Skip to content
Culture & Religion

William Glackens: Forgotten Father of American Modernism?

With a $20,000 check and instructions to bring back “some good paintings” from friend and financier Dr. Albert C. Barnes, American artist William Glackens set off for Paris in 1912 with carte blanche to buy the very best modern art he could find. Long a champion and connoisseur of European and American modernism, Glackens sent back to Barnes 33 works by now-renowned artists such as Paul Cézanne, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Pablo Picasso, and Vincent Van Gogh that helped shape the collection that eventually became The Barnes Foundation.

With a $20,000 check and instructions to bring back “some good paintings” from friend and financier Dr. Albert C. Barnes, American artist William Glackens set off for Paris in 1912 with carte blanche to buy the very best modern art he could find. Long a champion and connoisseur of European and American modernism, Glackens sent back to Barnes 33 works by now-renowned artists such as Paul Cézanne, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Pablo Picasso, and Vincent Van Gogh that helped shape the collection that eventually became The Barnes Foundation. Glackens, however, was much more than a buyer. Glackens early on bought into the ideas of European modernism and interpreted them for an American idiom, as can be seen in a new exhibition at The Barnes Foundation. William Glackens, the first comprehensive survey of this undeservedly neglected artist in almost half a century, makes a powerful case for William Glackens as the forgotten father of American modernism.


Glackens and Barnes were friends in high school in Philadelphia, but lost touch as they followed different, but equally successful paths in art and chemistry. They reunited in 1911, a year before Barnes tasked Glackens with the mission to bring back the best in European modern art. Glackens developed his excellent eye for talent during his own training as an artist in post-Civil War Philadelphia. As curator Avis Berman explains in the catalog, Glackens made full use of Philadelphia’s “rich visual tradition in art, craft, and architecture;” school system stressing science and the humanities; art institutions such as Glackens’ alma mater, the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts; and “close coterie of progressive artists whose friendships never ceased to be important to him.” This perfect storm of old and new masters influenced Glackens’ approach throughout his career.

Unfortunately, it’s exactly Glackens use of influences that has led to his obscurity today. On one hand, many see Glackens as just another disciple of social realist painter Robert Henri, the central figure of “The Eight,” the group of outsiders (including Glackens) who challenged American art with their own 1908 art exhibition. Yet, even by 1908, Berman points out, Glackens had moved past Henri’s influence and “aligned… more closely with such painters as Maurice Prendergast, Alfred Maurer, and Marsden Hartley, who had absorbed post-impressionism and fauvism and were exploring color relationships.” When Glackens finally shed the Henri label, critics pasted a Renoir label in its place, thanks to the influence of late Renoir works on Glackens’ later style. Critics today acknowledge Glackens’ debt to Renoir, but also point out a much wider range of influences to European modernists, including “affinities with Matisse and Bonnard—Renoir’s pictorial heirs,” Berman writes. Yet, an “overwhelming critical emphasis” lingered much too long that painted Glackens “as naively derivative of Renoir.”

William Glackens aims to educate those who naively see Glackens as naively derivative of others, rather than a powerfully creative artist in his own right. The long-held prejudice against popular illustration—a medium Glackens mastered early in his career—as fine art falls away when you look at the bustling street scenes Glackens produced for popular magazines of the day. On assignment to cover the Spanish-American War in Cuba, Glackens literally followed Theodore Roosevelt and his “Rough Riders” up San Juan Hill. Rather than the romantic view of war his newspaper bosses wished for, Glackens illustrated the less heroic, more realistic aspects of war, including a fascinating image in the show of starving refugees crowding a building in desperate search for food. A blazingly fast draftsman, Glackens could capture even the most fleeting scene not just in terms of visuals, but also in terms of the human element he witnessed.

When you move on to the Glackens’ paintings, however, “naïve” and “derivative” are the last words that come to mind. Instead, “vibrant” and “thrilling” moved to the tip of my tongue. “He communicated a Whitmanesque sense of boundlessness,” Berman writes of Glackens illustrations, but that same disregard for labels and artificial boundaries shines through the paintings. Yes, you see the influences and the nods. Girl with Apple (from 1909-1910) winks in the direction of Manet’s Olympia, but also riffs on Eve with the seductive fruit, all in a style conscious of (not enslaved by) Renoir. Hillside Near La Ciotat (from 1930) feels like the love child of Cezanne and Matisse for its marriage of Cezanne’s angles and flat surfaces with that Riviera blue Matisse claimed he searched all his life for. Even a deceptively simple painting such as 1910’s Breezy Day, Tugboats, New York Harbor shows you something you were searching for but never expected—a series of unique gestures in white paint representing the smoke puffs trailing across the image that printed reproductions can’t do justice to. For moments like those little smoke puffs, William Glackens is an exhibit (and an artist) that needs to be seen to be believed (and enjoyed).

But what makes Glackens most remarkable, most “Whitmanesque,” are those works where style and content connect to make something truly unique.  The Shoppers(1907-1908; detail shown above) brings together in one painting many aspects of Glackens beyond labels and influences. The Shoppers shows a group of fashionably dressed women perusing the wares offered by a young shop girl. In the middle is the artist’s wife, Edith Dimock Glackens, flanked by her friends Lillian Gelston Travis and Florence Scovel Shinn (wife of artist Everett Shinn). All three women were artists themselves, posing here as consumers rather than creators. (As part of the committee choosing American artists for the 1913 Armory Show that introduced European modernism to America, Glackens selected several paintings by Edith to represent the best in American modernism.)

When Glackens included The Shoppers in the 1908 “The Eight” exhibition, a contemporary critic called it “contemporary with a vengeance.” In her enlightening catalog essay, Carol Troyen argues that “Glackens approached modernity through images of women,” especially in The Shoppers, which as “a consumerist set piece… alludes to the shifting standards of identity and propriety that made modern life both more complicated and more exciting.” Glackens recognized the increasing independence of women in his own wife and her friends and chose the world of fashion as a physical manifestation of that social change. By using “clothing as a metaphor for modernity,” Patricia Mears writes elsewhere in the catalog, Glackens “aligned… with leading French avant-garde painters of the previous century” such as Manet. This avant-garde alignment, however, doesn’t put Glackens in the rear, but rather at the cutting edge of social thought in art.

Including The Shoppers, William Glackens at the Barnes reunites for the first time the six surviving Glackens paintings from the 1908 “The Eight” exhibition, with the seventh being lost. But the real bonus of seeing this show at The Barnes over previous venues is the ability to walk to an adjacent gallery and see the art Glackens himself admired in The Barnes’ permanent collection. It’s a rare pleasure to be able to move so easily from an artist to his influences, and even rarer to see those paintings specifically chosen by the artist. Glackens’ Back of Nude only seems derivative of Renoir until you look closely at it and an actual Renoir back to back. There’s the same luminous treatment of human flesh and free brushwork, but the two artists differ from there in hard-to-articulate but easily felt ways. If they were crooners, Glackens and Renoir would be singing the same old song, but you would know each of their voices from the first note. After viewing William Glackens, all accusations that Glackens merely echoed Renoir and other influences will gently fade away.

In his 1915 article “How to Judge a Painting,” Dr. Barnes referred to William Glackens as “a life-long friend who combines greatness as an artist with a big man’s mind.” Walking through the galleries of the exhibition William Glackens, I felt I was in the presence of “a big man’s mind,” not only in terms of blending together different influences into a personal style, but also in using that style to depict the rapidly changing world around him. Over a century ago, Dr. Barnes entrusted his friend with a small fortune in hopes of artistic treasures. William Glackens entrusts us with the legacy of a forgotten artist who helped bring modern art to America and hopes that we see beyond the labels to the treasures awaiting beneath them.

[Image:William James Glackens (American,1870–1938). The Shoppers (detail), 1907–1908. Oil on canvas, 60 x 60 inches (152.4 x 152.4 cm). Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, VA, Gift of Walter P. Chrysler, Jr., 71.651.]

[Many thanks to The Barnes Foundation for providing me with the image above from, other press materials related to, a review copy of the catalog for, and a press pass to view the exhibition William Glackens, which runs through February 2, 2015.]

[Please follow me on Twitter (@BobDPictureThis) and Facebook (Art Blog By Bob) for more art news and views.]


Related
When the Whitney Museum of American Art decided to stage in 1948 their first exhibition of a living American artist, they chose someone who wasn’t even an American citizen, but only legally could become one just before his death. Painter Yasuo Kuniyoshi came to America as a teenager and immersed himself in American culture and art while rising to the top of his profession, all while facing discrimination based on his Japanese heritage.  The exhibition The Artistic Journey of Yasuo Kuniyoshi, which runs through August 30, 2015 at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, DC, unveils an amazing story of an artist who lived between two worlds — East and West — while bridging them in his art that not only synthesized different traditions, but also mirrored the joys and cruelties of them.
The Barnes Foundation’s current exhibition, Mark Dion, Judy Pfaff, Fred Wilson: The Order of Things, epitomizes the business buzz phrase “disruptive innovation” like few other museum shows (which I wrote about here). Disrupt or die, the thinking goes. Old orders must make way for new. Coincidentally, as the Barnes Foundation, home of Dr. Albert Barnes’ meticulously and idiosyncratically ordered collection of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist masterpieces left just so since his death in 1951, invites outsider artists to question and challenge Dr. Barnes’ old order, it also publishes their own insider’s critical “warts and all” assessment of Dr. Barnes’ relationship to African art and African-Americans. In African Art in the Barnes Foundation: The Triumph of L’Art nègre and the Harlem Renaissance, scholar Christa Clarke reassesses Dr. Barnes intentions and results in his building of the first great African art collection in America. “More than just formal accents to modernist paintings and other Western art in the collection,” Clarke argues, “African art deserves to be seen as central to the aesthetic mission and progressive vision that was at the very heart of the Barnes Foundation.”
Few business buzzphrases draw as much interest (and ire) as “disruptive innovation.”  Disrupt or die, the thinking goes. Old orders must make way for new. At the Barnes Foundation, home of Dr. Albert Barnes’ meticulously and idiosyncratically ordered collection of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist masterpieces left just so since his death in 1951, three artistic innovators aim at questioning and challenging Dr. Barnes’ old order.  Mark Dion, Judy Pfaff, Fred Wilson: The Order of Things invites three award-winning, contemporary installation artists to disrupt the existing paradigm at the Barnes and assist us in seeing Dr. Barnes and his collection in a whole new way.
By the 1960s the two most criticized art forms in America were modern art and television.  Some critics called modern art mystifying junk, while others targeted TV as anything from trash to a threat to democracy.  Revolution of the Eye: Modern Art and the Birth of American Television at The Jewish Museum, New York, hopes to redeem both media by exploring how modern art provided an ethos and aesthetic for early television — a debt repaid later as television, in turn, inspired a new generation of modern artists, including Andy Warhol, who began as a modernist-influenced graphic designer for, among other clients, television networks. By looking back at modern art and television’s mutual love affair from the 1940s to the 1970s, Revolution of the Eye challenges us to reflect on the artistic aspirations of TV’s latest golden age.
American Impressionism’s often been seen as a pale copy of the French Impressionism that flowered in the late 19th century. Although American Impressionists early on copied their French counterparts (and even made pilgrimages to Monet’s Giverny garden and home), the exhibition The Artist’s Garden: American Impressionism and the Garden Movement, 1887–1920, at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts through May 24, 2015, proves that American Impressionism quickly blossomed into something distinct—and distinctly American—by the turn of the 20th century. Capturing aesthetically a moment of contradictions as American nativism threatened to close borders while women’s suffrage struggled to open doors, The Artist’s Garden demonstrates the power of flowers to speak volumes about the American past, and present.

Up Next