Amanda C. Burdan is the author of the new book America's Impressionism: Echoes of a Revolution. She is a curator at the Brandywine Conservancy and Museum of Art in Pennsylvania, which will be presenting a companion exhibition of American Impressionist art next year.
Q:
You write, "American Impressionism is one of the most enduring — yet
complex and even at times contradictory — styles of art ever produced
in this country." Why do you think that is?
A:
American Impressionism is complex in that it goes well beyond the simple
“translation” of a style from one country (France) to another (the United
States).
As
the style came to be “Americanized” not every aspect of the primary style was
emulated. The focus on the seedier street life of the city worked well for some
French Impressionists, but was not favored by American artists—or perhaps more
correctly, by American patrons. There was, over the course of several decades,
a tailoring of the style to the tastes of U.S. audiences.
Impressionism
persisted as a leading style of artists long after it receded in France,
becoming an early phase in the careers of the American modernists of the later 20th
century. I like to say that the style lingered in the U.S., which then pair it
contextually with later historical events—World War I, for example.
One
of the features that is shared with American and French Impressionism is the
focus on capturing a scene or portrait in the moment. This often means a lack
of finish or polish to a work in favor of showcasing an unguarded moment and
the dazzling effects of light captured on the spot.
Artists
around the world began to reject the long-standing traditions of art that
relied so heavily on the precise imitation of the visual world. Painstaking
study in a rigorous academic system, which passed along the knowledge of
illusionism, began to be discarded by art students.
The
“here and now” was of increasing interest to artists in the late 19th century,
and that’s the “revolution” within the title of the exhibition and its
catalogue. But the “here and now” of Paris in 1874 was different than the “here
and now” of Cos Cob, Connecticut, in 1894 or San Francisco, California, in
1915. It’s the artistic reverberations of the style that make Impressionism a
global phenomenon.
Sometimes
those reverberations appear to be at odds with the original spirit of the style
as it emerged in France.
For
example, U.S. artists often taught the style of Impressionism to classes at art
colonies and summer schools. Even though the style is rooted in the rebellion against
the academic system, which encouraged students to imitate the work of their
teachers.
It’s
fair to say that American Impressionism was more homogenized than the original
French group, who each had their own idiosyncratic style, very recognizable and
individual. In the U.S., individuality was much more subtle.
Q:
What do you see as some of the most common perceptions and misperceptions about
Impressionism in general, and American Impressionism in particular?
A:
One of the common perceptions about Impressionism is that it was only a French
style—countries around the world actually have their own versions of the style.
It’s
not surprising then that one of the major misconceptions about American
Impressionism is that it was done simply in imitation of French Impressionism.
Seen in that way, as derivative work, the style loses value, particularly in
the American art world of the later 20th century that rewarded artistic
innovation and individuality. This is a challenge that all global
Impressionisms face.
Certainly
French Impressionism played a major role in the formation of American
Impressionism as the French practitioners were the ones to break with academic
traditions and bring the style to the public.
In
the U.S., other factors, including the nationalist ties to landscape painting,
the experimentation of artists known as Tonalists, and the international
training considered so critical to an artist’s resumé all played a role in
molding how Impressionism would grow in the U.S.
Even
within French Impressionism there are roots of influence and inspiration that
informed the mainstream idea of Impressionism, such as Japanese prints and the
rise of photography. To research the development of Impressionism in the United
States is to learn the deeper contextual history that shaped the final form of
the style.
Q:
How popular was Impressionist art in the United States during the time these
artists were at work?
A:
One of the aspects of Impressionism in the U.S. that is so curious is that the
style was harshly criticized and ridiculed when first introduced, but grew
steadily in popularity long after French Impressionism had been replaced by
even more avant-garde work in its home country.
It
took some time for American audiences and artists to warm up to the
style—partly, I’m sure, out of its disregard for tradition.
The
fine arts in the United States had long been criticized as being a field with
no tradition. This is what drove art students to Europe, where tradition
abounded and different nations competed on an international stage for cultural
primacy.
After
generations of artists attempted to fill the blank slate of artistic tradition
in the U.S. with the traditions of other countries, artists, patrons, and
burgeoning arts institutions were wary of a style that represented the
rejection of all of that.
The
popularity of French, and then American, Impressionism grew in fitful ways.
New
American wealth of the gilded age certainly played a role in terms of growing
art collections. As a matter of economics, American collectors often gravitated
toward the upstart style, reflective of modernity to be sure, but also less
expensive than Old Master works.
Monet,
and others of the French style, benefited from this because part of their
revolution in the art world was to upend the traditions of art patronage by exhibiting
and selling in commercial galleries.
Once
Impressionism became “Americanized” by reflecting subjects familiar to the
patrons and art audiences in this country, the “foreign-ness” of the style
receded, which served to increase its popularity.
The
first public exhibition of French Impressionism in the United States happened
in New York in 1886, when a leading Parisian art dealer sent a group of
paintings rich in French Impressionism to be displayed in New York.
By
1893, at the Chicago World’s Fair—which included many American Impressionist
paintings and murals—the U.S. demonstrated a facility for artistic spectacle to
match that of the Paris World’s Fair of 1889.
It
was in 1915 at the Panama-Pacific Exposition in San Francisco that American Impressionism
became the dominant style of painting presented by the nation. By that time,
enclaves of Impressionist artists had popped up around the country in
colonies—all over New England, on the coast of California, and in many regions
in between.
Q:
How did you choose the essays to include in the book?
A:
The essays proceeded naturally from the themes of the exhibition. Since the goal
was to view the work of American Impressionists more broadly and more
inclusively, essays about different regions of the country made sense.
The
exhibition focuses on the American Southwest and California as two fertile
locales for American Impressionism.
William
Keyse Rudolph, of the San Antonio Museum of Art at the time he wrote his essay,
is deeply knowledgeable about Texas Impressionists and Scott Shields, of the
Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento, is a leading scholar on California
Impressionists.
Their
combined expertise helped to put Western variations of Impressionism in the
context of, and on more equal terms with, the more mainstream East Coast
artists.
I
also wanted to focus attention on the timeline of Impressionism in the United
States—the late start and long life of the movement in this country.
The
Dixon Gallery and Gardens in Memphis was already signed on as a partner in the
exhibition and their director Kevin Sharp expressed his interest in exploring
the longevity of American Impressionism.
Emily
Burns, a professor at Auburn University, was already working on the concept of cultural
belatedness and American culture in France and so I asked her if she might
apply that thinking to the story of American Impressionism and see what might
come of looking through that lens.
I
knew I wanted to write about the perfect storm that arose in American art to
raise Impressionism to the heights it found in this country.
I
had been thinking about that for several years and trying out different ideas
in lectures and getting good and helpful feedback. I drew on a number of those
ideas for my essay on the “preconditions” of American Impressionism.
While
I was working on the early planning of the exhibition, Ross King published Mad
Enchantment: Claude Monet and the Painting of the Water Lilies, which helped to
solidify my understanding that Monet had a specific and singular identity for
Americans.
He
represented the world of Impressionism and, after removing himself to Giverny,
the focused study that elongated Impressionism into the 20th century. I asked
Ross if he would write something about the American interaction—particularly
the patronage and popularity—with Monet.
Q:
What are you working on now?
A:
Right now I’m working on three essays for other projects.
I’ve
written an essay for the exhibition catalogue for Ralston Crawford: Air + Space
+ War, organized by the Vilcek Foundation, about the artist’s work for the
military in making weather charts during World War II and his work for Fortune
magazine covering the atomic bomb tests in the Bikini atoll. The publication,
out next year, is by Merrell.
I’m
contributing an essay about artist May Alcott Nieriker, Louisa May Alcott’s
youngest sister, to a volume devoted to Nieriker’s unsung career, published by
Routledge.
I’m
also working on a piece about the artist Doris Emrick Lee for an anthology
called Unforgettable, edited by Charles Eldredge, about fantastic historical
American artists whose talents have been hidden from mainstream view for too
long.
My
next major exhibition will be Jamie Wyeth: Unsettled, with a catalogue
published by Skira Rizzoli. The exhibition opens at the Brandywine River Museum
of Art in October of 2022 and will travel internationally in 2023.
The
theme of the exhibition is the darker, anxious, and uneasy works that Jamie
Wyeth has produced throughout his long career. I will examine a number of his
works thematically trying to divine what it is that makes them so haunting.
I’m
gathering a group of authors, who will be able to shed light on their own
artistic practice in other fields such as filmmaking and music, including how
they use their particular media to create an unsettling mood.
Q:
Anything else we should know?
A:
When the blue lines for this book arrived, I printed them out and took them
home with me to work on over the weekend. I didn’t realize at the time that it
would be months before I would be able to return to my office, my research
notes, and my personal library again.
Even
as Italy was shut down in the early phases of the global pandemic, our printer
Verona Libri was miraculously able to go to press on schedule.
In
the publication’s acknowledgments I discuss art historian William Gerdts,
calling him “the architect of American Impressionism,” for his own pioneering
research on the topic as well as the generations of scholars he directed.
His
work and the work of his students form the basis of this study, which would not
have been possible without their persistence in foregrounding a style that was
not well-regarded at the time.
--Interview with Deborah Kalb
No comments:
Post a Comment