The gamecock. (Columbia, S.C.) 1908-2006, August 27, 1980, Image 25
Errteptainmer
Major exhibit opens at J
O' Keeff e an
By Mark Chevalier
Art Crttlc
Realism is always better when it is more than a picture of
someining. wnen 11 concerns liseu wun more man inai
which is before the eye, or with simple craft, technique or
style. Realism is exciting when it absorbs, puzzles and
confuses. When it extends what our eyes have never seen to
what minds can only imagine.lt is great when it orchestrates
all of this without pretension, gimmick or manipulation. It
is magic when someone like Georgia O'Keeffe embraces
such variables and funnels them to the point of her brush,
never sacrificing the essence of her form nor the individuality
of her spirit.
What separates O'Keeffe and selected commrades such as
Arthur Dove, John Marin and others from the lot of the
eternal conv/realists is simnlv flexahilitv. and the desire to
grow, evolve and change. At a time when most realists were
finding themselves threatened by the emergence of the
abstract, O'Keeffe and others at Alfred Stieglitz's Gallery 291
were enlivened by it, and saw in the abstract a new way to
evaluate and project their images. O'Keeffe says in the
Viking Press Studio Book (a format in which the illustrations
7f is surprising to me to see how
miini/ nonn/p c&naratf* thf? nhmntiwG
* t
from the abstract. Objective painting
is not good painting unless it is good in
the abstract sense.'
? fZanrnia (1
J?
of an artist's work are accompanied by their own text); "It is
surprising to me to see how many people separate the objective
from the abstract. Objective painting is not good
painting unless it is good in the abstract sense. A hill or tree
cannot make a good painting just because it is a hill or a tree.
It is lines and color put together so that they say something.
For me that is the very basis of painting. The abstraction is
often the most definite form for the intangible thing in myself
that I can onlv clarifv in naint "
That desire to define "the intangible thing in myself"
combined with the notion that all work must be "good in the
abstract sense" elevated both these artists and the entire
scope of objective work. Suddenly, a new expressionism was
returning to realism on the coat-tails of abstraction.
Such sensibilities as they emerged in the early 1900s can be
seen in an important exhibition currently on display at
McKissick Museums, entitled Georgia O'Keeffe and Her
Circle. The exhibit, which was organized by curator Lynn
RAhflplcAn 1\/I * mrc qnH Rom; 14 Rncori faohirnc 11
JiVUk/Vl IOV/1I 4fAJ \/l O OHU Uii \zVW4 JUU1 1 J AX. A VV/UVII, IVUIVU VO 11
works by O'Keeffe, and eight others by contemporaries
Charles Demuth, Marsden Hartley, Arthur Dove, John Marin
and Arthur W. Dow.
The title of the show is somewhat of a misnomer, for it
seems to imply that O'Keeffe was the central force within the
group. Actually they were a "circle" in that, for a period,
their activities centered around Stieglitz's Gallery 291 in New
York City. Stieglitz's gallery played an important roll in
i ucuf yiu u ncc
I
$
By Mark Chevalier sne invisionea during tnose
Artcrttks early years. From the early
Georgia O'Keefe was born Saturday afternoon art
on November 15, 1887 near lessons in Sun Pririe to her
Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. In first experience with the
her Viking Press Studio professional art world in 1905
Book, she notes that she at the Art Institute of
decided to become an artist Chicage, O'Keeffe saw
in the eighth grade, although possibilities that extended
she is still unclear where the far beyond the pallet of the
idea came from: "I don't portrait.
know where I got my artist At 20, O'Keeffe left
idea. The scraps of what I Chicago for a year at the Art
remember do not explain to p 1,1
me where it came from. I V *
only know that by that time
it was definitely settled in
?v,d\f.?? miuiK f/?' m/i I na\/nr BraS! " ^ .^o^B^B^l^" , r.--'.; ' -'-'^ 1,
Georgia O'Keeffe never
became the portrait painter O'Keeffe's 'Yeilou
Xfr.Kififiirlc
id'circle'ext
fostering both the careers and the (then) radical styles of the
artists he assopiat?d with Of his inflnonrp Arthur Dovp
wrote; "I do not think I could have existed as a painter
without that super, encouragement and the battle he has
fought day by day for 25 years. He is without a doubt the one
who has done the most for art in America.''
Stieglitz's relationship with O'Keeffe advanced beyond the
O 'Keeffe's 'Veliow Ca/la ? Green Leaves'
ffe: 82 art years
Students League in New terest him, the paintings ha
York City, which was to be alive with paint and
followed by a summer at the kind of dash and "go" th;
Chase Still Life Class on kept us looking fc
Lake George. O'Keeffe something lively, kept i
recalls the energy William pretty well keyed up."
Merritt Chase stimulated in There is a bit of irony i
her; "There was something the fact that after th
fresh and energetic and energizing stimulus <
fierce and exacting about Chase, O'Keeffe stopp*
him that made him fun. His painting for the followir
love of style-color- paint as five years, from 1908-1912.
paint-was lively...To in- was perhaps the stage th
tbc^^n
vCactus' (detail) . ,?OK~ft. P,?
end realism
professional level, and in 1924 the two were married.
Although their marriage was cut short by Stieglitz's death in
1946,0'Keeffe gives much credit to the influence her husband
had on her, both in terms of ideas and the sensitive
photographic work he produced.
The O'Keeffe paintings in this collection at McKissick can
serve as a good introduction for the unindated, and will
surely rekindle interest by those who have previously enioved
her work. The oldest Daintine here is 'From the Plains
I', done in 1919. Nearly abstract, a slight hint of mountains
cut across the bottom of the work, almost forced from view
by the oppressive clouds that loom above. Lightning slashes
cut the upper atmosphere, and with the lower mountain
range, form a kind of frame from which the clouds recede.
O'Keeffe has suggested that the work arose from a stay in
Texas, in which the sound of cattle pens lowering day and
night 'haunted me.' The work possesses such an audible
quality. The churning clouds almost rumble as they scrape
across the mountains, and the lightning slashes, less like
those of a storm, are like spurts of sound penetrating the
Hnrlrnpcc Thnc tho u/nrlf attainc a IrinH nf Hictinoo r?r
detachment, as if the world has pulled away from us, leaving
'At a time when most realists were
finding themselves threatened by the
emergence of the abstract, O'Keeffe
and others at Alfred Stieglitz's,
Gallery 291 were enlivened by it...'
us entranced by a redundant, alienating sound.
"At the Rodeo" is similar, utilizing swirling forms and
color to suggest sound and movement. It is perhaps the
lassoing rope as it closes upon its prey, or perhaps, it is
something entirely different.
"Morning Glories, New Mexico, II"and "Yellow Calla,
Green Leaves" are both beautiful examples of O Keeffe's
flower paintings. The former is a small work depicting two
flowers, one from the top, the other from the side. It is
wonderfully simple, an almost frail depiction that gains
much from her scratchy yet sensuous handling of paint.
One painting that is somewhat out of character for
-O'Keeffe is "My Shanty, Lake George," done in 1922. She
says she painted it to prove that she could "...paint one of
those dismal-colored paintings like the men..."
If "My Shanty" relates to any other work in the exhibit, it
ic A rt hnr HAirn'o ^PIaii/^c '' A ciHa Cf inrtlit?
io vii/ai ij nt iiiui ivuvt o viuuuo. rwmt uuui uuu^uu-,
O'Keeffe was closest to Dove. She notes that when she first
saw a reproduction of Dove's work, she "trekked the streets
looking for others." Dove differs from the other artists here,
being that he was considerably more experimental in terms
of medium. In fact, much of Dove's later work became more
assemblage than painting. Note in "Clouds" the sandpaper
mountains.
Georgia O'Keeffe and Her Circle is an important regional
show, and one that I strongly recommend you spend some
time with. The show here at McKissick will continue through
Sept.25, at which time it will travel to Charleston for a run at
the Gibbes Art Gallery from Oct. 10 through Nov. 9.
j I O'Keeffe omitted"
e i
trom art riistory ;
id By Mark Chevalier
3 An Critic
at Georgia O'Keeffe hasn't made the history books.
>r Arthur Dove? Sure. Charles Demuth. Marsden
is Hartley, John Marin? Of course. But not O'Keeffe. It's
puzzling with such a "circle" of artists, that one-one j
in that many consider to be the best of the lot-is excluded.
ie What could separate O'Keefe, is she so different...oh
of no, could she be the reason?
id If you've ever taken an art history course chances
ig are very good that your instructor had you buy one of
It two books that virtually monopolized the art history
at field; Janson's The History of Art, or Gardner's Art
X/ T*f !_ a. I a a C s-k?wv r* flint*** !
A" i nruugn ine nuw n unc wcic iu tuuiuiuc mtov
"d two volumes, that span more than 2000 years of art,
re how many women have found print upon their pages,
^n Fifty? Twenty-five? Ten? As incredible as it sounds,
al there are absolutely no women artists in either Janson
rt or Gardner.
; The feminists art journals are crying sexism. And
as who can blame them, for clearly there have been
he significant women artists. Aside from O'Keeffe, Mary
er Cassatt comes to mind, or Kathe Kolwitz or Bridget
on Riley, or Louise Nevelson. Not only are none of the
at above in Janson and Gardner, but Klsen's Purposes of
? Art, E.H. Gombrich's The Story of Art and Robb and |
i's Garrison's Art in the Western World also fail to
i a mention them-or any women artist.
ig Whether or not the basis for such neglect is rooted in
Y\t\ nvnlnoiAn Kqo Krtffiin A Kn imrlnrnut
vii limuv iiuoiu, nit ^aviuoiuii uao iu mv wiiuv i v.ui uj
tto new women-encompassing texts and by instructors
on themselves. Nearly every art historian, male or
5. female, inserts women artists into their lectures,
ler O'Keeffe comes up as often as any other 20th century |
in- realist. And new books, such as Canaday's Mainis,
streams of Modern Art, mentions five women; Koos'
z's An Illustrated Handbook of Art mentions four; and
ne, Stubbs' Graphic Arts in the 20th Century mentions a :
?6 staggering ten. I