Maura Tangum and Sarah Gomper<\/p>\n
Dr. Churchill<\/p>\n
Eng 394<\/p>\n
3 November 2017<\/p>\n
Frances Simpson Stevens Lit Review<\/p>\n
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\u2019s involvement in the Futurist movement and emphasize the lack of remaining information regarding Stevens\u2019s artistic career and personal life. Naumann approaches Stevens\u2019s narrative through a \u201cscientific\u201d lens by tracking the vague trajectory of Stevens\u2019s career through the act of posing questions and offering hypotheses. Naumann ponders Stevens\u2019s absence in contemporary discussion of the Futurist movement, and asks in the introduction of his article entitled \u201cA Lost American Futurist,\u201d \u201cWho was this woman, and why has she been so consistently overlooked in surveys of American art?\u201d (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, \u201cIn Search of Frances Simpson Stevens\u201d in which they note \u201cthe paucity of available information\u201d concerning Stevens\u2019s involvement within the Arensberg circle and the New York avant-garde scene during the early twentieth century (106).<\/p>\n
Burke and Sawelson-Gorse view Stevens\u2019s narrative through a markedly feminist lens which contrasts with the subtly misogynistic undertones evident within Naumann\u2019s 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\u2019s work, Burke and Sawelson-Gorse contend that \u201cmale critics could not avoid making personal comments when the artist was a woman\u201d (114). Naumann, on the other hand, remains noticeably oblivious to the ways in which Stevens\u2019s art career was impacted by biases linked to gender. Burke\u2019s and Sawelson Gorse\u2019s analysis thus yields more comprehensive insights concerning Stevens\u2019s identity and the degree to which Stevens was able to control her own artistic trajectory while participating in the Futurist movement.<\/p>\n
These academics have led the effort to unearth the long-forgotten details of Stevens\u2019s 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 \u201cignored female participants of the avant-garde.\u201d Ironically, in focusing purely on Stevens\u2019s identity as an \u201cignored\u201d female Futurist, scholars tend to ignore Stevens\u2019s 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\u2019s status as an artist in her own right is subsequently overlooked.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, gender remains a valuable lens through which to interpret Futurist art. Much of Stevens\u2019s 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, \u201cFuturism and Feminism.\u201d She particularly focused on relationships between the men and women in the movement and the impact of misogynism on female artists. In her article \u201cMina Loy and the Quest for the Futurist Feminist Woman,\u201d Re argued that academics have repeatedly ignored the \u201cliberatory and empowering\u201d elements of futurism along with its many capable female artists (800).<\/p>\n
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\u2019s book Becoming Modern: The Life of Mina Loy, <\/i>Stevens is presented largely as an accessory of the Futurist Movement.<\/p>\n
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\u2013as 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.<\/p>\n
Elevating Stevens is difficult, however, because a majority of her work has been lost. Until recently many of the details of Stevens\u2019s 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 \u201cUntil recently neither the basic facts of her biography could be verified, nor the circumstances of her involvement determined\u201d (106). Is it possible to do the same with her lost artwork?<\/p>\n
Lisa Panzera published a chapter titled \u201cItalian Futurism and Avant-Garde Painting in the United States\u201d in International Futurism in Arts and Literature. <\/i>Though the section of Stevens is short, it focuses entirely on her and her art and credits Stevens\u2019 for spreading Futurist influence within the United States upon her return from Italy. Panzera\u2019s 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.<\/i> Panzera looks at Stevens\u2019s monochrome rendering of dynamic machinery and compares it to work by other artists, pointing out what makes Stevens\u2019s work distinct and drawing conclusions about her as an artist. By doing so, however, Panzera reduces Stevens\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Naumann SSR<\/p>\n
Naumann, Francis M. \u201cA Lost American Futurist.\u201d\u00a0Art in America<\/em>, vol. 82, Peter M. Brant, 1994, pp. 105-113.<\/p>\n Naumann\u2019s thesis is presented at the end of the last sentence of the article: \u201c\u2026for a brief period during the second decade of this century, Frances Simpson Stevens was the most informed and representative exponent of Futurism in America.\u201d (113) In his thesis, Naumann is reflecting on the way in which he has spent the majority of the article tracking Frances Simpson Steven\u2019s artistic career from 1913 to 1917 and her later life. Naumann concludes that although Stevens\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s impact; the adjectives \u201cinformed\u201d and \u201crepresentative\u201d could be just as easily employed to describe Lassie as they are used to assess the sole American participant in the Futurist movement.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cunknowns\u201d surroundings Stevens\u2019s life an artistic career. For the majority of the article, Naumann focuses on \u201ctracking\u201d Stevens\u2019s 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\u2019s work and her personality. Glimmers of Naumann\u2019s own opinion regarding Steven\u2019s 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\u2019s thesis, presented in the last line of the article, in which Naumann seems to reluctantly assert Stevens\u2019s critical role in the Futurist movement.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s contemporaries and art critics. Such primary quotations offer new perspectives and insights regarding Steven\u2019s impact on Futurism and thus bolster Naumann\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Burke\/Sawelson-Gorse SSR<\/p>\n Burke, Carolyn, and Naomi Sawelson-Gorse. \u201cIn Search of Francis Simpson Stevens.\u201d\u00a0Art in<\/em><\/p>\n America<\/em>, vol. 82, Peter M. Brant, 1994, pp. 106-115.<\/p>\n Burke\u2019s and Sawelson-Gorse\u2019s thesis is presented in the conclusion of the article: \u201cOne can only hope that further research will unearth more information about the woman who, for a brief time, occupied a unique position\u2014as Futurist painter and horsewoman\u2014in the \u201cwho\u2019s who\u201d of the early 20th<\/sup> century\u2019s avant-garde. In their thesis, Burke and Sawelson-Gorse address the brevity of Stevens\u2019s involvement in the Futurist movement while also referencing her personal life (i.e. her interest in horses). Burke and Sawelson-Gorse specifically note the \u201cunique\u201d quality of Stevens\u2019s role, thus asserting Steven\u2019s legitimacy as an artist and reaffirming the feminist lens through which the article is written.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s identify and artistic career. The two authors note specific, \u201crecently released\u201d documents surrounding Stevens\u2019s life, almost presenting the \u201csearch for Francis Simpson Stevens\u201d 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\u2019s 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\u2019s perception of how others viewed Stevens and her work. Such quotations, particularly those taken from openly misogynistic art critics of Stevens\u2019s time, demonstrate the way in which Stevens was discriminated against by virtue of her identity as a female artist. Burke\u2019s and Sawelson-Gorse\u2019s act of including these quotations in their article allows the two authors to effectively analyze Stevens\u2019s brief and \u201cwidely ignored\u201d 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 \u201choping\u201d for more information to be unearthed regarding Stevens\u2019s role as a prominent Futurist figure.<\/p>\n Burke\u2019s and Sawelson-Gorse\u2019s 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\u2019s artistic career but also her personal life. In this way, Stevens is presented as a multi-faceted character. Depictions of Stevens\u2019s 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\u2019s active involvement in gender-bending.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sarah Gompper<\/p>\n Dr. Churchill<\/p>\n Secondary Source Report: Krauss<\/p>\n Krauss, Roslyn. \u201cThe Originality of the Avant-Garde.\u201d The Originality of the Avant-Garde and<\/p>\n Other Modernist Myths, MIT Press, 1986. Web.<\/p>\n \u201cNow, if the very notion of the avant-garde can be seen as a function of the discourse of originality, the actual practice of vanguard art tends to reveal the \u2018originality\u2019 is a working assumption that itself emerges from a ground of repetition and recurrence\u201d (Krauss 7).<\/p>\n This article argues that there is no such thing as original art; artists routinely copy and build off of each other. Mechanical reproduction is the logical next step in art\u2019s history of false originality.<\/p>\n This essay begins by situating the reader within a Rodin exhibition (Krauss 1). Krause goes on to discuss casting, the molds Rodin left behind when he died, and theories regarding the value of \u201coriginal\u201d Rodins verses reproductions created from his molds after his death. Krauss critically points out our \u201csqueamishness at the thought of the future of posthumous casting that awaits Rodin\u2019s work,\u201d and prompts the reader with a rhetorical question: \u201cAre we not involved here in clinging to a culture of originals which has no place among the reproductive mediums?\u201d (5). Finally, Krauss moves into his thesis on page 7, proposing that the originality claimed by the avant-garde is impossible; in fact, all art depends on copying. The history of art is a history of reproduction. Finally, Krauss concludes that art critics impose standards on art which uphold the original<\/em> over the reproduction<\/em>\u2014by doing so, critics are able to assign value and dictate the market.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Secondary Source Report: Nead<\/span><\/p>\n Nead, Lynda. “Framing the Female Body.” The Female Nude: Art, Obscenity, and Sexuality<\/em>,<\/p>\n e-book ed., Taylor and Francis, 2001, pp. 5-12. ProQuest<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u201cone of the principle goals of the female nude has been the containment and regulation of the female sexual body\u201d (Nead 6).<\/p>\n This article argues that the female nude as depicted in art continues to frame social understandings of femininity and restrict female identities.<\/p>\n Nead begins this essay begins by engaging in a critical conversation with other authors who have written about the female nude as a male tool (Nead 5-6). She starts by providing quotes from those she engages, which serve to capture the reader\u2019s attention and focus the chapter (Nead 5). Nead goes on to narrow in on the subject of her own paper and define her thesis (6). Next, Nead discusses how the female form has been viewed historically in philosophy and psychology, focusing specifically on views of Aristotle and Freud (7). She argues that \u201cthe classical the classical forms of art perform a kind of magical regulation of the female body, containing it and momentarily repairing the orifices and tears\u201d (Nead 7). Nead goes on to analyze how female imperfections are routinely obscured in art while purity and virtue (even if it is unrealistically depicted) is highlighted (8). Real women are not subjects of art; rather, paintings are filled with various female stereotypes (8). Finally, Nead moves into her discussion of framing female bodies (9). Even images of \u201cliberation and revised femininity\u201d have been framed for a purpose, and paradoxically serve to reinforce \u201cthe place where femininity begins and ends\u201d (9). Such images impose \u201cframes\u201d on women and female identity that are unescapable in society (10). Nead ends her chapter by issuing a challenge for new and disruptive representations of the female nude (11-12).<\/p>\n Works Cited<\/p>\n Burke, Carolyn. <\/span>Becoming Modern: The Life of Mina Loy<\/span><\/i>. 1st ed., New York, Farrar, Straus, and<\/span><\/p>\n Giroux, 1996. Print.<\/span><\/p>\n Burke, Carolyn and Naomi Sawelson-Gorse. \u201cIn Search of Frances Simpson Stevens.\u201d <\/span>Art in<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n America,<\/span><\/i> 82.4 (1994): 106-115. Print.<\/span><\/p>\n Berghaus, G\u00fcnter. <\/span>International Futurism in Arts and Literature<\/span><\/i>. De Gruyter, 2000. European<\/span><\/p>\n Cultures. EBSCO<\/span>host<\/span><\/i>. Web. <\/span><\/p>\n Naumann, Francis M. \u201cA Lost American Futurist.\u201d <\/span>Art in America,<\/span><\/i> 82.4 (1994): 104-113. Print.<\/span><\/p>\n Re, Lucia. “Futurism and Feminism.” <\/span>Annali d’Italianistica<\/span><\/i>, vol. 7, 1989, pp. 253-272. <\/span>JSTOR<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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… Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":192,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ag-lit-rev"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3593","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/192"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3593"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3593\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3594,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3593\/revisions\/3594"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.suzannechurchill.com\/eng394-f17\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n