Frances Simpson Stevens Lit Review
Maura and Sarah
Dr. Churchill
Eng 394
3 November 2017
Frances Simpson Stevens Lit Review
Notable scholars including Francis Naumann and Carolyn Burke, in conjunction with Naomi Sawelson-Gorse, present similar though distinct biographical accounts of Frances Simpson Stevens. The authors address the significance of the brevity of Steven’s involvement in the Futurist movement and emphasize the lack of remaining information regarding Stevens’s artistic career and personal life. Naumann approaches Stevens’s narrative through a “scientific” lens by tracking the vague trajectory of Stevens’s career through the act of posing questions and offering hypotheses. Naumann ponders Stevens’s absence in contemporary discussion of the Futurist movement, and asks in the introduction of his article entitled “A Lost American Futurist,” “Who was this woman, and why has she been so consistently overlooked in surveys of American art?” (105) Unable to provide an answer, Carolyn Burke and Naomi Sawelson-Gorse express the same sentiment in a more discreet way in the introduction of their essay, “In Search of Frances Simpson Stevens” in which they note “the paucity of available information” concerning Stevens’s involvement within the Arensberg circle and the New York avant-garde scene during the early twentieth century (106).
Burke and Sawelson-Gorse view Stevens’s narrative through a markedly feminist lens which contrasts with the subtly misogynistic undertones evident within Naumann’s presentation of Stevens. Adopting a shared, assertive voice within their writing, Burke and Sawelson-Gorse fearlessly confront evidence of unfair treatment Stevens experienced throughout her career on the basis of her sex. Quoting a derogatory remark made by a male art critic towards Stevens’s work, Burke and Sawelson-Gorse contend that “male critics could not avoid making personal comments when the artist was a woman” (114). Naumann, on the other hand, remains noticeably oblivious to the ways in which Stevens’s art career was impacted by biases linked to gender. Burke’s and Sawelson Gorse’s analysis thus yields more comprehensive insights concerning Stevens’s identity and the degree to which Stevens was able to control her own artistic trajectory while participating in the Futurist movement.
These academics have led the effort to unearth the long-forgotten details of Stevens’s life and reintroduce her within recorded histories of the Italian Futurist Movement. However, most narratives surrounding Stevens and her impact on modernism continue to be framed in terms of “ignored female participants of the avant-garde.” Ironically, in focusing purely on Stevens’s identity as an “ignored” female Futurist, scholars tend to ignore Stevens’s identity as an artist. Critical analysis of her artwork is difficult to come by. By focusing on Stevens only as an example of women being left out of conversations surrounding the Italian Futurist Movement, scholars perpetuate her long-standing position as a peripheral figure in the movement. Stevens’s status as an artist in her own right is subsequently overlooked.
Nevertheless, gender remains a valuable lens through which to interpret Futurist art. Much of Stevens’s work depicts overtly gendered bodies illustrated in reaction to the rigid gender dynamics which governed the Futurist Movement. Lucia Re analyzed the gendered dynamics of the Italian Futurist Movement in her article, “Futurism and Feminism.” She particularly focused on relationships between the men and women in the movement and the impact of misogynism on female artists. In her article “Mina Loy and the Quest for the Futurist Feminist Woman,” Re argued that academics have repeatedly ignored the “liberatory and empowering” elements of futurism along with its many capable female artists (800).
In addition to using Stevens as an example of a forgotten woman, authors have repeatedly referenced her as a side character in the history of the avant-garde. They recognize her influence in shaping the careers of more prominent artists, but do not develop Stevens as an individual. Even in Burke’s book Becoming Modern: The Life of Mina Loy, Stevens is presented largely as an accessory of the Futurist Movement.
We do not wish to use Stevens to critique the obvious (and often explored) misogynistic impulses of recorded literary history. We also want to avoid simply using her as a tool to further define her better-known contemporaries–as is all too easy because of her relationships with Marinetti and Loy. Rather, we hope to elevate Stevens as an artist in her own right, whose work, passion, and artistic vision contributed to modernism in Italy and the United States.
Elevating Stevens is difficult, however, because a majority of her work has been lost. Until recently many of the details of Stevens’s life were a mystery as well. The scholarship we perform today rests upon the work of Naumann, Burke, and Sawelson-Gorse who brought her back to life. Burke and Sawelson-Gorse explain that “Until recently neither the basic facts of her biography could be verified, nor the circumstances of her involvement determined” (106). Is it possible to do the same with her lost artwork?
Lisa Panzera published a chapter titled “Italian Futurism and Avant-Garde Painting in the United States” in International Futurism in Arts and Literature. Though the section of Stevens is short, it focuses entirely on her and her art and credits Stevens’ for spreading Futurist influence within the United States upon her return from Italy. Panzera’s chapter too, however, is not beyond criticism. A large portion of the section on Stevens, which details both her impact on Futurism and on modernism in the United States, focuses entirely on her last remaining painting, Dynamic Velocity of Interborough Rapid Transit Power Station. Panzera looks at Stevens’s monochrome rendering of dynamic machinery and compares it to work by other artists, pointing out what makes Stevens’s work distinct and drawing conclusions about her as an artist. By doing so, however, Panzera reduces Stevens’s artistic career to the single painting that managed to survive. We must attempt to revive Stevens as an influential artist without tokenizing any one piece of her work.
