THE LITTLE ART COLONY AND US MODERNISM : CARMEL, PROVINCETOWN, TAOS
By Geneva M. Gano
Edinburgh University Press. 296 pages. £24.99. ISBN
978-1-4744-3976-3
Reviewed by Jim Burns
Art colonies came in various shapes and sizes. They were a notable
feature of artistic life in Europe and America prior to the First
World War, and some continued after 1914. But many had been in
coastal locations and the war had particularly affected them. Added
to which few people could travel to them, even if they continued to
have some sort of relevance in terms of artistic activity. The point
of a colony was to give people the opportunity to meet others with
similar interests and develop their work in a sympathetic
atmosphere. It may not have always worked out like that, creative
people often having a tendency to compete and argue when they feel
that they have been snubbed or slighted in any way.
There was, also, the problem of colonies becoming too popular in
terms of the hordes of people visiting them. It’s significant that
the number of art colonies expanded as the nineteenth century saw
the rise of a middle-class with the time and money to spend on their
developing interest in art, not only from the point of view of
creating it but also of appreciating it. And, for many people, there
was the entertainment value of increasingly looking on artists as
some sort of rare breed who lived free-and-easy lives devoid of the
everyday responsibilities that beset other people. The bohemian
idea, both for the beholder and the practitioner, was largely a
product of industrial capitalism.
It’s possible to add other reasons for the growth of art colonies.
The introduction of easier ways of carrying paint in tubes, and the
availability of portable easels, made painting outdoors much easier.
Of particular importance was the extension of the railway
network to locations that were previously thought of as difficult to
access. It was easier for artists to get to coastal villages that
had once seemed isolated. They could, if necessary, reside there
just for a few summer months and then escape back to the comforts of
the city when winter came in. It was convenient to keep in touch
with galleries and dealers if there were regular rail services to
major cities. And people perhaps likely to purchase paintings could
travel by train to view what artists were producing.
Geneva M. Gano’s book focuses on three American art colonies. They
were originally among the many that sprang up across the United
States at a time when unfettered capitalism seemed unstoppable in
its determination to impose its values on everyone and everything.
This led to vast disparities of wealth and the violent social
conflict that caused. There may be some irony in the fact that many,
if not most, of the artists and their patrons who lived in or
visited the art colonies, and were often critical of rampant
capitalism, were the beneficiaries of funds created from that
source.
It was necessary to have some money to be able to move to Carmel or
Provincetown or Taos in the first place. A patron might provide it,
or it could be from a private income, and sometimes from selling a
painting or two. Gano makes the point that, in Jack London’s novel
The Valley of the Moon,
two working-class characters who visit Carmel, while searching for
an alternative to life in the factories and warehouses of the
cities, see it as “a playground for bohemian leisure” and decide not
to settle there. The “modernism” in the title of Gano’s book refers
not only to that suggested by developments in the arts, but also to
the widespread influence of the growth of a capitalist economy.
Gano’s approach is to present a general outline of the development
of each of her chosen colonies and the effect that the arrival of
the artists had on the original inhabitants, and in turn, the impact
that the advent of tourism had on the artists. She then adds lengthy
analyses of relevant works by major figures related to the colonies.
With Carmel she looks at Robinson Jeffers, for Provincetown its
Eugene O’Neill, and for Taos, D.H. Lawrence. My only complaint about
this method would be that not enough attention is paid to other
writers and artists in the communities involved. The result then
tends to be that it’s difficult to decide if sufficient work of
quality was created in a wider sense. The reader may find it
difficult to understand whether or not it went beyond the ordinary
and added anything of value to the world-wide continuity of artistic
modernism.
From Gano’s account of Carmel it would seem that, almost from the
start, its role as a haven for artists was under threat from real
estate developers and other local businessmen. And from tourism. She
quotes from a journalist who, as early as 1892, was noting the fact
that “the whole area had been transformed into a veritable
picnicking ground for the whole state” and the genuine bohemians
were being pushed out. And there’s the later lament by Robinson
Jeffers in his poem, “Carmel Point”, when he refers to “This
beautiful place defaced with a crop of suburban houses”.
Similar problems of business interests intervening and too many
tourists arriving were experienced in Provincetown. Charles
Hawthorne had established an art school there in 1899, and the
writer Mary Heaton Vorse bought a house in the town in 1905 and
encouraged friends and contacts from Greenwich Village to visit and
sometimes settle along Cape Cod. The local economy, primarily
centred around fishing, was in decline, and it was obviously to the
advantage of real estate developers and businesses to look for
alternative sources of income. Renting and selling properties to
artists and writers boomed and astute promoters began to advertise
the idea of Provincetown as a bohemian outpost where painters and
poets could be seen at play.
I think that, in many ways, Provincetown might be a livelier subject
for commentary than Carmel. The range of creative artists and others
who either lived in the area, or spent some time there, was wider
and reflected the fact that New York was within manageable distance
as far as travel was concerned. Numerous relatively well-known
painters and writers could congregate not only in Provincetown
itself but also in neighbouring towns like Truro and Wellfleet. But
Provincetown was essentially the centre of activities and as such
was where tourists aimed for. Inevitably, the tourists, and the
well-to-do who had little interest in the arts but liked the idea of
living around Cape Cod, began to take over, with the result that
many of the genuinely creative people drifted away. There can never
be a bohemia if property prices and the general cost of living
prevent struggling painters and poets, and the idiosyncratic and
eccentric types who cluster around them, from living cheaply and
getting together.
Gano looks in some detail at the role played in the Provincetown art
colony by the Provincetown Players. Founded by George Cram Cook and
Susan Glaspell, with Mary Heaton Vorse, Neith Boyce, and one or two
others in close support, the Players’ original intention was to
present mostly short plays largely written by members of the local
bohemian community. It initially had “no aim except the amusement of
its members”, and the people who wrote the plays often acted in
them. Scenery, where it existed, was functional. Should anyone want
to sample the kind of work written and performed by some of those
involved there is an excellent selection of short plays in
The Provincetown Players,
edited by Barbara Ozieblo, published by Sheffield Academic Press,
1994.
Most of the plays are probably forgotten now, but Eugene O’Neill’s
Bound East For Cardiff,
is remembered as an early work by someone who became famous and not
only in America. He doesn’t appear to have written anything that
referred specifically to Provincetown and its inhabitants, and Gano
devotes most of her comments on O’Neill to
the Emperor Jones, the
play which effectively brought him to the attention of critics and
wider audiences. Daring to feature a black actor in the leading role
it was launched in Greenwich Village, moved to Broadway, and
extensively toured the country at a time when the Ku Klux Klan was
active. Not all Provincetown’s supposed liberals were colour blind,
and limits on what blacks could do were in operation in many towns
and cities. Gano points out that it was written while O’Neill was
living on Cape Cod. Her analysis of the play is perceptive. O’Neill,
of course, was ambitious and Provincetown was simply one rung on the
ladder to success. Not everyone was as idealistic as George Cram
Cook.
Both Carmel and Provincetown were coastal locations with developing
transport facilities, but when Mabel Dodge Sterne (as she was then)
“discovered” Taos she couldn’t have chosen a more isolated place
from the point of view of access. Set in the New Mexico desert, its
nearest train depot was over twenty miles away and road travel meant
“a long rough trip”. The isolation seemed to attract “a creative
class of painters, writers, lovers of Nature and students of
American history”. But Gano suggests that Taos wasn’t perhaps as
isolated as we might think. It was, she says, “a long-established,
cosmopolitan site of transnational commerce and intercultural
exchange”. It wasn’t a complete cultural backwater, and as soon as
artists and writers began to arrive in force commercial interests
were quick to use their presence for advertising purposes.
Mabel Dodge Luhan, as she became when she married a local resident,
Tony Luhan, had the money to live in comfort and invite artists,
writers, and others to spend long, and hopefully productive periods
in Taos. Marsden Hartley and Andrew Dasburg were among the first
visitors, followed by Leo Stein, Willa Cather, Jean Toomer, Carl
Jung, and Georgia O’Keefe. Gano indicates that they were attempting
to “escape” from “a repellent modernity epitomised by the European
war fuelled by a capitalism run amok and stoked by technological
advances”. What they were seeking in Taos was not only a refuge from
industrial society and war, but also a kind of spiritual awakening
that they might find among the original inhabitants of the area.
The Pueblo Indians, whose traditional ceremonial dances and
practices were frowned on by the authorities, seemed to offer
something far beyond the mere physical satisfactions of the
everyday. But their activities were under threat from the “two most
reprehensible elements of mass modernity: aggressive and ongoing
governmental suppression and a voracious uncontrolled capitalism”.
The artists and writers, or “anarcho-bohemians”, as Gano describes
them, empathised with the dancers, having suffered their own
“political persecution and cultural suppression” when the government
banned certain publications, limited freedom of expression, and
introduced conscription after America decided to go to war in 1917.
When D.H. Lawrence arrived in Taos he was in search of his own
refuge from modern society. His short novel,
St Mawr, looked at in
some detail by Gano, tells the story of Lou, a sophisticated but
disillusioned young woman who flees from polite society in London
and elsewhere and seeks salvation in the American South West. But,
“as Lawrence finally shows us, Lou’s attempted escape from the
modern world system can only be unsuccessful. As the reader is
gradually made aware, there is nowhere beyond or outside of this
system to escape to. Even at the world’s most apparently pristine
and unmolested margins and edges, buying and selling is the rule of
the day”.
Gano closes her book with some brief comments on Taos today where
it’s possible to book into the Frieda Lawrence or Georgia O’Keefe
room for the night at the Mabel Dodge Luhan house. And attend a
creative retreat or workshop. She also mentions a new “art colony”
in Marfa, Texas, with “nineteen permanent art galleries, multiple
non-profit foundations devoted to the arts, internationally
celebrated music and arts festivals”, plus restaurants and the like.
This truly is the age of the arts administrator and not the artist.
The Little Art Colony and US Modernism
is a useful and provocative book, well-researched and coherently
argued. My own feeling, for what it’s worth, is that art colonies,
like bohemia (other than in its individual “state of mind” sense),
are essentially a thing of the past. They depended on spontaneity
for their creation and can’t be constructed by institutions.
They had their day and
reading about them is always fascinating and likely to fill one with
nostalgia for a perhaps shabbier but more open time. But the
bureaucrats have taken over and creative people are now subject to
their whims and wishes for bigger audiences and greater profits.
|