Broad Strokes, page 23
FOR LUKAS & ZUZU,
ARTISTS & ATHLETES
& FOR
RO,
ALWAYS
& FOR
POLLY ANN QUINN,
WITH LOVE & ADMIRATION
(& APOLOGIES FOR THE BAD WORDS)
Text copyright © 2017 by Bridget Quinn.
Illustrations on pages 18, 30, 38, 50, 60, 72, 84, 96, 104, 114, 124, 134, 144, 152, and 162 copyright © 2017 by Lisa Congdon.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher.
Pages 179-183 constitute a continuation of the copyright page.
ISBN 9781452152837 (epub, mobi)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
Names: Quinn, Bridget, author.
Title: Broad strokes : 15 women who made art and made history (in that order) / Bridget Quinn ; with illustrations by Lisa Congdon.
Description: San Francisco : Chronicle Books, [2017] | Includes bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016023856 | ISBN 9781452152363 (hardback)
Subjects: LCSH: Women artists—Biography. | Women artists—History. | Art—History. | BISAC: BIOGRAPHY & AUTOBIOGRAPHY / Women. | ART / History / General.
Classification: LCC N8354 .Q47 2017 | DDC 709.2/52 [B]—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016023856
Design by Kristen Hewitt
Chronicle Books LLC
680 Second Street
San Francisco, California 94107
www.chroniclebooks.com
I think it would be well, and proper, and obedient, and pure, to grasp your one necessity and not let it go, to dangle from it limp wherever it takes you. Then even death, where you’re going no matter how you live, cannot you part.
—ANNIE DILLARD, “LIVING LIKE WEASELS”
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
13
CHAPTER 1:
ARTEMISIA GENTILESCHI
19
CHAPTER 2:
JUDITH LEYSTER
31
CHAPTER 3:
ADÉLAÏDE LABILLE-GUIARD
39
CHAPTER 4:
MARIE DENISE VILLERS
51
CHAPTER 5:
ROSA BONHEUR
61
CHAPTER 6:
EDMONIA LEWIS
73
CHAPTER 7:
PAULA MODERSOHN-BECKER
85
CHAPTER 8:
VANESSA BELL
97
CHAPTER 9:
ALICE NEEL
105
CHAPTER 10:
LEE KRASNER
115
CHAPTER 11:
LOUISE BOURGEOIS
125
CHAPTER 12:
RUTH ASAWA
135
CHAPTER 13:
ANA MENDIETA
145
CHAPTER 14:
KARA WALKER
153
CHAPTER 15:
SUSAN O’MALLEY
163
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
174
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
175
ART CREDITS
179
INDEX
184
INTRODUCTION
IT WAS 1987, the spring of my first college year in California. I was still a teenager, though just barely, and what I would make of myself in the world preoccupied my waking hours. In a move that made no rational sense to anyone, including myself, I was majoring in art history, a topic I knew nothing about. But, somehow, art was the thing I wanted most to understand. So in I jumped, a girl raised on the high plains of Montana, where our town’s one museum was dedicated to the work of local cowboy artist Charlie Russell.
That spring I was thrilled that my courses had entered the twentieth century at last, including a class dedicated to modern American art. After three thousand years of gods and nudes and kings and saints and boating parties on the Seine, I was finally comfortable. The class began with Regionalist painters like Thomas Hart Benton and Grant Wood, whose homey depictions edged along the paintings I’d grown up with.
The course was taught by my only female professor, a visiting scholar from Texas, who had long, untamed red hair and wore men’s white shirts and jeans with cowboy boots. She walked with a cane and spoke in the flat, barely discernable drawl of the Texas Panhandle. I adored her.
So when she said, Hey now, this is why abstraction is great and beautiful and true, I wrote it down in my notebook and I believed it. For the first time, I experienced the artworks lit up on the big screens in that vast auditorium not as signifiers of this time period or that artist, but as objects of value in themselves, as sometimes beautiful—and sometimes failed—expressions of singular human beings in communication with . . . well, with all of humanity. With me, even, a pale and clueless woman-child with dyed black hair and a newly pierced nose. I fairly swooned with the romance of it.
And yet, there was something. Some niggle I couldn’t quite put my finger on. Some itch or need I could not locate clearly enough to ameliorate.
By the second week of Modern American Art, we were in New York and left only to peek in on Europe and see what was happening there. Or to follow Duchamp or Dalí or Mondrian or any other dozens of artists fleeing toward Manhattan. Occasionally, a wife or female model was mentioned, but rarely. I took notes and mostly liked what I saw and tried not to worry about anything else.
But then one afternoon our redheaded professor did not dim the lights. She started out just talking, leaning at a jaunty angle on her cane while glancing at her notes and relaying with some pleasure the story of one Jackson Pollock, who was born in Wyoming and went to high school in California. I leaned forward in my institutional seat. I hadn’t known any great artists came out of the American West.
She put on her glasses, smiled, and read something young Jackson had written in a questionnaire, right about the time he was my age: “As to what I would like to be. It is difficult to say. An artist of some kind.”
The whole world narrowed to the pinprick of my professor on stage. The niggle squirmed, but as I tried to locate its source and meaning, the lights went down and up came two ravishing paintings. One by Pollock and one by someone named Lee Krasner. Who was his wife, my professor said, removing her glasses. This Lee was a woman, and she was a painter, and she was good.
The niggle became sound, a roar in the brain so violent I missed most of the remaining lecture. When class was over, I marched my combat boots to the arts library and checked out three books on Jackson Pollock.
There were no books dedicated to Lee Krasner, so I had to find out about her through her husband. About how she had attended the Art Students League before him, where she was so accomplished that her instructor, Hans Hofmann, paid her the ultimate compliment: “This is so good you would not know it was painted by a woman.”
I closed the book, thinking of the volumes on art I’d grown up with.
My family owned a set of Time Life books dedicated to important artists, dozens of them on a shelf in my father’s study, each with the same gray cover, but each one dedicated to a different painter or sculptor. I loved these books for years, until about age ten, when I suddenly realized that not a single one was about a woman. Then I believed I’d uncovered yet another terrible adult truth: girls could not be great artists. After that, those books just made me sad.
I went to my locker in the art library and took out our main text, a massive volume called History of Art by H. W. Janson, hoisted it onto a table, and started flipping through. At last, on page 500, the early seventeenth-century section on the Italian Baroque, it read: Artemisia Gentileschi, followed by, “We have not encountered a woman artist thus far.” I wrote down her name, then worked slowly, page by page, to the end. By the time I hit the back cover, I had a list of sixteen women, one of them Lee Krasner.1 In more than 800 pages, this was all “official” art history could offer.
I mentioned the women artists in Janson’s book to my professor at her office hours. Except for Mary Cassatt and Georgia O’Keeffe, and now Krasner, I’d never heard of any of them.
She gave a throaty, smoker’s chuckle. “You’ve got the new edition! Our version didn’t have a single woman in it with her clothes on.” She waved a broad hand in the air, as if flicking away smoke. “Not really, but you know what I mean. No women artists.” She let me do my research paper on Krasner, with the understanding that it would be difficult to find sources.
It was.
But whenever I had the chance, I ferreted out what I could about the women on my Janson list. Some didn’t interest me much, but others, like Gentileschi and Krasner and Rosa Bonheur, a swaggering animal painter from the nineteenth century, I couldn’t get enough of. I also uncovered other incredible women not in Janson, like Edmonia Lewis, who was part Chippewa, part African American, came of age during the Civil War, and spent much of her adult life as a successful sculptor in Rome. Or Frida Kahlo, who, believe it or not, was just then starting to appear alongside Che Guevara on the T-shirts of Latina activists on campus. Kahlo wasn’t in Janson either, but the first English biography had come out a few years earlier and I found a copy in the main library (not the arts library).
Then, as now, I called myself a feminist, but my fixation with these artists went beyond feminism, if it had anything to do with it at all. I identified with these painters and sculptors the way my friends identified with Joy Division or T
Janson wrote his art history bible when he was a professor at the Institute of Fine Arts at New York University, which is where I ended up for graduate school. There, I encountered the painter Paula Modersohn-Becker in Gert Schiff’s course on German Expressionism. She died young, but her work was among the first of what would become the bold vanguard of German Modernism. Her paintings and those of her journals translated into English blew the top of my head off. It wasn’t the last time I’d regret my poor, though passing, German score.
My French was better. In Robert Rosenblum’s seminar on Jacques Louis David during my second year of grad school, I was assigned a portraitist named Adélaïde Labille-Guiard, about whom almost nothing was written in English. At the Metropolitan Museum of Art across the street, in a gallery at the top of the grand staircase, there was a monumental self-portrait of Labille-Guiard with two of her female students. I visited the painting almost daily, locking eyes with an artist who gazed out from the canvas with sure confidence, modeling that and more for the students behind her, and for me.
I worked hard. I wanted to do well, yes, but more than that I wanted to know Labille-Guiard’s story. Who was the formidable woman, this masterful painter, forgotten by history? And maybe most important to me—a shameful, even prurient need—I just wanted to know what happened.
One night, home late from a day spent wrestling with eighteenth-century French at the Institute library, where I discovered that Labille-Guiard had been forced to burn her most ambitious composition, I turned off the lights in my room and lit votive candles from the corner bodega. Candles flickering and the Velvet Underground crackling from my boom box, I ate chocolate chip cookies washed down with beer, stared out my window at the people and cars and lights, and wondered why I ever wanted to study art history.
Half a six-pack—tall boys—and a second VU album later, I suddenly knew at long last: I want to be an artist, not study them. I came to New York to become a writer.
Great lives are inspiring.
Great art is life changing.
The careers of the fifteen artists that follow run the gamut from conquering fame to utter obscurity, but each of these women has a story, and work, that can scramble and even redefine how we understand art and success.
At a cocktail party not long ago, a friend asked what I was working on. I’m writing about artists I love, I said happily.
“Which artists?” She asked, grinning and sipping her cocktail. I imagine she pictured a fierce Mission muralist or half-naked performance artist.
I got no further than a single word—Baroque—when she lowered her drink. “The worst class I took in college was art history,” she said. “So. Boring.”
“Maybe you had the wrong teacher,” I said, about to add a titillating art historical tidbit when she caught sight of something more interesting over my shoulder, and moved on.
It strikes me that we might need a little caveat here before getting started. Can we agree at the outset to lay down our qualms about Ye Olde Arte Hystore at the door of this book? Put them down. Walk away. Let us agree that together we shall fear no corsets, nor nursing saviors, nor men in top hats and cravats, nor vast expanses of peachy dimpled thighs.
Let us withhold judgment until we know more.
When I was still an undergraduate, my first TA paid for grad school with his pool shark winnings. As a hustler, he went by the nom de pool of Santa Barbara Jim. However lamentably prosaic his moniker, SBJ lived better than your average grad student. He wore natty linen blazers and cognac-colored wingtips. He’d mastered pool and understood people. By the marriage of those two assets he made a fine living.
In addition, SBJ knew a thing or two about art. Good art, he once said, gave him a hard-on. He aimed to shock, but I was charmed, writing it down in my notebook, alongside definitions for oeuvre and sfumato. I liked hearing him talk dirty about art. Though a better sort of undergraduate might have objected to his gender-exclusive language, I did not. I took hard-on metaphorically. That great art should move you bodily, not just intellectually. That a good erotic jolt is appropriate to good connoisseurship.
And also, that you can’t know what will turn your crank, until it does.
Let’s get started.
1. Janson’s artists, in order: Artemisia Gentileschi, Élisabeth Vigée-Lebrun, Rosa Bonheur, Berthe Morisot, Mary Cassatt, Gertrude Käsebier, Georgia O’Keeffe, Lee Krasner, Helen Frankenthaler, Judy Pfaff, Audrey Flack, Barbara Hepworth, Margaret Bourke-White, Dorothea Lange, Berenice Abbott, Joanne Leonard.
CHAPTER 1:
ARTEMISIA GENTILESCHI
There were many Caravaggisti, but only one Caravaggista.
—MARY GARRARD
HERE IS THE FIRST THING I think you should know: Art can be dangerous, even when decorous.
And sometimes, decorous art looks dangerous, too. Case in point, Artemisia Gentileschi’s Judith Severing the Head of Holofernes (see page 20). Painted right around 1620, it has lost none of its power to shock.
You may well be asking: What the hell? Though, in one sense, the painting here is self-explanatory. Two women hold down a struggling man, while one of them draws a sword across his neck.
No question, this is a brutal, bloody painting. So are many paintings—violence, like romantic love and spiritual passion, being one of the great themes of art. But there is so much in this particular painting that is disturbing.
The two women work in dispassionate exertion. They could be Julia Child and Alice Waters deboning a turkey. Sure it’s bloody and sure it’s some work, but it must be done.
Really, it must be done. The women are a Jewish widow named Judith and her maidservant, Abra. They are executing an Assyrian general named Holofernes who will otherwise destroy their people.
However heroic the task, their images are not flattering ones. The women’s faces are brightly lit from the lower left, casting unflattering shadows as they gaze down at their victim. Somewhat difficult to distinguish from each other in age and rank, the women are likewise both steadfast in their work, though Judith leans away slightly from the spurting blood. Maybe because it’s staining her dress. Blood spatters Judith’s bodice and breast, and it runs in thick red rivulets down the white mattress Holofernes struggles upon.
Artemisia Gentileschi. Judith Severing the Head of Holofernes. c. 1620.
Judith’s victim, writhing in death throes and shock, is naked. Judith and Abra are dressed. They stand while he is prone. Judith wields a deadly weapon; he has nothing. In short, the women have all the power here.
Not only are the women dressed, in stark juxtaposition to their victim’s nudity, but one of them is well dressed. Judith wears an elegant gold gown with capacious sleeves hiked above the elbows (she’s a woman at work, after all) limned with red that rhymes with the blood she’s spilling. Her strong left fist is entangled in Holofernes’s black hair, while higher up on that same arm she wears a pair of gold bracelets. As Artemisia scholar Mary Garrard points out, one bracelet is slight, simple, while the other is thick and ornate, with scenes inscribed in separate ovals that, on close inspection, look to be images of the goddess Diana. Also known by her Greek name, Artemis, this is the namesake of the very painter who has created this turbulent world.
Judith in her plainness and her elegance, in her blood-letting calm and life-taking power, all of it, seems to beg the question: Is this a task appropriate to women?
Is beheading?
Is painting?
Like the vast majority of women who became artists before the twentieth century, Artemisia Gentileschi (1593–1656) was the daughter of an artist. Her father, Orazio Gentileschi, was a reputable Baroque painter in Rome. He was blessed, or cursed, with enough talent to recognize those who were brilliant.
Orazio was an early follower of Caravaggio and his revolutionary art. Caravaggio had established a new visual language, one that married the immediacy of naturalism with a heightened dramatic flair. He utilized chiaroscuro (bold contrasts of light and dark) to great effect, pushing it to the point of tenebrism (extremes of dominating darkness pierced by bright, insistent spotlights) for high drama in a world all viewers could relate to. Contrast Caravaggio’s earthy vision with Leonardo’s mysterious otherworldly scenes of all-over haze (the aforementioned sfumato) or Michelangelo’s crisply outlined superheroes. It was a radical, and masterful, departure.
