Jump to content

September Morn: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 626377828 by ClueBot NG (talk)Rever bot.. Report false positive.
Tag: reverting anti-vandal bot
Citing Brauer, 27th Annual Conference of the Association of Art Historians. Please don't censor the quote.
Line 35: Line 35:
The painting is dominated by grays: the gray of the woman's shaded body, the blue-grays of the September water, the green-grays of the sky, and the pink-grays of the hills.{{sfn|Tr.L|1912|p=465}}{{sfn|Pattison|1913|p=243}} This [[oil painting]] on canvas measures {{convert|163.8|*|216.5|cm}},{{sfn|MET, September Morn}} and Chabas' signature is located in the lower left.{{sfn|Sterling|Salinger|1966|pp=222–223}}
The painting is dominated by grays: the gray of the woman's shaded body, the blue-grays of the September water, the green-grays of the sky, and the pink-grays of the hills.{{sfn|Tr.L|1912|p=465}}{{sfn|Pattison|1913|p=243}} This [[oil painting]] on canvas measures {{convert|163.8|*|216.5|cm}},{{sfn|MET, September Morn}} and Chabas' signature is located in the lower left.{{sfn|Sterling|Salinger|1966|pp=222–223}}


The age of the subject has been discussed. Chabas said that the model was 16 when she posed for him.{{sfn|Monfried|1971|p=9}} Fae Brauer, discussing the painting within the context of [[Child pornography|indecent images of children]], gives the subject's age at 11 to 13. She finds that Chabas deploys "specious body-concealing gestures" in the painting.{{sfn|Brauer|2011}}
The age of the subject has been discussed. Chabas said that the model was 16 when she posed for him.{{sfn|Monfried|1971|p=9}} Fae Brauer, discussing the painting within the context of [[Child pornography|indecent images of children]], gives the subject's age at 11 to 13. She finds that Chabas deploys "specious body-concealing gestures" in the painting.{{sfn|Brauer|2011}} Brauer question whether works such as ''September Morn'' can continue to be exhibited innocent of paedophilic dimension or whether they need to be recontextualised as awkward, anomalous and aberrant.{{sfn|Brauer|2001}}


==Creation; identity of model==
==Creation; identity of model==
Line 325: Line 325:
|issn = 1443-4318
|issn = 1443-4318
|ref= harv
|ref= harv
}}
*{{cite conference
| url = http://www.aah.org.uk/page/3041
| title = Picturing Paedophilia: The Salon Nymphettes and Child Pornography of 'la Belle Époque'
| first = Fae
| last = Brauer
| year = 2001
| conference = 27th Annual Conference of the Association of Art Historians
| conferenceurl = http://www.aah.org.uk/page/3041
| location = Oxford, England
| quote = In nearly every Salon of the Artistes Français and Nationale des Beaux-Arts from the turn of the century until the outbreak of the First World War, Francis Aubertin and Paul Chabas exhibited paintings of naked pubescent girls. Although pictured in such seemingly innocuous roles as frolicking in water or gathering seaweed, unlike the Salon paintings of Virginie Demont-Breton, Aubertin's and Chabas' girls are represented invariably unescorted and unprotected. Consisted with the sexually awakened children of Bouguereau and Gérome, these nymphettes are posed as knowing and as perky and pouting as Nabokov's Lolita, in the titillating postures explored and exploited by child pornographers for the paedophiliac's delectation. Far from being censured, in 1912 Chabas won the Section de Peinture Médaille d'Honneur for Matinée de Septembre, while Aubertin's Chants sur l'eau was acquired by the Ville de Paris for the Petit Palais. <br>In light of the relationship established between child pornography and paedophilic projection by recent research, this paper will question whether such artworks can continue to be exhibited as innocent of paedophilic dimensions or whether they may need to be historically and theoretically recontextualised as awkward, anomalous and aberrant.
|ref=harv
}}
}}
*{{Cite news
*{{Cite news

Revision as of 21:14, 20 September 2014

This article is about the painting. For the album by Neil Diamond, see September Morn (album). For the upcoming film, see September Morn (film).
September Morn
A nude woman standing along the beach
ArtistPaul Émile Chabas
Year1912 (1912)
TypeOil on canvas
Dimensions163.8 cm × 216.5 cm (64.5 in × 85.2 in)
LocationMetropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Accession57.89

Matinée de Septembre (English: September Morn) is an oil painting on canvas by the French artist Paul Émile Chabas. Painted over three summers ending in 1912, it depicts a nude young woman standing in the shallow water of a lake, apparently protecting herself from the cold. The painting features an unknown model, and is in a similar style to Chabas' other work. He later described it as "all I know of painting", and responded positively to statements that it was his masterpiece.

Reproductions of September Morn, first exhibited at the Paris Salon in 1912, had begun circulating in the United States by 1913. After displays of the painting were met with charges of indecency and extensive polemics in the media, the work began to be marketed in a variety of forms, including on pins and calendars. Eventually some 7 million reproductions were sold, although Chabas – who had not copyrighted September Morn – did not receive any royalties.

The original painting, meanwhile, was sold to a Russian oil baron for $10,000. Thought lost during the October Revolution of 1917, September Morn resurfaced in the 1930s in the collection of Calouste Gulbenkian. After his death, the painting was sold in 1955 to a Philadelphia broker, who donated it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET) two years later. In 1971, after having been displayed at the MET and several other American institutions, the painting was put into storage. As of 2014 it is not on display.

Description

September Morn depicts a young blond woman, apparently self-conscious, "innocent and reluctant as she is about to inch her way into a chilly lake".[1] She stands, facing away from the light, ankle deep in the water along the shoreline of a tranquil lake surrounded by hills.[2] Her arms are folded about her body, her left hand on her right elbow.[3] This pose has been interpreted as an attempt to protect herself from the cold,[2] as an effort to cover her modesty,[4] or as sponge bathing.[5]

The painting is dominated by grays: the gray of the woman's shaded body, the blue-grays of the September water, the green-grays of the sky, and the pink-grays of the hills.[2][3] This oil painting on canvas measures 163.8×216.5 centimetres (64.5×85.2 in),[6] and Chabas' signature is located in the lower left.[7]

The age of the subject has been discussed. Chabas said that the model was 16 when she posed for him.[8] Fae Brauer, discussing the painting within the context of indecent images of children, gives the subject's age at 11 to 13. She finds that Chabas deploys "specious body-concealing gestures" in the painting.[9] Brauer question whether works such as September Morn can continue to be exhibited innocent of paedophilic dimension or whether they need to be recontextualised as awkward, anomalous and aberrant.[10]

Creation; identity of model

The painter, Paul Émile Chabas, c. 1910

By the time he painted September Morn, Paul Émile Chabas (1869–1937) already had an established career. He had won the Prix National at the 1899 Paris Salon with his Joyeux ébats, and in 1902 he was made a Chevalier in the Legion of Honour.[a][11][12] Most of his output consisted of nude girls and women, many bathing and in a similar style to September Morn, although he also painted portraits of queens, princesses, and American society women.[2][12][13] The pose assumed by the model in September Morn is similar to the one taken by the model of Au crépuscule (At Twilight), which he completed c. 1905; a 1913 Milwaukee Sentinel article described the only difference being that the girl in Au crépuscule had long, straight hair, and that she clasped her right elbow with her left hand.[14][15]

There are several versions of how September Morn was completed. According to Chabas, he began work on September Morn in mid-1910, at Talloires on the shores of Lake Annecy in Haute-Savoie.[8][16] The model, whom he never identified but referred to as "Marthe", was well known to his family. Owing to the financial situation of the young woman's family, "Marthe" had to work to support her mother.[17] On the first day of painting, "Marthe" entered the morning water and instinctively recoiled at its chilliness. Chabas approved of this pose, saying that it was "perfect". Over the next three summers he worked on the painting, half an hour every morning. The work was ultimately completed on a September morning in 1912, giving the painting its name.[8] In 1935, responding to claims that "Marthe" now lived in poverty, Chabas explained that "Marthe" had continued posing for him until she was 28, when she married a rich industrialist, and that the two had three children.[18]

Numerous women have claimed or been claimed to be the model, some presenting different versions of events. In 1913, a Miss Louise Buckley, performing in Eugene, Oregon, claimed to have been the model, stating that she had been paid $1,000 and posed in the artist's studio.[19] The Paris-based artist Jules Pages, meanwhile, stated that the woman in September Morn had been a 25-year-old of good character who earned her living as an artist's model, but had gone into hiding after the controversy over the painting.[20] Other claimants included a Swedish model named Gloria[21] and a variety actress named Irene Shannon;[22] the latter made the claim in the lead-up to a vaudeville skit called "November Mourning".[23]

Suzanne Delve
Irene Shannon
Suzanne Delve (left) and Irene Shannon both claimed to be the model for September Morn.

In 1937, the Parisian hostess Suzanne Delve declared that she had been the model. In her version of events, Chabas – who she said had known her since she was an infant – had her pose nude in his studio and then later painted Lake Annecy without her. Delve described her nervousness at the first session, her mother chatting to her to distract her mind while Chabas' wife played soothing music on the piano. She said she took her pose "instinctively" and that the controversy over the painting had ruined her life, as no Frenchman would want to marry a woman marred by scandal.[24]

Yet another version is presented by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET), which holds the painting, in their 1966 catalogue of French holdings. According to this telling, Chabas completed the portrait over three summers at Lake Annecy. However, his peasant model served only as the basis for the figure's body. The head was based on a sketch of a young American, Julie Phillips, which Chabas had completed upon observing her and her mother dining in Paris; finding her profile to his liking, he silently drew her, then introduced himself and "apologized for his presumption".[7]

History

Paris Salon and first sale

Chabas first exhibited September Morn in the Paris Salon of 1912; not planning on selling the painting, Chabas gave a price of 50,000 francs ($10,000) – more than he expected anybody to pay.[25][18] For the painting, and his Portrait of Mme. Aston Knight, Chabas won a Medal of Honor, receiving 220 of 359 possible votes.[26] At the Salon, the painting created no controversy,[27][28] and it was soon reprinted in American publications such as Town & Country[27] and The International Studio.[29]

Sources are unclear as to the provenance of the painting after the Salon. The MET writes that a New Yorker named Philip (or Philippe) Ortiz had purchased the painting in late 1912.[6] Ortiz owned the Holland House Bar, and reportedly paid 12,000 francs ($2,400) for the work. A 1933 report in the Middletown Times Herald stated that Ortiz had never brought the painting back to the United States, as his bar had already closed.[30] According to the MET, the painting was later acquired by Leon Mantashev in 1913.[6]

A 1935 article in the Montreal Gazette, however, stated that the painting had yet to go to the United States, and that Chabas had sold September Morn directly to Mantashev.[31] Chabas explained that an American had approached him to purchase the painting, but was unwilling to pay the asking price, and as such the sale was automatically forfeited; Mantashev, however, was willing to pay.[25] It is clear, however, that reproductions of September Morn had crossed the Atlantic by 1913.[31]

Controversy and popularity

Chicago

In The Seattle Star
In The Leavenworth Times
Newspaper reproductions of the painting, censored with clothing

A full size reproduction of September Morn was displayed in a window of Jackson and Semmelmeyer, a photography shop in Chicago, Illinois, in March 1913.[b][27] A passing police officer noticed the print and insisted that it was indecent and had to be taken down.[c] The mayor of the city, Carter Harrison, Jr., agreed with the policeman's decision, stating that the image could be sold, but should not be displayed in public as children could see it.[28] Fred Jackson, the owner of the gallery, was charged with indecency,[32][33] and upon his request the case was brought to trial on March 18.[34]

In front of a jury, the city's art censor Jeremiah O'Connor argued that September Morn was lewd and thus should not be displayed in public, but rather only in a museum exhibition.[d] W. W. Hallam of the Chicago Vice Committee agreed, arguing that, as the woman was clearly committing the illegal act of bathing in public, September Morn had to be banned.[27][35] Other witnesses for the prosecution included censors, educators, and clergy, such as superintendent Ella Flagg Young and head of the Juvenile Protective Association Gertrude Howe Britton.[33][35][36]

Jackson, acting as his own lawyer, highlighted the hypocrisy of censoring the painting while a nude statue of Diana could be found in front of the Montgomery Ward Building. He called upon painters, poets, and sculptors as his witnesses, including painter Oliver Grover and art critic Walter Smith.[e][33][35] In his testimony, Grover stated "A nude woman is no more indecent than a bare tree. Men and women weren't born with overcoats on. Anyhow, indecency may be decidedly apart from nudity".[4]

After less than an hour of deliberations,[f] the jury found for Jackson, allowing him to reinstate the image in the display;[4][35][37] Jackson was so pleased that he promised a free copy to each juror.[38] However, ten days after the trial Mayor Harrison went to city council and proposed stricter obscenity laws. The city government agreed, and imposed a $25–100 fine for displaying nude art along public roads and in places frequented by children.[37][39] By September Jackson (together with fellow art dealers Samuel Meyer and William Kuhl) had been found in violation of this law. Mayor Harrison later stated that he was "through" with the painting, saying "Chicago has been made the laughing stock of the whole country because of this bathing girl picture".[22]

New York

Anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock; his reaction to the painting promoted further controversy

Further controversy arose, in New York, two months after the conclusion of the Chicago trial. Anthony Comstock, head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice and nationally recognized for his campaigns against "smut", saw a print of September Morn on display in the window of Braun & Company. Rushing inside, he raged "There's too little morn and too much maid! Take it out!".[g][5][8][32] A clerk, James Kelly, removed the painting, but the gallery's owner reinstated it in the window upon his return.[8] Ultimately, however, Comstock was unable to press legal action.[32]

This controversy was highly covered in the press, and following Comstock's visit large crowds blocked the street outside Braun & Company, ogling September Morn.[40] The controversy promoted polemics regarding the painting.[5] Comstock called the painting "demoralizing in the extreme and especially calculated to excite immodesty in the young", arguing that it must be suppressed in the interest of the children.[41] Reverend Sydney Ussher of St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church took a more moderate approach, explaining that "so vivid a display of nudity as September Morn" would best not be displayed in the country, owing to the people's relative lack of appreciation for art.[41]

Other, more positive, views were also expressed. The suffragist Inez Milholland defended the painting, stating that it was "exquisite and delicate, depicting perfect youth and innocence", and found it "funny, if it weren't so sad" that such a painting would be censored while more titillating film posters were left untouched.[41] The social activist Rose Pastor Stokes was likewise positive, writing that this "glorious work of art" was a "rare" depiction of "the loveliest dream that nature ever made real—the human Body Beautiful" and that shame over one's body should not be blamed on the painting, but on a failed education system.[41] The artist James Montgomery Flagg proclaimed "only a diseased mind can find anything immoral in September Morn".[41]

Public relations pioneer Harry Reichenbach later claimed responsibility for the controversy surrounding September Morn – and the work's resulting popularity. However, sources differ in the chronology of events. Jonathon Green's Encyclopedia of Censorship has Reichenbach acquiring the painting and bringing it to New York.[27] Journalist Bob Considine, meanwhile, gives Braun & Company as having acquired some 2,000 reproductions of the painting which they could not sell; in this version, Reichenbach asked for $45 if he could unload the stock, then paid for a large lithograph reproduction to be made and put on display.[42] Reichenbach then contacted public figures to protest against the display. When there was no response, he accosted Comstock in his office and dragged him to the dealership, where a "small gallery of urchins", young children Reichenbach had hired for fifty cents each, lusted over the painting. The public relations man then worked towards maintaining interest in the painting, prints of which had already increased in price.[27][42]

Wide-spread reproduction and imitation

September Morn pins
Postcard after September Morn; a young black girl in a bathtub. She stands in the pose of the September Morn model, with suds (represented by a piece of fabric) covering her nether regions. The text reads "Go 'long, white man. I ain't no SEPTEMBER MORN".
September Morn sheet music
Merchandise related to September Morn. From left to right: pins, a postcard, and sheet music

A 1937 Salt Lake Tribune article stated that, after the 1913 controversies, reproductions of September Morn were shown "on the front page of every newspaper in the land".[24] These publications, however, were sometimes censored. Fred L. Boalt of The Seattle Star, covering a local exhibit of a reproduction, explained his newspaper's rationale for such censorship thusly: "For humane as well as other reasons, [...] the Star artist has painted in a short petticoat. He didn't want to do it. He suffered. But we made him do it".[37]

Lithograph copies of Summer Morn were popularly sold for over a decade, extending the success that followed the scandal. Reproductions were featured on a variety of products, including cigar bands, suspenders, postcards, bottle openers, statuettes and candy boxes.[5] The painting was particularly common on calendars, and according to a 1973 Associated Press report it was the first nude used for that purpose.[43] By the late 1950s it had featured on millions of calendars.[44] A couplet referring to Chabas' work, "Please don't think I'm bad or bold, but where its deep its awwful cold", was also widely circulated.[5]

References to the painting were common in vaudeville acts,[42] and stage imitations of the painting were also created. In 1913, for instance, Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. cast Ann Pennington as the model as part of his Follies. In this version of September Morn, the subject bore a sheer cape, with leaves placed strategically over her body, and stood on a stage made-up as water; it was a rousing success.[5][45][46] A burlesque act, deeming itself the "September Morning Glories", was also created.[47] In Milwaukee, a man wearing "little or no clothing" passed himself off as "September Morn" in a 1915 state fair; he was brought to trial and fined $25.[48] A three-act musical based on the painting – featuring a fifty-strong chorus line – was put on by Arthur Gillespie and Frank Tannehill, Jr., later that year.[49] Theatrical references to the painting continued into the 1950s; in Tennessee Williams's 1957 play Orpheus Descending, the character Val sees it hanging in his room and mentions it he "might keep turning the light on to take another look at it".[50]

A scene from September Mourning, inspired by the painting.

The public furor over September Morn inspired several films. A two-reel work by Pathé, titled September Morn, was released in February 1915 and followed the misadventures of a sailor who gets a tattoo of the model. After his girlfriend disapproves, he tries clothing the naked woman with a ripped skirt, but this fails to gain her approval; ultimately, he ends up with a fully-clothed nude and the text "Votes for Women" inked on his arm.[51][52] Meanwhile, September Mourning, a November 1915 release produced by L-KO, portrayed a pair of artists first vying for the attentions of a young woman in the park, then invading a school for girls.[51] Robert McElravy, reviewing for Moving Picture World, found the film funny, but considered it to lack plot.[53] A third film, Lois Weber's Hypocrites, portrayed "The Naked Truth" (Margaret Edwards) in a manner similar to Chabas' model.[51]

Several songs inspired by September Morn were likewise released. Musicians Frank Black and Bobby Heath penned a song, "September Morn", based on the painting,[42] and Aubrey Stauffer of Chicago published sheet music for voice and piano of "Oh, You September Morn", from Gillespie and Tannehill's musical.[54] Henry I. Marshall composed two works, a waltz for piano titled "Matin de Septembre (September Morn)", and a piece for voice and piano titled "September Morn (I'd Like to Meet Her)". Both were published through Jerome H. Remick & Co. in 1913, and the latter featured lyrics by Stanley Murphy.[55][56]

I want that girl they call September Morn;
I'd like to meet her, I'd like to meet her!
Dress'd up like the day that she was born,
There's no one sweeter! there's no one sweeter!
Nothing 'round her but a cloud of mist.
She's a vision that I can't resist.
In my heart she's posing night and day,
I can't forget her, I can't forget her!
I want that girl they call September Morn;
I'd like to meet her. I'd like to meet her,
If you find her won't you please remind her that I'm oh, so lonely, lonely,
Oh so lonely! And I'm waiting for her only.
For that girl they call September Morn.

—Chorus to "September Morn (I'd Like to Meet Her)", by Stanley Murphy

As interest grew, purity societies attempted to ban reproductions. Postcards bearing the painting were disallowed from being sent through the post.[5] Harold Marx, a New Orleans art dealer who displayed a reproduction, was arrested a month after being told to take the painting down;[27][57] displays of reproductions were also forcibly removed in Miami and Atlanta.[58] In Chicago, a man was charged with disorderly conduct after bringing home a reproduction.[22]

Ultimately some 7 million reproductions were sold,[27] and the "steady stream" of reproductions continued into the late 1930s;[59] as late as the 1960s prints remained popular.[60] Inspired by the commercial success of September Morn, displays of images of nude women became more common; a New York Times reader wrote that they had become "increasingly vulgar and suggestive".[61] Life deemed September Morn "one of the most familiar paintings in the world",[59] and a retrospective Toledo Blade article characterized the model as having become America's number one pin-up girl.[47] Writing in 1957, Considine declared September Morn to be "the most controversial painting in the history of [the United States]".[42]

Russia and Paris

The oil baron Leon Mantashev[h] acquired the original September Morn in c. 1913, for a price of $10,000.[8] He brought it with him to Russia, and after the outbreak of the October Revolution it was feared destroyed;[62] after Mantashev fled Russia, pieces of his sizeable collection considered to have artistic value were sent to museums, but there was no information regarding works such as September Morn,[63] such that in the United States, some copies of the painting were claimed to be the original.[31] By 1933 Chabas was seeking information regarding the painting's fate, which The Milwaukee Journal suggested to be "hanging in some crowded Russian room, its owner perhaps completely ignorant of its world fame".[63]

However, the painting was safe; Mantashev had smuggled it out of the country,[64] reportedly "rip[ping] it out of its frame" when the revolution broke out.[31] In the early 1930s, in desperate need of funds, he sold September Morn to Armenian art collector and philanthropist Calouste Gulbenkian for $30,000;[i][6] it was the last painting he owned.[65] A United Press reporter discovered the painting, which was framed as a tondo, in Gulbenkian's Paris home in 1935,[7][31][44] and by 1937 September Morn was on display in the Musée du Luxembourg, hung between a Raefelli and a Carriere.[64] After Gulbenkian's death in 1955, the painting was acquired by Wildenstein & Company.[6]

Acquisition by the MET

September Morn was purchased by the Philadelphia broker and sportsman William Coxe Wright for $22,000 in 1957.[8][6] In April of that year he offered it to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, but the painting was rejected for having "no relation to the stream of 20th century art".[66] Eventually he anonymously donated the work – valued at an estimated $30,000 – to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET) in New York City.[8] Speaking for the museum, Dudley T. Easby explained that, although the painting could not be classified as a masterpiece, it was nevertheless "a part of art history in view of the controversy that raged around the picture in earlier years".[62]

September Morn on display in the Toledo Museum of Art, 1958

After acquisition, the painting was displayed near the MET's front entrance, taking a place previously occupied by the Pérussis Altarpiece.[62] This position of honor was held for several weeks.[67] Hughes reported a "veritable pilgrimage" of visitors to see the painting, which she considered to add a "fresh, popular appeal" to the MET which had drawn museum-goers who would never have come otherwise.[1] By then, however, the earlier scandal of the model's nudity had lessened;[1] discussing an exhibit of the painting in Toledo, Alan Schoedel of the Toledo Blade quoted a viewer as saying that 1950s America was so inundated with racy calendar art that the painting "couldn't stand the competition".[68]

After September Morn was acquired by the MET, it was displayed at several venues, including the Palace of the Legion of Honor in San Francisco in 1958, the Toledo Museum of Art in Toledo, Ohio (also 1958), and by the Municipal Art Commission of Los Angeles in 1959.[6] Six years later it was exhibited at The California Palace of the Legion of Honor as part of an exhibition of works collected by the Wrights.[7] In 1971, the MET took September Morn off display and sent it to storage; Walter Monfried of The Milwaukee Journal wrote that the once-racy painting was now considered "too tame and banal".[8] As of September 2014, it is not on display.[6]

Reception

Chabas and September Morn; he considered it "all I know of painting".

Chabas was "pained and humiliated" by the controversy over September Morn,[20] though later in life his view changed. He described it as "all I know of painting", and responded positively to statements that it was his masterpiece.[8] In a 1914 interview, he explained that he had not meant to sell the painting, as it "was [his] wife's favorite picture".[25] At the time of his death in 1937, Chabas had only a single picture in his room: a reproduction of the painting, completed from memory;[8] he had boasted "If I had never seen it from the day I put down my brushes after painting it, I could make a perfect copy".[16] However, not having copyrighted the work, he did not receive any royalties from the marketing frenzy in the United States; he was later quoted as saying "Nobody was thoughtful enough even to send me a box of cigars".[1][8]

Reviewing the painting after the Salon, Tr.L in the Larousse Mensuel illustré described September Morn as having a "rare purity", and the model "a remarkable finesse".[j][2] Henri Frantz, reviewing the Paris Salon for The International Studio, described September Morn as "one of the most remarkable figure subjects", highlighting the nude's "graceful form".[69] A 1913 article in the Oregon Daily Journal described the model as "beautifully drawn", and suggested that "it requires a powerful imagination to find anything suggestive in the work".[41]

Later reviews were less positive. The director of the MET, James Rorimer, wrote in 1957 that September Morn was stood at "different ends of a wide spectrum" than the works of Old Masters and "modern giants", but was important in helping viewers "realize the full benefit of our heritage" in their explorations of past and present art.[70] That year, the Montreal Gazette's art critic opined that the painting was banal and unacceptable for display in the MET's main hall. The reviewer suggested that September Morn, with its "delicate, pearly tonality and simple, sparse, airy composition", would be best served by being displayed among works considered better by early 20th century collectors but since reviewed poorly, to "dramatiz[e] for the public the danger of too-hasty judgments".[71] In 1958, Blake-More Godwin of the Toledo Museum of Art stated that, although September Morn was certainly art, it was not "great art" and overshadowed by the controversy it had created; the painting, he said, "bears the same relationship to art as a minor poem does to the classic and the imperishable".[47]

In a 1961 The Kenyon Review article, Alfred Werner described September Morn as a "classic of kitsch" and "the 'idealized' nude at its worst": "without a wrinkle of the skin, without any breathing of the flesh ... pink, soft, spineless".[60] This classification of kitsch has been applied by several further writers.[32][72]

Explanatory notes

  1. ^ Chabas would later go on to head the Société des Artistes Français (Kingsport Times-News 1957).
  2. ^ The store was located at 44 Wabash Avenue (Chicago Daily Tribune 1913).
  3. ^ Sources disagree as to the name of this policeman. Boalt (1913, p. 1) gives "Jerry Sullivan", while The Milwaukee Journal gives "Fred Rirsch" (The Milwaukee Journal 1913, Paris).
  4. ^ In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, O'Connor stated that he personally liked the painting, but considered it "embarrassing for women to look at" and thought displays would have a negative impact on young boys. He drew a comparison with the Bible, explaining that it "may be good reading for people who understand it, but some chapters are not intended for young folks" (Chicago Daily Tribune 1913).
  5. ^ The Milwaukee Journal reprinted one poem in defense of the painting, as follows (The Milwaukee Journal 1913, Beautiful) harv error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFThe_Milwaukee_Journal_1913,_Beautiful (help):

    Sometime, glad time, in Arcady, I want
      to live a day
    With Joy's slim daughter of the dawn
      to teach my love the way;
    To live a day without the clothes, the
      coin, the masquerade
    That burden so the struggle here—of
      hypocrites afraid.

    Sometime, dear time, in Arcady, im-
      mune from 'pure' police
    I hope to find the picture true, that
      caught its light from Greece;
    To be as true to life, dear life, as is the
      painter's dream
    Within the dawning of the day where
      new ideals gleam.

  6. ^ Sources differ as to the exact length. The San Francisco Call gives 20 minutes (San Francisco Call 1913), while the Escanaba Morning Press gives 45 (Escanaba Morning Press 1913).
  7. ^ Other versions are phrased "There's too little morning and too much maid!" (Monfried 1971, p. 9), or include the further explanation "It ought to have been pitch dark for a girl to go wading like that" (The Tuscaloosa News 1937).
  8. ^ Also Mantacheff (MET, September Morn). The son of Armenian oil magnate Alexander Mantashev, Leon was known for his extravagant lifestyle. Robert W. Tolf, in his history of the Russian oil industry, describes him as "Russia's greatest gambler, a collector of paintings, race horses, and beautiful women" (Tolf 1976, p. 100).
  9. ^ The MET gives 1931 (MET, September Morn) while a 1935 Montreal Gazette article states that the sale happened the preceding year (The Montreal Gazette 1935)
  10. ^ Original: "une rare purité ... une finesse remarquable"

References

  1. ^ a b c d Hughes 1957, p. 15.
  2. ^ a b c d e Tr.L 1912, p. 465.
  3. ^ a b Pattison 1913, p. 243.
  4. ^ a b c San Francisco Call 1913.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Shteir 2004, p. 59.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h MET, September Morn.
  7. ^ a b c d Sterling & Salinger 1966, pp. 222–223.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Monfried 1971, p. 9.
  9. ^ Brauer 2011.
  10. ^ Brauer 2001.
  11. ^ Kingsport Times-News 1957.
  12. ^ a b Logansport Pharos-Tribune 1937.
  13. ^ Stratton 1914, p. 421.
  14. ^ Musée d'Orsay, Au crépuscule.
  15. ^ The Milwaukee Sentinel 1913.
  16. ^ a b The Gazette and Daily 1937.
  17. ^ The Indiana Gazette 1933.
  18. ^ a b The San Bernardino County Sun 1935.
  19. ^ Daily Guard 1913.
  20. ^ a b The Oregon Daily Journal 1913, 'September Morn'.
  21. ^ The Milwaukee Journal 1921.
  22. ^ a b c The Pittsburgh Press 1913. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFThe_Pittsburgh_Press_1913 (help)
  23. ^ The Leavenworth Times 1913.
  24. ^ a b Salt Lake Tribune 1937.
  25. ^ a b c Oakland Tribune 1914.
  26. ^ The International Studio 1912, p. 223.
  27. ^ a b c d e f g h Green & Karolides 2009, p. 506.
  28. ^ a b Pattison 1913, p. 244.
  29. ^ Frantz 1912, p. 107.
  30. ^ Middletown Times Herald 1933.
  31. ^ a b c d e The Montreal Gazette 1935.
  32. ^ a b c d Kendrick 1996, p. 147.
  33. ^ a b c The Milwaukee Journal 1913, Beautiful. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFThe_Milwaukee_Journal_1913,_Beautiful (help)
  34. ^ Chicago Daily Tribune 1913.
  35. ^ a b c d The Spokesman-Review 1913.
  36. ^ The Milwaukee Journal 1913, Don't be Afraid.
  37. ^ a b c Boalt 1913, p. 1.
  38. ^ Escanaba Morning Press 1913.
  39. ^ Garvey 1988, p. 158.
  40. ^ Taylor 2012, p. 166.
  41. ^ a b c d e f Oregon Daily Journal 1913, September Morn.
  42. ^ a b c d e Considine 1957, p. 3.
  43. ^ Sarasota Herald-Tribune 1973.
  44. ^ a b The Berkshire County Eagle 1957.
  45. ^ Vallillo 1981, p. 27.
  46. ^ Adams, Keene & Koella 2012, p. 75.
  47. ^ a b c Toledo Blade 1958.
  48. ^ The Milwaukee Sentinal 1915.
  49. ^ The Charlotte News 1915.
  50. ^ Williams 1971, p. 296.
  51. ^ a b c Taylor 2012, pp. 166–67.
  52. ^ Moving Picture World 1914, September Morn.
  53. ^ McElravy 1915, p. 1319.
  54. ^ WorldCat, Oh You September Morn.
  55. ^ WorldCat, Matin de Septembre.
  56. ^ WorldCat, September Morn.
  57. ^ The Indianapolis Star 1913.
  58. ^ The Miami News 1983.
  59. ^ a b Life 1937, Painter.
  60. ^ a b Werner 1961, pp. 219–20.
  61. ^ The New York Times 1915.
  62. ^ a b c Toledo Blade 1957.
  63. ^ a b The Milwaukee Journal 1933.
  64. ^ a b The Milwaukee Journal 1937.
  65. ^ Levine 2007, p. 48.
  66. ^ Beaver Valley Times 1957.
  67. ^ Werner 1961, p. 219.
  68. ^ Schoedel 1958, p. 1.
  69. ^ Frantz 1912, p. 102.
  70. ^ Rorimer 1957, p. 1.
  71. ^ The Montreal Gazette 1957.
  72. ^ Taylor 2012, p. 221.

Works cited

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_Morn&oldid=626390022"