John Marin: The Weehawken Sequence. At Meredith Ward Fine Art

For the past several years I have been making a renewed study of twentieth century American modern art and of the various schools I have narrowed my interest onto the Alfred Stieglitz stable of painters: John Marin, Marsden Hartley, Arthur Dove, and Charles Sheeler.

What I find so interesting about these painters is that all of them went to Europe at a young age at the beginning of the century and allowed themselves to be influenced by the latest trends there …Fauvism, cubism, and German expressionism, and having absorbed that, returned to America and explored ways in which that sensibility could be used to create an American idiom. I am coming to the understanding that these artists are the very best of twentieth century American painters and that they achieved a truly American art and exactly in the sense that Emerson called for in his essay, The American Scholar, an achievement akin to that of Frank Lloyd Wright who created an American architecture.

John Marin, The Weehawken Sequence, gives a perfect example of their process. Painted on his return from Europe between 1909 and 1912, there are obvious references to the European antecedents named above. Yet there is a real sense of his tenacity in refusing to give up the local or the regional elements either through the exclusive use of local color or in the references to the physical Weehawken waterfront or the Manhattan skyline across the river …or the river itself for that matter.

In all of these paintings it seems that Marin was attempting to comprehend “pure painting” through the use of paint used simply as paint whether it referenced the color of something or as an indication of a geometric volume. He appears to have been confirmed in his effort to use the motif in an effort to create an autonomous visual experience. It is also evident that he had mastered the craft of painting and that he was very able to manipulate the impasto in loose and spontaneous gestures, yet at the same time being able to put it exactly where he wanted it and in the specific way he wanted it to take its place within the format. That mastery, boldness, and fluency recalls in turn the late works of Manet, Rembrandt, Goya, and other European masters.

It is interesting that these paintings were made contemporaneously with the early work of Kandinsky. But where I find that painter’s work to become tiresome with its non-referenced shapes and too intellectually symbolic colors, the local color Marin used and the suggestion of observed shapes and volumes gives them a hook to hold the viewers interest: there might be a bit of Picasso in this as he too refused to forego his references or to lapse into pure abstraction. These paintings predate by many years the work of Hans Hoffman and there is a similarity in their suggestions of volumes and geography, the difference being that Hoffman limited himself to the three primaries and the three secondaries. I agree with Marin: local color is the way to go.

It seems to me that Marin is often best known for his watercolors, which I confess I cannot warm up to …I dislike almost all watercolor except Homer’s. And while there are things I like about some of Marin’s water colors I don’t like them well enough to do the work that appears to be required to better understand them …they look like a lot of work for the viewer. However I have seen some of his late oils when he brought the sensibility of the watercolors back into his oils and I like all of those very much.

These wonderful little paintings, or should I say studies, they are hardly more than en plein aire studies in oil on student painting boards all of them about 9 by 12 inches, will likely motivate me to take the deeper plunge to someday better understand the watercolors; that and my continuing admiration for Alfred Stieglitz who I find over and over again to have had a great comprehension of fine art.

The gallery is small, it is not much more than a 12 by 15 foot reception area, but for these paintings no greater space was needed. And I think it brings once again to our awareness that large is not always best: I’ve begun to think that too many modern American paintings done on the grand scale want us to mistake their size for their importance. Having seen many of those paintings for almost fifty years now their lack of real importance has become increasingly too obvious: many of them now look merely decorative. Small is better and in these paintings small is just perfect.

I was sorry that the exhibition catalogue, in a limited edition of 1500 copies, was sold out. It would make a great addition to any serious art library.

Thanks to the gallery for making this exhibition available and thanks to the New York Times for bringing it to our attention.

The New York Times review:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/arts/design/18galleries-JOHNMARIN_RVW.html?_r=2&ref=design

The Meredith Ward Gallery:
http://www.meredithwardfineart.com/exhibitions.html
If you look at the list of past exhibitions you’ll find that this gallery shows some really wonderful modern American art and in what I would call the Stieglitz tradition. A+.