Copyright by Milanne Shelburne Hahn 2011
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Copyright by Milanne Shelburne Hahn 2011 The Dissertation Committee for Milanne Shelburne Hahn Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Studio of Painting at the Santa Fe Indian School: A Case Study in Modern American Identity COMMITTEE: Robert H. Abzug, Supervisor W. Jackson Rushing III, Supervisor G. Howard Miller Neil Kamil Pauline Turner Strong THE STUDIO OF PAINTING AT THE SANTA FE INDIAN SCHOOL: A CASE STUDY IN MODERN AMERICAN IDENTITY by Milanne Shelburne Hahn, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December 2011 Dedication For my parents The Studio of Painting at the Santa Fe Indian School: A Case Study in Modern American Identity Publication No._____________ Milanne Shelburne Hahn, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2011 Supervisors: Robert H. Abzug and W. Jackson Rushing, III Abstract: Founded in 1932, the Department of Painting and Design, or “Studio,” at the Santa Fe Indian School was the first official, government-run boarding school program to promote pictorial paintings based exclusively North American Indian arts and culture. It was yet another program designed to bring about the assimilation of Indians into the economy and society of American, but progressive influences had introduced a change in orientation to Indian Policy by the beginning of the 1930s; instead of demeaning Indian cultures by demanding cultural assimilation, a beneficent stance was adopted that promoted them and their assimilation as American Indians into the ethnic diversity of society. As the Studio experience unfolded, it became a unique art world in which Indian artist-students from various cultures and non-Indian educators and patrons engaged in a cross-cultural effort to carry forward ancient Indian decorative arts to shape what became know as traditional modern American Indian painting. But the Studio also became a forum in which its young artists engaged in a cross-cultural search for an American art and identity with their non-Indian educators and patrons. As such, the Studio is a unique social microcosm for studying the nature and formation of the modern American identity of both its young Indian artists and of it non-Indian progenitors. This v study will examine the personal and collective identities that arose through this cross- cultural interaction during the formative years of the Studio – the tenure of its first “guide,” Dorothy Dunn, from 1932-1937. In order to gain a fuller understanding of the concept of identity formation, individual members of that art world are prominently portrayed against the background of BIA education policies concerning indigenous arts and the Studio’s unique historical position in that regard. A selection of 150 Studio paintings is examined to detect ways in which the artist-students chose to depict themselves and their cultures, i.e., their identities. And on that score, the Studio artist- students expressed themselves and their cultures, however marginal they were then and now to American society, and they shared with the non-Indians a new understanding of how they both were Americans. vi Table of Contents List of Illustrations………………………………………………………………………x Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Chapter 1: The Shoals of a Nebulous Shore: Indian Education and Identity in U.S. Government Policy…………………………………………………….25 George Washington and the Cultivation of Indian Civilization……………….30 Improving and Transforming the Indian: The Strange Case of Richard H. Pratt…………………………………………………………………………33 Assimilation in the Extreme: Dictating American Individuality in U.S. Indian Policy…………………………………………………………………...40 Reform from a New Middle Ground…………………………………………..61 Chapter 2: American Indian Painting: A projection into the “Cosmopolitan Future” of American Culture………………………………………………….69 John Collier and the Mystique of the Indian………………………………….71 John Collier and the Ethno-romance of American Indian Cultures…………..77 The Cultural Invention of the Modern Tribal Indian…………………………81 The Santa Fe Indian School Becomes the Multicultural Center of Pictorial Painting and Arts and Crafts………………………………………..87 Considering the Creative Source of American Indian Painting for the “Cosmopolitan Future”………………………………………………….100 What Was So Special about the Studio Paintings?.........................................102 Chapter 3: An Old and a New American Art: Reading the Studio Paintings Collectively and Individually………………………………………………..118 Chapter 4: From Ceremony, to Lifeway, to Skin, and In-between, The Studio Artist-Students Paint Their Identity………………………………………....169 vii Painting American Indian Culture and Identity: Ceremonies and Collective Identity…………………………………………………………..176 Painting American Indian Culture and Identity: Ceremonies and Individual Identity…………………………………………………………..192 Painting American Indian Culture and Identity: Lifeway and Individual Identity………………………………………………………………………193 Painting American Indian Culture and Identity: Lifeway and Collective Identity………………………………………………………………………207 Painting American Indian Culture and Identity: Skin and Mien…………...216 Chapter 5: Crisscrossing Borders: Dorothy Dunn Becomes the Studio…………...222 “There was so much to learn that it was almost overwhelming, but never had I felt so completely at home in the world before this,” Dorothy Dunn……………………………………………………………….224 A Midwestern Peripatetic: Dorothy Dunn’s Origins and Youth…………...227 Seeking a Home in the American Southwest……………………………….238 “Great taste” but “No money”: Dorothy Dunn at Work in the “City of Ladies”…………………………………………………………….243 Coming Undone: Dunn Leaves the Studio………………………………...251 Why Dorothy Dunn?.....................................................................................268 Chapter 6: An Afterword on Identity……………………………………………...273 Appendix A: List of 150 Paintings in the Study…………………………………..297 Appendix B: Sixty-Six Artists Represented in the Selection of Studio Paintings and Number of Paintings…………………………………………………...310 Appendix C: List of Students at the Studio, Fall 1932 through Spring 1937 Semesters…………………………………………………………………...315 Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………….328 viii Bibliography……………………………………………………………………......331 Vita…………………………………………………………………………………342 ix List of Illustrations Illustration 4.1: “Taos People at a Round Dance” 1935 Tonita Lujan “Khup Khu”..184 Illustration 4.2: “Ghost Dancers” 1936 Lorenzo Beard “Horse Chief”……………..187 Illustration 4.3: “Hopi Woman Weaving Basket” 1933 Philip Zeyouma……………194 Illustration 4.4: “Navajo Women with Corn” 1941 Mary Ellen……………………..197 Illustration 4.5: untitled (‘Tourists Looking at a Rug’) 1938 Gerald Nailor “Toh Yah”…………………………………………………….199 Illustration 4.6: “Chippewa Woman Stripping Birch Bark” 1932 Agnes Bird……...204 Illustration 4.7: “Cherokee Hunter with Game” 1935 Cecil Dick/”Da-‘Ga-Dah’Ga”………………………………………………..205 Illustration 4.8: “Dressing Young Girl for First Ceremonial Dance” 1939 Pablita Velarde “Tse Tsan”…………………………………………………………..210 Illustration 4.9: “Sioux Warriors Coming Home” 1935 Wilmar DuPree……………212 Illustration 4.10: “Comanche Dance” Leandro Gutierrez “Kygoo Yah”……………220 x Introduction When the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) opened The Department of Painting and Design, or as it became commonly known, the “Studio,” at the Santa Fe Indian School in 1932, it was the first official, government-run boarding school program to promote pictorial paintings based exclusively on North American Indian arts and culture. The guiding principle of the Studio was to encourage adolescent Indian artist- students to study and draw upon their artistic and cultural traditions to create marketable pictures that mirrored their world. Despite the institutional setting, these prospective artists were not operating in an artistic void, for they also drew upon the modern painting tradition that had already been established by Indian artists from the Santa Fe Movement and Kiowa Five. As the Studio experience unfolded, it became a unique art world in which Indian artist-students from various cultures and non-Indian educators and patrons engaged in a reciprocal, cross-cultural effort to carry forward ancient and relatively new Indian decorative arts to shape what became known as traditional modern American Indian painting. Yet this creative endeavor involved more than just the formalities of art production and the rejuvenation of Indian cultures. Officially it was yet another program designed to bring about the assimilation of Indians into the economy and society of America, but progressive influences had introduced a change in orientation by the beginning of the 1930s; instead of demeaning Indian cultures by demanding their assimilation, a beneficent stance was adopted that supported and promoted them. But the goal was still to find a means to solve the age-old “Indian problem” and assimilate Indians into American society as American Indians. 1 The very nature of the Studio project, however, opened up possibilities that probably eluded its bureaucratic proponents. Through the creative act of painting pictures of their collective cultures and individual lives, the Studio artist-students revealed much about how they viewed themselves both individually and collectively, and vis-à-vis Americans, as a people. As participants in a project exploring the possibilities of art and assimilation, the Studio artist-students searched