David McCosh and the Oregon School of Landscape Painting April 2014
LET’S START with the title of the show. I admit that
his various approaches to the landscape and his charac-
it’s intentionally provocative. The Oregon School
teristic palettes during these years. I selected works that
of Landscape Painting has no walls, no leader; it
are examples of McCosh’s most inventive and creative
has rules, but they often get bent a bit. I see it as a
responses to the various landscapes of Oregon to see if
group of like-minded painters who have found inspi-
they might inspire the other painters to submit some of
ration and source material in the Oregon landscape,
their most inventive and creative work.
and who, most importantly, share some beliefs and
There are no rules that I asked the other painters
values about painting as an art form despite their
to follow in selecting their pieces, other than that they
very evident differences in styles, approaches, and
should be Oregon landscapes. I invited each painter to
attitudes (yes, attitudes). It’s a school in the sense of
write a statement about his or her work, its relation-
the Hudson River School or the New York School
ship to McCosh, to the Oregon landscape, or what-
of Abstract Expressionism. David McCosh was a
ever they would like to discuss, to be posted on the
member of the school, not the leader or the dean—
wall with their work. And we’ve scheduled informal
but a member. Each of the painters in this show, in
gallery talks during the show by the painters, which
one way or another, has a relationship to McCosh,
will give each the opportunity to discuss their work
his methods and his approach to painting, just as his
and help us understand what it is that ties all of the
work has a relationship to theirs. I see all of them as
painters in this show together.
peers, not disciples or students—but fellow travelers.
66
When I think about what McCosh and the other
The idea behind the show was for me to select a
painters in the show have in common, I’m reminded
small group of McCosh’s Oregon landscapes and then
about some of the things that Paul Cézanne said about
invite six other painters who share some common
painting when he talked with friends who came to
ground with McCosh to each select three of their
visit him late in his life. One time, he described for a
works to be shown with the McCosh pieces. Hanging
writer friend what he called his personal way of seeing
all of the work together gives viewers the opportu-
the landscape. He said that when he looked at a tree
nity to experience seven different approaches to the
as a distant and remote object, he became very aware
Oregon landscape by painters who in spite of their
of the space between him and the tree. So he painted
differences have quite a bit in common.
the tree descriptively and objectively as a separate
The McCosh works I selected are predominately from
object. But at other times, he saw the tree with all of
the 1950s and 1960s, which, I think, is his great and most
his senses as a tangible object that was enlivened by
distinctive period. Five were done at the Coast, two in
its colors, its smell, its tactile qualities, the light and
Central Oregon, and seven are from the forests around
atmosphere of the forest, and his painting became an
the McKenzie River and Horse Creek. They represent
attempt to realize his sensations—and place the tree
