Monday, July 2, 2012

Random Inspiration: Paxton's Uncharacteristic Nude


The Nude, 1915
oil on canvas
24 X 33⅛ in.
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Purchased directly from Paxton for $1500, the painting entered the collection of the MFA on April 6, 1916.

"Its luminosity makes it distinct from the more academic Glow of Gold, Gleam of Pearl or the figure studies of the last decade of Paxton's life. Sunlight rakes across the figure, giving the flesh a vibrant, living quality and accentuating the gentle curve of the torso which often graced Paxton's compositions. The color values are 'related as in a major key.'" (Boston Transcript, May 20, 1915).¹


Among the many fine paintings of nudes in William McGregor Paxton's oeuvre, there is one that stands out, not because of its excellence per se, but because of how much it differs from the rest of his more recognized works.  Painted in 1915, Paxton's Nude (above), when it was first exhibited, prompted the critic for the Boston Herald to declare, "Boston is the figure painter's last stand, and William M. Paxton is one of the comparatively limited number of artists who do the figure as if its every articulation and suspiration were worthy of reverence"² (May 1915).  And the Boston Transcript said of the piece that it was "one of the most beautiful nude figures ever painted in America"³ (May 20, 1915).  But despite the fact that the painting displays the visual acuity and mastery of color for which Paxton was renowned, it has never completely fit within the rest of Paxton's output - it lacks the finish which is characteristic of the artist's works.
The curious aspect of this mid-career picture is that it remained unfinished.  Paxton's students consistently make this observation, and the critics, in an ironic twist of opinion, lamented that the nude lacked Paxton's customary polish.  Though the modeling of the flesh tones has been carefully developed, the build-up of the paint layers is clearly less than complete.⁴
Some have argued that Paxton's "occasional flirtation with looser brushwork convinced him that this nude was sufficiently realized,"⁵ and point to the artist's signature and the painting's inclusion in three exhibits prior to its sale to the Museum of Fine Arts as proof that the work was completed to the artist's satisfaction.  But perhaps this conclusion, which was included in the catalog for the 1978-79 retrospective of Paxton's paintings, is one based on too little information.


William McGregor Paxton


According to Massachusetts artist Thomas Dunlay, the truth behind the painting is that it was left intentionally as an incomplete painting.  "The MFA Boston came to Paxton's studio and asked him if the museum could purchase this painting in an unfinished state, as a teaching example for the museum school," says Dunlay, a proud member of the Boston painting tradition.  A student of R.H. Ives Gammell, Dunlay was told the story of the painting by his mentor, who had in turn learned the facts from his teacher, Paxton himself.

But what of the exhibits in which Nude 1915 was included?  Maybe too much is made of these too.  All three exhibits took place in Boston, and were all organized by The Guild of Boston Artists, which Paxton had helped to found just a year earlier.  These were not museum exhibitions, but small showings in a then-young gallery owned and operated by a half-dozen of artists of which Paxton was a member.

And as for the signature?  Who wouldn't sign a painting that was entering a museum collection?


Glow of Gold, Gleam of Pearl, 1906
oil on canvas
75¾ X 35⅜ in.
Indianapolis Museum of Art (gift of Robert Douglas Hunter)


Paxton's consistent use of models and frequent studies of the nude must have made him a reliable character witness.  In a newspaper interview headlined "Boston Artists Say Most Models are Upright Girls," Paxton explained the working relationship between  artist and the model.  Acknowledging that "they compare in virtues with other people of the city," Paxton emphasized that "One gets to be about as conscious of nudity as-as-well as of a horse with or without a blanket over him."⁶ (Boston Herald, September 3, 1911).


¹ Lee, Ellen Wardell, William McGregor Paxton 1869-1941, (Indianapolis Museum of Art, Indianapolis, 1979), pp. 133-134.
² ibid.
³ ibid.
⁴ ibid.
⁵ ibid.
⁶ ibid.



5 comments:

Brady said...

"One gets to be about as conscious of nudity as-as-well as of a horse with or without a blanket over him."

I love this quote!

It's the best way yet I've heard of explaining to the non-figure drawing/painting crowd the mind set of an artist using a model.

Also, love the paintings. I've never seen them before, and the idea of the gold walls is awesome.

Andrew said...

It's interesting that R H Ives Gammell contrasts this painting with one by, I believe, J L Gerome in his book "The Twilight of Painting" to illustrate that a form- based or 'academic' approach and an impressionistic approach can reach a similar type of finish if taken far enough. It didn't seem like Gammell considered the painting unfinished when he wrote about it.

Sandra Galda said...

I am a student of Paul Ingbretson, who was a student of Gammell, and this painting hangs in a print form in our studio. It is referred to and understood to be a "start," a good example of how a work should exist at this stage when an artist paints with an understanding of the "visual order."

ruby said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Alena

Low Platelets Treatment

ruzzel01 said...

Such a work of art!

mom doc