Spring180 www.antiquesandfineart.com

by kimberly orcutt

In late November of 1907, New Yorknewspapers trumpeted a controversythat had the art world in an uproar.Headlines exclaimed: “Artist ChaseLeaves: Withdraws from the NewYork School of Art, Which He

Founded”; and “Wm. M. Chase Forced Outof New York Art School: Triumph for the‘New Movement’ Led by Robert Henri.”William Merritt Chase (1849–1916) andRobert Henri (1865–1929) were renownedteachers and two of the best known Americanartists at the turn of the twentieth century.But their relationship, which had begun inmutual admiration, ended in headlining ani-mosity, as the two fought bitterly over thenature of art and its future direction inAmerica. Enacting their differences on anational stage, they forced a generation ofartists to address the same issues and to shapetheir own conclusions.

THIS PAGE:Fig. 1: William Merritt Chase (1849–1916),

Untitled (Shinnecock Landscape), circa 1892.

Oil on canvas, 16 x 24 inches. The Parrish Art

Museum, Southampton, New York.

Photography by Gary Mamay.

Fig. 2: Robert Henri (1865–1929),

At Far Rockaway, 1902.

Oil on canvas, 26 x 32 in. Private collection.

PainterlyControversyWilliam Merritt Chase and Robert Henri

2007 Antiques & Fine Art 181

THIS PAGE, LEFT TO RIGHT:Fig. 3: William Merritt Chase (1849–1916),

Portrait of a Lady in Black (Anna Traquair Lang),1911. Oil on canvas, 59˙ x 47ƒ in.

Courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art:

The Alex Simpson Jr. Collection, 1928.

Fig. 4: Robert Henri (1865–1929),

The Art Student (Miss Josephine Nivison), 1906.

Oil on canvas, 77© x 38˙ inches.

Milwaukee Art Museum, Purchase, M1965.34.

Chase was one of the country’s foremostportraitists, with pupils numbering in thehundreds. In 1902, he invited Robert Henrito teach at the New York School of Art.Henri seemed a natural choice; he and Chasepainted in similar styles and admired eachother’s work. Both proudly identified them-selves with modernism, while also reveringOld Masters Diego Velázquez and Frans Halsand their nineteenth-century disciples,Édouard Manet and James McNeillWhistler. The pair were considered thecountry’s most influential art teachers. Neverbefore had two American teachers claimedsuch a breadth of influence. But their pathsquickly diverged. Differences soon dividedthem over two fundamental issues that havebeen debated throughout the history of

art — the importance of technique and whatconstitutes an appropriate subject.

Chase had come of age in the 1870s and1880s, when his accomplished brushworklearned in Europe and his paintings ofupper-class urban life were consideredavant-garde. He built his fame on his tech-nical mastery, and by the 1900s hadestablished himself as a master of sunny,genteel New York scenes and of elegant por-traits of some of the most important menand women of his time. Henri, sixteen yearsyounger than Chase, cared little for drafts-manship and technique, and took histhemes from the harsher realities of city life,developing new ideas about modernism. Atthe New York School of Art, Henri increas-ingly advocated the gritty urban subjects

Spring182 www.antiquesandfineart.com

that would characterize themovement known as the AshcanSchool; dour subjects thatChase found highly objection-able. Their debate wasintensified by their diametri-cally opposed personalities.Henri’s forthright earthinessclashed with Chase’s fastidiouselegance. As their mutual oppo-sition mounted, it split thestudent body into warring fac-tions whose altercations oftenrequired police intervention.The tensions between themescalated, until 1907, whenChase left — or was drivenfrom — the school that he hadfounded in 1896. Since some oftheir students would go on tobecome important mod-ernists — George Bellows,Stuart Davis, Edward Hopper,Georgia O’Keeffe, and CharlesSheeler, among them — theirconflict holds a particularimportance for twentieth-cen-tury American art.

Portraits by Chase and Henrireflect their stylistic parallels as wellas the very different ways theyapproached such subjects aswomen, family members, and stu-dents. Chase was well-known forhis paintings of the Shinnecock areaof Long Island, where he opened asummer school in 1891. He trans-formed the flat Shinnecocklandscape in idyllic scenes ofwomen relaxing and children atplay. In Untitled (Shinnecock

ABOVE:Fig. 5: William Merritt Chase

(1849–1916), Carmencita, 1890.

Oil on canvas, 69µ x 40µ inches.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art,

Gift of Sir William Van Horne, 1906.

(06.969). Photograph © 1978

The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

2007 Antiques & Fine Art 183

Landscape), circa 1892 (Fig. 1), Chase cap-tured a moment of private domesticity as hischildren play among the bushes; his summerhome is visible in the distance. Henri’s depic-tion of a crowded urban resort in At FarRockaway of 1902 (Fig. 2) shows his prefer-ence for public scenes from urban life. Justmonths after executing this painting, Henribegan to exhort his students at the New YorkSchool of Art to seek out similar subjects.

Chase’s 1911 portrait Lady in Black ofhis student Anna Traquair Lang (Fig. 3),portrays her not as an artist but as asophisticated, cultured woman. This ele-gant grand manner portrait showcasesChase’s loose, confident brushwork andhis high impasto, and vividly illustrates hismastery of technique. In contrast, Henri’s1906 portrait of his student JosephineNivison (Fig. 4) is a provocative statementof his ideas about subject matter. Nivisonstudied with Henri at the New YorkSchool of Art, where she met her futurehusband, Edward Hopper. In Henri’s por-trait she stands with brushes in hand,wearing a painting smock that slides downto show the shoulders of her red dress. Thevery title The Art Student transforms thepainting from a portrait of a specificperson into a universal statement. By thetime Henri painted this portrait, he andChase were severely at odds. With thispainting, Henri sent his older colleaguethe message that this was his version of aportrait in the grand manner.

In spite of their differences, Chase andHenri often painted the same subjects, insome instances producing work that sug-gests a reversal of roles. When the Spanishdancer Carmencita toured the country in1890, Chase hosted two of her perform-ances in his Tenth Street studio, where some

THIS PAGE, LEFT:Fig. 6: Robert Henri (1865–1929),

La Madrileñita, 1910.

Oil on canvas, 73 x 37 inches.

Private collection.

disgruntled guests thought her vulgar andoffensive. His iconic portrait of Carmencita(Fig. 5) shows her in motion, snapping her cas-tanets with an alluring smile — a subject earthyenough for Henri. Chase’s painting is consid-ered one of the most important precursors toHenri’s portraits of Spanish dancers, includinghis La Madrileñita (little girl of Madrid) of1910 (Fig. 6). Yet when Henri painted his sub-ject, he showed her at rest, her gaze averted.

Among the generation of artists immedi-ately affected by the competing arguments ofChase and Henri was Stuart Davis (1892–1964) who, under Henri’s tutelage, enthusi-astically sought out urban scenes. HisConsumer Coal Co., 1912 (Fig. 7) showsworkers delivering coal in bitter winterweather. Later, Davis developed a style ofabstraction that departed from Henri’srealism, yet he remained interested in socialissues, as in his 1937 painting The Terminal(Fig. 8). He used vibrant, flattened forms torender longshoremen hauling cargo from adock; the man exiting at the right shows asense of strain, even anxiety, which makesthe painting surprisingly sympathetic.

The impact of Chase’s and Henri’s teachingwas especially pronounced and enduringbecause of the nature of their conflict. Thepolarized quality of their dispute and argu-ments over the nature and future of Americanart affected an entire generation of youngartists. Further pairings of the artists’ works,along with examples of some of their stu-dents’ early work, may be seen in theexhibition Painterly Controversy: WilliamMerritt Chase and Robert Henri, on viewthrough April 29, 2007 at the Bruce Museumin Greenwich, Connecticut. For exhibitioninformation call 203.869.0376, or visitwww.brucemuseum.org.

Kimberly Orcutt is the associate curator ofAmerican art, New-York Historical Society.Previously, she was assistant curator of art atthe Bruce Museum, where she curated theexhibition.

Spring184 www.antiquesandfineart.com

THIS PAGE, TOP TO BOTTOM:Fig. 7: Stuart Davis (1892–1964),

Consumer Coal Co., 1912.Oil on linen, 29˙ x 37˙ inches.

Clay Center for the Arts & Sciences of West Virginia,

Gift of Amherst Coal Co., 1977.

Fig. 8: Stuart Davis (1892–1964),

The Terminal, 1937.

Oil on canvas, 30∆ x 40∆ in.

Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden,

Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC; gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn, 1966.

Photography by Lee Stalsworth.