressionists.

Pissarro was by then staying in suburban southeast London at Norwood where “I [Pissarro] .. studied the effects of fog, snow and springtime..”. He painted 12 oil paintings in London and, importantly, with Monet viewed the proto-Impressionist art of JMW Turner and John Constable in the museums.

Back in France 1871 Pissarro returned to Pontoise by August 1872 after finding Louveciennes (and many of his works left there) had been trashed in the war. Cezanne joined him a time at Pontoise, then stayed nearby at Auvers.

Monet next settled at Argenteuil (on NW outskirts of Paris, on the north bank of the Seine), till 1878, but he struggled some time for money.

 

Impressionismlaunch.

Monet was the main man in the emergence, launch and progression of Impressionism? And arguably he stayed with the style the whole of his long career, through to the final vast colourful quasi-abstract floral visial meditations at Giverny, beyond WW1.

But oddly it was his close friend Frederic Bazille (1841-1870) who deserves recognition for apparently first thinking out loud about the Impressionists forming a formal group, the articulate, confident and generous young (25) painter who in 1867, after more rejections by the Salon, wrote his mother “So we have resolved to rent a large studio each year where we will exhibit as many of our works as we please. We’ll invite the painters we like to send their paintings….. With these people and Monet, who is stronger than all of them put together, we’re sure to succeed. You’ll see that people will talk about us.” Well known to others in the group, and emerging as a painter of clear distinction (if not by then a full Impressionist) he was – a week off age 29 – sadly killed (28 November 1870) in the futile Franco-Prussian War, triggered by France.

Conditions after the Franco-Prussian War seemed propitious for a time but then 1873 brought a tough financial downturn, which dragged on for 5 years or so, hurting painting sales. And the official Salon remained hostile. Neither Monet nor Pissarro showed at the 1872 and 1873 Salons, and Courbet was excluded from the 1872 official Salon. Then 1873 brought yet another hostile Salon, triggering another Salon des Refuses.

So now Monet revived Bazille’s 1867 thoughts for the loose like-minded group to mount their own exhibition (refer Phoebe Pool’s Impressionism, 1967, Thames and Hudson).

Critic Duret was hostile but Degas keenly supported the idea, despite some clear differences with others in the group. However Corot as an older „social realist“ also resisted, which discouraged the group approaching other „social realists“ like Courbet. Pissarro quickly joined the cause, as a quasi-ringmaster for the disparate group, mashalling the „nucleus of painters“.

Disillusioned with the Salon system the core group (Monet, Pissarro, Sisley, Renoir and Degas) began planning a formal launch, then on 27 December 1873 formed the Joint Stock Company of Artists etc (Societe Anonyme Cooperative a Capital Variable des Peintres, Sculpteurs, Graveurs etc.) using a charter Pissarro derived from that of the Pontoise bakers. Though Renoir then „successfully opposed this in favour of“ a simpler agreement.

The Society’s  inaugural show (165 works by 39 artists), known as the Realist Salon, opened 15 April 1874, about two weeks before the official Salon. The show’s title was the clumsy Societe Anonyme Cooperative a Capital Variable, not La Capucine (The Nasturtium) as Degas suggested. Pissarro hung 5 paintings and would show at all 8 Impressionist exhibitions, the only one to do so.

Beyond Pissarro the group included Monet, Renoir, the keen Degas, Sisley, Cezanne and the able congenial lady Berthe Morisot (1841-92).

But, notably, it did not include Manet, partly because, despite his travails, his heart still lay with the Salon, and perhaps too because of his distaste for Cezanne, his work and his rough rural dress and manner.

Pissarro, now actively encouraging Cezanne’s work, had to argue hard for Cezanne’s inclusion. Cezanne’s early oeuvre had a dark side, diverse and disquieting. Beyond landscapes, still lives and portraits he added some disturbing dark Expressionist works on religious and life subjects, like The abduction (1867) and The murder (1868), then (1873-74) a riotous sensual take (A Modern Olympia) on Manet’s Olympia: The New Olympia, which as one of 3 paintings he showed at the 1st Impressionist exhibition, surely one of the oddest „Impressionist“ paintings, in a similar vein to the later (1875) Afternoon in Naples. The two others shown 1874 were landscapes from Auvers, one The House of the Hanged Man.

The well connected Morisot more than held her own, studied with Corot from 1960 and by 1864 had two paintings accepted by the Salon. She knew Manet well (married his brother) who urged her not to join the group. She would show all 8 exhibitions except the 4th.

Seven other shows followed, 1876-1877, 1879-1882, and 1886, all in spring.

It was only at the third show (1877) that adopted the title Impressionist, lifted from critic Louis Leroy’s scornful review of the first show, suggesting wallpaper was „more finished“ than Monet’s Impression, Sunrise.

 

Impressionism – reception?

Critic Theodore Duret warned Pissarro (eg in a letter Dec.1873) not to run with Societe Anonyme, “not to think of Monet and Sisley”, advised staying with the Salon.

And so it was that critical reception was harsh, and Pissarro was cited by some critics as one of the “ringleaders”, along with Monet, Degas, Cezanne, Sisley etc. “The scandal.. proved a catastrophic setback for sales.. Pissarro was now seen as part of a nihilist, hooligan fringe…” (op. cit AG NSW), which hurt him financially.

But history since has voted differently.

Back in Paris in 1871, after the war with Prussia, Durand-Ruel continued to support the wave of new art, despire battling criticism of the Impressionist style for years. But he persisted. He bought 23 paintings by Manet for 35,000F. Then 1885 his major breakthrough came in discovering what would become the enthusiastc and lucrative US market. Later, in 1895 back in London he mounted one of the largest ever Impressionist shows (c315 paintings).

As the National Gallery London (cf Inventing Impressionism, 2015 exhibition), “Despite rejection from the art establishment, the visionary Durand-Ruel was the single most powerful driving force making Impressionism the household name worldwide it is today and one of painting’s best-loved movements.” In the 89 year old dealer said in 1920, “At last the Impressionist masters triumphed … My madness had been wisdom. To think that, had I passed away at sixty [1891], I would have died debt-ridden and bankrupt, surrounded by a wealth of underrated treasures…”

 

Pissarro the person

By comparison with other founding „French“ Impressionists Pissarro was somewhat of an outsider, Jewish, hailing from the Caribbean Danish Antilles, and then keeping his Danish citizenship despite (for the most part) residing in France.

Also while he served time in the cultural cauldron of Paris he was not a city person, preferred the countryside, and that’s where he lived most of his last 36 years. He was also a keen family man.

However the sociable Pissarro was well known for engaging with other artists, “Pere Pissarro”, working with them (like organising the Impressionist shows), and helping them. And they were a diverse group.

He was closer to the irascible Cezanne than most, met him early (1861) at art school, knew him in Paris in the 1860s, then painted with him, eg after the Franco-Prussian War, 1872-74, at Pontoise, then 1881 when Cezanne stays near Pontoise. Both were „outsiders“.

Monet he obviously knew well, painted with. Degas he met and worked with later too. American Mary Cassatt (ie another non-French citizen) (1844-1926) he was close to over a long period commencing 1870s. She was also close to Degas but later preferred the easier going Dane. Later he mentored Paul Gauguin (1848-1903), and he worked with Seurat a time in mid 1880s.

Both Cezanne and Gauguin later recalled Pissarro with feeling. In a June 1902 catalogue Cezanne called himself „a student of Pissarro.”

 

The ‘political’ Pissarro?

A member of a diasporic Sephardic Jewish family“, Pissarro is billed as a lifelong, engaged „socialist“ /„anarchist“, keen on „the writings of the French proto-anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and of the Russian émigré prince and anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin“, so his political views seemed important to him. “A committed supporter of anarchism, he was friendly with the leading representatives of the movement in France, such as Jean Grave and Élisée Reclus, and was well-versed in anarchist literature. His concern…  illustrated in…lithographs.. for Grave’s anarchist journal Les temps nouveaux, and, more privately, in Turpitudes sociales, a series of drawings he made for his nieces to educate them in the horrors of modern capitalist society.…” (Richard R. Brettell, 2011, catalogue, Pissarro’s People, Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute).

But Turpitudes sociales is the rare exception. In broad terms these views do not reflect in his art, which seems overwhelmingly aesthetic in its purpose, not polemical or even realist? And again this is despite the clear early influence of the „social realist“ Barbizon painters.

Yes there are many rural figurative scenes, eg showing working ladies, but mostly conveying the “charm” of rural life not the harsher “reality”, the long hours labouring monotonously in all weathers.

4

Impressionist paintings sites

 

LIFE

Early

Pissarro was born 1830 on the island of St Thomas in the Danish West Indies (Danish Antilles), of French and Portuguese Jewish extraction.

He was schooled near Paris 1842-47 (age 12-17), there encouraged in art by the headmaster.

Back home c1850, to work in his parents’ shop, he met a young Danish painter, Fritz Melbye (1826-1869), 4 years older, then travelled with him to Venezuela (Caracas and La Guaira) where they lived and worked two years, painted watercolours.

 

Paris

Pissarro’s father agreed he could return to Paris to train, which he did October 1855, fortuitously during the World Expo (Exposition Universelle). He took classes at École des Beaux-Arts 1856 then 1859 he was finally accepted by Charles Suisse (at Acadamie Suisse) where he met Monet and later Cezanne (1861) and Guillaumin (1862).

Meanwhile his parents arrived Paris 1860. He partnered with their servant, Julie Vellay, and was evicted from home. The couple later married in London, 1871, and would have 8 children, 1863-1884, Lucien being the first, born 1863.

1863 to April 1866, he lived with Julie Vellay and children mostly at La Varenne-St-Hilaire, southeast of Paris, where he painted, and nearby villages like Varenne-Saint-Maure and Chennevières-sur-Marne. He also painted at La Roche-Guyon, on the north bank of the Seine, NW of Paris.

He long struggled financially, not helped then by rearing a large family, but remained determined throughout.

Nov. 1862, after military service 1861-62, Monet returned to Paris, to join Gleyre’s atelier, there met Renoir and Sisley, and (March 1863) Frederic Bazille (“..my friend Monet.. is quite good at landscapes..”).

Pissarro (with friend Cezanne) first met Bazille and Renoir in 1863 when Bazille worked from a studio in Batignolles rented by Renoir.

After having a painting accepted at the 1859 and 1861 Salons Pissarro then showed in the famous inaugural 1863 Salon des Refusés (three landscapes, with Cezanne), then the Salons of 1864, 1865, 1866.

His 1863 work was well received by critics like JA Castagnary, Leroy and Desnoyers.

In the mid 1860s he met Zola, became part of the Café Guerbois set in Paris, when Zola was writing as critic for l’Evenement where in 1866 he praised Pissarro’s Banks of the Marne (1866) for its unfashionable “naturalism”.

 

Outside Paris

In April 1866 he settled at the Hermitage at Pontoise, north-west of Paris, north of the Seine, on the Oise flowing south into the Seine.

1869 he moves before May to Louveciennes, due west of Paris towards Versailles, now south of the Seine.

1870 with outbreak of Franco-Prussian War (July 1870-May 1871) he moved to London by start of December. He would return to London 1890, 1892 and 1897 after his son Lucien moved there in 1883.  They then corresponded frequently.

1871 he married Julie Vellay July in Croydon, London, returned to Louveciennes end of that month, but found many paintings left there had been damaged or destroyed during the war, so moved back to Pontoise in August 1872.

1872-74 he again worked closely with Cezanne, now based near Pontoise at Auvers-sur-Oise.

1874-77 he painted in Brittany.

He met Paul Gauguin (c20 years younger) in 1877, mentored him, painted with him at Pontoise 1879, invited him to hang at the 4th Impressionist show (1879).

Around 1880 he “collaborated” with Degas making prints.

1882 he moved to Osny, near Pontoise.

1883 Durand-Ruel organised a one-man show for Pissarro, also an Impressionist show in London.

1884 he moved to Eragny-sur-Epte, NE of Paris in Normandy, south of Pontoise, near Gisors, and near Monet’s Giverny and where he now stayed. Monet painted trees along the Epte.

In 1885 he met Seurat and Signac (and also Theo van Gogh) and became interested in the Neo-Impressionists’ Pointillist style and ideas, tried them, but reverted back by 1890.

1886 was the final Impressionist show, and he met Vincent van Gogh.

1887 he showed in Brussels with the Group of 20 (Cercle de XX), with Seurat, but Durand-Ruel caused trouble, rejected his Pointillist images.

Late 1889 he developed an eye infection which thereafter stopped him painting outdoors, but encouraged him to paint many urban scenes, from windows, particularly Paris, also Rouen, Le Havre and Dieppe.

  1. 1890. he visited London again, c10 paintings there. And again in 1892 and 1897.

1892 Durand-Ruel gave him a 100 painting retrospective exhibition (and 1893 bought many paintings) which finally brought some financial relief, and critical acclaim, “[1892].. when the tide of critical opinion turned decisively in Pissarro’s favour..” (op. cit AG NSW).

Then 1894reprisals against Anarchists” forced him briefly back to Belgium. But 7 paintings entered the Musee du Luxembourg.

But 1896 “new financial problems”. Series of paintings in Rouen.

But 1898 another Durand-Ruel gallery show was again very well received, “critics and collectors were thrilled…” (op. cit AG NSW)

November 1900 he settled back in central Paris, in an apartment on the west end of Ile de la Cite, looking out on Pont Neuf, and continued painting, now from windows, including many from home.

He died in Paris 13 November 1903.

some works……….

5

1870, Châtaignier à Louveciennes, vers 1870, 41 x 54 cm, Musée d’Orsay. COMMENT. Here Pissarro is drawn by the structure of the skeletal bare trees in this one of his earliest Impressionist style paintings.

6c1884, La Ronde, thinned oil on paper mounted on canvas, private Collection

71888, Flock of sheep, Eragny sur Epte, 1888

81889 View of the Village of Bazincourt oil on panel, 15.4 x 23.8 cm, private Collection

91890, Old Chelsea Bridge, London, oil on canvas, Smith College Museum of Arts, 59.69 x 71.12 cm (old Battersea Bridge under construction at high tide).

101889–90.Suicide of an Abandoned Woman,” from Turpitudes sociales, Pen and brown ink over graphite drawings on paper pasted in an album, sheet: 31 x 24 cm, Collection of Jean Bonna, Geneva

111898 Boulevard Montmartre, night oil on canvas 53.3 x 64.8 cm  The National Gallery, London

12901 The fair, Dieppe: sunny afternoon, oil on canvas, Philadelphia Museum of Arts, PA

 13 14

1873. Self portrait, oil on canvas, 56 x 47 cm. Musee d’Orsay.

c1898 Self-portrait, oil on canvas 53 x 30.5 cm, Dallas Museum of Art, Texas

15  16

1900, Self portrait. oil on canvas 35x32cm. Private Collection

1903, Self portrait, oil on canvas, 41×33,3 cm, Tate, London

George Ault – Art Therapy with no safety belt

George Copeland Ault

(Oct. 1891 – Dec. 30, 1948, 57 years)

Another magnetic peripheral American Modernist painter: a hard life that late throws up a clutch of pearls.

 ART

George Ault was a gifted but life-troubled American Modernist painter, “a retiring and misanthropic painter”, who nursed an implacable creative imagination, and who left striking realist landscape / cityscape images from the 1930s and 1940s which may reflect on those hard times but were certainly refracted through his personal difficulties.

He is now rightly hailed for his later night scenes, his four night paintings of Russells’s Corners (1943, 1946, 1946, 1948), four different views of the same intersection, each lit by the one light – all pregnant with heuristic visual possibilities – and one in daytime (1944), to highlight why the night mattered.

Our eye is drawn to the spectral light-fingered (telegraph) wires, the sharp planes (walls of buildings) exposed by the light and floating in the blackness, and the lone light, which might mimic a star, or a life principle, or the moment’s focus.

He was a neo-romantic, disabused of the modern world, his images redolent of unease, disquiet, “psychic distress”, using a quiet Surrealism that might recall (yes) de Chirico, also Dali (like Memories of the Coast of France  (1943)).

Superficially he fits with the Precisionists like Charles Sheeler but only in method, sharing a similar of-centre sharp-edged geometric realist painting style.

Ironically his best work came in his final and personally toughest decade, as he wrestled drink and poverty.

And his death was fittingly poetic, slipping into an icy watercourse one night late December, straggling home after another bender. So was it suicide or mishap, who knows, but it fits, embellishes an already inscrutable dark personal story.

 

LIFE

He was born into a well off family, lived London as a boy, trained in art at the Slade no less (so overlapped with some famous English name?).

But back in the US in 1911 alcohol took hold in the 1920s after his mother died in a mental home, and all three brothers suicided?! Some after the 1929 Crash cruelled the family fortune. His father, who died 1929, was a conventional painter who frowned on his son’s shift to Modernism.

1937 he moved to Woodstock, NY with Louise Jonas, who would become his second wife, and there tried to retrieve something, put his difficulties in the past. They lived a penurious reclusive existence in a small simple rented cottage, and there oddly Ault created some of his finest paintings, but yes had difficulty selling them, though partly because of his “hostile attitude to potential buyers”.

Note: refer Feb./April 2011 exhibition, To Make a World: George Ault and 1940s America, Smithsonian American Art Museum

 

2

1921 The stairway. COMMENT: Surrealist hint.

3

1944, Daylight at Russell’s Corners, Collection of Sam Simon. COMMENT: daytime another world.

4

1944, Memories of the Coast of France, Oil on canvas.

COMMENT: wife Louise on the shore. He holidayed there as a boy, was distressed later by its exposure to WW2.

5

1946, Festus Yayple and his Oxen, oil on canvas, 61.6 x 91.4 cm Hinman B. Hurlbut Collection

6

CROSSROADS 1943, Black Night at Russell’s Corners, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia

7

CROSSROADS 1946, Bright Light at Russell’s Corners, oil on canvas, 19 5/8 x 25 in., Smithsonian American Art Museum

Smithsonian: The painter, featured in the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s new exhibition [2011], is presented through his work as a channeler of the anxieties and uncertainties collectively forgotten about the country’s war years.

Louise chose a quotation from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche to describe her husband: “Unless there be chaos within, no dancing star is born.”

8

CROSSROADS 1946, Night at Russell’s Corners, Oil on canvas, Collection of C. K. Williams II

“Returning to paint the same set of buildings from different angles, Ault treated Russell’s Corners as though it were the special center of a personal universe.  In this place of lucid calm amid the darkness, the telephone wires extend into the night like the scratches of a cat..” (Smithsonian)

9

CROSSROADS 1948, August Night At Russell’s Corners, oil on canvas, 45.7 x 61.0 cm, Joslyn Art Museum.

Manierre Dawson: Intriguing pioneering American abstract artist, now mostly forgot because he quit and grew cherries.

Manierre Dawson (Dec. 1887 – Aug. 15, 1969, 81)

Intriguing pioneering American abstract artist, now mostly forgot because he quit and grew cherries.

  • Pioneering young American abstract painter from 1910, clearly one of first in Western art.
  • His Prognostic triptych of early 1910 clearly anticipates work of the later great Kandinsky.
  • But age 27, despite a remarkable busy and productive start, the retiring outsider curiously hung up his brushes after 4 years to farm cherries. Did not stay in, play the game.
  • This seems astonishing given his propitious start, including a visit in 1910 to Paris, of all times and places.
  • Striking too is he came from nowhere, from minimal formal training in art, notwithstanding Europe 1910.
  • Why did he quit despite the promising start? Basically not the fire in the belly?
  • But most oddly, despite his achievement, and being American, he was completely omitted from MOMA’s 2013-14 “comprehensive” Inventing Abstraction, 1910-25 exhibition.

 

FEATURED IMAGE:  1910, Prognostic (centre panel). Oil on canvas, triptych, 85.7 × 90.8 cm, Milwaukee Art Museum

2

1910. Coordinate Escape, Oil on Composition Board, 48.3 x 36.8cm, Collection of Lynda and Stewart Resnick, Beverly Hills, California

COMMENT: striking abstract paintings from early 1910, from a young (22) untrained artist, without doubt near the earliest abstract paintings in Western art, and clearly derived from his maths training meeting a keen artistic mind.

3

1913 Wharf under mountain, 45.72 x 55.88 cm, Norton Museum of Art, Palm Beach, Florida.

COMMENT:  striking is how different from his other work is his abstraction approach, both the imagery and bright bold colors. But is it abstract? Some will say there is clearly a ship there. Maybe sea below, a mountain behind, and green fields above that?

Famously it was his surreptitious entry to the Chicago (March/April 1913) version of the seminal 1913 Armory Show.

4

1913, Figure Party-Colored, Oil on board, 44 x 36 inches.

COMMENT:  another quasi-abstract Cubo-Futurist work, but more colourful.

 

SUMMARY

Dawson was a curious pioneering American modernist, an outsider, now largely forgot.

Though in his painting he struck abstraction / non-objective gold early – like from 1910 – he was completely omitted from MOMA’s 2013-14 “comprehensive” Inventing Abstraction, 1910-25 show.

This seems astonishing for a number of reasons.

First, not only was he clearly the first US abstract painter he was one of the first abstractionists in “Western” art, alongside the big names of Kandinsky, Kupka, Picabia et al in Europe.

Second, astonishing is that his Prognostic triptych of early 1910 clearly anticipates later work of the lauded Kandinsky. And some of his geometric abstraction motifs might even look ahead further to some Abstract Expressionists?

Third, he then mined this seam busily for about 4 years, fashioning his own take on Cubo-Futurist quasi-abstract modernist figuration.

So while his post 1911 Cubo-Futurist work is indeed derivative, and while his effective active career was only a brief 5 years or so, overall he left a remarkable and distinctive, if truncated, body of work, abstract and quasi-abstract.

Moreover one of his 1913 abstract works was hung in the Chicago showing of the seminal 1913 Armory exhibition.

Striking too is how, compared with peers, he came from nowhere. In 1910 he was young (23), had just finished an engineering degree and was painting part-time, working as a first year employee with an architects firm, had no formal training in art (but for one class in high school), and no exposure by then to the dynamic modern art scene.

 

Born and raised in Chicago, he started painting during his engineering degree (1905-09). Early 1910 he painted his first fully abstract works, then visited Europe for about 5 months in the back half of 1910.

But after painting keenly for about 4 years, after showing at the Armory in 1913, and in two significant exhibitions in 1914 (where he also sold some works), despite this achievement and his apparent passion, at 27 he quit full time art for good, disappeared to rural Michigan, his art with him, to become a full-time cherry farmer, and only an occasional artist.

 

Why did he abruptly abandon ship after such a promising start?

Dawson will remain something of an enigma.

Basically it appears he simply lacked the fire? He was not hungry and determined enough? Thus while he obviously recognised the importance of the 1913 Armory show he was timid in his response. Invited to show by the main organiser he refused, then when pressed by Pach he agreed to show a work in the Chicago viewing (ie his home town) but it went in late (so was omitted from the catalogue) and, at his request, was anonymous.

So he succumbed to short term domestic circumstances. Summer 1914 he met his future wife, from a family near his family’s country farm, the area where he then settled down, marrying July 1915.

Interesting too  is that, despite signs in 1912, he never really persevered with his pioneering bolt-from-the-blue 1910 abstraction approach. He was perhaps too distracted by the Cubo-Futurism he met in Europe 1910.

 

He was not to be “discovered” for about 50 years, until well after WW2, near the end of his life, after the ageing artist contacted a nearby Florida museum.

 

ART

Startling abstraction in Year 0: 1910

Manierre Dawson leaves quite a story.

There is no doubt this man (first name is his mother’s maiden name) from 1910 became a pioneering “Western” abstract painter, working keenly in Chicago for about 4 years, up there with the relevant big names in Europe, like Delaunay, Kandinsky, Kupka, Malevich, Mondrian, and Picabia.

In 1910 appear six fully abstract paintings.

The most striking is Prognostic (1910), a triptych with a big centre panel 86 x 91cm) and two wings about 2/3 as big (62 x 51cm). The abstraction motifs are clearly prescient of Kandinsky, as also is the smaller Differential complex (1910). (“Differential” referring to calculus), but before Kandinsky by some years, even 10 years? Kandinsky’s abstraction is far denser, more intricate and colourful, but anticipate him Dawson clearly does.

The primary inspirational source of his abstraction – the lines and circles – is commonly associated with his engineering education (1905-09), called “geometric”, and that certainly fits his 1910 work, like Xdx, Co-ordinate escape, and Discal Procession (showing a nest of curves). Prognostic is more complex, seems to use both maths and natural landscape references?

Colour was not a preoccupation with Dawson. Most of his works were subdued, monohromatic. All his abstraction is subdued, in monochromatic browns / oranges.

 

Why abstract for him?

Interesting is that his motivation for going abstract, after a brief (2-3 year?) figurative phase, was not spiritual (as the Whitney exhibition text of 1988 claimed) or philosophical (like for Kandinsky, Mondrian, Malevich) but simply curiosity stemming from his academic engineering training, especially the mathematical content.

This seems entirely valid for mathematics is certainly abstract, yet also profoundly important, “real”, because maths is the universal language used to express the underlying laws of physics which describe, underlie, the visible world, and which apply across our known universe.

 

Dawson on where his art comes from?

Dawson wrote in April 1911: “In trying to answer the questions that are repeatedly thrown at me, “What does it mean?” “What does it represent?” I have to start with a statement that sometimes helps. Art is a human invention.

In nature there was no art except that all creations of the Almighty are part of that Almighty.

“Art” as a word for us to use describes the invention of that part of creation that is man.

All nature is bearing down on us day after day. We cannot avoid it. Every form that we could use is there.

But away from nature and in the seclusion of the mind we can invent arrangements to be found nowhere else. One answer to the question, “What is it?” is to point to the picture and say, “It is that. It exists nowhere else.”

This doesn’t seem to say much?

Yet “we can invent arrangements to be found nowhere else” seems the essence?

 

Outsider?

As an artist he was, like some other pioneers, an outsider. He was largely self-taught, driven by his powerful interest.

Yes he was exposed early to Europe and some of its art, like about 23, and there briefly touched Paris, meeting Gertrude Stein.

And yes back then in the US he engaged with Arthur B Davies et al in New York, which led to his 1913 Armory appearance, but he was never formally trained in art, and after his brief early brush with the industry (including being shown in two exhibitions in 1914) he basically disappeared to fruit farming in Michigan.

He never pursued a full time career in art, cultivating support from dealers and museums.

So he remained little known till well after WW2, only near the end of his life. So “the first real recognition.. [finally came].. 1966 ..a retrospective .. by the Grand Rapids Art Museum [Michigan]..”. Exhibitions followed 1967 in Florida, catching the attention of Robert Schoelkopf who showed his work in New York in April 1969 and March 1981.

 

Why overlooked so long – despite his obvious contribution?

Easy. After striking gold early, for about 4 years, he just disappeared, to work full-time as a farmer.

So the art scene –which end of the day is a business, is about selling products (art works, museum and galley visits) to make money – passed him by for about 50 years, did not re-engage with him till the mid 1960s.

 

But omission from MOMA’s 2013-14 “Inventing Abstraction, 1910-25” seems absurd?

There is no doubt Dawson’s omission from MOMA’s 2013-14 Inventing Abstraction, 1910-25 exhibition was an egregious oversight, especially as an American who (after first declining an invitation to the NY show) was famously hung in the Chicago chapter of the important 1913 Armory show which showcased leading modernist European painters. His entry of Wharf under a mountain (1913) – the only abstract painting there by any American – hung alongside Duchamp, Picasso, Matisse and Kandinsky etc.

Also, unlike the German Otto Freundlich (1878-1943), another stunning omission from MOMA’s blockbuster, Dawson’s abstract oeuvre, from 1910, was prolific and substantial, creative and diverse, in the pioneering 4 year period to 1914.

Certainly he made it hard for the art scene to notice him, disappearing after only about 4 years. But that’s no excuse. And certainly by 2013 Dawson had been noticed by many in the field.

Thus his omission is even harder to understand given a 334 page catalogue raisonné (Ploog, Bairstow and Boyajian) of Dawson’s work was published 2011 by The Three Graces and Hollis Taggart Galleries.

The curators of Inventing Abstraction seem either careless or lazy, or perhaps possessed of some obscure political resistance to acknowledging this painter.

 

Arthur Dove (1880-1946), 7 years older, and who visited Europe and its art 1907-09 (ie before Dawson) is often cited as the first US abstract painter. He painted abstract early, motivated mainly by Nature, natural forms, and he was important, but he was not the first, clearly beaten by Dawson, in time (just) and also in terms of emphatic output, Dawson executing 6 meaningful such works in 1910.

But both Dawson and Dove were among the first abstractionists in Western art.

Dove is far better remembered simply because art remained his full time job, so he stayed painting, and he evolved. Returning from Europe in 1909 he was keen to stay in art and in this was strongly supported in New York by the keen photographer and pivotal modern art promoter Alfred Steiglitz, and his 291 gallery, where Dove showed 1910, again 1912 in a one man show.

 

Dove was included in MOMA’s Inventing Abstraction, along with Marsden Hartley (1877–1943), another important American modernist who also contributed to abstraction early on, from around 1912.

 

Another important American modernist painter, briefly mentioned in MOMA’s Inventing Abstraction, and who also showed in- made a splash in – the Armory, was Joseph Stella (1877–1946). Also supported by Steiglitz he contributed Futurist abstract images by 1914, but was energetic and imaginative across a wide range of styles.

 

What if?

The outcome invites speculation, like how might his art have evolved had he made it a full-time career – say in Chicago and maybe beyond, like NY – and how might his evolving output have impacted other artists?

Unfortunately we’ll never know, but we know he was industrious, committed and creative when for a short time he was focussed on art.

 

His path:  the first abstract painter in the US and one of first in Western art.

Pre 1910

Dawson started painting c1906, executed a few realist works before 1910, simple figurative outdoor scenes, a vase of flowers, and a modernist Still life (1908).

December 1908 he wrote in his journal, “This winter I am very hard at work . . . on several arbitrarily constructed paintings of arranged figures, blocking things out without rhyme or reason other than to make the picture look right.”.

1910 opened with two distinctive quasi-abstract paintings in monochrome browns, one (Rocky Pool) a landscape .

 

1910: abstraction

Then suddenly in 1910 appear six fully abstract paintings.

 

1911: after Europe, Cubo-Futurism

But still young (23), his 5 month trip to Europe abruptly shifted his art. He discovered Cubism, presumably in Paris and from 1911 he applied his version to interpreting a number of Classical subjects and Old Masters paintings, what Dawson himself referred to as his “museum paintings”.

Some critics have complained Dawson fell so madly for “Cubism” after Europe, “became a follower rather than a leader” (LACMA, Nov.2013), veering away from his distinctive abstraction. “He seems never to have been the same after Paris..” (Roberta Smith, NY Times August 1988). Thus there were no pure abstract works in 1911.

This is perhaps unfair, but is at least unfortunately he did not pursue his pioneering stark geometric abstraction of 1910.

His style did evolve, but mostly never far from variations on Cubo-Futurism?

So he painted a number of quasi-abstract figures, all in a distinctive modernist fractured monochromatic Cubo-Futurist style. And he did return to abstraction, albeit Cubist derived.

His Futurist reminds us of the approaches of some European modernists like Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) in France / US, also the Englishman David Bomberg (1890-1957), cf Island of Joy (c1912).

Madonna (1911) apparently refers to Leonardo’s Virgin of the Rocks. Other Cubo-Futurist figurative works of Classical subjects are Hercules, The Three Graces, Lucrece, and Birth of Venus (1912).

In 1912 he applied the dynamic Cubist style many times, now including three larger paintings, all around 1.5 x 1.2 metres, like The Three Graces, Desdemona.

 

1912: more abstraction

Interestingly 1912 Dawson returned to abstraction, in a number of ways.

Two simple works – the subdued simple glyphic Painted wood relief, and the “geometric” Untitled (Study #30) – do recall his “geometric”1910 approach.

Untitled abstraction is more colourful and is again in the vein of Kandinsky

Blue complex moves on, is busier, denser.

And Personal Presentation is abstract after Cubo-Futurist.

Also in 1912 he suddenly paints a more colourful modernist quasi-abstract landscape, Red mur, but the lines of which clearly relate to his abstract works.

And in 1912 we again see a number of figurative Cubo-Futurist paintings, like Figures in Action (Struggle).

 

1913: more abstraction

1913 is another busy year, sees his style meaningfully evolve, him execute some major works, mostly abstract, now less figuration.

It includes a suddenly different abstract / quasi-abstract work, the colourful Wharf under mountain which was hung in the Armory (Chicago) show, though only after Walter Pach insisted Dawson show it. Dawson wrote 4 April 1913, “Walter said he had no trouble getting the painting hung.” It’s a bolder, darker, more Expressionist painting, lots of royal blue and some green and an intriguing title.

Essay in Brown (1913) clearly advances his abstraction, shows a tumble of jagged “objects” apparently against a rectilinear background.

Afternoon II is again monochromatic but denser, more intricate, seems to blend geometric and Cubist abstraction? And Compages of Classical Figures and Conversation also shift his abstraction.

We see a lot more Cubist abstraction (like Arroyo, Ascension, Figure Party-Colored (more colourful than usual), Meditation, Observation, The gate, and Thirteen).

And we see much less Futurist figuration (eg the larger Hercules I and II, and Trio), still in subdued monochromatic pale orange-brown tones.

Finally, different, we see two small Arthur Dove-like quasi-abstract paintings, Night flower and Beech.

 

1913: Armory (Chicago, Mar. 24-Apr. 15, 1913)

Dec.1912, Arthur B Davies invited him to participate in the International Exhibition of Modern Art (now known as the Armory Show) in New York (Feb. 15-Mar. 15, 1913) but he declined! He said he had nothing handy (recent) worth hanging, and worried that in winter he could not transport paintings in time, from their location at the family farm, ie his earlier 1910 paintings, which even he knew then were more important.

For the Chicago show Walter Pach persuaded Dawson to change his mind. There too he visited the show a number of times, and bought two paintings: Marcel Duchamp’s’s Nu (esquisse) (Nude [study]) now known as Jeune homme triste dans un train (Sad Young Man on a Train) (1911-12?) and Amadéo de Souza Cardoso’s Return from the Chase.  Dawson was impressed by Duchamp’s work, not surprising because it chimes with his own. The painting he bought it now hangs in Guggenheim Venice because he had to sell ir not long after to pay the bills.

Chicago’s offering was a cut down version (634 works) of New York (where approx. 1300 works showed). Much of the American art was gone, most of the radical European art remained.”. The show was championed by a few, condemned by many. But “Scandal and outrage bred interest” and 189,000 visited in 23 days, averaging about 8,200 per day, a higher outcome than NY.

 

Around the time of the Armory in Chicago (April 1913) he left his job, and wrote:

Since I left Holabird and Roche I’ve had a glorious time painting. Hanging over the mantel in the library is the Duchamp. I am having a good look at it. These three paintings I am doing now, Hercules I, II, III, may show D’s influence. I am contemplating more colorful things to come.

Did his viewing the Armory show (eg seeing Duchamp) change his art? Not significantly? Thus his Cubo-Futurist style – evident after Armory in Hercules – was well established by then.

But 1913 was a big year for his art and he did evolve.

 

1914: Dawson bails from full time art, but still evolving.

1914 also sees some variety, and shifts, and a fateful emphatic career move.

Meanwhile his abstraction motifs evolved, like in the more colourful Equation, and like Figure in Pink and Yellow.

Letters and numbers is what it seems, shifts again, has a Stuart Davis feel.

The darker Futurist Night figures again recalls David Bomberg, while geometric derived Untitled (Pictogram II) again recalls Kandinsky, but showing Dawson’s finger prints.

Then there are two similar figurative works, one much larger, both showing Futurist friezes of groups of people, Seven and Configuration.

Then mid 1914 he suddenly quits full time art.

 

After 1915 Dawson, now farming full time, executes far fewer works, paints little, though is still valid, still moving, especially the colourful quasi-abstract Figure by the window.

His Loft (1918) seems another pioneering work, an abstract image carved from laminated wood then painted, again monochromatically.

Then the more colourful quasi-abstract glyphic Untitled(c1920) is different but still Dawsonian.

Later too he began to sculpt, using materials encountered through his work.

He struggled financially and Rauschenberg-style began to make art from whatever was lying around, “cement, scraps of lumber, pieces of plywood”. Sculptures he made from “sheets of composite wood .. laminated together ..”

 

Discovery

Dawson disappeared from the art world for 52 years, 1914 to 1966, when he showed at Grand Rapids Michigan, then 1967 at the John and Mable Ringing Museum in Sarasota, Florida, near his then home. There he was noticed by a NY dealer (Robert Schoelkopf) who showed him there 1969 and 1981.

He was shown in a 1977 retrospective at MCA Chicago, and 1988 at the Whitney.

 

Exhibitions

Exhibition of Paintings and Drawings, Montross Gallery in New York, February 1914; the Detroit Museum of Art, March 1914; Cincinnati Museum of Art, March / April 5, 1914; and the Peabody Institute, Baltimore, April / May 1914.

Exhibition of Painting and Sculpture in ‘The Modern Spirit,’ Milwaukee Art Society, April 16–May 12, 1914.

Manierre Dawson, Milwaukee Art Institute, Jan. 1923.

Retrospective Paintings by Manierre Dawson, Grand Rapids Art Museum, Michigan, April 1966.

Manierre Dawson: Paintings 1909-1913, Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota, Florida November 1967, Norton Gallery and School of Art, West Palm Beach, Florida, January / February 1968.

Manierre Dawson, Robert Schoelkopf Gallery, New York, April / May 1969

A Retrospective Exhibition of Painting, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, 1977. Indiana University Art Museum

Manierre Dawson: Paintings 1910-1914, Robert Schoelkopf Gallery, New York, 1981

Manierre Dawson: American Modernist Painter, Tildon-Foley Gallery, New Orleans, May / June 1988.

Manierrre Dawson Early Abstractionist, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, July / September 1988.

Manierre Dawson American Pioneer of Abstract Art, Hollis Taggart Galleries, New York, October 1999.

Manierre Dawson American Pioneer of Abstract Art, Swope Art Museum, Terre Haute, Indiana, December 2000.

Manierre Dawson: New Revelations, Hollis Taggart Galleries, Chicago, May / June 2003.

Manierre Dawson: A Startling Presence, Illinois State Museum, Springfield, March / August 2006.

Manierre Dawson, Hollis Taggart Galleries, New York, April 2011.

 

LIFE

Manierre Dawson was the 2nd of 4 sons born to George Dawson and Eva (Manierre) Dawson in Chicago, a middle class family, father a lawyer, who supported the arts but as a hobby but not a career.

Dawson’s only formal art training came from classes with Miss Dorothy Dimock at high school in Chicago. Here he met Arthur W. Dow’s instruction manual Composition (1899). Dow favoured “beauty over representation.”, which can be read as “let your mind go.”

Dawson really discovered art during a 4 year civil engineering degree course at the Armour Institute of Technology [he wrote: “All these days of hard study at Armour Tech, where I am taking a course in civil engineering, are brightened by continuing the making of pictures on week-ends.”] so when he graduated 1909 he quickly switched to painting, commencing his first abstract paintings as early as spring of 1910, in this apparently influenced by some of his engineering training (analytic geometry?), while a first-year employee at the Chicago architectural firm.

But granted 6 months leave he departed in mid-June 1910 for his one and only trip abroad, to Europe. He travelled across England to France (Paris), south through Germany, across Switzerland to Italy (in Siena meeting John Singer Sargent), back north for a second stay in Paris, and around northern Germany, leaving for home late-November. On his 2nd visit to Paris he met Gertrude Stein (who reportedly bought a painting), saw paintings by Cézanne (and others?) in Ambrose Vollard’s gallery.

In NY, on the way home, he met painter Arthur B. Davies who introduced him to Albert Pinkham Ryder, another painter.

Inspired by Europe – and meeting Davies? – he painted keenly 1911 through 1914

Dec.1912, Davies invited him to participate in the Armory Show) in New York (Feb. 15-Mar. 15, 1913). He initially declined but did show one work in Chicago.

April 1913 he left his architectural job.

In 1914, Dawson participated in two group exhibitions. One called “Fourteen”, meaning 14 current American artists, was organized by Arthur B Davies and Walter Pach, sponsored by the Montrose Gallery in NY, highlighting abstract painting, and went to Detroit, Cincinnati and Baltimore (Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins University).

The other, in Milwaukee, Paintings and Sculptures in “The Modern Spirit”, organized by the forerunner of the Milwaukee Art Museum (by a high school friend there) sold two paintings to collector Arthur Jerome Eddy. “The exhibition was a sort of recap of the Armory Show. It opened in April and included contemporary European and American work from Midwest collections.

Early he spent summers at the family farm in at Ludington, Mason County, Michigan (about 2/3 the way up the east side of L Michigan), where he also painted a lot.

Mid 1914 he quit full time art.

He wrote April 1914, “I know there is work to be done on a farm in winter, yet I have the hope that if the bridge is crossed I can find painting or carving time in that season..

Summer 1914 he met Lilian Boucher, the daughter of a local farmer, then by autumn 1914 had decided, and with help from his father, he moved permanently to lakeside Ludington, and July 1915 married Lilian, thereafter raising three children.

In the mid-1950s he and his wife began wintering in Sarasota, Florida. There, after diagnosed with cancer in 1968, he died August 1969 (25 days after Armstrong walked on the moon).

some works………

 

1910

 
5

1910, Xdx, Oil on paperboard attached to particleboard, 19 1/8 x 14 7/16 in. (48.6 x 36.7 cm). Brooklyn Museum

 

6

1910, Discal Procession, oil on wood 30 1/2 x 24 7/8 in. (77.5 x 63.2 cm.) Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington, DC

 

7

1910, DIfferential complex, Oil on canvas, 40.6 x 30.cm, Tilden-Foley Gallery, New Orleans

 

 

1913

 

8

1913, Essay in Brown, oil on cardboard, 45.7 x 66.0cm, Illinois State Museum

COMMENT: Illinois State Museum, “Employing a now-familiar palette, Dawson created a group of paintings in 1913 which were completely abstract ….. With Essay in Brown the artist creates visual tension by contrasting a series of rectilinear shapes in the background with a cascade of overlapping forms that tumble from right to left. …… The interlocking and floating elements of this might be compared with Willem De Kooning’s Excavation (Art Institute of Chicago), created 37 years later.”

1914

9

1914, Equation , oil on cardboard, 91.44 x 70.17 cm, Joslyn Art Museum

 

1915

10

1915, Figure by the Window, oil on canvas, 76.2 x 61.0cm, Illinois State Museum

COMMENT: Illinois State Museum,”…  1915 was momentous for .. Manierre Dawson… decide to commit himself completely to farming…. t married Lillian Boucher, a neighboring farm girl ten years his junior….  We see a female looking out a window. …  a classic theme. … Randy Ploog, in his 2003 essay “Metaphor and Autobiography in the Art of Manierre Dawson”, posits that Dawson borrowed major compositional elements of his Figure by the Window from Johannes Vermeer’s Young Woman with a Water Pitcher (1660-67). Certainly Dawson has shifted the ambience of the picture. Vermeer’s young woman is a picture of calm composure. In Dawson’s treatment, an aura seems to emanate from the woman’s central position outward, like waves of energy affecting everything they encounter. The space folds and refolds until it is almost unrecognizable. Perhaps this is a visual metaphor for the newlyweds’ relationship.’

 

11

 

1920. Desert, oil on canvas. 22 by 28 inches, Illinois State Museum

 

12

 

Manierre Dawson, 1950s?

COMMENT: Still gripped by his trademark lightning bolt Cubo-Futurist motifs

Henri MATISSE: A deceptive genius? An Artist for the Supreme Fiction

Henri MATISSE (31 Dec.1869 – 3 Nov. 1954, 84).

The deceptive tortoise to Picasso’s hare.

The cat who walked alone.

 “No worries!” Matisse fearlessly affirmed Man’s raison d’ être.

A pretty boy? Travails of Modern Life passed by art of the the soothing Neo-Romantic Mediterranean Colorist?

No! His grand aesthetic allegorical affirmation of the communal “Good Life” was timely, trumped the grumpy Realists.


FEATURED IMAGE: 1916 (Late summer), The Piano Lesson, Oil on canvas, 245.1 x 212.7 cm, Museum of Modern Art, New York City.

COMMENT:  In this marvellous painting from Matisse’s curious and uncharacteristic WW1 period the artist was provoked by war, and the recent radical art movements of Cubism and Abstraction to conjour tension, anxiety in a large emotionally powerful personal  image.

Thus“crisis” – especially the sudden and unexpected outbreak of war – leaned on Matisse and coaxed from him, 1913-17, a series of abruptly different paintings.

Obviously he was not alone in being affected by the war but Matisse by nature was not usually calm in peacetime let alone when the Germans invaded, quickly capturing his family’s base in far north France.

The Piano lesson “..depicts the living room of Matisse’s home in Issy-les-Moulineaux.. outside Paris [suburban east], with his son Pierre practicing the piano. A candle sits on the instrument, illuminating a triangle of lawn. .. bottom left corner is a representation of one of Matisse’s sculptures, Decorative Figure (1908), while the severe “teacher” in the opposite corner is .. a representation of the painting “Woman on a High Stool” (1914)…”  (Wiki).

Pierre said of the boy in The Piano Lesson, “Yes, it was me, and you have no idea how much I detested those piano lessons.”” (Peter Schjeldahl , New Yorker, 2005)

First it is unusually large, especially for a quiet domestic interior. Then the flat stylized quasi-abstract image of an apparently innocuous subject, a casual family domestic encounter, is imbued with tension. Father and son seem at peace, the son making music, and music was important in Matisse’s recent major visual meditation of the theme of Arcadia. The small sculpture in the corner references these images too.

But somewhere outside, through the window (a favourite visual device), the war still rages, now for near two years, and they father and son know it. And 1916 was a bad year for France in that war.  Pierre was 16 in 1916 when this was painted, and presumably will face call up into the war, but poignantly he is shown much younger than 16 in the image. Anxiety we see in the alien like face of the staring boy, where a bolt of shadow from the window, like an incoming projectile, blinds his right eye.

The candle and the metronome speak of passing time.

The elongated woman rear right is maybe the teacher, or a ghost, an allegorical device.

In late 1917 Matisse moved his base to Nice. Then the war over in 1918 his style relaxed, reverted by and large to “pretty pictures”, but still then in their own way fashioning his message to Man, his Arcadia, which after Dance, c1910, will climax again after WW2 when ailing health – another “crisis” – will restrict his manual skills, and body mobility, and compel him to retreat to decoupage, crude colourful geometric quasi-abstraction conjoured in timeless evocative images.

This painting struck one, which is why it features here. Then one reads that the articulate art critic in the New Yorker (Peter Schjeldahl) chooses it as “my favorite work of twentieth-century art.” The chap who is not so keen on Edgar Degas!

,

End to end……….

01

Age 21: 1890 Still Life with Books and Candle, 45 x 38 cm private; COMMENT: “What he called his first picture”.

02

Age 84: 1953, La Gerbe, 294 x 350 cm. LACMA, Los Angeles, CA.

Matisse writes in a letter to friend painter Charles Camoin (1879-1965), then in the French army, October 1914:

“I know that Seurat is altogether the opposite of a romantic and that I am one, a Romantic, but a good half of me is a scientist, a rationalist, and that’s what causes the struggle from which I sometimes emerge the victor, but exhausted.”

 

Contents

1/ Summary: The deceptive tortoise, an uncanny and timely aesthetic affirmation of Man’s higher calling!

2/ Matisse or Picasso? No contest? The hare and the tortoise? Different tacks but ultimately both on the same team.

3/ Matisse the painter: it did not come easily.

4/ Feeling his way: c1891-1905: early years to the Fauves.

Introduction.

Before Fauvism, c1891-1905

Fauvism and its roots

5 Finding his feet! c1905-14: thematic purpose appears.

Matisse’s “theoretical” approach

Wider context– Cubism and Abstraction

Matisse’s art: first path, intimate: decorative , ornamental interiors

Matisse’s art: second path. The high note: a grand, pared allegorical sequence on the Good Life, Man’s raison d’ être!

Luxe, Calme et Volupté

Le bonheur de vivre

In the wake of Le bonheur de vivre

Dance and Music

6/ WW1 c1914-17: the first “crisis”. WW1 tips Matisse – jolted by Cubism and abstraction – into the experimental, reflective “black period”, 1914-16.

7/ Portraits to 1918: generally drawing on the pared, stylised “Primitive”.

8/ Post WW1: Matisse relaxes, returns to naturalistic “decorative” figuration.

9/ Post WW2: the disruptive second “crisis” compels Matisse to innovate through decoupage (cut-outs).

ATTACHED: LIFE

 

1/ SUMMARY: A deceptive genius?  oise, an uncanny and timely aesthetic affirmation of Man’s higher calling!

 Was Matisse simply a towering Neo-Romantic, a nostalgic escapist, the self-indulgent Grand Aesthete, devoted to seducing the world with soothing, flat colourful other-worldly images, Pretty Pictures”? To relax his customers like does “a good armchair”(Matisse, 1908).

Matisse’s long life overlapped extraordinary events, historically unparalleled political and economic drama for his country, continent and the world, including two calamitous world wars and the Great Depression.

But you’d never know from his art? For strikingly his work addressed none of this drama, at least objectively, directly.

Realism appeared to pass him by? He did not paint Modern Life as such, in striking contrast to some other modernists, like the German Expressionists and war artists.

And, after his rich creative period before and during WW1, his apparently gratuitous escapism is no better developed than in his flurry of “odalisques” (strictly chambermaids but typically portrayed erotically as concubines), painted in “fake, absurd, amazing, delicious” Nice, mainly in the 1920s. “The transition from grand decorations [and the grand allegorical “murals”] to an equally fervent vapidity leaves everyone at a loss for words..” (Julian Bell, LRB, 2006). Like his friend, and collector, Marcel Sembat. Though his final coruscating outburst of découpage works generally relaxed some doubters.

But no! “Art for Matisse was a vision of Paradise”. (C. Turner, in “Matisse”, Queensland Art Gallery, 1995) (1).

Bullseye!

So Matisse was not nonchalantly disregarding wider contemporary turmoil, not ignoring “modern life” at all. As he said in 1908, “All artists bear the imprint of their time..” (2).

No, rather he was responding legitimately, in his own way to life’s challenges, to his understanding of the world about him.

Intentionally, if perhaps feeling his way, and drawing on an extensive supporting cast – especially on his response to the European pastoral tradition of the Golden Age – he issuedun [Baudelairean] invitation au voyageto viewers: developed a constructive, even heroic, antidote for the Travails of Modern Life, not indulgently as a hedonistic self-absorbed Grand Aesthete but by applying, constructively, an optimistic eye on the wider human argument, consciously affirming Man’s informing wider purpose: the goal of the cooperative Good Life, aiming for a personal Paradise, which thrust was his ultimate raison d’ être.

This overarching theme informed, became the life mission of Matisse’s work.

His Pointillist Luxe, Calme et Volupté  (Luxury, calm and sensual pleasure) of 1904-05 was the prologue of an allegorical sequence / cycle (c1904-12) which, in the wake of his declamatory summer 1905 Fauves experience, fell into place c1905-06 with the large (1.8 x 2.4 metres) Le Bonheur du vivre and climaxed with the even larger (near 2.5 x 4 metres) Dance (1909-10, in two versions) and then Music (1910).

As he wrote in 1951 (age 82): “From Bonheur du vivre .. to this cut-out… I have not changed.. all this time I have looked for the same things… perhaps.. by different means..” (quoted C. Turner, op.cit.).

So indeed, from the time he found his metier, c1905 – and notwithstanding his apparent wide compass – arguably all his art more or less fits somewhere within the same grand theme, demonstrates a broad continuity: from his energetic quasi-abstract Fauvist colouration to the grand allegorical statements before WW1, to his lavish decorative interiors, later the pyjama ladies, to his many still lives and finally to his decoupage. Thus “The last great papiers decoupés..  are well viewed as a final, spiritualized journey to Baudelaire’s world of luxe, calme et volupté.” (Golding, LRB, 1985). Though some critics are happier with some chapters of Matisse’s career than others, cf the lively discussion by Jed Perl and respondent Professor Krauss, NY Rev. Books, May 2016.

But perhaps Matisse’s most interesting period was during WW1 when “crisis”knocked he and his art sideways, compounded by him still digesting the stll fresh twin disruptions of Cubism and Abstraction.

So overall “Matisse’s art [consciously] transcended his time” (3).

But importantly while Matisse for his purpose borrowed the traditional reactionary notion of the Golden Age, arguably his take was not literal, not deluded nostalgic escapism, though not everyone agrees on this. (4).

Nor was his allusion to paradise in any way religious or spiritual, let alone Christian (despite later decorating the chapel at Vence). No, he was declaiming after the Death of God, famously broadcast in late 19th C by Wagner and Nietzsche.

And he was looking ahead not behind, arguing that it was precisely at times of trouble that Man needed to keep in mind a wider perspective, and for Matisse that perspective – right or wrong, and addressed to every individual prepared to listen – was not religiously driven but instead secular, campaigning for a constructive, affirmative commitment to the communal Good Life.

 

Complicating Matisse’s seductive allure is that his perspective was not trying to be razor sharp in its clarity (like most religious dogma), but inherently imprecise.

As he wrote (1908): “What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and serenity devoid of troubling or depressing subject matter—a soothing, calming influence on the mind, rather like a good armchair which provides relaxation from physical fatigue”.

So where is the truth? As he said (somewhat like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in physics) in balancing the here and now with all the demands of the wider context, balancing the aesthetic and the moral, there is no precise answer.

And it will vary for different participants and for different moods of the one participant.

 

The cat who walked alone!

Above all, highlighting his singular distinctive importance is that beyond his experience leading the brief Fauvist movement, c1905, Matisse stands alone. He painted alone, is associated with no other recognised modern art movement.

Peter Schjeldahl (New Yorker, 2005) wrote “The key fact is his self-invention as a painter, entering art history from essentially nowhere, as if by parachute. Never having had traditional lessons to unlearn”.

But while Matisse’s training path was perhaps not fully conventional, he did study with important painter Moreau and others, including much time copying and viewing at the Louvre, and he also visited Italy, London an Spain. So he certainly did become well acquainted with Western art, and indeed referenced many past painters in his art, eg particularly Le Bonheur de vivre.

 

Matisse was raised in the dark north, in a polluted, industrial pocket in far north France, alleviated for him by its textiles context. Then, via Paris, he eventually painted mainly in the sunny south. But his gloomy grimy cradle may have helped fired, inspire his later sustained embrace of the bold and colourful.

 

Ironically the gelling of Matisse’s ideas on his approach to art, c1905-10, its overall purpose – ie starting about 15 years after he started painting – happened, unbeknownst to him, on the doorstep of three decades of unimaginable calamity, two world wars and the Great Depression.

 

Ironic too, given the sustained, sunny, aesthetic disposition of Matisse’s oeuvre – be it in the grand frescoesque allegorical “murals” or the densely ornamented decorative interiors – is that Matisse’s creative artistic work purpose was apparently hard fought personally. In a way he was the tortoise to Picasso’s hare.

 

Matisse’s affirmation of Man’s wider constructive cooperative endeavor in the face of unrest and adversity bears some comparison with other painters. Aesthetic preoccupations informed Monet ’s very long career, and Pissarro most of the time? And another striking case is the American modernist Stuart Davis (1892-1964), just over 20 years younger. Davis was also keen on flat bold figurative color, but geometrically hued, and, like Matisse, his art remained oblivious to both world wars and the Great Depression. Rather he seemed rather to record, even celebrate, the ongoing dynamic creative energy of the USA, notwithstanding some blatant defects, particularly race.

 

Notes: (1) “Paradise” was the word Matisse used recalling how, recuperating from an appendectomy 1890, a “box of paints” had transported him into “a kind of Paradise” (quoted by Jack Flam in “Matisse: the man and his art, 1869-1918”).

(2)  quoted by Jack Flam in “Matisse: the man and his art, 1869-1918”.

(3) quoted (C. Turner, in “Matisse”, Queensland Art Gallery, 1995.

(4) “.. as seen by so many reviewers after the [1992-93] MOMA retrospective..”. (C. Turner, “Matisse”, Queensland Art Gallery, 1995.

 

2/ Matisse or Picasso? No contest? The hare and the tortoise? Different tacks but ultimately both on the same team.

Matisse is commonly regarded alongside Pablo Picasso (1881-1973)also long-lived, but 12 years younger – as a founding giant of 20th C modern art.

Matisse was slower out of the blocks, was around 35 when his first “masterpiece’’ arrived in 1906 with Le Bonheur d vivre, his first pioneering statement. While Picasso was 27 in 1907 when he painted Les demoiselles.

They crossed swords soon after meeting at Gertrude Stein’s in Paris in April 1905. Picasso was stirred by Matisse’s large dramatic statement (Le Bonheur de vivre) at the April 1906 Salon des Independants, and again – by Blue nude, Souvenir de Biskra – at the same show in 1907.

Maybe here Matisse thus ‘influenced” Picasso, at least generally in terms of stirring his creative juices, though not necessarily in detail. The style and content of Picasso’s Les demoiselles was very much his own creation? Though, like Matisse, he was inspired by diverse earlier art expression (refer below). Perhaps though the sheer size of Demoiselles (2.4 x 2.3 metres) – much bigger than anything Picasso painted before – owed much to the scale of Le Bonheur (2.4 x 1.8 metres)?

Meanwhile the contrast in content between Le Bonheur and Demoiselles shows the two artists were on different tacks in terms of detailed style and content.

 

Who ultimately “won”? Arguably Matisse’s “fellow titan” sewed more and richer crops? His restless energetic imagination, and sustained prolific work ethic, explored more rooms in the vast house of art – both in his working style and his subject matter – and in one famous example he certainly did directly engage Modern Life with Guernica (1937).

However one might argue that the total oeuvre of Matisse (the tortoise to Picasso’s hare?) – over his long (near 40 years) career from c1905 when he found his métier – was steadier, and above all more continuous and coherent?

 

However stepping right back one might argue there was really no contest in that perhaps both were ultimately viewing their world from the same broad philosophical vantage? Both were on the same team? Both argued for a constructive humanist take on Man’s wider purpose?

 

3/ Matisse the painter: it did not come easily.

A clear distinction between Matisse and Picasso is that art did not come easily to Matisse, as explained in Hilary Spurling’s biographies. “Matisse’s harmonies of colour and design were hard won, wrested from a temperament under siege from discord and disorder. ..  the professional appearance, like the serenity he strove for in his painting, lay precariously on him. Matisse once said that what drove him to paint was “the rising urge to strangle someone”, and that he always “worked like a drunken brute trying to kick the door down” (The Economist, Oct.2001).

He started late, at around 20, supported by his mother but not father. Then he labored hard to produce art and at least early on, especially 1905-10, he battled professional criticism. ‘’Young artists and intellectuals in Paris at that time overwhelmingly favored Picasso’s analytical rigor, to the extent of attacking Matisse in print and snubbing him in public.” (Peter Schjeldahl, New Yorker, 2005)

And generally he struggled early, was financially stretched for around 15 years to 1905.

Later in 1910, following the big effort to execute the major commission for Schlukin he had a virtual breakdown.

And he worked hard at painting. “Throughout his career, he questioned, repainted, and reevaluated his work. He used his completed canvases as tools, repeating compositions in order to compare effects, gauge his progress, and, as he put it, “push further and deeper into true painting.” (Met introduction to Matisse: In Search of True Painting, 2012). Thus in the 2012-13 Met show we see Still Life with Purro (1904-05,) painted twice, one styled after Cezanne and the other Signac. And Cezannesque Apples/ Oranges he painted thrice in 1916.

Ironically also, France was slow to welcome Matisse. “Virtually all of Matisse’s important early patrons and collectors were foreigners:..  not until 1922, when Matisse was in his 50s..  the French government purchased a work for the Musée du Luxembourg.. [the] somewhat conventional Odalisque with Red Trousers” (Golding, LRB 1985). Golding also notes that in the 1920s Derain was generally more highly rated than Matissee and that “Most of the best writing on Matisse—and for that matter on French nineteenth- and twentieth-century art in general—has been in English”.

Reviewing two books on collectors of Matisse (Jewish Review of Books, Summer 2012), Matisse biographer Catherine C. Bock-Weiss highlights early (American) Jewish “patrons” of Matisse, particularly the Steins and the Cone sisters, both of which parties were pivotal in supporting Matisse after c1905. Then c1910 Gertrude moved on to Picasso and Leo to Renoir, but Sarah (Michael’s wife) was resolute in supporting Matisse, down to constructive exchanges on his art.

And also Jewish dealers mattered, like “Bernheim-Jeune, Léonce and Paul Rosenberg, Georges Petit, and Valentine Dudensing”.

His habits were incredibly regular.” (5)

 

Note: (5) “His habits were incredibly regular. On a typical day in Nice, in 1917, Spurling tells us, he “rose early and worked all morning with a second work session after lunch, followed by violin practice, a simple supper (vegetable soup, two hard-boiled eggs, salad and a glass of wine) and an early bedtime.” Spurling knows her man so well that you readily tolerate her occasional reading of his mind: “By the seventeenth it was so hot he stayed indoors all day, drawing fruit, reading or dozing on the studio couch, feeling his feet swell and thinking about his ‘Still Life with Green Sideboard.’ “(Peter Schjeldahl , New Yorker, 2005).

 

4/ Feeling his way. c1891-1905: early years to the Fauves.

Introduction.

Prima facie Matisse was “pretty pictures”, colorful landscapes earlier, seascapes (and little of busy polluted cities), some portraits (including the odd self portrait), many of women (including the odalisques), some decorative peopled interiors, many still lives. Later, as failing health curbed his manual dexterity, he delivered the same message through his découpage works, his “cut-outs”.

But they were “pretty pictures” with a purpose, belying an underlying subtle if serious polemical mission, which emerged in his mid 30s, from around 1905 when he found his feet, set his sails, and blossomed c1905-18 (ie age approx. 35-48), Matisse’s purple patch.

 

Before Fauvism, c1891-1905

After around age 22 when he embarked on an art career the first important painter he met was Gustave Moreau (1826-98), with whom he trained for near 5 years in Paris from 1892, alongside Georges Rouault (1871-1958) and Henri Manguin (1874-1959). Moreau was much older but unconventional, not enamoured of the Salon system, and who in his Symbolist later years produced a number of radical colourful quasi-abstract works around 1890, which Matisse presumably saw.

In addition it seems Matisse also benefited directly from Moreau’s drawing styles (cf Matisse, Jean Guichar-Meili, Praeger, 1967), evident in Matisse’s heavy well modelled figures, in his simple, lined figures, and in sinuous arabesques. Matisse also may have noticed Moreau using areas of detailed ornament and decoration.

In the early 1890s he studied, copied works at the Louvre, especially Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin, Nicolas Poussin, Antoine Watteau and Raphael (eg copied his famous Baldassare Castiglione).

The seminal break for Matisse’s art appeared to come in the mid 1890s with three consecutive summer visits to the islet of Belle-Ile on Brittany’s Atlantic coast (1895-97), his first sight  of a wild rocky coast. 1895 he lasted only 10 days, “Everything seemed.. highly original.. but colossally difficult” he wrote. But 1896 he stayed 3 months and met, interacted with the sociable well-connected Australian painter John Peter Russell (1858-1930), independently well-off,  who was resident there 1888 to 1908 and who became an important mentor and go-between for Matisse.

Russell in 1886 had there met and befriended Monet (1840-1926), painted with him. Earlier from Paris Russell also knew Van Gogh (1853-90). So Russell 1896 talked to Matisse of Impressionism, and van Gogh, and also that summer he “gave or sold Matisse a van Gogh drawing, Hayricks” (Flam). Thus Russell encouraged plein air painting, and the Impressionist style / palette. Also his house was hung with some collected Impressionist works.

Winter 1896/97 Matisse then met the much older (then 68) Camille Pissarro (1831-1903), along with Monet a surviving beacon of Impressionism, and who subsequently mentored Matisse regarding Impressionism and Paul Cezanne (1839-1906). In 1897 they visited together Gustave Caillebotte’s impressive (mainly Impressionist?) collection, recently installed at the Luxembourg Gardens in Paris. As he noted, this was his first substantial sight of an Impressionist collection.

Brittany 1896 importantly advanced Matisse’s education but 1898 was when the breakthrough evidenced in his art.

First, in January he visited London (on his honeymoon) and there, on Pissarro’s advice, saw the work of famous “proto-Impressionist” English painter JMW Turner. He and his new wife then summered in Corsica where his art suddenly came alive in terms of bold colour and brush strokes, especially in his landscapes, but also an interior (Woman reading), works recalling Turner and also Van Gogh. After Brittany he had seen Van Gogh’s works in 1897 at Vollard’s gallery in Paris.

Then importantly in 1899 he met and studied with the boisterous, flamboyant younger painter Andre Derain (1880-1954), and bought a Cezanne off Vollard.

The Corsican breakthrough now stayed in his art, especially in a number of still lives, like Still life with oranges (II) (1899, which suddenly is flatter), Blue pitcher (1901), and Luxembourg Gardens (1901).

Color and flat spare linear compositions arrived with 1901’s progressive Pont Saint-Michel, and 1902’s Notre-Dame, une fin d’après-midi (“A Glimpse of Notre-Dame in the Late Afternoon”).

From about May 1902 to August 1903 there was a hiatus in his progress, his “dark period”, owing partly to a financial scandal which engulfed his parents in-law.

But 1904 he jumped ahead again. He summered at St Tropez with Neo-Impressionist Paul Signac (1863-1935) and Henri-Edmond Cross (colleagues of the late pioneering short-spanned Georges Seurat (1559-91)) then responded with Luxe, Calme et Volupté, a homage to colorful pointillist Neo-Impressionism, which Signac bought which launched his Fauvist break.

 

Fauvism and its roots

His art found its feet initially through his pioneering colorful Fauvist collaboration with the younger Andre Derain and also Georges Braque (1882-1963), and Maurice Vlaminck (1876-1958), during summer of 1905 at Collioure, in far SW France,on the Mediterranean, near Perpignan.

The group launched at the 1905 Salon d’Autumne in Paris where – like most radical movements – it was greeted with scorn by the public and most critics. Matisse’s Woman with a hat (a portrait of his wife under an elaborate hat) drew the most ire? Leading critic Louis Vauxcelles coined the eponymous phrase, writing of ”Donatello among the wild beasts [ie fauves]”. The term was in common use by 1907, and now Fauvism is popularly hailed as the first radical art movement of the 20th C.

The bold patchy coarse textured colouration in some of Matisse’s 1905 Fauve paintings (and Derain’s) leans far towards abstraction, particularly in La Japonaise, woman beside water, and the MOMA Landscape at Collioure.

 

However Fauvism – the bold coarse-brushed colorful art style applied to landscapes and some portraits – was less radical than it appeared. It basically adapted, energised the coarse-brushed colourful naturalism of Impressionism, and the exploration of bold “unnatural” colour by the Post-Impressionists and then the Nabis / Symbolists.

 

Thus Matisse had obviously “discovered” colour through his training and associations during the 1890s, built around studying under Gustave Moreau for over 5 years from 1892.

He was impressed by the colour indulgence of Post Impressionists like Van Gogh (1853-90) and Paul Gauguin (1848-1903).

Matisse said in 1945: “From Delacroix and Van Gogh and principally through Gauguin…one can follow the rehabilitation of color, and the restitution of its emotive powers.”

In 1905 he saw some of Gauguin’s South Sea works with Daniel de Montfried. Though John Golding (LRB, 1985) suggests Matisse was “ambivalent” about Gauguin, was put off by Gauguin’s underlying melancholy”, compared with Cezanne who was “more sympathetic as a personality, and because his art seemed to open endless new paths of discovery”.

Gauguin in turn directly inspired the Symbolists (cf literary manifesto 1886  by French poet Jean Moréas) who dominated the avant-garde in the 1890s, now opposed to Realism and Naturalism and who saw ideas as the “supreme reality”, in favour of delving “the ineffable, the irrational and the subjective”, and at a time too when interest in the occult was growing fast.

So Matisse would have seen striking colourful works by Moreau, and by Nabis / Symbolist close contemporaries Paul Serusier (1864-1927), Maurice Denis (1870-1943) and Edouard Vuillard (1868-1940) etc.

This group was joined from round 1890 by the older artist Odilon Redon (1840-1916) who was born the same year as Monet but whose art and mindset completely bypassed the Impressionists, who was closely sympathetic to Symbolism, exploring fantasy, the eerie and spiritual. Then from around 1890 he too suddenly discovered colour, expressed especially through pastels.

Meanwhile most of the Nabis painters also succumbed to allure of Japanese prints and paintings, the colour and the cropped skew compositions. In Matisse’s time there was a show of this art in 1890 at Ecole des Beaux-Arts, and 1893 at prominent dealer Durand-Ruel’s.

Finally Matisse said his Fauvist experience with colour helped him understand Byzantine art, mosaics, when he encountered it in Ravenna (1907) and Moscow (1911)

 

So, broadly speaking the Fauvist “break” simply continued the Post-Impressionist /Symbolist thrust, of setting decorative colour free from simply describing a natural scene, using it “unnaturally”, to tell a story or express emotion, or moralise, whether intimately or grandly, people or landscapes.

 

5 Finding his feet! c1904-14: thematic purpose appears.

 

Matisse’s “theoretical” approach

Matisse quickly moved beyond Fauvism, now thinking more deeply, “theoretically”, about the wider purpose of his art.

Thus he thought ahead when painting, in his late 1908 Notes of a Painter said, “For me all is in the conception. I must therefore have a clear vision of the whole from the beginning”.

Regarding a painting he said, “..A work of art must be harmonious in its entirety ..What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and serenity, devoid of troubling or disturbing subject matter”.

And content, “What interests me most is neither still life nor landscape but the human figure”.

He acknowledged debts to others. Interviewed by Guillaume Apollonaire in late 1907 he said, “I have worked to enrich my mind… striving to ascertain the different thoughts of ancient and modern masters… I have never avoided the influence of others…

And regarding the method he said, “The simplest means are those which best enable an artist to express himself

 

Wider context – Cubism and Abstraction

Matisse was not a Cubist though he was of course famously there at the birth, as a selector on the jury for the pathbreaking 1908 Salon d’Automne which rejected George Braque’s three pioneering Cubist works (6).

The immediate pronounced public impact of the radical new movement apparently unnerved Matisse, not least because it displaced he (and the other Fauves) from centre stage.

The other great radical shift in art emerging about then, from c1910 onwards, again mainly in Paris, was Abstraction.

 

So from 1908 Matisse was shaken by the emergence of two radical new styles – a pivotal moment in Western art – seeing the former Fauvist colleague George Braque switch to, launch Cubism in 1908 with Picasso, and seeing the avant-garde abstraction movement gather pace from around 1910, like at the famous 1910 Salon d’Automne, which showed abstract works by Picabia, Kupka and Delaunay, ironically the same show where Matisse showed his now iconic Dance and Music.

 

In the years from 1908 to the outbreak of war in 1914 Matisse’style reacted in its own way, on and off, to the radical shifts of Cubism and Abstraction.

 

But unsettled by the shift in the avant-garde, by the poor reception for his work at 1910 Salon d’Automne, and also by his father’s death, Matisse retreated a time from the commercial art world, travelled: to Munich (Oct.1910), Spain (late 1910), Collioure (summer 1911), Moscow (Nov.1911), and Morocco (Jan. – April 1912, and October 1912 to April 1913, including Corsica, early 1913).

 

Matisse’s art: first path, intimate: decorative, ornamental interiors  

 

Broadly speaking, from 1905 Matisse’s art progressed on two parallel fronts, simultaneously, one intimate, the other grand.

 

First he continued exploring colour, down an ornamental “decorative”, “tapestry” / “wall-paper” path, as opposed to the “sculptural” path for his important figurative works.

The decorative path was brilliantly established in 1908 with the large (1.8 x 2.2 metres) lush decorative interior genre scene, Harmony in Red commissioned by the same Moscow businessman, Mr Shchukin, who bought Dance and Music.

And, in the wake of Dance and Music, Matisse unleashed his “four great interiors of 1911: first The pink studio (1.8 x 2.2m), then The painter’s family (1.4 x 1.9m), Interior with aubergines (egg plants) (2.1 x 2.5m), and late 1911, the smaller L’Atelier Rouge (The red studio) (1.6 x 1.3m).

 

As explained Matisse’s interest in colour was first profoundly aroused by his 1890s exposure to his French associates, but it was then extended, reinforced by visiting Algeria (Biskra) in 1906, then Italy in 1907, eg there impressed by Giotto’s famous frescoes at Padua.

Then he was much affected by a major Islamic exhibition in Munich late 1910, then by the two visits to Morocco (29 Jan. to 14 April 1912, and 8 October 1912 to mid February 1913), mainly to Tangier, which reinforced his appetite for colour and light, first triggered by visits to the French Mediterranean, to Saint-Tropez in 1904 then Collioure.

He was struck too by the exotic panoply of people, places and life, which he fitted to his grand thematic work purpose of elaborating on a personal Arcadia.

 

Additional important specific influences on his “decorative” style were:

1/ Gustave Moreau’s art and early mentorship.

2/ Islamic art arabesque decoration, via Munich and Morocco..

3/ Textile patterns. Hilary Spurling’s biography of Matisse highlights the influence on Matisse’s intense decorative images of his early exposure to textiles and clothmaking in the region of his upbringing and youth, in Picardie, far north France. This connection was recognised in the 2005 exhibition (Royal Academy, and Metropolitan Museum of Art) on Matisse, His Art and His Textiles — The Fabric of Dreams. “It argues persuasively that textiles were fundamental to Matisse’s formidably decorative art, with its saturated colors, positive-negative ambiguities, pulsating patterns, distillations from nature and the sense of folded structure and ironed-out space that was his answer to Cubism” (Roberta Smith, NY Times, 2005).

Across the years Matisse carefully compiled a library of these items.

Interesting too is that the business of Matisse’s pivotal wealthy Russian patron (who had 37 of his paintings by 1914) was in textiles.

 

Within his important evolving interest in the flat, decorative and colorful, like in The red studio (1911) he sometimes also leaned towards abstraction, like in the large (around 2 x 2.5 metres) Interior with aubergines from summer 1911 (Grenoble).

Also from his first visit to Morocco we see two quasi-abstract paintings based on vegetation. Moroccan garden (early 1912) could be a detail from Le Bonheur etc. And we see two flat colourful “blue” townscapes, one a doorway to the casbah, the other a window view.

The second visit, after a spell back in Paris when he painted two quasi-abstract goldfish interiors, produced more variety, from the striking simple Moroccan coffee (early 1913), to the flat angular “blue” still life of flowers and a plate.

Matisse’s art: second path. The high note: a grand allegorical sequence on the Good Life, large, pared and aesthetic. Man’s raison d’ être!

Second, having gained self-confidence from his Fauve exercise, Matisse started thinking more about the wider purpose of his art, and in so doing drew on diverse sources in art, and literature, poetry.

What emerged was a quiet importunate campaign for Man – preoccupied with the pressing mundane – to not forget his wider collective driving ethos.

Thus Matisse embarked on his tour de force, a grand allegorical sequence or cycle on the communal Good Life, c1905-12, using lashings of colour, and pared, linearised figures influenced by Cezanne, then informed by the sudden discovery in Paris of stylised “primitive” African art, reinforced by the visit to Algeria in 1907, evident in the important Blue Nude (Memory of Biskra) from 1907.

Through a sequence starting with Le Bonheur de vivre (1905-06) Matisse fashioned a kind of personal Arcadia, a personal vision of a “Golden Age”, culminating in Dance: Dance I (1909, MOMA, a draft for Dance II) / Dance II (1910, Hermitage), and also Music (1910 Hermitage, like Dance II, painted for merchant Sergey Shchukin in Moscow), all large images, and emphatically pared and coloured  – a grand overarching exercise addressing no less than Matisse’s take on the Human Condition, exhorting Man to look on the bright side, to be defined by communal collective purpose.

Nasturtiums with the Painting “Dance (1912, two versions, MOMA and Pushkin) was an important coda, bringing the theme into everyone’s domestic lounge room.

Later, c1932, another version of Dance was commissioned by the Barnes Foundation in the US.

 

He rose no higher than in these powerful, evocative images, applying his new awareness of color, and Cezanne’s “structural” / figurative legacy, to this grand allegorical discourse, depicting the timeless motive of Man’s collective existential circumstances: harmonious co-operation for a greater good.

Clearly Matisse was drawing inspiration from the European pastoral tradition of the Golden Age, going back ultimately to ancient Greece, to Hesiod’s Works and Days.

“..if La Joie de vivre is a revolutionary work it also kept alive a tradition of art that goes back to the [pastoral] Renaissance bacchanals of Bellini and Titian and in turn to the classical world” (Golding, LRB 1985).

 

There is also an obvious Christian association because Christianity adapted the “pagan” Golden Age notion of paradise for its purpose, it becoming the Garden of Eden, the dreadful arena for Man’s Fall, with all its allegedly ominous consequences, the crucible wherein incautious, corrupt Do-it-Yourself Man fashioned his inauspicious debacle.

 

But despite allusions to Paradise, Matisse was not resorting to conventional religion. He was not a conventional believer. “Matisse’s most forthright pronouncement on his religious beliefs came in his text to Jazz,  in 1946, when he asked…  “Do I believe in God?” to which came back the answer, “Yes, when I am at work.” (Golding, LRB, 1985). And in 1951, in connection with the Chapel of the Rosary at Vence, Matisse said, “All art worthy of the name is religious. Be it a creation of lines and colours if it is not religious it doesn’t exist.” (Golding, 1985).

But he was not being narcissistically arrogant, claiming godliness, but simply affirming that he was his own master, the Maker of his own “religion”, his own motivating world view, and was not aligned with any organized religion, let alone Christianity.

So each artist thus brings his own “religion”, his own view of life, to the canvas.

 

However in resorting to adaptating the Golden Age neither was Matisse offering a reactionary Romantic nostalgic argument, based on recovering some lost utopian past. Though some observers might debate this.

Rather he was simply outlining a core practical inspirational objective for Man to saddle bag going forward, for each person to use as they see fit, not intending it to be taken literally.

 

Matisse’s art did not directly engage modern life, but arguably this allegorical sequence was provoked by it. He offered it as a serious antidote to the then profound and disruptive eruption in industrial activity and in knowledge across science and culture. He was suggesting that whatever life throws up Man should remember this guiding ethos.

 

Luxe, Calme et Volupté

Matisse’s first painting in this sequence, the prologue, was his exploratory Luxe, Calme et Volupté (Luxury, calm and sensual pleasure) from summer of 1904 when he summered south with Paul Signac, the title coming from Charles Baudelaire’s poem, Invitation to a Voyage (1857), in which a man invites his lover to travel with him to “paradise” (“there is nothing but order and beauty, luxury, calm and sensual pleasure”.

Baudelaire (1821-67) was an inspirational cornerstone of Modernism in mid 19th C France, “credited with coining the term “modernity”. His poetry advocated a searing fearless no holds barred realism, ie that Man abandon all the trappings of tradition in facing the future, open eyed, and visionary.

Recourse by Matisse to this Baudelairean refain is an emphatic (and deliberate?) christening for his allegorical journey, first by pointedly “inviting” his viewers to do just that, to join him in his painting journey, and second, to outline succinctly his overarching polemical theme from the beginning, ie to look on the bright side.

 

Le bonheur de vivre

Following Matisse finally capturing the critics’ attention for his Fauve “explosion”, the year after he delivered, at age 35, arguably his most famous painting, the large, striking, pioneering and ambiguous Le bonheur de vivre (Oct.1905 – March 1906). Befitting its import it was the only painting he showed at the (April) 1906 Salon des Independants, where in due recognition of its importance it was generally greeted with reserve or scorn.

 

This is arguably Matisse’s most famous and important painting, more so even than Dance.

It was his only submission to the (April) 1906 Salon des Indépendants, and obviously it was noticed, for its size and its shift in style and, in particular, its enigmatic content. Important critics like Charles Morice and Louis Vauxcelles were reserved, Jean Tavernier “generally favourable”, and painter Paul Signac “one of the most vituperative critics”!

The painting was soon bought by the perceptive Gertrude Stein in Paris, and later acquired by the keen and well-resourced American collector Albert Barnes, who then did not allow its reproduction in colour, thus inhibiting wider appreciation of the image. The Steins had displayed the painting prominently at their Paris base, where Picasso soon saw it, understood its pioneering impact.

The painting is an ambitious blockbuster, which opened Matisse’s core allegorical flourish, first called “My Arcadia”.

First and obviously it is large.  And secondly the style and content leaves the Fauves period far behind, now reflecting a thinking Matisse, showing a wide range of influences.

Strikingly it is one of Matisse’s few imaginative paintings, depicting not some real scene but a purely fictive assemblage.

It uses bold colors but not in a coarse brushed Fauvist fashion, rather in a pattern of delineated colour patches which in the top half of the painting looks forward to the cursive colorful abstraction of Kandinsky.

Below we see naked leisuring in a mysterious landscape, a scattering of figures or groups of figures which for the most part do not interact.

Some of the figures recall Cezanne’s various paintings of Bathers. It was painted before the major Cezanne retrospective at the Sep. 1907 Paris Salon d’Automne so Matisse would not have seen Cezanne’s famous final three versions of Les Grandes Baigneuses/ The Large Bathers (all 1905-06).

But he would have seen earlier smaller versions, eg at the 1904 Salon d’Automne (October 15–November 15, four Baigneuse / Baigneurs works, from 1876-77 to c 1890) and again in 1905 Salon d’Automne (October 18–November 25, one work). Also he had earlier exposure to Cezanne, viz the 1895 show at dealer Vollard’s, after which, in 1899 he bought a Cezanne (Trois Baigneuses) from Vollard.

The content draws widely for inspiration such that no single interptretation can be sustained.

Most scholars (eg Jack Flam, 1986) agree the work closely relates to the Symbolist poet Stéphane Mallarme’s (1842-98) poem Apres-midi d’un faun,his best-known work and a landmark in the history of Symbolism in French literature.” Matisse was well aware of Mallarme, influenced by Baudelaire but who moved on, especially in developing a new language which avoids the objective, is allusive, offering “suggestion without explanation”. “This complex abandonment appears in Flaubert’s free indirect style and, later, in Surrealism’s automatic writing” (Ewa Zubek). Later Matisse returned to Mallarme with his important French window , Collioure, in late 1914.

Testifying to the popularity of the subject many painters are suggested by the painting.

Perhaps most obvious is Edouard Manet with his famous Dejeuner sur les herbes (1863), which had caused a sensation when displayed in Paris and is a candidate for the first painting of “modern art”.

Alfred Barr also points to the long lived JAD Ingres (1780-1867) who had a major retrospective hanging at the 1905 Salon d’Automne, where Matisse would in particular have seen his Golden Age (1862), and also Odalisque with slave (1839-40).

Another important and influential recent French painter was Puvis de Chavannes (1824-98), ostensibly old fashioned, who overlapped the Impressionists who did not modernize his style like them, yet whose work had a pervasive influence on modernist art. Thus he developed an allegorical Neo-Romantic mindset which commingled the real and the timeless transcendental, which Matisse adopted in Le Bonheur de vivre.

Jonathan Jones (Guardian, 20 Jan.2008) sees Matisse saluting JMW Turner, particularly his Apullia in Search of Appullus (1814) and The Golden Bough , Exhibited (1834), which art Matisse saw in London on honeymoon in 1898.

Also “James B. Cuno and Thomas Puttfarken suggest that the inspiration for the work was Agostino Carracci’s (1557 – 1602) engraving of “Reciproco Amore” or Love in the Golden Age, after the same named painting (1585-89) by the 16th-century Flemish painter Pauwels Franck (c1540-96)” (Wiki).

It can also call on Titian (1490-1576) for his Pastoral Concert (c1509), which also impacted Manet’s 1863 Le déjeuner sur l’herbe, and his Bacchanal of the Andrians (1523-26); on Lucas Cranach the Elder (c.1472 – 1553) for The Golden Age (c1530), two versions, both showing a circle of dancers, an cavorting couples; and “Watteau, Poussin, Japanese woodcuts, Persian miniatures and 19th century Orientalist images of harems (cf Ingres’s “La Grand Odalisque”)..” (Art Story).

 

In the wake of Le bonheur de vivre: Blue nude.

Later in 1906, the year of Le bonheur de vivre, Matisse’s submission to the November Salon d’Automne was unremarkable, 5 paintings, including Marguerite reading (1906) and 3 still lives, but not either of the Young sailor.

But at the (April) 1907 Salon des Independants he revisited the shock he caused at the 1905 Salon d’Automne by showing his Blue Nude (of Biskra), triggering another furore. The muscular Rubensesque reclining nude responded to the luxuriant sub-tropical Biskra oasis in Algeria, but also to recently encountered “Primitive” / African art.

 

Picasso soon saw Le Bonheur, understood its pioneering impact. Some suggest it may have jolted him, helped impel his radical statement in his momentous mid 1907 Demoiselles d’Avignon. Picasso’s style certainly shifted markedly in 1906 after his Blue Period from c1901, as he developed more stylised simplified faces, eg in his self portrait of that year, and his portrait of Gertrude Stein. Then Matisse’s Blue Nude, shown April 1907 was a further stimulus.

However the detailed content of Demoiselles, drew on a range of sources, especially ancient Iberian sculpture (he knew from Spain) as well as African art (seen in Paris). But he also drew on Cezanne (like Matisse), Paul Gauguin (his sculpture and painting, eg following a big Gauguin show at the 1903 Salon d’Automne, and another in 1906), also on El Greco (his Opening on the Fifth Seal).

Demoiselles was a shock. It was very big (2.4 x 2.3 metres) and very confronting. It was slow to emerge publically, was not shown until 1916. But his painting associates quickly saw it.  Braque and Derain were initially puzzled, then supportive. The dealer D-H Kahnweiler was impressed.

But Matisse was unimpressed, was “fighting mad” at Picasso’s “hideous whores”, and also annoyed at losing the limelight to Picasso? Who then charged on by 1908 into (with Braque) full blown Cubism, and beyond.

Demoiselles was radical, and more so than Matisse, in its blunt content, depicting prostitutes, and overtly mixing European and African imagery. The wry title came from (approving) critic Andre Salmon, displacing Picasso’s Le Bordel d’Avignon!

 

Dance and Music

Then came a break for Matisse early 1909 when Moscow merchant Shchukin commissioned paintings for his palatial residence and Matisse unfurled a pair of masterpieces, Dance and Music, paintings breathtaking in their simple but profound message, in their presentation: pared stylized bold images, in “blazing” coloured simplicity, and large. The package

For Dance Matisse homes in on a detail in Le Bonheur, the small circle of dancers in the middle ground, and taps, borrows from a range of other painters. Thus the sculptural bodies of the dancing figures again recall Cezanne. And the figures also reflect the then new awareness in “primitive” African art (ie especially wooden sculpture), also impacting Derain, Vlaminck and Picasso. Around 1906 they saw works in museums (especially the Trocadero in Paris, also in London for Derain), in shops, in cafes.

But in Dance the flat simplified compositions, against a stark blue and green backdrop also recall Giotto’s frescoes?

Jonathan Jones (Guardian, 20 Jan. 2008) makes a case for Matisse citing images from JMW Turner (particularly Apullia in Search of Appullus (1814) and The Golden Bough (exhibited (1834)), whose art Matisse saw in London, 1898, where he may also have seen William Blake’s Oberon, Titania and Puck with Fairies Dancing.

 

Similar allegorical works from 1904-06 by colleague Andre Derain (1880-1954) Like 1906’s The dance) may also have touched Matisse.

 

Befitting their pioneering “shocking” implications, the two paintings, unveiled at the 1910 Salon d’Autumne, were roundly criticised, by the critics and the public.

However despite the shock of his presentational style Matisse’s allegorical journey stayed well within the Western tradition, especially in him developing his ideas through a Classical pastoral template.

The wider context: Dance and Music

The timeless notion of couples, groups engaging through dancing resonates with TS Eliot’s (1888-1965) depictions in East Coker:

                        In that open field

If you do not come too close, if you do not come too close,

On a summer midnight, you can hear the music

Of the weak pipe and the little drum

And see them dancing around the bonfire

The association of man and woman

In daunsinge, signifying matrimonie –

A dignified and commodious sacrament.

Two and two, necessarye coniunctiuon,

Holding eche other by the hand or arm

Whiche betokeneth concorde. Round and round the fire

Leaping through the flames, or joined in circles,

Rustically solemn or in rustic laughter

Lifting heavy feet in clumsy shoes,

Earth feet, loam feet, lifted in country mirth

Mirth of those long since under earth.

This is ironic for there are two broad alternative available philosophical responses to Nietzsche’s Death of God, then the horrors of the first half of the 20th C: cling fast to delusional resort to self-serving self-medicating fabricated religious belief, ie to therapeutic religious artifice, or Man standing on his own feet, facing the facts, throwing away the God crutches and taking intellectual responsibility in contemplating his predicament.

Eliot clung to the former, worried about “the decay of sacred authority”, posing “a crisis of community” (Prof. Langdon Hammer, Yale).

 

But speaking of poets, Wallace Stevens (1879-1955) on the other hand chose the latter, saw the predicament of (modern) Man as an opportunity (like Hart Crane, and Lucretius and the Epicureans), and thought “.. modernity shows us that the truth of religion was always a fiction, a fundamentally poetic construction…”.  Thus Stevens’ approach through his poetry is one more individual’s approach to life after the Death of God (7).

 

And one might argue that Matisse was a fellow traveller. Stevens, like Matisse, argued for Man taking the wheel, and in particular saw poetry as “a means of redemption”. So poetry can be the “supreme fiction”.

Arguably art can lend a hand, is a vehicle of cultural expression suited to the same task.

Stevens was keen on art, especially the two Pauls, Klee and Cezanne, and in the tradition of Ut pictura poesis (“as is painting, so is poetry”, cf Horace) saw poetry and painting as fraternal cultural endeavours, both bringing “imagination” to the task of, in this case, Man confronting his predicament through curiosity and wonder, without delusional religious artifice, centred on some fabricated deity.

The Hartford wordsmith wrote (1934, at Key West, before going a round with Hemingway, wrote of his chanteuse in The Idea of Order at Key West:

She was the single artificer of the world

In which she sang. And when she sang, the sea,   

Whatever self it had, became the self

That was her song, for she was the maker.

 

Matisse’ art fits this same category. He is another artificer of “Order”.

 

And Stevens in “Angel Surrounded by Paysans” (1949):

I am the angel of reality,
Seen for a moment standing in the door.
…….

 

I am one of you and being one of you
Is being and knowing what I am and know.
Yet
I am the necessary angel of earth,
Since, in my sight,
you see the earth again,
Cleared of its stiff and stubborn, man-locked set

 

Notes

(6) Matisse is reported as saying “Always the cubes, the little cubes” (Jack Flam,1986). The critic Louis Vauxcelles (the same critic who coined Fauves after the same show in 1905!) commented on the 1908 Salon d’Automne: “M. Braque scorns form and reduces everything, sites, figures and houses, to geometric schemas and cubes.”.

(7) Peter Watson runs through candidates in The Age of Atheism: How We Have Sought to Live Since the Death of God, Peter Watson, Simon & Schuster, 2014. 626 pp.

6/ WW1: c1914-17: the first “crisis”. WW1 tips Matisse – jolted by Cubism and abstraction – into the experimental, reflective “black period”.

For Matisse the unexpected sudden and calamitous outbreak of war in 1914 abruptly reinforced a distinctive period of idiosyncratic personal quasi-abstraction underway fitfully before the war, particularly in response to the momentous Cubist and Abstractionist revolutions.

The combination of shocks brought forth works in the period c1911-16 (cityscapes, interiors, portraits, some landscapes, and sculptures like his ”Back” reliefs) quite unlike those on either side.

For Matisse personally this period was hard going, psychologically arduous, though obviously less arduous than for his colleagues like Braque, Derain etc who were called up for active war service, for which Matisse at 45 was too old.

In 1914 he summered at Collioure, 1915 and 1916 he was resident mainly in Paris, 1917 he moved to Nice where he caught up with the ageing Renoir (then 76, ie 28 yrs older) at nearby Cagnes.

 

The importance of the period was recognised in a recent (2010) exhibition by MOMA / Art Institute of Chicago, Radical Invention (1913-1917). As MOMA’s introduction wrote: In the time between .. Matisse’s.. return from Morocco in [April] 1913 and his departure for Nice in 1917, the artist produced some of the most demanding, experimental, and enigmatic works of his career—paintings that are abstracted and rigorously purged of descriptive detail, geometric and sharply composed, and dominated by shades of black and gray.”

 

However the sudden and near totally unexpected onset of Continental conflict, renewed war with Germany, did provoke an abrupt shift in Matisse’s art. After a tantalising hint in Notre-Dame, une fin d’après-midi (1902), he was suddenly persuaded by the outbreak of war to dive much deeper into abstraction.

From late 1914 through 1917 emerged a series of suddenly bolder quasi-abstractionist works, especially the near completely abstract French Window at Collioure (Porte-fenêtre à Collioure) (c Oct. 1914), which obviously anticipates later abstraction approaches and which is a striking reaction to the outbreak of war. It may have been influenced by him meeting there then his friend Juan Gris, the Cubist painter.

Other striking works were the evocative View of Notre-Dame (spring 1914), Le rideau jaune (The Yellow Curtain) (1915), and finally the monumental The Piano Lesson (late summer 1916), father painting his son, another response to the war, large (near 2 x 2.5 metres) and emotionally powerful.

All four are successful excursions, and all involve windows.

 

Three other later works are more complicated:

a/ Still Life After Jan Davidsz. de Heem’s ‘La Desserte (summer-fall 1915). A half-hearted dip into Cubist country?

b/ The Moroccans (Les Marocains) (late 1915 to autumn 1916). This is a complex memory play from his visits to North Africa,

and c/ Bathers by a River (1909-1916.This was executed in three bursts, March–May 1909, fall 1909–spring 1910, May–November 1913, early spring–November 1916, January–October 1917). It is another thoughtful ambiguous work, again using Primitivist Cezannesque bathers, now more abstract and against a stylised abstract background. He laboured on this work but maybe tried too hard? The work is large like The Dance, but does not deliver a simple powerful comprehensible message.

 

The meaning of all these “war” works is debated, though many observers generally agree that the colour black is an important thread, a colour he employed in near all the paintings, and for perhaps obvious reasons?

 

One of Matisse’s later wartime paintings, Interior with a Violin (1917-18), seems to pair with the French window at Collioure he painted in 1914, soon after the guns opened. But the later painting now hints at impending relent from the violence? Now the view is out of the window not in, and there is light outside, albeit through the shutters (at Nice), and the violin (music) awaits its recall to civilised peacetime duties.

And then finally in Violinist at the window (1918), also painted in Nice, we see the violin being played at an open window, like Matisse can see peace ahead an like the “faceless” violinist (Matisse was a violinist) is a reference to the unknown soldier,

7/ Portraits to 1918: generally drawing on the pared, stylised “Primitive”.

Matisse painted few portraits before his Fauvist breakthrough c1905, notably two self portraits in 1900, both conventional.

Then three striking 1905 portraits change the game, one of his younger Fauve colleague André Derain, and two of his wife. All three are busts, using bold raucous broad brushed colour.

Thereafter, recalling the influence of African masks and his 1908 comment: “the simplest means are those which best enable an artist to express himself”, Matisse retreated from the busier 1905 style and the pared simple “Primitive” face became the hallmark of near all his portraits through to 1918, generally against neutral or abstract backgrounds. Two stand out for having decorative backdrops.

Of these the 1914 portrait of Yvonne Landsberg is the most abstract or stylised.

The two versions of his portrait of Auguste Pellerin – before and after – illustrate well Matisse’s modernistic approach.

All his portraits have little to do with Cubism, but he does lean towards abstraction.

8/ Post WW1: Matisse relaxes, returns to naturalistic “decorative” figuration.

After the “Good Life” allegorical sequence was completed around 1912, and once the disruptive jolt of WW1 passed, Matisse appeared to relax from his objective polemical endeavours, and return to “pretty pictures”, back to colourful naturalistic figuration.

However all his later work seems to at least loosely align with his grand theme of delineating a personal Golden Age.

There were lots of women, especially the many exotic odalisques, mainly through the 1920s, generally set in lush colourful interiors.

But there were also plenty dressed, conventional, again in colourful decorative settings. The ladies may be seen as “bourgeois metaphors for an Islamic Garden of Delights”. (Golding, LRB, 1985)

Through the 1930s some paintings became more adventurous, more stylised, flattened, but still colourful and elaborately decorative. Like his “Blouse” series, eg Romanian blouse (1937). And like Woman in a Purple Coat (1937), Woman in blue (1937), and La musique (1939).

Also in the mid 1930s we see simpler sparer works like Pink nude (1935) and The Dream (1935) which clearly speak of Picasso.

One distinctive work (The arm (1938)) is nearly completely abstract.

A handful of works try harder, offering a narrative, like the two piano works in the 1920s, both busy decorative images recalling The painter’s family (1912), and particularly the nostalgic, reflective 1947 The Silence that Lives in Houses, one of his last paintings.

There were some unremarkable landscapes and many still lives, especially later during the 1940s.

 

9/ Post WW2: the disruptive second “crisis” compels Matisse to innovate through decoupage (cut-outs).

Matisse’s popular famous Cut-outs, his great papiers decoupés, the endearing final flourish of the old ailing artist can be viewed as a final leg of his aesthetic journey to Baudelaire’s world of luxe, calme et volupté.

It’s ironic that just as WW1 – Matisse’s first “crisis” – had suddenly disrupted the artist’s career and provoked some compellingly different works so did WW2 coincide with his second unexpected “crisis”, now his ailing health, which provoked a second productive swerve in his oeuvre.

His second “crisis” started 1939 when WW2 commenced and also when “a bitter separation dispute with his wife meant that by late summer 1939 everything on his studio walls had been taken down, crated and stored in bank cellars for lawyers to fight over.” (Spurling, 2014). Then in 1941 he near died from an operation, became invalided, in Nice. 1943 his daughter Margurite (subject for many of his paintings) was captured and tortured by the Gestapo at Rennes, later railed east to Ravensbruck Camp, but escaped. Then the Germans invaded southern France and fighting in Nice forced him to Vence, in the hills to the northwest.

In 1943 he commenced his cut-outs. Being invalided he could no longer paint, was reduced to découpage (“cut-outs”), collage works made of painted cut out paper shapes.

This restricted art method was used to express the thoughts of an old (mid 70s) experienced artist whose country was at war again, whose family was threatened, and who as an old sick man was approaching death.

The decoupage / cut-outs (c1943-53, age 74-84) were  marked by broad, flat geometric colouration, quasi to total Color Field abstraction. Ironically the beguiling simplicity of these images, some very large, was driven by his ailing manual dexterity.

There is a clear stylistic break with the Cut-outs but arguably the works fit with the rest of Matisse’s long previous oeuvre.

They are all realistic, all given specific titles, but some like The bees (1948) and The snail (1953) could be fully abstract.

The subjects are diverse: ranging from banal observations like a boat or a snail, to memories, like a recollection of the Pacific, to serious reflection over a long career, especially the large (near 3 x 4 metres) elaborate colourful abstract work titled Sorrows of the King (1952), which is an elaborate, moving, final self portrait.

The decoupage works were prescient, looking ahead to “Minimalism Conceptualism..  an aesthetic based on immateriality and flux.” (Cotter, NY Times, 2014).

Finally he was persuaded to help decorate the chapel at Vence, Chapel of the Rosary, the idea born 1948.

 

ATTACHED:  Outline of life

He was born 1869 in far north France (Le Cateau-Cambrésis). From a family of weavers, his father was a grain merchant who ran a hardware, his capable, supportive mother (Amélie Parayre) from a family of tanners. He was raised (till 10) in the important industrial textile centre of Bohain-en-Vermandois.

He studied law in Paris 1887-88, but 1890 (21) decided on art -against his stern father’s advice – when recovering from an appendectomy.

He began art study 1891, initially at Ecole des Arts decoratifs (where he met Albert Marquet) then to Académie Julian with conservative Academician Adolphe-Guillaume Bouguereau, just after Serisier left with Vuillard / Bonnard / Denis, but briefly there too. That year the Salon des Independants showed 16 Van Gogh works, the year after he died.

In 1892 he was copying at the Louvre (favouring “subtle colorists”like Poussin and Chardin, and Watteau, versus say Rubens and Delacroix).

Then importantly he met painter Gustave Moreau, by chance in the courtyard at Ecole des Beaux Arts. He then studied with Moreau for 6 ½ years, thereby also meeting Georges Rouault and Manguin.

1892 there was another hanging of Van Gogh, by a dealer.

From 1894 (till 1908) he painted from a 5th floor studio at 19 Quai Saint-Michel, by the Seine, on the Left Bank, view east to Notre-Dame.

March 1895 he was accepted at Ecole des Beaux-Arts (after failing entry in 1892) and that year saw a large Cezanne show (150 canvases) at Vollard’s Paris gallery.

He painted in Brittany briefly in 1895, again in 1896 and 1897, his 3rd trip.

Winter 1896/ 97 he met Camille Pissarro who now displaced Moreau as an important mentor.

He visited London 1898, soon after marrying Amélie Parayre, a “raven-haired southerner” from near Toulouse, (on January 8th), where on Pissarro’s advice he saw JMW Turner’s work.

Soon after returning to France they spent several months on Corsica, till about August. He also read Signac’s text.

In 1899 he acquired from Vollard Cezanne’s Trois baigneuses. Following Moreau’s death (April 1898) he worked in the studios of Fernand Cormon, and Eugene Carriere for a short while, there meeting Andre Derain.

1901 Derain introduced him to Vlaminck at Bernheim-Jeune Gallery Van Gogh retrospective exhibition, the year he first showed at Salon des Independents, after which his father cut off his allowance.

1903 He first showed at the Salon d’Automne, and his personal life was upended when his parents in law were “innocently but intimately connected” wih the Humbert financial swindle.

June 1904 his first one man show opened at Vollard’s, was received quietly, Vollard unenthusiastic. He summered Saint-Tropez, with Signac, and 1905, after showing Luxe, calme et volupté at the Salon des Independants he summered at Collioure with Derain.

1906 he showed Le Bonheur de vivre at Salon des Independants. He visited Biskra in Algeria (2 weeks), and Collioure again. Through Gertrude Stein (with brothers Leo and Michael) he met Picasso in April, also the Cone sisters, Claribel and Etta, who would also collect him (and Picasso), like Michael’s wife Sarah.

Gertrude Stein regularly (Saturday evening) hosted art gatherings, also involving Picasso, Braque, Derain, and critic Guillaume Apollonaire.

In 1906 he also met Sergei Shchukin. And he bought his first African sculpture. And Galerie Druet arranged a (successful) one man exhibition.

1907 From mid July he visited Italy, the Steins in Florence (Fiesole), thence Arezzo, Padua (important, seeing Giotto’s pioneering frescoes), Sienna, Venice, returning to Collioure via the French coast (seeing Derain at Cassis, Friesz and Braque at La Ciotat and Manguiin at Saint-Tropez. He began teaching late in 1907.

In Italy Matisse relations with the Steins were now cooling. Gertrude and Matisse struggled from the start then Matisse noticed her growing appetite for Picasso. Leo was genuine but over-hosted Matisse?

Interviewed with G. Apollonaire, December 1907, he reflected on learning from others, “I have worked to enrich my mind… striving to ascertain the different thoughts of ancient and modern masters… I have never avoided the influence of others.” (“Matisse on Art”, Jack Flam).

1908 He opened a teaching atelier in January, which ran 3 years to911. Near all the students were foreigners (eg Max Weber).

Early 1908 Shchukin began collecting Matisse, also his friend Ivan Morosov.

Alfred Steiglitz arranged his first US show, at his gallery “291” in NY.

April he was shown in Moscow.

June Matisse visited Germany with Hans Purrmann, twice, to Speyer, Munich and Nuremberg.

Spring 1908 he left Quai Saint-Michel after 16 years there, moved to Hotel Biron at 33 boulevarde des Invalides.

Matisse entered a large number of works to the 1908 Salon d’Automne, including 11 paintings, to mixed reviews. Vauxcelles thought Blue still life “superb”, and liked his sculptures, but did not like the flat decorative style in Harmony in Red, ie did not appreciate Matisse’s progress.

Berlin did not like his works, shown late 1908 at Paul Cassirer’s gallery, there described by one as “monstrosities”, “ginger-cookie painting”, and “wallpaper”. Ageing German “Impressionist” painter Max Liebermann (1847-1935) “expressed fears for the corruption of German youth.. more interested in his dachshund than in Matisse’s paintings..” (Jack Flam, 1986).

‘Notes d’un Peintre’ (Notes of a Painter), Henri Matisse, ‘La Grande Revue’, Paris, 25 December 1908;

  • The simplest means are those which best enable an artist to express himself
  • A work of art must be harmonious in its entirety:
  • For me all is in the conception. I must therefore have a clear vision of the whole from the beginning.
  • What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and serenity, devoid of troubling or disturbing subject matter,
  • What interests me most is neither still life nor landscape but the human figure… through it.. I best succeed in expressing the nearly religious feeling that I have towards life.
  • A work of art must carry in itself its complete significance and impose it upon the beholder even before he can identify the subject-matter.

1909 He bought a house at Issy-les-Moulineaux, on SW side of Paris, settled in September. Moscow-based Russian businessman Shchukin commissioned La Danse and La Musique, and Nov. 1911 he visited Moscow.

1910 Retrospective at Bernheim-Jeune Gallery in February, most reviews unfavourable.

A second show in NY at 291 Gallery. He visited Munich with Marquet in October, much impressed by a major exhibition of Islamic art, just before the Salon d’Automne where he showed his iconic Music and Dance. His father died. He visited Spain mid November 1910 to mid January 1911, there keen to visit the old Islamic sites south.

1911 he summered at Collioure, visited Moscow November 1911, then wintered in Morocco, twice, 8 January to 14 April 1912, then 8 October 1912 to mid Feb. 1913, back to Paris via Corsica by April 1913.

1912, early, a NY show of his sculpture was not well received. In London Grafton Gallery mounted Roger Fry’s large second post-Impressionism show, including 18 paintings by Matisse (1903-1912).

Nasturtiums with “Dance”, hung at the Salon d‘Automne, offended prominent critic L Vauxcelles.

1913 He showed Moroccan paintings at Bernheim-Jeune. Showed in NY’s famous Armory display, and had another show there in 1915. He showed at the Berlin Secession.

1914, January, he returned to 19 Quai Saint-Michel (one floor below his studio of 1894-1907). Back in Paris he saw Gris, Metziner, the Italian Futurist Gino Severini, and Picasso. After the war started he visited Collioure with his family and Marquet, there also met Juan Gris.

1915 He summered at Arachon (near Bordeaux), showed in NY and visited Marseilles in November with Marquet.

1916 He worked in Paris and at Issy.

Autumn 1917 he headed south to Marseilles, thence Nice from mid-December, wintering at Hotel Beau-Rivage. 1917 he met Monet?

1918 He showed jointly with Picasso at Paul Guillaume’s gallery, visited Renoir and Bonnard south.

1920 He summered at Étretat, on Normandy coast, limestone cliffs popular with Monet et al. Moved between Nice and Paris. Also he designeed ”the sets and costumes for Diaghilev’s ballet, Le Chant du rossignol, with music by Stravinsky”.

1921 He “established a permanent residence at 1 Place Charles-Félix [till 1938] in Nice .. 3rd floor apartment .. views of both the town and the Promenade des Anglais… the site of some of his most ambitious paintings completed in the 1920s [Henriette Darricarrère modelled 1920-27]” (Sothebys). “.. Henriette excelled at role-playing and had a theatrical presence that fueled the evolution of Matisse’s art. Earlier, Lorette and Antoinette had initiated the exotic odalisque fantasy, but it was Henriette whose personality seems to have been most receptive.” (Jack Cowan).

1924 Major retrospective in Copenhagen. Son Pierre set up a gallery in NY.

1925 Again to Italy. Son Pierre arranged another NY show in 1927 and 1930 he spent 3 months in Tahiti calling at New York and San Francisco. In the US he visited Albert Barnes, 1931 he has shows in Paris, Basel and NY (MOMA). 1933 he completes the Barnes mural, visited Venice and Padua (saw Giotto’s frescoes).

1929 Met Lydia Delectorskaya, a young Russian lady who became his principal model and studio assistant until his death in 1954.

1930 Worked on prints to illustrate Poesies by Stephane Mallarme for a Swiss publisher.

1931 Retrospective at MOMA, NY. His son Pierre opened a gallery on Manhattan, focusing on moern European painters.

1937 Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes commission a new set from him for Rouge et Noir”.

1938 He moved to Hotel Regina in Nice suburb of Cimiez, which becomes his main final studio.

1941 He near died from a cancer operation at Lyons, invalided thereafter, at Nice. His aughter Marguerite nearly died. Working with the Resistance she was captured, tortured and sent to Ravensbruck, but escaped from the train.

1943 he was hurried out of Cimiez by an air raid, moved to Villa le Rêve, Dream House. at nearby Vence, for 5 years, starting his cut outs (découpage) for Jazz.

  1. 1944. His wife and daughter are arrested for involvement in the Resistance. Matisse, who has stayed in the South of France, illustrates Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du mal.
  2. 1947. Jazz is published.
  3. 1948. Began work on the decoration of the Chapelle du Rosaire for the Dominican nuns at Vence.
  4. 1952. He established a museum at the town of his birth.

1954 He died 3 November, of a heart attack.

  1. 1966. Important UCLA retrospective. First public view of French window (1914)
  2. 1970. Exhibition at Grand Palais, Paris. “ the Exposition du Centenaire brought together in the Grand Palais a large proportion of the greatest Matisses in France, America, and Russia to make the finest display of Matisse’s art to date”.

1986 NGA Washington, Henri Matisse: The Early Years in Nice 1916-1930

1990 US and USSR, “Matisse in Morocco: The Paintings and Drawings 1912-1913,”

  1. 1992. Major retrospective, MOMA, NY.

2005 Royal Academy (UK), Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY. Matisse: The Fabric of Dreams – His Art and His Textiles.

2007 exhibition, Matisse: Painter as Sculptor, 2007-08
2009 Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, exhibition Matisse: 1917-1941,

2010 MOMA Matisse: Radical Invention, 1913–1917

2013 Metropolitan Museum of Art show. Matisse: In Search of True Painting.

2014 Cut outs shown Tate, MOMA

Some works………………

 1/ Matisse’s pioneering grand allegorical sequence on the communal “Good Life”, and its apotheosis, Dance

 03

Spring 1910, Dance II, oil on canvas, 260 cm × 391 cm, Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg.

COMMENT: the second and final version. It is the same size as Dance I but differs clearly through the brighter, bolder colouring (particularly the bright vermillion figures), more clearly delineated or modelled figures, and in the denser applied paint.

Painted by Matisse, together with Music (1910) for Russian businessman and art collector Sergei Shchukin.

COMMENT: Early 1909 wealthy businessman Sergei Shchukin commissioned Matisse for three large scale canvases to decorate the spiral staircase of his mansion, the Trubetskoy Palace, in Moscow.

Dance (II) and Music are breathtaking paintings in their their simple but profound message, their presentation: pared stylized bold “blazing” coloured simplicity, and their size. The package.

The idea of the circle of dancers apprears in Le Bonheur de vivre (1905-06). But here it is highlighted: isolated, simplified, emboldened.

The composition or arrangement of dancing figures is reminiscent of William Blake‘s watercolour “Oberon, Titania and Puck with fairies dancing” (1786)… The painting is often associated with the “Dance of the Young Girls” from Igor Stravinsky’s The Rite of Spring.” (Wiki).

The style and strong colours in the paintings also clearly recall frescoes Matisse had seen in Italy?

The simplicity brings ambiguity. Is the blue colour depicting water or sky? The green a hilltop or grass by a lake?

Some observers also get excited by the break in the circle of hands, by the foreground pair.

Reception? The paintings, Dance and Music were Matisse’s only entries to the 1910 Salon d’Automne, to which Matisse returned 14th October from Munich.

They “shocked the public and critics alike”. Critics were harsh, except the lone Apollonaire. To the extent that Mr Shchukin “began to lose heart”, decided to reject the works, then changed his mind!

Matisse was further stressed when his father died soon after his arrival back in Paris.

04

1910, Music (La Musique), 260 cm × 389 cm, Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg.

COMMENT: Also painted for Moscow. Again a very large painting, near 3 x 4 metres, in the same simple pared flat colourful style as DanceMusic pairs with Dance, the same size and in the same style. And in content: Music supplies the music and audience for Dance.

 

The coda

  05

Summer 1912, Nasturtiums with the Painting “Dance” II, oil on canvas, 190.5 x 114 cm, Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow.

COMMENT: this image elaborates importantly on the theme of Dance, here extending its franchise, democratizing its relevance, by importing it straight into the domestic living room, a familiar venue for Matisse.

To emphasize the intersection Matisse injects a vase of unruly bright flowers (a favourite domestic still life subject) into the heart of the image, where it integrates with the Dance, like it might even become the revellers’ Maypole. And in fact the two hands meeting over th vase in the second version fit this interpretation better than in the first..

Matisse painted these two versions in Paris, in his new (1909) studio at Issy-les-Moulineaux, after his first visit to Morocco, January to April 1912.

The second was bought by Shchukin, after being shown at the 1912 Salon d’Automne, so in Moscow at Shchukin’s house it joined the famous Dance painting

The first version was one of the first paintings by Matisse seen in America, shown with 12 other works at the famous Armory show in New York in 1913. And it stayed in America, later (1923) purchased by one of America’s important promoters of modernism, Scofield Thayer, co-owner and editor of The Dial magazine, 1919 to 1925, in which Thayer presented many modern works of art, and many of them from his own collection

 

Precursors / associates (c1900-16)

 

06

1900, Male model, 73 x 99 cm, MOMA

COMMENT: This striking painting depicting a bold “sculptural” figure shows Matisse feeding off Cezanne’s figures. It is based on Matisse’s The Serf, his “first important original sculpture”, a 95cm high bronze, started in 1900, the year he met and worked with Auguste Rodin, but not finished till c1906.

07

1904-05, Luxe, Calme et Volupté  (Luxury, calm and sensual pleasure),  oil, 98.5 cm × 118.5 cm, Musée National d’Art Moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris.

COMMENT: The title of this important painting is taken from the refrain of Charles Baudelaire’s poem, Invitation to a Voyage (1857), a man invites his lover to travel with him to paradise (“there is nothing but order and beauty, luxury, calm and sensual pleasure”).

Recourse by Matisse to this Baudelairean refain is an emphatic start for his allegorical journey with painting, first by pointedly “inviting” his viewers to do just that, and second, to outline his overarching polemical theme from the beginning.

Obviously the Neo-Impressionist style reflects the Pointillism of his summer host at Saint-Tropez, Paul Signac (1863-1935), and its founder the enigmatic Georges Seurat (1859-1891).

Work started on the painting at Saint Tropez, where Matisse and his wife summered with Paul Signac and Henri –Edmond Cross, and uses the landscape from the coast there.

 

 08

October 1905 and March 1906, Le bonheur de vivre (Joy of life), Oil on canvas, 176.5 cm × 240.7 cm, Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

COMMENT: This is arguably Matisse’s most famous painting, more so than Dance.

It was his only submission to the (April) 1906 Salon des Indépendants, and obviously it was noticed, for its size and its shift in style and, in particular, its enigmatic content. Important critics like Charles Morice and Louis Vauxcelles were reserved, Jean Tavernier “generally favourable”, and painter Paul Signac “one of the most vituperative critics”!

The painting was soon bought by the perceptive Gertrude Stein in Paris, and later acquired by the keen and well-resourced American collector Albert Barnes, who then did not allow its reproduction in colour, thus inhibiting wider appreciation of the image. The Steins had displayed the painting prominently at their Paris base, where Picasso soon saw it, understood its pioneering impact.

The painting is an ambitious blockbuster, which opened Matisse’s core allegorical flourish, first called “My Arcadia”.

First and obviously it is large.  And secondly the style and content leaves the Fauves period far behind, now reflecting a thinking Matisse, showing a wide range of influences.

Strikingly it is one of Matisse’s few imaginative paintings, depicting not some real scene but a purely fictive assemblage.

It uses bold colors but not in a coarse brushed Fauvist fashion, rather in a pattern of delineated colour patches which in the top half of the painting looks forward to the cursive colorful abstraction of Kandinsky.

Below we see naked leisuring in a mysterious landscape, a scattering of figures or groups of figures which for the most part do not interact. Some of the figures recall Cezanne’s various paintings of Bathers. Matisse could not have seen Cezanne’s famous final three versions of Les Grandes Baigneuses/ The Large Bathers (all 1905-06), but he would have seen earlier smaller versions, eg at the 1904 Salon d’Automne (October 15–November 15, four Baigneuse / Baigneurs works, from 1876-77 to c 1890) and again in 1905 Salon d’Automne (October 18–November 25, one work).

The content draws widely for inspiration such that no single interptretation can be sustained.

Most scholars (eg Jack Flam, 1986) agree the work closely relates to the Symbolist poet Stéphane Mallarme’s (1842-98) poem Apres-midi d’un faun,his best-known work and a landmark in the history of Symbolism in French literature.” Matisse was well aware of Mallarme, influenced by Baudelaire but who moved on, especially in developing a new language which avoids the objective, is allusive, offering “suggestion without explanation”. “This complex abandonment appears in Flaubert’s free indirect style and, later, in Surrealism’s automatic writing” (Ewa Zubek). Later Matisse returned to Mallarme with his important French window , Collioure, in late 1914.

Many painters are suggested by the painting, perhaps starting most obviously with Edouard Manet’s famous Dejeuner sur les herbes (1863), which had caused a sensation when displayed in Paris and is a candidate for the first painting of “modern art”.

Alfred Barr also points to the long lived JAD Ingres (1780-1867) who had a major retrospective hanging at the 1905 Salon d’Automne, where Matisse would in particular have seen his Golden Age (1862), and also Odalisque with slave (1839-40).

Jonathan Jones (Guardian, 20 Jan.2008) sees Matisse saluting JMW Turner, particularly his Apullia in Search of Appullus (1814) and The Golden Bough , Exhibited (1834), which art Matisse saw in London on honeymoon in 1898.

Also “James B. Cuno and Thomas Puttfarken suggest that the inspiration for the work was Agostino Carracci’s (1557 – 1602) engraving of “Reciproco Amore” or Love in the Golden Age, after the same named painting (1585-89) by the 16th-century Flemish painter Pauwels Franck (c1540-96)” (Wiki).

And it calls too on Titian’s Bacchanal of the Andrians (1523-26)

But it also draws on “Watteau, Poussin, Japanese woodcuts, Persian miniaturesand 19th century Orientalist images of harems (cf Ingres’s “La Grand Odalisque”)..” (Art Story).

 09

Early 1907, Blue Nude (Nu bleu, Souvenir de Biskra), oil on canvas, 92.1 cm × 140.3 cm, Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore, MD, USA. COMMENT: This important painting derived from from a sculpture he worked on at Colloure: Reclining nude I (bronze, 1907, approx. 50 x 28cm,x 35cm high), in turn based on one of the three reclining figures in the centre of Le Bonheur etc (1906).

Near Collioure he visited Aristide Maillol (1861-1944), based at Banyuls (just north of Collioure), who having commenced as a painter was then embarked on his own important career as a sculptor, eg following his successful Seated woman (1902).

It was the only painting Matisse sent to the (April) 1907 Salon des Independants where again he caused a storm, offended the critics, especially the familiar Louis Vauxcelles, now worried by the ugly, the deformed.  Later, in 1913, the painting caused a similar uproar in the US, during the Armory show in NY and Chicago (where was burned in effigy by art students!?).

However it stirred Picasso, allegedly causing him to adjust (“toughen up”, R. Smith, NY Times, 2010) his then underway iconic blockbuster (234 x 244cm) Demoiselles d’Avignon  completed mid 1907.

The Steins bought it, their last Matisse purchase.

The bold confronting muscular Rubens-like nude salutes the recently departed Cezanne but pushes much further.

Matisse remembered the life force in the lush sub-tropical Biskra oasis, recently seen in Algeria, the same oasis remarked on in these terms by Andre Gide (Jack Flam, 1986).

And he addresses directly the female nude in Western art, the twin poles of the erotic and the procreative, the mother-figure.

Thus the Louvre had just (provocatively) hung Manet’s Olympia alongside Ingres’s Grande Odalisque. And Venus-like nudes were popular in conventional Salon painting. But Matisse’s lady is much rougher and tougher, drawing also on the then new interest in the “primitive”, like through African masks.

Matisse’s nude is an important cog in his allegorical journey towards Dance (in two versions) of 1910.

10

1907–08, Le Luxe II, distemper (casein), water-based medium akin to fresco, on canvas, 209.5 x 138 cm, Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen.

COMMENT: This is the first painting by Matisse depicting larger than life size figures. He prepared with sketches and a full size cartoon. It is “inspired no doubt by the frescoes he had seen in Italy” (Jack Flam, 1986), ie earlier that year, with the Steins. It reworks his recent Three bathers (1907, oil on canvas, 61 x 74cm, Minneapolis), in turn again drawing on Cezanne.

Again there are two versions, the distemper one being cleaner lined, sharper. The first version was hung at the 1907 Salon d‘Autumne.

But it may also reflect a Japanese print by 18th C Torii Kiyonaga.

The subject seems to allude to the famous Classical story of the birth of Venus, rising from the waters, her feet being dried, Flora approaching with flowers as greeting?

 

Some sources

11

Pierre Cécile Puvis de Chavannes (1824-98, 74) The Sacred Grove, Beloved of the Arts and the Muses, 1884/89, Oil on canvas, 93 x 231 cm, Art Institute of Chicago.

COMMENT: Puvis de Chavannes overlapped the Impressionists but his art style remained conventional, did not modernise in terms of colour, brushstroke and composition. Though his style did shift, used a muted colourful palette and explored more stylised compositions.

However  the ostensibly old fashioned look of his work belies its true content and its pervasive influence on modernist art.

Oddly for a painter born 8 years before Manet his influence kicked in only later, in the 1880s, and particularly in the wake of Impressionism as avant-garde artists were now applying the new full Baudelarian dispensation in art – ie a gloves off scrutiny of Man’s total condition, outward and inward – to the world about them, like the radical industrialising of economies.  

In particular Puvis developed an allegorical Neo-Romantic mindset, as his basic template, to commingle the real and the timeless transcendental. This he applied throughout France in various polemical public works, particularly in the context of France trying to resolve its desired future path in the lingering wake of the calamitous 1789 Revolution, pitting Royalist against Republican Thus Hope commented on the costly 1870 war with Prussia.

This template clearly Matisse acknowledged in his allegorical journey.

And he also directly influenced Gauguin, Seurat / Signac and the Neo-Impressionists / Divisionists, Odilon Redon and the Symbolists, and Picasso, Paul Klee.

Born in Lyon, son of a mining engineer and descended from an “old noble family of Burgundy”, he started training in the 1840s, had some formal studies (eg with Delacroix and Thomas Couture) but mostly worked alone, benefited from a long visit to Italy in the late 1840s (eg saw work of Giotto and Piero), grew close to Degas in the 1850s.

He was keen and ambitious but recognition came slowly, not before the early 1860s, ie around age 40, and thereafter his star climbed steadily. Much of his work was in murals, eg culminating in the 1889 Sorbonne series.  In 1890 he co-founded the Société Nationale des Beaux-Arts (National Society of Fine Arts)

A self-promoter he adopted “the noble designation “de Chavanes””, added to his family name in 1859(age 35), changed to “de Chavannes” in 1877. He met (and later married, happily) Princess Marie Cantacuzene in 1854, though like some others had an affair (1859) with painter Suzanne Valadon. His own struggle to succeed motivated him to help younger artists.

 

 

2a/ Flat, color patch, stylised quasi-abstraction (c1908-17)….. highlights

12

 

1914 (September / October) French Window at Collioure (Porte-fenêtre à Collioure). Oil on canvas, 117 x 105 cm, Musée National d’Art Moderne, Paris.

COMMENT: this important painting – pivotal even – dates from just after the outbreak of WW1 and clearly in some way a decisive response to the sudden turmoil. It appears to be his only work from this visit to Collioure.

Matisse quickly had relatives (mother and brother) trapped behind German lines, in far north France. His working life was upended, friends scattered, Derain, Braque, Manguin etc joined the army. His house at Issy, near Paris, was commandeered by the French army till 1915. Matisse and his wife headed south early September to Toulouse, thence Collioure, joining Albert Marquet and also Juan Gris (1887-1927).

Perhaps meeting Gris there was important for this painting (cf Alfred H Barr Jr on Matisse in 1951). Gris was a friend from Paris (where he arrived 1906 from Spain). Matisse liked Gris, who was then poor and had TB, and he fell out with Gertrude Stein in trying to help Gris. Gris was a keen art theorist and then in Collioure he and Matisse debated “heatedly about painting” (Gris), obviously including the Cubist revolution..

The painting is mysterious, breaks suddenly with Matisse’s work till then, apparently reflecting the abrupt new circumstances. There are figurative elements but obviously the painting leans far towards the abstract, much further than any previous images.

Striking is the central black void. “Talking about a painting from 1916 in which black predominates, Matisse says he began “to use black as a colour of light and not as a colour of darkness” “ (Centre Pompidou). But it seems hard to believe black here does not simply mean foreboding. So it can mean “light”, just that the light shows only darkness.

“It is also his most daring invocation of a Mallarméan absence.” (Jack Flam, 1986). He refers to the French Symbolist poet (cf his role in Matisse’s Le Bonheur etc of 1905) whose work means an artist, or poet, can better describe something by not describing it, or by describing its absence. So here “war” is best “described” by its pictorial absence, no exploding shells like in CRW Nevinson and Paul Nash but a quagmire-like darkness which can also powerfully describe the violence and its casualties

The painting was not shown publically until 1966, on a show in the US, where it was hailed as “a forerunner of American abstract painting”, eg by Ad Reinhardt who “listed it as one of the two most important artistic events of 1914 [Mondrian’s ‘plus and minus’ the other].

13

1915, Le rideau jaune (The Yellow Curtain), oil on canvas, 146 × 97 cm, Museum of Modern Art, New York City.

COMMENT:  This painting, showing Matisse again hugging abstraction (as at Collioure the year before), excites the critics. And again it is based on a view out a window.

Who knows what Matisse was trying to say, beyond applying abstraction to a view out a window.

But critics generally agree the flat colourful geometric “abstraction” presages his later cut-outs.

Matisse’s original title for the painting, Composition, draws attention to its abstract quality. Interviewed in 1931, Matisse explained.. the painting represents a view from a curtained window in his home at Issy,  including the blue glass canopy that covered the front door.” (WIKI).

The painting was acquired by MOMA in 1996.

 14

Summer 1917, A Path in the Forest near Trivaux (Shaft of sunlight), private collection,  91 x 74cm.

COMMENT: Trivaux is near Issy. The painting shows an “abstracted” view along a forest path where a shaft of sunlight breaks through.

 

2b/ Flat, color patch, stylised quasi-abstraction (c1908-17)…..antecedents

 

15

Summer 1911, Interior with Aubergines, distemper on canvas, 212 x 246cm, Musee de Peinture et Sculpture, Grenoble.

COMMENT: This important painting, the third of the 1911 “grand interiors” is from Collioure that summer, followed The painter’s family. It is a large painting which pushes his decorative mission further, sumptuous colourful décor, and, in leaning more towards abstraction,fires its visual impact.

The window top right offsets a mirror lower left, suggested by Velazquez’s Las Meninas he recently saw in Madrid? Floral patterns come from Persian miniatures?

Matisse brought no spiritual polemic to bear in his painting but he did read widely, including people like then popular (with some) French philosopher Henri Bergson who “convinced many thinkers that the processes of immediate experience and intuition are more significant than abstract rationalism and science for understanding reality”.

16

1913, Moroccan coffee, oil, 176 x 210 cm, Hermitage.

COMMENT: both painted during Matisse’s second visit to Morocco, autumn 1912 to Feb. 1913. The second is on the terrace of Café Baba at Tangier.

The latter is a striking simple image, unusually large, where the black iron balustrade along the top mimics coffee running down a cup.

And we notice again…. gold fish. Subject of contemplation by customers.

17

1908–1912, The Conversation, 177 cm × 217 cm, Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg.

COMMENT: Bought by Shcuikn immediately. Matisse in pyjamas faces his wife in tense confrontation on a spring morning? The iron railing reads NON! It is based on a stele at the Louvre from c1760BC, in which the king stands before a seated god!

“[Matisse’s] discovery of Russian icons, during a visit to Shchukin in Moscow in 1911, informed a large confrontational painting of him and Amélie” (Peter Schjeldahl , New Yorker, 2005)

 

 18

Spring 1914, View of Notre-Dame , Oil on canvas, 147.3 x 94.3 cm, Museum of Modern Art, New York City.

19

Spring 1914, View of Notre-Dame , Oil on canvas. 147 x 98 cms, Kunstmuseum Solothurn, Switzerland

COMMENT: These two paintings were completed within weeks of each other, the realistic “postcard” version being earlier and executed in one sitting? They revisit, precisely, the view in the 1902, Notre-Dame, une fin d’après-midi.

The “blue” stylized image shows Matisse again reflecting beyond the visually objective, and using the then recent Cubism / abstraction as tools for his purpose.

It depicts the famous church, east across the famous river, but ambiguously, so we see the church’s west front towers through a window (a core visual motif for the artist), but a mullioned window which looks like the towers.

Beside the “window” is a globule of green representing green spring foliage.

The bridge and riverbanks are distilled to black lines.

The church might even look like a kite on a string? The “window” might see through to the other side?

The evocative quasi-abstract image was a break through painting? Like the French window at Collioure (later in 1914) it might call on  the French poet Mallarméan, depicting the churchby its absence.

Matisse made several views of Notre Dame cathedral from his quai Saint-Michel studio in 1914. In February his friend Marcel Sembat wrote about two views the artist had completed, one “very beautiful”, the other “lopsided”, which “no one would understand immediately” but he preferred. Matisse reworked features of this canvas before covering almost the entire surface in blue. He left early compositional elements visible beneath the paint, accentuating the temporal quality of building a work of art over time.” (MOMA)

20

Autumn 1914-1915 (after Window at Collioure), Goldfish and palette, Paris, quai Saint-Michel (Artist and goldfish), Oil on canvas. 146.5 x 112.4 cm), The Museum of Modern Art, NY.

COMMENT: Important painting? More abstract than the first. Now the view is straight out the window, so the window (middle) jamb is directly behind the fish bowl.

One of Matisse’s most striking symbolic self-portraits.” (Jack Flam). The painter’s thumb pokes through the palette board. A sketch shows Matisse holding the palette, thus referencing Cezanne’s 1885 self-portrait, but in the final painting he just leaves the palette. Which motif appers in Picasso’s Harlequin the next year, 1915 (cf J Richardson 2012).

Matisse described the abstract zone at the right of this composition as containing “a person who has a palette in his hand and who is observing.” Most likely, it is the artist himself. The surrealist poet André Breton said of the painting, “I believe Matisse’s genius is here . . . nowhere has Matisse put so much of himself as in this picture.” (MOMA)

21

1916, Bowl of Apples on a Table, Oil on canvas; 114.9 x 89.5 cm, Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, Virginia,

COMMENT: more or less the same subject, more or less after Cezanne than his ornamental arabesque style, all in a flat pared “sign post” style, except two are cropped (so one becomes a cup), are two have the background neutralized.

 

 

23

From autumn 1915, The Gourds  65 x 80 cm, oil/canvas  Museum of Modern Art, New York, USA

COMMENT: The war and the art revolts here shifting Matisse to a spare more abstract composition, no decorative frills here. And here his wartime black is bold. The objects now drift by, detached, like they pass by the corner of a building.

Jack Flam (1986) suggests a touch here of Paul Klee? In the abstraction yes,but the items are clearly by Matisse?

24

July 1916, Still Life with Gourds (Nature morte aux coloquintes), Oil on canvas, 100 x 81.3 cm, Barnes Foundation

COMMENT: More typical Matisse here, decorative elements,  but a Cubist inspired composition, with the cropped frame left, more geometric, and featuring the simple bust right, a side on transposition of his recent 58cm high bronze sculpture, Jeanette V (MOMA).

 

                25

1917–18, Interior with a Violin, (Intérieur au violon) oil on canvas. 116 x 89 cm, Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen.

COMMENT: an important painting, which pairs with French window at Collioure from late 1914, soon after WW1 commenced.

It pairs with Interior at Nice (Room at the Hôtel Beau-Rivage), Oil on canvas; 73.7 x 60.3 cm, Philadelphia Museum of Art.

 26

1918, Le Violoniste à la fenêtre (The Violinist at the window), Oil on canvas, 150 x 98 cm, Centre Pompidou

COMMENT: Also painted in Nice. Mtisse returns to music. Now the violin is being played, as Matisse did himself near daily. So it could therefore be a self-portrait. Black frames the window but the window is open

  

3/ Portraits (1905-17)… Fauve period to WW1.

 

27

Summer 1913, Portrait of the Artist’s Wife (Madame Matisse), oil on canvas, 146 x 97.7 cm, Hermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg

COMMENT: the only work Matisse sent to the 1913 Salon d’Automne. Where it was generally well received?

Matisse was recovering from his end 1910 relapse.

 “Amélie sat more than a hundred times….. Spurling [2009] says that the portrait, which was the last work to enter Shchukin’s collection, caused Matisse “palpitations, high blood pressure and a constant drumming in his ears.” (Peter Schjeldahl , New Yorker, 2005)

It is possibly a response to Cezanne’s 1893-95 portrait of his wife, and it is billed as responding to Cubism? But not really? Rather it clearly evolves from his recent Fauve period portraits of 1905-07, but now showing a pared minimalist “Primitive” face. We see trademark bold colours, the green blouse and chair, and the bright red scarf, against a pervasive blue. All in stark contrast to Picasso.

This was one of three “blue” paintings by Matisse (two still lives and the portrait). from May to December 1913, after his return from Morocco, and were his only paintings in this period.

The blue may relate to Picasso’s predilection for the color, or it may be drawn from Morocco.

 

 

 28

June 1914, Portrait of Yvonne Landsberg.  Oil on canvas, 147.3 x 97.5 cm Philadelphia Museum of Art.

COMMENT: A striking portrait, like the ladt is emitting a magnetic field, painted June 1914, after his important quasi-abstract View of Notre-Dame, and as political tension grew.

 

 

5/ The rest to WW1 (1896-1914): including Fauvism and the “grand interiors”

 

          29

1899 Still Life with Compot and Fruit, (II), 46.7 x 55.2 1 cm, Washington University Gallery of Art, St. Louis (WA)

30

c1901, Pont Saint-Michel, oil on canvas, 60.35 x 73.02 cms. Santa Barbara Museum of Art. COMMENT: this is a prescient work. Looks ahead.

 

    31   

1905, La plage Rouge à Collioure, Henri Matisse peint de la fenêtre de l’atelier, oil on canvas ca. 33 x 41 cm.

32

Summer 1917, Portrait de famille (The Music Lesson), oil on canvas, 245.1 x 210.8 (The Barnes Foundation, Philadelphia).

COMMENT: This painting pairs with the justly celebrated The piano lesson from the summer before, thus the same view of a window and his son Pierre playing the same piano (beside his sister Marguerite), and about the same size. Jean reads, and wife Amélie sews in the garden.

But the other-worldly mystery, the magic, is gone.

 

33

1908, The Dessert: Harmony in Red (Red Room), Oil on canvas, 180 cm × 220 cm, Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg.

COMMENT: Painted after Le Bonheur etc. for Sergei Shchukin’s dining room in Moscow. The large painting was ordered as “Harmony in Blue,” but Matisse preferred red so red it became.

The blue antler-like “arabesque” tendrils climbing the table cloth started on a Paris bus, and are seen in the Still life with blue tablecloth right.

It showed in the 1908 Salon ‘Autumne, with Blue still life. Louis Vauxcelles loved the latter, but “paid almost no attention to Harmony in Red, except to say.. he did not like it..”. Charles Morice was more measured but said Matisse “continues to alarm his adversaries without reassuring his friends”. Vauxcelles and Morice both preferred Félix Valloton.

34

1909, Still Life with Blue Tablecloth, Oil on canvas, 88 x 118 cm, The Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg.

COMMENT: Matisse quotes “a piece of decorative 19th-century cloth, a blue-and-white pattern consisting of a block-printed basket of flowers, repeated within a sinuous, broken lattice of ornamental foliage”  he spotted from a bus in Paris, and used in other paintings, particularly 1908’s famous Harmony in Red (La Desserte), where white is transposed to red.

 

35

Optimized by JPEGmini 3.11.4.0 0xf1bf5890

Early/mid 1911, The Painter’s family, 143 x 194 cm. Hermitage, Saint Petersburg.

COMMENT: Commenced soon after The pink studio, the second of the 1911 “grand interiors” Amélie Matisse (wife, married 1898) is on the sofa in the rear left; their sons Jean and Pierre, born in 1899 and 1900, play chess. Matisse’s daughter Marguerite, born in 1894 to Camille Joblaud, subsequently accepted as a daughter by Amélie, stands to the right, in black.

Matisse was much impressed by the Islamic art show he saw at Munich in late 1910, which work now clearly reflects in his 1911 decorative interiors.

 

6/ Post WW1 (1919-1940s)

 

36

 

1928, Still Life with Green Sideboard, 81.5x100cm, oil on Canvas, Centre Pompidou, Paris. Musée national d’art modern

COMMENT: “Still Life with Green Sideboardthat quiet painting, from 1928, is one of the most uncannily ambiguous ever made; you cannot decide if you are looking at or into the surface of a cabinet door.” ((Peter Schjeldahl , New Yorker, 2005))

 37

1935, Pink Nude, 66 x 92cm oil/canvas The Baltimore Museum of Art, Baltimore.

 

38

 

1940, The Dream, 81 x 65cm oil/canvas Private Collection

 

 

7/ Decoupage.. the Cut-outs.

 

40

 1943-44, The Horse, the Rider and the Clown . Maquette for plate V of the illustrated book Jazz 1947 © Centre Pompidou etc. COMMENT: “illustrated book Jazz (1947) is one of the most famous graphic works .. of the 20th centuryMatisse’s first major ‘cut-out’ project.. Jazz comprises a set of 20 vivid colour stencils and over 70 pages of Matisse’s calligraphic writing. .. pivotal in Matisse’s transition from oil painting to the cut-out collages..  Matisse cut forms out of large sheets of paper previously painted with gouache by his assistants. The cut-outs were then assembled on the wall of Matisse’s studio, under his direction….. title evokes the idea of a musical structure of rhythm and repetition..  Matisse’s subjects are taken largely from the circus, mythology and memories of his travels. .” (AG of NSW)

 

 40

 

1952, The Sorrows of the King, gouache on paper on canvas, 292 cm × 386 cm, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris.

COMMENT: his final self-portrait. “The central black silhouette represents Matisse sitting in his armchair, whilst the other pictorial elements are references to themes that defined his life.

The yellow petals fluttering away have the gaiety of musical notation while the green odalisque symbolises the Orient…  

the work refers to one of Rembrandt’s canvases, “David Playing the Harp before Saul”, in which the young biblical hero plays to distract the king from his melancholy, as well as to Rembrandt’s late self-portraits.” (Lavacow online art)

 

41

 

1953, The Snail (La Composition Chromatique), gouache on paper, 287 cm × 288 cm, Tate Gallery, London

 42

1953, Memory of Oceania  (Nice-Cimiez, Hôtel Régina, summer 1952-early 1953 , gouache on paper, cut and pasted, and charcoal on paper mounted on canvas,  284.4 x 286.4 cm, MOMA.

COMMENT: Based on a photograph that Matisse took of a schooner from his window in Tahiti in 1930. At the right, the green rectangle, fuchsia band, black curve, and blue crescent appear to derive from the boat, the boat’s mast and mooring line, and the curtain of the window. More uncertain is the meaning (if any) of the shapes at the upper left. They may describe a blond woman seen from the back—the sharp vertical line being her spine and the surrounding blue–on–white and white–on–blue curves the contours of her body. (MOMA).

 

 

 

PAUL NASH: WW1 gatecrashed and, ironically, made his art

WW1 gatecrashed his early neo-Romantic inclined landscapes, but then ironically (helped by “Vorticist” colleagues like Nevinson) “Modernised”, made his art.

Thus the two world wars coaxed a number of masterpieces, at each end of his career.

His imagination and poetic sensibility meditated on Man and a land imbued with deep history.

Paul Nash

(11 May 1889 – 11 July 1946, 57)

 FEATURED IMAGE: 1923, The bay, woodcut, 120 x 178 mm

 2

1919 The sea wall, watercolour and pencil 28 x 39cm. COMMENT: both from Dymchurch, Kent.

 Polemic: yes he was a great British artist.

Would we remember Paul Nash but for WW1? Yes, but nowhere like we do now, for his striking war images, compelling and evocative.

As a young painter before WW1, with a poetic ear and inclined to neo-Romanticism, Nash was slower than some of his famous contemporaries in responding to then rampaging Modernism.

But WW1 upended his art – as it famously did for other painters, and writers, like Wilfred Owen’s poetry- so one of his best images, pioneering and powerful, was without doubt the confronting large The Menin Road (1918-19), Cubo-Futurist-Vorticist hued. Alongside it the mordantly ironic We are making a new world (1918) immediately became a brutally frank calling card for the reality of the conflict.

WW2, near the other end of his life, provoked two more masterpieces, particularly the arresting Totes Meer (Dead Sea) (1940-41), stark and singular, Surrealist-touched but also clearly pre-figured by his quasi-abstract Winter Sea (1925-37). Secondly came the also powerful but quite different quasi-abstract Battle of Germany (1944).

Nash’s powerful artistic response to the unimaginable destruction of two world wars was self-evidently occasioned by his exposure to both wars (WW1 first hand, especially late 1917), but was richly fertilized by, first, a sensitivity to mortality (as Simon Grant (Tate, 2003) highlights), to death, stemming from a life of ill health, beginning early, and also from coping with his mother’s prolonged mental unrest and early death (at 49) in Feb. 1910, and by, second, a poetic sensibility and a imaginative quasi-spiritual mindset, evident early and staying with him. William Blake and other Romantics were an early source, reinforced later around 1930 by meeting sympathetic American writer Conrad Aiken at Rye, and from 1943 by James Frazer’s The Golden Bough.   

Nash is lambasted by some critics (cf Adrian Searle and Waldemar Januszczak in 2003) for his alleged clumsy embrace of Surrealism in the 1930s. Leave it to the pros? But this is misleading, attention seeking? As Andrew Causey writes (2003) we see Surrealist clues right through his art, starting with some of his early drawings, well before Surrealism was codified after WW1, then hints in his WW1 war art. Certainly some images appear pedestrian or forced (eg Landscape from a Dream (1936–8)) but many other responses are clearly legitimate, constructive, like Voyages of the Moon (1934-37) and Equivalents for the Megaliths (1935). Then his later justly acclaimed Totes Meer, and Flight of the magnolia both have Surrealist components.

And here’s an interesting (coincident?) connection. As Mr Januszczak notes (2003), Nash “had a thing about trees”. And Nash’s early drawings based on three elms at his then home at Iver talk directly to some “tree” works by a similarly thoughtful older Swiss-French artist, Felix Valloton (1865-1925), like to his willowy trees in Last sun rays (1911).

His art

Nash was a famous British painter, especially of landscapes, whose life neatly overlapped both world wars (eg aged 25 in 1914), both of which he recorded as an official war artist. He was also a photographer, writer and designer of applied art.

Events – the calamitous wars – fashioned in Nash a curious and unlikely juxtaposition, induced a searing Realism alongside an imaginative, quasi-spiritual and pastoral neo-Romanticism which was his natural inclination.

His exact contemporary, and fellow Slade student, CRW Nevinson (1889‑1946), also joined and depicted WW1, but he was quicker to embrace Modernism before the war and his striking Cubist inspired “Futurist / Vorticist” war paintings from 1915-16 (hung Sep. 1916 in a one-man show in London) influenced Nash. Also “Nash would later [1949 autobiographical writings] call the 1st and 2nd exhibitions of The London Group [ie March 1914 and March 1915] the ‘Vindication of Vorticism’” (David Haycock et al, “A Crisis of Brilliance” (2013)).

From a conservative middle class background Nash was slow to react to Modernism before WW1. He trained at the well known Slade school before WW1, alongside a clutch of would be talented artists, but only briefly (1910-11), and his natural appetite was for neo-Romanticism, fond of William Blake, the Romantic poets (eg Coleridge), and particularly DG Rossetti and the Pre-Raphaelites.

Eschewing figurative painting, he quickly became above all a landscape painter, stimulated initially by trees and gardens at Iver Heath, Bucks. (just west of London, where he moved as a 12 year old), also by the Thames Valley Wittenham Clumps, a pair of hills, one an old Iron Age fort. His early art was perhaps also an escape from an uneasy childhood, from his mother’s mental unrest.

A major preoccupation for his landscapes became ancient history’s impact on the English countryside, the “sanctity” of Place. He felt “these sites had a talismanic quality”, thus he “saw himself in the tradition of English mystical painters W Blake and [the Romantic “mystical” painter] Samuel Palmer” (Tate). Thus he collected “Places”, of which perhaps Wittenham Clumps (“They were the Pyramids of my small world”) stands out, depicted from 1912 to 1944.

Though people obviously inhabited, imprinted this countryside across the centuries he used people sparingly in his landscapes. But this comparative absence of people (eg the solitary couple in The sea wall (1919) or the tiny figures in his WW1 paintings) became a powerful visual device (cf Waldemar Januszczak, 2003). Rather, trees, starting with the elms at Iver, became a favorite metaphor for people, like blasted trees for the carnage in France.

Some of Nash’s early drawings, before WW1, mark him out as gifted and evocative, particularly The cliff to the north (1912).

Seven oil paintings stemmed from WW1: The Menin Road (c June 1918 – Feb. 1919,), The Mule Track (1918), Spring in the Trenches  (1918), Ridge Wood, 1917  (by July 1918), We Are Making a New World (1918, based on 1918 drawing, Sunrise (Inverness Copse), The Ypres Salient at Night  (1918),  Void  (1918) and A Night Bombardment (1919-20),

From Dymchurch on the Kentish coast (late 1921 to mid 1924) we see spare, tense Cubist leaning works by an artist shaken by the calamity, showing individual Man engaging elemental forces beyond his ken or control, powerful works like the drawing The sea wall (1919), like the woodcut, The bay (1923), and especially his oil painting Winter Sea (1925-37), a striking Cubist inspired work, dark and deathly. We also see his Cezannesque Chestnut Waters (1923,27).

The 1928 show in London of work by the important Surrealist Giorgio de Chirico, and a 1930 visit to Léonce Rosenberg’s gallery in Paris, broadened his appreciation of Modernism, later acknowledged in his writings as an art critic. They helped trigger a shift, beyond the Cubist paddock towards more overt abstraction and Surrealism.

A number of more consciously Surrealist images followed, like Landscape at Iden (1929), and some quasi-abstract, like Landscape of the Megaliths (1934), but still addressing familiar themes.

His iconic Totes Meer (Dead Sea) (1940-41) recalls Caspar David Friedrich’s Artic shipwreck (1824) but also clearly draws on a number of Nash’s earlier Cubist quasi-abstract coastal reflections at Dymchurch from 1921, especially Winter Sea (1925-37).

Nash ended his not long life on a high. Beyond his war paintings he produced a series of quasi-abstract “visionary” landscapes based (again) on the Wittenham Clumps, which became a final meditation on a life theme of the cycle of life intersecting the history-imbued English landscape. Then the enigmatic Flight of the Magnolia (1944), on a theme the artist called ‘aerial flowers’, and overshadowed by terminally failing health, was one of his best “Surrealist’ works.

 Life and background.

Son of a barrister, born in Kensington, London, Nash later grew up (from 12) at Wood Lane, Iver Heath, Bucks., just west of London. He was afflicted early by asthma, which remained a chronic problem.

He started training in art Dec. 1906 (age 17) at the Chelsea Polytechnic, transferring late 1908 to the London City Counccil school at Bolt Court, off Fleet St. He then trained at the well known Slade School of Art from autumn 1910 to December 1911, alongside Stanley Spencer, Mark Gertler, David Bomberg, C.R.W. Nevinson, William Roberts, Edward Wadsworth and Dora Carrington, but he did not shine at figure drawing and left to concentrate on landscape painting.

Prominent portrait painter (later Sir) William Rothenstein (1872-1943) was an early (from 1909) and sustained supporter.

In a busy 1914 he joined Roger Fry’s Omega Workshops early in the year, was shown in two important exhibitions, courted and married Margaret Odeh, and joined the London Group 1914.

Then WW1 changed his life and his art. He enlisted Sep. 1914 in the Artists Rifles, married Oxford educated suffragette Margaret  on 14 December 1914, trained in 1916 and Dec. 1916 transferred to the Hampshire Regiment. He arrived at the Ypres Salient on the Western Front early March 1917, where on 25th May he was injured, then invalided home.

Based on work shown September mid 1917 in London fellow artist CRW Nevinson (1889‑1946) encouraged him to apply to become an official war artist, which he did, supported by various artists (including Fry, Rothenstein) returning to the Ypres Salient in Nov.1917, finding it (immediately after Battle of Passchendale) devastated compared to spring that year. There he worked hard on drawings for over 6 weeks, then back in London early 1918 (commissioned April by the Ministry of Information) turned his copious work into a series of oil paintings, starting with The Menin Road. Works were shown May 1918 in a one man display (Void of War) at Leicester Galleries, to immediate acclaim.

After the war in autumn 1921 he had a war-induced breakdown and with his wife settled at the Kentish coastal village of Dymchurch, where the sea wall protecting Romney Marsh from flooding became an important reference, a metaphor for Man’s struggle against the elements, natural and man-made. But he kept working, recovered, earned enough to fund a long trip, mid 1924 to early 1925, to Nice, Florence and Pisa, after which they moved to Iden, near Rye in Sussex.

In 1933 he joined a number of prominent art figures in founding the short lived Unit One.  “In 1933 he co-founded the influential modern art movement Unit One with fellow artists Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth, and the critic Herbert Read [also Ben Nicholson and Edward Wadsworth]. It was a short-lived but important move towards the revitalisation of English art in the inter-war period.” (Tate).

The group fell out after one show (1934) owing to differences between Abstractionists and Surrealists.

Exposure to modern art from across the Channel was important, like a late 1928 show in London (his first) of the work of Giorgio de Chirico, then visiting Léonce Rosenberg’s gallery in Paris 1930.

Mid 1933 Nash saw a show of Max Ernst’s work in London at the Mayor Gallery, noticed Ernst’s interest in “primeval ruined cities” and his series on forests, “seat of irrational an instinctive forces” (Causey). In 1936 he was on the committee for the influential International Surrealist Exhibition held in June in London.

A July 1933 holiday visit to Silbury Hill and Avebury importantly reinforced his interest in landscape and history, seeded a number of paintings.

After a long trip to France (including Nice January/February 1934), Gibraltar and N Africa he and his wife moved June 1934 to coastal Swanage in Dorset, there inspired by local landmarks like Iron Age Maiden Castle, the Cerne Abbas Giant and the Fossil Forest at Lulworth. At Swanage too he began an intense affair with artist Eileen Agar. Mid 1936 he and his wife moved back to London, to Hampstead.

At the start of WW2 he was appointed as a full time war artist by the War Artists’ Advisory Committee (WAAC), “attached to the RAF”. But some were offended by his Modernism and failure to stick to portraits of pilots and his full time role ceased Dec. 1940. But WAAC Chairman Kenneth Clark championed his cause, secured Jan. 1931 a Stg500 commission to execute works on “the theme of aerial conflict”. The first two paintings, from 1941, were Totes Meer (Dead Sea) and Battle of Britain. His asthma related ill health interrupted work. Eventually he added The Defence of Albion and, in particular, The Battle of Germany, completed Sep.1944.

From 1942 Nash visited artist friend Hilda Harrisson at Boar’s Hill, Sandilands near Oxford, coincidentally affording views again of Wittenham Clumps. “He now painted a series of imaginative works of the Clumps under different aspects of the moon..”

Nash was “also a fine book illustrator, and also designed stage scenery, fabrics and posters.” There too grew sunflowers, which became an important motif in his final years.

TOPIC: some art shows London, pre WW1

November 1910              Manet and the Post-impressionists, Grafton Galleries, including Cezanne. By Roger Fry.

November 1911              Stafford Gallery showed work by Gauguin and Cezanne

March 1912                      Exhibition of Works by the Italian Futurists, Sackville Gallery

November 1912              Paul Nash (first) one man show, Carfax Gallery

October 1912                    Roger Fry’s Second Post-Impressionist Exhibition, Grafton Galleries.

May 1913                          Showed at New English Art Club.

October 1913                    Post-Impressionist and Futurist Exhibition, Dore Gakkeries, org by Frank Rutter. Included Cezanne, van Gogh, Matisse, Severini, Picasso, and British artists.

November 1913                Nash brothers show, Dorien Leigh Gallry.

December 1913               Camden Town Group and Others, 6 works, Brighton Public Art Galleries.

March 1914                      First London Group exhibition, Goupil Gallery, Regent St

May / June 1914              Twentieth Century Art: a Review of Modern Movements, Whitechapel Gallery, included Nash.

June 1914                          David Bomberg’s first one-man show, Chenil Gallery, Chelsea

Feb. 1915                           Paul and John Nash show, with the Friday Club.

March 1915                      2nd (second) London Group show

June 1915                          First (and only) Vorticist Exhibition, at Doré Gallery.

Nov. 1915                         3rd London Group Exhibition

March 1916                      Allid Artists’ exhibition, Grafton Galleries.

June 1916                          4th London Group Exhibition

September 1916              Nevinson show, Leicester Galleries.

Nov. 1916                         5th London Group Exhibition

June 1917                          Nash drawings, Goupil Gallery.

Septmber 1917                Nash works shown in Birmingham.

March 1918                      Nevinson show, Leicester Galleries.

May 1918                          One-man Nash show, Void of War, Leicester Galleries.

         WORKS: some peaks …………….

       3

1912 The cliff to the north, pen, indian ink & grey wash on paper, 38 x 31cm, Fitzwilliam Museum. COMMENT: from the Norfolk coast, at Mundesley, near Cromer

4

1913, The three in the night, watercolour, ink and chalk, 20.75 x 13.5in, private. COMMENT: again the moon.

5

Felix Vallotton  (1865-1925), 1911 Last sun rays, oil on canvas, 73 x 100 cm

.  6

The cherry orchard, 1917, watercolour, ink and graphite pencil on paper, support: 575 x 482 mm. COMMENT: a stark tense evocative image, depopulated, as though everyone’s gone to the war. The skeletal trees are parading soldiers? There is debate when this was executed, 1914 or 1917, but surely the image speaks of 1917, the stylized geometry an especially the fence, the barbed wire fence trapping two (Dead?) birds.

Tate entry :““The Cherry Orchard” was made at John Drinkwater’s home, Winston’s Cottage, Far Oakridge, Gloucestershire, where Nash went in July 1917…. Nash had recovered from his injury at the front in May, but did not yet know that his return would be in the role of an official artist. This might help to account for the extraordinary tense imagery of the picture which seems more a later winter than a summer design…”

7

C June 1918 – Feb. 1919, The Menin Road, oil on canvas, 182.8 cm × 317.5 cm (72 in × 125 in), IWM. COMMENT: One of five oil paintings first shown May 1918 at the Void of War exhibition at Leicester Galleries, his first oil paintings. Overall this seems Nash’s most powerful WW1 images. Notice the foreground plants, clinging on. The blasted trees ringing for blasted lives. The surviving diminuitive soldiers tramp their new nether world. The spectral light from left throws shadows.     

(c) Tate; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

(c) Tate; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation

1918, The Ypres Salient at Night,  oil on panel, 71.4 x 92.0 cm, Imperial War Museum, London

9

1918 (by July), Spring in the Trenches, Ridge Wood, 1917, IWM, London

COMMENT:  more punches connect. Notice the wry darkly comic title. Two trees intact? And birds call top right rear. The mule track from early 1918 was his first oil painting.

10

   1925-37, Winter Sea, oil, 73.6 × 99.0cm, York City Art Gallery.

Landscape at Iden 1929 by Paul Nash 1889-1946

Landscape at Iden 1929 Paul Nash 1889-1946 Purchased 1939 http://www.tate.org.uk/art/work/N05047

1929, Landscape at Iden, Oil paint on canvas, 698 x 908 mm, Tate;     

This mysterious picture shows the view from Nash’s studio in Sussex. The dramatic perspective and strange juxtaposition of rustic objects creates a sense of the uncanny. It has been read as a statement of mourning. While the young fruit trees may suggest the defencelessness of youth, the altar-like pile of logs may be a symbol of fallen humanity; the fallen tree as a symbol for the dead was common in the art and literature of the war, not least in Nash’s own paintings.For many, an idea of the timeless and enduring English landscape seemed to displace the violent destruction of the war.” (Tate). It reflects the influence of the 1928 London exhibition by the surrealist Giorgio de Chirico.

  

Nash, Paul, 1889-1946; The Rye Marshes, East Sussex

Nash, Paul; The Rye Marshes, East Sussex; Ferens Art Gallery; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/the-rye-marshes-east-sussex-78773

1932, Rye Marshes East Sussex, oil, 58.8 x 100.3 cm, Ferens Art Gallery, Hull

13

1935, Equivalents for the Megaliths, oil on canvas, 457 x 660 mm, Tate.
Paul Nash was recuperating from a nasty bout of bronchitis in the summer of 1933 when he first came across the Avebury megaliths, the largest prehistoric stone circle in Europe. He recalled, ‘Some were half covered by the grass, others stood up in cornfields were entangled and overgrown in the copses, some were buried under the turf. But they were wonderful and disquieting, and, as I saw them then, I shall always remember them

  14

1940–1, Totes Meer (Dead Sea), oil paint on canvas, 101.6 x 152.4 cm, Tate

15

1944 (completed Sep.), Battle of Germany, Imperial War Museum, London, oil on canvas, 121.9 x 182.8 cm

16

Artist : Paul Nash (England, b.1889, d.1946) Title : Date : 1942 Medium Description: oil on canvas Dimensions : Credit Line : Gift of the Contemporary Art Society, London 1944 Image Credit Line : Accession Number : 7435

1942, ‘Sunflower and sun’, oil on canvas,  51.1 x 76.5 cm, AG NSW. COMMENT “one of a series of works inspired by the view from Sandlands on Boars Hill near Oxford overlooking the Bagley Woods and taking in the Wittenham Clumps.”

17

1944, Flight of the Magnolia, Oil paint on canvas  511 x 762 x 22 mm, Tate. COMMENT: “part of a group of late works by Paul Nash that feature what the artist called ‘aerial flowers’” (Tate). The meaning of this image is much debated but despite Nash saying something himself its meaning remains ambiguous, probably to its credit.

Nash, Paul, 1889-1946; Landscape of the Moon's Last Phase

Nash, Paul; Landscape of the Moon’s Last Phase; Walker Art Gallery; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/landscape-of-the-moons-last-phase-98001

1944, Landscape of the Moon’s Last Phase, 63.5 x 76.2 cm, Walker Art Gallery

19

1945, Eclipse of the Sunflower, Oil on canvas, 71.1 X 91.4 cm, British Council. COMMENT: one of Paul Nash’s final two oil paintings.

Stuart Davis – always look on the bright side…?!

Stuart Davis (Dec. 1892 – July 1964, 71).

Always look on the bright side…?!

Rowed his own canoe! The keen Left wing bon vivant’s distinctive, ebullient modernism stayed oblivious to Capitalism’s greatest crisis! But richer for it?

 

FEATURED IMAGE: 1912 Self portrait, 81.9 x 66.7 cm, Promised Gift to Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Bentonville, Arkansas

                                                                                                                                                            

Summary

  • Distinctive! His eventual style of flat, frantic, realistic faux-abstraction – colorful, calligraphical and Hard-Edged – was his alone.
  • Precocious early Expressionist realist paintings doorstepped his abrupt modernist style shift.
  • But then he was never abstract. Realism threading his complete oeuvre, start to finish. Yes from c1921 (around 30) his art flipped, harnessed Cubist inspired quasi-abstraction but never crossed over to abstraction, remained rooted in reality.
  • So his modernism adapted color, calligraphy and Cubist exploration to reflect the energetic drama of modern American life.
  • But not polemically. Thus curious indeed – extraordinary even – is how his avowedly Left wing politics never spilled over into polemical assault on the Capitalist beast, and despite him living through the Depression and two world wars!
  • Thus he jarred with the Social Realists like TH Benton (1889-1975), Edward Hopper (1882-1967) and George Bellows (1882-1925), let alone the affronted turbocharged German satirists!
  • Rather his purpose remained narratory and even aesthetic: his colorful, turbulent, jazz inspired confetti of cut outs and letters saluted the headlong dynamism of the modern economy and society.
  • But curious too, for a people person he painted no.. people! No portraits, genre groups.
  • How good was he? Very. His style trod water for the final couple of decades, but his original contribution – content and execution – was striking.
  • And maybe ultimately he was cleverer for remaining buoyant, not succumbing to rage against the then troubled zeitgeist.

 

Comment

  • Realism threads Davis’ art from woe to go.
  • Early on (from c1912, age 20) – precisely when the avant-garde in Europe was diving into pure abstraction – he precociously explored Expressionist realism, leaving some striking images, especially his tense, psychological 1912 Self portrait, also his bold Expressionist Self portrait of 1919, and various gritty cityscapes recalling the NY Ash Can realist school, and even a few landscapes, which hint of Munch and Van Gogh.
  • His bright start earned him inclusion in the historic Armory Show of modern European art (International Exhibition of Modern Art, he included 5 watercolours), in New York early in 1913 (aged just over 20), which show also understandably shook his appreciation of modern art.
  • But not before c1921 did his style finally shift abruptly, lurch towards modernism (eg Lucky Strike (1921), The tree and the urn (1921), Still life (red) (1922), and Landscape Gloucester (1922)). In his own Synthetic Cubist take he adapted, tapped Cubism, applied it to modern American material life, dwelt on banal but real material items like cigarette papers and garages and egg beaters. Thus while he therefore leaned toward abstraction he stayed “real”.
  • But his Modernist progression or development was not linear. His 1918 trip to Havana he recorded in colourful representational works on paper, some of which recall the German-American Lyonel Feininger (1871-1956), also a distinctive accomplished illustrator. Then not before the late 1920s, near 40, did he settled into coarse textured Hard-edge Color Field (HE-CF) faux-abstraction, particularly in the Eggbeater Presciently, his paintings of mundane consumer goods clearly presaged the Pop Art of the 60s, about 40 years hence.
  • But visiting Paris in 1928 he felt compelled to stay more representational in recording post card-like street scenes. And also more obviously realistic was his famous Hopper-esque House and street (1931).
  • Then in the late 1930s – especially starting with the large (4.4 x 2.2m) Swing landscape (1938, stemming from the Williamsburg Housing Project commission and based on the Gloucester (Mass.) waterfront) – he found his now familiar later style: still flat and colourful, but now busier “all over” HE-CF, which style he stayed with more or less for the next 25 years.
  • This style, still born of the Cubism of Braque and Picasso, now drank from Matisse, Léger and Miro, artists he met partly through additional important exhibitions in New York? Some of these images levered off natural scenes (eg Arboretum by Flashbulb, 1942), but mostly they drew on urban life and settings.
  • These images look disordered or spontaneous, but apparently were not, rather were products of “protracted gestation”.
  • About 10-20 years older than the main Abstract Expressionist (AE) painters he is not counted as an Abstract Expressionist painter though his flat bright colour affiliates with the CF pole of AE, and the busy scrambled content of paintings like Swing Landscape (1938) and The Mellow Pad (1945-51) points loosely to Pollock’s “gesturalism”.
  • But in some ways he is as interesting, for how the content of his semi-abstract work remained rooted in reality, fastened to the present material world, especially responding directly to the energy, vibrancy, change, and conflict of [American] contemporary life…. the upheaval of the city, the tranquility of the seaside, industry and the automobile, cafe society, sports, consumer packaging, tobacco, appliances, and jazz music and its lingo.”(Met,NY). And also, like the eminent Dutch refugee abstractionist, Piet Mondrian, who had arrived NY 1940, Davis was mad about jazz, which also fed his images
  • He was also political, avowedly and actively Left (eg in campaigning for artists rights), but oddly this did not sour his appetite for depicting modern life in an apparently buoyant energetic descriptive manner. He did not polemically malign or satirise the Capitalist beast about him, even though he lived through its greatest crisis. For him there was no hint of the forthright Daumier or Grosz. “A hedonist to the core” writes Robert Storr (New York Review of Books, August 2016).
  • Interestingly Storr also rightly wonders whether some work of the immigrant Abstract Expressionist Arshile Gorky responded to Davis’ Cubist recipes.
  • And others (Karen Sullivan and Delores McBroome, Art and Antiques magazine, December 1989) wonder if the composition of Picasso’s Guernica (1937) was not inspired by Davis’ 1932 mural (nicknamed Men without women) for the Men’s Lounge of Radio City Music Hall, which work by Davis was well publicised.
  • Perhaps striking is that Davis, clearly a people person, painted no people paintings. No portraits or genre groups. Not even in his early realist phase. A few self portraits is all, and good too.

 

Current major exhibition

“Stuart Davis: In Full Swing” is at the  Whitney Museum of American Art through September 25. It will continue at the National Gallery of Art in Washington from November 20, 2016 through March 5, 2017, at the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco from April 8 through August 6, 2017, and at the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Arkansas from September 16, 2017 through January 8, 2018

 

Highlighted works by Stuart Davis….

 

  1b

1912, Tenement Scene, oil on canvas, 73.99 x w: 91.77 cm, Milwaukee Art Museum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

 

  1c

1913, Ebb Tide – Provincetown, oil on canvas, 96.52 x 76.2 cm

 

1d

Street Scene with Cathedral, Havana 1920 watercolor on paper 35.56 x w: 50.8 cm

  1e

1921, Lucky Strike,  84.46 x 45.72 cm, MOMA.

 

1f

1922, Landscape, Gloucester, oil on canvas, 30.48 x w: 40.97 cm

 

   1g

  1. Eggbeater No 1, gouache on board, 36.2 x 45.42 cm, Whitney Museum of American Art

 

1h

Matches No. 1, 1927, gouache on cardboard, 31.75 x 24.76 cm

 

1i

Rue Descartes 1929 gouache, ink, and pencil on paper 32.08 x 47.32 cm

 

1j

1928, Egg Beater No. 4, gouache on illustration board, 33.66 x 47.32 cm, The Phillips Collection

 

1k

1931, House and Street, 66.4 × 107 cm, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York,

 

1l

Artist in Search of a Model 1931 gouache on paper 27.3 x 46.99 cm

 

1m

1938, Swing Landscape, Oil on canvas, 220.34 x 439.75 cm. COMMENT: a LARGE WPA Brooklyn mural, made for a government-funded housing project in Brooklyn. Hard-edge “Color-Field” abstract develops. But with figurative motifs.

 

1n

 

1945-51, The Mellow Pad, oil on canvas, 66.7 x 107 cm, Brooklyn Museum of Art. COMMENT: painted over six years

 

1o.

 1932/1942–1954, American Painting, 101.6 x 127.64 cm, University of Nebraska at Omaha

 

1p

1954, Colonial Cubism, oil on canvas, 114.63 x 153.04 cm, Walker Art Center, Minneapolis

 

1q

1956, Stele, oil on canvas, 132.72 x 101.93 cm, Milwaukee Art Museum