The Ashcan School: A Literature Review Chris O’Neill History 297 April 13, 2018 Abstract The Ashcan School was a group of artists painting in turn-of-the twentieth century New York. They painted in what was then an unconventional style known as Urban Realism. Various scholars have studied the group from various perspectives over the last century. The earliest writing is from when the artists where fresh on the American art scene. This early art critic labeled them as revolutionary. The first scholarly writing about the school would not be published until some thirty-five years after the group's pinnacle of success. Consequently, they would no longer be depicted as revolutionary. These scholars, nevertheless, write of the importance that these turn-of-the century artists had in the history of New York. Their writing reflects the different training each scholar had, their purpose, and the time that they were writing in. 1 The Ashcan School was a loosely-affiliated group of artists who painted in New York City during the Progressive Era. The group consisted of Robert Henri (1865-1929), their leader; George Bellows (1882-1925), William Glackens (1870-1938), George Luks (1867-1933), Everett Shinn (1876-1953), and John Sloan (1871-1951). Glackens, Luks, Shinn, and Sloan knew one another through the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and various Philadelphia newspapers where they worked as illustrators. They met regularly with Henri at his art studio in Philadelphia to receive advice and encouragement. After sojourns to Europe the group set up in New York City. George Bellows joined the group after studying under Henri in New York. The Ashcan School painted in a style known as Urban Realism, which sought to capture the realities of the city and its inhabitants, often in an unflattering way. This style was a rejection of the European academic style of painting that held sway in America at the turn of the century. This rejection was a product of Henri’s iconoclasm combined with the journalistic training of the other members. There have been varying approaches to writing about the Ashcan School in the last hundred-plus years that they have been written about. The first writing came when these artists were new to the American art scene, so the first writing was from an art critic. The first book was on the school was not by a historian, but a son of one of the artists. Overall, literature about the Ashcan School has been written by art historians. But as their art often was a social commentary, social history has been applied in seeking to locate this art within the framework of society. Studies beginning in the 1990s would incorporate visual studies, racial studies, and genders studies to further aid in understanding this complex art. Additionally, books that were companions to exhibits about the Ashcan School also began to appear in the 1990s. One book serves as an exhibition companion piece that utilizes the interdisciplinary approach. The most 2 recent work, however, is meant to reach a broader audience not targeted by the more scholarly interdisciplinary books. The literature reflects the different training of each scholar, the purposed each had, and the time they wrote in. This review will be a chronological review from the earliest writings to the most recent. The first mentioning of the Ashcan painters as a group (before they were labeled as such) came in a 1908 article entitled “The Younger American Painters: Are They Creating a National Art?” in the art magazine The Craftsman by art critic Giles Edgerton.1 Edgerton’s article was published a month after the famous Macbeth Gallery exhibition in New York, in which Henri, Glackens, Luks, Shinn, Sloan, as well as three artists exhibited. Together, these artists were known as The Eight. In Edgerton’s article he sees these eight artists as being united in the mission of creating a uniquely American art. He uses this article to call for more artists to take up the challenge of revolutionizing the country’s art scene. Curiously enough, there is no scholarly writing that focuses on the Ashcan school until 1949. Art historian Milton W. Brown’s 1949 journal article “The Ash Can School” indicates that Ashcan art had lost its revolutionary tone by 1913.2 He acknowledges, however, its importance in shaping the American art scene in the first decades of the twentieth century. The article provides a quick overview of the origin and development of the group, but it does not go into great depth. This is due to their not being a tradition of Ashcan School scholarship to draw from. Nevertheless, Brown makes an interesting comparison between the Ashcan artists and Realist author Theodore Dreiser. Brown likens the group to Eugene Witla, hero of Theodore 1 Giles Edgerton, “The Younger American Painters: Are They Creating a National Art?” The Craftsman, March 1908, 512-532. 2 Milton W. Brown, “The Ash Can School,” American Quarterly 1, no. 2 (Summer, 1949). 3 Dreiser’s novel The Genius.3 The Ashcan artists, like Witla, “[are] iconoclastic spirit[s] fighting for recognition.”4 He uses this point to indicate that the Ashcan artists did not like the mere repetition of what had come before but wanted to stake out a new identity for the American artist. This breaking away from tradition of these artists is a central theme that will be repeated in all the literature. In 1957, biographer Ira Glackens, who was also the son of William Glackens, published William Glackens and the Eight: The Artists Who Freed American Art.5 It is significant, because it was the first book written on the subject. However, like Brown, Glackens does not have (besides Brown's short article) scholarly work on the Ashcan School to draw from. His purpose for writing this book is that he wanted to know more about his famous father. This book is anecdotal, and sometimes gossipy in tone. It provides interesting insights into William Glackens’ personality and motivations. Glackens is revealed to being reserved in contrast to the more outspoken members of the group. This book is also a good source of primary and secondary information. It features many of Glackens’ paintings, illustrations, and drawings, though in black and white. The bulk of the work includes Glackens’ correspondence with his friends, family, and colleagues. William Innes Homer, an art historian, wanted to do for Robert Henri what Ira Glackens did for William Glackens, but he wanted to apply serious scholarship to his work. His Robert Henri and His Circle, published in 1969, highlights Henri’s role in the Ashcan School. Eschewing Glackens' anecdotal, gossipy style, this book is written in a narrative style. There are 3 Theodore Dreiser, The Genius. (New York: Boni & Liveright, 1923). 4 Brown, 128. 5 Ira Glackens, William Glackens and the Eight: The Artists Who Freed American Art. (New York: Horizon Press, 1957) 4 a good number of Henri’s works displayed in the book, and a few even in color. What Homer does different than the previous works is show that the Ashcan School did not come out of the blue. He argues that they were an extension of a group of artists, most notably the Realist painters Thomas Eakins and Thomas Anshutz. Eakins and Anshutz taught at the prestigious Pennsylvania School of the Fine Arts, where the Ashcanners studied. Under the leadership of Eakins, the school became the most progressive in the country. Eakins’ disciple, Anshutz, hated formulas, so he refused to teach his students any. This is the sort of attitude that Henri adopted when advising the Ashcanners. Henri’s favorite refrain was “Don’t paint like me.”6 Homer’s book focuses on Henri’s mentorship of the various artists that sought his aid, as well as his pivotal role in setting up the exhibition that would win recognition for Ashcan art. Art professor Bennard B. Perlman’s Painters of the Ashcan School: The Immortal Eight, published in 1979 and reprinted with corrections in 1988, says much the same about the Ashcan School, albeit with less emphasis on Henri. But in contrast to Homer, Perlman adds more political, economic, and social context to the New York of the Ashcan School. It includes a wider variety of Ashcan art than the previous books, and its large format (8 ½” x 11 ¾”) makes looking at details easier. Perlman also adds the artistic context of turn-of-the century American art, which helps the reader better understand the Ashcan School. Perlman draws an interesting parallel between Eakins’ career and the careers of the Ashcanners that is only hinted by Homer. The reader gets a better understanding as to why this great artist, who faced rejection himself, was so influential to artists of the Ashcan School. 6 Homer, 269. 5 Perlman describes the artistic period in America before Eakins as being one in which originality was frowned upon. Artists were reduced to being mere copyists. Eakins tried to break away from this tradition before the Ashcanners, and accordingly Perlman dedicated a chapter to him. After portraying the development of Eakins’ career, Perlman presents two chapters about the early life of Henri. He then talks about how he met each of the Ashcanners and gives brief biographical information about each. Subsequent chapters follow the development of the ideas and fight for recognition of the Ashcanners with some chapters focusing on specific noteworthy exhibitions. In the final chapters, Perlman speaks of how the avant-garde European art levelled a blow to the Ashcan School. Part of the reason, he states, is that lines of communication between Europe and America, particularly as to art, were rather slow.