|
Works by and about Romare Bearden
The Art of Romare Bearden: The Prevalence of Ritual (1973) /
History of African American Artists,1792 to Present (1993)
Six Black Masters of American Art (1972) /
I Live in Music (1994) /
Memory and Metaphor: The Art of Romare-Bearden-1940-1987 (1991)
Romare Bearden (2004) /
H. Pippim (1976) /
The Painter's Mind: A Study of the Relations of Structure and Space in
Painting (1969)
* * * *
*
The Negro Artist and Modern Art
By Romare Bearden
For the moment, let us look back into the
beginnings of modern art. It is really nothing new, merely an
expression projected through new forms, more akin to the spirit
of the times. Fundamentally the artist is influenced by the age
in which he lives. Then for the artist to express an age that is
characterized by machinery, skyscrapers, radios, and generally
quickened cadences of modern life, it follows naturally that he
will break from many of the outmoded academic practices of the
past. In fact, every great movement that has changed the ideals
and customs of life has occasioned a change in the accepted
expression of that age.
Modern art has passed through many
different stages. There have been the periods of the
Impressionists, the Post Impressionists, the Cubists, the
Futurists, and hosts of other movements of lesser importance.
Even though the use of these forms decline, the impression they
made in art circles is still evident. They are commendable in
the fact that they substituted for mere photographic realism, a
search for inner truths.
Modern art has borrowed heavily from Negro
sculpture. This form of African art has been done hundreds of
years ago by primitive people. It was unearthed by
archaeologists and brought to the continent. During the past
twenty-five years it has enjoyed a deserved recognition among
art lovers. Artists have been amazed at the fine surface
qualities of the sculpture, the vitality of the work, and the
unsurpassed ability of the artists to create such significant
forms. Of great importance has been the fact that the African
would distort his figures, if by doing so he could achieve a
more expressive form. This is one of the cardinal principles of
the modern artist.
It is interesting to contrast the bold way
in which the African sculptor approached his work, with the
timidity of the Negro artist today. His work is at best
hackneyed and uninspired, and only mere rehashing from the work
of any artist that might have influenced him. They have looked
at nothing with their own eyes--seemingly content to use
borrowed forms. They have evolved nothing original or native
like the spiritual or jazz music.
Many of the Negro artists argue that it is
almost impossible for them to evolve such a sculpture. They say
that since the Negro is becoming so amalgamated with the white
race, and has accepted the white man’s civilization he must
progress along those lines. Even if this is true, they are
certainly not taking advantage of the Negro scene. The Negro in
his various environments in America, holds a great variety of
rich experiences for the genuine artists. One can imagine what
men like Daumier, Grosz, and Cruickshank might have done with a
locale like Harlem, with all its vitality and tempo. Instead,
the Negro artist will proudly exhibit his “Scandinavian
Landscape,” a locale that is entirely alien to him. This will
of course impress the uninitiated, who through some feeling of
inferiority toward their own subject matter, only require that a
work of art have some sort of foreign stamp to make it
acceptable.
I admit that at the present time it is
almost impossible for the Negro artist not to be influenced by
the works of other men. Practically all the great artists have
accepted the influence of others. But the difference lies in the
fact that the artist with vision, sees his material, chooses,
changes, and by integrating what he has learned by his own
experience, finally molds something distinctly personal. Two of
the foremost artists of today are the Mexicans, Rivera and
Orozco. If we study the work of these two men, it is evident
that they were influenced by the continental masters.
Nevertheless their art is highly original, and steeped in
tradition and environment of Mexico. It might be noted here that
the best work of these men was done in Mexico, of Mexican
subject matter. It is not necessary for the artist to go to
foreign surroundings in order to secure material for his
artistic expression. Rembrandt painted the ordinary Dutch people
about him, but he presented human emotions in such a way that
their appeal was universal.
Several other factors hinder the
development of the Negro artist. First, we have no valid
standards of criticism; secondly, foundations and societies
which supposedly encourage Negro artists really hinder them;
thirdly, the Negro artist has no definite ideology or social
philosophy.
Art should be understood and loved by the
people. It should arouse and stimulate their creative impulses.
Such is the role of art, and this in itself constitutes one of
the Negro artist’s chief problems. The best art has been
produced in those countries where the public most loved and
cherished it. In the days of the Renaissance the townsfolk would
often hold huge parades to celebrate an artist’s successful
completion of a painting. We need some standard of criticism
then, not only to stimulate the artist, but also to raise the
cultural level of the people. It is well known that the critical
writings of men like Herder, Schlegel, Taine, and the system of
Marxian dialectics, were as important to the development of
literature as any writer.
I am not sure just what form this system of
criticism will take, but I am sure that the Negro artist will
have to revise his conception of art. No one can doubt that the
Negro is possessed of remarkable gifts of imagination and
intuition. When he has learned to harness his great gifts of
rhythm and pours it into his art--his chance of creating
something individual will be heightened. At present it seems
that by a slow study of rules and formulas the Negro artist is
attempting to do something with his intellect, which he has not
felt emotionally. In consequence he has given us poor echoes of
the work of white artist--and nothing of himself.
It is gratifying to note that many of the
white critics have realized the deficiencies of the Negro
artist. I quote from a review of the last Harmon exhibition, by
Malcolm Vaughan, in the New York American: “But in the field of painting and sculpture, they
appear particularly backward, indeed so inept as to suggest that
the painting and sculpture are to them alien channels of
expression.” I quote from another review of the same
exhibition, that appeared in the New York Times:
“Such racial aspects as may once have
figured have virtually disappeared, so far as some of the work
is concerned. Some of the artists, accomplished technicians, are
seen to have slipped into grooves of one sort or another. There
is the painter of Cezannesque still life, there is the painter
of Gauginesque nudes, and there are those that learned various
‘dated’ modernist tricks.”
There are quite a few foundations that
sponsor exhibitions of Negro artists. However praiseworthy may
have been the spirit of the founder the effect upon the Negro
artist has been disastrous. Take for instance the Harmon
Foundation. Its attitude from the beginning has been of a
coddling and patronizing nature. It has encouraged the artist to
exhibit long before he has mastered the technical equipment of
his medium. By its choice of the type of work it favors, it has
allowed the Negro artist to accept standards that are both
artificial and corrupt.
It is time for the Negro artist to stop
making excuses for his work. If he must exhibit let it be in
exhibitions of the caliber of “The Carnegie Exposition.”
Here among the best artists of the world his work will stand or
fall on its merits. A concrete example of the accepted attitude
towards the Negro artist recently occurred in California where
an exhibition couple the work of Negro artists with that of the
blind. It is obvious that in this case there is definitely
created dual standards of appraisal.
The other day I ran into a fellow with whom
I had studied under George Grosz, at the “Student’s
League.” I asked him how his work was coming. He told me that
he had done no real work for about six months.
“You know, Howard,” he said, “I sort
of ran into a blind alley with my work; I felt that it
definitely lacked something. This is because I didn’t have
anything worthwhile to say. So I stopped drawing. Now I go down
to the meetings of the Marine and Industrial Workers Union. I
have entered whole-heartedly in their movement.”
We talked about Orozco, who had lost his
arm in the revolutionary struggle in Mexico. No wonder he
depicted the persecution of the underclass Mexicans so vividly--it
had all been a harrowing reality for him.
So it must be with the Negro artist--he
must not be content with merely recording the scene as a
machine. He must enter wholeheartedly into the situation which
he wishes to convey. The artist must be the medium through which
humanity expresses itself. In this sense the greatest artist
have faced the realities of life, and have been profoundly
social.
I don’t mean by this that the Negro
should confine himself only to such scenes as lynchings, or
policemen clubbing workers. From an ordinary still life painting
by such a master as Chardin we can get as penetrating an insight
into the eighteenth century life, as from a drawing by Hogarth
of a street-walker. If it is the race question, the social
struggle, or whatever else needs expression, it is to that the
artist must surrender himself. An intense, eager devotion to
present day life, to study it, to help relieve it, this is the
calling of the Negro artist.
Source: Speech and Power * * * * *
update 21 June 2008 |
