Gwen John: an Artist and Her Teapot in a Man's World

Gwen John: An Artist and Her Teapot in a Man’s World Jocelyne Fletcher

A common trend in scholarly discourse about female artists is to orient them as they relate to their male counterparts. This scholarship implies that a female artist is forever trying to meet a standard set by a ‘creative genius’, a dominant male. Feminist thinking has challenged this apparent necessity: Is it not possible to focus on the artistic production of a female artist independently? Might a talented woman stand alone in critical readings of her artwork? Or must we continuously refer to Artemesia Gentileschi only as she pertains to her father Orazio? Must Lee Krasner always be compared to Jackson Pollock? Georgia O’Keefe to Alfred Steiglitz? This essay will examine the case of the British artist Gwen John (1876-1939) who is nearly always considered in relation to the significant male relationships of her life. In this essay, I consider the view that women ought to be regarded as artists independently of their relationship to men. Seeking to go beyond Victorian era gender ideals by which women artists are understood to be derivative of and dependent on their male counterparts, in this essay I show that there are other reasons why certain male relations should be included in a discussion about a woman artist. The presence of Gwen John’s brother Augustus John and her lover Auguste Rodin in the dialogue surrounding her artwork undoubtedly stems from age-old gendered norms. The real significance of these relationships, in terms of influence on her artistic output, cannot be appreciated using these antiquated models. Neither, however, should these relationships be completely excluded from a discussion of Gwen John’s work. These relationships are integral to her artistic production and by looking at Gwen’s Interior: The Brown Tea Pot (1916), we can take note of the various ways in which her brother and her lover had significant influence on the piece: without them we might not have seen such high caliber work from Gwen John at all (Fig. 1). Mary Taubman describes Interior: The Brown Teapot as being from Gwen’s most mature phase in painting.1 The painting is an example of her perfectionist tendency to paint the same scene or subject multiple times (Figs. 1-4). The subject matter and painting style are indicative of the influences of Auguste Rodin and Augustus John. A formal analysis of the piece shows a limited range of colour – grays, browns, beiges, whites, and the palest of blues. It showcases a teapot, teacup, dateless newspapers, a stool, a small table, and a fireplace in the background atop which sits some

1 Mary Taubman, Gwen John (Aldershot: Wildwood House Limited, 1985), 22-28. Taubman describes three major phases in Gwen John’s artistic journey, the latter being her mature phase.

27 of the artist’s brushes. The stool prevents the viewer from entering the pictorial space, and the incorporation of the cup and teapot implies the recent presence of someone in a private space; a space which the viewer can only observe, rather than participate in.2 The delicate brushwork and controlled composition reflect Gwen’s restrained and solitary personality. Gwen John’s abundant letters and journal entries provide insight into how she led her life and what affected her as an artist. By divorcing one’s self from the details not pertaining to Gwen’s artistic career, and honing in on the reasons for her posthumous success, we can see that these male relationships were not simply the acts of dominant males superimposing their opinions over a delicate, passive female artist, as would be consistent with Victorian gender norms. In Eunice Lipton and Carol Gemel’s review of certain literature about Gwen John, they find that female artist’s lives of the 19th and 20th centuries are either considered independently of gender, or are reduced to their sexual encounters.3 Neither approach is suitable. Considering Gwen’s social position as an unmarried woman living in the Victorian era, she had limited access to formal training and promotional opportunities equal to those of her male peers. This makes her relationships with men very influential. The function of these relationships, as all male-female pairings are, is the result of gendered social norms and can be analyzed to reveal their critical importance in the formation of her painting style and eventual success. The ideologies of gender undoubtedly affected Gwen’s artwork. Augustus John and Auguste Rodin helped to form and develop her artistic output. Let us first consider Gwen John’s relationship with her brother. Gwen John’s extant work is praised and revered by critics and scholars alike, though this was certainly not the case during her lifetime when her career was virtually ineffectual in comparison to that of her artist brother, Augustus. Gwen and Augustus both attended the Slade School of Fine Art in London where their studies overlapped from 1895-1897, during which time they lived together.4 While Gwen had a number of female artist friends from the Slade School, she was a recluse, described as a “reserved creature” by her brother, and was very hard on herself and her own abilities.5 Somewhat of a perfectionist, she hesitated to exhibit her works in

2 Edward B. Henning, “New Paintings by Four Artists from Britain,” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 69, no. 10 (1982): 312. 3 Eunice Lipton and Carol Zemel, “Female Painter, Male Model,” Women’s Review of Books 4, no. 3 (1986): 10. Lipton and Zemel review two passages that include: Cecily Langdale and David Fraser Jenkins. Gwen John: An Interior Life (New York: Rizzoli, 1986), and Mary Taubman Gwen John (Aldershot: Wildwood House Limited, 1985). 4 Susan Gubar ““The Blank Page” and the Issues of Female Creativity,” Critical Inquiry 8, no. 2 (1981): 244. 5 Alison Thomas, Portraits of Women: Gwen John and her Forgotten

28 shows for fear of negative criticism. Her brother could see this first hand and as such he became Gwen’s chief supporter. He thought her to be one of the greatest women artists of the period, and was concerned that her lack of confidence and self-motivation might prevent her from succeeding, especially when paired with the fact that she had fewer opportunities than he did to exhibit work.6 Thus, he persuaded his sister to exhibit some of her flower paintings alongside his work in 1913 at the Carfax Gallery in London. Without the encouragement of Augustus, the comparatively little recognition she did receive during her life could have been reduced to none at all. It is known that of the few pieces she chose to display, one was removed the day before the opening because of her self-doubt.7 Interior: The Brown Teapot was completed three years after this exhibition and displays more confidence than she had at the time of the 1913 show. Interior: The Brown Teapot can be regarded as an example of the type of painting Gwen is most known for: she conveyed what she held dear as well as the atmosphere in which she lived. Gwen was further aided toward eventual success through the assistance of her brother as without his resources she would not have had a solo show during her lifetime. Augustus’ decision to refrain from exhibiting alongside her a second time, at the New Chenil Gallery in 1926, gave her the unique opportunity of having a one-woman show. Augustus apparently thought that his work would have overpowered his sister’s and she would be denied the recognition she deserved.8 Contemporary consensus about the pair puts Gwen ahead of her brother in talent and artistic legacy, and his own good will is most certainly a contributing factor to this valuation since the steps he took to give Gwen adequate exhibition space informs this opinion of her work.9 Perhaps the fact that older siblings have been known to express more warmth towards their younger brothers or sisters (as opposed to the opposite case) was a factor in their relationship that prompted Augustus to fortify the public viewing of Gwen’s art.10 As the elder of the two, it can be suggested that he acted as a guide to his younger sister at the time they were both working artists which has resulted in the surpassing of Gwen’s artistic reputation over his. Augustus’ support, then, is one of the ways in which Gwen’s art was shaped by her relationship with her brother. Likewise, the personality traits that we find exemplified in the

Contemporaries (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994), 34. 6 Ibid., 64. 7 Taubman, Gwen John, 24, 34. 8 Thomas, Portraits of Women, 180. 9 Richard Cork, “O Brother, Where Art Thou? Augustus and Gwen John are Head- to-Head at Tate Britain,” New Statesman 133, no. 4709 (2004): 43. 10 Avidan Milevsky, Sibling Relationships in Childhood and Adolescence: Predictors and Outcomes (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 3.

29 character of Gwen’s work can also be sourced to her relationship with Augustus. Accounts of Gwen’s personality often include words like ‘solitary’, ‘quiet’, and ‘reclusive’, whereas Augustus is described as flamboyant and flashy.11 His work is characterized as often on the bounds of vulgarity since he tended towards showy society portraiture, whereas Gwen had an inclination towards simplicity and “quiet refinement.”12 Interior: The Brown Teapot exemplifies the serenity and calm of Gwen’s work and displays her mature use of thick paint application of a dry consistency in short strokes. The two opposing personas and styles of Gwen and her brother can be attributed to the process of deidentification. Deidentification is a process by which siblings that share similar traits consciously highlight their differences to minimize sibling rivalry.13 Since conflict is more common with siblings that are alike as opposed to quite different, deidentifying can reduce the potential for inter-sibling competition. The relationship between Gwen and her brother fits this idea well, and one can postulate that Gwen’s radically different painting style was, in part, a reaction to that of her brother. By following his career and his guidance, Gwen differentiated her work from her brother’s and thus set herself on a higher level artistically. Milevsky notes that sibling deidentification can aid in carving out a unique identity for the younger sibling, and if this notion is applied to the artwork of Gwen John, we could say that her success is partially a result of the choices made by Augustus. If there had been no sense of competition between the two, it is possible that Gwen John could have taken an alternate artistic path. Moreover, Gwen converted to Catholicism in 1913, the same year as the show at the Carfax Gallery.14 This act further separated her from her brother and made her work ever more introspective and evanescent. These are qualities we can see in the subtle tones and serene mood of Interior: The Brown Teapot, and they are in total contrast to Augustus’s attention-seeking images.15 Another way in which Gwen’s work was shaped by her relationship with her brother, then, is through her deidentification from him. This, along with his encouragement and exhibition assistance, was an integral aspect of their artistic relationship. It is for these reasons that Gwen John’s association with her artist brother cannot be discounted when studying her career.

11 For an eloquent comparison of the siblings’ artwork, see Richard Shone, “Exhibition Reviews: Gwen John and Augustus John. London and Cardiff,” The Burlington Magazine 146, no. 1220 (2004): 771-773. 12 Rotraud Sackerlotzky, “Gwen John: Interior: Brown Teapot,” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 75, no. 4 (1988): 100. 13 Milevsky, Sibling Relationships, 85, 87-88. For further reading on the concept of sibling deidentification, refer to chapter 7. 14 Cork, “O Brother,” 43. 15 Exemplifying examples of Augustus John’s showy society portraiture include Colonel T.E. Lawrence (1919) and Tallulah Brockman Bankhead (1930).

30 The other male relationship in Gwen’s life that is consistently mentioned in critical writings regarding her art career is the sexual affair she had with famous French sculptor Auguste Rodin. Gwen met Rodin while working as an artist’s model in Paris, and by modeling for him she became one of many British women to liaise with and lust after him.16 However, Gwen’s feelings went beyond lust and as a woman with few intimate relationships, she quickly grew to love Rodin. She invested every part of her life to the union. This singular focus of her attention alienated the few friends she had, even if Rodin did not reciprocate her intense admiration. While the relationship may have begun with Gwen acting as artistic muse for Rodin, he quickly became the muse and inspiration for her. She became enveloped with the relationship; for the duration of their affair, and for a time afterward, Gwen would only go to his studio and her small apartment in Meudon, a flat she moved into specifically to be closer to him.17 She began to create artworks solely for his enjoyment, which became the basis for many of her signature interior pieces. This is documented in Gwen’s letters to Rodin where she writes about painting her room for the purpose of showing Rodin how ‘lovely’ it is.18 Interior: The Brown Teapot is an image showcasing her Meudon flat, and though it was painted post affair, it is most certainly a remnant of her initial desire to paint her apartment to show Rodin. Figures 5 and 6 show a similar scene of the interior of her Meudon flat. These are paintings that were completed during her relationship with Rodin, and are possibly, and quite likely, some of the pictures she made for the purpose of showing Rodin so that he could visualize the other facet of her life, where she was when she was not with him. Gwen’s decision to convert to Roman Catholicism in 1913, not long after her relationship with Rodin ultimately ended, was a response to her documented emotional confusion and the fact that she had isolated herself from any additional friendships during the affair. Without any support during her time of sadness and rejection, she turned to the church and began to innovate on her previous work. Thus, she created some of the works that she is best known for, including the quiet interior scenes where she would work and pray, like that of Interior: The Brown Teapot. It has been suggested that some of these works have a subtle yet palpable religious and self-reflective undertone.19 Gwen is quoted from 1912 as saying, “As to whether I have anything worth expressing – that is apart

16 Thomas, Portraits of Women, 120. 17 Taubman, Gwen John, 19. 18 Ibid., 11. 19 Anthony Cane, “Gwen John and Celia Paul: Painters in Parallel,” Art and Christianity 72, no. 9 (2012): 9. Cane compares the religious qualities of Gwen John’s work to those of Cecilia Paul, and provides a convincing argument on the apparent religiousness found in Gwen’s art.

31 from the question. I may never have anything to express, except this desire for a more interior life.”20 In this way, Rodin indirectly affected Gwen’s artistic resolution as she further pulled away from socializing and public interaction. The final way in which both Augustus John and Auguste Rodin relate to the career of Gwen John, and perhaps the most important, is through what Harold Bloom terms the ‘anxiety of influence.’21 Bloom develops this theory through the example of poetry, though it can easily be transferred to the history of the visual arts and can help to explain why the men in Gwen’s life were essential to the development of her artistic signature in a way that does not make recourse to Victorian notions of gender relations. Bloom postulates that artists hold anxiety about the thought that the work of all precursors leaves no room for them to create inspired pieces.22 He maintains that great artists retain importance over their predecessors. This idea can be applied to Gwen’s relationship with her brother. Augustus guided his sister and took interest in her artistic pursuits, and she ultimately found herself her own individual niche as a result. Many commentators refer to Augustus as being the artist brother of Gwen John, rather than the other way around because, to use Bloom’s vocabulary, “...later visions cleanse themselves at the expense of earlier ones.”23 The theory of the anxiety of influence would explain Gwen’s more prevalent and more complimentary reputation in the majority opinion of scholars today: she has overtaken her predecessor, in this case, her brother. Auguste Rodin’s relationship with Gwen likewise fits into the model of the anxiety of influence by perhaps fairly obvious means. Rodin’s artistic legacy is greater than that of Gwen John’s, and he occupies a greater place in art history. But, in compliance with Bloom’s theory, artistic history is indistinguishable from influence. According to this concept, artists are working to “clear imaginative space for themselves” so that they may differentiate their work from other artists.24 As a fellow working artist, Rodin inevitably affected John’s work, as did her work on his. We know that these two artists were sharing their artwork with one another and because of this exchange it is not possible to discount the impact of their artistic relationship on Gwen John’s work. In this way, we can trace the influence that the relationship between Gwen and Rodin had on Gwen’s artwork in ways that do not instantiate problematic gender

20 Langdale and Jenkins, Gwen John: An Interior Life, 12. 21 Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 25. 22 Ibid., 5, 7, 148. Bloom’s influential book is easily applied to the visual arts and is useful to read with an art historian’s perspective if one is curious about the process of how artists affect the output of one another. 23 Ibid., 139. 24 Ibid., 5.

32 stereotypes. As the feminist scholar Linda Nochlin put forth, art is created within the influence of the prevailing social structures. It is a negotiation with established social institutions.25 This is unquestionably the case when it comes to the woman artist Gwen John who was, throughout her life, in contact with male artists that received more attention and recognition than she did. She was a talented artist who was affected by the artists around her. Whether Gwen was conforming to certain ideas and producing works for one of these men or pushing away from the other, it is through the gendered constructs, deidentification, the anxiety of influence, and intense personal feelings that Gwen was driven to produce the art we associate with her today. Interior: The Brown Teapot is only one example of how the influence of these relationships came together in a single work. Without the artistic effects of Auguste Rodin and Augustus John, Interior: The Brown Teapot would not have been created and it could not be enjoyed and studied today. But the influence of these men cannot be understood according to the problematic model of Victorian gender norms. I have shown in this paper that we can still appreciate the way an artist’s relationships impacted their work, and that is it necessary to do so, without recourse to such troubled notions.

25 Nochlin, Women, Art, and Power, 158. Nochlin’s collection of feminist essays concerning the place of females in art historical discourse is applicable to most facets of art history, especially those of isolated women artists.

Appendix

Figure 1: Interior: The Brown Teapot, Gwen John, 1916, oil on canvas.

Figure 2: The Teapot, Gwen John, 1916, oil on canvas.

Figures 1 and 2 retrieved from Henning 310 & 312.

Figure 3: Study for The Brown Teapot, Gwen John, 1915, oil on canvas.

Figure 4: Interior (rue Terre Neuve), Gwen John, 1920-1924, oil on canvas.

Figures 3 and 4 retrieved from Sackerlotzky 104 & 106.

Figure 5: A corner of the artist’s room in Paris (with flowers), Gwen John, 1907-1909, oil on canvas.

Figure 6: A corner of the artist’s room in Paris (with book), Gwen John, 1907-1909, oil on canvas.

Figures 5 and 6 retrieved from Taubman, 46-47.

36 Bibliography

Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Cane, Anthony. “Gwen John and Celia Paul: Painters in Parallel.” Art and Christianity 72, no. 9 (2012).

Cork, Richard. “O Brother, Where Art Thou? Augustus and Gwen John are Head-to-Head at Tate Britain.” New Statesman 133, no. 4709 (2004): 43.

Gubar, Susan. ““The Blank Page” and the Issues of Female Creativity.” Critical Inquiry 8, no. 2 (1981): 243-263.

Henning, Edward B. “New Paintings by Four Artists from Britain.” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 69, no. 10 (1982): 310- 323.

Langdale, Cecily, and David Fraser Jenkins. Gwen John: an Interior Life. New York: Rizzoli, 1986.

Lipton, Eunice, and Carol Zemel. “Female Painter, Male Model.” Women's Review of Books 4, no. 3 (1986): 10-11.

Milevsky, Avidan. Sibling Relationships in Childhood and Adolescence: Predictors and Outcomes. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.

Nochlin, Linda. Women, Art, and Power. New York: Harper and Row, 1988.

Sackerlotzky, Rotraud. “Gwen John: Interior: Brown Teapot.” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art 75, no. 4 (1988): 98-111.

Shone, Richard. “ Exhibition Reviews: Gwen John and Augustus John. London and Cardiff.” The Burlington Magazine 146, no. 1220 (2004): 771-773.

Taubman, Mary. Gwen John. Aldershot: Wildwood House Limited, 1985.

Thomas, Alison. Portraits of Women: Gwen John and her Forgotten Contemporaries. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994.