A Strong Academician, An Innovative Realist
"Against the Modern"
Dagnan-Bouveret and the Transformation of the Academic Tradition
September 12 to December 8, 2002
Presented by the Dahesh Museum of Art
at the
National Academy of Design Museum
1083 Fifth Avenue at 89th Street
New York, NY 100128
Wed. & Thurs. noon to 5, Fri.-Sun. 11 to 6
212-759-0606
www.daheshmuseum.org
My review of the exciting and important Dagnan-Bouveret show that is now on exhibit at the National Academy of Design, is a rebuttal to Ken Johnson's review in the New York Times, September 20, 2002, entitled "A Timid Academician, Tempted by Modernism." Mr. Johnson, despite his denigrating title, has had a somewhat favorable impression of Dagnan-Bouveret, almost despite himself. I say bravo to his timorous affirmation of Dagnan-Bouveret's body of work. It is a step in the right direction. Well, it is a very small step. I suppose his choice of title protects him to some extent. Perhaps some of his peers will note the derogatory title and not actually read the review, assuming it is filled with the same comfortable rhetoric that is always used by the establishment when "evaluating" academic art. It is. But Mr. Johnson, despite the put downs, can't help but like many of these paintings. You can sense Johnson's temptation to like Dagnan-Bouveret between the lines of his review. This, I'm afraid, causes him conflict, so that as soon as he finds himself saying what might be considered a compliment, he needs then to take it back with a careful but predictable insult.
Mr. Johnson is able to give some credence to the value of this exhibition because of the work of Dr. Gabriel P. Weisberg, who is the curator of the show and author of the accompanying catalogue. Johnson states, "The show is unexpectedly fascinating, however, mainly because of the efforts of the curator, Gabriel P. Weisberg, professor of art history at the University of Minnesota. (...) He helps us understand the contradictory political influences with which a young, ambitious painter had to contend." It is evident that Johnson feels enough impressed with Weisberg's scholarship that he cannot dispense with it as quickly as he might like to. It would be unprofessional to disregard the work of a true art scholar who has taken the time to do such an impeccable job. Johnson does not want to seem so prejudiced that he cannot allow himself any ability to stand back and review past works without historical contemporary prejudices. What, if in time, Dagnan-Bouveret's body of work is hailed across the board as great by a newer generation of scholars? Johnson does not want to look the complete fool if this should happen. Johnson is a man torn by conflict, and yet he uses Dagnan-Bouvert's own conflict against him as a sign of weakness. Johnson wants to appear open-minded and yet fears being mocked by his peers. He settles for accepting Dagnan-Bouveret as worthy of some historical recognition, and misses the importance of the work itself.
Dr. Weisberg's view of Dagnan-Bouveret is not conflicted. He has spent 20 years studying Dagnan-Bouveret and the art history of the period. He explains to us the conflicts of the artist, but he affirms the importance of his work. Why would he otherwise spend 20 years studying the man's life and art? Weisberg has managed to build his reputation by doing just what his title says of Dagnan-Bouveret. He is known to sometimes go "against the modern" analysis of 19th century academicians and confirm some of them to be great. He has succeeded in retaining the respect of his peers, even when he goes against the grain, because of his immaculate scholarship. He has the ability to see art in its historical perspective with a trained eye and a sound conviction that each era produces masters. This fact does not frighten him, even if some of those masters turn out to be 19th century artists who painted in the academic tradition, such as Dagnan-Bouveret. It is a refreshing and democratic view.
To my surprise, at one point, Mr. Johnson is willing to admit that Dagnan-Bouveret and other academic artists were innovative. Taking his cue from Weisberg, he states "Some of these artists, including Dagnan-Bouveret himself (it wasn't only the Impressionist radicals), wanted to make paintings that related more to contemporary experience." But then Mr. Johnson misses the point. He can only really allow himself to see Dagnan-Bouveret as a competent artist because he sees in him what he thinks are the signs of Modernism, as we know it today. He states, "In these almost photo-realistic images of people in traditional costumes, the women in their "Flying Nun" type headgear, he comes as close to Modernism as he would get. Bretons Praying has a non-classical, snapshot-like composition that tends to flatten the imagery into an arrangement of black and white shapes, setting up the kind of tension between abstraction and illusion that defined early Modernist painting." What Johnson forgets, is that all painters painting in their own time are modern painters. With the advent of the camera, Dagnan-Bouveret saw a new and exciting artistic viewpoint that he used and synthesized into a new and modern style of realism. His intent wasn't to be a "Modernist" as we now have come to see it. He was a Modernist in his own right. He was a modern painter of a new and original style of realistic painting in his own time. His intent was to paint the best and most truthful paintings he could paint, and to be relevant and influential. His body of work, as the show demonstrates, confirms him as major artist.
Take, for example, the painting Mr. Johnson refers to, Bretons Praying. He describes it as a strong painting and then, in an infantile manner, refers to the nuns' head covers as "Flying Nun" headgear. Would Mr. Johnson poke fun of an African tribe's historically correct headdress or of an American Indian's? I think not. He would be fearful of doing so because he would not want to be thought of as prejudiced or racist. But if the head covering is of a European 19th century nun painted by a European 19th century academic artist, then to hell with the need for respect. Mr. Johnson is so brainwashed by the rhetoric of his own time and place he cannot even see the flaws, prejudices and immaturity of his own thinking. In fact, if it weren't for the scholarship of Dr. Weisberg, I doubt he would have come to this show and been able to think for himself at all. Johnson is right about one thing, Bretons Praying is a strikingly modern piece of realism. What makes it great is not that it is a precursor for 20th century abstraction, but that it is a new and distinctly modern style of realism altogether. It is painted with tremendous skill and speaks to us today, with a clarity and directness, of the reality of another moment in time. This intensity of image gives it a timeless quality that holds our attention and makes us think about the life of these people. The people that Dagnan-Bouveret painted, and the lives that they lived, mattered to him. Carefully capturing their feelings, simple pleasures and hard work has a universal ability to speak to us today. It places the main body of his work amongst the very best of his century. Yes, his perspective is influenced by the kind of composition the eye of a camera can help with. His ability to use this view so successfully is a remarkable synthesis for his time, and he should be commended for this innovation. It was relevant then and is relevant now. It is masterful and it intrigues the viewer. It shows us a moment in reality that neither a photo, nor a painting before the discovery of the camera, could ever accomplish. It has completely succeeded as an original and yet lasting image and has nothing to do with abstract 20th century art. Abstract art has nothing to do with people and their lives ...it is not about people. Dagnan-Bouveret's art was completely about people. That is why his Bretons Praying can speak to us today and why abstract art will not be able speak to the people of the future. Abstract art, as I believe history will prove, was a destructive digression in the evolution of art ... not its outcome. And the jury is still out as to whether it is even "art" at all.
Like many critics of our time, Johnson enjoys using the fact that Dagnan-Bouveret was enthralled with the camera as a strike against his skill and motivations. That Dagnan-Bouveret kept his use of the camera a secret is especially disagreeable to Johnson. Johnson then takes the facts and puts a negative spin on them when he says, "Though he kept it a secret, he used photography extensively to achieve the startling realism that his audiences and critics found so remarkable." This is a subtle and deceitful way of complimenting him. The reader might conclude from this statement that somehow Dagnan-Bouveret did something secretive and wrong. Maybe he simply painted over a photo and fooled the world, tricking his peers in the process? If you are not somewhat familiar with this period, you might think so. The fact that he kept it a secret is also said in a way that is meant to make the reader feel that Dagnan-Bouveret had something to be guilty about. It is an implicit aspersion on his character. Dagnan-Bouveret did not paint over photographs. He was a consummate technician and used the camera and its brand new eye on the world as a way of working out novel and original perspectives. It was a tool, a new tool. He took many photos to be used as studies in conjunction with drawings. That Dagnan-Bouveret was anxious not to share with his peers his methods may possibly be selfish, much as a famous chef might keep his recipes a secret, but it doesn't make the paintings any less great. And if you need to see this secretiveness as a weakness in his character, or a neurosis due to an internal conflict between his traditional loyalties and the temptation of modern technical innovation, fine! What finally matters is the work. The fact that Jackson Pollock was manic-depressive, drank excessively, and could be a mean son-of-a-bitch, doesn't seem to stop any of today's modernist leaning critics from considering him great. What is particularly funny to me, is that Johnson finds Dagnan-Bouveret's reluctance to move with the avant-garde of his time as a sign of cowardliness rather than one of personal choice. But Mr. Johnson also chooses to remain timid and in the end devoted to the accepted views of the art establishment of our time, fearing ridicule and rejection were he to speak too well of Dagnan-Bouveret.
Johnson, in my opinion, misinterprets Dr. Weisberg's analysis of Dagnan-Bouveret's later work in order to lower our admiration for Dagnan-Bouveret's entire body of work. Johnson states, "As the end of the century approached, Dagnan-Bouveret's religiosity prevailed over his naturalistic impulses, and he sharply retreated from his flirtation with Modernism." He quotes Dr. Weisberg's observation that "The painter's post-1900 works reveal not so much a gradual lessening of creative drive as a misdirection of talent." Using this comment, out of context, Mr. Johnson ends his review with, "Whether or not his art deserves resurrection, the story of his struggle to reconcile tradition and innovation sheds much light on the birth and the early development of modern art." But the story of Dagnan-Bouveret is not the story of the early development of modern art. It is the story of a particular and decidedly innovative artist. It is the story of a man who created a new and in his time highly original form of realism that synthesized the technologies and philosophies of his time. Dagnan-Bouveret was, perhaps, along with Bastien LePage , Emile Friant , and Leon L'hermitte , one of the first Modern Realists. That, as Weisberg notes, his later work was weaker, is only an observation of his later work, not an indictment on his entire body of work. Many great masters, who we all accept as great, are known for their primary years, not their early or later years. But even here, Mr. Johnson has quoted Dr. Weisberg out of context where it will support his own view, and conveniently neglects the full picture of what Dr. Weisberg is trying to accomplish. At the very end of the last chapter of his catalogue, Weisberg writes, "In coming up against the avant-garde, he (Bouveret) worked as an artist and as a member of the art establishment to preserve tradition. At the same time, he was aware of the complexities of the present, and in his search for "truth," he created compelling images, especially during his naturalist phase, that now strike us as major works of the period. With this understanding of his motivations, even his late religious imagery may withstand closer scrutiny." This is Dr. Weisberg's final analysis of Dagnan-Bouveret. Any attempt to interpret some of Dr. Weisberg's honest evaluation of Bouveret's weaknesses as proof that Bouveret is a minor artist, is to misuse Dr. Weisberg's work.
Many of the younger artists of today are once again taken with and interested in learning the skills of the academic tradition. They also want to be relevant to their own time. They see the current art establishment as having run its course. They are tired of being limited to a flat canvas and a hollow artistic philosophy of newness for newness' sake. They want to feel that their work has meaning and that it speaks to a broader audience. This new artistic force, which is growing every day, makes the present show on Dagnan-Bouveret especially sweet. It is as if the true avant-garde artist of today is finally feeling free to return to realism and the use of hard won skills in a modern way — just as Dagnan-Bouveret did in his time.
