Thomas Pollock Anshutz: Art and the Everyman

 Moving from last week's 17th Century to a major leap into the 19th mid-Century on to the early 20th Century - an especially innovative time in art. Whether it was due to the advent of the camera or the change in the patronage system, this is the time when artist were working with loosening of strictures. There was less emphasis on small details and more "suggestions" of subjects.

 

 

This was the time of John Singer Sargent and Thomas Eakins. The latter being the teacher of a very gifted student. Thomas Pollock Anshutz (1852-1912) of Kentucky studied with Eakins and later would succeed Eakins as a teacher. 

 

 

Anshutz was a very prominent artist known especially for his portraits and genre scenes. He joined Eakins in the interest of the camera. In time, he would often work from photographs. 

 

There was a part of him that seemed to be interested in the "every man." This was proven when, as a student, he created, "The Ironworkers' Noontime." It was an indictment of industrialization. Then, after the end of the Civil War, he painted the circumstances of the African-Americans in his piece, "The Way They Live." and several portraits of "Aunt Hannah," an African-American domestic worker, 

 

 

 

Anshutz was never one to stand on his many laurels for his skill as an artist and a teacher. Instead, he kept experimenting. In the later stages of his life, he tried abstract painting. He never showed these works and there's no record of what might have happened. Yet, he is emblematic of one of the greatest eras in visual art. 

 

 

Not a Man of His Times

He is regarded as one of the most important American artists. Still, most people don't know his name or his art work. He was featured on PBS' "American Masters." Yet, there was no stir or conversation about his art and biography. Who was this artist who mattered so much and so little all at the same time?

He was Thomas Eakins (1844-1916). (Notice that the dates of his lifetime coincide with the rise of the avant garde styles of Impressionism and Cubism.)In spite of the era, Eakins was true to his artistic instincts and that meant he was "deeply traditional."

Eakins was true to his believe in the beauty of nature especially the human form. If that meant going against the tide of popular techniques, so be it. That's not to say that he turned his back on what was new and exciting. (He was fascinated with photography and made many inventive contributions to motion studies.)It was more that Eakins disliked trends and affectations.

He studied in Paris, Madrid and Seville. As Eakins traveled, he gained an appreciation of classical painters from earlier times whose portraitures explored the personality of the model.

Eakins' method was to paint portraits very slowly and meticulously. He spoke very little to his model. Most often, the person posing would relax and drop any facade. These portraits rendered a psychological realism not appreciated at the time - especially with all the interest in the new art movements. However, the passage of time changes many things.

Today, in the world of art, Eakins is highly regarded. In 1964, Tom Canaday, art critic for the New York Times wrote:

Today he seems to us to have recorded his fellow Americans with a perception that was often as tender as it was vigorous, and to have preserved for us the essence of an American life which, indeed, he did not idealize--because it seemed to him beautiful beyond the necessity of idealization.

All of the images on this blog are his paintings. What do you think of his work? Did you already know his name and art?

Ashcan Art

In terms of derogatory descriptions of art, "Ashcan Art" sounds worse than "Impressionism" - another term coined by critics. (Archive: Oct, 2010-Durand-Ruel) Ashcan Art had much
in common with Impressionism.

Like the Impressionists' Salon des Refuses, these American artist created their own exhibition. It was a non-juried show organized by the artists. This bull-by-the-horns action by artists was regarded just as scandalously as it had been for the Impressionists. Yet the exhibition changed the direction and definition of art in America.

Beyond these rebellious similarities against the decision makers of what constitutes fine art, there was a major difference between the two schools of art. It was their choice of subjects.

Ashcan painters (This period is more appropriately titled, "American Realism.") were not interested in painting bucolic scenes nor the industrial age. They were interested in portraying the grittiness of urban life. They wanted to chronicle the urban lives of the poor and the disenfranchised of the city. They painted overcrowding, boxing, prostitution, drunks and everyday realities of poverty. (Since ashcans were ubiquitous in the urban landscape, this art movement became known as "ashcan art." )

These artists were referred by some critics as "apostles of ugliness." At the top and below are some of the art created during this time. What do you think? Should artists paint only the beauty of life and nature or are paintings of squalor and poverty appropriate subjects?