FROM HOPPER TO ROTHKO :
AMERICA’S ROAD TO MODERN ART
Edited by Ortrud Westheider and Michael Philipp
Prestel Publishing. 249 pages. £39.99. ISBN 978-3791-3569-38
Reviewed by Jim Burns
Duncan Phillips (1886-1966) founded the Phillips Collection in
Washington
in 1921. Born into what is described as “a wealthy Gilded Age
family”, he was lucky enough to be the recipient of funds which
allowed him to indulge in his passion for art.
I think it’s important to say that Phillips wasn’t just a
rich collector of art that he was keen to have in his home to
impress friends and visitors. He had a genuine interest in
paintings, could write about them knowledgeably, and wanted the
general public to see them.
It’s interesting to note that Phillips was an advocate for American
artists at a time when many
American collectors, critics, and curators were reluctant to
acknowledge that they could stand comparison with European painters.
It’s pointed out that, in 1929, “the venerable Metropolitan Museum
of Art deemed the work of American artists not museum-worthy when it
refused sculptor/patron Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney’s gift of 500
contemporary American paintings and an accompanying endowment”.
Phillips was, therefore, going against the grain when he chose to
collect and display the work of American painters in his gallery.
But he was fully aware of what had taken place in Europe in the
nineteenth century, particularly in France, and his
collection included many European artists. It was a fact, after all,
that hundreds of American painters had spent time in Paris, and at the artists’ colonies in
Giverny, Pont-Aven, and elsewhere, in order to study the work of the
Impressionists and other French artists. It’s worth noting that one
of the paintings that Phillips purchased was Renoir’s splendid,
Luncheon of the Boating Party.
It’s interesting to consider Phillips’ approach to collecting. He
wasn’t “concerned with creating a comprehensive collection or
documenting a period or movement”. He said that he was committed to
buying “many examples of the work of artists I especially admire and
delight to honour…..instead of having one example of each of the
standardised celebrities”. He responded to “individual voices” like
Milton Avery and there is an “in-depth group of Averys that remains
a cornerstone of the collection today”. I doubt that Avery’s work is
known to most people in
Britain.
The same could be said of other artists who Phillips supported. The
catalogue reproduces paintings by Augustus Vincent Tack, who painted
what are referred to as “semiabstract landscapes” and “poetic
abstractions”. I have to admit that I knew nothing at all about Tack
before reading this book and admiring the work of his that it
contains. And there is Edward Bruce, whose 1933 canvas,
Power, offers a striking
cityscape of New York.
It’s rightly said in the Foreword that “American art from the first
half of the twentieth century is still little known in Europe”, and
it’s true that quite a few of the artists in the Phillips
collection, in addition to Tack and Bruce, might well arouse a
bemused response if their names were mentioned in conversation in
Britain. A few others might elicit a nod of recognition because of
the popularity of Impressionist art and the profusion of paintings
by Americans who spent time in
France. I was lucky enough a few
years ago to have visited the gallery in Giverny more than once when
it was operated by the Terra Foundation for American Art. It had
several exhibitions of American Impressionists which included work
by Theodore Robinson, Childe Hassam, John Henry Twachtman, Louis
Ritman, Mary Fairchild McMonnies, and others.
There is, in From Hopper to
Rothko, an interesting essay by Susanne Scharf on the “Reception
and Interpretation of Impressionism in
America”. It wasn’t only in
America
that the reactions to Impressionist painters were, initially at
least, hostile. The art student, Julian Alden Weir, visited the
Third Impressionist Exhibition in
Paris in 1877, and wrote to his parents that
he never in his life “saw more horrible things”. Another American
art student, Ellen Day Hale, wasn’t quite as vehement in her
comments, but questioned the way that the human figure was
represented in many of the paintings. Weir later changed his mind
about what he saw in Paris, and the catalogue
describes him as “a leading American Impressionist”. His painting,
Roses, acquired by
Phillips in 1920, is attractive, if conventional.
The difficulty was that the Americans in
Paris
had been trained to “render the human figure as naturalistically as
possible and to depict it in its spatial depth by means of
appropriate tonality and light-dark contrasts”. They didn’t have
quite the same problem when it came to Impressionist landscapes, and
their paintings seemed to indicate that they felt happier following
Impressionist guide-lines in that area. But it does appear to be
true that many of the paintings produced by Americans, who are now
classed as Impressionists, are relatively straightforward in style
and technique. They may have seen Monet’ work, and some of them even
knew him, but they rarely got anywhere near his idea of
Impressionism.
They weren’t alone in this, of course, and it makes one realise that
Impressionism, as a term supposedly pointing to something specific,
is now so loosely applied that it can cover any number of American,
British, Australian, Belgian, and other artists from a variety of
countries, who often, though not always, spent time in France,
painted en plein air, and
took some inspiration from the painters associated with the
Impressionist movement. But, as another essay stresses, “the
American Impressionists never completely lost their grounding in the
realist tradition”.
It isn’t a criticism of American Impressionism, for which I have a
great fondness, to say that the pleasant and the polite were key
factors in its productions. Look at the samples of work by William
Merritt Chase and Frank Weston Benson in
From Hopper to Rothko,
and I think you’ll see what I’m suggesting. There’s never a hint of
the mills and mines that provided the money for the wealthy to
purchase paintings. There is a streetsweeper to be seen in Childe
Hassam’s finely balanced, Washington
Arch, Spring, but he’s hardly noticeable in comparison with the
lady in the long dress walking towards the viewer, or the coach and
horses in front of the Arch. Duncan Phillips isn’t to be faulted for
obtaining paintings by Hassam and other Impressionists. They are
good in themselves, and the fact that they don’t offer any social
criticism should not be held against the artists. They were painting
what was wanted by people who could afford to buy art.
As an interesting aside, the essay on how Impressionism was
accepted, or not, in America, focuses some attention on the role of
Lilla Cabot Perry in introducing work by Monet and others to people
she knew might be interested: “Through her articles and lectures,
she played a decisive role in making Monet’s new painting style and
art known in Boston”. Mary Cassatt is rightly often given credit for
getting Impressionist painters better known in the USA, but it’s
good to see Cabot Perry also being acknowledged as active. She had
lived in Giverny, knew Monet, and bought his paintings. She also
supported the American Impressionist, John Leslie Breck. And she was
a talented artist in her own right.
The American public’s responses to Impressionism were not only
affected by the techniques used, but also by the subject-matter in
evidence. Life on the streets, in cafes and bars, shops and railways
stations, and among the working-classes, simply wasn’t seen in most
American paintings at that time. Portraits of society ladies, gentle
landscapes, perhaps sometimes a marine scene, were likelier topics
for what was hung in the home. When artists like John Sloan, George
Bellows, and William Glackens (all represented in the Phillips
collection) came along they were mockingly called “The Ashcan
School” because of their portrayals of
New York
life around its less-salubrious sections, in bar-rooms, at prize
fights, and in theatres. John Sloan’s
Six O’Clock, Winter is
superbly effective in the way it captures the interplay of light and
darkness, and the movement of people and machinery. It is almost
defiantly about city life. Duncan Phillips deserves credit for
recognising what the Ashcan artists were doing and showing their
work in his gallery.
Phillips was also alert to the other side of city life, the
loneliness and anonymity that contrasted with the hustle and bustle
of the streets. Edward Hopper’s paintings of figures isolated in
hotel rooms, and of buildings that seemed stark and without
character, emphasised a psychological problem that could impact on
individuals looking for a place in the life of the city.
Phillips never stood still in his search for individual artists who
excited him. In the 1930s he spoke up for the “Precisionists,”
painters such as Charles Sheeler, Stefan Hirsch, and Ralston
Crawford. Not names to ring many bells in Britain, though several examples of Sheeler’s
work were seen in the
America
After the Fall: Painting in the 1930s exhibition at the Royal Academy
earlier this year.
Later, Phillips collected work by Jackson, Pollock, Mark Rothko, and
Philip Guston, and he also had the curiosity to look at what
abstract expressionists on the West Coast were doing, and purchased
work by Richard Diebenkorn, Elmer Bischoff, and Sam Francis. I
recall a small Sam Francis exhibition in London some years ago, and Diebenkorn was the subject of a
Royal Academy exhibition in recent times, but
Bischoff who, along with Diebenkorn, moved some way back from
abstraction to figurative work in the 1950s, is probably less
well-known, at least to non-specialists.
I’ve moved around when discussing individual artists, and the
Phillips Collection includes many more talented people. He bought
Georgia O’Keefe paintings, and several by Marsden Hartley. The
latter arouses interest as someone who spent quite a lot of time in
Europe, primarily in Berlin. He was “one of the first advocates of
abstraction in the United States”,
and “promoted exchanges between artists in the
United States and Europe”.
A homosexual at a time when being openly gay was not acceptable in America, he found the more-relaxed attitudes in Europe easier to live with. Later, when times were hard in
the 1930s, and he was finding it difficult to sell his work, he
re-invented himself as “a true
Maine
artist,” painting “stylised landscapes” and “dramatic coastal
scenes”. Robert McAlmon
knew Hartley through encounters in Greenwich Village and
Berlin in the 1920s, and one of his stories, “From
Maine”, features an artist based on Hartley, and another,
“Distinguished Air”, set in Berlin,
also highlights Hartley, in fictional form, as active in gay circles
in the Germany of the
1920s.
Phillips died in 1966, but he was still
searching for work that appealed to him just prior to his death. He
acquired several “colour field” paintings by Kenneth Noland, Morris
Louis, and Helen Frankenthaler. Her work, together with that of Mark
Rothko, was said to have been influential among artists working in
the “colour field” approach. She “experimented with diluted
pigments, which flowed together into fields of colour on raw
canvas”, while Rothko “created misty veils of colour given a spatial
presence by the constellation of colour, light, and proportion”.
There is a photograph in the catalogue of the Rothko room in the
Washington
gallery.
The catalogue has been published to accompany the exhibition,
From Hopper to Rothko:
America’s Road to Modern Art at the Museum Barberini,
Potsdam, from June 17 to October 3, 2017, but
it functions as a publication in itself, complete with informative
essays, a chronology of Duncan Phillips’ activities, artists’
biographies, and a useful bibliography. Reading it and looking at
the illustrations, I can only regret that the exhibition will not
come to the United Kingdom.
We simply don’t get to see enough American art, or perhaps it’s more
correct to say that we don’t have the opportunity to look at work by
artists we know too little about. Hopper we know, Rothko we know,
Motherwell we know, but
what about Arthur Dove, Thomas Eakins, Rockwell Kent, Bradley Walker
Tomlin, and Harold Weston? Duncan Phillips had the good taste to
collect their work, and it would be instructive if we could see it.
We can’t all get to Washington or Potsdam.
|