American impressionism show at Walters

May 03, 1992|By John Dorsey | John Dorsey,Art Critic

Aside from providing an opportunity to see a lot of lovely pictures, the exhibit of American impressionism now at the Walters Art Gallery leaves two main impressions above all:

That American impressionism was different from French impressionism, but not different enough to be really American; and that the collection favors breadth over depth, with the advantages and disadvantages that that implies for an art audience.

To take them in reverse order, "Masterworks of American Impressionism from the Pfeil Collection" presents 87 works from the collection of Mr. and Mrs. Richard Pfeil of Chicago. Mr. Pfeil, 42, an investor who specializes in futures trading, is spoken of by his friend and business manager Paul Swisher as "one of the most successful individual traders in the business" and "not a real public person." The Pfeils "started out collecting modern art," according to Mr. Swisher, and "gradually focused on American impressionism," building the present collection in less than 10 years.

They have been successful in assembling works by a wide range of artists from forerunners of impressionism such as George Inness to late practitioners including Harriet Randall Lumis and Henry Hammond Ahl. The show allows an extremely broad view of the subject, dealing with painters who are relatively unknown, such as Karl Albert Buehr and Frank Russell Wadsworth, as well as the big names, including Childe Hassam, Theodore Robinson and William Merritt Chase.

In addition, the Baltimore installation by Walters curator William R. Johnston highlights various aspects of the movement: the painters who worked in Giverny, near Monet's home; regionalism in American impressionism, from Massachusetts to Connecticut to Pennsylvania to Indiana; impressionist-related work by artists whom we don't ordinarily think of as impressionists, such as the early 20th century group of painters known as the Eight (John Sloan, George Luks and others).

Sacrifice of depth

Taking the collection as a whole, the collectors' interest in breadth has resulted in a -- perhaps necessary? -- sacrifice of depth. Except for Maurice Prendergast and Frank Weston Benson, represented by three works each, there are no more than two works here by any artist. There are artists one wants to see more of, and not just the big names such as a Hassam or a Chase, but people whose work one has never met before -- Richard E. Miller or Louis Ritman or William Forsyth, for example.

Had the Pfeils decided to collect any particular artists in depth, they might not have chosen any of the above; everyone's tastes are different. But this show as constituted leaves some question to what the collectors' taste is.

One knows that they like American impressionism, but they don't seem to have fallen in love with particular artists, and as a result they have a somewhat impersonal-looking collection, but one that is certainly inclusive.

The big advantage of such inclusiveness is that it affords an overview that ought to allow the drawing of conclusions about the nature of American impressionism. In his catalog essay, art historian William H. Gerdts here and there mentions characteristics of French impressionism that American painters embraced to a greater or lesser degree, such as bright colors, broken brushwork, interest in landscape, emphasis on light, dissolution of the figure, contemporary subject matter, informal compositions. But there is no satisfactory discussion of what characterized American impressionism as distinct from the French version.

In a way it's impossible to say, for each artist took what he or she wanted, and adapted it to the preferences of an individual sensibility and the demands of an individual career. If you say that artist A is different from the French in this or that way, that may be just the way that artist B is like them. But a visit to the show together with a conversation with curator Johnston makes a few generalizations possible.

Among them, American artists were not as committed to pure landscape as their French counterparts; their work is more figural. Time and again these landscapes are peopled and often a person or persons constitute the subject of the picture, with the landscape or interior the background.

American impressionism tends more toward solid and even at times delineated forms, rather than the dissolution of form in light, resulting in a look that is somewhat heavier than the French.

In French impressionism there is more tension between the two-dimensional surface of the painting and the illusion of depth in the picture; American impressionism tends more toward illusionism.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.