Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:09:06.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modernism on Trial: C. Brancusi v. United States (1928)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Thomas L. Hartshorne
Thomas L. Hartshorne
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of History at Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44115. He wishes to thank Paul P. Rao, Chief Judge of the United States Customs Court in New York, and the Clerk of the court, Howard Basler, for making available to him the records in the case of C. Brancusi v. United States. He also wishes to thank John F. Kovacic, District Director of Customs in Cleveland, who allowed him to do the necessary research into the case records in his office.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We all know that the revolution in art – or the revolutions in the arts – that resulted in the emergence of what we loosely call “modernism” created a great deal of excitement and controversy. Noise and shouting filled the air. Critics opposed to the new currents saw in them the possibility of the destruction of everything noble in the Western tradition of the arts and perhaps even Western civilization itself. Defenders of the new ways were only slightly less acrimonious, if at all, and between the two there were continuing tumultuous and occasionally bitter arguments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , April 1986 , pp. 93 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Larkin, Oliver W., Art and Life in America (New York, 1949), p. 354Google Scholar.

2 Quoted in Rose, Barbara, American Art since 1900: A Critical History (New York, 1967), p. 113Google Scholar.

3 This sculpture has since been acquired by The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

4 New York Times, 24 February 1927. See Giedion-Welcker, Carola, Constantin Brancusi, trans. Jolas, Maria and Leroy, Anne (New York, 1959), pp. 212–16Google Scholar; Lewis, David, Constantin Brancusi (New York, 1957), pp. 23–24Google Scholar; Bulliet, C. J., Apples and Madonnas: Emotional Expression in Modern Art, 3rd edn. (New York, 1933), pp. 60–62Google Scholar; and F.W. (Forbes Watson), “Fresh Paint: The Curious Case of Constantin Brancusi,” The Arts, 13 (05 1928), 327–28Google Scholar, for brief accounts of the case.

5 New York Times (22 October 1927).

6 United States v. Olivotti and Company. Treasury Decisions, 30, no. 36309.

7 Baur, John I. H., Revolution and Tradition in Modern American Art (Cambridge, 1951), p. 12Google Scholar.

8 Taft, Lorado, The Appreciation of Sculpture (Chicago, 1927), pp. 26–27Google Scholar. The following works are representative expressions of the traditionalist view in the 1920s. Barnes, Albert C., The Art in Painting (Merion, Pa., 1925)Google Scholar; Cortissoz, Royal, Art and Common Sense (New York, 1913)Google Scholar and American Artists (New York, 1923)Google Scholar; Langfield, Herbert Sidney, The Aesthetic Attitude (New York, 1920)Google Scholar; Marshall, Henry Rutgers, Aesthetic Principles (New York, 1895)Google Scholar and Pain, Pleasure, and Aesthetics: An Essay Concerning the Psychology of Pain and Pleasure, with Special Reference to Aesthetics (New York, 1894)Google Scholar; Mather, Frank Jewett Jr, Morey, Charles Rufus, and Henderson, William James, The American Spirit in Art (New Haven, 1927)Google Scholar; Mullen, Mary, An Approach to Art (Merion, Pa., 1923)Google Scholar; Raymond, George Lansing, Art in Theory: An Introduction to the Study of Comparative Aesthetics, 2nd ed., (New York, 1909)Google Scholar; Ruckstull, F. W., Great Works of Art and What Makes Them Great (New York, 1925)Google Scholar; Santayana, George, The Sense of Beauty, Being the Outlines of Aesthetic Theory (New York, 1896)Google Scholar; Taft, Lorado, The Appreciation of Sculpture (Chicago, 1927)Google Scholar and Modern Tendencies in Sculpture (Chicago, 1921)Google Scholar.

9 The following account of the case is taken from the official typescript records. They Consist of the following material: a deposition by Brancusi, verbatim records of the two hearings in the case, briefs in argument by the government and the plaintiff, and an additional memorandum in behalf of the plaintiff. The decision is printed in the United States Treasury Decisions, 54, no. 43063 and reprinted in “Fresh Paint: A Just Decision,” The Arts, 14 (12 1928), 337–38Google Scholar.

10 Epstein, Jacob, Epstein, an Autobiography (New York, 1955), p. 132Google Scholar.

11 Bell, Clive, Art (London, 1913)Google Scholar; Fry, Roger, Vision and Design (London, 1920)Google Scholar; Croce, Benedetto, Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic, trans. Ainslie, Douglas, 2nd edn., (New York, 1922)Google Scholar and Guide to Aesthetics, trans. Roanell, Patrick (New York, 1913)Google Scholar.

12 Cheyney, Sheldon, A Primer of Modern Art (New York, 1924), pp. 166–67Google Scholar.

13 Parker, DeWitt H., The Analysis of Art (New Haven, 1926)Google Scholar and The Principles of Aesthetics (New York, 1920)Google Scholar.

14 Parker, , Analysis, p. 93Google Scholar.

15 Giedion-Welcker, , Constantin Brancusi, p. 216Google Scholar.