David McCosh LEARNING TO PAINT IS LEARNING TO SEE The McCosh Exhibitions, 2017–2019
Roger Saydack
This digital publication expands on David McCosh: Learning to Paint is Learning to See (The McCosh Exhibitions, 2005-2015) with additional essays by independent curator and McCosh Advisory Committee member Roger Saydack.
1
Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art University of Oregon, Eugene
2
Table of Contents
Introduction by Danielle Knapp, McCosh Curator
5
Essays by Roger Saydack David McCosh: Learning to Paint is Learning to See / Gallery Exhibition
6
Karin Clarke Gallery, March 2017 David McCosh / Entanglements
16
Karin Clarke Gallery, September 2019 Anne Kutka McCosh, Oregon Encyclopedia
Rocky Peak – Vence (detail), 1958. Watercolor on Paper, 11 5/8 x 15 ¾ inches (image). Private Collection; MMC.0349 3
26
McCosh Advisory Committee Past and Present Members Bonnie Butler Craig Cheshire Mark Clarke Andrew Cook Jon Jay Cruson Robert Fraser Bonnie McCosh Sandra McCosh Leonard Charles Pressman Hope Pressman Roger Saydack
4
Introduction Danielle M. K napp
Since 1990, the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art and the McCosh Advisory Committee have collaborated
David and Anne McCosh on sabbatical in Mexico, 1966. Unknown photographer. McCosh Memorial Archive
on efforts to preserve, research, and share the works of David McCosh. Exhibitions, publications, lectures, class sessions, and special projects continue to foster appreciation of his art and a deeper understanding of
My thanks to Roger for sharing his superb writing,
his contributions as a painter and teacher. Although
over thirty years of service on the McCosh Advi-
Anne Kutka McCosh’s motivation in establishing the
sory Committee, and his dedication to the legacy of
McCosh Memorial Museum Endowment Fund was to
David and Anne McCosh; to all of the members of
ensure her husband’s art and archive would be avail-
the McCosh Advisory Committee, for their support,
able for future study, the Committee’s work has also
flexibility, and good cheer during this unprecedented
shone a light on Anne’s own impressive artistic legacy.
year; to Karin Clarke and the staff of Karin Clarke Gallery, for partnership in presenting the works by
With the JSMA’s temporary building closure in 2020
David McCosh featured in these publications; to
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we quickly
Amy Platt of The Oregon Encyclopedia for permission
pivoted to virtual formats to ensure the accessi-
to reproduce Roger’s entry on Anne Kutka McCosh
bility of museum resources and meaningful engage-
in this format; to my colleagues Mike Bragg, JSMA
ment with art. We are delighted to make available
design services manager, and Jonathan Smith, JSMA
a digital version of Roger Saydack’s book of essays,
photographer, for their work in creating this digital
David McCosh: Learning to Paint is Learning to See, from
resource; and to all who join us in our appreciation of
2015. In this special addendum to the earlier publica-
these remarkable Oregon artists.
tion, we present his two additional essays on David
5
McCosh for Karin Clarke Gallery and biography of
Danielle Knapp
Anne Kutka McCosh for The Oregon Encyclopedia.
McCosh Curator
David McCosh: Learning to Paint is Learning to See / Gallery Exhibition
Figure 1. For Anne, c. 1930. Watercolor on Paper, 9 x 13 1/4 inches. Private Collection; MMC.0492b
6
Curated by Roger Saydack Karin Clarke Gallery March 2017
Figure 2. Untitled ( Man and Woman in Restaurant), 1930s. Ink on Paper, 8 x 11 inches (image). Private Collection; MMC.0588
David McCosh (1903-1981) lived through times
We’ll start with character. McCosh always believed
when painting in America was changing rapidly and
that the distinctive character of a subject was what
dramatically.
Modernism, social realism, expres-
remained after you eliminated all the generalities, all
sionism, surrealism, abstract expressionism, mini-
the non-essential detail, all the trivia - everything
malism and pop art all had their day during his
that made a tree look like every other tree. His focus
career. Many painters who were active during these
instead was on what made this one tree unique,
years changed with the times. McCosh did not.
special and worth painting.
The purpose of his painting remained constant
In 1930, when McCosh was in his 20s and just
during all the turmoil going on around him. For
beginning to find his voice as a painter he received
McCosh, painting was about learning how to see
a Tiffany Fellowship to spend the summer painting
what was distinct and special about his subject. And
in Oyster Bay on Long Island. He began a romance
his voice as a painter and the look and feel of his art
there with a talented young painter, Anne Kutka.
always flowed from this simple yet profound premise.
His first gift to her was a tender painting of a gentle
This exhibition shows how McCosh used painting
sunset on Oyster Bay which carries the character that
to learn how to see in three fundamental ways during
place had for him as well as his inscription: “To Anne
his career.
from David J. McCosh.” (figure 1) In the late 1920s and early 30s when he was a
•
•
•
During his early years, David’s goal was to find
student and then a teacher at the Art Institute of
the distinctive character of his subject through
Chicago, his focus was the people of that big, bustling
careful and thorough observation.
city. He often made drawings, prints, or watercolors
Beginning in the 1940s his paintings became
during this period that create a short story, a vignette.
demonstrations of his process of observation.
Figure 2 involves a man, a young woman and the
How he saw was their point, not just what he
situation they find themselves in at the dinner table.
saw.
McCosh shows us with a few well turned lines what
Then, toward the end of his career – painting
their conversation was all about.
for McCosh became a means of discovering the essence of his subject. 7
scene that’s easy to take for granted when you live here. But McCosh sees deep, rich colors, dark, roiling clouds, and a winding old-time road with a few perfectly placed stores that’s heading out of the city and into a day in the countryside. This is accomplished, impressive work but McCosh also had an analytical interest in painting that he Figure 3. Farmhouse on Millrace (Millrace with Horses), 1934. Oil on Linen, 21 1/4 x 25 3/8 (framed). Private Collection; MMC.035
wanted to develop. So in the 1940s we see McCosh adopting his second approach to using painting as a way of learning how to see. He began to make paint-
In 1934, David and Anne, now his wife, arrived in
ings and drawings that focused on how he saw his
Eugene where he was to teach at the University of
subject.
Oregon and paint until he retired in the 1970s. And
This was an idea that came from Paul Cezanne
we see him learning the landscape by painting with
(1839 – 1906), who was a source of much of 20th century
the eyes of a newcomer.
Farmhouse on the Millrace
modernist painting. Cezanne began a drawing or a
(figure 3) has all the freshness and vibrancy of his
painting by challenging himself to demonstrate “how
first Spring in Eugene.
I know” about my subject, not just “what I know” about the subject. So McCosh began to pay more attention to how he actually observed his subject. What caught his attention, how did his eye move around and through the scene, what made it linger, when did it speed along. This information gave him what he needed to demonstrate in his painting how he experienced, how he came to know, how he saw his subject. Figure 5 is a scene along the Mill Race in Eugene. McCosh loved the mixture of rough and tumble nature in the city, gritty industrial sites and elegant little bridges the Mill Race provided. He’s simplified this scene by eliminating textures, colors, and the details of vegetation so he could focus on the structural components. We see the stream wandering off into the distance, the strong, irregular diagonals of tree trunks—some standing tall, others collapsing
Figure 4. Judkin’s Point, c. 1935. Oil on Linen, 25 1/8 x 31 1/4 , (framed). Private Collection; MMC.0135
slowly into the stream bed. Figure 6 is the same scene but he’s laying in color now which adds sensuality and motion. Look at how
8
Judkins Point (figure 4) shows us Franklin Boulevard
the brown land mass in the foreground on the right
heading out towards Springfield and the Coburg Hills
slows down the eye. The greens of the vegetation
back in the days before the I-5 South entrance which
on the bank next to the stream make our eye move
now rounds the massive rock formation of the Point.
quickly off into the distance, just as his eye must
It’s a moody, late-summer day, with the threat of rain
have moved as he studied the scene. The dark
in the air. It’s just a bend in the road, a ‘drive by’
black diagonals of the tree trunks become dramatic
Figure 5. Millrace, 1940s. Conte Crayon and Ink on Paper, 12 1/3 x 16 inches (paper). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.0211
Figure 6. Millrace Bend II, c. 1940s. Watercolor on Paper, 15 1/2 x 22 1/2 inches (paper). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.0219 9
stopping points.
Even the air seems to have the
visual notes, no more. He didn’t make paintings or
heavy, slightly sour smell of still water. McCosh has
drawings from them.
made an engaging painting out of a scene that most
with his paintings of comparable scenes we can see
people wouldn’t look at twice.
how different what he saw was from what his camera
His views and scenes of Eugene from this period look so familiar to those of us who live here that we
But when we compare them
saw. One
other
thing
about
McCosh’s
photos—
tend take them for granted. The reason they look so
everything in them is important—the shadows, the
familiar is that McCosh has captured the character of
moss, the tangles of underbrush, the colors of the
this little part of Oregon perfectly—and that’s what
bark, the sky peeking through the branches.
we recognize.
snapped the shutter only after he framed something
He
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, McCosh’s painting technique became even more immediate and direct. He began to paint more quickly sometimes with colors straight out of the tube spread with sticks he found on the site. His technique changed to reflect his increasing emphasis on demonstrating how he saw his subject. He also began to develop methods for depicting the complex spatial relationships he saw in the natural vegetation of our forests and the multitude of colors of light and shade that filtered through the dense canopies of the trees.
Figure 7. McCosh, David, Tree, c. 1960. 35mm slide. McCosh Memorial Archive.
Figure 8. Forest Stream, 1956. Oil on Paper, 27 3/8 x 29 5/8 inches (paper). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.1235
To help us see how his painting reflected how he saw his subject I’m going to mix in a few photos that
10
that intrigued him.
McCosh took in the 1950s and 1960s because they
Figure 8 is a painting of the same type of scene
show us the type of landscape situation that he was
we see in the photo of the tree—a forest scene that
drawn to. (figure 7) He was a Sunday photographer
includes some close-up views of trees. There’s a large
at best so he had all the problems with exposures
trunk in the middle leaning to the left. Another is
and the like that were common in the days before
on the far left side with its bark patterns illuminated
digital photography.
by the sun. The dark, indistinct areas around the
His photos should be seen as
Figure 10. Woods, 1953. Oil on Paper, 20 3/4 x 27 3/4 (paper). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.1237
large trunk resemble boughs of needles, branches, and
bloom.
hanging moss, clustered about. This painting of how
Figure 10 is a painting that involves a similar
he saw, how he experienced this scene seems more
scene. Strong verticals represent the trees. Swirls and
visceral, more real than his photo which includes so
dark masses indicate layers of vines and vegetation,
much more detail.
and spots of white paint might depict rhododendron
Figure 9 is a photo of a stand of trees in the woods
blossoms. We see his eye moving with great energy
with some complex underbrush in the foreground
and
that includes what looks like rhododendron bushes in
searching, never just glancing about and missing
emotional
excitement—but
always
looking,
what’s there. This work gives us a good opportunity to study how the new vocabulary he is developing of forms, lines and other devices presents how McCosh sees this complex space.
His intention was not to make
this scene appear abstract and non-representational, quite the contrary. The forest space in this painting is more real to McCosh than a photograph or a painting that looks like a photograph because his painting Figure 9. McCosh, David, Forest Scene, c. 1960. 35mm slide. McCosh Memorial Archive 11
Figure 11. Olive Tree and Balcony, 1958. Ink on Paper, 12 x 9 3/8 inches (paper). Private Collection; MMC.0380
Figure 12. Rocky Peak – Vence. 1958. Watercolor on Paper, 11 5/8 x 15 ¾ inches (image). Private Collection; MMC.0349
deals directly with how he actually experienced the
But he focused instead on the fundamentals his eye
forest scene.
was attracted to and a drawing of real clarity resulted.
The work in the exhibition now moves into the late
In figure 12 we are in front of one of the build-
1950s. We are with McCosh on a sabbatical trip to
ings in the village. What a difference the colors he
Spain and France. The work from that trip will show
has added make. It’s a cloudy day. The leaves on
how the concept of painting as a way of learning to
the olive trees are a dark blue green in that light, the
see applies to his discovery of these new and different
clouds are purple violet with some green. The varied
landscapes.
colors on the ground suggest it may have rained
In figure 11, we are on top of a hill near Vence in France—looking at a knurly, twisting tree staggering
from the Mediterranean.
its way up into the sky next to a fine old villa. The
Imagine if we were looking at a photograph of
natural is contrasted with the man-made—both
this scene. It would give much specific detail but not
reaching into the sky. The wrought iron balcony rail
nearly as much information as this watercolor gives
reflects the bends of the tree. He could have been
us about the day and the feeling of the place.
distracted by so much in this scene—the texture of the walls of the building, the shadows on the tree.
12
recently. The air feels wet and humid – we’re not far
In figure 13, we have moved up close to an olive tree in front of one of the buildings. McCosh uses patches of color to indicate shade and moss and spots of sunlight that creep through the leaves and reflect off the trunk. We look through the shadow of the tree towards a building – its whitewashed walls and roof dimly lit in the hazy light. Again, the drawing creates an experience of the place that goes beyond simply describing the appearance of the trees and the building. 13
Figure 13. Olive Tree, Vence, 1958. Watercolor on Paper, 13 ¾ x 10 7/8 inches (paper). Private Collection; MMC.0450
Figure 15. Fall Creek, 1964. Watercolor on Paper, 19 x 22 inches. McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.0906
Figure 14. McCosh, David, Forest Stream, c. 1960. 35 mm slide. McCosh Memorial Archive
Figure 15 is a painting of a similar stream with sunlight dancing in the air. Notice how the patches of color are not tied to the rocks, the vegetation or
14
We’re back in Oregon now—in our own backyard—
the areas of water all of which are loosely defined by
the forests around the McKenzie River and Horse
lines.
Creek—in the 1960s and early 1970s.
reflecting off the physical components of the scene—
The color patches are acting like natural light
Figure 14 is a spot along the McKenzie River. The
the rocks, the water, the vegetation. They inhabit and
steam runs around and over the boulders—mottled
color the air. McCosh is recreating his experience of
sunlight and shade—moss and the lush vegetation on
the forest stream, not just giving us a report of its
the rock wall along the far bank.
appearance.
Figure 17 is an especially vivid and elegant painting that shows how interrelated and engaging his forest imagery has become. McCosh has arrived at his third approach to painting as a way of seeing, knowing and underFigure 16. McCosh, David, Forest Scene, c. 1960. 35 mm slide. McCosh Memorial Archive
One final photo, figure 16, is a classic woodland scene—rich with verticals and diagonals—clumps of vegetation and flowers—and bright areas of sky.
15
standing. His work is now more than a record of his discovery of the character of the scene. It’s more than a demonstration of how he observed landscape situations. Figure 17. Tangle, 1960. Casein on Cardboard, 36 x 40 inches (framed). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.0132
Figure 18. Garden Study I, c. 1960s. Charcoal on Paper, 14 x 18 inches (image). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.0292 Figure 19. Garden Study III, c. 1960s. Charcoal on Paper, 13 3/4 x 18 inches (image). Private Collection; MMC.0294b
He is using painting and drawing to create meaning as poetry and music does. Not with a literal description of the world, but through the creation of a work of art that states the essence of his experience in a form we all can share. (figures 18 and 19) And what is that essence? Is it the complexity of the tangled webs of vegetation and their deep and involved spaces? Perhaps. But the late works also show us that there is a pattern, a structure that brings order and life to the complexity we see. These works are the experiences of an individual who discovered through painting something that goes beyond what he was able to observe.
McCosh
is not often thought of as a spiritual painter whose work reflects or participates in ideas that transcend painting itself. But his late work in particular has a spiritual dimension that results from his discovery of order, structure, and simplicity in complex and chaotic environments. Roger Saydack February 2017 © Roger Saydack 2017
16
David McCosh: Entanglements/ Gallery Exhibiton
Curated by Roger Saydack Karen Clarke Gallery September 2019
Figure 1. Composition #1, n.d. Watercolor on paper, 15 ½ x 21 ½ inches (paper). Private Collection; MMC.1125
David McCosh’s work in his last 25 years as
Energy, movement, purposeful color and moments
a painter was often about the relationships and
of beauty are everywhere in these paintings. There’s
complexities he saw in intimate landscapes. A few
also a feeling of intimacy in this work that reflects
well-placed trees, some bushes and associated under-
his familiarity with his subject. He shows us things
growth with everything growing freely right in front
about these bits of landscape that no one else has
of him was an ideal situation for his art to explore.
seen.
This is a personal approach to painting the
land that was unmistakably his and his alone. The lines and marks he laid down in these paintings are the energies and entanglements of growth as
A few years ago, I wrote about his black and white
he saw them. If you follow his marks closely, your
Night Drawings from this period. Made in his studio
eyes will move around the painting as his did as he
from memory, they have the character of meditations
observed the bit of landscape that was his subject.
that contemplate the structure and order he found
His paintings reconstruct his process of discovering
in chaotic masses of wild vines, branches and other
the visual consequences of growth in nature, seen up
vegetation, seen up close.
close. 17
This
exhibition,
“Entanglements”,
presents
a
solutions to visual problems grew.
But one other
different aspect of his close views of freely-growing
factor seems to have made a difference – during the
vegetation.
These works are his direct observa-
1950s, he began to focus on close-up views of small
tions of his subject, made on site in all the places he
landscape settings. This subject was recognized as
painted. They’re fresh and lyrical. Their colors are
a genre or category of landscape painting that had
rich, vibrant even radiant at times. Once again, he’s
long been noted for stimulating painterly innovation.
translating his personal experience of his subjects
How this may have benefitted his work needs to be
into highly effective paintings and drawings.
understood to fully appreciate his accomplishments.
Art that is vital, alive and yet so different from the
Genres of painting developed in response to
other art of its time raises the question – where did it
the interests and needs of painters. Originally, the
come from?
We know that McCosh always began a
purpose of a landscape painting was to find beauty
painting or drawing by carefully observing his subject
and harmony in the broad forms of the countryside
to learn its character. This has much to do with the
seen at a distance. The features of an iconic scene
success of his art, but there’s more to it than that.
and all of its complements were summarized by the painter and adjusted as needed to create an idealized
There was a fundamental change in McCosh’s art
vista and a pleasing visual statement.
in the early 1950s. He moved away from an approach to painting that focused on organizing forms that
But the landscape was too rich and powerful a
represent elements of a landscape into an integrated
subject to be confined to scenic views. By the late
and visually interesting design.
Instead, he began
18th century, all of nature had become subjects of
to look for ways to reconstruct in his paintings the
art. Plants were presented in all of their variety – in
activity of observation itself. He wanted his art to
natural groupings in forests, marshes and meadows
present how a careful observer discovers and actu-
and as cultivated in gardens and farms. Individual
ally sees the relationships and complexities in land-
specimens were depicted with stunning accuracy and
scape settings. This is an entirely new approach that
at all points in their life cycle to better understand
required him to develop new painting techniques and
their growth and habitat. Geological features, rock
methods. This is why his paintings from this later
formations, mountains, rivers, lakes, ponds, the sky,
period look so different from his earlier work and, for
the weather, the seasons, even the time of day – hour
that matter, from the work of his contemporaries. He
by hour – were all faithfully represented.
had become an innovator. Much of this art was motivated by science – the
18
McCosh had been painting steadily for 30 years
desire to learn and classify, to understand and pass
at this point in his career. He was nationally recog-
on knowledge. But by the early 1800s, artists found
nized and well respected. But he wasn’t known as
other uses for nature in their art.
an innovator. It’s reasonable to wonder what gave him
gave nature human emotions, characteristics and
the ability to paint in such new ways. He understood
moods. An ancient tree might be portrayed as an old
the issues and problems of painting as well as any
warrior, bent, broken and shaped by its battles with
American painter of his time. His creative imagina-
the elements.
tion evolved during his career and his ability to find
of the natural world to be as restful and restorative
The Romantics
Some artists wanted their paintings
Sous-bois
painting
became
quite
popular in the middle years of the 1800s.
Its authentic, visceral manner
appealed
to
Romantics,
Naturalists,
Transcendentalists – it spoke to its time. And, of particular interest for our purposes,
sous-bois
painting
played
a role in the development of modern art.
The Barbizons were admired by
many early Modernists, including the Impressionist Figure 2. Narcisse Virgile Diaz de la Pena (1807-1876). Forest of Fontainebleau, 1868. Oil on canvas, 33 ¼ x 43 ¾ inches. Dallas Museum of Art, Munger Fund, 1991.14.M
painters
and
Claude
Post-Impressionist Monet,
Camille
Pissarro, Vincent van Gogh and Paul Cézanne.
It
wasn’t just the source of their work in nature that was admired. The early Modernists were intrigued with the innovative painting techniques and methods
for viewers as the experience of nature was for them.
the Barbizons used for translating the gritty, visceral
Others believed that the creative process of making
natural world that the painter saw into forms, colors,
art would allow them to understand and even become
and structures of art that matched its character. And
one with the creative forces of nature.
this is exactly what David McCosh was focused on in his paintings of entanglements.
Beginning in the 1820s, the painters who came to be known as members of the Barbizon School, after
Some of the innovations the early Modernists
the town of that name near the Forest of Fontaineb-
admired can be seen in Forest of Fontainebleau (Figure
leau in France where they painted, sought to become
2), by the Barbizon painter, Narcisse Virgile Diaz de
ever closer to nature by focusing on its most inti-
la Pena. Its subject is a forest scene consisting of a
mate aspects. They often painted close-up views of
few trees and the vegetation which lives at their bases.
the nature that lived in the dappled light under the
There is no horizon or sky in this painting. This gave
trees in the forest – the entangling vines, low-growing
Diaz the ability to focus entirely on the small bit of
plants and shrubs, and the colorful flowers that found
forest that was just a few feet in front of him – and
the sunlight that reached the forest floor. The Barbi-
that’s where the innovation occurred. Seen up close,
zons were the first to make their subject the tangles
this bit of forest was packed with the energies of
of growth we see in David McCosh’s work.
growth. To present this to the viewer, Diaz used a stacked organizational structure that brought all the
The Barbizon’s genre became known as sous-bois painting – paintings of undergrowth – that which
elements and activity in the painting up front and close together.
grows ‘under the trees’. They focused on an aspect
19
of the natural world that other painters overlooked.
He also emphasized the relationships among the
Their paintings could be dark, cluttered, rough, even
forms of plant life in the scene by using carefully-
gritty – but their subject was the real stuff of nature,
coordinated colors which he applied in discrete
not what the painter imagined it to be.
strokes and patches to build masses of vegetation
Figure 3. Camille Pissarro (1830-1903). Wooded Landscape at the Hermitage, Pontoise (Paysage Sous Bois, a L’Hermitage (Pontoise), 1879. Soft ground, aquatint, dry point and scraping, Platemark: 8 5/8 x 10 3/16 inches. Cincinnati Art Museum, Gift of Herbert Greer French, 1940.425
growing together. These innovative approaches to
farm buildings, houses and a farm worker visible
structure and paint handling were motivated by the
between their trunks.
characteristics of his subject.
branches act as elements that organize this spatially
The trunks and large
complex scene into compartments which interact The manner of painting we see in Forest of Fontaine-
with one another.
This innovative compositional
bleau is typical of Barbizon art and its influence on
device brilliantly serves the organizational needs of
the early Moderns was considerable. Paul Cézanne
Pissarro’s sous-bois subject matter.
knew and admired the work of the Barbizons, and the innovations of Forest of Fontainebleau bring to mind the
Vincent van Gogh wrote often to his brother,
revolutionary work he was doing 10 and 20 years after
Theo, about his admiration for the work of the
it was made.
Barbizon painters.
Van Gogh’s sous-bois paintings
in the late 1880s, – which have received much well-
20
The print, Wooded Landscape at the Hermitage,
deserved attention recently – brought him closer than
Pontoise (Paysage Sous Bois, a L’Hermitage (Pontoise)
ever to nature, which is exactly what he wanted. His
(Figure 3), by the Impressionist Camille Pissarro, is
paintings of undergrowth helped him develop the
much in the Barbizon manner.
It presents a close
modernist techniques and methods he needed to
view of a group of trees and shrubs with vegetation
express more directly his personal experience of the
growing below them and glimpses of more distant
land.
Figure 4. Vincent van Gogh (1853-1890). Undergrowth, 1889. Oil on canvas. 28 ¾ x 36 5/15 inches. Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (Vincent van Gogh Foundation), s0051V1962
His rapidly painted, slashing lines and staccato marks in Undergrowth (Figure 4) effectively present his experience of strands of vegetation and small but intensely colored flowers writhing and tumbling together along the ground.
The rough forms of
his tree trunks surge upward out of the emotional colors he used to describe them. He was completely engaged, immersed and, yes, entangled in this setting. Every stroke is no more or less than his direct and immediate response to the nature at his feet. When nature is painted up close a segment of the natural world is viewed as a whole. The painter
Figure 5. David McCosh. Hillside, ca. 1959. Ink on paper, 13 ¾ x 20 ¾ (paper). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.0230 Figure 6. Landscape in Cornwall, 1959. Ink on paper, 11 x 14 inches (paper). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.0331
must ask – what marks are sufficient to indicate the living presence of each of the dozens of leaves that
21
strive for the light and float on the breeze? How do
These are the issues McCosh deals with in the
I present the rapid movement I feel in the vines that
works in this exhibition. His drawings of the coun-
flow and weave and then dive into the depths of this
tryside near Cornwall, England show him finding
scene? What colors can I blend to show how I see the
ways to express the searching qualities he saw in the
sunlight working its way through this tangle? And
low-lying, twisting vines and scraggly shrubs which
the endless complexity that nature this close to me
grow on the hills near the beaches there (see the
reveals – how is it possible to give my painting the
drawings Hillside (Figure 5) and Landscape in Cornwall
experience of all that I see and feel?
(Figure 6)).
Figure 7. Cornwall Ground Cover (Spring Flowers), 1959. Watercolor on paper, 15 x 22 ¼ inches (paper). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.0436
What he learned from these drawings allowed him to present the extraordinary layers of energy and color that we see in the painting, Cornwall Ground Cover (Spring Flowers) (Figure 7).
22
Figure 8. The Ground #1, 1954. Oil on paper, 20 ¾ x 27 ½ inches (paper). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.1218
In the drawings, The Ground #1 (Figure 8) and Trees (Figure 10) we see similar efforts by McCosh to simplify and organize the complex spaces in a close view of a small slice of a Pacific Northwest forest.
Figure 9. Woods in Spring. Watercolor on paper, 15 5/8 x 23 1/8 inches (paper). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.1017 23
These drawings gave him the information and techniques he needed to create the dance-like freedom of light and growth in Woods in Spring (Figure 9) and the surging vertical energy and deep colors of the light in Forest Curtain (Figure 11) . These are the opportunities, the challenges that energized the work of David McCosh and the sousbois painters before him.
His ‘entanglements’ were
the laboratories where he developed the methods and techniques he needed to present in his paintings and drawings the order, the beauties and the vital energies of life that he found in the most intimate of landscape settings. Roger Saydack June 2019 © Roger Saydack 2019
Figure 10. Trees, ca. 1954. Oil on paper, 27 ½ x 20 ¾ inches (paper). McCosh Memorial Collection; MMC.1236
Figure 11. Forest Curtain, n.d. Watercolor on paper, 18 x 24 inches. Private Collection, MMC.0910
24
Sources
This show and the idea of placing McCosh’s later landscape
Figure 1. David McCosh. (1903 – 1981). Composition #1.
work into the context of Barbizon painting resulted from
Watercolor on paper. 15 ½ x 21 ½ inches (paper).
my recent visit to the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam where I saw the exhibition “Hockney / Van Gogh: The Joys
Figure 2. Narcisse Virgile Diaz de la Pena. (1807 – 1876).
of Nature”, which presented David Hockney’s billboard-size
Forest of Fontainebleau. 1868. Oil on canvas. 33 ¼ x 43 ¾
depictions of growth in the Woldgate Woods in Northern
inches. Dallas Museum of Art, Manager Fund, 1991.14M
England side-by-side with Van Gogh’s easel paintings of undergrowth. The art of both painters, different as it may
Figure 3. Camille Pissarro. (1830 – 1903). Wooded Landscape
be, is firmly founded on each painter’s close observation of
at the Hermitage, Pontoise (Paysage Sous Bois, a L’Hermitage
the natural settings he painted.
(Pontoise)). 1879. Soft ground, aquatint, dry point and scraping. Platemark 8 5/8 x 10 3/16 inches. Cincinnati Art
As I looked more deeply into Van Gogh’s undergrowth
Museum, Gift of Herbert Greer French, 1940.425.
paintings, I came across Van Gogh – Into the Undergrowth, the catalog for a 2016 exhibition at the Cincinnati Art
Figure 4. Vincent van Gogh. (1853 - 1890). Undergrowth.
Museum which placed that Museum’s Van Gogh painting,
1889. Oil on canvas. 28 ¾ x 36 5/15 inches. Van Gogh
“Undergrowth with Two Figures”, and a fine group of his
Museum, Amsterdam (Vincent van Gogh Foundation),
other undergrowth paintings into the context of the work
S51V1982 F 746.
of the painters of the Barbizon School. (This exhibition catalog, which contains several informative essays and an
Figure 5. David McCosh. Hillside. N.D. (c. 1959). Ink on paper.
excellent bibliography, is cited below.*)
13 ¾ x 20 ¾ (paper).
McCosh admired Van Gogh’s work, the drawings in partic-
Figure 6. ____________. Landscape in Cornwall. 1959. Ink
ular. I believe we can see the connections between the
on paper. 11 x 14 inches (paper).
two most clearly in their paintings of undergrowth, which caused each of them to focus on a challenge that trans-
Figure 7. _____________. Cornwall Ground Cover (Spring
formed their art - how to honestly and authentically present
Flowers). 1959. Watercolor on paper. 15 x 22 ¼ inches
their visual experience of a close view of nature.
(paper). Figure 8. _____________. The Ground #1. 1954. Oil on
*Van Gogh – Into the Undergrowth. (October 15, 2016 –
paper. 20 ¾ x 27 ½ inches (paper).
January 8, 2017.) Cincinnati: Cincinnati Art Museum in association with D Giles, Limited, London. Essays by Cornelia
Figure 9. _____________. Woods in Spring. Watercolor on
Homburg, Simon Kelly, Laura Prins and Jenny Reynaerts;
paper. 15 5/8 x 23 1/8 inches (paper).
Catalogue by Laura Prins. Figure 10. ____________. Trees. (c. 1954). Oil on paper. 27 ½ x 20 ¾ inches (paper). For a discussion of McCosh’s Night Drawings, see: Figure 11. ____________. Forest Curtain. Watercolor on Saydack, Roger. “The Night Drawings of David McCosh” in David McCosh / Learning to Paint is Learning to See. Eugene, Oregon: Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. 2016.
25
paper, 18 x 24 inches.
Anne Kutka McCosh (1902-1994) This entry appears on the Oregon Encyclopedia, a project of the Oregon Historical Society, at www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/mccosh-anne-kutka.
Born in Danbury, Connecticut, Anne was
raised in Yonkers, New York in a large immigrant family with a strong Czech heritage. When she was a young girl, her oldest sister bought art supplies for her and encouraged her to try her hand at drawing.3 Her siblings and friends were delighted by Anne’s early efforts at illustrating stories they all knew which led her to enter the Yonkers School of Design in 1916. During the 1920s, intent now on making art her life, she worked her way through the Art Students League in New York City where she studied with some of the most influential artists and teachers in America including the painters Kenneth Hayes Miller, Thomas Hart Benton, and Kimon Nicolaides. 4 Between 1928 and 1933 she worked as the manager of the G.R.D. Studio Gallery on 57 th street 5 in Manhattan. These were heady years when Anne Kutka McCosh. Leaving the Lecture: The Faculty Wives, 1936. Oil on canvas, 25 x 31 inches. Gift of the artist to the Center for the Study of Women in Society; Transfer to the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art; 2012:14.1
modernism was sweeping through American art. She often talked about the new trends in painting with the major collectors and the famous artists of the day who visited the Gallery, including Jose Orozco, who had a studio nearby.6
Anne Kutka McCosh, a nationally-recognized and regionally important visual artist and teacher, lived
Her spirit, talent and insight were recognized
in Eugene, Oregon for the last sixty years of her life.
with successive Tiffany Foundation Fellowships and
In the 1930s and 1940s her work in oil and gouache
a G.R.D. Gallery Scholarship which allowed her
was in the narrative tradition of American Scene
to travel and study painting in Mexico (at Orozco’s
painting. Her subject was the character of the urban
urging) where she met the muralist Diego Rivera and
life she knew in New York City and in the college
to work in the Foundation’s studio facilities at Oyster
town of Eugene.1 In the 1950s and 1960s, her focus
Bay on Long Island.
shifted to making insightful and expressive portrait
26
studies often of women and children in oil and also
At Oyster Bay she met the young painter, David
in charcoal and ink drawings and lithographic and
McCosh, also a Tiffany fellow,7 and he became the
woodcut prints. Her later work shows the powerful
love of her life.
influence of her mentor in drawing, Kimon Nico-
Eugene, Oregon in 1934 where David accepted an
laides, and of the Mexican muralists she had known,
appointment to teach painting at the University of
Jose Orozco and Diego Rivera.2
Oregon.8 They both lived in Eugene for rest of their
They were married and moved to
lives. David became an influential teacher and a major
of Oregon Foundation to create the David John and
Northwest artist.9 He benefited greatly from Anne’s
Anne Kutka McCosh Memorial Endowment Fund of
support which allowed him to focus on his work and
the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art which provides
his teaching. She was also a constant colleague who
funding for the preservation and study of David’s
understood and believed in his painting.
work and for the support of other related programs at the Museum.14
Anne was a major presence in the arts in Eugene. She taught at the Maude Kerns Art Center for more
Only after the Endowment was completed would
than 20 years and in her private studio at home.10 Her
Anne permit her own work to be exhibited again.
students were often young people who came to her
Anne believed that her responsibility was to preserve
to explore art as a means of personal expression as
David’s work and promote his legacy even though it
well as older women and men who were at a point
meant neglecting her own art. It was her professional
in their lives where they had the time to develop a
assessment that David’s work was simply more impor-
long-suppressed interest in art. Anne was an inspi-
tant than her own.15
rational teacher who treasured and encouraged art made with serious intent. But she was unstinting in
In 1991, a retrospective exhibition “Art from Life:
her candid criticism of even well-known artists whose
Painting and Drawings by Anne Kutka McCosh” was
work failed to meet the professional standards that
presented at the Jordan Schnitzer Museum. In the
she believed all artists must master.
following years, her work was shown in the national
11
touring exhibition “Women of the West 1890 – 1995” She was also a well-regarded painter who exhibited regionally and nationally.
12
In the 1950s and 1960s,
and in well-received gallery exhibitions in Seattle and Eugene.16
Anne and David travelled throughout Oregon and also to Mexico, Europe and the American Southwest.
Anne brought to Eugene the excitement and the
While he focused his art on the landscape,
energy of the New York City art scene of the 1920s
she created a series of drawings and paintings that
and 1930s. Her students and colleagues learned from
capture the character of people she encountered of
her example that art is a way of life that demands
all ages and from all walks of life.13 Her work is in
and rewards complete commitment. Her legacy as an
the permanent collections of the Hallie Ford Museum
artist is in her rare ability to capture and recreate the
of Art, the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art and the
character of another person in her paintings, draw-
Portland Art Institute.
ings and prints.
Towards the end of the 1960s, David contracted a progressively debilitating disease and Anne gave up her art to dedicate herself to his care. After his death in 1981, Anne worked tirelessly to preserve his extensive body of work and his legacy as a teacher. In 1990 she contributed her entire estate to the University
27
Roger Saydack
Endnotes
1 See, e.g., Anne Kutka McCosh, Leaving the Lecture: The Faculty Wives, 1936, oil on canvas, 25 x 31 inches. Gift of the artist to the center for the Study of Women in Society; transfer to the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. The University of Oregon. Eugene, Oregon. 2012:14.1 (Accessed in January 2019 at: http://jsmacollection.uoregon.edu/detail.ph p?t=objects&type=all&f=&s=Anne+Kutka+McCosh&record=11) 2 See, e.g., Anne Kutka McCosh, Thryza Anderson, 1967, ink and acrylic on paper, 16 15/16 x 13 ¾ inches. The Vivien and Gordon Gilkey Graphic Arts Collection. 91.84.414. The Portland Art Museum, Portland, Oregon. (Accessed in January 2019 at: http://www.portlandartmuseum.us/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?request=record;id=27613;type=101). 3 Fong, Lawrence M. “Art from Life: Paintings and Drawings by Anne Kutka McCosh.” [exhibition catalog]. July 21 – September 22, 1991. University of Oregon Museum of Art (Eugene, Oregon). (“Fong Essay”). 4 “McCosh, Anne Kutka” (entry). Allen, Ginny and Klevit, Jody. Oregon Painters -The First Hundred Years (18591959). Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press. 1999. (“Oregon Painters”). 5 “UO Museum Show Showcases Local Artist’s Life’s Work”. The Register- Guard (Eugene, Oregon). July 19, 1991. (“R-G Article”). 6
RG Article
7 Knapp, Danielle. “The David John McCosh and Anne Kutka McCosh Memorial Collection: Stewarding a Legacy.” [introduction}. Saydack, Roger. David McCosh: Learning to Paint is Learning to See. Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. (Eugene, Oregon). 2016. 8
Oregon Painters.
9 See Roger Saydack. David McCosh (1903-1981) (entry). The Oregon Encyclopedia (accessed in January 2019 at: https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/mccosh_david_1903_1981_/#.XC1o7y2ZOu4). 10
“Anne McCosh” [obituary]. The Register-Guard (Eugene, Oregon). March 19, 1994.
11 Saydack, Roger. David McCosh Learning to Paint is Learning to See. “Anne McCosh: One Remarkable Woman.” (essay). Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art: Eugene, Oregon. 2016. (“One Woman Essay”). 12 During her lifetime, her work was included in exhibitions at the New School of Social Research in New York City (1931), Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts (1932, 1934), Art Institute of Chicago (1935), Denver Art Museum (1938), New York World’s Fair (1939), University of Oregon (1944, 1949), Museum of Modern Art (1953), Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Seattle Art Museum. Oregon Painters.
28
13
Fong Essay; One Woman Essay.
14
Oregon Painters; One Woman Essay.
15
One Woman Essay.
16
One Woman Essay.
David McCosh in studio, photograph by Mary Randlett (American, born 1924), 1973 29
Published by
Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art 1430 Johnson Lane 1223 University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon 97403-1223 541-346-3027 jsma.uoregon.edu
Published with private support from The David John and Anne Kutka McCosh Memorial Museum Endowment Fund. Danielle M. Knapp, Editor Mike Bragg, Designer
All photography, unless otherwise noted, by Jonathan Smith. FPO © 2021 Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the publisher. The University of Oregon is an equal-opportunity, affirmativeaction institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. This publication is available in accessible formats upon request.
30
