Review of Dalia Ardon Ish-Shalom, Ardon: A Comprehensive Catalogue, : The Association for the Perpetuation of the Artistic Legacy of Mordecai Ardon, 2019.

Mordecai Ardon is a major Israeli artist and art educa- studio in 1933 that destroyed many of the works he tor who achieved international renown in his lifetime. had stored there. His transition to life in is well- After his religious childhood in Poland, he moved to discussed, but Ardon Ish-Shalom doesn’t explain the where he studied advanced modern art at change in his name from Bronstein to Ardon which the Bauhaus and traditional painting techniques with would have given an insight into his occasionally Max Doerner. In 1933, he escaped the Nazis and found mischievous character.2 She does discuss his long- himself in Jerusalem, which surprised him by feeling lasting affair beginning in 1935 with Rikuda Potash, to like the home he had been longing for. His art unites whom several of his paintings are dedicated. However, modern abstraction with traditional techniques and after 1945, the biography becomes more impersonal, mystic Jewish and ancient Canaanite symbolism to replete with his attainments, exhibitions, major works, comment on modern events in Israel and the world. but few details of his actual life. While objectivity is This catalogue raisonné is a definite contribution a good trait in such a book, I missed here any of the to research on this fascinating artist, as the book author’s own reminiscences or insights into the art- gives new information on his life and work and ist’s life and character, and any discussions she may 550 photographs of his works in various media. The have had with her grandfather to whose work she is book was written in a self-effacing style by the artist’s so devoted. grand-daughter, but only her name gives any hint of Before starting the catalogue, Ardon Ish-Shalom this relationship, as she tries to stay as objective as gives a very helpful preview of how the book is orga- possible.1 She uses diverse sources for her work, espe- nized, the kinds of sources it is based on, whose details cially Michele Vishny’s ground-breaking doctorate on she sometimes corrected, and her use of the artist’s the artist (1971) and her popular book based on it, but records, exhibitors’ lists, etc. She also states what will adds a great deal of material to that research. be explained in the “Notes” under the pictures, and Ardon Ish-Shalom begins with a long, detailed bio‑ which works were not included, e.g., those that were graphical chronology (pp. 10–25), that includes illumi- unfinished, not well-documented or copies of his works nating quotations from Ardon’s recollections gathered in various media. She discusses his various signatures, from varied sources, including interviews, which are their languages and the varied dating of his works, duly acknowledged in the end-notes. This chronology and points to his playful side in using one language follows his early adventurous career from childhood for Mordecai and another for Ardon. At the end, she on, through his beginnings as an artist and actor in humbly states that the book cannot be viewed as a and in a travelling theatre group in 1919–1920, “certification of authenticity” but as a “good starting a period illustrated in the catalogue by hitherto point”, and asks readers to send her corrections. This unknown drawings that had only been mentioned is a rare but honest statement for a catalogue raisonné, in Vishny’s doctorate but never published. Ardon Ish- and she has left empty spaces in the catalogue when Shalom clarifies the artist’s decision to leave acting she had information but no photograph, so that one and become an artist, including his impressions of could be added if it emerges in the future, which often the Bauhaus, his marriage in 1924, and the reasons happens after such a book is published. he decided to study painting technique with Doerner The catalogue itself is well-organized, very well who taught him to make his own paints so as to cre- documented, and gives all the necessary information, ate a play between opaque and transparent areas in such as media, size, signature and collection, and if his paintings. The author also elucidates the dearth of the signature was added later the author mentions it paintings between 1930–1933 as being due to Ardon’s in a note. She includes inscriptions, but they are not Communist activities, his need to teach to support always explained. Thus, for instance, no. 17 has an his family, and—above all—to the Nazi raid on his inscription in Yiddish, which Ardon Ish-Shalom gives

1 She mentions only Ardon’s wife, his son and his wife (her 2 See Michele Vishny, Mordecai Ardon, New York: Harry N. parents), her older sister and Ardon’s first great-granddaughter, Abrams, 1974, p. 25. but without a clue as to their relationship to her.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2019 IMAGES Also available online—brill.com/ima DOI:10.1163/18718000-12340119 226 BOOK REVIEWs but does not translate, which would have been helpful­ lack of money, but less could have been spent on the to those unfamiliar with the language, while no. 124 excellent paper stock and more on the picture size. is said to be dedicated in Hebrew at the lower left Keeping to this format caused nos. 193–194 to be but the dedication is omitted. An important addition 2.3 cm high although there was lots of room to expand to the scholarship on Ardon is the information given them on the page. The only breaks in the format are under the rubric “Documented in.” This section, which for major works (e.g. nos. 161, 224, 227, 249) which clarifies the source of the author’s information on the get full pages,3 or the eight triptychs and the stained work, while below this she tries to give a full history of glass wall which get one to two pages each (pp. 110–111, where the work was exhibited, which is occasionally 116–117, 156–157, 171, 199, 205, 225–226, 530), but the the only source for the work’s existence. At the end space here is devoted to long documentation while of many entries there are very illuminating notes that the pictures adhere to the small format. It is not clear contain much new information, both as to the context whether this was the choice of Ardon Ish-Shalom or of the work and its meaning. her designers, Magen and Adam Halutz. However, the Although much of the book up to 1972 is based on author made a strong attempt to help the reader by Vishny’s research which is clearly acknowledged, Ardon adding “ill.” to the references in the documentation and Ish-Shalom includes throughout many works mostly exhibition listings where one can find better reproduc- from private collections that were unknown to Vishny tions. At the same time, some pictures for which no or other researchers (e.g., nos. 73, 77, 133–134, 136, 146, such illustration references are given are practically 155, 163, 202, 253, 282, 292, 320, 337–340, 359), as illegible making the most important details indecipher- well as those dating before the period which Vishny’s able (e.g., nos. 96, 146, 339). Perhaps all this could be book which Ardon Ish-Shalom found in later exhibition corrected by adding a “read only” disc to be used in a catalogues (e.g., nos. 84, 94, 96–97, 135, 147, 151, 175, computer so that the pictures could be magnified and 309, 327, 358). From the middle of 1972 to 1989 when details seen. the artist stopped working due to a stroke, Vishny is no There are a few minor errors in the catalogue that longer a real source and nos. 362–445, 490–510 have should be corrected, some of which are due to a ten- not for the most part been previously documented, dency to state the first year in a decade rather than although several were exhibited or referred to in referring to the whole decade. Thus, no. 9 does not articles and illustrated in catalogues, especially those seem to be from “ca. 1920” and should be dated “1920s”: by Ardon’s dealer, the Marlborough Gallery. This is the it was exhibited in 1926, and shows the influence of area that shows the author’s most original contribution both the Neue Sachlichkeit and the Bauhaus. Its style and gives us a fuller picture of his oeuvre. somewhat resembles no. 30 (1926) and is well on the Moreover, the book’s clear advantage over Vishny’s way to that of no. 38 (1929), and there would have book, where many illustrations were in black and been no reason for him to have exhibited an old work white, is that almost all the illustrations here are in in 1926, since he had made such progress since 1920. color. On the other hand, all the pictures are very small, In like manner, nos. 133–134 should be dated “1950s”, fitted into a set format with two to three pictures at not “ca. 1950”, as they are much more advanced in style the top of the page, and one or sometimes more at the than works from around 1950. It is also not clear why bottom when there are few comments for the upper no. 50 should be dated ca. 1936, when Ardon dated paintings. This gives the book an organized, aesthetic it 1938 on the canvas, as no information is given in a and airy look, but leads to frustration when one tries note that the date was added later. to examine the paintings in detail without using a In the first 3 appendices, Ardon Ish-Shalom prints magnifying glass. Vertical works are c. 5 cm high while letters from Ardon about his works, most of which were horizontal ones are c. 5 cm wide. This provides lots of previously published, but are here brought together white space around them, so that there seems to be not only to explain individual works, which is their room to expand, but it seriously hampers the viewer. usual purpose, but to give a sense of the artist’s poetic The author explained to me that this was done for thoughts and personality. Appendices 4–5 give two of

3 This also happens at the end of chapters, as in nos. 41, 473, but sometimes for no clear reason, as in no. 502.