A Tale of Two van Dycks

The most celebrated painting in the collection of the Huntington Library is, of course, Thomas Gainsborough's The Blue Boy. The Huntingtons collected many other great works by Gainsborough, as well as significant paintings by Joshua Reynolds, J. M. W. Turner, and John Constable. However, the work that always holds my attention longest and makes me smile at its deft brushwork, lush color, and sheer beauty is Anthony van Dyck's Anne Killigrew, Mrs. Kirke, and so it and a companion piece– rather than Gainsborough's famous work–are the subjects of this installment of "Permanent Collections," my series about paintings in American museums.

While perusing the Huntington's website to plan my most recent visit, I came across an image of van Dyck's portrait, and immediately my interest in Anne Killigrew...uh...pardon the pun, grew. "Isn't that the same pose of the woman in the van Dyck portrait at the MFA?" I asked myself. Off I went to the website of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and, sure enough there I saw Isabella, Lady De La Warr standing and gesturing just like Anne Gilligrew. Moreover, I discovered that the MFA's painting has the same props and background as the Huntington's. Heck, the skirt of the dress has the same folds.

Although I visit the MFA regularly, I had never previously made the connection between van Dyck's two portraits because, in part,  Isabella, Lady De La Warr, languished in storage for many years. And while I can comment on the quality of van Dyck's handling of paint and use of color in the Huntington's painting, there's not a lot I can say about the MFA's van Dyck. It's hung too high for viewers to get a good look at the painting and fully appreciate it. 

Looking at the MFA's van Dyck or any other painting in the William I. Koch Gallery is so frustrating. When the gallery was closed for renovation a few years ago, I had hoped that it's salon-style hanging scheme would be abandoned once it reopened and that all the paintings on display would be available for close-up inspection. No such luck. The salon-style scheme remains, with many paintings too high up on the walls to be fully appreciated. For example, Rubens' monumental painting, Head of Cyrus Brought to Queen Tomyris would probably be a fabulous visual treat to view at eye level, but it remains in the same upper corner where it has hung for at least twenty years. Moreover, those paintings that hang at a reasonable height are protected by a knee-high stanchion that keeps viewers at more than arm's length and thus unable to look carefully at surface details. And the lighting in the gallery is far from ideal.

Thankfully, the Koch Gallery's salon style has not been adopted in the nearby art of the Netherlands galleries. For as long as I have been visiting the museum, this space has featured a single row of paintings. And the van Dyck normally on view in one of these rooms, Peeter Symons, offers an opportunity to fully engage with one of the painter's works, as well as some exemplary Rembrandt portraits among others. Here's hoping the MFA one day sees fit to provide Peteer Symons with the pleasure of Lady De La Warr's company in this space.

Cézanne at the Hammer Museum

Paul Cézanne's Boy Resting, in the collection of The Hammer Museum at UCLA, is the focus of this edition of "Permanent Collections," my series about paintings in American museums.

The Hammer houses the personal collection of the oil magnate Armand Hammer, which includes paintings by many of the heavy hitters of Western art. The museum also puts on contemporary exhibits throughout the year.

I first went to the Hammer about a twenty years ago, and during many subsequent trips to L.A., I often considered returning. After seeing Paul Cézanne's Boy Resting on the museum's website, I finally returned.

Boy Resting is a bit unusual for Cezanne. He, of course, made many paintings of bathers outdoors and many portraits. However, as far as I know, a single, clothed figure in a landscape is a rarity. I didn't remember having seem this novelty in my previous visit to the Hammer, so I figured it was time to return.

It's a relatively simple work, with slightly tilted horizontal bands interrupted by vertical trees. The cool greens, blues, and violets, applied in thin layers, give the painting a characteristically moist essence, an effect that is underscored by the pond or river right behind the boy.

The relatively warm flesh tones, along with the yellow-ochre and rust-red hues in the background, provide contrast that echoes the opposing vertical and horizontal elements. Within this dichotomy the boy (presumably, according to the museum's wall text, Cézanne's son) provides a lazy, third feature: the diagonal. He quietly animates the painting with his left foot pointed forward.

Resting Boy is thus a portrait of comfortable country life. Is it a monumental work? No. But it is an intriguing one that I am happy to have discovered.

Surface Praise for Vuillard

Many years ago I saw an exhibition called "Intimate Interiors of Edouard Vuillard" at the Brooklyn Museum. This show brought together about 75 paintings of the artist's domestic life in turn-of-the-last-century France. I hadn't previously seen much of Vuillard's work--just an occasional glance at the handful of his paintings at the Museum of Modern Art or the Metropolitan Museum. So the Brooklyn exhibition offered a welcome introduction.

As I examined Vuillard's depictions of family and friends engaged in mundane activities such as sewing, sweeping, and reading, I remember thinking, "How tedious." Their proper, 19th-century clothes and their stuffy rooms, often decorated in browns and grays and other dull hues, seemed stifling. When I left the museum after an hour or two, I was glad to step out into the energetic air of modern-day New York City.

Yet I wanted to go back. Vuillard's playful paint dabs and brushstrokes, along with his clever design and color schemes, had translated his oppressive three-dimensional world into a fascinating two-dimensional realm. I expected that whenever I returned to the exhibition, these marvelous formal feats would distract me from Vuillard's tedious subjects.

I never did make it back to the show in Brooklyn. But in the years since, I have seen Vuillard's work in many other places and have come to regard him (as many others have) as a master of early modern art.

A few museums in the U.S have splendid examples of Vuillard's prowess. MOMA has Interior, Mother and Sister of the Artist, Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC, owns Child at a Window, Woman Sewing before a Garden Window is in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and the Metropolitan owns Madame Vuillard Sewing by the Window, rue Truffaut.

Any one of these paintings could be the subject of this post, but for this edition of "Permanent Collections" I've decided to discuss the Saint Louis Art Museum's K.X. Roussel Reading (seen above) not only because it, too, illustrates well what I love about Vuillard, but also because I'm fond of the St. Louis Art Museum.

I have visited SLAM (some acronym) just once, in the late 1990s when I lived in Chicago. As with most museums at that time, I could not access SLAM's collection online. So before my visit, all I knew about the museum was what an art history professor had told me (the museum owns many works by Max Beckmann) and what I had seen in one of my Matisse books (SLAM owns his Bathers with a Turtle).

As a result, I spent a discovery-filled afternoon at the Saint Louis Art Museum, impressed by the extent of its collection, which includes--among many other great paintings--Hans Holbein's Mary, Lady Guildford, Georges Braque's The Blue Mandolin, The Transformed Dream by Giorgio De Chirico, and K.X. Roussel Reading.

Like most Vuillard paintings, K.X. Roussel Reading is relatively small (17 1/4 x 21 1/2 in.). Painted in 1904, it shows Roussel* crouched over a table engrossed in something. Although the title suggests that he's reading, he could be sketching--SLAM's website indicates that the work has also been called Kerr-Xavier Roussel Sketching and Roussel in his Studio.

Whatever his activity, Roussel's back seems to blend with the mantlepiece behind him. This merging of figure and background undercuts the illusion of realistic, three-dimensional space achieved elsewhere in the painting, and is a motif seen in other Vuillard paintings from the 1890s to the first few years of the 20th century (see, for example, Interior with Mother and Child at the Legion of Honor in San Francisco and Interior, Mother and Sister of the Artist at MOMA)

This spatial ambiguity, which Vuillard borrowed from the Impressionists, encourages viewers not only to look at a painting as an illusory opening to a world beyond the surface of the picture, but also to consider its physical presence as paint applied to canvas. Thus, the area of black at the center of the picture can be viewed both as Roussel's jacket and the fireplace behind him, and as an odd shape of black paint.

Ever since the Brooklyn exhibition, I have eagerly accepted Vuillard's literally formal invitation to approach his work in two ways, and I have thereby been able to overlook what I consider his stuffy subject matter. So when I look at K.X. Roussel Reading, I savor the way Vuillard modulates his grays: from a cool gray in the upper part of the canvas (the wall of Roussel's studio) to a warmer tone toward the bottom (in Roussel's floor).

I also appreciate the contrast between depth, most evident in the space around the crisscrossed legs of Roussel's table, and the areas of flatness scattered throughout the painting. I'm particularly impressed with Vuillard's choice to juxtapose that tangibly three-dimensional area with the indecipherable form directly left of the table. I can only read that enigmatic shape as a small assemblage of two-dimensional abstract forms. I also applaud the reddish-brown hue that Vuillard sprinkles in among those abstract forms and on the mantle shelf. They bring additional warmth and vitality to the painting.

I could discuss so much more about this painting--for example, more about Vuillard's deft distribution of values and hues; or about the proliferation of straight lines and right angles vs. the scarcity of curves; or about the centrality of the black shape made by Roussel's back and fireplace, how it acts like a target that immediately attracts the viewer's eyes. If I continue, this post will be much longer, and perhaps tedious itself.

So I will stop here with my praise. Perhaps I will revisit K.X. Roussel Reading and Vuillard with another post after my next visit to St. Louis (whenever that might be). Then I'll be able to write with memories of a personal encounter with the work fresh in my mind.





*Ker Xavier Roussel was Vuillard's friend and a fellow painter. Although his work has never achieved the same recognition as Vuillard's, museums such as the Art Institute of Chicago and the Hermitage Museum in Russia own some of his paintings.

Pin Matisse on Avery

"Some critics like to pin Matisse on me....But I don't think he has influenced my work." *

It's hard to believe that Milton Avery actually made that statement.

Just take a look at some of his paintings, like Tree Fantasy (Whitney Musuem of American Art, New York), March on the Balcony (Phillips Collection, Washington, DC) and Seated Blonde (Walker Art Center, Minneapolis). Avery's brushwork, sophisticated use of color, and his masterful reduction of forms to simple, playful, sketch-like approximations all show a fluent understanding of Matisse's style as well as a skillful appropriation of it. In addition, March on the Balcony is a picture of a woman seated by a window overlooking the sea--a favorite subject of Matisse once he moved to Nice. And where did Avery paint March on the Balcony? Also in the South of France, in St. Tropez.

A lot of space could be spent considering the reasons for and implications of Avery's implausible denial of Matisse's influence. But I don't want to spend my time--or yours--speculating. Instead I'll just be glad that he learned so much from the French master that he created paintings like the one above, Bicycle Rider by the Loire, the next work in my series "Permanent Collections."

As the painting's title indicates, Avery did not restrict himself to the Riviera when in France. Besides a sojourn into the heart of the country, which produced Bicycle Rider by the Loire, Avery traveled to Paris and made at least one picture along the Seine. That painting, The Seine (Whitney Museum) is one of my favorite Avery landscapes. But I've decided to focus on Bicycle Rider by the Loire, simply because it makes me chuckle and because of the institution that owns it, the Flint Institute of Arts.

That's right Flint, Michigan--mostly known for rusting factories, economic woes, and its poisonous water--has an art museum. And Bicycle Rider by the Loire, is a representative example of the impressive quality of the museum's collection of American paintings. If you take look at its website, you'll find that the FIA also owns fine works by Mary Cassatt, Lee Krasner, Jacob Lawrence, and John Singer Sargent. I got a kick out of discovering that the museum owns a painting by Don Eddy, a former teacher of mine.

The FIA also has a fairly extensive group of 19th and early 20th century French paintings, with works by Courbet, Corot, Sisley, Boudin, Renoir, Bonnard and Vuillard. In 2006 the museum a small Matisse painting from 1921.

Bicycle Rider by the Loire was donated to the FIA in 1990, along with paintings by Josef Albers and Willem De Kooning, and a small sculpture by Alexander Calder. All four works were bequeathed to the museum by Mary Mallery Davis. People like Mary Mallery Davis intrigue me. You find their names in museums across the country. The information cards next to paintings tell us that they were generous and fortunate enough to own great works of art. But other than that, who were they?

From a web search, I have discovered that Mary Mallery Davis was a painter, but I haven't learned much more. I'd love to know how she got her hands on Bicycle Rider by the Loire. Maybe she met Avery at one of the various artists' colonies where he spent his summers in the 1950s. Or maybe she met him through other creative circles. Or maybe she simply saw the painting in a gallery and bought it. Who knows?

However Mallery Davis acquired Bicycle Rider by the Loire, the people of Flint are fortunate that she did. I love the enigmatic silliness of the robed figure on two wheels. Is he a monk? Or could the figure be a woman in a long dress? The figure's shrunken head makes the rest of the body seem large in contrast. How does a person of such apparent girth maintain balance? And how does a bike with its rear hub so far off center manage to function properly?

These silly conundrums are the by-products of Avery's thoughtful formal decisions. The small head draws the viewer's attention to the biker's body, an organic shape that stands out against the geometric forms that indicate the river and its bank. When I look at the body, I immediately notice the curved edge of its back crossing the horizontal edge of the far side of the river. This intersection is the most dynamic part of the painting, and it seems to provide the biker with the energy necessary to propel him across the canvas.

The off-center rear hub also activates the picture. If Avery had placed it at the middle of its wheel, the rear hub--like its forward counterpart--would rest on the abutting edges of the river and bank. The bicycle would then seem locked in place, thereby draining the painting of its energy. A simple yet well thought-out decision that makes all the difference. Without it, Bicycle Rider by the Loire would bore, and the Flint Institute of Arts would be a little less remarkable.



*James R. Mellow, "Sun, Surf and Subversion," Art News 81:10 (12/82) p. 80; quoted by Robert Hobbs in Milton Avery: The Late Paintings, pg. 49.