From The Archives Of Edward Hopper's Art World Before He Was Edward Hopper

From The Archives Of Edward Hopper's Art World Before He Was Edward Hopper -Once Again In Defense Of Art Critic Laura Perkins

By Eric Saint James

This will not be an expose of one Clarence Dewar, art critic, oops make that professional art critic for Art Today as I have had to do on two previous occasions when he slung mud at a fellow art critic, an amateur art critic as Laura Perkins proudly calls herself.  I will be defending Ms. Perkins against Dewar’s latest tirade but at least this time despite his contemptuous attitude toward Ms. Perkins and so-called amateur art critics in general it is a matter of legitimate controversy around the nature of the artwork of one Edward Hopper one of the most beloved and saleable artists of the 20^th century.          

For those who need the slightest background to all of what well-known art critic, also professional, Sam Lowell has on many occasions and under many circumstances called the art world’s tempests in teapots here is a short summary.

Recently I had to go down in the mud twice with one Clarence Dewar, art critic, I love to say this, professional art critic for Art Today to “save the honor” of amateur art critic Laura Perkins when he cut her with the remark that she should take up crocheting or some such silly sport and leave the heavy lifting criticism to the big boys and girls, basically him. I made a few pithy remarks about knowing him and his ilk back in the day and that I knew where the bodies were buried. If some snooty snide words from me are all Clarence has had to endure in his seedy baggy pants little life he has gotten off pretty easy.      

In those commentaries I challenged Clarence to come at me with his two-bit noise and back off from Laura Perkins. Well, as expected he has yet to said peep one about my slashings but he nevertheless decided to take on a “soft” target first by pointing out a very common mistake about the modern artist Franz Golder placing his exquisite work back to the time of his Dutch and Flemish forebears. I had to ruffle his feathers on that one with my knowledge that he had claimed somebody from the 16^th century Van Brick school had painted from nature when that was impossible given that the flowers painted bloomed at different times of the year (and I subsequently learned that half the flowers were not   survivable in Netherland’s weather).

Despite my warning that I would expose his little two-bit shady back alley Dewar went back on the case with Laura over her commentary about the late 19^th century German artist Frieda Kane (the sister of Gustav Klimt, or maybe step-sister). Ms. Perkins made what seemed to me the unremarkable but astute comment that Ms. Kane in her attempts to connect with common culture, peasant culture at least as it existed in Germany tended to spend too much effort on rural landscapes and fauna and flora. She seemed kind of repetitive and imitative despite the welcome uncovering of her work. Clarence had a fit, went crazy saying that Ms. Kane was breathe of fresh air in the overstuffed urban-oriented and urban critical German (and Austrian) art world.          

What Clarence probably did not count on and Ms. Perkins I assume was unaware of was the real motivation for Mr. Dewar’s brittle if fervent defense of Ms. Kane’s output. That brings use directly to the nub of the problem. The role, the perfidious role of the art gallery owners. The wormy art gallery owners are strictly in the business of moving artworks and making kale, nothing else really. They have unbelievable influence on art buyers by their hungry huntings for new works to “discover.” That was the case with Larry Larsen at the Nova Galleries in New York City. Along the way Larry “discovered” Freida Kane and grabbed a bunch of her paintings at a decent price in order to make a killing. Whether art good or bad should be treated as a commodity like steel or rubber balls I won’t go into right now.      

Enter Clarence Dewar, oh yeah, profession art critic and general shill for whoever had enough dough to whet his degenerate appetite for cocaine I believe it is these days. Clarence started in the old days working his ass off, pedaling it really, for professional art critic Clement Greenberg when he was touting, successfully touting for a while abstract expressionism. I will admit Clement really did make the market for that genre, pushed more now dissolving or discarded high-priced works, including everything Jackson Pollack ever produced, than anybody. This is how it works though for professional art critics for glossy art publications who get paid starvation money to grind out their pablum.

Enter art gallery owners and in Clarence’s case Larry Larsen. To make some money and get invited to various gala events almost every art critic “sells” him or herself to some gallery owner to act as a press agent, a flak-catcher if necessary. To push the merchandise really, especially the overstocked stuff like most of Freida Kane’s which despite a big gala and fanfare including the inevitable glowing article by Dewar did not, has not sold well. Hence Clarence’s tirade and insults against Ms. Perkins who is only stating the obvious and commenting on what the least discerning collectors know- Kane’s stuff is boring.   

The latest from Dewar, who still carries water among New York art gallery owners and their circles although I don’t know why but which means something in the art world is a five thousand word “essay” in Art Today about how wrong Ms. Perkins was in her estimation of angst and alienation in Mr. Hopper’s work. What got Clarence’s hackles up was the statement she made that no matter how desolate his flower and building non-human work was that seemed positively giddy (my word not hers) compared to the monotone faces of those who graced his people-centered works. Clarence totally flipped out when Laura provided documentation from Hopper’s own mentor, William Merritt Chase, that he had flunked the “faces” class and probably never would do more than less than average on human faces.        

Like I said this question is legitimately the subject of debate in the art world, and beyond and so no expose of Dewar’s handling of some Hopper works for the New Dawn Gallery (since gone under) is necessary to cut off his legs. That despite his cruel and abusive language about Ms. Perkins lacking any insight in Hopper’s extraordinary sense of the modern world, of that angst and alienation that he learned by rote at the feet of one Clement Greenberg when that gentleman was riding high in the art world. Enough said except for the new obligatory “hands off” Clarence or you will find that one Sam Lowell knows something about you that should make you a piranha in the New York art world.