There are so many artists out there, both now and from the past, that I’m not surprised when I come across an artist with which I am not familiar whose work knocks me out. But sometimes I come across work that is so strong and consistent in its vision that I just can’t understand why the name is not known to me. That’ happened recently when I was browsing through a book on the collection of the American Folk Art Museum and came across the name Morris Hirshfield. The name didn’t ring a bell but the work was so wonderful. It had a naive feel in the rendering of the figures but there was a sophistication in the composition and coloring that made me feel that it was anything but folk.
I definitely had to find out more about Morris Hirshfield.
But there’s little to learn about the man. Not a lot is written, only a few mentions in books. That surprised me. But his story is pretty simple.
He was born in Poland in 1872 and came to America around 1890 at the age of 18. Like many many of the Jewish immigrants of that time who settled in the New York area he began working in the garment industry. With his brother, he opened a coat factory that evolved into a slipper factory which was very successful. Morris encountered health problems and retired in 1935, at which point he took up painting, following up on an artistic urge he had as a child but had put aside long ago.
Within four short years, his work had attracted the attention of collector and art dealer Sidney Janis, who used two of Hirshfield’s paintings for an exhibit he was putting together in 1939 for the Museum of Modern Art, Contemporary Unknown American Painters. MoMA , at that time, was committed to collecting and showing the work of self-taught artists. In 1941, MoMA purchased two of Hirshfield’s paintings for its collection and in 1943 gave Hirshfield a solo show. He had only painted 30 pieces up to that point in his career. There was great controversy over the show at the time as the critics of the era savaged it. It was, according to Janis’s biographer, “one of the most hated shows the Museum of Modern Art ever put on.” It led to the dismissal of the museum director at the time.
But Hirshfield survived and painted his paintings of animals and the occasional figure for a few more years until his death in 1946. His career spanned a mere 9 years over which he produced only 77 paintings.
I don’t really understand the controversy of the time or why Hirshfield hasn’t inspired more writers or artists. Or maybe he has and I just can’t find much evidence of it. When I clicked on the Google image page for him, I was immediately smitten. There was that sense of rightness that I often speak of here. Just plain good stuff. Just wish Morris Hirshfield had been around longer so there might be more to see.
you are so right! the images are amazing! thanks so much for this post! lisa/z
I had a feeling that Hirshfield’s work might appeal to you.
i chuckled.. of course!
we’re in the rainy season, and each day it seems that either the internet or the power is out.. i catch up when i can, but i always look forward to your posts.
z
Wow! Some very incredible work! All so interesting!
Even though I can’t remember hearing Hirshfield’s name or pinpoint where I’ve seen his work, there’s no question I’ve seen it before. Who could forget these images? It may be my imagination, but I see echoes of William Morris in his work. I went looking and found Wm.Morris was active at exactly the time Morris Hirshfield came to this country – I love finding these little connections.
Yes, there is a bit of William Morris in his work, especially the patterns in his landscapes. What little I could find on him attributes a lot of influence of the patterns in his work to the textiles in the garment industry in which he was involved. I am sure he was aware of Morris is some form.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Redtree Times
Gallerie Saint Etienne in New York represents Hirshfield.
Most of his oils are seen in the 1976 hard cover book entitled, “MORRIS HIRSHFIELD” by Franco Maria Ricci of Paris France,with introductin by WilliamSaroyan.
Distributed in the U.S. by Rizoli International Publications, Inc. of New York, it is now out of print but can be found on Amazon for about $75.00 used and about $100.00 in new condition.
Robert Rentzer, artist’s grandson and executor.
Thank you for that information. Your grandfather’s work is beautiful.
I am so very pleased that you appreciate my grandfather’s work and I very much appreciate your comment.
Bob
(You need not post my above comment as it was simply intended as a reply to your comment to me.)
Dear Mr Rentzer,
I am hoping you may know exactly where your grandfather was born. In Sidney Janis’s book, he is quoted as saying “Born in 1872 in a small town of about 1000 inhabitants in Russia Poland near German border. Mother was German born; father a native of Russia-Poland.” (Janis, p. 17) and he speaks about making art for the local synagogue. It would be wonderful if you have some record of which “small town”. Do you know, his work was even illustrated in the magazine Art in Australia in the 1940s?
Kind regards,
Jane Clark
And thanks to Redtree Times for the blog
Hi, Jane:
Thanks very much for your interest in my grandfather.
I am sorry to say that I don’t have any other information as to the town that my grandfather was born in. I visited him almost every day when I was a child.
He lived only one block from where we lived. I would often go over with a friend and he always had hard peppermint candy for us. I still recall the smells of his oil paints which flooded the bedroom where he worked. To this very day when I happen to be where someone is oil painting the smell causes the memories to flood back.
Robert Dennis Rentzer
Dear Bob, if I may. I’m so grateful for your instant reply. And sincerely apologetic for not replying till now.
I know exactly what you mean about the evocative power of smells from long ago.
With my kindest regards,
Jane
Jane:
How could I not reply, in view of your love for my grandfather’s work!
If you ever get out to Los Angeles give me a call.
My internet site has my phone number.
Check out http://www.lawcal.com
Bob
His mother, native German, was living in occupated Poland. His father was native Polish, born and living i occupated Poland, Well Their sun Morris Hirshfield was Polish and lived I occupated Poland during 18 years. Why in his biography, Janis didn’t write that he was Polish, imigrated to USA from Occupated Poland. She wrote;: “he lived in Poland and imigrated to USA 18 years old”. Why she didn’t nominated him – Polish? For her and you, it is dishonor to be Polish. Why avoid this denomination? He was funny peinter, bur not great. Nikifor from Poland, was greatest and he has not his place in Moma or Metropolitan. Surprising and curious. Hirshfield’s peitnures are only gift, not bought by two Museums. Does the name play a role in this curious decision? PS. I am preparing a publication on Both and I let the Public decide. only on the paintings of the buildings.
Hello, Anna- Thank you for the information on Nikifor. Like Hirshfield, I was not aware of his work and look forward to finding out more about him and his work. His paintings of buildings do look interesting. I did point out that Hirshfield was born in Poland and have no problem calling Hirshfield a Polish painter. I do not consider being Polish a dishonor in any way. All the best to you, Anna.
Hi Redtree (I guess your name comes from the beautiful picture that is absolutely not Hirshfield’s)
Thanks for your quick answer. I asked this question because some people present it as someone coming from Poland (identification of unspecified national belonging – an UFO ?) or as a Russian from Poland (unlikely), or as a Jewish Lithuanian (very far from the place birthplace near the western border with Germany – wacky origin) or even, most viable origin, as a Jewish Pole from western Poland, at the time Royalty of Congress, partially under Russian authority .
He lived long enough in Poland (18 years) to talk about his Polish origins.
Why, when the people talk about him or someone else, in general, they do not emphasize his origins of belonging to the Jewish community, especially in Brooklyn (we believe to be in the nineteenth century, except in rich neighborhoods). He was a tailor, financially comfortable and could afford a comfortable retirement.
I really like naïf art, but compared to the other natives of the USA, there is no life in his paintings, like in that of Pippin I love, or Grand’Ma (a little less).
Of all his Hirshfield paintings that I saw and one that I saw personally, a month ago, at Metropolitant Museum in NY, “Stage Beauties” (1944), it is this one that has attracted my attention, by its Slavic character and that I admired a lot (as I usually do, I only looked at the author, the title and the note after having analyzed the painting myself). I even made a photo, to write an article about this author after my return to France. On the other hand, I very much regretted that the two paintings of Horace Pippin are put in a dark corner and not put in value that they deserved amply.
For several days, I read the various articles on Morris (Moïshe, his real name) and I just fell on your article (very eulogistic) and another that speaks of Nikifor, because both roughly the same corner of Poland .
Nikifor was also a self-taught painter, but unlike Morris, a very poor, problematic, sick family. He could not afford to do the little drawings (the exact opposite of Morris’s monumental paintings) and his doctor provided him with pastels. Moreover, he lived in Poland “sold” by his “allies” to the Soviets, thus increasing poverty.
His works are not so naive, even if he does not know anything about painting. We can clearly see the sense of perspective (completely absent in Morris).
His wonderful paintings remind me of a great French painter, Bernard Buffet (later), who, too, underlines the contours of a black line. Even the use of colors is often similar.
If Nikifor were Jewish, we would have heard of him, as is the case with many Polish Jewish painters, even those who are mediocre.
There are splendid non-Jewish Polish painters, but in New York museums there is no one there. It’s really shameful. The surrealist or abstract painters are fabulous and known all over the world, but no work of these is present there, because they are only Polish. Fangor is a hundred times better than Rothkoque one claims wrongly. Everything depends on the leaders and “benefactors” whose majority is a well-closed caste and decides the celebrity of such or such a painter. Of course, the financial side of the art market matters the most. Example of Sidney and Harriet Janis, who have enriched themselves with the Hirshfield Collection, even if they offered some paintings, for their glory in euc.
My answer is long and I had to use a Google translator, because my English is not very good. You can find my page of art on FB where I publish the works of art and comments them. I do not publish elsewhere because it’s useless. Those who love, comment and share in other art sites.
Good evening to you and maybe see you soon. Anna Durand-Deska
In reading the closing paragraphs of Anna Durand Deska’s garrulous commentary, supposedly related to art, I found her attempt to interweave commentary on financial motivations to be more political than aesthetic in nature. That served to affirm the impression I was given throughout her self-admittedly “long answer,” that it was personally motivated rather than objective in nature. The lack of objectivity on her part was clearly evidenced by her addmitting that she was appraising art and artist predicated upon ethnicity, i.e.,
“If Nikifor were Jewish, we would have heard of him.”
As for personal opinion’s, since she gave hers, I do not hesitate to state that I was particularly off put by her technique of using derisive comments to belittle my grandfather’s works as a segue to glorify the works of Pippin and Nikifor. Does she dispute that museums which may have foolishly elected not to purchase my grandfather’s works back then have permanent regrets now?
As for her comparative assessment of my grandfather’s works being, “not great,” I remind her that, as she states, she posts “FB” (Face Book) and that is the place where her personal opinions on art and politics belong, not on a cite which does not seek to denigrate art and artists…and I further remind her that, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”
However, if the greatness of a work of art was to be measured by anything other than a subjective standard, then the monetary worth of a Hirshfield may be ascertained by reference to a past Southby’s Auction which brought a half million dollars for the 48 x 36 oil, “Girl With Dog.”
Absent either and/or both of the two foregoing standards we are left only with Ms. Deska’s assessment of works by her comparison of artists. There she seeks to bolster one artist by demeaning another, thus ignoring the intrinsic worthiness of each work of art on its own merit. That appraisal technique of hers is reminiscent of chiding by little children who proclaim, in repetitive singsong fashion, “My bike looks better than your bike.”
Robert Rentzer
Robert–
I think the answer I gave to Anna’s comment will serve as the response to your comment. Art is a subjective thing and that is exactly as it should be. Who wants a world where art can be broken down and graded to an objective standard, where one set of criteria defines all?
As you pointed out, you can’t elevate the work of any artist by tearing down the work of any other. Nor can you define works of art by labels based on race, religion, or nationality. Labels narrow the expansive potential of any work of art.
Your grandfather’s work achieved whatever success it has because it spoke to a spectrum of different people. I know I was thrilled when I first came across it and still find pleasure and inspiration in it.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. It is appreciated.
All the best to you– Gary
Gary:
Thank you for your objective reply which said it all without my knee jerk reaction… although my comments remain equally valid.
Bob
Yes, they do.
Yes, that was a long answer, Anna.
The relative success of Hirshfield has nothing to do with the lack of recognition of any other artists. One has nothing to do with the other. Nikifor is not well known because Hirshfield has had a small bit of recognition. Each artist’s work stands on its own merits.
I myself am not concerned with the nationality, ethnicity, or religion of an artist. I don’t even care how an artist is classified, whether they are expressionists or naive or whatever. I only judge their work on my own subjective criteria which often comes down to how the work speaks to me on a gut, emotional level. Whether an artist is a Pole or Swedish or Jewish or Catholic or whatever the case might be, only serves to add context to the work for me. I don’t see art as a competition, don’t see the point of setting one artist against another. It is an impossibility as each artist’s work represents their own unique set of circumstances, their own individual voices.
Now, why some artists achieve recognition and some don’t is a difficult question. You talk about Nikifor but I have run across many wonderful artists from many nations around the world who will never get their due recognition in the museums of the world. It is not because of any conspiracy based on racial or ethnic lines. Sometimes, an artist’s work just never breaks out into the wider world, never finds someone who can promote their work in any meaningful way. They never get beyond their own small geographical corner of the world. This is very common, then and now, though the web is making work more available to a wider audience. And sometimes an artist just happens to come across someone who can successfully champion their work, can get it in front of groups of other people and make the work spread out through the world. But even then, the work has to have a strong voice and an validity that is universally evident to wider group of people.
You discount the validity of Hirshfield’s work. That is your subjective opinion. But you can’t write off whatever recognition he has achieved– which I believe is still not enough– due to his religion or nationality. Or because he doesn’t fit into some vague definition of what a naive painter should be. The work itself has earned any recognition with an appeal that transcends labels.
And if Nikifor’s work has that universal appeal it will one day achieve its own recognition.But not solely because he is a Pole or any other label that can be attached to he or his work.
I wish you well and hope you will find a wider audience for the work that you like. But please don’t try to elevate the work of Nikifor by trying to denigrate the work of any other artists. All the best–Gary
Dear Robert, I find Anna Durand Deska’s comments appalling and bordering with ant-Semitic. She often comments in my virtual gallery that is dedicated to the painters that were victims of the Holocaust, and there her comments are equally off-putting and bellicose.
Hi, Marina:
Thank your for taking the time to, once again, put this ill motivated and small minded individual in her place. Your statement of yesterday and observation of the suspected anti-Semitic motivations behind Deska’s comments here as well as to works of Holocaust victims such as those displayed in your virtual gallery evoked a thought. Those of us offended by such comments of hers can best receive and evaluate them if we paint a picture of our own, albeit mental not physical. That picture would be, at the conclusion of her commentary, to imagine her rising to stand before a mirror in self indulgent congratulatory satisfaction to what she authored, extending her right arm to neck height, straightening her hand so that it is parallel to the arm while concurrently clicking her heals together and uttering the opprobrious and malevolent phrase, “Sieg Heil.”
Robert (a Jew, and proud of it.)