Judith
Rothschild: Abstract and Non-Objective - the 1940s
March 18 - May 1, 2004
Knoedler & Company
19 East 70th Street
New York, NY 10021
Friedel Dzubas: Paintings
of the 1950s
March 18th to April 17th 2004
Jacobson Howard Gallery
19 East 76th Street
New York, NY 10021
By ERIC
GELBER
Judith Rothschild's name
does not appear in the following books: Barbara Rose's "Art Since
1900," Dore Ashton's "American Art Since 1945," and Irving
Sandler's "The New York School and The Triumph of American Painting."
A quote about Willem de Kooning's working methods by Friedel Dzubas
appears in one of these books and his name appears alongside better
known color field painters in another book. But there are no images
or any descriptions of their work.
These painters are known
in the art world as second wave artists. They did not develop a signature
style, a marketable and easily recognized visual language, such as Rothko's
rectangles, Pollock's drips, or Kline's isolated black slashes. They
were conservative in the sense that they explored painting styles invented
by other artists. The prominence of avant-garde art, which is synonymous
with novelty and shock value, guarantees that straightforward practitioners
will become irrelevant to historians who write about the "major"
developments.
Galleries have an ambiguous
relationship to these second tier artists. In one sense, they act as
revisionists, reminding us that other painters besides the ones who
appear in the art history books made interesting and compelling work.
On the other hand, galleries tend to overemphasize the importance of
work that is often mediocre, and probably better forgotten. They emphasize
the company the second tier artist kept in order to jack up the prices,
with the hopes that the magical aura surrounding the canonized artist
will rub off. The press release for the Dzubas exhibit reminds us that
"Jackson Pollock was his close friend, and he shared a studio with
Helen Frankenthaler." Many of these artists will never have a monograph
written about them so the catalog essay is often the only historical
or critical document that will survive into the future.
Friedel Dzubas Cyclop
1959
oil on canvas, 92 x 45 inches
Courtesy Jacobson Howard Gallery
Friedel Dzubas was fortunate
enough to live with Clement Greenberg in 1945, and he was helped by
the influential critic for years after that. The paintings in the current
show at Jacobson Howard Gallery are from the 1950s when the painter
was still under the sway of Jackson Pollock and the Abstract Expressionists.
These were done after the painter had stopped painting for 2 to 3 years.
He said that his goal was to "purge the linear emotional garbage."
The tension created by his use of murky mid tones and hack and slash
brushwork is more problematic than satisfying. Pollock restricted his
use of color in his drip masterpieces and therefore his explosive and
expanding linear clouds maintained their energy level. The linear aspects
of the compositions were more important and they strengthened the impact
of the layering of pigment. In such paintings as Easter Monday, 1956,
de Kooning's colors were opaque, dry, and intense or high pitched. He
was much more conscientious and sparing than Dzubas, when using a brush
loaded with black paint.
Dzubas' emphasis would shift
after the 1950s, when the purging of line was complete. He took up the
cause of the color field painters, Frankenthaler, Noland, and Louis.
Eventually he let the colors speak for themselves and the violent slashes
of paint receded into the past. There are echoes of Frankenthaler's
palette, staining techniques, and brushwork in a few of these canvases.
However, in Frankenthaler's early work she played transparency off of
transparency, and her handling was far more delicate and suggestive.
"Cyclops," (1959) is the best work in this exhibit because
of the relationship between the title of the work and the shapes depicted.
Swirls of thick encrusted white paint encircle a pupil like black dash.
The problem with these paintings is that the violent and thick slashes
of paint tend to weaken the impact of the swathes of transparent colors.
The stained areas don't quite gel with the expressionist brushwork.
After the 1950s Dzubas began to apply large areas of stained color to
his canvases and to allow these areas of uninterrupted transparent color
to stand on their own.
Judith Rothschild
Untitled Composition, May 1946 1946
oil on canvas, 24 x 31 inches
Courtesy Knoedler & Company
According to David Cohen
in his catalog essay Judith Rothschild was Hans Hofmann's star pupil.
Clearly Rothschild was influenced by the sage of painterliness and plasticity.
The oil paintings in this show are the inspired and technically impressive
progeny of such Cubist masterpieces as Picasso's "The Painter and
His Model," (1928), and "Studio with Plaster Head," (1925).
In the 1940s, before Rothschild produced what critics have called a
"milquetoast version of Cubism," she painted these jigsaw
puzzle like pictures. The tightly interlocking asymmetrical vertical
and horizontal strips suggest many things, but are open to interpretation.
Whether we are looking at
abstractions of figures in specific spaces, or still-lifes on a table,
we are not quite sure. But the inventiveness and variety of forms is
impressive. Black outline is generously applied and these outlines vary
in thickness. Line and color are happily wedded. The colored portions
of these paintings are intense and jewel like. They stand on their own
even when they are outlined with thick black lines. But the colors don't
punch holes in the flattened out pictorial space. Each facet of these
paintings is clearly articulated and they become unified through time.
Rothschild creates a poetic echo chamber filled with improvised rectangles,
triangles, and ovoids. The separate parts of the composition relate
to each other through intuitive repetitions and subtle modifications.
In "Boruba II,"
(1948), the thickness of the black outlines varies greatly and enhances
the sense of movement. The abstract puzzle pieces have just enough specificity
to retain the viewer's interest. There is no beginning or end to these
compositions and they resemble sunlight filled panes of medieval stained
glass. Shapes are added or placed next to one another to satisfy the
compositional problems the artist set up for herself. They resemble
mosaics. Each part of the composition relates to another in obvious
or not so obvious ways, but a quiet friction is generated in these shallow
spaces. The gouache and collage pieces found in the smaller gallery
are reminiscent of Kurt Schwitter's collages because of Rothschild's
use of ticket stubs. These small pieces are not as tightly knit as the
oil paintings but are just as textured and complex. Late in her career
Rothschild explored Matisse's late cut-outs with her relief paintings.
She gladly worshipped at the altar of the two greatest painters of the
twentieth century, Picasso and Matisse, yet she made powerful and distinctive
work in the 1940s and towards the end of her life.
We do not know if the legacy
of Rothschild and Dzubas suffered because of their reluctance to cave
in to current trends, to stop painting and to start conceptualizing,
or because they failed to develop a signature style. Both of them were
content just to paint and to explore spatial concepts first introduced
by other artists. Although it seems like a worthy task, to revise the
history of modern art movements by displaying works by competent artists
who have fallen through the cracks and are not mentioned in the narratives
of modern art history, galleries are also trying to increase the value
of their holdings by reminding us that these artists had connections
to a tiny handful of artist all-stars. This also helps lend prestige
to the gallery itself. One thing that is clear to me after seeing these
exhibits is that the leading figures held sway over many different artists
and left just as many possibilities behind them as they did masterpieces.
By attempting to resurrect artists who have been marginalized or completely
forgotten, galleries are fueling a self perpetuating process. They end
up ignoring contemporary artists who do not have the ability to create
a buzz, to catch the attention of trendy galleries and the mainstream
art magazines
Comments:
I welcome Eric Gelber's probing criticism of the exhibitions on view,
but I take issue with his attitude towards galleries who explore the legacy
of less-known artists. That neither Rothschild nor Dzubas feature in sundry
101 textbooks of modern American painting needn't indicate worthlessness
on the painters' part: it is the artworld's job constantly to revaluate
previous evaluations, and often dealers lead the way. Obviously, commercial
interests fuel their efforts, but no more in this than any other aspect
of their endeavors. It is one of the marvels of living in New York that
we constantly have another chance to check out artists who "fell
between the cracks" as Eric puts it. If nothing else, it puts our
appreciation of the high flyers in historic perspective.- David Cohen
.
