Dynamism, Creativeness, and Evolutionary Progress in the work of Alexander Archipenko DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Robert D. Calhoun Graduate Program in History of Art The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: Kris Paulsen, Advisor Myroslava Mudrak, Co-Advisor Lisa Florman Copyrighted by Robert D. Calhoun 2016 Abstract Guy Habasque, writing for L’Oeil in 1961, recognized Alexander Archipenko (1887-1964) as the leading revolutionary and guide for sculptors of the twentieth-century. At the same time, he acknowledges that history has failed to do the artist justice, forgetting and neglecting him even before his death in 1964. What Habasque wrote fifty- five years ago is doubly true today when the holdings of Archipenko’s work in public museums have been largely relegated to storage, along with many other significant works of the twentieth century, under the increasing pressure to create gallery space for contemporary works of art. To find space in permanent displays, modernist works must compete for significance, the power of which has apparently been lost in the few discussions that exist surrounding Archipenko’s work. This project draws attention to the neglected importance of Archipenko’s work. What is significant about this work is that it forms part of a counter history of early-twentieth century art as an alternative to the materialist-formalist history, which has held the dominant, discursive position. Archipenko’s biocentric, philosophical position presents an aesthetic that represents science and technology as organic, evolutionary extensions of a universal dynamism. Further, his emphasis on a creative spirit immanent in matter places him squarely within an alternate discourse prevalent in the first half of the twentieth-century. This dissertation presents a fresh examination of Archipenko’s artistic production in light of recently discovered theoretical writings demonstrates a metaphysical approach ii that undergirds his entire career including exhibitions, teaching, and lectures. His writing closely parallels the revolutionary philosophy of Henri Bergson (1859-1941,) which was seminal to the movements of symbolism, cubism, and futurism in early twentieth-century Europe. Archipenko’s intellectual position places him at the forefront of an artistic discourse that turns away from a materialist focus on the self-sufficient art object and toward one that initiates an intuitive union with a universal and creative élan vital. This alternative discourse expands the margins of modern art to encompass a wider array of artists who have been neglected or misrepresented by traditional, formalist approaches. The present study combines theory and practice in the study of Archipenko’s art with the hypothesis that what appears to be a stylistic and sometimes perplexing diversity in the artistic practice of Archipenko is actually the working out of a consistent metaphysical position, closely aligned with the philosophy of Bergson. The philosopher’s rigorous, philosophical treatises serve as a foundation to Archipenko’s published and unpublished writings demonstrating where the two fall in line and where they depart. The goal of this comparative study is to clarify Archipenko’s complicated philosophical position in regards to metaphysics and phenomenology; situate the artist’s writing within a larger philosophical and scientific tradition; and indicate how he advances his position by incorporating principles of modern biology and philosophy into his philosophy. Of primary concern is how Archipenko’s theoretical position is exhibited in the artwork and, to that end, a thorough and detailed visual analysis of selected works is employed to demonstrate how the artistic practice squares with theory. iii This dissertation is dedicated to my mother Mary Calhoun who taught me I could do anything I set my mind to and encouraged me to pursue my dreams. iv Acknowledgments I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Frances Archipenko Gray, Director of the Archipenko Foundation in Bearsville, New York for opening up the doors, making a place for me, and allowing me to immerse myself day after day in the Archipenko archives. Her devoted stewardship of Archipenko’s life and work is inspiring. I also would like to thank Dr. Alexandra Keiser, Research Curator at the Archipenko Foundation for her collegial guidance with several projects, such as digitizing the microfilm and photographing the collection, which led directly to my thesis. You both provided not just unparalleled access to the collection, but your hospitality and friendship. Thanks also to all of those, too numerous to list, that I worked with in connection with the Archipenko Foundation, your willingness to extend a needed hand is not forgotten. To Professor Myroslava Mudrak, my dissertation advisor, I would like to thank you for encouraging me to write with my own voice, allowing me time to find what I really needed to say, and for always challenging me to go further. Thank you Dr. Kris Paulsen for taking on the unexpectedly challenging role of academic advisor when you already had a full complement of candidates. My sincere thanks to Professor Lisa Florman for her unflagging support and expertise at navigating the ins and outs of funding. Your tireless efforts for all of the students is truly appreciated. v Thank you Dr. Aaron Vinegar whose early ruminations on anamorphosis and absent signifiers I only began to understand and incorporate at the very end. Thanks to Dr. Leonard Lawler for his generous correspondence concerning some of my wilder readings of Bergson. Thanks to James Hansen for being a resonant sounding board and to Becca Howard and Gabriela Trigo whose last minute edits proved extremely valuable. Thank you Family and friends near and far who have supported me through the long years in countless ways. I love you all. vi Vita 1985..........................................................Holbrook High School 1989..........................................................B.A. Philosophy, Connecticut College 2006..........................................................M.A. History of Art, The Ohio State University 2007 to 2009 ..............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of the History of Art, The Ohio State University 2009 to 2013 ...........................................Research Assistant, Alexander Archipenko Foundation, Bearsville, NY 2013 to Present ...........................................Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of the History of Art, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: History of Art vii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... v Vita .................................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Archipenko and Bergson, a Metaphysics of Creativeness .............................. 20 The Creative Universe and Cosmic Dynamism ............................................................ 29 The Cellular Basis of Creativity .................................................................................... 42 Instinct and Intellect ...................................................................................................... 50 Intuition ......................................................................................................................... 59 Chapter 3: Art, Artifice, and the Dialectics of Sculpture .................................................. 69 Images, Perception, and Bergson’s Model of Being ..................................................... 74 Art and Artifice ............................................................................................................. 92 The Social Aspect of Language .................................................................................. 106 The Materialization of Spirit ....................................................................................... 118 viii Chapter 4: Metamorphosis: The Materialization of Spirit and the Spiritualization of Matter .............................................................................................................................. 124 Chapter 5: Conclusion..................................................................................................... 162 Notes ............................................................................................................................... 173 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 206 Appendix A: Figures ....................................................................................................... 210 ix List of Figures 1. Alexander Archipenko, Walking, 1912, terra cotta, 24” h., location unknown .........210 2. Alexander Archipenko, Who Is She, 1957, polychromed bronze, 11 1/4” h.,