March 2. 2010 21:43

Regina weighs in: www.artsjournal.com/.../...as---because-i-say.html

She sounds a bit like she's talking about herself, as she has when criticizing Elizabeth Bryant.

Jim Demetre

March 6. 2010 03:03

I would like to make a few observations about Matthew Kangas’s review of the Tacoma Art Museum’s POINT OF INTERSECTION:
TACOMA ART MUSEUM AND NORTHWEST ART.

First, we need to acknowledge that Washington State is one of the only places in the country that has no scholarly published documentation of our early art history. I think the reason that Matthew is not called out for the outrageous misinformation that he spreads is because there is no standard publication to counter his ridiculous statements.
His outdated practice of trashing artists that he knows nothing about along with his imperious rating of artists based on his own limited knowledge, contributes to the misconception of the region’s artistic legacy. That is exactly how women and minority artists were marginalized in the past.
The Tacoma Art Museum is really the only Washington State museum that is successfully and aggressively collecting and exhibiting an honest scope of regional art. Rock Hushka and Margaret Bullock are both extremely intelligent and experienced professionals and are doing an exceptional job. They are inclusive in their selection of artists and welcome the input of the public both in the exhibition space itself and on their website.

Lets take a look at a few statements from Kangas’ review:

“Minor works replace masterpieces (there are few); marginal figures elbow out canonical giants and, with mostly one work per artist, few in-depth conclusions are possible for viewers unfamiliar with the broader bodies of each artist’s work.”

Kangas is just plain stuck in the outdated ratings system of the past and only seems comfortable with artists that he is familiar with. He does not have the background to determine who is a “marginal” figure.  This region has a much broader artistic heritage than he is aware of. He is free to dislike works by any of these artists but he is not entitled to malign their reputations based on his own taste.
I also wasn’t aware that there is a regional  “canon” to adhere to since the whole area has been grossly understudied.

“To be sure, there are gems on view. Imogen Cunningham’s outdoor nude portrait of her husband, Roi Partridge (On the Dipsea Trail, 1918), near Mt. Rainier is daring, but not the reason the Partridges decamped to San Francisco shortly thereafter though, according to local legend, it was”.

This is downright bizarre since the Cunningham photo that Kangas refers to, “On the Dipsea Trail”, 1918 is not even in the exhibition.
He may be referring to Cunningham’s “On Mount Rainier 9”, 1915 which is in the exhibition. Also, the Dipsea Trail is in California, not near Mt. Rainier.
To add to this comedy, the misinformation about these nude photographs might have come from Kangas’s own 2005  Frye Museum publication,  William Cumming The Image of Consequence. Out of the numerous mistakes in this book, this one on Cunningham stands out. On page 13 Kangas states.. “However, in a conservative environment, many turn-of-the-century Seattle artists followed the example of Imogen Cunningham (1883-1976), a gifted photographer who fled to San Francisco in 1922 after creating a stir by exhibiting nude photographs of her husband taken on Mt. Rainier” .


Apparently Kangas knows of some mass exodus of  “turn-of-the-century Seattle artists” away from this “conservative environment”. Who is he talking about? Nothing like that happened at all and there is no basis in truth for such a statement.

Oh and by the way, Cunningham moved to California in 1917, not 1922.

While we are on the subject of photography, Kangas shows his ignorance by demeaning two of the region’s most prominent early photographers, Wayne Albee and Ella McBride. What does he know about these artists and their work to dismiss them as he did? This misrepresentation is exactly why TAM needs to have these works exhibited. Kangas is comfortable with Cunningham because he can look at the many books that have been published about her. Albee and McBride would take some effort and research to learn about, so he resorts to hiding his ignorance by dismissing them with his arrogant, imperious, and uninformed opinions. I thought critics were supposed to make INFORMED observations and not hide behind their own lack of knowledge. It just so happens that both Albee and McBride were internationally famous during their lifetimes and won numerous awards. McBride was a prominent member of the extremely significant Seattle Camera Club and was included among the top ten most exhibited Pictorialist photographers in the US and Canada during the 1920’s.
At the end of this year, the University of Washington Press will be publishing my  book on these early Washington State photographers, including Cunningham, Albee and McBride (among others) and the public will find out exactly how and why these artists have a deserving place in the TAM exhibition.

Lets look at his embarrassing remarks about these two local painter/ printmakers;

“Lofty aims seem to collapse upon viewing decidedly minor gifts like Dorothy Dolph Jensen’s pedestrian Freighter on Lake Union (c. 1940) or Yvonne Twining Humber’s slight silkscreens, Carnival and Rodeo (both 1945-46).”

If Kangas had a basic understanding of printmaking techniques, he would know that the Jensen print is a superb example of a mixed intaglio process, something that was not practiced by many (if any) other printmakers in the region at that time. Jensen was the earliest female intaglio printmaker in Seattle and a prominent member of the extremely successful Northwest Printmakers Society. She learned the art of etching in Europe while attending the Academie Julian in Paris. She also taught a number of other artists about printmaking including James Washington, Jr., who received his first printmaking tools from her.
Humber’s wonderful prints are not only very nice examples of the serigraph medium but the subject matter is very appealing. The development of the silkscreen, or “serigraph” as a fine art medium was elevated from its commercial origins by many American W.P.A. artists like Humber who used it very effectively and set the stage for artists who developed it even further over the next few decades.
Kangas might want to check a feature article in the February, 1993 edition of Art News (page 61). The article profiles the most important private collectors of American prints, Dave and Reba Williams of New York. In the accompanying photograph of the couple, you will see them holding a proof of Humber’s “slight” Carnival serigraph. The William’s collection (which included the Humber print and other early Northwest artists) was recently acquired by the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. The same print is in other national museum collections as are several of her paintings.

Kangas reminds me of another local figure who was also full of empty, nasty opinions; Kay Greathouse of the Frye. One time Mrs. Greathouse asked me for an idea for a quick show that she could hang in the museum hallway space since the one that was planned had been cancelled at the last minute. When I suggested hanging their superb collection of Childe Hassam etchings she just gagged and said “I hate etchings.”
Printmaking has flourished in this region and the work created by some of the local practitioners is both significant and undeniable. And yet we have never had a Curator of Prints in any of the local museums to champion these works.
Credit needs to be given to the TAM for displaying prints and photographs alongside paintings and craft-related mediums. Hushka and Bullock are doing exactly what other progressive museums and bright young curators are doing nationally.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on contemporary northwest art so I cannot comment in that capacity regarding the exhibition, it is not my field. But I do not know of any other person who has studied the earlier art of this region more than I have. Over nearly 25 years, I have done extensive and serious research and I cringe when I read or hear such restrictive and abusive statements coming from someone like Matthew. The reputations of these artists are emerging because of TAM and curators like Hushka and Bullock. The old ways of Kangas and his pompous and factually incorrect rants will be extinct very shortly.
David Martin

David Martin