Revised Frances Simpson Stevens Lit Review (Maura)

Maura Tangum and Sarah Gomper

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.

Naumann SSR

Naumann, Francis M. “A Lost American Futurist.” Art in America, vol. 82, Peter M. Brant, 1994, pp. 105-113.

Naumann’s thesis is presented at the end of the last sentence of the article: “…for a brief period during the second decade of this century, Frances Simpson Stevens was the most informed and representative exponent of Futurism in America.” (113) In his thesis, Naumann is reflecting on the way in which he has spent the majority of the article tracking Frances Simpson Steven’s artistic career from 1913 to 1917 and her later life. Naumann concludes that although Stevens’s involvement in Futurism seems to have been short-term and more information is assumed than known regarding her artwork, she should be considered the preeminent example of an American Futurist. It is important to note that the subtly condescending tone Naumann uses in his thesis and the implications of the words he chooses mirror the tone and implications of information presented throughout the entirety of the article. Naumann, for example, notes the brevity of Stevens’s art career instead of commenting on the significance of her art career, despite its short span. Naumann also uses noticeable uninspired terms to describe Stevens’s impact; the adjectives “informed” and “representative” could be just as easily employed to describe Lassie as they are used to assess the sole American participant in the Futurist movement.

Naumann begins his article by addressing the general assumption that very few Americans were active participants in the Futurist movement. Naumann then introduces Francis Simpson Stevens with a question; an appropriate introduction given the slew of “unknowns” surroundings Stevens’s life an artistic career. For the majority of the article, Naumann focuses on “tracking” Stevens’s whereabouts in chronological order, specifically during the time period in which she was directly involved in the Futurist movement. Naumann includes references to contemporary Futurist artists as well as direct primary quotations taken from both contemporaries and art critics, concerning both Steven’s work and her personality. Glimmers of Naumann’s own opinion regarding Steven’s impact on Futurism and her legitimacy as an avant-garde artist are peppered throughout the article. These biases and bits of opinion are underscored in Naumann’s thesis, presented in the last line of the article, in which Naumann seems to reluctantly assert Stevens’s critical role in the Futurist movement.

Naumann introduces Stevens on the first page of the article by posing a question, which is a clever way to introduce mysterious or vague subject matter to a reader in an intriguing manner. Naumann also makes use of including detailed block quotations throughout the article, taken from Stevens’s contemporaries and art critics. Such primary quotations offer new perspectives and insights regarding Steven’s impact on Futurism and thus bolster Naumann’s argument. Additionally, Neumann scatters relevant primary-source photographs of both Stevens and her artwork throughout the text, adding a creative dimension to the article which pays homage to the creativity of the subject of the article herself.

Burke/Sawelson-Gorse SSR

Burke, Carolyn, and Naomi Sawelson-Gorse. “In Search of Francis Simpson Stevens.” Art in

America, vol. 82, Peter M. Brant, 1994, pp. 106-115.

Burke’s and Sawelson-Gorse’s thesis is presented in the conclusion of the article: “One can only hope that further research will unearth more information about the woman who, for a brief time, occupied a unique position—as Futurist painter and horsewoman—in the “who’s who” of the early 20^th century’s avant-garde. In their thesis, Burke and Sawelson-Gorse address the brevity of Stevens’s involvement in the Futurist movement while also referencing her personal life (i.e. her interest in horses). Burke and Sawelson-Gorse specifically note the “unique” quality of Stevens’s role, thus asserting Steven’s legitimacy as an artist and reaffirming the feminist lens through which the article is written.

Burke and Sawelson-Gorse introduce Stevens within the first line of their article with references to several female contemporaries, thus providing the reader with a unique framework with which to view Stevens; as a female futurist amongst other female futurists rather than as an isolated woman. Burke and Sawelson-Gorse then describe the mystery surrounding Steven’s identify and artistic career. The two authors note specific, “recently released” documents surrounding Stevens’s life, almost presenting the “search for Francis Simpson Stevens” in the manner of a melodramatic reality television show. While such a method of introducing Stevens to the reader trivializes her figure to a certain degree, it adds intrigue and interest to Stevens’s narrative. Burke and Sawelson-Gorse proceed to launch into a detailed biography of Stevens, in which they not only analyze her artwork and artistic career but also her personality and relationships with the public and with fellow Futurists. Burke and Sawelson-Gorse include embedded primary-source quotations throughout the article, which aid in the reader’s perception of how others viewed Stevens and her work. Such quotations, particularly those taken from openly misogynistic art critics of Stevens’s time, demonstrate the way in which Stevens was discriminated against by virtue of her identity as a female artist. Burke’s and Sawelson-Gorse’s act of including these quotations in their article allows the two authors to effectively analyze Stevens’s brief and “widely ignored” artistic career through a feminist lens. It is only through this lens that Burke and Sawelson-Gorse are able to conclude that Stevens participated in overt gender-bending, both in her art and in her personal life. The article concludes on an optimistic note, with Burke and Sawelson-Gorse “hoping” for more information to be unearthed regarding Stevens’s role as a prominent Futurist figure.

Burke’s and Sawelson-Gorse’s deliberate manner of introducing Stevens amongst the names of fellow Female futurists enables the reader to view Stevens as an active participant within a small community of female artists, rather than as an isolated and solitary figure. Thus, this introduction acts as a new perspective through which to view Stevens. The variety of primary-source quotations within the article regarding Stevens is also notable, as the quotations refer to not only Stevens’s artistic career but also her personal life. In this way, Stevens is presented as a multi-faceted character. Depictions of Stevens’s rarest artistic works are also featured within the article and include her illustrations of nudes. These illustrations in turn are used by Burke and Sawelson-Gorse to bolster the argument concerning Stevens’s active involvement in gender-bending.

Works Cited

Naumann, Francis M. “A Lost American Futurist.” Art in America, vol. 82, Peter M. Brant, 1994, pp. 105-113.

Burke, Carolyn, and Naomi Sawelson-Gorse. “In Search of Francis Simpson Stevens.” Art in

                 America, vol. 82, Peter M. Brant, 1994, pp. 106-115.