FEB. 12 - 15, 2020 ROCKWELL KENT DEBATES WALTER PACH 1926

Rockwell Kent Wilderness Centennial Journal

100 Years Later

Rockwell Kent Debates Walter Pach 1926

Feb. 12-15, 2020

ABOVE – Rockwell Kent and Walter Pach. Wikipedia photos.

BELOW – Headline from the March 15, 1926 New York Times.

The modern American artist may be compared to the author who has no publisher. He has put forth a desperate struggle to do good work – make no mistake about that – and the general public has remained in chronic immobility. Apparently, nothing can shake the apathy of the Americans…they do not want art…The architect makes no provisions for decoration, the gregarious, homeless city dwellers have no room for precious objects, and the inhabitants of small towns spend their lives in rapid transit.

Thomas Craven in the American Mercury 1926, quoted in the Jan. 14, 1926 Palladium-Item (Richmond, VA).

Rockwell Kent vs. Walter Pach

“Is the American Museum to Be a Tomb or a Tenement?”

Debate of 1926

Many come to listen on the evening of March 14, 1926, when Walter Pach has a public debate with Rockwell Kent on the subject of “Is the American Museum to Be a Tomb or a Tenement?” It is part of the Society of Independent Artists “Evenings with the Other Arts” held during one of their exhibitions. In his biography of Kent, David Traxel writes that emotions dominated the debate to such an extent that when the floor was open to questions, Alfred Stieglitz and the sculptor Gaston LaChaise launched a sharp personal attack on Pach. John Sloan, who was presiding, had to call them to order. Those at fault, Kent claims, included dealers focused on European art, the National Academy of Design, and museums like the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY. One of the ironies is that the Metropolitan actually purchased a Kent painting early on in his career. In 1907 his painting, “Winter” appears in his first one-man show in NY. Nothing is sold, so Kent gifts “Winter” to Robert Henri in appreciation for all his help. In 1917 the Metropolitan purchases the painting from Henri who graciously gives that money to Kent. Rockwell Kent was one of the few contemporary artists whose work has early on been purchased by the Metropolitan.

ABOVE – “Winter” 1907 SOURCE

Since the disputed issue of this 1926 debate is one that dominates artistic intellectual circles during this period, it is worth highlighting. The fact that Kent is selected to confront Pach demonstrates how quickly he becomes famous after his art exhibitions and the publication of both Wilderness (1920) and Voyaging (1924). By this time his views on the importance of Americans supporting their own country’s art and artists is widely known.

The debate starts off with a friendly tone, the March 15, New York Times notes. But then it gets nasty, and John Sloan, president of the Society of Independent Artists, has to clamp down on the personal attacks. Alfred Stieglitz, noted photographer, and sculptor Gaston LaChaise are told to stick to the debate subject, and the audience shows its agreement with their applause. Specifically, Stieglitz and LaChaise attack Pach for his writings. Always, he favored French rather than American art, they say. It annoys Stieglitz that Pach stands before them at a meeting of the Independent Artists and he isn’t even an independent. Pach compares today’s American millionaires who support art to those of the past. But that isn’t accurate, Stieglitz claims. In the past, wealthy patrons supported the art of their own time period. American millionaires support old European art, even art that is inferior to the best American art. One can learn from the past, Pach contends. That is the value of collecting older art.

It isn’t as if the NYC art exhibit season that March of 1926 doesn’t have enough stimulation and controversy. Pach himself has a show of 35 etchings at the Weyhe Gallery. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle notes on March 7 that his medium is usually oil paint and that, for all his radicalism...when expressed in print or heard from the platform is a conservative artist when he takes up his etcher’s tools. He is a careful observer of facts which he records with a fine meticulous technique. Distortion and stressing of pattern do not play an important part of this expression of his talent although this does not hold with his paintings.

ABOVE and BELOW – Some of the art exhibits in New York City, from the March 7, 1926 Brooklyn Daily Eagle.

The 10^th Annual Exhibit of the Society of Independent Artists serves as a context for the Pach-Kent debate. And the exhibit has issues of its own. On March 5, 1926 the Brooklyn Daily Eagle comments:

Some 1,200 paintings dazzling of color, startling in form, hang on the Waldorf-Astoria roof, waiting for the private opening tonight of this year’s exhibition by the New York Society of Independent Artists, and the more public showing which begins tomorrow.

Among them today, putting the finishing touches on the exhibit, moved a middle-aged man, voluble good-humored, one A. (Abraham) Walkowitz of Brooklyn, himself an artist and director of the last nine annual exhibits the society has held. And he whispered, he doesn’t approve of the exhibit.

“All these” – and he waved an all-inclusive arm about him – “all these, they don’t show enough of the spirit of originality, of revolt. After ten years you would think our artists, the independent artists, I mean, who are the only real artists, could show something more radical, more startling. Of course, we have a few good things – but there isn’t revolt enough.

Around him were riotous pictures, bizarre and strange and – to a mere layman’s eye -- startling pictures. For those not averse to the painted figure unclothed, there were nudes in plenty; nudes descending and nudes climbing, nudes in shadow and nudes in bright red, nudes of strange distorted figures, half nudes, quarter nudes, nudes in toto…

One painting, “The Spirit of Spring,” by John Gade, was not hung. Mr. Walkowitz explained why.

“I myself,” he said, “I don’t mind it. Art is art and it wouldn’t trouble me a bit. But – well you may say that this was a male spirit and a nude and the weather being so cold we thought it best not to expose it to the winds of March. The hotel, I think, might have objected, and so…

He turned in a moment back to the general subject of all the paintings.

ABOVE – Abraham Walkowitz. Wikipedia photo. Another SOURCE

BELOW -- The full article quoted above from the March 5, 1926 Brooklyn Daily Eagle.

Where Pach and Kent disagree seems to be whether American museums and collectors owe allegiance to American artists just because they are American. There are standards, Pach argues. There is good art and bad art – a point he expands upon two years later in his book, Ananias, or the False Artist. American artists can and should learn much from – not only the best the old European masters, but also from the best of the current European moderns. The March 21, 1926 Philadelphia Inquirer notes that Mr. Kent has of late been attacking American museums, particularly the Metropolitan in New York, accusing them of neglecting the work of living Americans and buying second and third-rate European work.

At one point during the debate, Kent picks up the Newark (New Jersey) Museum’s recent exhibition catalogue and says: Here’s news in the American museum world. I’m afraid all of you haven’t read it, and so I’m going to read it to you. He then reads to the audience, emphasizing that museums need to discover what is being done here and now by artists and that they should be hospitable to the work when they discover it. American museums have been too coy with the works of living artists, Kent claims, setting themselves apart from their times and focusing too much on the past. Not so with the Newark Museum. They consider it their mission to encourage living artists to present their work. This represents to my mind, Kent says, the ideal museum attitude toward contemporary art. It is the one hopeful sign on the museum horizon. If our museums, the Metropolitan and others, were to adopt this policy, a great stimulus would be given to the American renaissance in art about which everyone is asking. The Europeans ask us, “When is your American art coming?” The answer is that it will be a long time delayed if our museums and our rich collectors are going to devote their money and prestige of their purchases to European work. The Newark Museum policy is the right one. The Philadelphia Inquirer notes that during the past year, the Newark Museum bought 25 paintings by living American artists. They also devote the bulk of their purchasing budget to works by contemporary American painters. It might be added, they ended, that the Pennsylvania Academy is by no means unfriendly to such works, but no Rockwell Kents are as yet in its permanent collection, thought doubtless they should be.

BELOW – From the March l6, 1926 Chatham Press, Chatham, NJ.

According to the March 21, 1926 New York Times, Pach does not contest the importance of supporting American artists, but a museum is not a philanthropic institution, he claims. Its purpose isn’t to support poor artists. Don’t blame the museums, Pach states. Blame an American public that has deserted its native artists. The public spends more money on mirrors than on works of art, the NY Times reveals. If only the public could gain as much satisfaction from viewing art as they could from viewing themselves in a mirror…If only... And the dealers defend themselves. Don’t blame us, they say. One dealer noted that people wander through his gallery then leave with words of enthusiastic praise. Even though praise alone can’t support artists, the public cannot be scolded into buying, he observed.

Pach continues to emphasize that museums should be, among other things, study places for people interested in art, and classrooms for artists to learn. Only the best must be on view so American artists and especially their public can develop a sense of quality. Quality is what counts, only the best works – not the nationality of the painter. American artists do not want to be given philanthropy, Pach insists. They want their paintings to be judged for quality, and the place of the museum is to be the hanging place of the best. When it steps out of that role it diminishes its capacity for good.

Pach gives some background. Historically, museums in other nations collected the great works from other countries. Just because American museums do the same doesn't mean they disregard American artists. As an example, Pach noted that at one point France realized that Italian art was better than its own. French artists went to Italy to study and French museums collected Italian art for its quality. The United States must face the issue, too, he said, and the museum is the means of facing it.

Kent continues to assert that for America to succeed in creating its own art, collectors have to favor purchasing American art. When the excavators dig in the ruins of this nation, he said, they will find a lot of old art and statuary and Grecian mummies. They will not know what our hart has been. After all, all the rich people are the only ones who build substantial homes and fill galleries but what are they putting into their homes? Second-rate European stuff, while hundreds of American artists go along with no encouragement. Although we were settled by many Europeans we have developed our own culture and should produce a unique American art. The world is looking towards us. Kent claims, asking When will it come?

This issue is also one of greed, Kent observes. American dealers can buy a European painting for $5000 and sell it to a wealthy collector for $100,000 – but would have to be satisfied with 20 per cent of the price of an American painting. American artists will produce as much as Americans want, but our Morgans and the rest show them no encouragement. The American millionaire merely wants to fill his home with old art and furniture. Kent goes on to suggest that the recently donated “Munsey millions” should go toward supporting American Art.

BELOW – An article explaining the Munsey Millions from the Jan. 5, 1926 Lansing Journal, Lansing, MI.

What was the relationship between Kent and Pach? I don’t believe they were enemies. They had known each other since their days as students under Robert Henri. After that, Pach departed for Europe where he lived for over a decade. He was instrumental in bringing to America much of the modern European art for the 1913 Armory Show. I find a July 6, 1911 letter from Paris to Kent from Pach beginning Dear friend Kent. Thomas W. Ashwell at Arts and Decoration, magazine is interested an article Pach has sent about the Independent movement in America. But he needs illustrations. Pach asks Ashwell to get in touch with Kent for help but they haven’t made contact. Pach requests that Kent round up six to ten photos and send them to Ashwell. He writes:

The magazine ought to be important to us. It is new enough to be without too much prejudice and is run by people and on a plan that will ensure a big circulation – ergo, it ought to be brought up in the way it should so we ought to get the publicity and I ought to get the money for the writing. I need it very much. I guess you know what kind {of photographs} will best stand the reproduction process and which an editor would print the largest number of. You will look after that, won’t you? I am convinced that you will approve of the article if it appears. I have worked quite hard lately, painting and etching – the latter a fascinating art that I hope to push forward very much. I think I have made a good start at it. Painting in France is a difficult matter—I mean for an American who came only to see the modern art after his habits (especially of color) were to a certain extent established. I am having a tough time trying to make my hand keep step with my ideas. When I look at nature or pictures I like the full gamut of color. When I look at my work it seems gray, full of breaks and monotonous in the color. Still I like many things that I get while on my way and only hope for the opportunity to push on. How are you and how is Mrs. Kent and the little one? (ones?) Do let me have just a friendly good letter as you sent me before – soon. Yours cordially, Walter Pach.

BELOW – The first page of the Pach July 6, 1911 letter to Rockwell Kent. From the Archives of American Art.

Walter Pach’s wife, Magda Frohberg Pach, was painter and lithographer. She was very active within the New York art community. The year of the debate – 1926 – she is giving Kent’s oldest daughter, Kathleen (or Kay as she was called) German lessons, as her personal letter to Kent shows. (At $2 an hour for the lessons the bill was for $12.) There are a few more brief letters between the two in 1941, one asking Kent to donate a watercolor to the Silver Jubilee of the Society of Independent Artists. Perhaps not close, the Kents and Pachs appear to have remained in contact over the years.