AB-EX / RE-CON

Abstract Expressionism Reconsidered

NASSAU COUNTY MUSEUM OF ART

The exhibition AB-EX / RE-CON: Reconsidered, on view March 9- June 16, 2013, was organized by the Nassau County Museum of Art, Roslyn Harbor, New York.

Working with the Exhibitions Department, Education Department and Curatorial Interns, the Museum’s Director, Karl Emil Willers, was exhibition curator and publication designer for this project. The Blurb provided layout designs and graphic elements are copyright Blurb Inc., 2012. This book was created using the Blurb creative publishing service. The book's contributing authors retain sole copyright to their contributions to this book.

Published by: Nassau County Museum of Art One Museum Drive, Roslyn Harbor, New York 11576 www.nassaumuseum.org

ISBN No. 978-0-9778300-6-o AB-EX / RE-CON Abstract Expressionism Reconsidered

PCN/Library of Congress Control No. 2013931606

© Nassau County Museum of Art

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the copyright holder.

The Nassau County Museum of Art has made every effort to obtain accurate information. The authors and publishers make reasonable efforts to ascertain the proper rights and credits for all third-party works. Photography provided by lenders to the exhibition and staff of the Museum. Any corrections should be sent to the attention of the Assistant Curator, Nassau County Museum of Art.

Front cover: Judith Godwin Night, 1958 Oil on canvas 72 x 52 inches Collection of the artist

Opposite (as well as backgrounds of both front and back covers): details of Judith Godwin, Night, 1958.

Reconsidering Norman Bluhm by Jay Grimm

Norman Bluhm spent his entire career exploring the possibilities of Abstract Expressionism. Yet despite his deep involvement and considerable contributions to the movement, Bluhm’s work is often overlooked when Abstract Expressionism is discussed. Irving Sandler, for example, in his seminal text about the movement The New York School illustrates one of Bluhm's "poem-," executed in 1960 in collaboration with the poet Frank O'Hara. Sandler comments O’Hara’s vital role in the New York art scene, but never expands on Bluhm.(1) While recently, more has been written about Bluhm – largely through the efforts of critics Raphael Rubinstein and John Yau as well as by a number of commercial galleries – his work has still not received the attention it deserves. This widespread exclusion of Bluhm is based largely on the suspect idea of originality, as well as several other factors including Bluhm’s inability to promote himself and the fact that his later work differs greatly from his work of the 1950’s.

Bluhm lived an extraordinary life. Born to an Italian mother and Russian father in in 1921, he grew up in a household that was at once rooted in the ethos of the urban working-class and aware of the larger world. As a young boy, Bluhm spent several years living with his mother in Lucca, Italy, her native city, while his father was working in the U.S.S.R. In 1936, at the very young age of sixteen, Bluhm, having returned to Chicago, began studying architecture with Mies van der Rohe at the Armour Institute of Technology (later renamed the Illinois Institute of Technology). In addition to studying design and other basic principles of architecture, the curriculum also included , seen through Mies van der Rohe’s strict, formalist eye.(2)

When the entered World War II in late 1941, Bluhm enlisted in the military, serving as a bomber pilot in the European theatre. While he did not suffer any injuries, his younger brother, to whom Bluhm was quite close, was killed in the conflict. Bluhm, like many veterans, did not draw attention to his military service and did not dwell on how his experience of combat affected him. After the war, Bluhm briefly resumed his studies, but architecture ultimately did not appeal to him. It seems that the rigid logic of the discipline did not allow Bluhm to fully realize his aesthetic goals.

In 1948, the twenty-eight-year-old Bluhm decided to become an artist and move to Europe. He first lived in Florence, where he presumably had some family connections and where his fluency in Italian would be useful, and initially supported himself through the G.I. Bill. Bluhm took drawing and classes at the Accademia de Bella Arte, although it seems that he did so as a non-matriculating student. After about six months, Bluhm moved to , where he studied art at the École des Beaux Arts and at the Académie de la Grande Chaumière. Again, Bluhm attended these schools without formally entering into a course of study or obtaining a degree.(3) Nonetheless, Bluhm was serious about developing his artistic skills and these courses also satisfied the academic requirements of the G.I. Bill.(4)

Bluhm seems to have quickly adapted to his new surroundings and soon came into contact with influential people in the Parisian art world. His exposure to Europe through his family and time spent in Italy as a child no doubt helped him acclimate, as did his natural gregariousness and his income from the U.S. government. Furthermore, the art world of Paris in the late 1940’s was not large and Bluhm quickly became involved in the cultural life of the city. Among his new friends were Georges Duthuit, the noted author and art historian, and his wife Marguerite Matisse (Henri Matisse’s eldest daughter).(5) Duthuit was supportive of many young artists and was at the center of a lively group of creative people including critic Pierre Schneider and filmmaker Jean Cocteau, who gave Bluhm a small part in his now-iconic movie Orphée. In 1950, Bluhm married Claude Souvrain, a French ceramic artist, and was then by all accounts no longer a new arrival, but rather an active participant in the Parisian cultural milieu.

Bluhm’s development as an artist during these years was deeply influenced by the ideas inherent in the French modernist tradition. He often painted outdoors, for example, like generations of French artists before him, attempting to generate a sense of light emanating from within his work. Bluhm also formed a lifelong interest in drawing from live models and, though the works from this period show him grasping towards technical facility, his quirky, idiosyncratic line emerges at this time. Critic John Yau has noted Bluhm’s particular absorption of Matisse’s ideas about color and light,(6) and Bluhm had access to Matisse’s aesthetic through Georges Duthuit, and even met the master on several occasions.(7) In fact, Bluhm was open to influences from throughout Western art history and, later in his career, incorporated ideas from Eastern sources as well.

As might be expected, Bluhm was also involved in the lively expatriate art scene in Paris during this period. Jean Paul Riopelle, (who was later to become godmother to Bluhm’s son David), Al Held, (with whom he shared a studio in 1953) and Paul Jenkins were among Bluhm’s associates. This group of artists knew quite well the extraordinary artistic events taking place in New York, an interest that was enhanced by a number of exhibitions of Abstract Expressionist works in Paris during the early 1950’s.(8) By 1955, Bluhm had visited New York and met De Kooning, Kline and Pollock.(9)

Bluhm's Paris years mark his maturation as a working artist and also the beginning of his professional career. He was exhibited in group show in commercial galleries in Paris and Stockholm and began to sell his work, including a large sale of 37 paintings to Walter Chrysler. Unsurprisingly, the works which brought Bluhm his first success fused the French landscape tradition with the vigorous facture of the New York School. Entirely all- over abstractions, these works nonetheless evoked the feeling of landscape through the use of a low horizon-line. Cool, leafy greens combined with muted atmospheric effects clearly root these works in the tradition of Monet and Corot. At the same time, the broad, energetic, slashing brushwork visible in the under-painting as well as the drip and flow of fluid pigments demonstrate Bluhm's absorption of recent artistic innovations.

In 1956, Bluhm’s marriage ended in divorce. That life-change, as well as the clear pull of the New York art scene, marked the end of Bluhm’s time in Paris. Immediately upon moving to New York, Bluhm showed at the Leo Castelli Gallery in early 1957, and then again in 1960. Between 1957 and 1963, Bluhm exhibited work in the Carnegie International, the Whitney Annual, as well as in group shows in Germany, Italy and England. Each of the Castelli shows received two reviews, all of them upbeat.(10) As in Paris, Bluhm assimilated into the community of New York artists, becoming a regular at the Cedar Tavern.

Bluhm’s work from this period demonstrates a shift toward gestural abstraction. Bluhm moved away from a carefully controlled staining and layering of brushstrokes that typified his Paris works to a more open, free-form approach. The large work Time: 3:30, 1959, is a superb example of Bluhm’s art of the late 1950’s. Arrayed over three separate canvases, the painting’s dynamic composition is created with athletically applied, sweeping gestures. While the result of a long process, the brush marks read as spontaneous and Bluhm here uses a mist of splattered paint to modulate the overall surface tone. The brilliant palette imparts a vibrancy that complements the vigorous gestures.

Norman Bluhm, Time: 3:30, 1959, oil on canvas (triptych), 96 x 127 inches

Clearly, Time: 3:30 is a thrilling achievement. The canvas shows Bluhm embracing the gestural style of Pollock, de Kooning and Kline, combining it with his own insights and knowledge of art history. Bluhm, like many artists in New York at the time was not afraid to paint in a manner that was by then a decade old. After all, it was an idiom that he had been experimenting with himself for at least five years. As Sandler writes about this moment, "...the idea of being first to enter was not deemed too important. The ambition was to realize a genuine image of self, which, if genuine would be original and the worth of the gesture painting of their elders was not so much its newness or radicality, although that was valued, as the method it provided for self- exploration.”(11) In other words, these artists harnessed the methods of de Kooning et al. to expand upon the “explosion of self”—a phrase Bluhm used to define the Abstract Expressionist movement.(12) Canvases such as Time: 3:30 illuminate the goals and ideas of this moment with arresting beauty. And yet, despite this critical value and startling impact, the works of Bluhm and other New York artists who came directly after the earlier breakthroughs have been largely overlooked. How and why did this switch take place? How could Bluhm, whose initial success pointed to a bright future, become so marginalized?

The initial answer to these questions is personality. Bluhm himself admitted that he "shot himself in the foot" by being less than tactful with dealers and others that held power in the art world.(13) Everybody in New York during the fifties and sixties, it seems, has a brawl story that involves Bluhm–and the artist himself acknowledged a quick temper and pugnacious attitude. The fierce independence that nurtured his creativity also inhibited his ability to interact with others in a business-like manner. Said Bluhm, "Once in a while I make attempts in the art world. I shake hands, it’s difficult. People bow so much it should be a world of hunchbacks.”(14)

More than once Bluhm clashed with his dealer, resulting in a break with the gallery. During his 1960 show at the Castelli Gallery, Bluhm felt that Leo Castelli spent too much time promoting Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg. He took offense when Castelli brought works by other artists out into the main showroom, placing them temporarily in front of his paintings. Bluhm interpreted this as a clear indication that Castelli was not one-hundred percent behind his work and left the prestigious gallery shortly thereafter, which can hardly be seen as a good career move. In another instance, an argument with Bob Graham in 1961 over who should pay for expenses incurred during Bluhm's show degenerated into a fist fight. The two men grappled on the floor in front of a number of startled colleagues, and needless to say Bluhm never showed at the Graham Gallery again.(15) Yet, many artists have antagonized dealers or patrons and gone on to have enormous critical success, which points to a much more fundamental reason for Bluhm's omission in the histories of art: Bluhm is labeled derivative as he came along too late.

As early as 1957, for example, James Schuyler wrote in a review of Bluhm’s work at Leo Castelli Gallery, "...Bluhm's style superficially resembles that of Sam Francis, with whom he was associated with in Paris, but Bluhm's expressivity, the quality of individual gesture and of the total gesture of the painting, most of all, subtlety and brilliance of color, make any question of who did what first beside the point.”(16) Schuyler’s points are well-taken. Bluhm’s resemblance to Sam Francis (or any other of his contemporaries) is superficial, but the “question of who did what first” has been of critical importance in evaluating the merits of Abstract Expressionist painters. Critics at the end of the fifties began to feel that the Abstract Expressionist idiom was itself becoming old-hat. Sidney Tillim, in his review of the 1961 "Abstract Expressionists and Imagists" show at the Guggenheim wrote, "There are pleasures in decadence, at least, but Norman Bluhm is not one of them." Tillim chastised the show’s curator, H.H. Arnason, saying, "The artists in this show fill, they empty, they pour, they dump. In short, they are doing pretty much the same thing they were doing yesterday and last season…." Tillim ends the review by stating those times and tastes had changed.(17)

The idea that an “academy” was being formed in New York, one that dissipated the former energy of led many to use the extremely negative term "Second-Generation Abstract Expressionists.” This term was coined in Barbara Rose's 1965 article "The Second Generation" in where, from the vast number of painters working in the 1950’s, she singles out for praise Helen Frankenthaler and Jasper Johns, claiming that they achieved breakthroughs in, "resolving the internal contradictions of Abstract Expressionism by favoring a simplified conceptual abstraction stressing flatness and large areas of color."(18) For Rose, Frankenthaler and Johns have a "sense of struggle" that artists such as Bluhm, Joan Mitchell and Grace Hartigan lack. The article typifies much of the literature on late-fifties abstraction in New York: the flatter space of the Color Field painters was new; Bluhm and his circle were “Second Generation.” In 1984, Donald Kuspit, in a review of Bluhm's work from the seventies, used the term again to denigrate Bluhm: "Second-Generation painting is more predictable in its approach than the gesturalism of the abstract originators....In Bluhm, Action Painting has lost its original strenuousness; it has become domesticated because it half knows where it is going, has a kind of foresight into its own final look…it is less heroic.”(19)

If critics in the early 1960’s were dismissive of Bluhm and his colleagues, later art historians and curators have managed to ignore them almost entirely. It is difficult to find texts about Bluhm and many other admirable New York School artists in the standard surveys of painting or in critical publications, and it is not often that one sees their paintings on display (although many major museum collections in the United States own notable works by these artists). This tendency to emphasize a few “greats” as a sort of short-hand exemplifying an era is not limited to art writings on Abstract Expressionism. In the early 1970s, the scholar Albert Boime, noted that, "...art historians have transformed themselves into a caste of hero-worshippers, focusing attention on an historic lineage of heroic producers and famous works, and inadvertently distorting history in favor of the narrow scheme they have drawn.”(20) One of the primary requirements for this hero-worship is the notion of originality: Bluhm is ultimately overlooked because he is too close to Abstract Expressionism, without having invented it.

Despite opinions to the contrary, it is important to note that Bluhm brought a great deal of prior knowledge and trained skill to his own explorations of Abstract Expressionism. As mentioned above, he was studying art history and architecture with Mies van der Rohe as early as 1936. During the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, Bluhm lived and worked amongst an elite group of Parisian intellectuals and learned about the achievements of French modernist painting first-hand. Abstract Expressionist paintings were exhibited in Paris in the early fifties so, even as the movement unfolded, Bluhm was absorbing its ideas and combining them with his own. Bluhm was a part of the Abstract Expressionist community even before moving to New York.(21) He had visited New York in the early 1950’s, and, upon moving there, the regulars at the Cedar Tavern accepted him as one of their own. He held solo shows at Leo Castelli Gallery in 1957 and again in 1960, and was included in a number of group shows there in the late fifties as well. An accomplished artist before arriving in New York, Bluhm was already respected for his contributions to recent painting.

As the critical tide changed, so did Bluhm’s life and career. In 1961, Bluhm and Cary Ogle were married, and the couple had two children by 1963. The family briefly moved to Paris, then back to New York. From 1964 to 1970, Bluhm did not have any exhibitions in a commercial gallery in New York. Martha Jackson, an important New York Gallery represented Bluhm in the early 1970’s, but–as happened with many other dealers–that relationship ended at Bluhm’s behest. His reputation seemed to be greater in Europe–his work was collected in Paris and Italy–and he was able to survive financially, but Bluhm endured many lean years. In 1970, Bluhm left New York for good, settling in Millbrook, then East Hampton and finally rural Vermont. It is hard not to interpret these moves as in some ways a deliberate withdrawal from the contemporary art world. Deliberate or not, however, his absence from a major art center weakened his reputation. The Corcoran Gallery in Washington held two retrospectives of his work in 1969 and 1977, and while his resume shows a number of solo shows in the 1980’s and 1990’s, Bluhm’s profile in the art world, which had been so high, was for decades far from prominent.

Despite this lack of exposure, Bluhm did not abandon his calling. He continued to paint and developed three more distinctly different bodies of work before his death in 1999. Indeed, in the eyes of many critics, his later work validates his entire career as he continually recombined, and explored the ideas of Abstract Expressionism. From this point of view, the work of the fifties is an important milestone en route to subsequent achievements. His later works introduce non-Western sources, such as Persian textiles and Russian icons.(22) Enormous multi-panel works up to twenty feet in length, Bluhm’s late paintings from the 1990’s are difficult to exhibit–and their stylistic distance from his early canvases have proved challenging for many. Even while remaining true to many tenets of Abstract Expressionism, these later works demonstrate Bluhm’s willingness to discard previous successful pictorial solutions in search of new ones. Such stylistic shifts can often work against a painter, as dealers, collectors and critics are often uneasy when encountering unfamiliar images from a source they thought they understood. It seems safe to say that Bluhm’s desire to innovate came at the expense of professional acclaim during his lifetime.

Originality, it can be argued, is an evasive concept when applied to art, for no art is truly new. In her essay "The Originality of the Avant-Garde," Rosalind Krauss notes that an integral part of originality is repetition.(23) To sustain an artistic career or movement requires duplication and reiteration, with half-steps being the extent of any one artist’s or any single work’s achievement. The so-called "breakthrough" moments are largely taken out of context, without recognizing the many intervening and incremental artistic efforts. The classic drip paintings of Pollock, for example, are held up as a radical break with the , yet scholars are continually finding antecedents and precursors. The point here is not that Abstract Expressionism contained no new or innovative ideas, but rather that these accomplishments need to be demystified. It is a given that an artist will inherit from predecessors, what is important is how this inheritance is recombined and rethought. As Norman Bluhm himself put it, "Everybody comes from somewhere."

Bluhm undoubtedly made significant contributions to Abstract Expressionism, namely in his ability to introduce vibrant, dissonant color into the gestural style and to control it. Color is a difficult subject to analyze or quantify. According to Max Kozloff, the impossibilities of color being discussed logically or systematically leads critics to avoid the matter completely, which may have worked against Bluhm. He writes, "...modernist criticism holds as its gauge of reality not unique, shifting states of consciousness elicited by works of art but the degree to which concrete objects conform to a self-determining program. In this scheme of things, color, because it would be subversive, can have no place.”(24) Time: 3:30 incorporates orange, yellow, violet and blue into a cohesive whole. With the painting’s use of negative, background space, the gestural strokes do not appear to lie on the flat canvas surface, but far behind it. The work seems to contain an inner light, generated both by the white ground showing through and by the delicately layered sprays of paint.(25) In this work and others from the period, Bluhm considers how artists deployed color within a long tradition of Western landscape painting, and then harnesses this knowledge to make chromatic decisions of his own. Rather than reacting against art history, Bluhm embraces it.

Far from being the invention of a handful of great men, Abstract Expressionism arose from a wide spectrum of practices, each of which impacted the movement in different ways. Numerous artists brought their influences to and made their contributions to gestural painting during the 1950’s and thereafter. Norman Bluhm deserves to be counted among those who made significant contributions to one of the most important episodes in American art.

Jay Grimm is a private art dealer and art advisor based in . He serves on the Norman Bluhm Catalogue Raisonné Committee and holds a Master’s Degree in Art History and Criticism from the State University of New York at Stony Brook Notes

1. Irving Sandler, The New York School (New York: Harper & Row), 1978, p. 40. 2. Two monographs on Norman Bluhm serve as the standard texts about his life and I have drawn on both extensively: Norman Bluhm: Opere su Carta 1948-1999 (Milan: Mazzotta; exhibition catalogue for a retrospective of works on paper held at the Padiglione d’Arte Contemporanea di Milano with essays by James Harithas and John Yau), 2000; and James Harithas, Raphael Rubinstein and Luigi Sansone, Norman Bluhm (Milan:Mazzotta), 2000. 3. William Salzillo, “A Conversation with the Artist” in Salsille, ed., Norman Bluhm Works on Paper 1947-1987 (Clinton, New York: Hamilton College), 1987 p. 7; and telephone interview with Cary Bluhm, February, 2013. 4. Irving Sandler, incorrectly and somewhat insultingly, lists Bluhm as "self-taught." See Irving Sandler, The New York School, p. 322. After writing that being deemed “first” was not important (see endnote 11), Sandler himself has never written more than four sentences about Norman Bluhm in the thirty-five years after his important book. 5. According to Cary Bluhm, these close relations persisted until Marguerite’s death in 1982; telephone interview with Cary Bluhm, February 2013, 6. John Yau, “Drawing in Color: A Portrait of Norman Bluhm” in Norman Bluhm: Opere su Carta 1948-1999, p. 15. 7. Audiotape interview by the author with Norman Bluhm, conducted March 25, 1992. 8. In 1952, according to the website (moma.org), a show of Abstract Expressionism titled Regards sur la peinture américaine, organized by the Sidney Janis Gallery with the help of Leo Castelli traveled to Galerie de France, Paris, in February–March 15, 1952. Pollock exhibited Number 9, 1949 and Number 9, 1951. 9. Paul Schimmel, Action/Precision (Newport, California: Newport Harbor Art Museum [now Orange County Museum of Art]), 1984. 10. J(ames) S(chuyler) “Norman Bluhm at Castelli” Art News, Volume 56, Number 6 (October, 1957), p. 17; M(artica) S(awin), “In the Galleries”, Arts, Volume 32, Number 1 (October, 1957), p. 59; H(ubert) C(renhan), “Norman Bluhm at Castelli” ArtNews, Volume 58, Number 9 (January, 1960), p. 13; H(elen) D. M(ott), “Norman Bluhm at Castelli”, Arts, Volume 34, Number 5 (February, 1960), p. 64. 11. Irving Sandler, The New York School, p. 46. 12. Interview with Norman Bluhm, March 25, 1992. 13. Interview with Norman Bluhm, March 25, 1992. 14. Amei Wallach, “Norman Bluhm: The Artist as Rocky”, Newsday, September 2, 1984, Part 2, p. 5. 15. Interview with Norman Bluhm, March 25, 1992. 16. J(ames) S(chuyler) “Norman Bluhm at Castelli” Art News, Volume 56, Number 6 (October, 1957), p. 17. Also, in December, 1990, the artist George Sugarman said to me “Back then we always thought of Norman as a little Sammy [Francis]…” 17. Expaniding on his opinion that Abstract Expressionism was losing steam, Tillim further asserted that de Kooning was "part of his own time," and that what that earlier generations had done “was necessary.” Sidney Tillim, “Month in Review”, Arts, Volume 36, Number 3 (December, 1961), p. 42. 18. Barbara Rose, “The Second Generation”, Artforum, Volume 4, Number 1 (September, 1965), p. 62 19. Donald Kuspit, “Norman Bluhm at Stony Brook”, Art in America, Volume 73, Number 2 (February, 1985), pp 146-147. 20. Albert Boime, “Newman, Ryder, Couture and Hero-Worship in Art History”, The American Art Journal, Volume 3, Number 2 (Fall, 1971), p. 5. 21. Bluhm was among those around Lee Krasner when, in 1956, she learned of ’s death while she was on a trip to France. The exact circumstances of this moment are unclear. According to Gail Levin’s biography of Krasner, she was a guest at Paul Jenkin’s apartment in Paris when called Jenkins to relay the bad news. Cary Bluhm and John Yau have both stated that Bluhm was present when Krasner received this news. Regardless of the precise details, Bluhm was among the set of expatriate American artists in Paris who socialized with Krasner when she visited in 1956. 22. Several articles by Raphael Rubinstein have explored Bluhm’s late work, and his article “Ecstatic Meditations: Norman Bluhm’s Paintings Over Five Decades” in Norman Bluhm (Milan:Mazzotta), 2000 is particularly insightful. 23. Rosalind Krauss, “The Originality of the Avant-Garde” in The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths (Cambridge: MIT Press), 1986. 24. Max Kozloff, “Venetian Art and Florentine Criticism”, in Renderings (New York: Simon and Shuster), 1968, p. 329. 25. In contrast to this interpretation, Peter Schjeldahl wrote that if Bluhm's early paintings "...had a common fault, it was that they...gave the game over to the hot, insistent color, which couldn't bear the weight. So the paintings fell apart.” While this hardly typifies the criticism on Bluhm, Schjeldahl does point up the modernist bias against color, which is one of Bluhm's strengths. Peter Schjeldahl, “Bluhm’s Progress”, Art International, Volume 18, Number 5 (May, 1974), p. 58. Also see James Schulyer’s praise of Bluhm’s color in his 1957 review, endnote 16.