{"id":1818,"date":"2013-03-02T06:32:12","date_gmt":"2013-03-02T06:32:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/raulmourao.com\/blog\/?p=1818"},"modified":"2013-03-02T06:33:41","modified_gmt":"2013-03-02T06:33:41","slug":"saltz-revisits-the-1913-armory-show","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.archive.raulmourao.com\/blog\/?p=1818","title":{"rendered":"Saltz Revisits the 1913 Armory Show"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

l\u00e1 no site da NewYork.<\/a><\/p>\n

\"matisse\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Henri Matisse’s\u00a0Nude in a Wood<\/em>\u00a0(1906).<\/p>\n

Happy birthday, modern America! For all practical purposes, you were born 100 years ago this month. After February 17, 1913\u2014the opening of what\u2019s now simply called the Armory Show\u2014you have never been the same. Thank God!<\/p>\n

Originally called the International Exhibition of Modern Art, the show included around 1,200 works of art by more than 300 artists. Two thirds of the pieces on view were by Americans. Staged on the drill floor of the new 69th Regiment Armory on Lexington Avenue and East 25th Street, the show afforded America its first in-depth look at the art of Picasso, Braque, Duchamp, and many others. (Today\u2019s Armory Show, the art fair held annually on the West Side piers, is unrelated.) By the time the show closed on March 15, 70,500 people had poured through. The last day\u2019s attendance was said to be 10,000. When it went to Chicago after that, the attendance was estimated at 188,000.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

How significant was the show? Salon impresario Mabel Dodge wrote to Gertrude Stein that it was \u201cthe most important public event\u202f\u2026 since the signing of the Declaration of Independence\u201d and predicted it would cause \u201ca riot and a revolution and things will never be the same afterwards.\u201d One New York critic wrote that \u201cAmerican artists did not so much visit the exhibition as live at it.\u201d Albert C. Barnes, Henry Frick, and the Met bought some of the work. The founding of MoMA, the Whitney, and much else stems directly from those 27 Earth-shaking days. And you can revisit them right now in Montclair, New Jersey: Thanks to the acumen of curators Laurette McCarthy and Gail Stavitsky and the foresight of one little institution that could, the Montclair Art Museum has mounted a small, smart, brassy show. Here, a tiny tip of the iceberg is on view: 40 works that were actually in the show by 38 artists, mostly Americans. Why no major New York art museum tried to do this is baffling.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Why did the original set off such an atom bomb of anger? The New York\u00a0Times<\/i>\u00a0headlined one story \u201cCubism and Futurism Are Making Insanity Pay.\u201d (There were no Futurists on hand. They were invited, but their consigliere, Filippo Marinetti, wouldn\u2019t mingle with Cubists.) The press lambasted artists as \u201cparanoiacs,\u201d \u201cdegenerates,\u201d and \u201cdangerous.\u201d The show was like \u201cvisiting a lunatic asylum,\u201d filled with the \u201cchatter of anarchistic monkeys.\u201d The art was \u201cepileptic.\u201d Conservative American painter \u00adWilliam Merritt Chase clucked that Matisse was a charlatan. Indeed, Matisse came in for \u00adespecially harsh criticism. (More, even, than Duchamp\u2019s sensation-causing\u00a0Nude \u00adDescending a Staircase, No. 2.<\/i>) When the show reached Chicago, art students tried Matisse in absentia for \u201cartistic murder, pictorial arson \u2026 criminal misuse of line,\u201d and burned copies of his paintings. They tried to burn him in effigy, too, but were thwarted by local authorities. Critics opined that Matisse\u2019s were \u201cthe most hideous monstrosities ever perpetrated\u201d and \u201cpoisonous.\u201d The former president Teddy Roosevelt barked that the art was \u201crepellent from every standpoint,\u201d and concluded that there\u2019s \u201cno reason why people should not call themselves Cubists, or Octagonists, or Parallelopipedonists, or Knights of the Isosceles Triangle \u2026 one term is as fatuous as another.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

A hundred years later, the received wisdom is different, but it\u2019s still wrong. Most art historians today say that, in 1913, American artists were yokels, and the Armory Show marked the arrival of European sophistication on our shores. Although the Montclair curators accept that America was behind the curve, they also note that Americans knew change was afoot. By 1913, they were\u2014apart from the academicians\u2014keen on the European vanguard. Numerous Americans had studied, worked, or exhibited in Europe, including many women. (Almost 20 percent of the Americans in the Armory Show were female\u2014a better ratio than we often see today.) Between 1907 and 1913, there were more than 60 exhibitions of \u201cmodern art\u201d in New York. In 1905, \u00adAlfred Stieglitz had opened a tiny gallery at 291 Fifth Avenue that had almost as big an effect as the Armory Show, championing Americans like Georgia O\u2019Keeffe, John Marin, Paul Strand, and Marsden Hartley, who is my favorite prewar American painter. Stieglitz also showed Europeans like \u00adPicasso, Matisse, and Brancusi.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The Montclair exhibition is a blast of fresh scholarship and a godsend of celebration. It also reveals that the original show was uneven. Much of what\u2019s on view is competent and striving but conservative. You\u2019ll see pictures of puppies and sunsets, rustic towns and mystic seashores. Just as the Armory Show ruthlessly exposed the difference between what \u201cmodern\u201d meant in Europe and what it meant here, the new show does the same. In the U.S., realists like \u00adWilliam Glackens, Robert Henri, and George Bellows were called \u201cmodern,\u201d but only because of their subject matter\u2014\u00advernacular street scenes, prostitutes, boxers\u2014and Manet-like greasy paint and post-Impressionist brushwork. All but a very few American artists were trying to be \u201cmodern\u201d without Cubism, Fauvism, and Futurism, and most of them fell into obscurity as those isms made their way across the ocean to us.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

That said, there are lots of yummy exceptions. I love John Marin\u2019s mad quasi-\u00adCubistic watercolor of New York\u2019s St. Paul\u2019s; Kathleen McEnery\u2019s nudes standing in the super-condensed flat space of Picasso\u2019s Blue Period; Oscar Bluemner\u2019s flat planes depicting the Hackensack River; Edward \u00adHopper\u2019s sailboat, which isn\u2019t modern but already shows signs of the implacable isolation that would later make his paintings quake; and Maurice Prendergast\u2019s street scene, probably the most fully realized modern picture here. But mainly you\u2019ll see why the Armory Show changed everything\u2014why American art altered its essential course. The lessons of the Armory are the ones all moments of change provide.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

I\u2019ve lived through a couple of artistic shifts and have gleaned some intelligence about which artists get left behind. They\u2019re often the ones who don\u2019t press extra-hard on their work. I\u2019m not talking about changing one\u2019s core or following fads for their own sake. I mean questioning what\u2019s contemporary about what one is saying. In the early eighties, I watched excellent artists of the seventies fade away as they couldn\u2019t \u00adaccommodate the ideas of irony, feminism, and neo-conceptualism that were taking the stage. They refused to, or couldn\u2019t, \u00adengage with the culture, and that culture passed them by.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Legions of American artists were lost, too, after the Armory Show. But many adjusted to the shock, discovered a strong fresh footing, and found a new faith in the powers of art. The Montclair show is a cautionary tale to artists everywhere to be alert to moments like this\u2014to have the wherewithal to perceive metapatterns reforming, tendencies in motion, and your own insides being twisted inside out.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The New Spirit: American Art in the Armory Show, 1913<\/a>; Montclair Art Museum, Montclair, New Jersey; Through June 16.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

*This article originally appeared in the March 4, 2013 issue of\u00a0<\/em>New York Magazine.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n