Skip to main content

Full text of "The cubist epoch"

See other formats

Douglas Cooper 


T H li 

I] P C H 

Los Angeles County Museum of Art & The Metropolitan Museum of Art 

T II 1] 
(] IJ K I S T 
E 1» C H 

Douglas Cooper 

Phaidon (J) in association with 

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art & 
The Metropohtan Museum of Art 



~i rii 


I] P C II 









ISBN O 8758 7041 4 




True Cubism 


The Cubist Movement in Paris 


The Influence of Cubism 
Outside France 

1906-1912 17 

Early Cubism: Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, 1906-7 17 

Early Cubism in relation to Fauvism 25 

Braque's Nude, 1907-8 27 

Developments in Picasso's Painting, 1907-9 30 

Developments in Braque's Painting, 1908-9 37 
From Early to High Cubism: The Painting ot Braque 

and Picasso, 1 909-12 42 

Summary 60 

1906-1914 65 

Derain, 1906-10 65 

Le Faucormier, Gleizes and Metzinger, 1910-14 68 

Delaunay, 1910-14 78 

Leger, 1909-14 85 

The Movement Gathers Momentum, 1911-14 97 

Types of Cubism 107 

The PuteaiLX Group and the Section d'Or, 1911-13 112 

Villon, Duchamp and Picabia, 1911-13 115 
Lesser Painters of the Cubist Movement, 1911-13 : 
de Segonzac, Moreau, Marchand, Lhote, Herbin, Rivera, 

Ferat, Chagall, Marcoussis and de La Fresnaye 127 

In Holland: Mondrian 137 

In Germany: Marc, Macke, Campendonk, Klee and Feininger 142 
In Czechoslovakia: Filla, Kubista, Prochazka, Benes, 
Gutfreund and Capek 150 

In Russia: Gontcharova, Larionov, Malevich, Tathn, 
Popova and Udaltsova 156 

In Italy: The Futurists 164 

American Artists in New York and Paris : 

Weber, Marin, Stella, MacDonald- Wright, Russell and Bruce 175 
In England : The Vorticists i So 


Late Cubism 


Braque and Picasso : Pasted Papers and Paintings, 

Summer 1912 to Summer 1914 

Juan Gris: Paintings and Pasted Papers, 191 2-1 4 

Cubism in Paris during the War Years 

Picasso: Painting 1914-21 

Braque: Painting 191 7-2 1 

Juan Gris: Paintirfg 1915-21 



Cubist Sculpture 


Picasso, de La Fresnaye, Czaky and Filla 

Duchamp- Villon and Archipenko 

Boccioni and Weber 


Lipchitz, Gris, Laurens and Braque 


Artists and Their Dates 

Check List 






Photo Credits 


More than thirty years have passed since Alfred Barr presented the broad panorama of Cubism and 
abstract art to the American pubhc. Since that time there have been innumerable exhibitions of individual 
Cubist artists and of special aspects of Cubism. There has, however, been no exhibition which presented 
Cubism as an historic style, detming its aesthetic goals, its genesis and development, and its diffusion as 
far afield as Russia and the United States. The time is appropriate for such an exhibition. It is now possible 
to look upon Cubism with the historic perspective of a half century, and yet many of the artists, dealers, 
writers and collectors who created and furthered the development of Cubism are still alive to act as 
primary docmnentary sources. Douglas Cooper is one of these — an apologist for Cubism for some 
decades, a distinguished collector, a close personal friend of Picasso, Braque and Leger. He has published 
monographs on each of these artists, in which he often records his personal experiences with them and 
his inuncdiate reaction to their works as they were being created. During the past twenty years he has 
prepared exhibitions of Picasso, Braque and Gris for museums in England, France, Germany, Switzerland 
and the United States. Douglas Cooper was therefore chosen as Guest Director to bring together from 
the collections of Europe and America Cubist paintings, sculpture, drawings and prints to present a 
vivid compendium of Cubism as an historic and aesthetic achievement — an achievement which trans- 
formed the visual world of the twentieth century. 

JVLr. Cooper was able to organize this exhibition only with the extraordinary help provided by those 
whose names are listed below. Both he and we would like to express our special gratitude to them. 

The late Lester Avnet, New York; Leigh and Mary Block, Chicago, 111. ; Mrs. Sidney Brody, Los Angeles, 
Cal.; Charles Buckley, Director, City Art Museum of St. Louis, St. Louis, Mo.; Dott. Giovanni 
Carandente, Rome; Mrs. Riva Castleman, Asst. Curator, Dept. of Drawings and Prints, The Museum 
of Modern Art, New York; George Cheston, President, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Pa.; 
George Costakis, Moscow; Edward Fry, Chief Curator, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 
New York; Prof Theodore Heinrich, Toronto, Canada; Dr. Jan Heyligcrs, Holland; Harold Joacliim, 
Director, Dept. of Drawings and Prints, The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, 111.; Miss Eila Kokkinen, 
Asst. Curator, Dept. of Paintings and Sculpture, The Museum of Modern Art, New York ; Prof Dr. Jin 
Kotalik, Director, Narodni Galerie, Prague; Claude Laurens, Paris; Jean Leymarie, Director, Musee 
National d'Art Moderne, Paris; William S. Liebcrman, Director of Painting and Sculpture, The Museum 
of Modern Art, New York; Dr. Thomas M. Messer, Director, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Musetmi, 
New York; Dr. Franz Meyer, Director, Kunstmuseum Basel, Basel; Dr. R. W. D. Oxenaar, Director, 
Rijksmuscuni KroUer-Miiller, Otterlo; William S. Paley, President, The Museum of Modern Art, 
New York; Dr. Olga Pujmanova, Narodni Galerie, Prague; Mrs. Barbara Roberts, Norton Simon, 
Inc. Museum of Art, Los Angeles, Cal.; Mrs. Bernice Rose, Asst. Curator, Dept. of Prints and Drawings, 
The Museum of Modern Art, New York ; Prof. Dott. Franco Russoli, Chief Curator, Pinacoteca del 
Brera, Milan; Dr. Werner Sclimalenbach, Director, Kunstsamndung Nordrhein-Wcstfalcn, Diisseldorf; 
Mr. and Mrs. Taft Schreiber, Los Angeles, Cal. ; Dr. Jifi Setlik, Director, Decorative Arts Museum, Prague; 
Norton Simon, Los Angeles, Cal. ; Gordon M. Smith, Director, Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, N.Y. ; 
A. James Speycr, Curator of 20th Century Art, The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, 111.; Dr. Evan 


H. Turner, Director, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Pa.; Dr. Herschel Carey Walker, 
New York; Mahonri Sharp Young, Director, The Columbus Gallery of Fine Arts, Colimibus, O. 

We should also hke to express our appreciation to the following museum directors and curators, collectors 
and dealers whose loans of works of art and contributions of time have been indispensable: 
Leon Arkus, Director, Carnegie Institute, Pittsburg, Pa.; Georges Bauquier, Direaor, Musee Femand 
Leger, Biot; Jacob Bean, Curator of Drawings, The Metropohtan Museum of Art; Galerie Beyeler, Basel; 
J. Carter Brown, Director, National Galler\-, Washington, D. C; Dr. Richard F. Bro^\-n, Director, 
Kimbell Art Foundation, Fort Worth, Tex.; Robert T. Buck, Jr., Director, Washington University 
Gallery of Art, St. Louis, Mo. ; Charles E. Buckley, Director, Cir\- Art Museiun of St. Louis, St. Louis, Mo. ; 
Bernard Ceysson, Direaor, Musee d'Art & d'Industrie, Ville de St. Etietme; Anthony M. Clark, Director, 
Minneapolis Institute of Art, Minneapolis, Minn.; MUe. Bemadene Contensou, Assistant Curator, 
Musee d'Art Modeme de la Ville de Paris ; Charles C. Cunningham, Director, The Art Institute of Chicago, 
Chicago, 111.; Edward H. Dwight, Director, Munson-WiUiams-Proctor Institute, Utica, N. Y. ; Eric 
Estorick, London; A-liss Ebria Feinblatt. Curator of Prints and Drawings, Los Angeles Counrs" Museuni 
of Art; H. J. Fischer, Marlborough Gallerv-, London; Martin L. Friedman, Director, Walker Art Center, 
Minneapohs, Minn. ; Henr^' Geldzahler, Ciurator of Twentieth Century- Art, The Metropohtan Museum 
of Art; Mrs. Dalzell Hatfield, Los Angeles; John Hightower, Director, The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York; Joseph Flirshhom, New York; Heruy T. Hopkins, Director, Fort Worth Art Center Museum, 
Fort Worth, Tex.; Dr. Pontus Hiolten, Modema Museet, Stockholm; Leonard Hutton, New York; 
Sidney Janis, New York; Dr. Beatrice Jansen, Director a.i., Haags Gemeentemuseum, The Hague; 
Dr. Ellen Joosten, Asst. Director, Bajksmuseum Kroller-Miiller, Otterlo; Dr. Sherman E. Lee, Director, 
Cleveland Art Museum, Clevaland, O. ; John Palmer Leeper, Director, Marion Koogler McNay Institute, 
San Antonio, Tex.; Louise Leiris, Paris; Galleria del Levante, Milan; Marlborough Gallers-, Inc., New 
York; Klaus Perls, New York; Dott. Mercedes Precerutti-Garberi. Comune di Milano, Milan; 
Dr. Andre\\- C. Ritchie, Director, Yale University- Art Galler>% New Haven, Conn.; Daniel Robbins, 
Director, Rhode Island School of Design, Pro-\adence, R. I.; Alexandre Rosenberg, New York; Daniel 
and Eleanore Saidenberg, New York; Thomas G. Terbell, Director, Pasadena Art Museimi, Pasadena, 
Cal.; E. V. Thaw, New York; Jane Wade, New York; Dr. Hugo Wagner, Kunstmuseum, Bern; 
Dr. Rene Wehrli, Director, Kunsthaus, Ziirich; Dr. James White, Director, National Gallery' of 
Ireland, Dublin; Dr. E. L. L. de Wdde, Director, Stedelijk Musemn, Amsterdam. 

We should hke to cite the members of our own statfs who have supported Mr. Cooper \sith the sustained 
enthusiasm and cliort necessary- to bring the exhibition into being : Theodore Rousseau, Curator in Chiet, 
and Ashton Hawkins, Secretary of The Metropohtan Museum of Art, and Mrs. Da\-id Duque of the 
Los Angeles County Museum of Art, who has been, from its inception, head ot the Cubist Secretariat. 

Kenneth Donahue Thomas P. F. Hoving 

Director, Los Angeles Counts- Museum of Art Director, The Metropohtan Museum of Art 



E P (] II 


Between 1425 and 1450 artists throughout Europe — 
Masaccio, FiHppo Lippi and Donatello in Italy, Fouquet 
and the Aix Master in France, the van Eycks in Flanders, 
Konrad Witz in Switzerland, and Stefan Lochner in 
Germany — abandoned the medieval way of representing 
reality, by means of experiential conceptions, and began 
to rely instead on visual perception, one-point perspective 
and natural light. In other words, these Renaissance artists 
opted out of recording that fuller truth about reality 
which is known to the human mind in favour of recording 
only what the eye sees of things, incomplete and deceptive 
though this may often be. And for some four hundred 
and fifty years European artists followed this same prin- 
ciple until, coming to the end of its pictorial possibihties. 
Cubism was invented to replace it. Now Cubism 
involved a return to the earlier conceptual principle, 
insofar as the artist assumed the right to fill gaps in our 
seeing, and to make pictures whose reality would be 
independent of, but no less valid than, our visual impressions 
of reality, and was thus styhstically the antithesis of 
Renaissance art. Yet there is a parallel between them, for 
both styles were initiated by a few artists, spread quickly 
throughout the western world and became the starting- 
point of a new and more modern art. 

Cubism originated in Paris between 1906 and 1908 and 
was the creation of Picasso and Braque, a Spaniard and 
a Frenchman. Within four years, however, the pictorial 
Plate 1 methods and technical innovations of these two young 

Pablo Picasso painters had been seized on by other artists — in France, 

Still Life on a Table in Front of an Germany, Holland, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Russia, America 

Open Window, 1920 and, to a much lesser degree, in England — who either 

Oil, 641/2 >' 43 m. imitated them or tried to transform them by imaginative 

No. 255 efforts into new types of artistic expression. A knowledge 



of Cubist methods and possibilities spread rapidly, and 
by this means Cubism played some part in the technical 
experiments and srs^hstic adventures which constitute 
virtually all the avant-garde developments in western art 
between 1909 and 1914. But there is more to it than 
that. For the influence of Cubism, though greatly 
diminished after 1925, certainly continued to affect the 
pictorial methods of most major artists tintil about 1940, 
when in turn it was supplanted by artistic conceptions 
of a wholly opposite order. As a result, Cubism has 
proved to be probably the most potent generative force 
in twentieth-cenmr}- art and has transformed our western 
ideas concerning the purpose and possibihties of pictorial 

Any discussion of Cubist painting must begin by clearly 
estabhshing the distinction between 'true' Cubism, that is 
to say the work of Picasso and Braque, the creators, 
as weU as of Gris who joined them later, and the derivatives 
of Cubism practiced by its many Parisian and foreign 
adherents. For Picasso, Braque and Gris are the only three 
artists of whom it can be said that the)' used the idiom 
in a pure, unsystematic way. Leger came near to being 
a 'true' Cubist for a while, but he does not finaUy qualify 
as such because his pictorial purposes were too different 
from those of the creators. The rest of the many dependents 
fall into three groups : 

a. those who 'cubified' as a mannerism, 

b. a few who tried to make a scientific method out 
of Cubism, and 

c. a greater number who used and transformed 
Cubism to achieve other (not always reconcilable) 
pictorial ends. 

Introduction 13 

Next it is necessary to establish a terminology which will 
meaningfully cover not only the painting of the 'true' 
Cubists but also the many derivatives of Cubism produced 
during the Cubist Epoch (1907-21). It seems to me that, 
in this respect, the currently accepted division of Cubism 
into phases labeled "analytic,' 'hermetic,' 's\Tithetic,' and 
'rococo' is largely meaningless, since these words apply 
exclusively to sr)-hstic methods — often found together 
in a single work — used by only certain artists and having 
no general apphcation, and also because they cannot be 
properly defined. With today's hindsight, I see an extensive 
movement growing up around 'true' Cubism, developing 
and changing fast, and then falling apart. Therefore, to 
my mind, the divisions which count are historical rather 
than sr\'hstic and may be said even to cut across the 
styhstic phases. For that reason I prefer to borrow the 
terminology which is generahy used in discussing the 
evolution of Renaissance art, that is to say 'early,' 'high,' 
and 'late.' The 'early' phase of Cubism, as I see it, runs 
from the end of 1906 till the summer of 19 10: it was a 
period of necessary experiment by Picasso and Braque 
alone and led to their tirst major achievements before 
any Cubist movement had started. The period of 'high' 
Cubism which followed was shorter, lasting only two 
years, from the summer of 1910 till the whiter of 1912. 

This was, however, a momentous and very active period, 
during which Picasso and Braque developed 'true' Cubism 
to its purest and fullest expression, Juan Oris painted his 
first Cubist pictures, and the new sr\'le attracted adherents 
on a widespread scale. A Cubist school, including Leger, 
made its first appearance in Paris at the Salon d'Automne 
of 1910, followed by further demonstrations with growing 
numbers of adherents at the Salons des Independants and 

1 4 Iiitrodticrioii 

Salons d'Automne of 191 1 and 1912. Paintings by Braque, 
Picasso, Gris and several other artists of the Cubist school 
were presented at exhibitions in Diisseldorf, Munich, 
Moscow, New York, Berlin, Brussels, Amsterdam, 
Budapest, Barcelona, Cologne and Prague, that is to say 
in major cities where Cubism was appreciated. The 
Futurist movement, which in 1911-12 drew on Cubist 
inventions, burst out of Milan and spread its influence 
widely through the capitals of Europe. The Neue Kiinstler- 
vereinigung and Blaue Reiter groups formed in Mimich 
and included Cubist paintings in their exhibitions. The 
Section d'Or was organized as a comprehensive Cubist 
manifestation in Paris, "svhere Orphism was also launched. 
Mondrian, Popova and Udaltsova came imder Cubist 
influence in Paris, as did Malevich in Moscow, where 
Larionov and Gontcharova also borrowed from Cubism 
m the creation of Rayonnism. And lastly, in 191 1, a 
group of painters in Czechoslovakia began to ^^■ork under 
Cubist influence. In other words, this was the phase ot 
Cubism's maturit)' and greatest expansion during which 
it dominated the contemporar)- artistic scene and appeared 
likely to develop into an international st}-le. 

No sooner had the movement begun to gather this 
momentum, however, than it started to disintegrate 
because of intemal conflicts of personaHties and fimda- 
mental divergences of aim which the outbreak of war 
in August 1 9 14 left no time to reconcile. Thus dtuing 
the 'late' phase of Cubism, whose beginning can be 
situated at the end of 1912 when Picasso and Braque, 
having found the technique ofpapiers coUes (pasted papers), 
developed out of it a 's)-nthetic' st)-le, the attendant 
movements and groups progressively broke away, pursued 
other courses and eventually faded out. Leger, for example, 

Introduction 15 

began to pursue an independent line of development. 
Delaunay, Mondrian, Kupka and Malevitch passed beyond 
Cubism into various forms of abstract art. The Futurist 
movement becaine more concerned with politics than 
art and gradually petered out. Duchamp and Picabia put 
Cubism behind them and produced the first Dada works. 
Larionov and Gontcharova dropped Rayomiism to 
become stage-designers for Diaghilew. The Cubist move- 
ment gained no new adherents apart from sculptors such 
as Laurens and Lipchitz. And finally the Cubist groups 
in Paris were dispersed by the declaration of war, when 
most of the artists were mobiHzed, some left France, and 
the majority were to be prevented from working seriously 
for the next four years. 

But this is not the end of the story. From 19 14 to 1921 
there was also an Aftermath of Cubism. For during the 
war years Picasso and Oris who, as Spaniards, were not 
subject to mobilization, were able to continue working 
without interruption and in their hands the language of 
'true' Cubism was not only enriched but made suppler, 
increasingly personal and capable of more monumental 
achievements. Moreover, in 1917-18, when he was 
demobilized, Braque, unlike virtually all the pre-war 
adherents of the movement, returned to the Cubist idiom 
and proceeded to evolve for himself a freer, more poetic 
language. Thus the 'late' phase of Cubism is marked 
as well by triumphant developments on the part of the 
three major artists concerned, and not only is their work of 
these years a logical progression from, even a summation of, 
all that had gone before but was to be responsible for keeping 
the spirit of Cubism alive as an active force for several 
more years. As soon as the war ended, however, a reaction 
against the discipline and fragmentation of Cubism was 

1 6 Introdi 


proclaimed by the Purists, the Dadaists and the Surrealists, 
all of whom incidentally were able to take advantage 
of Cubist inventions to achieve quite opposite purposes 
of their o\\'n. Nor must we forget that from 191 5 on 
Picasso had developed a collateral interest and by 1919 
was actively testing the pictorial 'reahty' achieved by 
Cubism against that of the naturalistic idiom, while by 
the end of 1920 both Braque and Gris had begun to 
develop 'classicizing' tendencies within their hitherto 
strictly Cubist idiom. It is therefore not unjustified to take 
Picasso's masterpiece Three Musicians, painted in the 
summer of 1921, in which both spithetic cubist and 
naturalistic currents meet, as marking the end of the 
Cubist Epoch, which had been initiated by that revolu- 
tionary painting now known as Les Demoiselles d' Avignon. 


True Cubism 
1906— 19 1 2 

Early Cubism : 

Les Demoiselles 
d' Avignon, 1906-7 

Two short but striking statements will provide a good 
jumping-off point for this study of Cubism. The first 
is the opening sentence of the volume Ciihisin by Gleizes 
and Metzinger, written in the winter of 191 1, which 
reads: 'To evaluate the significance of Cubism we must 
go back to Gustave Courbet.' The second, written about 
a year later by Guillaumc Apolhnaire, occurs in his book 
The Cubist Painters published in 191 3: 'Cezanne's last 
paintings and his watercolors appertain to Cubism, but 
Courbet is the father of the new painters.' The link thus 
established between Realism and Cubism may seem 
surprising, but these two quotations signify that at the 
time the artists as well as the critics saw a chain of evolution 
which led directly from Courbet to Cezanne and on to 
Cubism. To find out what they meant we must look 
back over French painting since 1850 with the eyes of 1910. 

What did the so-called Realism in Courbet's painting 
consist of ? Essentially it is nothing more than his matter- 
of-fact approach, his refusal to make concessions to 
abstract ideals of beauty, subject or form, and his con- 
centration on the solid tangible reality ot things. However, 
this rational, down-to-earth aesthetic disappeared with 
Courbet, for although the Impressionists kept alive the 
spirit of naturalism, they were so fascinated by the 
sparkhng tonal nuances which their eyes perceived in 
nature that they lost sight of the solider aspects of reality. 
With Impressionism, the Renaissance tradition reached 
its limit : illusionism could be carried no further and there 
remained no other possible subject for painting except 
light. But many artists could not accept that the image 
of man should be dissolved in a tissue of color and the 
post-Impressionist reaction reasserted the need for a 
picture to have both a supporting formal structure and 

i8 True Cubism: igo6-i2 

a human content. Now these post-Impressionists had 
learned from the work of their predecessors that color was 
an ambivalent element, which contributed actively to 
producing an illusion of reality but could also function 
independently. So from 1880 on, artists like Seurat, 
Gausuin, Van Goo;h and the Nabis had refused to 
recognize the eye as the sole instrument of understandmg, 
had made it subservient to the imagination, reduced the 
descriptive role of color and begun to explore its structural 
as well as its innate expressive and symbolical possibihties. 
It is therefore fair to say that by 1890 painters were 
generally more concerned with expressing an Idea than 
with trying to represent the world around them. And this 
colorist school burst out into a glorious but final blaze 
when the Fauves appeared on the scene soon after 1900. 
Only Cezanne, working in solitude, had remained 
unaffected by these successive changes. 

For almost forty years (i 870-1907) French painters had 
allowed themselves to be so absorbed in considerations 
of a subjective nature that they had lost sight of that 
soHd tangible reality with which Courbet had been 
concerned. A reaction against this over-indulgence in 
color and its concomitant cult of the immaterial was 
bound to follow, more especially since the hope was 
widespread that the new century would produce a vital 
new art. And so it did under the 'realistic impulse' which 
inspired the creation of Cubism. 

But Cubism went further than a mere revulsion against 
color to achieve its revolutionary purpose, for Picasso and 
Braque also upset what Gleizes and Metzinger called 'the 
worst visual conventions,' from which Courbet had not 
attempted to free himself. By this they simply meant that 

Early Cubism ig 

Courbet had subscribed to the Renaissance convention of 
naturahsm and perpetuated the eye-fooHng illusion of 
three-dimensional seeing. True, the artists who followed 
Courbet had greatly weakened the role of linear perspective 
and made the two-dimensional picture-surface more of 
a reality. But the pictorial devices they had used to 
achieve this flatness — tonal interplay, abrupt fore-shorten- 
ing, shifting perspectives — without sacrificing a sense of 
volume in space were at best temporary expedients. And 
it was not long before artists discovered that abandoning 
the device of one-point linear perspective led to pictorial 
incoherence, because it amounted to removing the keystone 
of the structure which held the illusion together. 

Gauguin had tried to find a way out through adopting 
a consciously primitive approach. For him. Naturalism 
in art was an 'abominable error' and he saw 'no salvation 
possible except through a reasoned and frank return to 
the begimiing' of art. But meanwhile Cczamie had 
labored silently to find a more comprehensive solution. 
He wanted to give equal value to the mind and to the 
eye, to the permanent side of reality and to the transient 
effect, to volume and to flatness, to light effects and to 
the structure of space : all this without indulging in eye- 
fooling illusionism. Cezanne's painting thus represented 
for Glcizes and Mctzinger what they called 'profound 
realism,' and it appeared to them as a bridge between 
Courbet and Cubism because they saw Cezanne too as 
having been concerned with the solid tangible aspect of 
things. Now because Cezanne had grown up among the 
Impressionists he envisaged liis pictorial solution essentially 
through color, that is to say he built up forms and volumes 
and evoked space with color alone, avoiding linear 
definition. But in order to reconcile his awareness of 

20 True Cubism: igo6-i2 

depth and roundness "wath his desire to preserve the 
flatness of the picture-surface as a reaHt}', Cezanne resorted 
to changes of perspective within the picture itself. Already 
the visible order ot nature ^vas beins; transformed bv the 
invented procedures of art. 

Among the immediate fore-runners of Cubism, Gauguin 
and Cezanne exerted the greatest influence on its tormation . 
Picasso can be absolved from ha\Tng ever subscribed to 
'the abominable error of naturahsm.' Admittedly he 
painted some scenes of Parisian life in a belated Impres- 
sionist idiom around 1900. But almost at once Picasso 
had turned awav from Impressionism and in his paintings 
of the 'blue period' it is the influence of Gauguin which 
emerges. These were years when the sr\"hstic inventions 
of the preceding generation were suddenly revealed in 
their fullness to older artists hke Matisse and Detain, 
as well as to voung artists hke Picasso and Braque, through 
exhibitions of Gauguin's work at the Salon d'Automne 
in 1903 and again in 1906, and of Cezanne's work at 
the same Salon in 1904 and again in 1907. Picasso prohted 
greatly by all he saw and modified his st)de of painting 
accordinglv. Here \^"e are immediately concerned ^^"ith 
what occurred in the ■svdnter of 1906-7 when Picasso's 
previously severely flattened but emotionally charged 
hmnan figures became more massive, sculptural, quasi- 
archaic and impassive in appearance. The debt to Gauguin 
still remains partly visible in Picasso's handling of space, 
but these figures reveal above all that, through Gauguin's 
leap backward 'to the beginning' of art, Picasso had been 
led to discover and learn from the more primitive, less 
naturalisticaUv subservient art of ancient Mediterranean 
civilizations, of early Greek art and of Eg}-ptian art of the 
fourth and fifth dynasties. 


Pablo Picasso, Les Demoiselles d'Auigiicn, 1907 
Oil, 96 X 92 in. 

No. 226 

Picasso was to carry this 'primitivizing' tendency much 
Pi. 2 further in Lei Demoiselles d'Avigiioii, a composition on 
which he embarked at the end of 1906 and which began 
as a scene in a brothel with allegorical undertones, 
seemingly inspired by such paintings of Cezanne as 
La Teiitatiofi de St. Aiitoiue or Uii Apres-Midi a Xaplcs. 
But in the six months that elapsed between the hrst 
sketches and that moment in the spring of 1907 when 
Picasso eventually allowed a few friends to look at his 
large new painting, a violent transformation had occurred. 

Plate 3 

Henry Matisse 

The Blue Nude, 1907 

Oil, 351/4 < 441/8 in. 

The Baltimore Museum of Art, 
Baltimore, Md. 
Cone Collection. 

There was no longer any trace of allegory, and though 
there were reminders of Cezanne in the poses of the 
figures, Picasso had flattened and simplified them aggres- 
sively, given them sharp contours, compressed them into 
a very shallow pictorial space and disregarded the consistent 
radiation of light. 

The prime importance of the Demoiselles is the aggressive 
break that it represented with all other painting of the 
time. In his simplifications and wholly new treatment of 
space, which is suggested without either perspectival or 
coloristic logic, Picasso had gone far beyond Cezanne and 
Gauguin, not to speak of comparable works such as 
Derain's sub-Cezannesque Bathers of 1906 or Matisse's still 
Pi. 3 largely naturahstic Blue Nude of early 1907. Here, for the 
first time, Picasso abandoned a perceptual for a conceptual 
way of representing things and de-personalized his 
figures by giving them mask-like faces and treating them 
in generalized terms. It is not easy to appreciate or judge 
the angular and aggressive Demoiselles as a work of art 
today because it was abandoned as a transitional and 
often re-worked canvas, with many stylistic contradictions 
imresolved. Indeed all that remains of the canvas in its 
first state would seem to be the two central figures, 
though even their faces were probably re-worked. For, 
Andre Salmon, writing in 1912, describes how when he 
first saw the picture 'there was neither tragedy nor passion 
expressed in the faces,' whereas soon after most of these 
had been given 'profile noses in the form of isosceles 

Early Cubism 


triangles on a full-face view,' while Picasso had added 
'touches of blue and yellow ... to give rehef to some 
of the bodies.' Thus the Demoiselles is best regarded as 
a major event in the history of modern painting, where 
Picasso posed many of the problems and revealed many 
of the ideas which were to preoccupy him for the next 
three years. In short, it is an invaluable lexicon for the 
early phase of Cubism. 

* In the collections of the Trocadero 
Museum, as well as through Matisse 
and Derain who owned many Negro 

The Egyptian influence is quite marked in the Demoiselles, 
both in the pinch-waisted figures and in the low-rehef treat- 
ment of the whole picture. Picasso himself has stated that 
another considerable 'primitivizing' influence was second- 
century Iberian art, an unrefined derivative of early Greek 
sculpture, of which he had seen several examples in the 
Louvre. But even these two forms of art do not account 
for all that was new in the Demoiselles because while 
he was still at work on the picture, in the spring of 1907, 
Picasso became acquainted with yet another primitive 
idiom* — Negro sculpture — and repainted the two heads 
on the right and a third on the left under that impact. 
This led him to inject an element of fierceness into an 
otherwise emotionally detached composition. These three 
heads are strongly modeled by contrast with the others; 
the body of the upper nude on the right is faceted as 
though it had been hacked with an axe; and Picasso has 
used heavy shadows to create relief. Moreover, he has 
activated the space around them with short planes tilted 
at angles to the surface of the canvas. But outside of 
these various contemporary and foreign influences, we 
are confronted above all in the Demoiselles with evidence 
of Picasso's own inventive genius, which has brought 
them together and wrung out of them the beginnings 
of a new, highly personal manner of representing reahty. 

Plate 4 

Pablo Picasso 

Still Life with a Skull, 1907 

Oil, 451/4 X 345/8 in. 

No. 227 

The Demoiselles is generally referred to as the first Cubist 
picture. This is an exaggeration, for although it was a 
major first step towards Cubism it is not yet Cubist. 
The disruptive, expressionist element in it is even contrary 
to the spirit of Cubism, which looked at the world in 
a detached, reaUstic spirit. Nevertheless, the Demoiselles 
is the logical picture to take as a starting-point for Cubism, 
because it marks the birth of a new pictorial idiom, 
because in it Picasso violently overturned established con- 
ventions and because all that followed grew out of it. 

PI 4 

Yet it was not the Cubist implications of the Demoiselles 
that Picasso was to pursue immediately after abandoning it 
in the fall of 1 907. First he experimented, under the combined 
influences of Cezarme and Matisse (whom he had met in the 
winter of 1906), with bright color and an emphatic hnear 
structure, as in the Still Life with a Skull. Here the composi- 

Early Cubism and Fauvism 


tion is based on broad planes of color — red, pink, blue 
and green; the highly simplified forms are sometimes 
outUned in black and cast black shadows, while in other 
parts they are outlined in blue or green and cast colored 
shadows; and there is some bold faceting as well as 
arbitrariness in the spatial organization. Again, this is not 
really a Cubist picture. But neither is it a Fauve work, 
most particularly because color does not function as a 
transposition of light and plays no decorative role. We 
may, however, justly claim that it represents a link in 
the development of Cubism, because everything happens 
on a single plane and objects are piled up in such a way 
that a few lines of direction enable us to read space into 
the composition. 

Early Cubism in relation 
to Fauvism 

It has been claimed that Cubism grew out of Fauvism and 
was for a while indistinguishable from it. The argument 
rests not only on a painting like the Still Life with a Skull 
but on the additional fact that Braque, and various 
painters who subsequently took up Cubism, had previously 
belonged to the Fauve group, while other adherents had 
painted in the divisionist manner. No reasoning could be 
more false, since the two movements — like their protag- 
onists, Matisse and Picasso — were diametrically opposed, 
one being concerned with light and pleasurable sensations, 
the other with the solid tangible reality of things. 
Fauvism was the culmination of nineteenth-century paint- 
ing, being a synthesis of elements drawn from Impres- 
sionism, post-Impressionism, Neo-Impressionism, Gauguin, 
and Van Gogh, whereas Cubism involved a new vision 
and a new pictorial language. Indeed the development of 
Cubism went hand in hand with a complete revision by 
Picasso and Braque of the accepted ways of handling each 

26 True Cubism: igo6-i2 

of the pictorial elements — color, form, space, and light — 
and finally led to their substituting new procedures of 
their ovm.. Matisse's simplifications in the use of line and 
color were intended to increase the expressive and 
decorative effect of his picture. But when the tirst Cubists 
began simplifving forms and the color-structure, their aim 
was to represent things more hterally and to recapture the 
direct, unsophisticated approach to reaht}- of a primitive 
artist. Nor should one make the mistake of associating 
r\vo other major Fauve artists, Deram and Vlaminck, 
with the beginnings of Cubism, for neither exerted 
himself between 1907 and 1914 to shake oif an inherited 
tradition or to work towards the elaboration of a new 
pictorial language. Vlaminck, for example, was never able 
to transcend heav\^-handed imitations of Van Gogh and 
Matisse, while later he turned to a coarse form of cubifica- 
tion derived from Cezanne. Derain, on the other hand, 
had greater natural gifts as a painter. Yet even he never 
developed the 'primitivizing' devices, which he borrowed 
for a ^^•hile from Picasso, beyond the stage of superficial 
mannerisms and also relapsed quite soon into animcreative, 
Ph. 5$, 5p post-Cezannesque cubification. 

The origin of the confusion stems from the fact that the 
Fauve movement broke up while Picasso was working 
on the Demoiselles and that at the same time young French 
painters gave up trying to follow Matisse and fixed their 
attention, as had Picasso, on Cezamie. Undoubtedly, word 
went roimd the studios of Paris m the winter of 1907-8 
that Picasso was effecting a revolution in painting, but 
that told the yotmg artists nothing about Cubism. Nor 
could they learn anything from the handful of close 
friends who were privileged to see the Demoiselles in 
Picasso's studio, and it was never pubHcly exhibited. The 

Braque's Nude 27 

one artist who saw and quickly understood what Picasso 
had achieved in the Demoiselles was Georges Braque, who 
was brought to Picasso's studio by Guillaume ApoUinaire 
in the late fall of 1907. The effect on Braque was to make 
him renounce Fauvism and decide to follow Picasso's lead, 
from which time the early phase of Cubism became the 
joint creation of these two artists. 

Braque's Nude, 1907—8 The daring innovations of the Demoiselles had come as a 

shock to Braque, although once he had recovered he set to 
work in December 1907 to apply the understanding he had 
Pi. 3 gained in a big painting of a Xiide. This, his most ambitious 
work to date, was to occupy him for several months, but at 
the end he hadpaintedanother early Cubist picture. Nothuig 
in the A^H^e has been hteraUy taken over from the Demoiselles, 
nevertheless, Braque's indebtedness to Picasso is exphcit, 
notably in the mask-like face, in the color scheme of pink, 
blue and ocher, and in the faceted handling of the 
backgromid. The influence of Negro art is less visible than 
in the work of Picasso. Yet it is innately present, for Braque 
himself spoke about becoming acquainted with Negro 
sculpture at this time through Matisse and Picasso, and 
claimed that it opened up for him 'a new horizon. It 
permitted me (he continued) to make contact with in- 
stinctive things, with direct manifestations, which were 
in opposition to the false traditionalism which I abhorred.' 

* E. fix. Cubism, 1966, pp. 16, 53. Edward Fry* has recently discovered that this Nude was 

preceded by a drawing in which Braque had grouped 
Pi. 6 three crudely simplified female figures in complementary 
views: back, front and profile. And some time in 1908 he 
said, very significantly, of this drawing to an American 
interviewer, Gelett Burgess, that 'it was necessary to draw 
three figures to portray every physical aspect of a woman. 

Place 5 

Georges Braque 
Nude, 1907-08 
Oil, 553/4x40 in. 

No. 14 

just as a house must be d^a^\^l in plan, elevation and 
section.' Already, therefore, the Cubist idea was forming 
in Braque's mind, so it is relevant to note that in the same 
interview he also said of the Xiide, which derived from 
one of the three figures in the dra^^"ing : "I ^^"ant to expose 
the Absolute, and not mereK' the factitious woman.' 

More evident than the Negro influence in Braque's Xiide 
Pi 3 is that of Cezanne, and even of the Blue Xude of Matisse, 
painted a few months previously. These influences emerge 
partictilarly in the pose, in the accented rhythm of the 
cur\ang outlines, and in the broad parallel brush-strokes 
which create the modeling. The picture as a whole is not 
entirelv successful : for example, some of the distortions 
are clumsy, some parts of the body are left vague, the 
proportional relations are awkward. However, it is 
important for the innovator)' characteristics it displays: 
the way Braque has twisted and spread the figure outwards 
to escape from a simple profile ^'iew, the way the figtire 
is projected firom and not absorbed into the background, 
and the deUberately inconsistent handling of light. 

< Plate 6 

Georges Braque 

Three Figures, 1907 

Ink drawing, dimensions and 

whereabouts unknowii. 

Reproduced from The Architectural 
Record (New York) 1910. 

PL 7 

Braque s Nude 


This Nuie was the start of revolutionary developments in 
Braque's painting, for during the summer of 1908, part 
of which he spent in Cezanne's countryside at L'Estaque, 
he began to evolve Cubism proper in landscapes and stiU- 
Hfes. The landscape motifs are Cezannesque, but Braque 
outstripped Cezanne in that he did not allow the land- 
scape to impose itself on him as an organized set of forms, 
but instead consciously imposed his own sense of reaHty 
on the landscape. Discussing this moment in his evolution, 

Plate 7 

Georges Braque 

Trees at L'Estaque, 1908 
Oil, 31x23-Vsm. 

No. 15 

Plate 8 

Raoul Dufy 

Green Trees at L'Estaque, 1908 

Oil, 281/2 X 231/2 in. 

No. 79 


True Ciihisui: igo6-i2 

Braque once said that the Fauve pamting he had done 
earher was 'physical painting' and that this had appealed 
to him at the time because of its 'novelty.' But on this 
occasion, his third visit to L'Estaque, he no longer felt 
'the exaltation which had overwhelmed him before' and 
instead 'saw something else.' This 'something else' was, 
of course, the solid tangible reality of things, the permanent 
element in nature, which he then set out to represent in a 
new spirit of realism and without eye-fooling illusion. 
In his L'Estaque landscapes, therefore, we find Braque 
treating buildings as simple cubes and using a neutral 
palette of greens, ochres and black instead of the bright 
colors of Fauvism. He also cut out the sky, the source of 
general irradiation ; created volume by faceting ; induced 
a sense of volume in space by a series of planes tilted at 
varying angles to the picture surface; and used beams of 
light to pick out aspects of forms which would otherwise 
have been half-lost. Line was used purely as a structural 
element in the composition and not for creating perspective. 

Developments in Picasso's 
Painting, 1907-9 

Ph. 13, 14, 19 

The course of Picasso's development after painting the 
Demoiselles appears somewhat zig-zag — that is to say, he 
does not pursue any one line consistently — until it cul- 
minates in a brilhant and homogeneous group of early 
Cubist paintings executed at Horta de San Juan, in Spain, 
in the summer of 1909. During these two years, Picasso 
was wresthng with one central problem, that of essential 
form, which he proceeded to master by repeated changes 
in his method of attack. Just as Picasso took over certain 
figures which had appeared in many of his drawings and 
paintings during 1 905-6 and used them in the composition of 
xkcDemoiselles, so in 1907-8 we find him continuing to use 
a limited number of famiHar figures, heads and poses, and 

Picasso's Painting 31 

■writing (as it were) postscripts to the great painting by 
varying their treatment. At this time Picasso alternated 
between a painterly and positively sculptural approach 
characterized by the boldness with which he hacks out 
his forms and emphasizes their volume. His brushwork 
too varies from fine to much heavier strokes. This 
procedure of treating a limited range of figures in a 
variety of ways is characteristic of Picasso's working meth- 
ods, for no single solution satisfies him absolutely and each 
repetition of a motif with which he is famihar is a challenge 
to extract from it a new formal and expressive solution. 

In the severely frontal, hieratic Woman in Yellow, painted 
in the summer of 1907, the reduction of the body to 
elementary, geometrical forms and the strict formal balance 
of their arrangement illustrate what the Douanier Rousseau 
must have had in mind when he referred to Picasso as a 
master of the 'Egyptian style.' But Cubism enters this 
picture through the way in which Picasso broke 
down and faceted the two arms to arrive at a more 
complete formal expression of them. Picasso thus obliges 
the eye, with the help of the mind, to take in the whole 
form as it would a piece of sculpture. In other pictures 
Pi. 11 of the autumn of 1907, such as Three Nudes or Friendship, 
we find Picasso carrying this procedure of faceting still 
further. But in these paintings the 'negro' influence dom- 
inates in the 'primitive' simplifications and in the substitu- 
tion of masks for personalized faces. Picasso adopted this 
latter device as a means of detaching himself emotionally 
from the figures as human beings and from such considera- 
tions as beauty or ughness (which then as now he always 
refused to recognize). Andre Salmon, a great friend of 
the artist at the time, has written that Picasso particularly 
admired Negro sculpture because it seemed to liim 

Plate 9 

Pablo Picasso 

Nude with Draperies, 1907 

Oil on canvas, 597/8 x 393/4 in. 

No. 228 

Plate 10 

Pablo Picasso 

Nude with Drapery, 1907 

Watercolor, 12 x 91/4 in. 

No. 263 

'rational.' Picasso, he adds, was 'struck by the fact that 
Negro artists had attempted to make a true representation 
of a human being, and not just to present the idea, usually 
sentimental, that we have of him.' What Picasso meant — 
and the similarity with Braque's statement to Burgess is 
striking — was that Negro sculpture is not visuall}' but 
conceptually true and offers a clarified image, without 
embellishments, composed only of essential features. 

But Picasso did not merely draw st)'hstic lessons from 
'primitive' sculpture. He himself carved a few 'primitive' 
figures in wood, while several of the figures in his paint- 
ings are treated as though they were pieces of sculpture. 
This is the case, for example, with a Standing Female Nude, 
painted in the summer of 1907, and no less emphatically 
with the great Nude in a Forest painted in the 'VNinter of 1908. 
But a more extreme, and at the same time more Cubist 
example, is provided by that complex painting Nude with 
Drapery painted in the fall of 1907. Here Picasso has treated 
the various parts of the body individually in terms of 
cylinders and cones surrounded by heavy black contours. 
Within these he has evoked volume bv colored striations 

Plate 11 

Pablo Picasso 
Three Women, 1908 
Oil, 783/4x701/2111. 

No. 229 

Plate 12 

Pablo Picasso 

Standing Figure (Study for ' Three 
Women), 1907-08 
Watt-rcolor, 243/i6>:16in. 

No. 264 

going in different directions, though the flat picture-surface 
is never violated. Furthermore, Picasso has created a 
semblance of space around the body by setting it against a 
series of faceted and variously orientated planes, which 
are colored differently according to the artist's need for 
light or shadow. This major painting reflects yet another 
of Picasso's sculptural preoccupations, for it seems to bear 
out his expressed hope that, if he had succeeded in truly 
representing his subject, one should be able 'to cut up' his 
canvas and having reassembled it 'according to the color 
indications . . . fuid oneself confronted with a sculpture.' 

The group of figure paintings discussed above illustrates 
the different forms of sculptural approach which enabled 
Picasso during the period 1907-8 to advance progressively 
towards the creation of Cubism. But at this point we are 
bound to ask why a painter like Picasso should be thinking 
in sculptural terms at all. The most Ukely explanation is 
that sculpture is a three-dimensional art-form where, from 
the point ofview of the spectator, light functions purely as an 
external and not at all as an internal factor. That is to say, 
light serves to make a sculpture visible but, as opposed 

J4 True Cuhisi}i: igo6-i2 

to a motif in nature, plays no active part from within in 
determining the appearance of the thing seen. For Picasso, 
who wanted to represent what he knew to be there and 
not what nature made him see at certain moments, this 
was of vital importance. For it meant that instead of 
wresthng with natural effects of hght which — as Impres- 
sionist painting showed — eat into form and involve the 
painter in problems of tonal modulation, Picasso could 
use local color and handle light like a display electrician, 
directing it wherever needed. 

We have now dealt with the important influences of 
'primitive' art and sculpture in Picasso's work during the 
early phase of Cubism. But two other important influences 
still remain to be discussed: those of Henri Rousseau, 
le Douanier, and of Cezanne. And here we must begin by 
making a distincticn, for whereas the first two influences 
are visible in Picasso's figure paintings of the time, the 
two last influenced above all his painting of landscape and 
stifl hfe. Picasso first became acquainted with the painting 
of Henri Rousseau through seeing and buying one of his 
finest works in a junk-shop in Montmartre in the winter 
of 1907. Soon after, he met this hving Parisian 'primitive' 
painter, through his friends Alfred Jarry and Guillaume 
Apollinaire. The profit which Picasso drew from 
Rousseau's paintings was more in the nature of an 
encouragement than a real influence, because what captiva- 
ted him was the extraordinary reaUsm which Rousseau 
could produce by ignoring visual conventions and adopting 
an unsophisticated factual approach. In landscapes such as 
those painted at La Rue-des-Bois in the summer of 1908, 
Picasso's bold hteral way of representing a tree, a house, 
foHage or a surrounding wall, undoubtedly owes something 
to the example of Rousseau, and the same spirit is at work 

Plate 13 

Pablo Picasso 

Horta de San Juan: Factory, 1909 

Oil, 207/8 x235/s in. 

No. 230 

in a still life such as Flowers and Glass or Bowls of the 
same date. 

Cezanne was the source of the painterly element in early 
Cubism, and his influence may be said to counterbalance 
the 'primitivizing' elements. Cezanne's feeling for the 
imderlying geometrical forms in nature was based on 
intuition and sense data, not on intellectual understanding, 
so he did not set out to give an ideated vision of nature but 
to make its greater reahty evident in what the Cubists 
called 'purely pictorial terms.' Picasso took in all of this, 
and in his search for the most direct pictorial method of 
representing reahty attempted to combine the shifting 
perspectives of Cezanne with the conceptual formulations 
of the 'primitive' idioms. Sometimes, therefore, we fmd 
him making a bold, literal statement of basic forms 
'completed' with only slight visual inconsistencies. In 
other works of 1908-9, on the contrary, Picasso adopted a 
more painterly approach and followed Cezanne in. chang- 
ing his viewpoint to arrive at a fuller expression of forms 
and volumes in space. The reconcihation of the two 
procedures was to come in 1909 through perfecting and 
elaborating the technique of faceting. 

During the winter and spring of 1908-9, Picasso continued 
to work in an experimental vein. He was, however. 

Plate 14 

Pablo Picasso 
Seated Woman, 1909 
Oil, 361/4x291/2 in. 

No. 231 

Pis. 13, 14 

progressively able to blend srj'listic discoveries and inven- 
tions and arrive at an early Cubist language. But it was at 
Horta de San Juan, where Picasso went to work for several 
months in May 1909, that the st}4e at last cr\-stallized in a 
succession of masterly 'analytical' canvases such as The 
Factory and Seated Woman. 

Braque's Painting 


Developments in Braque's 
Painting, 1908-9 

PL 7 

When Braque returned to Paris from L'Estaque in the 
fall of 1908, he submitted a group of recent landscapes to the 
Salon d'Automne and the jury rejected them. So he 
exhibited these and some other paintings at the Kahn- 
weiler Gallery in November, and it was on this occasion 
that Louis Vauxcelles, writing in Gil Bias, first referred 
to his manner of reducing 'everything, sites, figures and 
houses to geometric outlines, to cubes.' A few months 
later, this same critic writing of the paintings Braque 
had shown at the Salon des hidependants in March 1909 
referred to his 'bizarreries aibiqncs.' And so the new style 
of painting came to be popularly know as Cubism. 

Braque's progress towards Cubism from his Cezamicsque 
landscapes of L'Estaque was continuous and rapid, but 
while Picasso stated forms and volumes in their basic 
simpUcity, flattening their spatial setting to counteract 
recession, Braque brought objects up to the surface ot the 
canvas so that the depth of space around them became 
ambiguous and largely lost. He was not quite ready to 
tackle the problem of representing space without per- 
spective, yet he was as much aware as Picasso that this had 
to follow once they were able to represent things as 
though they were tangible in the round. 'It is not enough 
to make people see what one has painted,' Braque once 
said, 'one must also make them touch it.' Thus already the 
dialectic between those two realities which determined the 
evolution of Cubism — the reality of objects in space and 
the reality of the flat painted surface — was engaged. 

Pi. 8 At this point, it is instructive to look at Green Trees at 
L'Estaque (1908) by Raoul Dufy, who had worked beside 
Braque during part of the summer. For Dufy, probably 
because he was more influenced by Matisse than by 


True Cubism: igo6-i2 



Cezanne, did not have the same impulse towards realism 
and did not get to grips as Braque did wdth either a spatial 
or a tactile realir\\ Duf\-'s composition is made up of 
srv'hzed natural forms arranged with decorative etlect in 
a shallow setting: thus its effect is comparable with a 
tapestrv. But in their paintings, Braque and Picasso 
showed a common concern for an accurate representation 
of reahr\" and this was to distinsuish them increasinslv 
from their friends' efforts. Significantly, Duf,- dropped his 
flirtation with Cubism at this point. 

Plate 15 

Raoul Dufy 
Factory, 1908 
Oil, 36 \ 281/: in. 

No. 80 

Braque's next step ^^"as to seek a solution through formal 
analysis and abstraction, both in his handling of objects 
and space, which he treated ahke. In FishingBoats and Harbor 
in Xorinaiuiy, painted in the spring of 1909, Braque (antic- 
ipating developments in Picasso's painting by a few months) 
at last took full possession of what he saw and invented 



Georges Braque, Harhor in Noriiuvidy, 1909 
Oil, 32x32 m. 

No. 16 

•4 Plate 16 

Georges Braquc 

Rio Tinto Fiiaories, 1910 

Oil, 255/8 < 21 1/4 in. 

No. 20 

a non-naturalistic way of representing things and express- 
ing spatial relationships. Thus these two canvases arc 
among the first truly Cubist paintings. In the Harbor, 
the sky and distant sea are treated as a continuous limiting 
background plane, which is flat although its tonal intensit)' 
varies. Light and space are treated together in a palette of 
neutral tones, tonal variations representing degrees of 
luminosity. Color is nowhere used descriptively, nor 
atmospherically. Distances between one point and another 
are expressed by lines, which form a structure ot verticals. 

Plate 18 

Georges Braque 
Fishing Boats, 1909 

Oil, 36x283/4 in. 

No. 17 

Plate 19 ► 

Pablo Picasso 

Landscape with a Bridge, 1909 

Oil 317/8x393/8 in. 

No. 232 

diagonals and horizontals to guide the eye and hold the 
composition together. The boats, breakwaters and light- 
houses are piled together in a shallow foreground plane, 
volumes being expressed by faceting and tonal gradations. 
And Braque has seen to it that where a facet leads the eye 
backwards into the pictorial space this is countered b)- one 
which brings it forward again. In this wa)% Braque makes 
the solid reaht}' of things simultaneously visible and 
tangible, and prevents their receding from the eye (as 
thev do with one-point perspective). 

The Harbor was painted m Paris and from imagination, 
but in the summer of 1909 Braque worked again from 
nature at La Roche Guyon, in the Seine valley, another 
site frequented by Cezanne. On this occasion he began to 
create an easier spatial continuit)' by merging one form 
into another; he also discovered that he could articulate 
these forms bv directmg light where he needed it. These 

Plate 20 

Pablo Picasso 

The Fruit-Dish, 1909 

Drypoint, S'/s ^^ 4-Vs in. 

No. 280 

* --3^ 

^ . ' ^^ \. ; ^^ 


La Roche Guyon landscapes represent Braque's last 
assault on the natural scene for some years. From then on 
he worked in his studio, concentrating on still hfe subjects 
and occasionally painting a figure. Braque's development 
throughout the crucial years of Cubism was to be more 
meditated and gradual than that of Picasso, a passionate 
painter who likes to tackle a problem from several angles 
simultaneously. Braque's approach to painting was always 
more tentative: he was also much less interested in the 
human figure and concerned himself less with landscape. 
As a result, the total number of works executed by 
Braque between 1909 and 1914 is considerably less than 
half of the output of Picasso. 

Now while Braque was painting at La Roche Guyon, 
Picasso was working at Horta de San Juan in Catalonia, 
where his Cubist st^'le first crystallized in an analytical 
form. So when the two artists compared their recent 


Plate 21 

Pablo Picasso 
Woman s Head, 1909 
Ink, 25 ■•; 193/8 in. 

No. 265 

Plate 22 

Pablo Picasso 
Woman's Head, 1909 
Ink, 243/4x1 87/8 in. 

No. 266 



works they realized that there were not only affinities of 
style but, more important, also of aim between them. 
Nevertheless, there existed the difference that where Braque 
was already concerned with giving 'material form to his 
awareness of a new rs'pe of space' — the space between 
things — Picasso stiU saw Cubism primarily as a means of 
dealing with forms. Braque could achieve continuity in his 
handling of space and volumes, whereas Picasso was still 
chopping up the natural scene into block-like forms — 
as in Landscape ii'ith a Bridge — and creating spatial articula- 
tion with lines of direction. Each therefore had something 
to offer to the other, and from then on Braque and Picasso 
pooled their pictorial imderstanding and experience. So 
the evolution towards 'high' Cubism which followed was 
to be a joint progress. 

From Early to High Cubism ; 
The Painting of Braque 
and Picasso, 1909-12 

From the time that Braque and Picasso joined forces and 
became 'rather like two mountaineers roped together,' as 
Braque was to say, the evolution of Cubism was the 
expression of a continual give-and-take between their two 
different temperaments. Both tried to subHmate their 
individualities and reahze a sort of mutual anonymity for 
the sake of the style, which is also expressed in their 
reluctance in those days to sign their names on the painted 
surface. "We cannot therefore make a clear distinction 
between their respective contributions — at least not 
before 1914 — or weigh the relative importance of the one 

Plate 24 

Georges Braque 

Violin and Palette, 1909—10 

Oil, 361/4 xl67/s in. 

No. 19 

Plate 23 

Georges Braque 

Piano and Mandola, 1909-10 

Oil, 361/8 xl6Vsm. 

No. 18 



True Cubism: igo6-i2 

against the other. Yet, with the hindsight of today, their 
paintings appear less impersonal than they perhaps beUeved, 
and the tramed eye will distinguish between them instinc- 
tively. Suffice it to say, in the most general terms, that where- 
as Picasso's Cubist paintings tend to be more pronouncedly 
linear, angular, immediate in their presentation, even 
sculptural in conception, Braque's are more painterly, 
lyrical, suave and cohesive. 

Pi. 23, 24 

Plate 25 

Pablo Picasso 
Nude, 1909-10 
Oil, 351/4 ^-283/4 ill. 

Tate Gallery, London. 

The effect of the alliance between the two men soon 
showed in Braque's work, notably in two superb still hfes. 
Violin and Palette and Piano and Mandola, painted diuring 
the winter of 1909-10. Here, coming closer to Picasso, 
Braque was much bolder in his formal analysis, so that his 
faceting is more elaborate and he has broken the conti- 
nuity of outlines in order to express volume through a 
series of interlocking cubes. Nevertheless the objects 
represented remain legible. The significance of this frag- 
mentation was later accounted for by Braque when he 
said that it was a means of getting closer to objects 'within 
the limits that painting would allow' and of establishing 
'space and movement in space.' In other words, it was a way 
of reconciling his knowledge of a given three-dimensional 
order in nature with his determination that the equivalent 
pictorial order should not violate the two-dimensional 
surface of the canvas. But it is important to add that neither in 
the work of Braque nor in that of Picasso were any pre- 
liminary mathematical calculations involved in their 
cubifying process. Their analysis of forms, which involved 
combining different aspects of a single object, so that the 
eye would be led to take in its total mass, has tempted 
some writers to read into it an implication of the 'fourth 
dimension,' the passage of time. Such an interpretation is 
certainly false, for neither Braque nor Picasso imagined 

Plate 26 

Georges Braque 

Guitar, 1910-11 

Oil, 91/2 ■ 133/4 in. (Oval) 

No. 25 

either himself or a spectator walking around or among 
the objects they were representing. The various facets of a 
form are meant to exist and be seen simultaneously as 
elements disposed on a flat surface, where although no 
optical illusion has been attempted there co-exists an 
autonomous representation of space. 

Pi. 14 Braque's two still lifes and Picasso's Seated IVoinaii rep- 
resent the point when the development of the technique 
of faceting — by which they were able to create volumes 
and make space tangible — caused the two artists to 
realize that they had to decide how they intended in the 
future to use color and light. In these three paintings both 
had used a limited but modulated palette of green, ochre 
and grey and had lit parts of objects from different angles. 
That is to say they had paid no heed to local color and 
had imposed their pictorial will both on form and on light. 
Braque even underscored the resulting inconsistencies and 
stylistic innovations of Cubism by his ironic treatment of 

Pi. 24 the nail on which the palette hangs at the top of the canvas. 
For he painted it in trompc-Tceil, completed by a regular 
shadow, thereby pointing a contrast between his own 
invented method and the familiar eye-fooling method of 
representing reality. Now faceting produced a complex 
structure of planes at diftercnt levels and going in different 
directions, in addition to which Braque used a network of 
small interpenetrating planes to unite objects with the 
space around them. It therefore became essential for the 

Plate 27 

Pablo Picasso 
Woman, 1910 
Oil, 391/2 X 321/4 in. 

No. 235 

two artists to be able to differentiate spatially between one 
plane and another. To do this with contrasts of strong 
colors would probably have upset the subtle spatial structure. 
Yet even if they resorted to light they were faced with the 
problems of color modification and the erosion of form, 
that is to say violations of reahty. Therefore, while they 
were concentrating on the representation of objects and 
elaborating the spatial notation of Cubism, Braque and 
Picasso limited the role of light and reduced their 
palette to a neutral range of greys and ochers. 

It was at this stage, in the winter ofipop-io, that Picasso again 
Ph. 281, 21 turned to sculpture and produced a bronze Woman's Head, 
highly faceted like those in many of his paintings. He was, 
as it were, testing in three dimensions and in the light of 
reality, the validity of his newly invented pictorial methods 
for evoking a complete form and its volume. This Woman s 
Head was followed by a succession of works in which 
Picasso came to represent both objects and space with an 

Plate 29 

Georges Braque 
The Tabic, 1910 
Oil, 15 ■ 211/2 m. 

No. 21 

Plate 28 

Pablo Picasso 

Nude, 1910 

Oil, 381/2 ■ 30 in. 

No. 233 

Plate 30 

Georges Braque 
Female Figure, 1910-11 
Oil, 36 X 24 in. 

No. 22 

PL 28 elaborate arrangement of planes and facets. Figures (Nude, 
1909-10) as well as objects were submitted to this process of 
abstraction and lost their individuality. Picasso made planes 
and forms open up into each other so that he could pene- 
trate to the uiner structure of things. Then by extending the 
planar structure over the whole surface of the canvas he was 
better able thanbefore to relate thefigure or the still hfe to the 
PL 2g background and the space around them. In The Table and 
PL 30 Female Figure we see Braque using the same means, though 
he carried abstraction less far and his objects remain more 
legible. There is a subtle difference betw^een the painting of 
Braque and Picasso all through these years in the way that 
Picasso seems to focus on a figure or a still life and keep 

Plate 31 

Pablo Picasso 
Clarinet Player, 1911 
Oil, 413/8 < 271/8 in. 

No. 240 

it half-detached from the background plane, whereas 
Braque aimed at a smoother, more integrated image. 

The basic intention of Braque and Picasso in creating 
Cubism was not merely to present as much essential in- 
formation as possible about figures and objects but to 
recreate visual reality as completely as possible in a self- 
sufficing, non-imitative art-form. They had not yet 
succeeded in working out a comprehensive system of 
spatial notation, so this was the next problem which they 
had to resolve. At this point, particularly in the work of 
Picasso, Cubism approached the frontier of total abstrac- 
tion, because in the middle of 1910, while this aspect 

Plate 32 

Pablo Picasso 

Portrait ofD. H. Kahnweiler, 1910 

Oil, 395/sX 285/8 in. 

No. 2>+ ^'-'- -'"' 3^ 

absorbed their attention — as it did again in 191 1 — Braque 
and Picasso for a while allowed the objective content 
(which, had hitherto been manifest) of their picttnes to be 
only faintly suggested beneath an assertive structure of 
lines and planes (Picasso, Clarinet Player, 1911). Here we 
reach the most austere moment of "high' Cubism, the 
phase which has been called 'hermetic,' an adjective which 
means airtight or impenetrable and is therctore vi'holly 
inappropriate. Admittedly an untrained eye may at first 
have difticulrv' in reading these paintings, but they can 
be interpreted none the less. It is only matter of under- 
standing that the lines and planes represent dilterent 
features and parts ot the body or ob)ects and pass through 
angles which, though they sometimes correspond \A"ith 
natural facts, are primarily dictated by spatial considera- 
tions and pictorial necessit)". And we can measure the 
strength of will to keep in touch with reality which animated 
the two Cubist painters by the steps they took to prevent 
theirpainting becoming wholly abstract and non-figurative. 
For thev de\ascd a reperton," of abbreviated signs which 
they incorporated, hke hieroglyphs, into their pictures to 
make particular features identifiable and provide clues to the 
build-up of the composition as a whole. Thus in the 

Plare 33 

Pablo Picasso 

LtJ Pointe de la Cite (The Point of 
The Ik de la Cite, Paris), 1911 
Oil, 351/2x28 in. (Oval) 

No. 239 

Plate 34 

Georges Braque 

5fi7/ Life with Dice and Pipe, 1911 

Oil, 311/2x23 in. (Oval) 

No. 24 

Pi. 3^ 

Plate 35 

Pablo Picasso 

Absinthe Glass, Bottle, Pipe and 

Musical Instruments on a Piafio, 


Oil. 193/4 . 511/4 in. 

No. 236 


PL 33 

Portrait of Kahmi'eiler, painted in the fall of 1910, Picasso 
was at pains to elucidate his planar structure by writing 
in descriptive details such as the eye, the nose, the well- 
brushed hair, the watch-chain, the clasped hands and the 
stiU Hfe groups beside and behind the sitter. 

Both Braque and Picasso (La Poi'nfe de la Cite, 191 1) reached 
the frontier of non-figuration more than once between the 
summer of 1910 and the spring of 1912, though Braque 
never came as close to total abstraction as Picasso. On each 
occasion, both artists recoiled. We must, however, consider 
why this problem recurred. The answer seems to be that the 

Plate 36 

Georges Braque 

Rooftops at Ceret, 1911 
Oil, 323/s X 231/4 in. 

Ralph Colin, New York. 

more elements of reality Braque and Picasso managed to 
incorporate into their pictures (Picasso, Absinthe Glass, 
Bottle, Fan, Pipe and Musical Instmments on a Piano, 1910-11 ; 
Braque, Still Life ivith Dice and Pipe, 191 1), the more they 
found that the clarir^' of their spatial structure became 
obscured by descriptive detail, formal complexities and 
an elaborate play of hght and shade. Yet •\\henever they 
reacted against this complication and tried to make things 
clearer, they found themselves losing touch again with 
tangible reaUt}-. 

Plate 37 

Pablo Picasso 

Bottle of Marc, 1911-12 

Drypoint, 19ii/i6>' 12 in. 

No. 281 

It was during the summer of 191 1, when Braque and 
Pi. 36 Picasso were working together at Ceret in the Pyrenees, that 
the two artists at last found a way to clarif\" things and went 
on to produce compositions which were more concen- 
trated but more legible. A linear scaffolding (clearly 
Pls'.j/,j8 visible in their tw-o great prints Bottle oj Marc and Fox, 

Plate 38 

Georges Braque 

Fox, 1911-12 

Etching, 211/2 X 15 in. 

No. 45 

From Early to High Cubism 


Ph. 26, 33, 34, 44 

Plate 39 

Pablo Picasso 
Man's Head, 1911-12 
Charcoal 241/2x19 in. 

No. 269 


1911-12) was made to indicate distances and to hold the 
composition together, while an associated structure of 
planes and cubes, over which reahstic details were inscribed, 
gave volume and served to integrate spatially the fore- 
ground with the background. The use of an oval canvas 
is also characteristic of this phase of Cubist painting 
because, said Braque, it enabled him 'to rediscover a sense 
of verticals and horizontals.' But Braque and Picasso also 
found oval canvases useful because they had no corners, 
where the defmition of space tended to become ambiguous, 
and thereby helped them to concentrate around the subject 
and create a more compact pictorial structure. Another 
feature of this phase is the broken brushwork which they 
used to create a luminous palpitation, to differentiate 
between planes and to make the surface of the canvas 
more vibrant and tactile. All of these procedures can be 
observed m still hfes such as Braque's I'iolin and Candle- 

Plate 40 

Pablo Picasso 

Standing Woman, 1911 

Ink, 121/2x71/2 in. 

No. 268 

Plate 41 

Pablo Picasso 

Still Life with Clarinet, 1911 

Oil, 24x193/4 in. 

No. 238 

Plate 43 

Georges Braque 
The Portuguese, 1911 
Oil, 461/8 X 321/4 in. 
Kunstmuseuin, Basel. 

stick, 1910, or Picasso's Still Life with a Clarinet of 
191 1. But it is even more evident in figure composi- 
tions such as Picasso's Man Smoking a Pipe or Braque's The 
Portuguese, both of 191 1, the latter being probably the first 
painting in which stenciled lettering made its appearance. 
This innovation — an unexpected application of a painter- 
decorator's stock-in-trade — v^^as certainly made by Braque. 
In a still life by Braque of early 1910 a newspaper appears 
with its mast-head spelled out, but there the lettering 
serves simply to identify the form and plays no structural 
role in the composition. From the summer of 191 1 on, 
however, Braque, and almost immediately Picasso, began 
to use words, letters and figures as an active pictorial 
element. That is to say, they treated them not simply as 
ornamental additions but chose those with an associative 
relevance to the subject of the picture, so that they con- 
tributed to thereahsm of the presentation. They also played 
a comparable role to the trompe-l'oeil nail in Braque's 1909 
stiU life by paradoxically emphasizing the schism between 
painting and reaUty. This lettering, Braque said, was a 
group of 'forms which could not be distorted because, 
being themselves flat, they were not in space, and thus by 

< Plate 42 


Georges Braque 

Violin mid Candlestick, 1910 

Oil, 24x193/4 in. 

No. 23 

Plate 44 

Pablo Picasso, Man Smoking a Pipe. 1911 
Oil, 36 X 281/4 in. (Oval) 

No. 237 

Plate 45 

Pablo Picasso 

Violin, Glass and Pipe on Tabic, 1912 

Oa, 31-'/8x21i/4in. (Oval) 

No. 241 

contrast their presence in the picture made it possible to 
distinguish between objects situated in space and those 
which were not.' In other words, the lettering emphasized 
the two-dimensional nature of the painted surface yet 
acted as a repoussoir in reverse to make the objective content 
assume a spatial connotation. 

With some other changes which occurred in the painting 
of Braque and Picasso in the first half of 1912, the language 
of 'high' Cubism reached its fullest expression ; soon after, 
the artists embarked on a wholly new cycle of development 
which constitutes the 'late' phase of Cubism. Thus the 
year 1912 marks the end of one long evolution and the 
initiation of another. After their return from Cerct in the 


Georges Braqiie 
Guitar, 1912 
Oil, 29 . 24in. (Ov 


Pi. 43 

PL u 

PL 47 

fall of 191 1, both artists seem to have become aware that 
so far as the handling of form and space was concerned 
they had carried the 'analytical' language as far as possible 
and that it was time to begin enriching it. The introduction 
of color still remained an unsolved problem, but in 
Picasso's Violin, Glass and Pipe of 1912 — there are com- 
parable works by Braque — we see a tentative move in this 
direction. Simulation of different textures, which Braque 
(again drawing on his painter-decorator's training) was 
the first to try, occurred at the same time and we therefore 
find both artists usins; craftsmanlv methods to imitate 
veined marble, the graining in wood and even the strands 
of human hair (Braque, Homage to Bach, 1912). Braque 
also went further and thickened his paint with sand and oth er 

58 True Cubism: igo6-i2 

matter. This was to prove even more telling because, as he 
was to say later, with the experience o£ papiers colles be- 
hind him, it revealed to him 'the extent to which color is 
related to substance . . . Now this intimate relationship 
between color and substance is inevitably more dehcate 
when it comes to painting. So my great delight was the 
"material" character ^^■hich I could give to my pictures by 
introducing these extraneous elements.' This statement is 
yet another proof of the reahstic — indeed materiahstic — 
intentions which animated Braque and Picasso while they 
were creating Cubism. Going on from here, however, 
Picasso made a still more important innovation, in a small 
picture of May 1912, when he stuck a piece of American 
cloth over-printed with a design of chair-caning on to his 
canvas and used it to represent the seat of a chair, painting 
a still hfe on and aromid it. This was the first collage, and 
once again it embodied several paradoxes. For by intro- 
ducino; a readv-made 'real' element with a literal connota- 
tion into an otherwdse painted representation of reaht)", 
Picasso called the bluif of the eye-foohng technique, 
offered the challenge of the Cubist way of recrearing 
reaht}' and left the spectator to make his o\Yn terms with 
an illusion of reality (chair-caning) which had been given 
a false reaht)' bv the pictorial simulation ot the objects he 
had painted around it. 

The creative possibihties of this last innovation were not 
to be fully reahzed or followed up by either Braque or 
Picasso for a few months. But in the meanwhile Braque 
took another constructive step on his own when, in the 
simimer of 1912, he cut pieces of paper and cardboard and 
made some models of objects (guitars, violins) which he 
then painted. These have now disappeared, but since a few 
of those made by Picasso (who followed his example) have 

Plate 47 

Georges Braque, Homage to Bach, 1912 
Oil, 211/4x283/4 in. 

No. 26 

survived we know more or less what they looked like. 
With a ready wit, Picasso was soon referring to Braque as 
'moil cher Vilhtire,' a topical allusion to the recently 
deceased Wilbur Wright behind which also lay a private jeii 
d'csprit. For the two artists had sometimes likened their 
own efforts in the pictorial realm to those of the early 
aeroplane designers, so that there was already a double 
entente in Picasso's use of the banner headline 'Notre Avenir 
est dans I'Air,' which appears in some of his paintings 
of 1912. 'If one plane wasn't enough to get the thing off 
the groimd,' I have heard Picasso say, 'they added another 
and tied the whole thing together with bits of string and 
wood, very much as we were doing.' 

At this point, which immediately preceded the invention 
of the technique of papiers coUes (pasted papers), through 
which the idiom was to be transformed, it is 
necessary to interrupt the development of Cubist painting 



as created by Braque and Picasso in order to sum up their 
achievements thus far and discuss the Cubist movement 
which had grown up in France since 1910 and was akeady 
spreading to other coimtries. 


In considering the development of true Cubism between 
1908 and 1912, it is essential to bear in mind that Braque 
and Picasso kept themselves largely apart from other 
Ph. 48, 4g painters. Close friends such as Guillaume ApoUinaire, Max 
Jacob, Andre Salmon and Maurice Ra^mal, all of them 
writers, as well as artists such as Derain and of course 
Juan Gris, came often to their studios and saw their latest 
works. Other artists and writers came more occasionally 
and were imdoubtedly shown less, but those interested 
could always see a selection of paintings by Braque and 
Picasso hanging in the Kahnweiler Gallery. So it was never 
very difficult for an^'one in the Paris art-world to discover, 

Plates 48, 49 

Pablo Picasso 

Max]ACOB: Saint Matorel, 



Plate II, 'The Convent,' 

73/4x51/2 in. 

Plate IV, 'The Table,' 

73/4x59/16 in. 

No. 286 


Plate 5iJ 

Georges Braque, The Giieridon, 1912 
Oil, 455/8x317/8 in. 

No. 27 


Plate 51 

Georges Braque 

Still Life with Pipe, 1912 

Oil, 133/8x163/8 ill. 

No. 28 

Plate 52 

Pablo Picasso 
Mans Head, 1912 
Etcliing, 5Vs '< 4-Vi6 in. 

more or less, what they were doing. Braque and Picasso 
never aspired to be leaders of a movement, nor to attract 
a following, and they shimned the regular Salons. No 
exhibition of recent paintings by Picasso was held in 
Paris after 1902; Braque on the other hand showed recent 
works at Kahnweiler's in November 1908 and two more 
paintings at the Salon des Independants of 1909. After 
that, neither artist had a formal exhibition until both had 
one-man shows at Leonce Rosenberg's gallery, L'EfTort 
Moderne, in 1919. This self-isolation was dehberate and 
calls for no explanation. True Cubism, as created by 
Braque and Picasso, was not the outcome of a theory or a 
mathematical exercise which had to be demonstrated : it 
derived from a wholly fresh conception of what true 
painting should be, and flowered creatively in the privacy 
of the studio. Moreover, thanks to the intuitive and 
inventive genius of Braque and Picasso it developed as a 
vital force without ever tending to become doctrinaire. 

Cubism has often been accused of bcins; formalist and 
divorced from life, probably because most people have 
seen it as an art dealing with- prosaic everyday objects and 
anonymous figures. Of course the major effort of Braque 
and Picasso went into solving the strictly pictorial problems 
arising out of their intention to fmd a wholly new and 
precise way of recreating tangible reality on canvas. That 
is to say, they thought more about forging the language 

Plate 53 

Georges Braque 

Job, 1911 

Drypoint, S'/s '< T'ls in- 

No. 43 

Plate 54 

Georges Braque 
GiiiUir on a Table, 1909 
Etcliing, 51/2 ■ 77/s in. 

No. 42 










Plate 56 

Georges Braque 

Cubist SHU Life 11, 1912 

Drypoint and etching, 

12i5/,6., 177/8 in. 

No. 47 

Plate 55 

Georges Braque 

B<;j;5, 1911-12 

Drypoint and etching, 18, s 12i5/j5in. 

No. 46 

-#" < 

r^t^M li^ 




of Cubism than about the aesthetic value of their subject- 
matter. So it was a great advantage for them to be able to 
use wholly famihar objects whose simple forms made 
them easy to represent. And they were rewarded for doing 
this by the rapidity (1907-12) with which they mastered 
the means for creating such a fuU but clear statement of 
form, space and volume. 

Plate 57 

Pablo Picasso 
Seated Man, 1912 
Ink, 121/5 ■■ 73/4 in. 

No. 270 

PL 217 

Yet we must not overlook the personal relevance and 
time-bound significance which this seemingly banalsubject- 
matter also had for Braquc and Picasso: not for nothing 
is the iconography of Cubism replete with intimate and 
often topical references. The daily life of Braque and 
Picasso is enshrined in their still lifes : things to eat, drink, 
smoke, read and discuss. Pipes, packets of cigarettes, jugs, fans, 
newspapers and musical instruments lay around in their 
studios; bottles of Bass, Rum, Anis or Pernod, playing- 
cards and dice were on the tables of the bars and cafes they 
frequented. The violins, guitars and sheets of music are 
tokens of their personal pleasures. Braque's Portuguese was 
inspired by a man he saw in a bar in Marseilles. Picasso made 
portraits of friends and mistresses: Sagot, Vollard, Uhde, 
Kahnweiler, Fernande Olivier. And at a later stage (1912) 
when he could not be concerned with physical resem- 
blance, he would write on his canvzs J' aimeEua or Majolie 
so that his private emotions could visibly enter into the work. 
In other paintings we find personal letters, the names of 
hotels and cafes which Braque and Picasso frequented and 
souvenirs of bullfights. And lastly, both artists painted 
views from their studio windows in Montmartre and 
Ceret. Thus even though the artists seem to have neglected 
the human element, we find on examination that Cubist 
painting was in fact a very real record of their private 
hves and experiences. 


The Cubist Movement in Paris : 
1906— 1914 

Derain, 1906-10 Writing iiiLf Temps in October 1912, on 'The Beginnings 

of Cubism,' Guillaume Apollinaire rather casually noted 
that it was as a result of the friendship which grew up 
between Picasso and Derain in 1906 'that almost imme- 
diately Cubism was born.' A few months later, rn an 
article of February 1913 in Der Sturm, this fnst vague 
statement was changed into: 'The Cubism of Picasso was 
born of a movement originating with Andre Derain.' 
But Apollinaire modified even this claim in his famous 
booklet Les Peititres Ctibistcs, published in March 1913, 
where he wrote that while 'the new aesthetic first 
originated in the mind of Andre Derain, the most impor- 
tant and daring works which it produced forthwith' were 
created by Picasso and Braque, who should therefore be 
considered as co-originators, with Derain, of the style. 
This is all that Apollinaire has to say about Derain's role 
as an originator of Cubism: he never refers to specific 
works in which Derain anticipated the revolutionary steps 
taken by Picasso in Les Demoiselles d' Avignon, nor does he 
say what Picasso took from Derain in the way of new 
aesthetic ideas. What is more, ApoUinaire had never 
discussed Derain's work in this light in any of the separate 
articles, written between 1908 and the end of 1912, which 
he used to make up the text of Les Pciiitrcs Cuhistes, and even 
there he felt obhged to explain that he could not then 
'write anything valid about a man who deliberately keeps 
himself apart from everything and everyone.' This sudden 
and unsupported claim is so curious that it requires dis- 

It is certainly true that in 1906-07 Derain was on very 
friendly terms with Picasso, as well as with Braque, whom 
he had known through the Fauve group, and that between 
1907 and 1910 Derain painted some pictures which 


Cubism in Paris: igo6-i4 

* Andre Salmon, who had knoAATi 
both Picasso and Derain since 1906, 
writing early in 1912 said: 'Andre 
Derain — let's get this clear at once — 
^vas to join (Picasso) by following 
his own paths and then move away 
from him ^\-ithout ha\Tng overtaken 
him.' See Lti Jeuiie Peinture Fran^aisc, 
p. 52. 

relate rather timidly to 'early' Cubist devclopnients. 
Yet it is difficult to assign a definite place to Derain either 
as an originator of Cubism or as an artist who contributed 
to the Cubist movement. His paintings of the time show 
him always follo"wing and never auticipatmo'v<\v!ii Picasso did, 
and never makina: a srshstic innovation of his o\\"n. 
Moreover, Derain never painted a Cubist picture. Derain 
was neither a revolutionary artist nor a pioneer : he was not 
even the creator of fauvism, though he was certainly a 
splendid executant. However, when in 1906 he discovered 
Negro sculpture, together with Matisse and Vlamnack, it 
was Derain (then painting in a Cezannesque manner), so 
Apollinaire tells us, who in particular admired 'the artistry 
\A-ith which the image-makers of Guinea and the Congo 
succeeded in reproducing the htmian tigure without using 
anv element borrow^ed from direct observ'ation.' Yet 
it was not until 1907-8,* that is to say after Picasso had 
abandoned Les Demoiselles d' Avignon, that Derain modified 
his sr\-le and produced a group of works with Cezannesque 

Plate 58 

Andre Derain 
Bathers, 1908 

Oil, 703/4x981/2111. 

Present whereabouts unkno^Mi. 

Plate 59 

Andre Deraiii, Cadaquis, 1910 
Oil, 235/8x283/4 in. 

No. 70 

Pi. ^S subjects [Bathers, Nitdes) in which he treated the figures in 
a simphficd, 'priniitivizing' manner. In other words, 
Derain's painting reflected the 'negro' influence which had 
already become apparent in Picasso's work in the same 
P/. 3 way that it was reflected in Matisse's Blue Xtiik (1907) and 
Pi 3 Braque's Xiuk' (1907-8). But Detain made no attempt, 
as Braque and Picasso did, to invent new ways of handHng 
form and space, and did not share their conception of 
pictorial realism, so that his 'priniitivizing' paintings were 
heavy-handed and lifeless. Moreover, Derain never went 
on to recreate forms in their totahty through the technique 
of faceting. Instead, he abandoned all thoughts of Cubism 
and, when he spent part of the summer of 1910 at 
Cadaqucs with Picasso, contented himself with a stylized, 
post-CezannesquenaturaUsticidiom. True, Derain used Httle 


Cubism ill Paris: igo6~i4 

perspectival distortions and differently inclined planes to 
evoke mass, and showed a liking for cubic forms, but his 
vision and his use of perspective in paintings such as 
Ph. J9, 60 Cadaques and Still Life on a Table was fundamentally con- 
ventional. The cubes are descriptive, the use of hght is 
consistent and the space recedes. Thus, although it is 
imquestionable that, like Braque and Picasso, Derain was 
profoundly influenced by Cezanne, he never attempted, 
as they did, to pursue Cezanne's inventions towards new 
creative ends. Of course he was aware of and must have 
tinderstood — since they discussed it at length — the full 
purport of all that Braque and Picasso were attempting to 
do. But in his own work he followed another hne of 

Le Fauconnier, Gleizes 
and Metzinger, 1910-14 

The first references to a school ot Cubist painters occurred 
in the French press in 1910. At the Salon des Independants, 
and again at the Salon d'Automne of that year, Jean 
Metzinger, Henri Le Fauconnier, Robert Delaunay, Albert 
Gleizes and Fernand Leger showed a number of paintings 
in a post-Cezarmesque idiom which the critic of La Presse 
described as 'geometrical foUies,' while ApoUinaire hailed 
them as signif)'ing 'the rout of Impressionism.' But on the 
second occasion ApoUinaire wrote more precisely : 'There 
has been some talk of a bizarre manifestation of Cubism. 
Ill-informed joumahsts ended up by seeing it as plastic 
metaphysics. Yet it is not even that. It is a flat, hfeless 
imitation of works not on view and painted by an artist 
with a strong personaht)' who, what is more, has not let 
anyone share his secrets. This great artist is called Pablo 
Picasso. The Cubism at the Salon d'Automne was only 
the jackdaw in borrowed plumage.' No doubt ApoUinaire 
was mainly concerned with making the point that this was 

Plate 60 

Andre Derain 

Still Life on a Table, 1910 

Oil, 361/4 x28i/s in. 

No. 69 

not true Cubism, but he certainly exaggerated. Admittedly 
Metzinger was trying to imitate the pictorial methods used 
by Braque and Picasso in 1909, but the near-Cubist st\de 
of both Leger and Delaunay was eminently personal, 
whereas there was nothing Cubist at all about the works 
exhibited by Le Fauconnier and Gleizes. 

Bearing in mind the increasing influence of Cezanne on 
the young artists of Paris since 1904, it seems at furst 
surprising that in 1910 critics should have felt that Im- 
pressionism still hngered on. But it is easy to lose sight of 
the great quantit)^ of colorist painting, in the form of 
belated Fauvism and Neo-Impressionism, that still ap- 
peared at the Paris Salons because most of it was imdistin- 
guished and much has disappeared. At the Independants 
of 1907, for example, the critic Louis Vauxcelles counted 
twenty-five painters whom he felt had been affected by 
Fauvism. And in fact most of the artists who took up Cubism 

■JO Cubism in Paris: igo6-i4 

between 1909 and 191 3 had worked during the past few 
years in a colorist tradition: Le Fauconnier, Gleizes and 
Lhote painted in a sub-Impressionist manner; de La 
Fresnaye followed Gauguin and the Nabis; Metzinger, 
Delaunay, Leger and Picabia painted under Neo-Impres- 
sionist influence; Braque had been a Fauve painter. So it 
was perhaps natural that, when faced with a wave of 
Cubist-n-pe painting in 1910-11, the critics should have 
felt that a new movement was being bom. At all events, this 
passage from one srs'le to the other so confused Apollinaire 
that he wrote in 191 1 of Fauvism and Cubism as 'two art 
movements ^^-hich followed each other and fuse so well, 
giving birth to an art that is simple and noble, expressive 
and restrained.' 

Manv of these painters had known each other for a few 
vears already- — though only Metzinger knew Braque and 
Picasso — but when they saw their works hanging together 
at the Salon d'Automne of 1910 they became aware of 
sr)-hstic affinities, and as Gleizes writes in his Memoirs: 'It 
seemed essential to us then that we shotild form a group, 
see more of each other and exchange ideas.' This they 
proceeded to do throughout the winter of 1910-11. Then 
just before the opening of the Independants, in the spring 
of 191 1, they managed to overthrow the established 
Hanging Committee and take over the job themselves. 
This gave them the chance to exhibit as a Cubist group in 
a separate galler\%whileinagaller}- nearby they hung works 
bv do La Fresnaye, Lhote, Marchand and deSegonzac, with 
whom they thought they had something in common. Such 
was the official launching of the Cubist movement in Paris. 

Le Faucomiier was at first the leading personaHry and his 
enormous painting Abundance, shown at the Independants 

Plate 61 

Henri Lc Fauconnier 
Abundance, 1910-11 
Oil, 751/4x481/2 in. 

No. 174 

in 191 1, greatly impressed the group. Tlais in itself reveals 
how little most of these painters were concerned with 
true Cubism in its essential aspects. There is really nothing 
Cubist about Abundance: the use of light is consistent, the 
perspective is traditional, the cubes and facets are not 
arrived at by formal analysis, nor do they serve to recreate 
space and volume. Le Fauconnier has simply disguised a 
conventional allegorical subject by giving it a superficiaUy 
Cubist look. It is not surprising therefore that within two 
years, after trying other Cubistic experiments, he had 
turned into a representational academic painter of no 

Gleizes was an intelligent, sensitive man, with a theoretical 
turn of mind, who continued to paint under the influence 

Plate 62 

Albert Gleizes 

Women in a Kitchen, 1911 

Oil, 465/8 X 371/4 in. 

No. 95 

PL 62 

* See the following passage in On 
Cubism by Gleizes and Metzinger, 
Chapter I: 'Formerly the fresco 
incited the artist to represent distinct 
objects; evoking a simple rhythm, 
on which the light was spread at 
the limit of a synchronic vision, 
rendered necessary by the amplitude 
of the surfaces; today painting in 
oils allows us to express notions of 
depth, density and duration supposed 
to be inexpressible, and incites us to 
represent, in terms of a complex 
rhythm, a veritable fusion of objects, 
within a limited space.' 

of the Fauves and Cezanne until the end of 1910, when he 
started to give his pictures a more pronounced geometrical 
structure through elementary formal simplifications. In 
late 19 10 Gleizes came under the influence of Le Fauconnier, 
discovered the analytical paintings of Braque and Picasso 
and adopted some of the external aspects of Cubism in 
paintings such as Woman ii'ith Phlox (1910) and Women 
in a Kitchen (191 1). The latter is a conventional genre scene 
painted in a restricted neutral palette, like that of Braque 
and Picasso, but Gleizes has not used faceting and an 
element of Cubism to recreate reaUty more completely, 
nor has he renounced traditional perspective. His painting 
therefore makes no contribution to the development of 
Cubism in any of those essential aspects vi^hich preoccupied 
Braque and Picasso. Like his friends Metzinger and 
Delaunay, Gleizes was primarily concerned with subjects 
which had a communal significance — thebuzz of the modern 
city and the calm of the countryside, factories, work, leisure, 
sport, and flight. In short he chose conventional subjects 
but handled them with modern pictorial means to produce 
a sense of multidimensionality and contemporary activity.* 
Thus in the large Harvest Threshing (1912) the landscape 
setting, the receding views, the modern agricultural 
machinery and the peasants at work are locked into a 

< Plate 63 

Albert Gleizes 

The Foothall Players, 1912-13 

Oil, 89 X 72 in. 

No. 98 

Plate 64 

Landscape at Toiil, 1913 

No. 97 

Plate 65 

Albert Gleizes 
Harvest Threshing, 1912 
Oil, 106x1387/8 in. 

No. 96 




^K ^^ h9^^mB 1 


M^L '* p "^^ir ^v' 

WBt" V ^i^B^H iM 








Plate 66 

Albert Gleizes 

Mail on a Bnkoiiy, 1912 

Oil, 77 X 451/4 in. 

Philadelphia Museum ot Art, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

Plate 67 

Albert Gleizes 

Portrait of Igor Stravinsky, 1914 

Oil, 51x45 in. 

No. 99 

geometrical and predominantly linear structure whose 
rhythms and formal contrasts create space and a dynamic 
effect. But nowhere are the geometrical forms derived 
from the objects represented, nor do they serve to create 
volumes : sometimes they are awkward sts'Hzations, often 
their significance is ambiguous. The best analysis of the 
artist's intentions in this composition is that by Daniel 
Robbins, who describes it as 'a multiple panorama cele- 
brating the worker, his material Hfe and his collective 
activity in securing that hfe on a permanently changing 
land. Gleizes confronts us not with one action or place but 
^^•lth many; not with one time, but with past and tuturc 
as well as present.' In 1913-14, Gleizes clarified his pictorial 
structure and greatly reduced the role of space, under the 

Plate 58 

Albert Gleizes 

Dancer, 1917 

Oil, 391/2 X 30 in. 

No. 101 

Ph. 94, 93, 223, 22} 

Ph. 67, 239 

PL 68 

joint influences ofLeger {L(i)idscape at Ton], 1913), Gris, the 
/jfl^iVr5co//e'5 of Braque and Picasso, and evenFuturist painting 
[Portrait of Stravinsky [1914], Broadway [1915]). Yet while 
using certain Cubist procedures, Gleizes came more and 
more to disregard visual realitv' and evolved a predominantly 
decorative, formalized style of painting [Dancer, 1917) 
which was virtually abstract. 

Mctzinger, who was co-author with Gleizes of the hrst 
theoretical volume (1911-12) about Cubism — as they 
envisaged it — was referred to by Apollinaire in his review 
of the Independants of 191 1 as "the only adept of Cubism 
in the proper sense.' This was an unmerited compliment. 
For although Metzinger had met Picasso toward the end 
of 1909 and had written an informed article on the Cubism 
of Braquc and Picasso in 1910, his own painting showed 
no evidence of a desire or abiht)' seriously to follow them in 


Plates 69-71 

Albert Gleizes 

Studies for 'Portrait of tin Ariuy 

Doctor, 1915 

M). ?, Ink, 113/4x9 in. 

No. 2, Ink, 7 :< 51/2 in. 

No. 5, Ink, 95/8 :■' 7Vs in. 

Nos. 102-104 

Plate 72 

Jean Metzinger 

Portrait of Gleizes, 1912 


No. 213 

their pictorial quest. Metzinger was a painter of little 
imagination and no originality, who seized on the planes 
and faceting in the analytical painting of Braque and 
Picasso and tried to use the same technique himself (M(r/e5, 
1910). Here was a real case of a jackdaw in borrowed 
plumage,' for Metzinger did not properly comprehend the 
pictorial logic or structural significance of Picasso s 

Plate 73 

Plate 74 

Jean Metzinger 

Head of Woman in a Hat, 1912 

Charcoal, 211/4-' I81/2 in. 

No. 216 

Jean Metzinger, Cnhist Landscape, 1911 
Oil, 32 X 39 in. 

No. 212 


f .^ 

- \ 

— r 


/ t„^ 


methods, with the result that his own paintings, like Le 
Fauconnier's Ahwulmicc, are only Cubist through the 
mannerism of having spattered the figures with cubic 
forms. Metzinger's vision was basically naturalistic, yet he 
imposed over it a system of proportions, planes and angles, 
which were mathematically calculated; he did not want 
to recreate reality in its totality using pure pictorial means, 
so his painting ended up by being artificial and schematic. 
Wecansce thisinhisC;//)/iYL<7;;r/^Ti!/n' (191 1) which, despite 
a busy planar structure and geometric simplifications, 
is perspectivally cleft by a receding diagonal leading 
off into deep space. In 1912, Metzinger was greatly 
influenced by the Cubist inventions of Juan Gris, as can 
be seen in the Portrait of Glcizcs. But here again the way 
in which he dissected the naturalistic image is both 


Plate 75 

Jean Metzinger 

Dancer in a Cafe, 1912 

Oil, 571/2x45 in. 

No. 214 

* There is irony in the fact that in 
On Cubism Gleizes and Metzinger 
wrote: 'As aU preoccupation in art 
arises firom the material employed, 
we ought to regard the decorative 
preoccupation, if we tmd it in a 
painter, as an anachronistic artilice, 
useful only to conceal impotence.' 

artificial and clumsy as well as meaningless, because the 
composite image does not recreate the head in its entirety 
nor evoke its mass. The Dancer in a Cafe, painted later the 
same year, is no more than a highly st)'hzed genre subject 
in which errant lines and decorative motifs* are used to 
evoke movement and produce a pleasing design. But even 
its angularities do not make of it a Cubist painting. 

Delavmay, 1910-14 

Delaunay and Leger, who became fiiends in 1909, were 
st}'Hstically in advance of the others of the group, had more 
serious creative intentions and were not only greater 
personaHties but artists of far greater consequence. In 1909 
each had begim to forge a personal idiom b}' pursuing 
some aspect of the work of Cezanne; each knew and also 
admired the work of Henri Rousseau. However, it was only 
in the spring of 1910 that they discovered the early Cubist 
works of Braque and Picasso. Having until this time worked 
in a colorist tradition, they were stirprised by the neutral 



tonaliries and sparse linear structure of these pictures, 
which seemed painted 'with cobwebs.' But they did not 
overlook the spirit of realism which had inspired them. 

* This date ^^-as inscribed later by 
the artist on the canvas nov in 
the collection of the Solomon R. 
Guggenheim Museum. But out of 
forgetfubiess, or a desire to gain 
prestige, Delaunay ante-dated many 
of his own works. He furst painted 
an Eiffel Tower in 1910, but the 
tliird (:) version, here illustrated, 
cannot have been painted before 
the spring of 1911. It was not, as 
claimed in the 1959 edition of tlie 
Guggenheim Museum Catalog, ex- 
hibited at the Indcpcndants in Paris 
in April 191 1. Guy Habasque, 
whose Catalog in Dii Ciibisiiie a 
I'Art Ahstrait (Paris 1957, No. 78, 
pp. 258 — 9) was compiled from 
family arclrives, states that this 
painting was first sho\\n at the In- 
dcpendants in Brussels in June 1911. 
The painting at the Paris Indepen- 
dants was a clearly preliminary, 
undated version, formerly in the 
coU. Kohler, Berlin and destroyed 
during World War II. It was dated 
1 91 1 in the Blaue Reiter Exhibition 
Catalog in Munich in December 

Delaunay was not slow to draw on the imiovations of 
Braque and Picasso for his own purposes, although he was 
not concerned with formal analysis or the recreation of 
soHd tano-ible rcalirv. He began, on the contrary, bv ex- 
ploiting the fragmentation of form, which he saw in the 
works of Cezanne as much as in those of Braque and 
Picasso, in order to create a new type of non-pcrspectival 
space and a sense of movement, using the interplay of 
colors rather than hne to defme his forms. Cezanne, he 
noted, had 'anticipated Cubism because his planes of color, 
or rather hght, had broken up objects and left them 
existing as a collection of pieces.' These Delaunay now tried 
to bring into a more mearhngful pictorial relationship, not 
in order to make space concrete in relation to objects but 
to create a dramatic effect, to represent the disruptive 
workings of hght and to evoke a spatial experience. And 
he used color as his prime expressive means because he 
was at heart a lyric painter. The fi'/Zi'/ Tower (1910=)* — 
probably his third and certainly Iris most accomphshed 
version of the subject — was the outstandmg achievement of 
what Delaunay was to call the 'destructive' period of his 
work. Lecturing on this pamting, Delaunay said : 'You see 
for example the group of cumulus clouds. Well, their 
luminous rays enabled me to break the continuity of the 
line of the tower. I wanted to tnid points of view on 
different sides and juxtapose them, but although I hoped 
to find the complete form I could not do so because at that 
time I was caught between traditional painting and the 
new rcalit)'.' This 'new reahty' proved within two years 
to consist in a play of color and light in space. But in the 


Plate 77 

Robert Delaiinay 

The Eiffel Tower 

(Study for PI. 79) 

1910 (or 1911?) 

Ink, 211/4x191/4 in. 

No. 66 

Plate 76 

Robert Delaunay 
Tower with Ferris Wheel fStudy for 
'The Red Tower') 1910 (or 1911=) 
Ink, 251/2x191/2 in. 

No. 65 

Plate 78 

Robert Delaunay 

The Eiffel Tower, Paris, 1926 

(after PI. 79) 

Transfer Lithograph, 241/4 x 1 72/4 in. 

No. 67 

meanwhile Delaunay used Cubist methods to express a 
dynamic vision of a modern city. In the Eiffel Toiler he 
evokes space, while flattening it pictorially, by splaying 
out three sides of the construction, so that it embraces and 
seems to traverse the houses at its base, and by representing 
sections of it as it rises into the sky from different view- 
points. This essentially pictorial solution was designed to 
express a modern sense of reality — though of a different 
order from that with which Braque and Picasso were con- 
cerned — and anticipated certain technical procedures which 
were shortly to be adopted by the Italian Futurists to reahze 
their proclaimed sense of 'simultaneity.' At the time, 
this shattering of the Eiffel Tower was the most 
striking manifestation seen in any Paris Salon of the general 
desire to have done with the past and its conventions. 

But Delatinay's 'destructive' period was not of long 
duration. Later in 191 1 he executed a small group of more 
abstractly disciplined paintings representing the view from 
his window in which the houses of Paris are shown framed 
between curtains. These paintings represent the closest 
that Delaunay came to true Cubism, for they are more 
surface-conscious and more conceptual, since their basic 
structure is made up of planes and facets (derived from 
buildings and rooftops) arranged to evoke space, though not 
mass, without recourse to perspective. Also Delaunay con- 
fmcd himself in them to a restricted palette of grays, aban- 
doned his concern with light as a destructive element and used 

fi fmr 1W 

Plate 79 

Robert Delaunay, The Eiffel Tower, 1911 (;) 
Oil, 791/2x541/2 in. 

No. 61 


Plate 80 

Robert Delaunay 

The Towers ofLcioii, 1912 

Oil, 633/4x511/8 in. 

No. 63 

Plate 81 

Robert Delaunay 

Window on the City II, 1912 

Oil, 153/8x113/8 in. 

No. 64 

it instead inconsistently to illuminate different parts of the 
work. Yet even in this group of paintings Delaunay diverged 
significantly from true Cubist painting in his use of sharp 
formal contrasts — many of the forms having an ambiguous 
significance — to create a dynamic effect, and especially in the 
way he applied a layer of dots over the basic composition to 
simulate atmospheric vibration and create a decorative effect. 
'Every area of space,' Delaunay said, 'is broken down in all 
directions into the smallest possible dimensions. This is the 
most complete type of dynamic dissolution, the liquidation 
of the recognized artistic means such as line, values, 
volumes, chiaroscuro and so on.' These paintings thus 
mark an advance toward, as well as a parting of the ways 
from, the true Cubists, because in them Delaiuiay began 
to abandon a concern with the material aspects of reality 
in favour of an interest in the immaterial. But before he 
did so completely, Delaunay turned back again to Cezanne 
for guidance in The Toti'crs of Laon (1912), a painting in 
which the cubification of space and form resembles that 



Pis. 7, 17 in Braque's landscapes of 1908-9. But again here Delaunay 
did not follow the true Cubists, because he worked with 
a palette of bright colors and used the curving avenue of 
trees on the right to create a perspectival effect which is 
in contradiction with the spatial flattening of the rest of 
the composition. From there Delaunay went on to sum 
up the experience he had gained in his paintings of the 
Pi. 82 past three years in a vast allegorical composition The City 
of Paris (completed early in 1912), which is anti-Cubist by 
virtue of the unreahty of its conception. For this is a Salon- 
type homage to Paris expressed through an uncomfortable 
cubified synthesis of, on the left, a Rousseau-like view of the 
Seine with a sailing-ship and houses, on the right a fragmented 
Eiffel Tower with clouds and a building, and in the center 
a highly elongated representation of a pseudo-classical 
group of Three Graces, set in an indeterminate foreground 
space. The whole composition has then been given a 
decorative, agitated and false life by gay colors, fragmenta- 
tion, formal contrasts and a skillfully contrived geometric 
structure. But as a pictorial recreation of reality it deals with 
another world than that of the Eifjci Tower. 

Plate 82 

Robert Delaunay 
Tiie City of Paris, 1912 
Oil, 1041/2 X 1581/2 in. 

Musce National d'Art Moderne, 

$4 Cubism in Paris: 1906-14 

Delaunay's next move, which marked the begimiing of 
what he was to call the 'constructive' period of his work, 
took him still further away from true Cubism. For in the 
Pi. Si summer of 1912 he painted a new series of Windows in 
which he reinterpreted his earUer city views in terms of 
transparent, interacting planes of pure color which do 
not correspond to material objects. It is possible in several 
of these still to discern vaguely a suggestion of the Eiffel 
Tower, of a facade of a house or of a ferris- wheel, but their 
real subject is hght and space. 'My eyes can see to the 
stars,' he was to write in 191 3. 'Line is limitation. Color 
gives depth — not perspectival, not successive, but simul- 
taneous depth — as well as form and movement.' In these 
paintings, Delaunay went back technically to his Neo- 
Impressionist beginnings. But instead of using the Neo- 
Impressionist technique of complementary and contrasted 
colors which are meant to blend in the eye of the spectator, 
he used what he called 'simultaneous' contrasts, that is to 
say colors which were intended to be seen simultaneously 
and independently without blending. This, Delaunay 
claimed, was a form of 'pure' painting, which was also 
'realistic' because it expressed a visual experience. Never- 
theless, abstraction here gained the upper hand over 
representation and Delaunay abandoned tangible reahty 
for a visionary metaphysical reahty. He stiU retained, in a 
modified fashion, the planar structure and faceting of 
Cubism, but used it for a wholly different purpose. This 
was the style which Apollinaire christened Orphic Cubism. 
However, it was but the prelude to the complete break with 
Cubism which occurred in Delatmay's next series of 
paintings, the Circular Forms, Homage to Bleriot and Discs 
(1912-13), which even he referred to as non-figurative. 
These later paintings have no objective content, are based 
on concentric circles of color, inspired by the planets, are 

Plate 83 

Robert Delaunay 

The City Seen From an 

Open Window, 1911 

OO, 571/2 ■• 441/8 in. 

No. 62 

supposed to develop in time and space, and mark the 
point at which Delaunay finally crossed the firontier into 
an art of total abstraction. 

Leger, 1909-14 

Leger was the first of the group to abandon the colorist 
tradition and in two paintings executed in the first half of 
1 909 resorted instead to a limited and rather dark palette : The 
PL 84 Bridge and Woman Sewing. The seated figure is represented 
with a 'primitivizLug' directness — comparable with that 
of Picasso's sculptural figures of 1907-8, which Leger had 
not seen — which owes a lot to Cezanne but also something 
to Henri Rousseau. The mass of the woman's body is 
composed of greatly simplified, angtilar but unbroken 
forms, which are coarsely faceted and heavily modeled, 
so that its volumes take on the fullness of a relief Light 
comes from a single source, and Leger has used a palette 

Plate 84 

Femand Leger 

Woiihvi Sewing (Portrait of The 

Artist's Mother), 1909 

Oil, 283/8x211/4 in. 

Pi 85 

No. 175 

of dark blue, gray and light brouoi. Leger always claimed, 
correctly, that his own artistic conceptions derived directly 
from Cezarme, so it is interesting to see how nearly this 
painting relates to Cezanne's U^oinan in Blue of about 1897 
(Venturi 705), though Leger has brought the figure closer 
to the surface of the canvas and aimed at a simpler, more 
monumental effect. Unlike Braque, who began by 
following up the subtle articulations of Cezanne's method, 
Leger was inspired by Cezanne's feeling for defining 
forms and his sense of volume in space, as is also evident in 
Table and Fruit (1909). 'Cezanne taught me to love forms 
and volumes, he made me concentrate on drawing. And 
then I reahzed that drawing had to be rigid and in no way 
sentimental,' he said in a lecture in 1913. Thus, in terms 
of style, Leger was close at this point to the early Cubism 
of Braque and Picasso but far removed from the pictorial 
methods of Delaunay, who took as his point of departure 
the fragmentation of form. 

Leger next undertook a large and complex composition 
Pi. 86 oi Xiides in a Landscape, finished in the spring of 1910, in 
which everything — figures, trees and the other landscape 
elements — was reduced to basic geometric forms. Again 
his handling of these forms was in effect sculptural, 
although now he faceted and partiaUy broke them do^^^lby a 
sort of analytical process. A reasonable comparison can be 
Pi. 11 made between this picture and Picasso's Three Xudes 
ofi9oS, for both are surface-conscious paintings, executed 
in a neutral palette, in which the solid tangible aspects of 
reahr\' are forcefully rendered, space is flattened, one-point 
perspective disregarded and faceting used to evoke volume. 
But whereas the figures in Picasso's painting have a sculp- 
tural unit}' and are static, while the setting is neutral, Leger's 
whole composition is based on an arrangement of dis- 

Feniand Leger, Tabic mid Fruit, 1909 
Oil, 33 X 39 in. 

No. 176 

Plate 86 

Fernand Lcger, Nudes in a Landscape, 1909-10 
Oil, 471/4x67 in. 

No. 177 

88 Cubism in Paris: igoC-i^ 

jointed cones, cylinders and cubes, -which serve a represen- 
tational purpose and at the same time create, by their 
directional slant and formal oppositions, a d^Tiamic 
movement in space. Thus already at this stage Leger's 
pictorial aims were reahstic in a sense that Braque and 
Picasso would have imderstood. And when he said that 
for himself the Nudes were "only a tussle wnh volumes' 
because much as he would have liked to introduce color 
he 'felt that he cotild not control it,' Leger revealed that 
he was working -with the same single-mindedness as they 
were. It was, how-ever, only after he had completed 
this painting that Leger and Delaunay first saw- the 
early Cubist paintings of Braque and Picasso at the 
Kahnweiler Caller}'. 

The influence of this experience is visible in a group of 
virtuall}- Cubist cit}'scapes, comparable with those 
executed bv Delaunay at the same moment in the spring 
of 191 1. Here Leger abandoned imaginary subjects for 
everj-da}' reaht)-. In the fmest and most resolved of these 
(coU. McMillan, Minneapohs) the buildings and their 
roofs provided Leger with rectangular cubic forms and 
several flat planes which he used to recreate space by 
pointing them in varying directions. He detmed each of 
these elements wdth hnes, which thus provided him with 
a structural firamew'ork, and he limited the depth of his 
pictorial space by vertical planes in the background which 
arrest the inward movement set up by those in the 
foregroimd. The roof planes form an eUipse around a 
central space, but this is also flattened by the use of var}-ing 
perspectives, while by tilting the planes Leger has repeatedly 
brought the eye back to the picture surface. In aU of this, 
Leger has respected a certain degree of visual logic, but it 
is equaUy significant that he has not 'analyzed,' faceted or 

Plate 87 

Femand Leger 

Siuokers, 1911 

Oa, 51x377/sm. 

No. 178 

fragmented his forms. Leger has thus succeeded in 
representing space without recourse to eye-fooling devices 
and has recreated an experience of reahty with purely 
pictorial elements. This is therefore a predoniinantly static 
painting — only a slight movement is evoked by the rising 
coils of smoke — because Leger has omitted the active 
formal contrasts which played a part in his preceding 
works. All of this proclaims that his painting was Cubist in 
spirit. Where Leger diverged from the practice of Braque 
and Picasso, however, was in giving an active role to 
hght — which emanates from a hidden source between the 
buildings — and in using primary colors on some of the 
planes, often with a descriptive significance. 

This was the closest Leger ever came to true Cubism 
because, after that, although he continued to represent 
reality in its solid, tangible aspects, he modified his 


Cubism ill Paris: igo6-i4 

Pi. 87 

Plate 88 

Fernand Leger 

Study for ' Woman in Blue,' 1912 

Oil, 511/2x39 in. 

No. 179 

pictorial methods to express also a dynamic experience. 
That is to say, that while Leger went on using basic 
geometric forms and primary colors to represent reality, 
he completed his picture with oppositions of form and 
color to evoke movement in space and express a more 
dynamic twentieth century vision. Leger had already 
begun to use this method tentatively in Three Figures 
(1910-11), which he painted shortly after Nudes in a 
Landscape, and more explicitly in The Smokers (1911), where 
the stylized puffs of tobacco smoke create an interplay 
on the picture surface with some flat, angular planes of 
color which have no representational significance. Again 
in these paintings Leger had no recourse to scientific perspec- 
tive and recreated space chiefly by a contrast in size 
between the figures and still hfe in the foregroimd and 
the landscape with trees and houses behind, but secondly 
by the way objects and the planes of color mount rhyth- 
mically up the surface of the canvas. The contrasts 
between the different types of forms and between the 
primary colors — angular with curving, flat with rounded, 
solid with opaque, red with green, blue v^th ochre — 
which send the eye backwards and forwards (since they 
are not meant to be seen 'simultaneously'), also induce a 
sense of movement. Now both Three Figures and The 
Smokers can be properly regarded as Cubist paintings, 
personal though they are. But when in the Woman in 
Bhie (1912) Leger allowed the formal and tonal contrasts 
of abstract planes of color to play a much more dominant 
role, so that the aim of recreating reahty suffered, he had 
moved away from the aesthetic of Cubism. Unquestion- 
ably Leger was still concerned up to a point in that 
painting with representing a known reahty, though neither 
with making it tangible nor with recreating it in its 
entirety. The figure, seated in an armchair and with hands 

Plate 89 

Fernand Leger 

TbeStairway, 1913 

Oil, 563/4x451/2 in. 

No. 181 

clasped, is represented in the foreground plane, in front 
of a table on which a glass is visible, and against a flat 
background plane. Space therefore plays very Httle role 
in this painting. Descriptive details have been largely 
dispensed with and the objective content of the picture 
is composed of basic geometric forms, insistently modeled 
to evoke volume, which have been arrived at not through 
formal analysis but through pictorial determinism. On top 
of this figurative element, Leger has imposed a second 
composition consisting of bold unfaceted planes of color 
whose role is partly descriptive — the chest and lap, for 
example — and partly arbitrar\\ Thus Leger injected 
vitahty into his painting through the way he contrasted, 
but yet integrated, two different sets of elements and made 
color play a decisive constructive role. 

Pi. Sg 

However, Leger seems to have felt that this type of compo- 
sition was too complicated to pursue because, in 1 9 1 3 , in Tlie 
Stairway for example, he abandoned the use of arbitrary 


i HI} 

Plate 90 

Femand Leger 

Two Reclining Women, 1913 

Gouache, 19^/4x251/8 in. 

No. 187 

Pis. go, gi, g4, 97 

Plate 91 

Femand Lcger 

House Among Trees, 1912 

Gouache, I71/2 ~< 13 in. 

No. 185 

colored planes in order to give greater value to the 
objective content of his paintings — either figures, a still 
hfe or a landscape. At this stage Leger dehumanized his 
figure completely and reduced everything — bodies, build- 
ings, trees, still hfe objects — to an articulated structure of 
the same basic geometric forms. Each of these forms is given 
bold unbroken outlines, is emphatically rounded and 
painted in a primary color, and as before Lcger uses the 
contrasts between them and their rhythmic progression 
up the canvas to create space and movement in space. 
This may seem to indicate a flight from reality, and of 
course Leger was not attempting to use pure pictorial 
means to recreate visual reahty. But he did aim at evoking 
another type of reahty, for as he himself explained: 
'Contrasts ^ Dissonance, that is to say a maximum of 
expressive effect. Consider the visual effect of the balls 
of smoke curving up between the houses and the way to 
transpose this into plastic terms, for it is one of the best 
examples of how to arrive at a heightened intensity. 
Throw your curves off-centre with as much variation as 
possible, though without breaking their continuit)', then set 
them off against the hard, dry planes of the houses, dead 
planes which will take on a sense of movement by virtue of 
being differently colored from the central mass and 
opposed to forms which are animated.' 

Lcger's reahstic intentions proclaim his affiliation to the 
principles of true Cubism. But unlike Braque and Picasso, 

Plate 92 

Femand Leger 

Contrast of Forms, 1913 

Oil, 391/2x32 in. 

No. 180 

Pis. gi, 95 

.■ '"^'^^'A 

■»/ A^^^>^ 


/ B . jy'^^P 


/ pf / £ 'f 


1 1^ ^iifer #^ 

. ^^L^^Jf^ 



.'i^^B^jsK ^jl^tk 

■■ ' ^J&^ ^SA^nt^^ * 

JsW^' ^Xh^L. ^^^^j 

Ef ■'/'TM^ 

* &N— rf^^^/A^ (^ 




j^^^T^Ej y 


E^ !^ fj[^. 

P^ '^ T I 

Plate 93 

Femand Leger 

Drawing for 'Contrast of Forms 

No. 2: 1913 

Wash drawing, 19x25 in. 

No. 186 

whose realism consisted in recreating realit)' as fully and 
as Hterally as possible by new pictorial methods, Leger's 
conception of realism began with rejecting symbolical or 
romantic trappings in order to be free to use basic pictorial 
elements to evoke the throbbing intensir)', the opposing 
rhythms, the d)'Tiamism and the human involvement of 
modem civihzation. This explains why for a while, in 
191 3-14, he experimented in a series entitled Contrasts of 
Forms to discover how strong an expressive effect he could 
achieve by using his habitual repertoire of geometric 
forms and primary colors without any representational 

Plate 94 

Femand Legcr 

Still Life on a Tabic, 1914 

Oil, 353/4x28 in. 

No. 184 

Plate 95 

Femand Leger 
Two Figures, 1914 
Oil, 31 Vsx 25-^8 in. 

No. 183 

Plate 96 

Femand Leger 

Wowcm and Still Life, 1914 

Gouache, I51/4X I21/2 in. 

No. 188 

Ph. 94—97 

signification whatever. But this non-figurative venture 
failed to satisfy Leger, and in the last group of paintings he 
executed before receiving his mobihzation orders in 
August 1914 — for example, Houses among Trees, Still Life 
and Two Figures — Leger returned to using conceptual means 
to recreate solid, tangible aspects of reaht}'. It was at this 
point, however, that Leger's affiHation to Cubism was to 
be abruptly broken, because while he was at the front he 
was deeply affected by a first-hand experience of the beauty 
of modem precision engineering, and when he came back 
he adopted a wholly different aesthetic. 

hi Les Peintres Cuhistes, Apollinaire classified Leger vnth 
Delaunay as an Orphist because, as he makes clear, the 
'lighmess' and clarity of his colors appealed to him. In fact 
the aims, interests and methods of these two painters 
could hardly have been more different, for where Delaunay 
was drawn into the realm of light and space, Leger 
remained obstinately earth-bound. But there are certain 

Plate 97 

Fernand Leger, Houses Aiiioiif; Trees, 1914 
Oil, 511/4x381/4 ill- 

No. 182 

g6 Cuhism in Paris: 1906-14 

similarities which must be considered between Leger's 
work and that of other painters who were also concerned 
with representing movement and dynamic experiences, 
namely the Itahan Futurists and Marcel Duchamp whom 
he counted among his friends. At no point did Leger ever 
try to follow the Futurists in representing crowd scenes, 
the sensation of being in a moving vehicle, or the violence 
of modern life, because to him their pictorial interests 
smacked of illustration and sensationalism. Yet Leger did 
have something in common with the Futurists in his 
understanding of modern reaHty, for like them he spoke 
of the visual consequences of mechanization and speed. In 
a lecture of 1914, for example, justifying his own ex- 
pressive methods, Leger said: 'The thing depicted is less 
stationary, even the object in itself is less discernible than 
it used to be. A landscape broken into and traversed in a 
car or an express train loses in descriptive value but gains 
in synthetic value ; the window of the railroad carriage or 
the windshield of the car, combined with the speed at 
which you are traveling, have changed the familiar look 
of things. Modern man registers one hundred times more 
impressions than did an eighteenth century artist.' 
However, what distinguishes the painting of Leger not 
only from that of the Futurists, but also from that of 
Delaunay and Duchamp, is the fact that Leger never 
wanted to represent movement continuing or evolving 
in space. Leger's subject-matter, like that of Braque or 
Picasso, is always static: such movement as there is in 
his pictures is generated by the compositional elements 
themselves, which pile upwards on the picture surface in 
an undulating and often sharply punctuated rhythm. How 
could it be otherwise when, like the true Cubists, Leger 
limited his pictorial space and had no recourse to eye- 
fooling perspectives? 

The Movement Gathers Momentum 


The Movement Gathers 
Momentum, 1911-14 

An outline has now been provided of the types of painting 
being produced by, and the variety of ideas current among, 
the small group of Parisian artists who were looked upon 
in 1910-11 as the first representatives of a Cubist school of 
painting. Once the movement had been launched at the 
Salon d'Automne in 1910, it rapidly gained adherents, and 
throughout 191 1 there were repeated Cubist displays at the 
Salon des Indcpendants in the spring, at the annual 
exhibition of the Societe des Artistes Indcpendants in 
Brussels in June, and again at the Salon d'Automne in 
October. The new recruits who began to show with the 
original group during the year included dc La Fresnaye, 
Lhote, Dunoyer de Segonzac, Duchamp, Villon, Moreau, 
Picabia, Mare, Laurencin, Duchamp-Villon, Archipenko, 
and Gris (first appearance at the hidependants of 191 2). By 
this time the movement had become more self-conscious, 
while for the public its existence became more real when 
Apollinaire, in an open-handed preface to the catalogue of 
the Brussels exhibition, stated that these 'new painters' 
accepted the 'name of Cubists which has been given to 
them. However, Cubism is not a system, and the differences 
which characterize not only the talents but even the st)'les 
of these artists are an obvious proof of this.' 

* Author of the most meaningless 
of all comments: 'The real definition 
of Cubism it seems to me is: A 
reassertion of a sense of style through 
a more subjective vision of nature 
(sometimes expressed by a more 
definite notation of mass). The prime 
interest of Cubism is the absolute 
difference between one painter and 
another.' [Paris-journal, 23 October 

At once the Cubist movement began to receive more 
notice in the press, where it was often laughed at. The 
principal critics who defended Cubism and were closely 
involved through friendship with the artists concerned were 
Guillaume Apollinaire, Andre Salmon, Roger Allard, 
Ohvier Hourcade* (who in 1912 wrote 'there is no Cubist 
school') and Maurice Raynal. These men were behind the 
idea of the Cubist gallery at the Indcpendants of 191 1 and 
were to continue to be active as exhibition organizers and 
as contact-men, keeping the lines open between the various 


Cubism ill Paris: 1906-14 

Ph. 48, 49, 254, 255 

* Leger said of Cendrars : ' Wc were 
on the same wave-length. Like 
myself, he picked things up in the 
streets.' Cendrars was also a close 
friend of Chagall. 

factions as they formed or broke away, and above all with 
related groups outside France. The only two, who, 
because of old and close friendships, enjoyed a freedom to 
visit all the studios were Apollinaire and Raynal; the 
others moved in more limited circles. But apart from these 
men, who wrote regular art criticism in newspapers and 
reviews, there were other men of letters who frequented 
the studios. Picasso, for instance, had as close friends the 
poet Max Jacob and Pierre Reverdy, the latter also being 
very friendly with Braque and Gris. Delaimay and Leger 
had a close friend in Blaise Cendrars.* Gleizes and 
Metzinger, on the other hand, had as their entourage the 
writers Jacques Nayral and Alexandre Mercercau, who 
had formed part of the Symbolist circle around Paul Fort. 
Thus Cubism spread into the world of literature, writers 
dedicated books and poems to the painters, and they in 
turn not only illustrated their friends' books but referred 
to them visibly in their paintings. 

This close connection between writers and artists soon 
gave rise to the idea that Cubism also existed in a literary 
form, a notion which gained ground among the artists 
when, in the spring of 191 2, Blaise Cendrars returned to 
Paris from a visit to America with a long poem entitled 
Easter in New York, which he read in Delaunay's studio to 
a group of friends including Apollinaire. All those present, 
it seems, felt that Cendrars' poem was realistic in the way 
Cubist painting was meant to be. As this reading occurred 
soon after the opening of the first Futurist Exhibition in 
Paris (February 1912) and contained lines such as: 

Already the city is echoing with a treinendoiis noise. 
Already the trains are leaping, groaning and rolling past. 
While the subway is rumbling and thundering underground. 

The Movcinciit Gathers Moiiientiini pp 

The bridges are shaken by tlie raihvad trains. 
The n'liole city is atrenible. 

it is not difticLilt to understand how the idea arose. This 
novel use of everyday reahty as the stuff of poetry struck 
the members of the Cubist group as similar to their own 
use of cityscapes and everyday objects as the subject- 
matter of painting. But here they were confusing Cubism 
with Modernism. For where Braque and Picasso were 
intent on creating a new pictorial language and were 
happy if, despite their technical preoccupations, they could 
incorporate contemporary elements into their paintings, 
the painters of the Cubist school, and particularly the 
Itahan Futurists, used Cubist discoveries to give their 
paintmgs a sensational modernism. Thus it was not so much 
the revolutionary technical innovations of the poets which 
caused them to be thought of as Cubist writers as their 
lack of fmc sentiments, use of a conversational tone and 
the realistic modernism of their subject-matter. Easter in 
Nen' York undoubtedly influenced Apollinaire's famous 
* Written in the fall of 1912. poem Zone* in which he openly rejected 'the old world' 

and opted for: 

A cJiarming street n'Jiose name I forget. 

In the morning a siren wails there three times 
An angry bell barks out at mid-day. 
The inscriptions on the ti'alls, the street-signs 
The notices, the name-plates slniek like parrots. 
I love the grace of this industrial street. 

Shortly after completing this poem, Apollinaire wrote 
another entitled Fenetres (Windows) in celebration of the 
'orphic' paintings of his friend Delaunay. 


Cubism in Paris: 1^06-14 

* A painter and a close friend of 

* Marie Laurencin was pushed into 
the Cubist group because she was 
the mistress of ApoUinaire. Her 
painting was not Cubist in any way 

* The Futurists had heard about 
what Braque and Picasso were doing 
from Severini, who lived in Paris 
but had visited Milan that summer, 
as well as from the writer Sofifici; 
presumably they had also seen some 
reproductions of Cubist paintings. 

* Significantly, the only Cubist 
works by a French painter exhibited 
before 1914 in Italy was a small 
group by Gleizes at the Fine Arts 
Society in Florence in Aprd 1913. 
By this time the Futurists were 
claiming to have had their original 
ideas plagiarized by the French, and 
in particular by Delaunay. 

* The paintings by Braque and 
Picasso at all these exhibitions were 
either lent by the Kahnweiler 
Gallery in Paris or by private 
collectors in the different countries. 

The year 1912 witnessed the rapid expansion and inter- 
nationahzation of Cubism. The group appeared again in 
mass at the Independants and the Salon d'Automne, where 
in two large galleries the work of over twenty so-called 
Cubist painters was hung, among new recruits at this time 
being Oris, Marcoussis, Herbin, Mondrian, Rivera, and 
Kupka. A group of Cubist paintings was also on view at 
the Salon de Juin in Rouen, where ApoUinaire delivered a 
lecture. Then too there was the novelty of Cubism 
spreading into architecture and interior decoration, for 
a feature of the Salon d'Automne was a Cubist House, 
organized by Andre Mare* (interior) and Duchamp- Villon 
(architecture), with paintings and wall-decorations by 
Leger, de La Fresnaye, Villon, Duchamp, Metzinger, 
Gleizes and Laurencin.* 

In February 191 2, the Italian Futurists, who had begun 
to adopt certain Cubist procedures in their own painting 
during the fall of 191 1* — after seeing the Salon d'Automne 
in October and doing a round of Parisian studios where 
for the first time they saw true Cubist works in those 
of Braque and Picasso — held an exhibition at the Bemheim 
Gallery. Apollinaire seized the opportunity to point out in 
his articles for the press not only what they owed to Picasso 
but also in what respects their painting differed from that 
of the new generation in France. The show then moved on 
to London, Berlin, Amsterdam, Vienna, Dresden, and 
Moscow spreading the knowledge of Futurist and cubistic 

Germany also suddenly became aware of Cubism at 
this time. Works by Braque, Picasso, Metzinger, Delaunay 
and others had already been shown at avant-garde Salons 
in Diisseldorf, Cologne, Berlin, and Munich since 1910.* 

The Movement Gathers Moinentmii 


But now the newly formed Blaue Reiter group in 
Munich sponsored the showing of Cubist paintings 
by Braque, Picasso, de La Fresnaye and especially Delaunay 
at its inaugural exhibitions in December 191 1 and February 
1912. Then Marc, Macke, and Klee went to Paris, visited 
Le Fauconnier, Delaunay and Picasso in their studios, and on 
their return to German-s* began to refer to themselves as 
German Cubists. 

* The artists in control ot this more 
advanced Group had broken away 
from the Manes Group in 1911 and 
were already paintuig under Cubist 
influence, having seen original paint- 
ings in Paris and in the Kramaf 

In May 1913, at the exhibition of the Group of Avivit- 
Garde Artists in Prague,* Cubist works by Braque, Picasso, 
and Gris were shown, while at the same Group's show in 
1914 there were Cubist works by Villon, Metzinger, de 
La Fresnaye, Gleizes and Marcoussis. A second exhibition 
of modem art, organized bv Mercereau for the Manes 
Group, was also held in Prague in 1914, and included 
works by Delaunay, de La Fresnaye, P. H. Bruce, Friesz, 
Gleizes, Lhote, Metzinger, Marcoussis, Mondrian, Rivera, 
Villon, and Duchamp-Villon. 

* Delaunay was also invited, but his 
paintings never arrived. Paintings 
of 1908-09 by Braque were seen 
at the Golden Fleece exhibition in 
Moscow in the spring of 190S and 
in January 1909. 

Meanwhile, Cubism had also penetrated to Russia, where 
between December 1910 and the spring of 1913 Lentulov, 
Falk and Larionov organized four exhibitions {'Jack of 
Diamonds' Society) in Moscow which included works 
(selected by Mercereau) by Gleizes, Le Fauconnier, Leger, 
and Metzmger.* More important still, however, was the 
very large collection of Cubist works b)- Picasso which 
was being amassed in Moscow between 1908 and 1914 
by the merchant Shchukm. 

Cubist paintings by Braque and Picasso were included 
in the Second Post-Impressionist Exhibition in London 
in October 1912, but in the dead artistic chmate of 
England they were laughed to scorn. Cubist paintings by 

102 Cubism in Paris: igo6-i^ 

Gleizes, Gris, Leger, Lc Faucoixtoier, Duchamp, and Metzin- 
ger were sho^^^l at the Galeries Dalmau in Barcelona in 
April 1912. In 191 1 and 1912 the Circle of Modem 
Artists in Amsterdam, of which Mondrian was an active 
member, showed Cubist works b)" Braque, Picasso, 
Leger, Gleizes, Lc Faucoimier, and Metzinger. New York 
had its first sight of Cubist works (drawings) by Picasso 
at the Photo-Secession Gallerv" in 191 1. but its great 
a\\'akening to Cubist painting did not come of course until 
The Armoiy Show of February- 1913, which included 
recent works by Braque, Picasso, Delaturay, Duchamp, 
Gleizes, de La Fresnaye, Leger, Picabia, Villon, and 

The result of this spreading of the movement — which was 
accompanied by certain hostile demonstrations — was to 
encourage artists everywhere to look long at Cubism and 
think about what it had to offer. And this opening of a 
debate incvitabh" led to restless experimentation. Cubism 
could surely be improved on or put to other uses, they 
seem to have decided. And so between 1912 and 1914 we 
find the Cubism of Braque and Picasso — which to many 
artists seemed cold, colorless, static, reasonable or conven- 
tion-bound — providing the impetus tor new movements 
which assumed a wholly ditierent character: Orphisni, 
Futurism, Cubo-Futurism, Rayonnism, Vorticism, Suprc- 
matism, Dadaism and ultimatelv (1919) Purism. These 
movements ran the gamut from those \^-hich tried to 
represent movement, or ultra-modern experiences of 
speed and flight, to others whose aims were non-figurative 
or mvolved total abstraction in one form or another, and 
thus onwards to an art of srvhzed decoration, to an art 
compounded of mockery and nihihsm (Dada), and at last 
to the reaction of Purism. 

The Movevietit Gathers MoiiieutiiDi lo- 

As the Cubist movement spread through Europe, so 
confusion grew. Each new idea had to be pubHcized, 
manifestos in several languages made their appearance, and 
each new faction laid claim to better, greater and more 
significant achievements. Small wonder, then, that not 
onl}- the public but even the artists themselves were 
bewildered. So in 1912-13 the Parisian critics and writers 
started to make a great effort to explain what Cubism was 
all about and to classify its different manifestations. First 
in the field was Andre Salmon, already an old tricnd of 
Picasso, whose volume La JeiDie Peinture Fran^-aise, pub- 
hshed in the fall of 1912, contained an informative, 
sharply discriminating chapter entitled 'Anecdotal History 
of Cubism,' which was based on personal observation of 
the events related. Next came Gleizes and Metzinger with 
* English language edition Ctibisiii a largely theoretical exegesis entitled Du Cuhisiiie* pub- 
published (London) in the spring hshed at the end of 1912. It was at the beginning of this 
°^ ^913- year that ApoUmaire had pubhshed his two articles on 

Futurist painting, distinguishing it from Cubism. But 
in October 1912, he brought out a shght, though very 
personal, accotmt of Cubism proper, entitled The Beoiii- 
nhigs of Cubism, and he followed this up in December 1912 
with a much more serious article on the painting of 
Delaunay in which, using the artist's o^^^^ words, he 
demonstrated how he too had diverged from true Cubism. 
Then fmally in his booklet Les Peiiitres Ciihistes: Medita- 
tions EstJietiqites, pubhshed in the spring of 191 3, where the 
text consisted of a re-working of passages from articles 
which had appeared during the past four years, plus some 
fireshl}' written additional chapters, Apolhnaire produced 
what has long passed for the frrst serious analysis of Cubist 
pamting as it was understood by those participating at the 
time. Today we know that many of the ideas put forward 
in these various publications were misguided, also that 

104 Cubism in Paris: 1906-14 

they enshrine many errors of fact. But they are of interest 
because they reflect certain notions which were in the air 
and are symptomatic of the behef in Cubism as a new 
artistic force. 

As the number of self-styled adherents to Cubism grew 
and groups of different nationalities — all with different 
ideas — attached themselves to the Parisian nucleus, so the 
semblance of unity disappeared. Delaunay was the first to 
break away openly when, in the summer of 19 12 (after 
painting The City of Paris), he formed a small coterie of his 
own which included his old friend Apollinaire, Cendrars, 
and two new painters, Chagall and Patrick Bruce, an 
American. Gleizes and Metzinger tried to counter this break 
and preserve the appearance of a coherent miUtant move- 
ment by forming their o\Am new discussion group, Lcs 
Artistes lie Passy, in October 1912, to which they attracted 
de La Fresnaye, Picabia, Villon and Duchamp- Villon, as 
well as certain critics. It was, however, ApoUinaire, the 
perfect fixer, who in the name of friendship and The 
Modern Movement, was the most adept at glossing over 
irreconcilable differences of outlook, by fmchng room for 
everyone in his Cubist embrace. He even went so far as to 
suggest that Matisse, Rouault, Laurencin, and Van Dongen 
were Cubist painters at heart. 

A serious division of opinion developed in the Cubist 
group in the summer of 1912 over the question of whether 
realism or abstraction was the real goal of Cubist painting. 
The principal champions of abstraction gathered in the 
suburban studios at Puteaux of a mathematically and 
scientifically minded trio of brothers: Jacques ViUon, 
Marcel Duchamp, and Raymond Duchamp- Villon. The 
three brothers gave a scientific twist to Cubism and drew 

The Movciiieiit Gathers Moiiientiiiii lo^ 

into their circle a few kindred spirits such as Gleizes, 
Leger, Picabia, Lhotc, Kupka, and Gris. It was this group 
which thought up the idea of organizing an independent 
Cubist exhibition under the title La Section d'Or, which 
opened to the accompaniment of considerable press 
publicit)' at the Galerie la Boetie in October 1912. A 
special periodical edited by Reverdy was produced for the 
occasion with articles by Apollinaire, Salmon, Raynal, 
Nayral and Hourcade. Some two hundred works by 
thirty artists were put on view, among newcomers being 
Marcoussis, Marchand, Dumont, Archipenko (who was 
to amiounce two months later that he had severed all 
connection with the Cubist group), and such near- 
academic artists as Girieud, Tobeen, Luc-Albert Moreau, 
Le Beau, Valensi and Dunoyer de Segonzac. The one 
obvious absentee (apart from Braque and Picasso) was of 
course Delaunay. The idea behind this exhibition was to 
'present the Cubists, no matter of what tendency ... as the 
most serious and most interesting artists of this epoch' 
(ApoUinaire). To this end, each artist was invited to send 
not only his most recent works but a group illustrating 
his development over the past three years. Thus this 
exhibition represented yet another attempt to clarif)' the 
situation and was important for estabhshing the prestige 
of the Cubists. 

Despite Delaunay's secession from the group, Apolhiraire 
was not prepared to desert his friend, more especially since 
at this time Delaunay's 'Orphist' theories began to have 
a considerable influence on panning in other European 
countries. So m January 1913 he accompanied Delaunay 
to Berlin for the opening of his one-man show at the 
Sturm Galler)% pubhshing a long new poem on his 
Windows in the catalogue and an explanatory article in 

io6 Cubism in Paris: 1^06-14 

* The text was very similar to that the Gallery's monthly periodical Der Stiinii* The Sturm 
pubhshed in December 1912 in Lcs Gallery was an international ai'cvit-(iar(lc center rmi by 
Soirees dc Paris. Herwarth Walden, which embraced Expressionism, 

Futurism, Cubism, Orphisni and Abstract Art, and where 
the German impresario-dealer hopefully tried to bring the 
multifarious strands of the modern movenients in Germany, 
France, Italy, Holland and Russia into a meaningful 
relationship. But, alas for Delaunay and Apolhnaire, the 
outcome of their trip was to bring the Cubist movement 
into still greater disrepute with the public. For on their 
return to Paris 7t' Ciihisinc soon began to be referred to 
as 'DcT Kubisiuiis' — helped perhaps by the fact that the 
letters 'KUB' (a brand of soup cubes) appeared in pictures 

* e.g. Zervos Catalog, Vol. 11, by Picasso* — and for a long while to come the suspicion 
Nos. 303, 353 (1912). persisted that Cubism was in some way unpatriotic. 

By the early months of 191 3, the Paris school of Cubists 
was in ferment, no coherent style had evolved, and the 
idiom which Apolhnaire and others had for so long 
proclaimed to be both reasonable and French was felt 
to be developing dangerous international affiliations. This 
provided an excuse for the bourgeoisie, who could not 
recognize what was represented pictorially and had already 
decided that Cubism was simply flaunting accepted 
aesthetic principles, entrenched conventions and even the 
recognized use of the technical means, to bring its fear 
and resentment into the open. In the tense atmosphere of 
these pre-war months, feeling began to mount, so that 
just after the opening of the Sectioi d'Or a Municipal Coun- 
cillor of Paris, named Lampue, published in the Merciire de 
France (16 October 1912) an Open Letter to the Under- 
Secretary for the Fine Arts protesting against the admission 
of the Cubists to the Salon d' Autonme. Then in December 
a Socialist Deputy, Jean-Louis Breton, niade a similar 

Types of Cubism loj 

interpellation in the Chamber, protesting that it was 
outrageous for 'buildings belonging to the nation to be 
used tor demonstrations of such an unmistakably anti- 
artistic and anti-national character.' Fortunately, another 
Socialist deputy, Marcel Sembat, who was in s}'mpathy 
with the new art, was on hand to reply tartly that Breton 
had no need to look at what he did not like, but no right 
whatever to think of calling in the pohce. Even so, feelings 
were not calmed. 

Apollinaire had become converted to a belief in the great 
future awaiting Cubism and the new art during 191 1. 
Since then he had made every effort to present and explain 
the unruly elements of the avant-garde to the pubhc as 
part of one great constructive movement. But despite his 
manoeuvres he was unable to keep the Cubist movement 
together. The outbreak of war in 1914 thus resolved many 
an awkward situation b)- consummating the break-up of the 
group, both in France and elsewhere. However, by that 
time the essential aesthetic battle had been won, friutful 
and imfruitful artistic experiments had opened doors to 
new possibilities, and the true Cubists had entered upon 
a great constructive period which was to carry the style 
forward for several years to come. The Renaissance 
tradition seemed then a thing of the past, and all young 
painters in Europe — even in America — were ready to 
profit by the outcome oi the Cubist revolution, which had 
already laid the foundations of a new international pictorial 

Types of Cubism Before analyzing the stylistic variants and deviations which 

were nourished and inspired by the revolutionary achieve- 
ments of the true Cubists, it is essential to repeat that 


Cubism in Paris: 1906-14 

Braque and Picasso were not directly involved with any 
faction. They allowed their paintings to be exhibited 
outside of France alongside those of the other so-called 
Cubists, while maintaining their creative independence 
and never trying to assert any kind of authority. Indeed 
Picasso's aloofness made of him a somewhat legendary and 
prestigious figure. Few people were privileged to sec 
the paintings in his studio, yet he got full credit for 
having invented Cubism because by some curious twist 
of fortune Braque — whose name had been just as promi- 
nent at the start — was rarely mentioned after 1909 except 
as one of his followers. Thus Cubism, so far as the French 
public was concerned, was what it actually saw and read 
about. And it is not unfair to say that this was largely the 
production of lesser talents and of a considerable number 
of artists who were not French by birth. 

* Metzingcr, Gleizes, Dclaunay, 
Lcger, Le Faucomiicr, ApoUinaire, 
Mercereau, Nayral, and Salmon had 
all frequented Paul Fort's gatherings 
at the Closcrie des Lilas on Tuesday 

* Braque is the one exception. He 
renounced the colorist art of Fauvism 
in 1907 when, after studying paint- 
ings by Cezanne, he 'saw something 
different' in nature. 

Two factors have to be borne in mind when considering 
the art of The Cubist Epoch: first, that many of the 
artists and writers of the Paris group had once belonged to 
the Symbolist circle;* second, that many others were by 
temperament anti-traditionalist above all and therefore 
predisposed to find in Cubism a convenient tool of destruc- 
tion. All those coming from the Symbolist circle had a 
colorist past, so that unlike Braque and Picasso they were 
not attracted by the formal and realistic possibilities of 
Cubism.* They did not want to arrive at a truer and more 
complete pictorial representation of reality but envisaged 
a 'pure' form of painting which would be a visual equiv- 
alent to music and poetry. Hence their predisposition 
to regard Cubism as a stage on the path towards an art 
of total abstraction. Other members of the Cubist group 
proceeded, on the contrary, by calculation and theory rather 
than by intuition : they believed in the intellectual appeal 

Types of Cubism log 

of proportions, shapes and a balanced design without 
regard for its visual meaning, so that they began by 
stylizing and later accepted an abstract design as a valid 
substitute for an image of reality. Then there were those 
who behevcd in the negation of all inherited notions about 
painting and regarded the Cubist breakthrough as only a first 
step towards new techniques to express a new vision of 
reality and new sensations as well. These artists saw 
themselves as the interpreters of novel experiences which 
should affect modern man not only in his life but in his 
imaginative outlook, and they tried to borrow from 
modern inventions, such as machinery and the motion 
piicture, the means for doing so. 

With this picture in mind of the different tendencies 
existing within the Cubist movement it is necessary to 
look back at the way in which Apollinaire proceeded to 
classify them in Lcs Pciiitres Cuhistcs. This classification no 
longer has any validity, but it must be recorded because it 
was the first. Apollinaire identified four tendencies in 
Cubism, two of which he described as being 'pure': 
'Scientific Cubism' and 'Orphic Cubism.' The former he 
defined as 'the art of painting new structures with elements 
borrowed not from visual reality but from the reaUty 
of knowledge,' and cited as the representative artists 
Picasso, Braque, Glcizes, Metzinger, Oris, Laurencin, 
Marcoussis, and Villon. Next, Apollinaire defined 'Orphic 
Cubism' as 'the art of painting new structures out of 
elements which have not been borrowed from visual 
reality but entirely created by the artist and endowed by 
him with a powerful reality. The works of the Orphic 
artist must simultaneously offer a pure aesthetic pleasure, 
a structure which is self-evident, and a sublime meaning, 
that is to say the subject.' As representatives of this form of 

no Cubism in Paris: igo6-i4 

Cubism, Apollinaire named of course first Delaunay, then 
Leger, Picabia, Duchamp, Dumont and Valensi. The confu- 
sions and contradictions underlying these first two categories 
are self-evident. Apollinaire's third type, 'Physical Cubism,' 
was defined simply as painting in which use is made of 
'elements borrowed from visual reality,' and he named as 
representatives Lc Fauconnier, Marchand, Herbin, and 
Vera. The link with Cubism here is obviously very 
tenuous. Apollinaire's last category, 'Instinctive Cubism,' 
is meaningless and was thought up to cover the work 
of any of his friends who showed avant-garde tendencies. 
Apollinaire defines it as painting in which use is made of 
elements borrowed 'from the reality suggested to the 
artist by instinct and intuition,' and cites as representatives 
Matisse, Rouault, Derain, Dufy, Chabaud, Puy, Van 
Dongcn, Scverini, and Boccioni. It is noteworthy that 
Apollinaire mentions only one artist who was not resident 
in Paris and had not taken part in any of the Cubist 
exhibitions : Boccioni. But then, he had been impressed by 
Boccioni's work and had written in February 1912 that 
'Above all, Boccioni paints under the influence of Picasso, 
who today dominates the whole field of yotmg painting, 
not only in Paris but throughout the world.' 

Apollinaire's attempt at classifying the various tendencies 
of the Cubist movement was vague and unsatisfactory. 
Cubism as it was invented and practiced by Picasso and 
Braquc was certainly not 'scientific,' since it was wholly 
guided by intuition — and this is by no means the only 
objection one can raise. I would propose, with today's 
hindsight, a more exclusive but I believe more meaningful 
classification of the forms of Cubism. First, True or 
Instinctive Cubism, a category reserved for the work of 
Braque and Picasso, the true creators of the movement, as 

Types of Cubism ill 

well as of two other artists closely related to them iii inten- 
tion and method, Juan Gris and Fernand Lcger. Next, it 
seems to me, we cannot make any vaHd distinction 
between the work of a great many artists who flirted with 
Cubism, or made of it a system, cither by applying 
cubification as a stylistic formula or on the basis of 
mathematical calculation, and who in the end either 
relapsed into a dreary academicism or crossed the frontier 
into non-figuration. This second category, to which I 
would give the aU-embracing name of Systematic Cubism, 
covers the work of Le Fauconnier, Gleizes, Metzinger, de 
La Fresnaye, Marchand, Herbin, Lhote, Marcoussis, Picabia, 
Ferat, Rivera and later Hayden. Delaunay deserves a third 
category to himself. For although he was not a 'true' Cubist 
before 191 1 and became a 'systematiziiig' Cubist in The City 
of Paris, he went on to create a Cubist derivative of his own, 
namely Orphism — for want of anything better, I accept 
ApoUinaire's adjective — which inspired the artistic con- 
ceptions of the Blaue Rciter group, as well as of Larionov's 
Rayonnism and the work of Valensi, Kupka, and Chagall, 
and fmally the American artists Patrick Bruce, Arthur 
Frost, Morgan Russell and Stanton MacDonald-Wright. 
This leaves us with works of a fourth and final category, 
which I call Kinetic Cubism, because the artists involved — 
Duchamp, Villon, the Itahan Futurists and in America 
Joseph Stella — took over from true Cubism a certain formal 
vocabulary which they tried to apply in their paintings to 
represent actual movement. 

Of course these classifications are not watertight, because 
the Cubist Epoch was a time of experiment and influences 
were easily exchanged. But at least they serve to isolate 
more clearly the saUcnt characteristics of each of the four 


Cubism in Paris: igo6-i4 

The Puteaux Group and the 
Section d'Or, 1911-13 

* Tlic middle brodier, Raymond 
Duchamp- Villon, was a sculptor. 
His work will be discussed later. 

* G. H. Hamilton and WiUiam 
C. Agee, R. Duchamp-Vilhu (New 
York 1967), p. 12. 

The three brothers Duchamp* provided that thoughtful 
but provocative intellectual element that for a short ^^-hile 
put a semblance of new hfe into the Cubist movement. 
They became friendly with Gleizes and Metzinger early in 
191 1, and "wathin a few months had decided on the path 
that Cubism could, and should, foUow and were trv'mg to 
put it into practice in their o\mi work. By 1913 they had 
already lost interest and abandoned Cubism. The brothers 
Duchamp were, as George Heard Hamilton has written,* 
"thinkers rather than doers, given to reflection on the 
nature of art and artists, and delighting as much in the 
formulation of problems as in their solution.' Eager 
talkers, they attracted round them a circle of artists who 
met in Villon's suburban studio at Puteaux, including 
Gleizes, Metzinger, Leger, Gris, and Archipenko. 

Temperamentally, the two brothers Jacques and Marcel 
were different, ViUon being cautious and methodical, 
Duchamp imaginative and impetuous, and this difference 
was reflected in their painting. Villon's artistic background 
was also difierent from that of Duchamp, who had been an 
imdistinguished painter all along. Villon, on the other hand, 
had been a successful humorous illustrator tor ten years, but 
w-hen he took up Cubism his ideas on painting had recently 
been stimulated and formed bv stud^"in^ P\"tha2:orean 
theor}' and reading Leonardo's Trattato delta Pitttira. This 
gave him the edge as a theorist over his brother and wiH 
account for their general idea that Cubism should e\"olve 
through anah'sis towards abstraction. The novelr\' of 
Cubism appealed to them, and hke Apolhnaire they 
beheved that it could have lasting value. But they were com- 
petitive by nature, had no intention of becoming disciples 
of Braque and Picasso and even less of allowing them to 
establish exclusive rights over the form of an art which 

The Piiuunix Group ami the Section d'Or 113 

was intended to express the modem mode of vision. So 
the two brothers quickly came to the conclusion that 
what Cubism needed in order to fiilfd itself was the disci- 
pline of mathematical calculation, a reasoned but vigorous 
use of color and the injection of expressive new ideas and 
techniques. Moreover, great individuahsts though they 
were, the Duchamp brothers also wanted to see these aims 
achieved through a communal effort. 


The first group manifestation organized by the artists 
of the Puteaux Group was the creation of a Cubist House 
at the Salon d'Automne of 1912, which turned out to be a 
tame, uninspning effort. The building was a symmetrical 
eighteenth-century-t}-pe pavilion which had angular, 
prismatic moldings in the place of swirling rococo curves, 
while the interior (to judge by photographs) was an 
imcomfortable blend of up-to-date art noitveaii and the 
latest in painting. This venttire would be difficult to account 
for unless we knew that the intention was to bring home 
to people that architecture was the framework holding the 
arts together, and that Cubism had come to stay and was 
destined to invade their daily hfe. Yet by this time, 
Duchamp had already abandoned Cubism, while there 
was still no suggestion of Cubist influence in Duchamp- 
Villon's sculpture. The second undertaking of the Puteaux 
Group was more interesting and of far greater significance: 
the Section d'Or Exhibition of October 1912. This was 
intended both as a declaration of independence from true 
Cubism and as a demonstration that the Cubist movement 
was already strong and creative enough on its o\\ti to 
embrace many different types of personaht)'. All tendencies 
were represented in the show, from the near-academic and 
inept to the most experimental and daring. A great many 
of the works were brightly colored, and several large 

u-f Ctibism in Paris: igo6-i4 

canvases represented elaborate traditional-r\-pe subjects 
having a general significance; for another ground on which 
the Puteairx Group criticized Braque and Picasso was 
that their type of Cubism lacked human interest. Gleizes 
Ph. 62, 6^ was represented by JVoiucn in a Kitchen and Harvest 
Threshina, while Metzinger contributed the Portrait of 
Gleizes and The Yellow Feather. A more d)-namic section 
included a large group of figure compositions and cirs'scapes 
by Lcger, as well as Picabia's Dances at the Spring, 
Pis. loS, 110 Duchamp's Portrait of Chess-Players and Ktide Descending a 
Staircase, Xo. 2 and a convulsive suburban landscape with 
trails of factor}- smoke and flowering trees by Villon, as well 

P\. 100 as his Young Girl. True Cubism was represented only by a 
group of earl)- and rather systematic works by Gris, 

Pi. 224 including The Watch and Alan in a Cafe. A more way-out 
tendencv was represented b}- the work of the Czech 
painter, Frank Kupka, a friend ot the Duchamp brothers, 
^^-ho had settled in Puteaux in 1904. He was the 
only representative of the Duchamp brothers' aspiration 
to see Cubism developing away from reaht}- towards 
abstraction and musicahty. Kupka fitted perfectly too 
with their real or assumed belief that it was time for 
intellect and imagination to assert their primac}- over 
intuition. In 191 1, Kupka had given up working in a 
representational idiom to adopt an invented, abstract, 
expressionistic sr\-le of his own based on parallel planes 
and interlocking discs of color. His purpose in doing this, 
he said, was 'to liberate color from form,' because he 
beheved that the artist could not compete with the camera 
and was thus free to fmd in painting 'something that lies 
between the visible and that which can be heard.' 

This aim of course had nothing to do with Cubism. But 
it is fascinating to note that contemporaneously Kupka 

Villon, Duchamp and Picahi 



had the aim 'to liberate color from form' in order to 
approach musicahtv' in painting, while Delaunay suppressed 
line in order to free color and create form in. space by 
'sunultaneous' contrasts of tone. On the other hand, when 
Braque and Picasso separated the functions of line from 
those of color, in the first papiers coUes, they went on to 
recreate objects with a more complete pictorial reality and 
physical independence. 

Villon, Duchamp and 
Picabia, 1911-13 

Jacques Villon was a restrained painter who never sought 
to make a striking effect, had a fme sense of line and a 
subtle personal sense of color. Indeed he once said he was 
'the Impressionist Cubist,' and this description is apposite 
because a play of light and luminous tonahties were 
distinctive features of his work. Villon's tentative beginning 
on the path towards Cubism can be seen in a portrait of 
his brother Raymond Duchamp- Villon (1911), where the 
faceted, analytical treatment of the spot-lit head shows a 
will to represent the whole mass in the manner of Cezanne 
and 1909 Picasso. By 1912 Villon was, however, already 
attempting a freer and more lyrical st}-le of painting 
based on transparent planes of color — the forms and 
volimies of objects being drawn over them — as in 
The Dinner Table. The subjects of these paintings arc static. 
But later in 1912 Villon modified his sVfle, under the 
combined influences it seems of Gleizes, Delaunay and 
the Futurists, in such a way that he broke up his forms, 
used overlapping planes of color to express volume and 
space, abandoned linear defmition, but introduced lines 
of force and connected formal repetitions to evoke a 
vigorous sense of movement. Yet beneath the surface 
animation, Villon composed his picture in accordance 
with a predetermined geometrical scheme, so that in 


Plate 98 

Jacques Villon, The Dwiier-Tahle, 1912 
Oil, 253/4x32 in. 

No. 311 




Plate 99 

Jacques Villon 

The Dinner-Table, 1913 

Drypoint, llVsX ISVs in. 

No. 316 

Plate 100 

Jacques Villon 

Little Girl at Piano, 1912 

Oil, 51x38 in. (Oval) 

No. 310 

Pi. 1 00 Young Girl or Little Girl at the Piano (1912) for instance, the 
placing of the limbs and even the outlines of the figure 
were not determined by observed fact but by his pre- 
established mathematical division of the canvas. In both 
of these paintings, Villon indicated that the figure was 
not static by a simple kinetic effect : he repeated the forms 
of the arms, shoulders, body and feet in a short sequence. 
This represents a sincere attempt to apply the Cubist 
technique of separate aspects for a new purpose, and there 
is Cubist influence too in the way Villon used an analytical 
technique to represent forms and volume in a shallow 

Pi. 104 pictorial space. Similarly the Portrait of Mile. Y.D. (191 3) 
is Cubist painting of a sort, though here the subject is 

iiS ■•'■ (' 

Plate 101 

Jacques Villon 

Mile. Y. D., Full Face, 1913 

Drypoint, 21^/8 x Id^js in. 

No. 315 

Plate 102 

Jacques VUlon 

Portrait of a Young IVowaii, 1913 

Dn-point, 2I1/2 x I61/4 in. 

No. 317 

Plate 103 

Jacques ViUon 
Yvonne in Profile, 1913 
Drypoint, 21 1/2 x I6V4 in. 

No. 318 

Pi no 

again static, the faceting of forms correspondingly 
clearer (it is comparable ^\'ith Gleizes' JVoinen in a Kitchen) 
and the planar structure less complex. But with Soldiers 
on the March (191 3), Villon came closer to Futurist painting. 
In this pale prismatic composition, Villon used line as an 
element divorced from color (which for the most part 
evokes space, but is also partly descriptive) to define 
primarily the st}'hzed forms of the soldiers. These are 
outlined against an elaborate and mathematically deter- 
mined structure of cubes and triangles which, by tonal 
and formal interplay, evoke the space through which the 
regiment moves. But again this is basically a static painting, 
because the movement is arrested. Therefore in order to 
suggest the forward movement of the soldiers ViUon was 
obHged to introduce some accented Hnes of force. Thus 
it is not the movement which accounts here for the 
break-up of the forms (as it would in a Futurist painting) 
but the apphcation of a cubistic system of analysis. 
St\-hsticaUy, therefore. Soldiers on the March represents ati 
intermediate achievement in which Villon tried to bring 
elements both of Cubism and of Futurism together to 
ser\'e a kinetic purpose. But from this point — and his 
brother Duchamp had abandoned kinetic Cubism over 
a year before, after painting the Xude Descending a 
Staircase, Xo. 2 — Villon began to move towards the 
wholly abstract art which he was to practice after the war. 
For in his Seated Woman of 1914 reality was not merely 
stylized but suppressed in favour of a brightly colored 

Plate 104 

Jacques Villon, Porirait of Mile. Y. D., 1913 

No. 312 


Plate 105 

Jacques Villon 
Tightrope Walker, 1913 
Dn'point, 153/4x11''/] 

No. 314 

's in. 

Plate 106 

Jacques Villon 

Portrait of an Actor (FelixBarre), 1913 

Dr\-poiiit, 153/4 X 123/s in- 

No. 313 

pattern of flat, skaped forms with only a faint representa- 
tional signification. 

Marcel Duclianips contribution to the extension of 
Cubism is hard to evaluate, because it is not easy to 
separate what he intended as a serious contribution from 
^^"hat he intended as a mocker^" of ^vhat he feared 
might turn into a new convention. For Duchamp, 
who had a ver)^ clever, agile mind, had an uncanny- knack 
of being able to exploit the absurd while seeming to be 
completely serious. When Duchamp began to interest 
himself in Cubism, at the end of 191 1, he certainly had a 
good working knowledge of its aims and methods. Yet 
at the same time he had an ambition to outshine Braque and 
Picasso as a true Cubist or to create his o^^ti more 
realistic and impressive form of Cubism. On the other 
hand, as his work both before and after his Cubist inter- 
lude (1911-12) proves, Duchamp lacked the master}- as a 
painter which he would have liked to possess, and it was 
this shortcoming which drove him to submerge his 
creative talents in the sarcasm of anti-art before abandoning 
painting altogether. Sarcasm was a fundamental strain in 
Duchamp's character, and it is significant that among his 
favourite books in these Cubist years were the poems of 
Jules Laforgue, an early S}-mbolist but anti-romantic who 
wrote in a colloquial, sometimes coarse, inconsequent st)de 
about evervday happenings, and also the stories of 
Raymond Roussel, a disruptive, ironical personality who 
could describe supernatural happenings and fantastic 
inventions — for example, a painting-machine — in an 
impassive matter-of-fact tone. 

Between 1907 and 1910, Duchamp was producing un- 
distinguished paintings in the colorist tradition of the 

Plate 107 

Marcel Duchamp 

Porrrmt, 1911 

Oil. 575/s X 447/s 111. 

No. 71 


Nabis and Fauves. However, under the influence of his 
brother Villon, Duchamp began to be interested in Cubism 
in the spring of 191 1 and adopted a limited palette of 
ochre, green and grey. In a short space of time, Duchamp 
produced a group of pictures in which he experimented 
with the Cubist device of 'simultaneous aspects' — which 
Braque and Picasso used to recreate torm and volume — 
for a new purpose. Instead of forming one synthesized 

PL 107 image out of several aspects, Duchamp in Portrait (191 1) 
represented the same figure on different planes and in 
diiierent attitudes to express more of the individual as well 
as the concept "Woman. No movement was involved here. 
But at the end of 191 1, Duchamp started to combine 
different aspects into a single image to represent a succession 

Pi. loS of evolving movements. Thus in Portrait of Chess-Players 
(December 191 1) the two tense and thoughtful contestants 
are sho\\-n united, as it were, around the pawn which one 
of them holds in his hand in the foreground. Duchamp has 


Plate 108 

Marcel Duchamp 

Portrait ofChess-Players, 1911 

Oil, 395/8 X 393/4 in. 

No. 72 

* The Futurist Manifesto of Painting 
had been published in the French 
press in 1909. Several of the Futurist 
painters had visited Paris in October 
191 1. But no Futurist paintings were 
exhibited in Paris before February 

then represented the head of each two or three times, on 
the same plane, in full-face and profile, and done the same 
with their arms and hands, to evoke their restless move- 
ments during play. Furthermore he has tried to symbolize 
what is going on in their minds by representing other 
chess-men on a narrow plane which hovers between their 
two heads. This is not a painting in which the artist has 
tried to represent reaHty in its solid tangible aspects: 
indeed nothing seems stable, the figures dissolve into their 
surroimdings and are painted as though they were trans- 
parent. Yet Duchamp's idea — and he was an intellectual in 
art — was to find an equivalent realism in non-imitative 
painting to express the tenseness engendered by a game 
of chess. Of course, he drew on the pictorial ideas of the 
Futurists for his kinetic effect.* But in his conceptual 
approach, in his use of an analytical procedure, in the 
effort he made to arrest the movement and keep the 
composition flat and on the surface of the canvas, Duchamp 
was animated by a Cubist spirit. His pictorial solution 
is not wholly successful, but Portrait of Chess-Players can be 
accepted as a valid attempt to extend the language of 
Cubism. And this is also true of The Coffee-Grinder of the 
same date. 

Villon, Diicliaiiip and Picabia 12J 

The Coffee-Grinder must however be considered together 
with the Sad Yowig Man in a Train and the first two 
Ph. log, 110 versions of Nude Descending a Staircase, all four painted 
between November 191 1 and January 1912. The interest 
of these four paintings, which complement each other, is 
that they reveal how shallow Duchamp's interest in 
Cubism was and how quickly he was in reaction against 
it. All four involve (though on an imaginative not a visual 
plane) the representation of movement by new pictorial 
means: in the first, the functional rotation of a household 
gadget; in the second, a figure standing, swaying and 
being jolted in the coach of a moving train; and in the 
last two, the successive movements of a walking figure. 
Another interesting aspect of these four paintings is that 
they illustrate the passage in Duchamp's work from images 
of Man to Machine images. The Coffee-Grinder is a witty 
schematic diagram, but inspired by Cubism in so far as 
Duchamp recreated the gadget conceptually, and in two 
dimensions.This is still partially true of the first version of the 
Pi. 1 og Nude Descending a Staircase, where the successive stages of the 
abstract figure walking down a staircase are represented as a 
continuous image, as in a stroboscopic photograph. But there 
is a pictorial dichotomy in this experimental picture which 
makes it much less Cubist. For whereas the abstract, 
modeled forms of the figure exist on a single plane and 
have only an ambiguous anatomical connotation, the 
staircase and the space through which the figure moves 
are represented naturaHsticaUy. The Sad Young Man 
represents a greater pictorial innovation, for there Duchamp 
was more interested in representing movement than in 
representing a figure, and he achieved his purpose by a 
repetition of abstract forms swaying to left and right from 
a pivotal point (legs) in the center foreground. However, 
his most astonishing innovation occurred in the second 


Plate 109 

Marcel Duchamp 

Nude Descending a Staircase No. 1, 


Oil, 37-V4X 231/2 in. 

No. 73 PL 110 

version of Xiide Descending a Staircase (January 191 2). For 
there Duchamp rejected any suggestion of representing 
reaht}' and turned the figure into a symboUc but seemingly 
powerfiil machine— a sort of descending-machine, in 
fact — which rattles its metaUic structure and devours the 
staircase as it descends. This second Xtide is an intensely 
clever but equivocal painting, part serious, part ironical, 
part revolutionar\-, owing something both to Futurism 
and to the cinema, but fundamentally anti-Cubist. For 
there is no doubt that Duchamp intended to produce an 
ultra-modem subject-picture which would be understood 
as an assault on the seriousness and static reahsm oi the 
Cubist painting of Braque and Picasso, but which would 
also shake up the Cubist pretensions of his friends. At 
all events, the challenge proved so devastating that 
Duchamp's Xudc was rejected by the jur\' of the 
Independants in 1912. Two years later, during which time 
Duchamp made no play with Cubism at all, he abandoned 
serious painting to become a Dada fimster. Thus his 

< Plate 110 

Marcel Duchamp 

Nude Descending a Staircase Nc. 2 

(Definitive version), 1912 

Oil, 58x35 in. 

No. 74 

Villon, Duchamp and Picabia 


activity in the Cubist movement lasted barely one year, 
although before passing on to other things he attempted 
to make a fruitful contribution but ended up making a 
subversive comment. 



Plate 111 

Francis Picabia 

Procession in Seville, 1912 

Oil, 48x48 in. 

No. 224 

The third painter closely associated with the Duchamp 
brothers was Francis Picabia, a Cuban of French and 
Spanish descent, who was a less serious artist but almost 
as fertile in ideas as Duchamp himself. He too had begim 
painting in a Neo-Impressionist manner, but in 191 1 
Picabia had been introduced to the Cubist group by 
ApoUinaire and soon after began to experiment with 
Cubist techniques. Picabia's flirtation with Cubism lasted 
only a few months and he made less constructive effort 
to extend its range than did Duchamp. Yet Dances at 
the Spring and Procession in Seville, both painted in 


Plate 112 

Francis Picabia 

Star Dancer and Her School of 

Dancing, 1913 

Watercolor, 2VIbx29tU in. 

No. 225 

PL 111 

the spring of 1912, are curious if somewhat naively 
jazzed-up variants on early Cubist compositions. Both 
of these paintings derived from a visual experience of 
reahty — peasants dancing in a landscape near Naples and 
an Easter procession of flagellants in Seville — but Picabia 
was not concerned to re-create this pictoriaUy either in 
physical or in spatial terms. He aimed simply at transposing 
the forceful rhythm of the scene into half abstract pic- 
torial terms. In order to achieve this he drew on Picasso's 
sculptural paintings of 1907 and, to a lesser degree, on the 
technique of Leger in his paintings of 1910. For Picabia 
employed block-like, crudely faceted forms, disposed 
in contrasted but interlocking rhythms spreading across the 
surface of the canvas, and enhanced the movement thus es- 
tabhshcd ^vith sharp color contrasts of blue, orange and 
bro'\\Ti reinforced with a violent play of hght and shadow. 
These cannot be considered as Cubist paintings, even though 
certain forms have a figurative reference, because they 
are basically conceived in non-figurative terms. What is 
more, they were followed in 1913 by some whoUy non- 
figurative paintings in which Picabia abandoned any sugges- 
tion of Cubist borrowings so that to represent Physical 
Culture, for example, he chose a series of defmed and 
contrasted abstract shapes revolving and evolving in a 
pictorially ambiguous space. And from there on, Picabia 
joined Duchamp as a leading Dadaist. 

Lesser Ctibist Painters 


Lesser Painters of the Cubist 
Movement, 1911-13 : 
de Segonzac, Moreau, 
Marchand, Lhote, Herbin, 
Rivera, Ferat, Chagall, 
Marcoussis and de La Fresnay e 

Many painters chosen to exhibit in the collective manifesta- 
tions of the Cubist group were men of limited talents, who 
remained on the fringe of the movement and had no 
ambition to make a creative contribution. Most of them 
even clung to a basically naturalistic vision: they were 
caught up in the general reaction against the forirdessness 
of Impressionism and had come under the spell of Cezaime 
in 1910-11. To these men, Cubism was no more than a 
modem "constructive discipline' which could be imposed 
on reaht}'. That is to say, their appreciation of true Cubism 
was barely skin-deep and they employed a timid sort of 
faceting and cubification as a pictorial system. This sort 
of flirtation with Cubism could, inevitably, be only of 
short duration. ApoUinaire, who encouraged these artists, 
also judged them correctly when he said that theirs was 
not a pure art, because in it 'what is properly the subject — 
that is to say painting itself — is confused with images,' that 
is to say genre scenes, allegorical figures and visions of 
contemporary life. 

Andre Dunoyer de Segonzac and Luc-Albert Moreau, who 
were close friends, cannot be considered as Cubist painters 
at all. The most that can be said to explain and justify 
their inclusion in Cubist exhibitions is that in 191 1-12 they 
used a predominantly dark and earthy palette, simplified 
their forms and resorted to elementary formal analysis. 
It was, of course, ApoUinaire who had brought these men 
into the Cubist miheu in order to increase the numbers of 

Jean Marchand was painting in a post-Cezannesque manner 
already in 1910, and in 1912 was for a while influenced by 
Futurist painting. Yet he too was at heart a naturahstic 
painter, as he showed in all his later work. Andre Lhote 


Plate 113 

Andre Lhote 

Portrait of Marguerite, 1913 

Oil, 633/4x331/2 in. 

No. 189 

discovered the work of Cezanne in 191 1 and a year later 
was practicing an ineffective, mannered form of cubifica- 
tion. He continued to work in this style for a year or two 
{Portrait of Marguerite, 191 3) before establishing himself 
subsequently, in his writings as much as in his paintings, 
as 'the acadeimcian of Cubism' (Rosenblum). Auguste 
Herbin, another member of the Cubist entourage, installed 
himself in 1909 in a studio in the 'batean-lavoir in Mont- 
martrc, where Picasso and Gris lived. At the time he was 
still painting under the influence of Gauguin and the 
Fauves, though with heavy-handed styhzations. hi 191 1-12 
Herbin adopted a coarse type of cubistic stylization, 
which he applied in landscapes and still lifes. But his 
interest in Cubism never developed further, and by 1917 
he had arrived at a decorative idiom composed of stylized 
elements drawn from reahty and assembled (as in the later 
work of Metzinger) with httle representational logic. 
Later still Herbin evolved an art of total abstraction. 

Dieso Rivera too came late to Cubism, since he did not 
adopt the idiom mitil after his return to Paris from Mexico 
Pi. 115 at the end of 191 1. But for a few years (Portrait ofLipchitz, 
Pi. 240 Still-Life) he showed an understanding of what it was 
about and handled the idiom deftly, though he gave no 
signs of an original vision in his Cubist paintings. Serge 
Ferat, who met Picasso in 1910, was a close friend of 
Apollinaire and co-editor with him of the influential 
Cubist review Les Soirees de Paris (1912-14). He painted a 
number of colorful cubistic compositions in which frag- 
Pl. 235 ments of objects are assembled with more regard for 
decorative effect than for logic. Cocteau once said of these 
paintings that Ferat had 'removed a source of embarrass- 
ment by taking the insulting sting out of the word 
charmmg . 

Lesser Ctihist Painters 


Pi 116 

Marc Chagall, always at heart a fabulator, presents the more 
curious case of an artist wholly opposed in spirit to Cubism 
who became for a brief moment involved in the movement. 
After arriving in Paris from Moscow in 1910, Chagall set 
about improving the heavy folk-idiom whichhe had acquired 
in Russia by injecting into it more sophisticated colorist 
and formal tcchiaiques borrowed from various artists of the 
School of Paris. He was in short a real eclectic. Thus in Cubist 
Still Life (1912) he borrowed from Gauguin and Cezanne 
ways of handling form. In 191 1 Chagall had metDelaimay, 
and under his influence he had transformed his use of 

Plate 114 

Auguste Hcrbin 
The Village. 1911 
Oil, 32x251/2 111. 

No. 147 


Plate 115 

Diego Rivera 

Portrait of Jacques Lipch'itz, 1914 

Oi], 255/8x215/sin. 

No. 294 


11 ■ 

color. Then, under the influence of Gleizes and Metzinger, 
Chagall attempted for a while to make use of Cubist 
tormal and spatial procedures. This is apparent in several of 
his paintings of 191 i-i 3 [Goloorha; Russian JlUage, from the 
Moou) where there is a tendenc)" to crude faceting, and 
where Chagall animated the surtace of his canvas by 
breaking the pictorial space do^^^l with geometrical 
divisions, which enabled him to situate different part? of 
the scene at different levels. Chagall's use of transparent, 
superimposed planes also derived trom the Cubists. 
Chagall's most elaborate essay in the Cubist manner is 
Adam ami Eve, where the fragmentation and faceting 
of forms derives from Metzinger's Xtides of 1910-11. 
There Chagall also used taceting to evoke the forwards 
movement of Eve as she moves in to pluck the fatal apple 
and seize the raised hand of the bashful Adam. This 
painting is difficult to read because the Cubist structure 
of the bodies is confiased, the spatial arrangement ambig- 
uous, and the vellow-green-red tonaIit\- ^^-hollv arbitrarv. 

Plate 116 

Marc Chagall 
Still Life, 1912 
Oil, 25x303/4 in. 

No. 58 

Plate 117 

Marc Chagall 

Adatii and Eve, 1912 

Oil, 633/16X 447/5 in. 

No. 59 

Plate 118 

Louis Marcoussis 
Portrait of Gazanion, 1912 
Ink, 25x191/4 in. 

No. 206 


The naturalistic handling of the foliage and fruit at the 
top is also stylistically inconsistent. But Chagall never 
aimed at realism in his painting; he was only concenied 
with the upside-down world of fable and folklore. Cubist 
fragmentation seemed, however, to offer a technique 
which could serve his sense of fantasy, and even as late 
as 191 8 ChagaU produced in Vitebsk a very disjointed 
Ctihist Landscape in which the compositional elements 
and the way they are assembled derive from the tech- 
nique of papiers coUes. 

Louis Marcoussis, a Pohsh artist, was earning his living 
making humorous drawings when he met ApoUinaire 
and Braque iu 1910, and through them became friendly 
with Picasso. He had abandoned painting three years 
previously, but in 191 1 Marcoussis took it up again, 
launched straight into a Cubist idiom and first exhibited 



1/ , ><, '•"■■'• 


— ~^i©«;pfa ;5v "** ■ 

it f: 





;:LL.-^'ji»i£ Af- .i-;.iMA> l 


P/. JJc"? 

with the Cubist group at the Section d'Or in October 19 12. 
Marcoussis was a sensitive and gifted artist who was 
intelligent enough to understand and interpret in his own 
way the painting of Braque and Picasso. He was not a 
prolific artist, but in the small group of Cubist works 
— especially the prints — which he produced before joining 
the French army in 1914 he proved himself an accomplished 
Cubist disciple. In 1912, Marcoussis fell briefly under the 
spell of Dclaunay, but the strongest influence on his pictorial 
methods seems to have been that of Juan Oris. Marcoussis 
began tentatively in 19 12 making a wall-decoration {The 
Checker-Board) for a restaurant frequented by artists and 
writers in Montmartre. But his portrait drawing of the 
poet Edouard Gazanion (1912) and his engraved portrait 
of Apollinaire (1912) show — especially when compared 
with Metzinger's Portrait ofGleizes of the same date — that 
although Marcoussis was concerned with preserving a 

Plate 122 

Louis Marcoussis 

The Beautiful Martiniquaise, 1912 

Drypoint, 153/4 x IVjs in. 

No. 208 

< Plate 119 

Louis Marcoussis 

Portrait ofGuiUatiine Apollitmire, 1912 

Drypoint, First version, I91/2 x 11 in. 

No. 209 

•< Plate 120 

Louis Marcoussis 

Portrait of Guillaiinie ApoUiimire, 


Etching and Drypoint, Second 

version, 193/gX IO15/16 in. 

No. 210 

Plate 124 

Louis Marcoussis 

Ear du Port, 1913 

Oil, 317/8 x20i/s in. 

No. 205 

Plate 121 

Louis Marcoussis 

Man Playing a 'Cello, 1914 

Oil, 571/2 X 447/8 in. 

The National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, D.C. 
Chester Dale Bequest. 

Plate 123 

Louis Marcoussis 

Head of a IVonmu, 


Drypoint, ^■ 

111/4x85/8 in. 

No. 211 

i..\ nri.Li: .MAiiTiNio p Aisi: 

physical likeness, he also knew how to use Cubist methods 
to represent mass and volrune. But Marcoussis failed to 
live up to the promise of these first works, and in Bar du 
Port (1913) his cubistic handling of a group of buildings 
and their spatial relationship is arbitrary, confused and 
schematic. This painting is a travesty of Cubism, because 
it cannot be intelhgibly read. Even the lettering has been 
placed where it carries no constructive significance. 
Marcoussis was most successful in small still life composi- 
tions, though his canvas The Habitue of 1920, probably 
his most important work, shows him once- again skilfully 

Pis. 125, 285 

* Some of these were exhibited with 
the Cubist group at the Salon 
d'Automne in 1911, and at the 
Section d'Or in 1912. 

Plate 125 

Roger de La Fresnaye 
The Italian Girl, 1911 
Oil, 503/8x215/8 in. 

Pliiladelphia Museum of Art, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

imitating Picasso in his later synthetic manner. After 1920, 
Marcoussis created a suave, but essentially decorative, 
personal idiom based on modified cubistic procedures. 

Roger de La Fresnaye was the most considerable artist in 
this group of adherents to the Cubist movement, al- 
though he was never in a true sense a Cubist painter. Until 
the end of 1910, de La Fresnaye was painting in a flat 
somewhat stylized idiom influenced primarily by Gauguin 
and Serusier. But at the end of 1910 de La Fresnaye met 
Raymond Duchamp-ViUon, was drawn into the Puteaux 
Group, and during 191 1 changed his style under the 
influence of Cezanne. This is apparent in Italian Girl, in 
Profile (May 191 1), where volumes are more clearly 
defined and the body is treated sculpturally and faceted 
as in works by Picasso of 1907-8. This influence continued 
in a series of landscapes painted in the winter of 1911-12,* 
in which buildings are reduced to simple cubic shapes, 
space is flattened by the adoption of a high view-point, 
and the landscape is built up in a series of flat planes 
aligned behind each other. There is however nothing 
conceptual or revolutionary about these landscapes : many 
of the forms arc stylized and space is largely evoked by 
perspective. But de La Fresnaye extracted from a 
natural scene certain incomplete geometric descriptions 
which enabled him to give it an orderly, formal structure. 
De La Fresnaye's preoccupation, which is quite contrary 
to the spirit of true Cubism, was to remain faithful to the 
French tradition of painting while giving it a new look 
by the use of up-to-date methods of handling form and 
color. It did not take him long to discover that he could 
not satisfactorily marry the two. In 191 1-13 de La Fresnaye 
painted some genre scenes in this mamier which lack 
pictorial reality and are disconcertingly angular because 

Plate 126 

Roger de La Fresnaye 

Bathers, 1912 

Oil, 631/2x501/2 in. 

No. 152 

Plate 127 

Roger de La Fresnaye 

Marie Ressort, 1912-13 

Oil, 581/8 X 38 in. 

No. 153 

he lacked conviction in his handhng of cubist methods. This 
is certainly the case with Bathers (19 12), a Cezannesque 
subject in which de La Fresnaye carried fragmentation and 
formal analysis further than before. The cones, cylinders 
and spheres are not dictated by representational needs but 
are calculated, the figures have no solid reahty and there 
is no attempt to recreate a spatial logic. Nor do the 
styhzed white clouds (borrowed from Leger) function 
either as formal contrasts or as a source of hght, while the 
tilted planes in the sky behind the yoiuig man have no 
spatial or structural signification. In short, nothing is 
quite what it should be in this painting. 

Pi. 127 In Marie Ressort with her Cows (1912-13), the influence of 
Delaunay is pronounced, both in the handhng of color 
and in the suggestion of movement, while the more 
clearly defmed planar structure derives from Leger's 
cityscapes of 191 1. This is as near as de La Fresnaye ever 
came to true Cubism : the spatial structure is more logically 
represented, the style is consistent, and the handling 
more surface-conscious. But de La Fresnaye's cubistic 
paintings always have a brittle, disjointed quality which 
behes his aspiration to represent the solid earthy aspects 

13^ ,. 


Pi. 128 

* His brother Henri, represented with 
himseh in the painting, was director 
of an aeroplane-niantifacturing plant 
at Nieuport. 

Plate 128 

Roger de La Fresnaye 
Three Figures, 1913 
Charcoal, I93/4 x 25 in. 

No. 154 

of reality. By 191 3, deLa Fresnaye had turned away from 
Cubism proper and come to accept the influence of 
Delaunay's 'Orphism,' although his way of simplifying 
the structure of his composition, based on large flat planes 
of color, also owed sometliing to the tecliniqueof ;;i7/)(Vr5 
colles. In these greatly flattened later works (191 3-14, 
1917-20) de La Fresnaye treated landscape elements, 
buildings, bodies, still life objects, water, the sky and clouds 
as though they were of similar consistency in terms of 
triangles, circles or rectangles. And by this means he 
arrived at a bold, colorful, eye-catching design where 
realism and spatial logic were lightly treated. Thus in 
Conquest of the Air (1913) for example, two tense but 
dehumanized figures, seated outdoors at a table, seem to 
be discussing France's aeronautical triumphs* (balloon in 
the sky) and perhaps the future role of the aeroplane, as 
well as the pleasures of saihng (sail-boat on the river). Yet 
nothing here is real, sohd or tangible : the corporeal forms 
are paper-thin, a white sail symboHzes an invisible boat, 
an unattached flag flutters in mid-air, the sky is cubically 
dissected, the men are seated — but on what? — and the 
landscape is so incoherent that one half of the village 
appears beneath the table, while the other half hovers in 
mid-air between the two figures. It is not to be denied that 
de La Fresnaye's composition is nicely painted and has 
both colorful charm and illustrative appeal — especially 
if one considers it as an allegory of open-air life or as a 
recruiting poster — but neither in this nor in any of liis 
subsequent works did he make a serious contribution to 
the language of Cubism. 


The Influence of Cubism 
Outside France 

In Holland : Mondrian Cubist painting was first seen in Holland at the exhibition 

of the newly-formed Circle of Modern Artists [Moderne 
Kiiiistkriug) in Amsterdam in October 191 1, where 
paintings by Cezanne, Braque and Picasso were included. 
Piet Mondrian, the only Dutch artist to be affected by 
Cubism, to which his contribution was more inteUigent than 
most, was an exhibiting member of the Circle and saw 
this exhibition shortly before leaving for Paris in Decem- 
ber 191 1. The Circle's second exhibition, held in Octo- 
ber 19 12, while Mondrian was still in Paris, included 
works not only by Braque and Picasso, but also by 
Gleizes, Metzinger, Leger and Le Faucomaier. 

Before liis arrival in Paris — where he was to remain till 
his return to Holland in July 1914 — Mondrian had been 
painting pictures of a Symbolist nature, executed in a 
post-Impressionist color technique deriving from Van 
Gogh, Seurat, the Neo-Impressionists and the Fauves, 
and had recently begun to simplify his forms and com- 
positional design (e.g. Church Tower at Domhirg, 1910- 
11). Mondrian had already exhibited at the Salon des 
Independants in the sprmg of 191 1, and he went on 
exhibiting there for the next three years, his contribution 
in 191 3 being specially noticed by Apollinaire as 'an off- 
spring of Cubism . . . influenced by Picasso.' About the 
time of his move to Paris, or shortly before, Mondrian 
added another canvas to a series of paintings of a leafless 
tree, which he had started two years earlier. The first of 
these (1909) had been naturalistic in conception, though 
carried out in brilhant expressionist colors. In the Horizontal 
Tree painted in the winter of 191 1, Mondrian dispensed 
with descriptive details, reduced the tree and branches to 
an expressive flurry of diagonal and curving lines, cut out 
strong colors, and introduced a planar notation borrowed 

Plate 129 

Pict Mondnan, Horizontal Tree, 1911 
Oil, 295/s X 437/s in. 

No. 217 

Plate 130 

Piet Mondrian ^'- ^30 

Self-Portrait, c. 1911 
Charcoal and ink, 25 x 19 in. 


from Cubism to establish more exact spatial relationships. 
At the same time, Mondrian experimented in a Self- 
Portrait drawing with a faceted treatment of the head. 

Shortly after this, in the second version of a Still Life with 
a Ginger-Pot (1912), a Cezannesque subject, Mondrian took 
to emphasizing the simple forms of objects with heavy 
black outhnes, while building up over the rest of the 
picture-surface a network of straight lines and curves to 
give form to space and unify the composition. His 
method resembled that used by Metzinger and Gris in 
paintings of 1912, although he did not employ formal 
analysis or faceting but allowed objects to retain their 
natural form. Later, in Female Form (1912), Mondrian 
began to compose with block-like forms surrounding and 
engulfing the figure, which lost its corporeal reahty but 
was thereby united with the surrounding space. And in a 
later version of the Tree (1912), the object itself and its 

Plate 131 

Piet Mondrian 

Female Figure, c. 1912 

Oil, 451/4 X 345/8 in. 

No. 219 

Plate 132 

Piet Mondrian, Reclining Nude, c. 1912 
Charcoal, 37 ■ 63 in. 

No. 223 

Plate 133 

Piet Mondrian 

Tree, 1912 

OO, 37x2/1/2 in. 

No. 218 

existence in space were reduced to an all-over pattern of 
curares and straight Hnes, laid over a varioush" colored 
ground, which served to evoke the subject \\"ithout 
describing or definina: it. From there it was onlv a short 
Pi. 134 step to the subsequent drawings of scaffolding, of a church 
Pi. 13} facade and of the sea and sky, and to Color Planes in 
mi Oval (1914=), in which there is no figurative subject 
but only an elaborate structure ot cleverly balanced 
verticals and horizontals, curves and diagonals distributed 
in a single plane across the picture surface. Mondrian had, 
as it were, seized on the basic structural principle of 
Cubism and rejected the rest, for he believed that art \vas 
above realir\- and that the painter therefore should not be 
concerned with it. These paintings then are a sort of 



Plate 134 

Piet Mondrian 
Cluinh Facade, 1912 
Charcoal, 39 x 24-V4 m. 

No. 222 

intellectual shorthand with no representational purpose, for 
Mondrian's aim was to achieve a static balance of lines and 
colors which would satisfy the eye without troubling the 
mind, would evoke by intuition an experience of reality 
and at the same time induce a state of spiritual calm. 

Plate 135 

Piet Mondrian 

Color Planes in Oval, 1914(r) 

Oil, 42Vs: 31 m. (Oval) 

No. 220 

Cubism thus served Mondrian as a spring-board to jump 
from reality into non-reality, though he liimself believed 
that he had carried Cubism to its logical and desirable 
conclusion. At all events, Mondrian's work from 191 3-14 
on amounts to a sort of elemental, ideal form of art which 
functions on 'a plane of direct and conscious spiritual 


Cubism Outside France 

activity.' Being of a mystical turn of mind and influenced 
by theosophical beliefs, Mondrian's credo was that 'the 
interior of things shows through the surface, and as we 
look at the surface the inner image is formed in our soul.' 
The artist should therefore render no more than this 
'inner image,' because 'things give us everything, but the 
representation of things gives us nothing.' No pictorial 
attitude could be more remote from that of the true 
Cubists. Yet a brief experience of handling the pictorial 
language of Cubism enabled Mondrian to pursue another 
type of reality through a personal non-figurative idiom, 
which he elaborated with a thoroughness which commands 
our fullest respect. 

In Germany : Marc, Macke, 
Catnpendonk, Klee and 

Germany was one of the first countries of Europe to open 
its Salons to later nineteenth and early twentieth century 
French art, so that from 1910 onwards Cubist paintings by 
Braque, Picasso, Metzinger, Delaunay and others were 
shown in Dlisseldorf, Cologne, Berlin and Munich. But 
with their temperamental inclination towards an art of 
subjective emotionalism, involving distortions both of 
reality and of form, German artists at first found nothing 
meaningful to pursue in the clear structure, impassive 
realism and formal inventions of true Cubist painting. 
Among the artists of the Briicke group, to whom the 
paintings of Van Gogh, Munch, Gauguin and the Fauves 
were famihar, and whose own 'primitivizing' expressionist 
painting represented the first wave of modernism in 
Germany, Cubism found no echo. But between 1912 and 
191 5 Cubism-played a small role in the painting of Franz 
Marc and some of his friends in Munich. Yet even then it 
was not the realistic impulse behind true Cubism which 
appealed to German artists but its new structural principles. 



which they adapted to a half-Orphist, half-symbolical use 
of color to evoke visual reality and give substance to 
their mystical insight into the reality of nature. 

* Fciiiingcr was not a member of 
the Blaue Reiter and did not exhibit 

Plate 136 

Lyonel Feininger 

The Gate, 1912 

Drypoint and etching, lO-Vs x 7^/4 in. 

No. 87 

The first artist in Germany to make the discovery of 
Cubism's importance was Lyonel Feininger,* an American- 
born German who had returned to Europe. In 1906-08 
Feininger had spent some time in Paris, where he had 
known Delaunay. But when he returned there from Berlin 
in May 191 1 and exhibited at the Salon des Independants, 
Feininger was impressed by the work of Cezanne, saw De- 
launay's Eiffel Toii'crs and Wi)i(iou's, found Paris 'agog with 
Cubism' and decided that in the painting of all three he had 
seen the sort of logical pictorial structure towards which he 
himself aspired. This marked a turning-point in Feitiinger's 
career, when he gave up expressing his feelings about man- 
kind through bitter-sweet masquerade images and be- 
came instead a lyrical, romantic artist using confrontations 
between architecture, nature and the elements to symbolize 
the chasm between man's hopes and their realization. 
Fcininger's principal subjects from then on were ships on a 
stormy sea, buildings on the edge of a cliff, soaring Gothic 
spires and tall buildings in the narrow streets of a city {The 
Harbor, 1913), images of strength and frailty, where man 
is dwarfed and yearns to escape from his isolation, just 
as the buildings seem to want to leave the grotmd and 
soar aloft. Feininger did not express himself by illustrative 
means any longer (he had started oft as a humorous 
draughtsman), nor did he look to the technique of Cubism 
to give material reaHty to his buildings. Instead he used 
the technique of faceting and fragmentation, in con- 
junction with a complex structure of transparent, inter- 
penetrating planes {The Bridge I, 1913), to demateriaHze 
things and effect a fusion between the planes of physical 


Plate 137 

Lyonel Feininger 

Bicycle Race, 1912 

Oil, 311/2x393/4 in. 

No. 81 

Plate 138 

Lyonel Feininger 
GelmerodaW, 1915 
Oil, 391/s X 311/4 in. 

No. 83 

P/. 137 

* German artists discovered Futurist 
painting tlirough exliibitions in 1912 
in Munich and Berlin. 

P/. 142 

reality and those which carry onwards and upwards into 
the surrounding space and sky [Gchiieroda W, 1915). 
Feininger's effects were subtly ordered and crystalline: like 
the true Cubists, Feininger disregarded linear perspective 
and kept his paintings surface-conscious. But unlike the 
Cubists, Feininger used multiple aspects and a contrasted 
play of Hght, \Y\xh. a harmony ot unreal colors, to express 
the dpiamic and transcendental workings of the competing 
forces — nature and man. Feininger's concern with the 
drama of light, hkc his sense of torm in space, was no 
doubt enhanced h\ his contact with Delaimay, although 
he never used color in an Orphist mamicr. But a Cubist- 
like treatment of forms enabled him to evoke movement, 
as in The Bicycle Race (1912), where cubistically sr\"hzed 
silhouettes and sharp arrow-hke forms opposed to hori- 
zontals, diagonals and broken circles express momentum. 
However, in later works (1914) Feininger experimented 
with such Futurist techniques* as "lines of force' to heighten 
the clash of his planar and luminous encounters. But by 
1916, having passed through this stage, Feininger adopted 
a bolder, simpler approach to formal analysis and planar 
structure which made his paintings more static and again 
more nearlv Cubist {Markwippcich, 1917). 

The other German artists \\-ho borrowed from Cubism — 
Heinrich Campendonk, August Macke and Paul Klee — 
were all associated with Franz Marc m the Blaue Reiter 

Plate 139 

Lyonel Feirdnger 

The Bridge I, 1913 

Oil, 311/2x391/2 in. 

No. 82 


Lyonel Feirdnger 

Avenue of Trees, 1915 

Oil, 313/4x391/2 in. 

No. 84 


^Hv ^^K^WC^g^ 



"'/ ^^^K /^^l 




Plate 142 

Lyonel Feininger 
Marku'ippach, 1917 

No. 85 

and much influenced by his pictorial conceptions. The 
Blaue Reiter was a short-Hved, loose association of gifted 
artists, presided over by Kandinsky and Marc, the former 
(who looked on Cubism as a curious but transitory 
phenomenon) advocating a so-called 'pure' type of 
abstract painting analogous to music, the latter seeking to 
convey through painting a 'pantheist empathy' with 
animals and nature. The first Blaue Reiter Exhibition, in 
December 191 1, included only works by Henri Rousseau 
and Delaunay from France. For its second exhibition in 
February 1912 (graphic works only), Braque, Picasso, 
Derain, and de La Fresnaye were invited and their works 
were hung alongside others from Russia by Gontcharova, 
Larionov, and Malevich. The Blaue Reiter exhibitions 
brought together examples of those different types of art 
which interested its members — symboHsm, mysticism, 
folk-art, expressionism, musicaUsm, Cubism and Rayonn- 
ism. Marc had first seen Cubist paintings by Braque and 
Picasso in September 1910 at the exhibition of the Neue 
Kiinstlervereinigung in Munich. But it was too early for 
him to feel any relevance to his own work. Marc 
wanted to express the conviction that animals are more 
spiritual and beautifid than humans, which meant 
trying to convey in his own paintings an animal's view 
both of itself and of the world it inhabits. At first (1910-12), 
Marc attempted to express this through a symbohcal use 
of color and a distinctive rhythm. However, in the late 


Plate 143 

Franz Marc 
The Tiger, 1912 
Oil, 427/g X 39 m. 

Stadtische Galerie im 
Lenbachhaus, Munich 

PI 143 

PL 144 

Plate 144 

Franz Marc 
Stables, 1913-14 
Oil, 291/8 X 621/4 in. 

No. 204 

spring of 1912, Klee returned to Munich after a short trip 
to Paris, where he had visited and talked with Delatinay 
and Lc Fauconnicr and had seen many Cubist paintings by 
Picasso in the Kahnweiler Gallery, hi the fall of the same 
year, Marc and Macke followed Klee to Paris, and 
shortly afterwards Marc started to use color in an Orphist 
manner, aUied with a linear spatial structure deriving from 
Cubism, to evoke the nature of some animal and unite 
it with its surroundings. He began in The Tiger (1912) by 
faceting the animal's body to express, by articulation, 
the animality, fierceness and potential speed of a beast 
of prey. After this, in paintings such as Stables (1913), 
Marc employed transparent planes of color and a hnking 
rhythm to recreate an experience of realit)-. He did not, 
therefore, have recourse to Cubist methods to make 
reahry more sohd and tangible but to contribute to an 
all-enveloping effect of space, which enhanced the pictorial 
sense of mystery. Subsequently, Marc borrowed certain 
Futurist and even Rayonnist devices to achieve more 
dramatic effects before he fmally adopted a symbolical, 
non-figurative idiom in 191 5. 

Plate 145 

Heinrich Campendonk 
Harlequin and Cohmhinc, 1913 
Oil, 641/2 X 78 in. 

No. 49 

Heinrich Campendonk was the closest follower of Marc 
in his use of a Cubist-style structure, but his naive imagery; 
inhke Marc's, derived from folk-art, as in Harlequin and 
Columbine (1913), where courtship is going on in a wood- 
land glade with much fondUng of animals. True Cubism 
played no part in the paintings of Macke and Klee, yet 
in 19 14 both artists painted works (mostly watercolors) 

Plate 146 

Paul Klee 

Red and White Domes, 1914 

Watercolor, 53/4 x 53/s in. 

No. 149 



* Klee published a German transla- 
tion ot Delaunay's essay On Light 
in the periodical Der Stiirni in 

January 191 3. 

PI. 146 

PL 147 

Plate 147 

Paul Klee 

Homage to Picasso, 1914 

Oil, 133/4 X 111/2 in. (irregular oval) 

No. 148 

in which they used rectangular, over-lapping, transparent 
planes of color, derived from Orpliism,* to establish a 
luminous spatial structure and overall design {Red and 
White Domes, 1914). Klee, hov^^ever, went further in his 
oil painting Homage to Picasso (1914), a respectful and 
uniquely personal tribute to one of the creators of 
Cubism. He chose an oval canvas, which carried Cubist 
associations, and made great play with textural varia- 
tions and directed beams of hght, as Picasso had done in 
191 1-12. Yet Klee omitted the realistic content of a Cubist 
picture and produced a composition of inclined and inter- 
locking rectangular planes, which evoke an experience 
of space and light through their tonal relationships, but 
which unfortunately suggest a parody of a painting by 

* Frantisek Kupka, who was ten 
years older, had left Prague and 
settled in Paris in 1S95. In 1911-12 
i ^(7 he was hving in Puteaux and closely 
in touch with Villon and Duchamp, 
but Kupka's oaati painting ■was non- 
figurative and owed nothing either 
to Cubism or to Orpliism. He 
played no part in the development 
of the modern movement inside 
Czechoslovakia, although Kupka 
helped his compatriots to see the 
latest French painting when they 
visited Paris. 

Plate 148 

Vincenc Benes 

Tram Station, 1911 

Oil, 28 X 225/8 in. 

No. 5 

In Czechoslovakia : Filla, 
Kubista, Prochazka, Benes, 
Gutfreund and Capek 

Plate 149 

Emil Filla 
Sahviie, 1912 
Oil, 54 ■. 311/4 in. 

No. 89 

Czechoslovakia produced a small but very active group 
of avant-garde young artists* — notably Emil Filla, Bohumil 
Kubista, Antonin Prochazka, and the sculptor Otto Gut- 
freund — who responded positively to the language of 
Cubism and from 191 1 on adapted it creatively to their 
o\vn purposes. Situated geographically in the center of 
Europe, with Russia and Germany to the north, Italy to 
the south and France and Austria lying west and east, 
Czechoslovakia (or Bohemia as it then was) was open to 
several currents of artistic influence. Like the artists of 
most other European countries, Czech artists at the turn 
of the century were equally involved with open-air 
painting, symboHsm and art noiiveau. However, in 1905 
the young progressives in Prague acquired new ideas 
of style and subject-matter after seeing an exhibition 
of works by Edvard Munch at the Manes Union of Artists 
(similar to the Salon d'Automne in Paris). This was 
followed in 1907 by a showing of French Impressionist 
and post-Impressionist painting, which opened their eyes 
still further to the expressive possibilities of color and 
form. Then, in the winter of 1907-8, Filla, Kubista and 
Prochazka joined with some other progressive artists to 
form a group (The Eight) devoted to creating a modern 
Czech art on the basis of their recent stylistic discoveries. 

In 1909 The Eight dissolved and merged with Manes, after 
which Filla and Kubista visited Paris, where Gutfreund (who 
returned to Prague in the summer of 1910) was already 

Plate 150 

* The group also included architects, 
writers and art historians; it pub- 
lished two numbers of a review in 
1911-13 which reflects their admira- 
tions and activities. Kubista remained 
outside the group. 

* Works by Soffici were included 
in the group's 191 3 exhibition, the 
first occasion on which Futurist 
paintings were shown in Prague. 

* The same French artists were 
represented in 1914 as in 191 3. For 
the 1913 exhibition, Kahnwciler lent 
31 items. 

* Kramaf, who bought from Kahn- 
weiler, lived partially in Paris. After 
1914 he no longer bought for him- 
self, but in 1919 he started buying 
modern French art again for a 
Society whose collections sub- 
sequently became the nucleus of the 
present Narodni Galerie in Prague. 
Kramaf was the author of an 
interesting book on Cubism (Prague, 

Emil Filla 

Feiiwle Figure, 1913 

Drypoint, H'/s x 14 in. 

No. 93 


working under Bourdelle. In 1910, strengthened by its 
new recruits, the Manes Union showed a selection of 
works by Parisian artists from the Salon des Independants, 
which included many Fauve paintings but no examples of 
Cubism. However, in 191 1, Filla and Prochazka broke 
away from Manes, which they regarded as too conservative, 
and formed the Group of Avaut-Garde Artists [Sknpina 
vytvarnych umclcn) with Vincenc Benes, Josef Capek, Gut- 
freund, Vaclav Spala, and a few others.* The stylistic 
conceptions of this new group embraced their national 
cultural heritage, German Expressionism and Cubism, 
with some slight influence from Futurism in 191 3.* They 
were closely in touch with the Briicke artists, exhibited 
in several towns in Germany, and in 191 3 had a group 
showing at the Sturm gallery in Berlin, where they 
encountered works by the Blaue Rciter and Futurist 
artists. Thus the Avant-Garde Czech artists repeatedly 
saw various forms of modern art. Also the Group 
sponsored three exhibitions — in the autumn of 191 2, 
May 1913, and March 1914* — at which they showed, 
alongside their own works, German Expressionist 
paintings, works by Derain and Friesz (1912 only), and 
in 1913-14 many Cubist works by Braque, Picasso and 
Gris. Moreover, in Prague itself, they had access to a 
remarkable private collection of Cubist paintings (Braque, 
Picasso, Derain) which was being assembled by one of 
their well-wishers, the art historian Dr. Vincenc Kramaf,* 
who had begun by buying Picasso's bronze Woman's Head 
in the winter of 1910-1 1. It is therefore significant that while 
these young Czech artists borrowed formal and structural 
elements from true Cubism, they remained unaftected 
both by Orphism and by the experiments of other artists of 
the Cubist School in Paris, and none of them followed 
Kupka into non-figurative art. 


Plate 151 

Bohuniil Kubista 
Portrait, 1911 
Oil, 26 X 201/2 in. 

No. 150 

Kubista was already writing from Paris to a friend in 1910 
that, in his opinion, Braque and Picasso would have 'a 
great influence' on the development of modern art, 
because their work showed that 'color is only a relative 
consideration in painting.' This remark is significant 
because, at that time, the painting of the young Czechs was 
characterized by an expressionist use of color. After 191 1, 
however, they reduced the intensity of their colors and 
concentrated more on formal discipline, though they 
never relinquished their concern with emotional expres- 
sivity. Thus the Auaiit-Garde Czech artists were 
not inclined to imitate true Cubism: they were not 
concerned with re-creating in all its fullness the solid 
tangible reality of a still life or a mere seated figure. 
They wanted their subjects to have a higher symbolic 
significance, to represent moments of spiritual intensity in 
the life of man, to express deep inner feelings and a sense 
of national awareness {Views of Old Prague, St. Sebastian, 
Anxiety, Song of the Countryside). Expressionism thus 
blended with Cubism in their works, Cubist analysis and 
fragmentation serving their need for expressive distortion 
and providing them with both a means of dramatization 
and a structural framework which held the composition 

PL 153 

Filla was the most constructive of the Czech Cubist 
painters and his Bathers (1912) shows that he had studied 

< Plate 152 

Bohumil Kubista 
Landscape, 1911 
Oil, 181/8x211/4 in. 

No. 151 

Plate 153 

Eniil Filla 

Bathers, 1912 

Oil, 491/2 ■ 33 m. 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

Plate 154 

Antonin Prochazka 
Girl with a Peach, 1911 
Oil, 133/4x117/3 in. 

No. 293 


paintings by Braque and Picasso of 1909 intelligently. He 
attempted to keep the expressionist strain in check, and for 
twenty years Filla contiirued to follow in the steps of Picasso 
through the developments of late Cubism. Kubista 
experimented with an analytical approach in 191 1, 
and by 1913 had evolved a clear, personal form of Cubism 
before his urge for dramatic effects led him to Futurism in 
the next year. Prochazka, Benes, Capek, and Spala were 
more eclectic artists who made use briefly of a Cubist 
approach to form before ending in formalization. The 
second most important Czech Cubist was the sculptor 
Gutfreund, who began to use a Cubist planar structure 
in 191 1, and went on to make a significant contribution 
to Cubist sculpture between 1912 and 1919. 

Plate 155 

Emil Filla 

Man's Head with Hat, 1916 

Oil, 283/8 X 201/4 in. 

No. 90 

Plate 156 

Joseph Capek 

Cuhist Figure, 1913 

Linoleiun, SVie x 4 in. 

No. 50 


Plate 157 

Emil Filla 

Figure, 1921 

Ink, 247/3 X I81/2 in. 

No. 92 


•< Plate 158 

Emil Filla 

Still Life with Pem, 1915 

Watercolor, lO^/gX 235/8 in. 

No. 91 

Plate 159 

Vlatislav Hofnian 

Design for a Suite of Furniture, 1911 

Pencil drawing 

Reproduced from Umelecky Mesiaiik, 1911-12 

In May 1914, the Manes Union at last presented a show 
of works by artists of the School of Paris, selected by 
Alexandre Mercereau, which included Delaunay, Villon, 
de La Fresnaye, Friesz, Gleizes, Metzinger, Lhote, Marcous- 
sis, Mondrian, Rivera and Duchamp-Villon. This was the 
first time that such a wide survey of the Cubists of the 
School of Paris had been seen in Prague. But it was 
widely remarked on that Braque, Picasso and Gris, who 
had been shown by the Avaut-Garde Group, were missing. 
By this time both Filla and Gutfreund were back in 
Paris, where the declaration of war overtook them. 
After this the Group split up, and in the postwar years 
only Filla continued to work in a Cubist idiom. 

A curious and interesting side-effect of the great interest 
for Cubism in Czechoslovakia is the stylistic influence it 
Pi. J5P had between 191 1 and 1913 on the design of furniture, 
household objects, ornamentation and the surface animation 
of architecture. This took the form of angularities, 
faceting and stylized geometrical shapes and was suffi- 
ciently widespread to suggest the possibility that a Cubist- 
style house might have resulted. The designers concerned — 
Vlastislav Hofman, Pavel Janak and Josef Gocar — were all 
members of the Auant-Gank Group. 


Cubism Outside France 

In Russia : Gontcharova, 
Larionov, Malevich, Tatlin, 
Popova and Udaltsova 

* This Salon \vas also showTi in 
Kiev and St. Petersburg. The 
brothers Burhuk were responsible 
for thus bringing Moscoav into 
touch with Munich. 

Between 1898, when the first number of the review The 
World of Art [Mir Iskusstva) edited by Diaghilew appeared, 
and 1 9 14, when (in contrast to the break-up which 
occurred everywhere else) the modem art movement in 
Russia gained new strength following the return from 
Paris and Munich on the outbreak of war of some pro- 
gressive young artists who had been working abroad, 
St. Petersburg and Moscow were constantly and quickly 
aware of any new style or development that occurred in 
Paris, Munich, Milan or Vienna. The World oj Art, 
pubhshed by a group of friends in St. Petersburg, presented 
the Impressionists, the Symbohsts and art tiouveau, and in 
its last number (1904) the post-Impressionists. It was 
succeeded between the spring of 1908 and December 1909 
— Moscow had by then replaced St. Petersburg as the 
artistic center — by a new review. The Golden Fleece, 
which was less aesthetically and more modern-minded, 
supported the Blue Rose group of young Russian 
artists, and was financed by a rich art-collecting merchant 
Nicolai Riabouchinsky. This review sponsored three 
memorable Franco-Russian exhibitions in Moscow, where 
not only Cezanne, Gauguin, Van Gogh, the Nabis and the 
Neo-Impressionists were represented, but also on a generous 
scale Matisse, the Fauves, Le Fauconnier and Braque (his 
1908 Nude was shown in 1909). Futurism was known about 
immediately after its laimching because the Manifestos 
were pubhshed in Russian, while the avant-garde Russian 
artists (always a small group) encountered Expressionist 
paintings of the Munich school (including Kandinsky) at 
an International Salon in Odessa in 1910.* Next, a new 
group, the Jack of Diamonds, which was formed in 
Moscow by some young 'Cezannists' (Falk and Lentulov) 
with Larionov and Gontcharova, held four exhibitions 
between December 1910 and the spring of 1913 at which 

Plate 160 

Michel Larionov 

Glasses, 1911-12 (=) 

Oil, 41 X 381/4 in. 

No. 156 

* Braque's work, like that of Gris 
and Leger was passed up by Russian 

works by Gleizes, Metzinger, Le Faucormier, Lhote, and 
Leger were shown, as well as artists of the Briicke and 
Blaue Reiter. And finally, the Russians could always 
visit two outstanding and constantly growing private 
collections of modem French painting in Moscow 
belonging to the merchants Ivan Morosov and Sergei 
Shchukin. By 19 14, Morosov had already acquired over 
one hundred paintings by the Impressionists, Cezanne, 
Gauguin, the Nabis and Matisse, while Shchukin owned 
in addition to Cezanne and Van Gogh, some forty works 
by Matisse and even more by Picasso, most of the latter 
dating from after 1907.* 

Since the seventeenth century, the Russian Tsars and 
aristocracy had continually amassed collections of western 
European art and had repeatedly called on the services of 
foreign artists, architects and artisans to set the tone for 
and give a lead to Russian taste. So the influx of modern 
foreign art into Russia between 1900 and 19 14 was not 
abnormal. However, this time it did not pass imchallengcd. 
For, since the end of the nineteenth century a distrust of 
foreign influence had begun to develop in creative circles 

1^8 Cubism Outside France 

in Russia, where there was now a ■«"ill to nourish a purely 
Russian art from Russian sources. And this at last broke 
through in painting. The fotinding of the Blue Rose 
group in 1907 marked the beguming of a nationahstic 
trend in the work of Larionov and Gontcharova, who 
until then had painted in a sub-Impressionist sr\'le. All at 
once they began to work in a 'primitivizing' idiom 
inspired bv icons, the ornamental motifs of Russian 
peasairt embroiders- and 'lubki' (peasant broadsheets), and 
concentrated on scenes of Russian popular hfe, especially 
that of peasants, soldiers and sailors. In their technique of 
summary simplifications and large areas of bright color, 
^^'ith no recomrse to modeling or scientific perspective, 
Larionov and Gontcharova still owed something to what 
they had learned from the Nabis and the Fauves, just as it 
is difficult not to ascribe some share of responsibiht)- for 
their "new primitivism' to Gauguin, Heiuri Rousseau and 
the "negro' element in the work of Picasso. At the same 
time, however, Larionov and Gontcharova cultivated a 
disrespect for those pictorial niceties which they associated 
with "Munich decadence' or the 'cheap Orientahsm of 
the Paris School,' and this led to their breaking with the 
Jack of Diamonds group in 1912. 

At this moment — March 19 12 — Larionov and Gon- 
tcharova organized an exhibition of their owm in Moscow 
with two yoimg disciples, Kasimir Male\'ich and Vladimir 
Tallin, under the title The Donkey's Tail, in order to 
demonstrate the existence of an independent Russian school 
of modernism. Hitherto, no Cubist influence had been 
apparent in Russian painting. But in the winter ot 191 1-12 
Larionov had invented a new personal idiom, Rayonnism, 
which the poet Mayakovsky was to classif)' as "a Cubist 
interpretation of Impressionism.' Rayonnism 'was de- 

Plate 161 

Michel Larionov 
Woman Walking on the Boulevard, 

Oil, 453/4x337/8 in. 

No. 157 


scribed by Larionov himself as a purely Russian synthesis 
of Cubism, Futurism and Orphism iia which he was 
'concerned with spatial forms which are obtained through 
the crossing of reflected rays from various objects, and 
forms which are singled out bv the artist. The rav is 
represented by a line of color. The painting is revealed 
as a skimmed impression, it is perceived out of time and 
Pi. 160 in space.' In the first of his Rayonnist paintings, Glasses 
Pi. 161 (1911—12?), as well as in Woman Walking on the Boulevard 
of roughly the same date, these various elements of the style 
are evident in the unfragmented bottle and glass, in the 
multiphcation of the woman's moving limbs, in the busy 
network of criss-crossing lines and in the way color is 
apphed. Some of Larionov's Rayoimist paintings, of which 
there are only a few, consist, however, simply of clashing, 
arrow-shaped planes of color M^ith no visible subject. Gon- 
tcharova's Rayonnism, on the other hand, had more of a 

m^Hi' ^^k^ ^^^ -^-^ .^■^^IB^^Bm 


- « 

Plate 162 

Nathalie Gontcharova 
The Looking Glass, 1912 
Oil, 35 X 263/8 in. 

No. 106 

Cubist background in its conception of form [The 
Looking Glass, 1912) and consisted at first of a network of 
lines offeree and radiation emerging from a faceted form 
[Cats, 191 1— 12). Subsequently her conception moved 
nearer to Futurism (The Cyclist, 1912— 13) and led to a 
mechanistic composition such as The Machine s Engine 
(191 3). Yet all the while both of these artists were con- 
tinuing to work on Russian themes in the 'new primitive' 
idiom, and when they leftRussia in 1915 to work as stage- 
designers for the DiaCThilew Ballet it was in the folk-art 
srvle that thev were most successfiil. 

Malevich, a less accompHshed and creative artist than these 
two, began by imitating, rather coarsely, various French 
styles from Gauguin and the Nabis to Matisse. Then in 
1911-12 Malevich came strongly under the influence of 
Gontcharova and took up peasant themes. 'Ever\" work 
has a content,' he said at the time, 'expressed in primitive 
form and reveals a social concern.' Malevich's original 
'primitive form' is exemplified by The Woodcutter (191 1), 
a static composition in which he reduced the figure and 
the logs around him to elementar.' tubular forms — thus 
making them indistinguishable — and articulated a flattened 
pictorial space by giving different directions to the planes 
of the logs and employing contrasts of bright colors. Next, 

■^ Plate 163 

Nathalie Gontcharova 
Cais, 1911-12 (;) 
Oil, 331/2 X 333/4 in. 

No. 105 

Plate 164 

Kasimir Malevich 

Portrait of Matiushin, 1913 

Oil, 413/4x423/8 in. 

No. 202 

Plate 166 

Kasiniir Malevich 

Musical Instruments, 1913 

Oil, 327/8x273/8 in. 

No. 203 

Plate 165 

Kasiniir Malevich 
Scissors Grinder, 1912 
Oil, 313/8x313/8 in. 

No. 201 

Plate 167 

Liubov Popova 
The Traveller, 1915 
Oil, 56x411/2 in. 

No. 292 

* At tliis stage Malevich called liis 
work 'Cubo-Futurist.' 

PL 164 

PL 166 

inThe Scissors-Grinder (1912) he attempted to unite Cubist to 
Futurist means and suggest, by multiplication of the limbs, 
head and knife, violent and exhausting movement. Here 
Malevich tried to contain a figure in action within the 
spatial setting of a static, illogically disjointed, but would- 
be cubistically structured staircase,* the whole composition 
being further animated by contrasts of bright, non- 
descriptive colors. Thirdly, after passing through a phase 
(1912-13) in which he owed something to Leger, Malevich 
arrived at a new style {Portrait of M.V. Matitishin, 1913) 
derived from the papiers colles and late Cubism of Picasso. 
In such paintings, planes, forms and identifiable fragments 
of objects are crudely piled up, with no regard for physical 
or spatial logic, in a manner which he himself referred to 
as 'Nonsense-Reahsm.' After this, in a 'desperate attempt 
to free art from the ballast of the objective world,' 
Malevich 'fled to the form of the square' and launched the 
non-figurative idiom which he called Suprematism. 

Tathn, the fourth artist of this group, was so impressed 
by the works of Picasso which he had seen in Shchukin's 
collection that, when he had earned enough money by 
playing the accordeon at an Exhibition of Russian Folk- Art 

•< Plate 168 



Liubov Popova 
Two Figures, 1913 
Oil, 63 X 487/8 in. 

No. 291 

Plate 169 

Nadezhda Udaltsova 
At the Piano, 1914 
Oil, 42 X 35 in. 

No. 308 

Plate 170 

Nadezhda Udaltsova 

Violin, 1914 

Oil, 207/8x1 61 5/1 6 in. 

No. 309 

in Berlin in the summer of 1913, he at once set out for 
Paris to visit him. In Picasso's studio, TatHn saw and was 
impressed by a series of still hfes and guitars constructed 
in wood, metal and cardboard. But those constructions 
which he himself made in 191 3-14 after his return to 
Moscow were purely non-representational. 

Apart from this small avant-garde group, Russia produced 
two other interesting artists — Liubov Popova and 
Nadezhda Udaltsova — who used the language of Cubism 
creatively. These two painters left Moscow (where they 
had studied) for Paris in the fall of 1912, worked for a 
while under both Le Fauconnier and Metzinger and 
returned to Moscow in the summer of 19 14. They were 
thus able to make direct contact with Parisian Cubism, 
and up till 191 5 their painting reveals a comparable 


Cubism Outside France 

realism in the handling of representational forms and 
spatial structure to that which inspired Cubism proper. 
These two ladies, who were not affected by the folk-art 
movement, were at the start more accompHshed artists 
than Malevich and Tathn, but they too ended by adopting a 
non-figurative idiom. 

In Italy : The Futurists 

* Boccioni and Severini had studied 
together under Balla in 1 900-1. 

Italy was awakened suddenly to a new conception of 
what hterature and art should attempt in the twentieth 
century when, on 20th February 1909, the poet Marinetti 
issued the First Futurist Manifesto. This was pubhshed in 
full in his own review Poesia in Milan, in Le Figaro in 
Paris, and simultaneously mailed to a large number of 
influential people. In bombastic language, Marinetti 
ordered the younger generation in Italy to defy tradition 
and the cult of the glorious Italian past and seek inspiration 
instead in the excitements of the contemporary world. 
'We declare,' he wrote, 'that the world's splendor has 
been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed . . . 
We shall sing of the great crowds excited by work, 
pleasure and rebellion; we shall sing of . . . the factories 
suspended from the clouds by the twisted strings of their 
smoke. ... of broad-chested locomotives pawing at the 
rails like huge steel horses bridled with steel tubes ; and of 
the gliding flight of aeroplanes . . .' Soon after the pubUca- 
tion of the Manifesto, Marinetti was approached by three 
young painters — Carlo Carra, Umberto Boccioni, and 
Luigi Russolo — who felt that artists too should take part 
in the movement. And a year later these three, with their 
friends Guido Balla* and Gino Severini, launched first a 
Manifesto of the Futurist Painters (8th March, 1910) and 
next a Technical Manifesto of Futurist Painting ( 1 1 th April) . 
In these la ter professional Manifestos they proclaimed them- 

Italy: The Futurists 


selves 'the primitives of a new, completely transformed sen- 
sibility' and set forth an aesthetic in praise of speed, science, 
mechanization and universal d\Tiamism, ideas which were 
to remain fundamental to their pictorial conceptions 
during the first active phase of the movement (1910-15). 
The Technical Manifesto showed a surprising awareness of 
modern scientific ideas in its references to the deformation 
and multiplication of images of moving things on the 
retina and to the vital principle of opposition between 
static and dynamic elements. It was also avant-garde in 
its insistence that traditional modes of pictorial representa- 
tion were no longer vahd when one could see and know that 
the 'sixteen people aroimd you in a tram are successively 
one, ten, four, three. They stay still momentarily, but then 
they shift again, coming and going with the swaying and 
boimcing of the tram.' Tliis was written a full year before 
Delaunay started working on the series of fragmented 
Ei§el Towers and ahnost two years before Duchamp painted 
his Nude Descending. 

* Boccioni's claim in Pittiira scultura 
fiitiiriste of 1914 that they knew 
about Cubism in 1910 is certainly 
false. At any rate, tliere is no trace 
of Cubist influence on Futurist 
painting before the fall of 191 1. 

* Soflici's article on Cezanne in 
La Voce in 1908 broke wholly new 
ground for Italian readers. 

There was no lack of revolutionary-somading ideas in all 
of this, but at the moment of launching their Manifestos 
the painters lacked the technical know-how to put 
them into practice. They were also in ignorance of 
modem developments outside of Italy.* True, Boccioni 
had been to Paris, but it was in 1902 and he had studied 
Impressionism. Severini had been hving in Paris smce 1906, 
but hke his friends in Milan who had been initiated into 
Symbohsm and Divisionism through Giovamii Segantini, 
Giuseppe PeUizza and Gaetano Previati, he himself had 
not advanced further. In 1909, no exhibition of French 
Impressionist or post-Impressionist painting* had been 
seen in Italy, and when Picasso was officially invited to 
send paintings to the Venice Biennale that summer, they 


* See A. SoEfici, 'L'Esposizione di 
Venezia 1909,' in Scoperte e Massacri, 
OpereVol. I (Florence, 1959), p. 382. 
Picasso is referred to as 'a young 
Spaniard 'vvho will be famous 

* Before arriving in Milan, Sofitici 
would have seen the hidependants 
of 191 1 and discussed its Cubist 
manifestation with Picasso, Apol- 
Hnaire and Metzinger. Soffici's article 
'Picasso e Braque' pubhshed in 
La Voce in August 191 1 'was the first 
discussion in Italian of Cubism. 

Plate 172 

Giacomo BaUa 

Speed of an Automobile + Lights, 


Oil, 191/2x271/2 in. 

No. 4 

Plate 171 

Ardengo SofSci 
Decomposition of the Planes of a 
Lamp, 1912 
Oil, 133/4x113/4 in. 

No. 307 

were taken do\\'TL a few days after the opening because 
they were considered too aggressive.* 

For over a year, the Futurists continued to work with 
such pictorial means as they were famihar with, straining 
the Divisionist technique of color and the Symbolist use 
of hnear rhythms to their expressive hmits. Then in 
May-June 191 1, when the Futurists were already planning 
to launch themselves on Paris with an exhibition, they 
at last learned something at second-hand about Cubism. 
Their informants were first Ardengo Soffici, a writer and 
painter, who had Hved in Paris in 1900-07, had known 
Picasso, ApoUinaire and their friends intimately for many 
years, had recently been in Paris again and was probably 
the only person in Italy who had a gentune understanding 
of Cubism.* The second informant was Severini, who 
by then had become a friend of Picasso and ApoUinaire 
and brought Math hiin magazine articles on and repro- 
ductions of Cubist paintings. These two men were 
critical of the provinciahsm, outdated technique and 
labored symbolism of Italian Futurist painting and urged 

Plate 173 

Gino Severini 

Still Life with 'Lacerha,' 1913 

Papier colic, 195/sx26in. 

No. 299 

Plate 174 

Gino Severini 

Self-Pcrtmit in Straw Hat, 1912 

Charcoal, 211/2X219/16 in. 

No. 300 

Marinetti to take Boccioni, Carra and perhaps also 
Russolo with him to Paris so that they could look at the 
latest painting being done in France and discover 'the 
directions in which they ought to proceed' before 
exhibiting there in the spring of 1912. The part}' arrived 
in Paris in mid-October 191 1, visited the Salon d'Automne 
where Metzinger's Tea-Time, Le Fauconnier's Abniidatice, 
Leger's Three Figures, Gleizes' Women in a Kitchen and 
Duchamp's Portrait were all exhibited, and, guided by 
Severini, did a round of artists' studios including those 
of Leger, Metzinger, Gleizes, Le Faucormier and Picasso. 
It is only after this visit that Cubist influence permeated 
Futurist painting, for on their return to Milan the Futurists 
abandoned a number of pre-Paris works, reworked 
unfinished canvases and conceived new ones in a modified 
style which was strengthened by a Cubist type of spatial 

Futurism was the pictorial expression of a new under- 
standing and vision of reahty, involving not so much a 
subject as everything connected with it. That is to say, the 
spectator and his state of mind, the sensations and emo- 
tions to which he was subject, the passage of time and a 
synthesis of hght, space and motion. Each of the painters 
concerned interpreted the Futurist conception pictoriaUy 
in his own way, so that Futurism never became a con- 
sistent style. Nor was it — nor did its interpreters think of 

Plate 175 

Umberto Boccioni 

Figure Study, 1913 

Ink and wash, II1/2 ■' 9 in. 

No. 13 

it as — an offshoot of Cubism. On the contrar)', after their 
visit to Paris the Futurists reproached Cubism with being 
tied to the past and fek even more convinced that Futurism 
was the most modem movement in the whole of Europe. 
Boccioni stated this clearly in his article 'The Plastic 
Principles of Futurism' published in Lacerba in March 1913 : 
'What we want to show is an object experienced in the 
d}Tiamism of its becoming, that is to say the synthesis of 
the transformations that the object imdergoes in its two 
fluctuations, relative and absolute. We want to create the 
st)de of movement. We do not want to observ-e, dissect, 
and transpose into images; we identif)' ourselves in the 
thing, which is profoundly different. That is to say, an 
object does not have for us an a priori form: we know 
simply the line which reveals the relationship between 
its weight (quantit)') and its expansion (quaUr\-) ... It is our 
refusal to recognize an a priori reaht}' which divides us 
sharpl}' from Cubism.' Nevertheless, after their visit to 
Paris in 191 1 and their second visit in February 1912 at the 
time of their exhibition at the Bemheim Gallcn,', Boccioni, 

Plate 176 

Umberto Boccioni 

Study for 'Hcrizoimil Vohmies,' 1912 

Pencil and ink, 17^1 4^23'' Is in. 

No. 12 

Plate 177 

Carlo Carra 
Wivnaii at Window (Simultaneity), 

Oil, 577/8x523/8 in. 

No. 52 

Plate 178 

Gino Severini 
Dancer, 1912-13 
Crayon, 26 x 187/8 in. 

No. 301 

Carra and their friends did take over certain elements from 
Cubism and from Delatmay — transparent planes, dis- 
jointed perspectives, linear scaffolding — to clarif}- their 
spatial organization and stabilize their compositions 
(Carra, Woman with a Glass of Absinthe [igii); Portrait of 
Marinetti (1911, reworked 1913); Boccioni, Elasticity 
(1912); The Ungraceful (1913)). Also their use of lettering 
and numbers derived from Cubism, v^^hile the 'hnes of 
force' which they invented to represent directional move- 
ment were arrived at through a s}Tithesis of early Cubist 
analysis of form and their own emotionally expressive 
rhythms derived from Symbohst painting. 

The Cubist approach to painting only interested the 
Futurists in as far as it represented an antithesis to the 
impressionist approach which they had inherited. That 
is to say, the Impressionists had captured fleeting images 
of reahty, but while they delighted in the play of hght and 
color they had allowed the material element to become 
insubstantial. Braque and Picasso, on the other hand. 


Plate 179 

Carlo Carra 

Woman ii'ith Glass of Absinthe, 1911 


No. 51 

Plate 181 

Carlo Carta 
Boxer, 1913 
Ink, 17-Vs>;llm. 
No. 55 

had restored the conception of voliune and mass, but had 
painted a ^^■o^ld at rest. 'Once one car\'es up something 
which is indivisible,' said Boccioni, "and starts inventorying 
its component parts, one kills the hfe of that thing.' 
Therefore, the Futurists felt that Cubist painting lacked that 
vibration and sense of fltix which they regarded as 
inseparable from any truly modem experience of ^eaht)^ 
Thus Futurism was at heart a s\"nthesis of Impressionism 
and ultra-modemit)" with a dash of Cubism thro'mi in. 
But experience was to teach the Futurists a lot about the 
technical hmitations of pictorial representation. So between 
1912 and 1915 one fmds them experimenting ■smh a 
range of idioms which at one moment border on Cubist 
analysis of forms, at another (especially in the work of 
Carra) on papiers coUes and late Cubism, while they also 
practiced a non-figurative idiom based on abstract 
rhythmic forms ^^■ith a symboHc significance. Throughout, 
hoT\xver, the Futurists continued to animate their paintings 
with a Divisionist use of color. 

It is in the work of Softici — ^never a fiill member of the 
Futurist group and always close to Picasso — that one finds 
the nearest equivalent in Itahan pamting to true Cubism 
[Lines and Volumes of a Figure, 1912). The painting of 
Severini too shoA\s a marked Cubist influence, especially 

■< Plate 180 

Umberto Boccioni 
Elasticity, 1912 
Oil, 393/sX 393/5 in. 

No. 6 

Plate 184 

Carlo Carta 

Standing Figure (Idol), 1914 

Pencil, 447/8 X I81/2 in. 

No. 57 


l^ / 




Plate 182 

Carlo Carta 

Portrait of Soffici, 1914 

Ink and collage, 81/4 x S'/s in. 

No. 56 

Plate 183 

Gino Severini 
The Train in the City, 1914 
Charcoal, igs/sx 251/2 in. 
No. 302 

Plate 185 

Mario Sironi 

Self Portrait, 1913 

Oil, 201/4x191/4 in. 

No. 3(15 


Plate 186 

Ardengo Soffici 

hines and Voluines of a Figure, 1912 

Oil, 133/4X113/4 in. 

No. 306 

Plate 188 

Gino Severini 
Seated Woman, 1914 
Watercolor, 16 x 13^2 in. 

No. 304 


*^--- ^ 

from 1912 on, though he gave it a somewhat decorative 
interpretation before developing a styhzed late Cubist 
idiom in 1915-16 [Still Life, 1917). Sironi too, who joined 
the Futurist group in 191 3, flirted for a moment with a 
cubistic handling of form. On the other hand, during the 
last two years of his life Boccioni worked backwards 
away from the bustle of Futurism through a subtly 
colored, analytically composed type of early Cubism, 
to the calm of a richly colored late Cezannesque 

Futurism had repercussions internationally because Mari- 
netti and the artists of the group traveled extensively and 
showed their works in many cities, but also because its cult 
of ultra-modernism in art fitted the mood of the time. 
However, it is important to emphasize that when Leger 
and Delaunay used the words 'dynamism' and 'simulta- 
neity' in connection with their own pictorial conceptions, 
they meant something wholly different from the Futurists. 
The French artists reUed in their paintings on static 
contrasts of form and color, which meant that they 
achieved their purposes by purely plastic means. But, to 
the Futurists, 'dynamism' and 'simultaneity' lay in the 
forcefulness and movement inherent in the subject itself, 

< Plate 187 

Gino Severini 
Bottle, Vase and Newspaper 
on Table, 1914 
Charcoal and collage, 

221/8x185/8 in. 

No. 303 

Plate 189 

Umberto Boccioni 

Spiral Composition, 1913 

Oil, 373/8x373/8 in. 

No. 7 

Plate 190 

Carlo Carra 

Bottle of Wine, 1914 

Papier colle, 16 x I31/2 in. 

No. 53 

Plate 191 

Gino Severini 

Seated Woman, 1916 

Oil, 393/8x317/8 m. (Oval) 

No. 297 

Plate 192 

Gino Severini 

Still Life with Pumpkin, 1917 

Oil and collage, 361/4 x25-V8 in. 

No. 298 

Plate 193 

Gino Severini 

Armored Train in Action, 1915 

Oil, 46 X 341/2 in. 

No. 296 

American Artists 


in its extension into time and space, and in the expressive 
means by which the spectator was made to feel himself 
situated in the middle of it all. We can therefore say that 
while Futurism borrowed some st^'hstic elements from 
Cubism to help in the solution of its own expressive 
problems, it represented a fimdamentally anti-Cubist 
attitude and contributed nothing to the development of 
Cubism as a style. 

American Artists 

in New York and Paris : 

Weber, Marin, Stella, 


Russell and Bruce 

If Cubist painting was seen in America before 1914 it was 
due to the determination of certain hberal, progressive 
artists, some of whom had lived and worked in Paris during 
the first decade of the century, while others knew about the 
movement without leaving America. Together they spon- 
sored the famous Armory Show which opened in New York 
in February 191 3. The original idea behind this exhibition 
was that of a demonstration against the conventional art 
favoured by the National Academy of Design and other 
such Salons in order to stimulate awareness of a new 
modernism which was then developing in America. But 
as preparations for the show advanced, the conservatives 
on the Organizing Committee lost out to a more radical 
group of artists (Arthur B. Davies and Walt Kuhn in 
particular) who were determined to make it an inter- 
national survey of modernism and called in Walter Pach, an 
expatriate critic and painter, to act as their European guide 
and ensure tull coverage. The International Section was 
dominated by works of the French School, all the great 
nineteenth century artists being represented, while the 
modems included the Nabis, the Fauves and the foUowing 
Cubists: Braque, Leger, Picasso, Delaunay, Gleizes, 
Duchamp, de La Fresnaye, Villon, Picabia, and Duchamp- 
Villon. Expressionism was represented by Munch, Kan- 


Cubism Outside France 

* Futurist paintings were first sho\\'n 
in America at the Panama-Pacific 
Exhibition in San Francisco in the 
spring of 1915. 

dinsky, Kirchner and Lehmbruck; but the Russians, the 
Czechs, and Mondrian were omitted, while the Futurists 
refused to participate because they were not allowed to 
exhibit as a group apart.* 

PI. 195 
Pi 197 

* Except of course through repro- 
ducrions, and through the large 
exhibition of drawings by Picasso 
organized by StiegUtz and Steichen 
at '291' in April 191 1. 

The Armory Show roused the art-conscious pubHc of 
America and greatly affected subsequent styHstic develop- 
ments in modem American art. In 191 3 American painters 
still mostly favoured social reahsm in their choice of 
subjects and worked with a palette of strong colors. But 
the Armor)^ Show revealed that several young Americans 
who had gone to Europe were currently "W'orking, either 
in New York or Paris, in a st)de which owed something 
to Cubism, something to Delaunay and also something to 
Futurism. The most interesting of these was Max Weber, 
who had arrived in Paris in 1905, had known and admired 
the work of Flenri Rousseau, had worked briefly tmder 
Matisse, and had seen early Cubist works by Picasso before 
returning to New York in January 1909. In the winter of 
1910-11 Weber, who by then had become interested in 
'primitive' sr\des, painted Composition with Three Figures 
in which the formal simplifications and elementary 
faceting recall similar compositions by Picasso of 190S-9. 
But once Weber had left Paris, he was out of touch with 
the later evolution of Cubism,* so that in the following 
three years it was the influences of Rousseau and Matisse 
which increasingly determined his style. 

Meanwhile, John Marin, a romantic scenic artist in the 
Whistlerian tradition, had returned to New York in 1910 
after spending five years in Europe, and so in 1912 had 
Joseph Stella. It was the dealer Alfred Stieghtz who 
introduced Marin after his return to contemporary French 
art by showing him late watercolors by Cezanne and 

Plate 194 

John Marin 

The Woolworth Building, no. 31, 1912 

Watercolor, IS^/s x IS'A in. 

The Narional GaUer>" of Art, 
Washington, D.C. 




lire ''r|' 


J 77 

K 194 

* American Art Since igoo (1967), 
p. 87; see also p. 85: 'For the 
majorir>' of Americans who called 
themselves Cubists, Cubism meant 
little more than sharp lines and 
acute angles. Cubism was seen, not 
as a new attitude of mind, but in 
terms of its surface effects.' 

early Cubist drawings by Picasso. Under these influences, 
Marin evolved a graphic idiom incorporating faceting 
and formal fragmentation to express his personal emotions 
on being faced with 'the electric vitalit\- of New York and 
the vibrant light and air of the Maine coast' (Lloyd 
Goodrich). Marin's painting cannot be described as 
Cubist, although he used Cubist devices in a mild way. 
Genericall)' it is more affiliated by its concern \\ith d)'naiTLic 
movement and flux in nature, as well as b}' its inherent 
expressionism, with the art of Delaimay and the Futurists 
(e.g. The Woolworth BuiUino, 1912). 'Significantly,' 
writes Barbara Rose, 'the mostinteUectual phase ot Cubism, 
its formative analytical period, made Uttle discernible 
impression on American artists. There is almost no evidence 
that the analytical w'orks of Braque and Picasso that were 
shoMTi at the Armorv Show were understood or imitated 
by American artists.'* American artists, it seems, reacted 
vividly and emotionally to reaht}- as they experienced it 
and were not interested in being able to observe, dissect 
and transform its material aspects into static images. For 

Plate 195 

Max Weber 
Athletic Contest, 1915 
Oil, 40x60 in. 

No. 319 

PL 197 
PL 195 

the generarion of 1912 — especially for those artists recently 
returned from Europe — the stunning spectacle of the 
engineering and constructional feats which marked the 
emergence of a new world m New York appeared to be 
'a concrete manifestation of the spirit of explosive growth, 
vitaht)' and romantic hope of America' (Sam Hunter), and 
this sort of vision seemed to demand expression in 
Futurist terms. Stella had learned about Futiurism at first- 
hand in Paris and Italy in 1911-12, so he was already 
equipped with the means to reaUze Battle of Light, Coney 
Island (1914) and Brooklyn Bridge {1917-18). Agnin, although 
Max Weber had continued to use certain Cubist formal 
devices since 191 1, he too used near-Futurist methods in 
later works such as Grand Central Terminal (1915), Rush 
Hour, Neu'York (1915) and Athletic Contest (1915) to express, 
in more abstract than representational terms, the bustle, 
garishness, speed and excitement of New York cir\' life. 

This flirtation with Cubism and Futurism in America 
itself was finished by 191 8, though in Germany Feininger 
continued to work in a Cubist idiom for several more 
years. But in Paris a group of expatriate American artists — 
Morgan Russell and Stanton MacDonald- Wright, also 
Patrick Bruce — who had settled there in 1907 had evolved, 
out of the color theories of Chevreul and von Helmholtz 
and the recent painting of Delauna)- and Kupka, a purely 
abstract colorist idiom akui to Orphism which they called 
Synchromism. The great difference was, however, that 


Plate 196 

Stanton MacDonald- Wright, Syiichroiiiy in Purple, 1917 No. 200 
Oil, 36 X 28 in. 


Plate 197 

Max Weber 

Rush Hour, New York. 1915 

Oil, 36 X 30 in. 

No. 320 

Pi. 196 

where Delaunay used "simultaneous' contrasts of color 
to evoke Hght and give form to space, the S)Tichromists 
either used the visual illusion created by juxtaposed colors 
advancing and retreating to evoke an undefined, half- 
imaginar)- form in space, or applied bands of color 
svstematically in order to set up a polvphonic rhythm. In 
both cases their idiom was non-tigurative. Morgan 
Russell's work was seen for the first time in America at 
the Armory Show, and the S)Tichromists exhibited as a 
group in New York in March 1914. By 1919 they had 
abandoned Svnchromism to become banal figurative 

In England : The Vorticists 

Until well after 191 2, art in England followed a sub- 
Impressionist course tmaftected by European sr\'Hsric 
developments. The first Post-Impressionist Exhibition 
organized bv Roger Fr\- in November 1910, at which the 
most 'advanced' painting sho^^^l was Picasso's early Cubist 
Ponrdir of Clovis Sagot (1909), shocked the pubhc but had 

Enqlnnd: The Vorticists iSi 

no effect on English art, while the second, held in October 

1912, went further and included some representative Cubist 
works by Braque and Picasso but was no less negative 
in its effect. No exhibition devoted exclusively to 
Cubist painting was seen in London before 1914: indeed, 
at a third showing of modern painting in the autumn of 

191 3, which included a large group of Italian Futurist 
works, there was one Cubist and one Orphist painting by 
Delaunay, while Cubist paintings by Picasso were only 
shown in photographs. England was, however, subjected 
to a full experience of Futurism, beginning with a 
lecture on it by Marinetti at the Lyceum Club in 1910, 
followed by a Futurist Exhibition at the Sackville Gallery 
in 1912, an exhibition of Futurist works by Severini at 
the Marlborough Gallery in April 191 3, and a second 
Futurist Exhibition at the Dorc Galleries in April 19 14. 

Not surprisingly, therefore, the first modern painting 
which was produced in England between 19 13 and 191 5 
was strongly influenced by Futurist conceptions, both in 
its rehance on justificatory Manifestos and its concern with 
modernism and the power of machines. Wyndham Lewis, 
a theorist, propagandist and painter, was the moving 
spirit of a group of young artists — including Henri 
Gaudicr-Brzeska, Edward Wadsworth, David Bombcrg, 
Wilham Roberts and some lesser figures — who in 
March 1914 formed The Rebel Art Center. It was the 
American poet Ezra Pound, another spokesman tor the 
group, who applied the name Vorticism to the form of 
art which they invented. Like the Futurists in Italy, these 
English artists were in revolt against an artistic outlook 
whose values were sentimental and which had become 
smug through lack of a modernist challenge. Through a 
manifesto-periodical entitled Blast the group noisily pro- 

i82 Cubism Outside Fr 


claimed their likes, dislikes and aims. 'My object is the 
construction of Pure Form,' wrote Bomberg in 1914. 
'I reject ever\ahing in painting that is not Pure Form.' 
To which in 191 5 W^-ndham Le\\'is added: "A machine is 
in a greater or lesser degree a living thing. Its lines and 
masses imply force and action.' Thus unlike Futurism, 
\A-hich was an art of movement, Vorticism was static, 
adopted a machine aesthetic of 'bareness and hardness' and 
produced compositions \\-ith non-imitative forms in 
which emphatic linear movements and strong oppositions 
of dark and light colors were used to express the abstract 
concepts of force and energy. Rigid and formahst though 
it was, Vorticism had vitality-, but it was short-lived 
because, before it could get going, the group was disrupted 
when the artists were mobilized. 

The Vorticist group held one collective exhibition at the 
Dorc Galleries in June 191 5, when Lewis formulated its 
character in the Preface to the Catalogue as follows : 

Bv Vorticism we mean: — 

a. Activity as opposed to the tasteful passi\'ir\' of 

b. Significance as opposed to the dull and anecdotal 
character to which the NaturaHst is condemned. 

c. Essential movement and Activit}" (such as the 
energy of a mind) as opposed to the imitative cine- 
matography, the fuss and hysterics of the Futurists. 

This situates the intentions of the Vorticists as being 
equally opposed both to Cubism and to Futurism, though 
they derived much of their vocabular}- from the latter. By 
1916 Vorticism was dead. 


Late Cubism 
1914— 1921 

Braque and Picasso : 
Pasted Papers and Paintings, 
Summer 1912 — Summer 1914 

Plate 198 

Georges Braque 
Man wirh a Pipe, 1912 
Papier colic, 243/8 -< I91/4 in. 

No. 37 

By the summer of 1912, as we saw, Braque and Picasso 
had made of Cubism a language in which they were not 
only able to re-create forms, volume and space in a new 
way, but which they were at last beginning to enliven 
with small passages of color and textural variations. Thus 
true Cubist paintings had become more tactile and des- 
criptive and acquired a new surface realisrn. Braque and 
Picasso had never intended their paintings to be imitations 
of any existing reality. Now they wanted them to have a 
still more independent status, that is to say they wanted 
riicm not only to be conceptual re-creations of reality 
but also to be in themselves additions to that reality. 
So they began to talk of a picture as a tableau-objct, a 
picture-object which was related to but co-equal with 
everything around it. Pictures regarded in this way 
obviously needed to be enlivened with color. 

Braque took the first decisive step in this direction, for he 
perceived certain implications resulting from the collage 
of American cloth which Picasso had introduced into 
his Still Life with a Caned Chair at the end of May 1912. If 
an object could be convincingly represented in a painting 
by some ready-made element which was a literal, colored 
equivalent of itself, Braque reasoned, it should be possible 
to treat color as a free element m the composition. Thus 
line and color could serve separate functions, the role of 
line being to re-create forms and space, as well as to 
integrate the planes of color and the 'real' elements into 
the pictorial structure. Braque hrst put his ideas to the 
test in September 19 12 at Sorgues, near Avignon, where 
he and Picasso were spending the summer. Picasso had 
returned to Paris for a short while, and Braque was 
considering how to achieve his purpose, when he observed 
in a shop-window a roll of wallpaper printed to resemble 


Plate 199 

Georges Braque 

Glass mid Playing, Card, 1912 

Papier colle, 11 -Vs x IS'/s in. 

No. 36 

Plate 200 

Georges Braque 

Still Life en a Tabic, 1913 

Papier colle, 1 81/2x243/4 in. 

No. 39 

Plate 201 

Georges Braque 
The Program, 1913 
Papier colle, 
283/4x363/8 in. 

No. 40 


Plate 202 

Pablo Picasso, Still Life with Newspaper, 1914 
Papier coUe, 25^/8 x I93/4 in. 

No. 261 

oak-paneling. He cut three strips of this and arranged them 
to form the colored basis of a composition. Then he gave 
them pictorial meaning by drawing over and into them 
the planes, volumes and representational details of a still 
life with a fruit-dish and glass on a table, hi the process, 
the three strips of wall-paper came to represent a back- 
ground plane of panehng and in the foreground a drawer 
in a wooden table. 

Such was. the tirst papier colle, and it is very similar in style 
Pis. igS, igg to Braque's Ma)i with a Pipe (1912). However, even 
Braque must have been surprised by the break-through 
resulting from his new technique because, from then on 
until the summer of 1914, both he and Picasso, whose 
first papiers colles date from a few weeks later, continued 
to use it with increasing boldness and uivention (Braque, 

-"^m M BATfillM StSI ac^; 

Plate 203 

Pablo Picasso 

Guitar and Glass, 1913 

Papier colle, ISVs x 143/8 in. 

No. 260 

Plate 205 

Pablo Picasso 

Bottle and Glass on Table, 1912-13 

Charcoal and collage, 24^/8 x IS^/sin. 

No. 258 

Still Life on a Table, The Program; Picasso, Bottle and Glass). 
The two artists tried out this technique at once to see how 
it would work with figures, and then moved on to a 
succession of still Hfes in which bits of newspaper, cigarette 
packs, boxes of matches and wall paper of many different 
designs, colored fruits, visiting cards and shaped papers 
representing musical instruments took their place. Also 
this medium proved to be, for Braque and Picasso, the 
start of the use of a range of bright and subtly varied 
colors (Picasso, Still Life with Newspaper). Both Braque 
and Picasso saw and came to rehsh too the paradoxical 
new relationship between 'true' and 'false' which this 
technique enabled them to create. For, the various kinds 
of paper which they pasted together were (like the 
original piece of American cloth) literally more 'real,' 
since they were fragments of the real world, than the 
objects whose reality was created by drawing or painting 
and with which they shared an intimate pictorial rela- 
tionship on equal terms. Yet in another sense most of the 
pieces of pasted paper were as false as the drawn or 
painted objects, because they purported to be the wood 
of a table or a violin, or a cloth or a glass, whereas they 
were reaUy only pieces of paper. Thus Braque and Picasso 

Pablo Picasso 

Bottle and Glass, 1912 

Papier colic, 243/8x187/8 111. 

No. 257 

Plate 206 

Georges Braque 

Glass, Carafe and Neii'spaper, 


Papier colic, 245/sX II1/4 in. 

No. 38 


iSS Late Cubism: igi4-2i 

were in effect obliging real fragments of a non-pictorial 
world to play unreal roles in a pictorial world of their owti 

The technique of papiers colles assumed a growing im- 
portance for both artists firstly because it enabled them to 
inject a new kind of realism into their art, but secondly 
because it was yet another detiance of the cialt of helle 
peinture and of the behef that fme art was inseparable from 
a tise of fme materials. Moreover this technique was an 
ironic comment, hke the trompe-l'ceil rendering of a nail in 
early Cubist paintings, on the conventional notion that 
reality could onlv be properlv rendered through eye- 
foohng images created by the hand of a highly skilled 
artist. B}- estabhshing that reahn" could be pictorially 
re-created with only the humblest materials, the technique 
of papiers cclles reinforced the idea ot the rahleau-objet. 
It also transformed the ideas of Braque and Picasso as to 
the relationship betM-een color and form. More impor- 
tantly, it led them to the conclusion that the}' could 
create their o^ati pictorial realir\- by budding up towards 
it through a synthesis of different elements. Thus in the 
winter ot 1912-13 a fiindainental change came about in 
the pictorial methods of the true Cubists. Whereas 
previously Braque and Picasso had analyzed and dissected 
the appearance of objects to discover a set of forms which 
would add up to their totahn.- and provide the formal 
elements of a composition, now they foimd that they 
coidd begin h\ composing with purely pictorial elements 
(shaped forms, planes of color) and gradually endow them 
with an objective significance. 

This discovery marked the parting ot the ^^ays, how- 
ever, between Braque and Picasso, because by this 


Plate 207 

Pablo Picasso 

Glass, Pipe and Leiuoii, 1914 

Papier colle, 193/4x251/2 in. 

No. 262 

time their individual personalities had matured to the 
point where each was ready to exploit the possibiHties 
of a new technique in his own mamicr. Braque's work in 
PL 20} papiers coUes, for instance, never shows the degree of 
freedom and fantasy that one fmds in the work of Picasso, 
and he was more restrained in his use of color. Unhke 
Picasso and Gris, Braque never used papiers coUes in 
conjunction with oil paint but only with drawing. For 
Braque, either the pasted papers represented themselves 
or they were planes of color around and into which he 
organized his composition. Braque's work was always 
more sober than that of Picasso, so that one never fmds in 
it those dehberately selected news items, topical references 
or pimning witticisms that Gris, as well as Picasso, dehghted 
in. Moreover, Braque never made an entire and somewhat 
elaborate composition in papiers colles as Picasso did in 
Pis. 207, 20S Glass, Pipe and Lemon (1914) or Gris in Guitar, Glasses and 
Bottle (1914). However, when both artists began to 
translate their experiences with papiers colles into terms of 


Plate 210 

Georges Braquc 
Violin (Vnlse), 1913 
00,283/8x211/4 111. 

No. 32 

Plate 208 

Juan Gris 

Guitar, Glasses and Bottle, 1914 

Papier colle, 235/8x317/8 in. 

No. 128 

oil paint, the same clarification of structure and simplifica- 
tions of form were apparent in the work of each, which 
was a marked contrast with the elaborately informative 
paintings they had done during the summer of 1912. The 
beginning of this new phase of achievement is illustrated 

Plate 209 

Georges Braque 

Still Life with Clarinet and Violin, 


Oil, 215/sX 167/8 in. 

No. 30 

Plate 211 

Pablo Picasso 

Musical Instnimcuts, 1913 

Oil, 393/8x317/8 in. (Oval) 

No. 243 

Plate 212 

Pablo Picasso 

Glass and Bottle of Bass, 1913 

Papier colle, llTju x 173/4 in. 

No. 259 

by such lucid and economical compositions as Braque's 
Violin (1913) or Picasso's Seated Woman with a Gtiitar (1913) 
and Glass and Bottle of Bass (1913). From then on, however, 
their whole effort was directed towards enriching and 
humanizing the new 'synthetic' Cubist idiom which they 
had evolved. 

Some writers have missed the point o£ papiers colles and 
have maintained that they were no more than a device for 
laying-in the composition of a painting. They were 
nothing of the sort: papiers colles were always intended to 
exist as works of art in their own right, but in addition they 
turned out to be the source of major stylistic inventions. 
It was only when Braque and Picasso understood more 
fully the significance of their discovery that they began 
to transpose papiers colles into terms oi oil paint, and this 
resulted in the synthetic methods of late Cubism and the 
further discovery that pasting and painting could be 
effectively combined in one picture. 

An important stylistic outcome o£ papiers colles was that 
the pictorial space in late Cubist paintings became still more 
flattened and that they therefore became more siirface- 

Plate 213 

Pablo Picasso 

Seated Woman with Guitar, 1913 

Oil, 393/8 X 32 in. 

No. 242 

Ph. 214, 216, 217, 244 

elaborated. For the synthetic elements out of which the 
structure was built up were paper-thin planes, super- 
imposed, not transparent, and with defined edges. Braque 
and Picasso knew they could distinguish these firom one 
another with color, textural variations and over-drawing, 

Plate 214 

Pablo Picasso 

Playing Cards, Bottle and Glass, 1914 

Oil, 141/2x193/4 in. 

No. 244 

Plate 215 

Georges Braque 

The Guitar Player, 1913-14 

Oil, 511/4 ■: 283/4 in. 

No. 31 

PL 21^ 

which gave them representational significance. There re- 
mained, however, the problem of detaching them from each 
other so as to evoke volume, and this problem Braque and 
Picasso solved with light. Color now being separated 
from form as an element in the painting, the two artists 
could direct light how they liked without fear of formal or 
tonal modifications. So they used light, and its concomitant 
shadow, to differentiate between the planes and situate 
volumes in space, as is evident on the left side of Braque's 
great synthetic figure painting The Guitar Player (1913)- 


Plate 216 

Georges Braque 

Still Life wirh Ace of Clubs, 1914 

Oil, 141/2 ^-^ 21 m. (Oval) 

No. 33 

PL 2iS 

The color structure ot synthetic Cubist paintings thus 
came to be organized m two wavs: local color used 
descriptively and monochromatic shading used to create 
form. Color and hght could thus function pictorially as 
independent elements in the same way as color and form. 

At tliis stage, Picasso also experimented in a tew paintings 
^^dth a sort of rehef technique. That is to say, he tised sand 
mixed with paint to build up around certain objects an 
area of hea\w impasto so as to create a false three-dimen- 
sional effect on the surface of the canvas. This worked like 
a low-rehef sculpture when the painting was exposed to the 
Hght of rcalir>,' and set up a second play ot shadows. 
GradualK' therefore the sMithetic idiom revealed itselt 
capable of infmite extension. So we tmd both Braque and 
Picasso making great efforts in 1913-14 to modif}" the 
severin- of their s)-nthetic structures and enrich their 
paintings with more and stronger colors and more 
naturalistic details. One means the)- greatly favoured was 
the dotting technique of pointillism, which they employed 
to enhven surfaces, to evoke a play of hght, to counteract the 
monotonv of planes of one color and to create a decorative 
effect (Braque, The Guitar Player; Picasso, Fruit-Dish, 
Bottle and Guitar). It is this element which has given rise 
to the meaningless classification of late Cubism as 'rococo.' 

Plate 217 

Pablo Picasso 

Ma ]oUe, 1914 

Oil, 181/2x215/8 ill. 

No. 246 

Plate 218 

Pablo Picasso 

Fruit-Dish, Bottle and Guitar, 


Oil, 361/4x283/4 in. 

No. 245 


Late Cubism: 1914-21 

Juan Gris : Paintings and 
Pasted Papers, 1912-14 

* Gris' hrst exhibition was a showing 
of 15 works at Clovis Sagot's 
gallery in Montmartrc in January 

Plate 219 

Juan Gris 

Phue Ravignaii, 1911 

Pencil, 171/8 X 12 m. 

No. 132 



The third of the true Cubist painters, Juan Gris, was six 
years younger than Braque and Picasso. He arrived in 
Paris from Madrid in 1906 at the age of nineteen and settled 
in the same building in Montmartre as his compatriot 
and friend Picasso. Gris played no part in the evolution 
of Cubism during the following five years because he was 
earning his living as a humorous draughtsman and 
completing on his own his formation as a painter. Never- 
theless he was able to follow Picasso's development 
closely and when, at the end of 191 1, he first allowed 
friends to see some of his pictures,* they found that this 
intensely serious young man had been finding his own 
way towards Cubism by a reappraisal of its origins in the 
work of Cezanne. Admittedly he was not imitating 
Cezanne, but the broken contours, the sense of volume, 
the varying perspectives and the definition of planes were 
there, although unhke Cezanne Gris gave his forms strong 
outhnes. Bottle of Wine and Water Jar (1911) is the equivalent 
in Gris' work of early Cubist works of 1908-09 by Braque 
and Picasso. 

It was characteristic of Gris that, when he began to 
paint seriously, he did not try to imitate the appear- 
ance of his friends' latest paintmgs but sought first 
to understand, through personal experience, how they 
had arrived at their conceptions of form and of spatial 
structure. Gris was a less intuitive and empirical artist 
than Braque or Picasso. He had been trained in the 
methods of science and engineering, was of an intellectual 
turn of mind, and was ready to use mathematical calcula- 
tions to make his version of Cubism more rational. This 
is evident in a number of early drawings where the 
angles and intersections of lines and forms have been 
calculated with a protractor and compass, thereby pro- 

Plate 220 

Juan Gris 

Bottk of Wine and Water Jar, 1911 

Oil, 213/4x13 in. 

No. 107 

* Between themselves, Braque and 
Picasso referred to Gris on this 
account as 'lafiUe soninise' (subjugated 
daughter), an expression with a 
doiihk entente since it also means 
'registered prostitute.' 

during a somewhat schematic effect (P/on'er5!»<7 Vase, 1912). 
Yet even so Gris always tempered his science with the 
workings of his personal sensibility,* and the many 
pentiineiiti and freely invented passages in his paintings are 
evidence of his constant concern that the reality of natural 
forms should not be subjected to 'monstrous' distortions 
dictated by some pre-determincd design. It was this 
duahty in his nature that saved Gris' Cubism from 
becoming systematic, while his logical mind, original 
vision and remarkable teclmical ability gave him the 
strength to make a major creative contribution to the 
development of Cubism. 

Plate 221 

Juan Gris 

The Artist's Mother, 1912 

Oil, 21J/4-- ISin. 

No. 109 

* Exliibited at the Independants in 
March 1912. 

Plate 222 

Juan Gris 

Flowers in a Vase, 1911-12 

Charcoal, 171/2^12 in. 

No. 133 

Once Gris had begun to paint seriously, he made rapid 
progress, and the portraits of his mother and of Picasso,* 
executed early in 191 2, show him handling an anahtical 
idiom with clarit)' and economy, especially in the com- 
bined profde and full-face views of the heads, in the way 
the figure is related to the space around it, and in the 
evocation of volume. But owing to Gris' aim to reconcile 
a logical presentation of things with a strict formal 
organization of his canvas, these paintings are more 
styhzed than comparable early Cubist works by Braque 
and Picasso. Also Gris used light (from a single source) 
as an active factor for developing forms. Chiaroscuro 
effects are therefore very marked throughout his work 
and in a number of his early paintings Gris experimented 
with planes of hght formaHzed as a succession of diagonal 
bands. Gris' objects have simple forms which are lUuini- 
nated along their contours, these being broken into here 
and there by shadows. But Gris uses this contrast of 
light and shadow to flatten the pictorial space and fuse 
objects with the backgromid [Guitar ami Flowers). 
However, the concessions which Gris found himself 
obliged to make on account of the distorting effects of 

Plate 223 

Juan Gris 
Gtiitur and Flowers, 1912 

Oil, 441/8 ^275/s 

No. 110 

Plate 224 

Juan Gris 

Still Life with Bottle and Watch, 1912 

Oil, 253/4 X 351/4 in. 

No. Ill 

Plate 225 

Juan Gns 

Portrait cfPicnsso, 1912 

Oil, 367/8 X 291/4 ill. 

No. 108 

PL 224 

* Gris was closely in touch at this 
time ^^■ith Gleizes, Metzinger, and 
Marcoussis, \\'ho were influenced 
by his methods. The)- all exhibited 
at the Section d'Or. It was Gris' 
capacity' for reasoning and theory', 
for explaining Cubism, which ap- 
pealed to these other artists. 

light displeased him, and in the paintings which followed, 
during the summer and fall of 1912 [Bottle of Sherry and 
Watch), he began to impose on his composition a firm 
over-all linear framework which served to make forms 
more exphcit, to defme spatial relationships and to make 
the composition static* 

Gris' linear framework of squares, triangles and c)dindcrs — • 
which he imposed over his subject hke the leads in a 
stained-glass window — derived in part from his formal 
division of the canvas and in part also from the outlines of 
objects represented. Within the compartments of this 
framework, Gris included reahstic details and separate 
aspects of whatever was represented. He thus assembled 
a total image out of static partial aspects and left the 
spectator to re-integrate the whole for himself by a visual- 
inteUectual s)Tithesis. This was a personal interpretation 
of the analytical procedure of early Cubism, and Gris went 
further than either Braque or Picasso in the number of views 

Jiiati Gris: 1912-14 


Plate 226 

Juan Gris 

Playing Cards and Glass of Beer, 1913 

Oil and collage, 205/8 x 143/8 in. 

No. 112 

Plate 227 

Juan Gris 

Landscape at Ceret, 1913 

Oil, 361/4x235/5 in. 

No. 113 

in section, plan and elevation which he managed to com- 
bine. This was yet another expression of his desire to respect 
reahty in its entirety, and it is significant that Gris 
never passed over its solid tangible aspects to concen- 
trate, as Braque and Picasso had done in 1910-11, on 
clarifying the planar and spatial structure of his Cubist 
compositions. Another feature in which Gris' painting 
differs from that of Braque and Picasso is that he never 
worked in a neutral palette. Color is present, although sub- 
dued, in the Portrait of Picasso, while by the spring of 191 3 
Gris was composing with areas of bright color, some 
of which were descriptive, others conditioned by tonal 
necessity, and still others chosen to complete a harmony. 


Plate 228 

Juan Gris 

Still Life with a Guitar, 1913 

Watercolor, 255/gX I81/4 in. 

No. 134 

Plate 229 

Juan Gris 

Guitar on a Chair, 1913 

Oil and collage, 393^x25^1 s in. 

No. 114 

By the spring of 191 3, Gris had dispensed with his linear 
framework and had arrived at a new compositional 
device — deriving undoubtedly from the technique of 
papiers colles — namely a system of vertical, horizontal and 
triangular planes which overlap but are not transparent 
{Playing Cards and Glass of Beer; Landscape at Ceret). These 
planes, which are differentiated from each other tonally, 
and often texturally as well, provide the spatial structure of 
the composition as they take their places in front of or behind 
others. On each of them Gris either represents, in its 
solidity, a single aspect of one or more objects, or else in 
outline some related aspect. These methods were purely 
personal and used only by Gris. 

Pi. 224 

Alreadyin September 19 12, Gris-^who was therefore not 
much behind Picasso and Braque — had begun to introduce 
collage into his oil paintings: a piece of mirror, 'because it 
could not be imitated,' into The Washstand, and a label 
into Bottle of Sherry and Watch. However, Gris never 
employed papiers colles simply in conjunction with 
drawing. Instead he used the technique right away, in 


Plate 230 

Juan Gris, Figure Seated in a Cafe, 1914 
Oil and collage, 39 x 281/4 in. 

No. 115 


Plate 231 

Juan Gris 

The Bullfighter, 1913 

Oil and collage, 361/4x235/8 in. 

Mrs. Mary Hemingway, New York. 

Pi. 2 JO 

Plate 232 

Juan Gris 

Still Life with a Bunch of Grapes, 1914 

Papier colic, 31^8 x 235/8 in. 

No. 130 

the summer of 191 3, as a means of introducing literal, 
descriptive details into oil paintings [Guitar on a Chair) — 
part of an engraving, a page of a book, bottle labels, 
wall paper, playing-cards — with as much invention 
as in the works of Picasso. Nevertheless, though Gris made 
his painting subtler, richer and more informative by 
these means, his Cubist handhng remained stiff by 
comparison with that of Braque and Picasso. It also 
differed significantly in that Gris often used repeated 
views in the form of a black negative image to assert the 
totality of objects, and also isometric views (which are 
a special form of scientific perspective) to complete his 
pictorial re-creations of them. Through all of this, Gris' 
ways of evoking volume were more forceful and dramatic 
than those of Braque and Picasso [Man in a Cafe, 1914). 
Also, because Gris treated the basic pictorial design as 
partially independent of the objective content of his paint- 
ing, and did not restrict his color to descriptive purposes, 
he arrived at a use of papiers coUes in 1914 which was 
significantly diflerent from that of either Braque or Picasso. 
That is to say, Gris first established a composition with 
difierently shaped, colored papers and then allowed them 
to suggest the objective content of the painting which he 
could fmally reahze {Fruit-Dish and Carafe). This he 
completed, as the image evolved, either by pasting in 
additional elements or by modifying the design. However, 
unlike Picasso, Gris avoided decorative elements, although 
he did incorporate httle witticisms. Thus Gris' con- 
tribution to the use oi papiers colles and to the development 
of the synthetic Cubist language was both important and 

Through his sincerity and originahty, Gris achieved an 
independent position at the heart of Cubism. Like Braque 

Plate 233 

Juan Gris 

Fruit-Dish and Carafe, 1914 

Papier colic, 361/4x251/2 in. 

No. 129 


and Picasso, he combined in his paintings of 191 3-14 an 
analytical with a synthetic treatment of forms in his re- 
creation of objects. But unUke them, Gris based his composi- 
tions on an arrangement of differently colored elements 
which he referred to as his 'ilat, colored architecture.' And 
he adopted this procedure because, he said, he found it 
'more natural to make subject "X" coincide with the 
picture that (he had) in mind than to make picture "X" 
coincide with a given subject.' That is to say, Gris began 
'with an abstraction in order to arrive at a true fact,' a 
procedure which gives his early Cubist paintings a 
characteristic severity but also allowed him to indulge 
in an exceptional richness of color. 


Late Ctihisin: 1914-21 

Cubism in Paris during the 
War Years 

Plate 234 

Henri Matisse 

Pink and Blue Head, 1914 

Oil, 29-V16X 17^8 m. 

Jean Matisse, Paris. 

The declaration of war in August 191 4 accomplished the 
break-up of a movement which by the end of 191 3 had 
already begun to disintegrate from within. By that time 
it was clear to all that the artistic values of the nineteenth 
century had been toppled, that a new artistic tradition had 
been initiated and that the urge was widespread to produce 
a new type of art for the twentieth century. That this 
urge manifested itself in conceptions of which some were 
genial and fertile, while others were foolish and sterile, 
mattered little. An element of idealism was involved 
simultaneously with an element of competition among 
artists during the period 1907-14, and this had spurred 
even the weaker ones on to give briefly of their best 
before falling away. Cubism was at once the central event 
of the period, while its spiritual and material clarity made of 
it the most challenging stylistic conception. For good and 
for bad Cubism inspired a number of related movements, 
some leading to non-figuration, which was the absolute 
antithesis of Cubism. 

After 191 3 no new painters took up Cubism and made a 
significant contribution to its development, because those 
who did tried to start from the appearance of late Cubism 
without understanding its basic premises. But it is 
interesting that Matisse, at the age of forty-five and 
already long established as the leading colorist of the 
Paris School, should have felt impelled to experiment 
briefly, in 1914— 15, with the Cubist technique. Thus in 
his Pink and Blue Head (1914?) Matisse attempted with 
a planimetric linear structure, iinposed over areas of 
flat luminous color, to give volume to a head in the way 
that Picasso and Gris had done in paintings of 1912. 
Then again in Goldfish (1914— 15; coll. Schoenborn, New 
York) he introduced a Cubist-type linear grid to arti- 

Plate 235 

Serge Fcrat 

Still Life with Violin, 1913 

Oil with collage, 211/4x255/8 in. 

No. 88 

* The linear structure in both paint- 
ings is reminiscent of that some- 
times used by Gris in 1912 — 13. 
Was Matisse's belated interest in 
Cubism aroused by Gris; Was he 
briefly influenced by Gris; The 
date of Pink and Blue Head is un- 
certain: it is usually catalogued as 
1 91 3?, but seems on styhstic grounds 
to be later. We do not know when 
Matisse met Gris : they had a great 
friend in common, Germainc 
Raynal, who was painted by Gris 
in the fall of 1912 and by Matisse 
in the winter 1913 — 14. At all 
events, Gris was on close terms 
with Matisse at Collioure in Sep- 
tember 1 91 4, when they talked 
painting 'relentlessly' (Gris, Letters) 
day after day. 

Plate 236 

Henri Hayden 

Still Life with a Bottle of Milk, 1917 

Oil, 18x241/2 in. 

No. 146 


culate a highly simplified and flattened spatial structure 
by suggesting intersections of different planes.* But 
Matisse's flirtation with Cubist methods was neither 
deeply engaged nor of long duration. He had come to it 
too late to be able either to assimilate such a complex, 
revolutionary idiom or to reconcile its down-to-earth 
realism with his own opposing hedonistic aesthetic. 

It was those not eligible or fit for military service, foreign 
artists and some sculptors, who carried on Cubism in 
Paris through the war years. But the most important 
work was done by Picasso, Gris, Henri Laurens, Jacques 
Lipchitz and, from 191 7 onwards when he was demo- 


Plate 237 

Louis Marcoussis 

Still Life on a Table, 1921 

Gouache, 20 < 12 in. 

No. 207 

Plate 238 

Jean Metzinger 
Still Life, 1917 
Oil, 32 X 255/8 in. 

No. 215 

Plate 239 

Albert Gleizes 

Broadway, 1915 

Oil, 383/4 X 30 in. 

No. 100 

Plate 240 

Diego Rivera 

The Cafe Terrace, 1915 

Oil 237/s X 191/2 in. 

No. 295 

Plate 241 

Loiiis Marcoussis 
The Habitue, 1920 
00,633/8x381/8 in. 

Peggy Guggenheim Collection, 


bilized, by Braque. Severini, who had moved nearer to 
Cubism in 1913-14, when he produced a charming 
series of papicrs colles which were more decorative than 
profoundly creative, continued to work in a Cubist style 
in Paris until 1919. Apart from him, three other 
foreign artists were living in Paris at the time who also 
pamted Cubist works: Serge Jastrebzoff-Ferat, a Russian 
who was a close friend of Apollinaire and Picasso, and 
began to produce Cubist compositions in 1913; Diego 
Rivera, a Mexican artist who proved an adept follower of 
the true Cubists between I9i4and 1916; and Henri Hayden, 
a Pohsh artist, who became a friend of Metzinser and 
Oris and painted derivative Cubist-style still lifes between 
1916 and 1920. Nearly all of those who came back from 
the front abandoned their pre-war Cubist style, Leger in 
particular adopting in 1917 a machine aesthetic. But 
Metzinger continued to work in a Cubist style between 
1916 and 19 19, while Marcoussis, whose pre-war output 
of Cubist paintings had been very small and uneven in 
quality, produced his major work: The Habitue in 1920. 


Late Cuhisin: igi^-zi 

Picasso : Painting 1914-21 

Ph. 242, 24^ 

Pi 244 

PL 245, 246 

By 1914-15 Picasso, then working on his own, felt sure 
enough of his control over the synthetic Cubist language 
to want to put its full representational possibilities to the 
test and establish a valid antithesis with regard to 
naturahsm. So he began to make the forms of his objects 
correspond more nearly with everyday appearances and 
employed various devices to complete and enrich the 
synthetic Cubist language {Vive la France; Still Life with 
Fruit). As far as he could, Picasso kept the planes of his 
composition flat, as they had been in papiers coUes, but 
gave it a boost of new vitahty by employing stronger 
and more varied colors, by introducing ornamental 
motifs and by making hvely textural variations [Guitar, 
Bottle and Flute). In other paintings, on the contrary, 
Picasso reacted against this tendency and re-emphasized 
the flatness, severity and almost abstract structural basis 
of synthetic Cubism [Woman with a Guitar; Harlequin, 
191 5). Picasso was making an effort in all of these ventures 
towards humanizing late Cubism, because he realized that 

Plate 242 

Pablo Picasso 

Still Life with Fruit, 1915 

Oil, 25x311/2 in. 

No. 248 

Plate 244 ► 

Pablo Picasso 

Guitar, Bottle and Flute 

on a Table, 1915 

Oil, 42 X 28 in. 

No. 249 


Plate 243 

Pablo Picasso, Vive la France, 1914 
Oil, 201/2 X 25 in. 

No. 247 

if he did not succeed his new idiom could not become a 
viable alternative to naturalism. 

Picasso was hoping to find for himself a workable 
equation of values between Cubist reality, visual reality 
and the accepted pictorial reality created by the eye- 
foohng methods of naturalism. Now Picasso had not 
lost that inventive spirit which, in 1912-13, had inspired 
his experiment of introducing a 'real' element into a 
painting through collage. In 191 5-16 this spirit re-asserted 
itself and prompted Picasso to attack reality simultaneously 
from two angles. Thus while continuing to work in 
a synthetic Cubist idiom, he again began to make 
naturalistic drawings of people and objects, and in some 
paintings one finds side by side a naturalistically drawn 


Plate 247 

Pablo Picasso 

Woman with Guitar, 


Pencil, 25x183/4 in. 

No. 271 

Plate 249 

Pablo Picasso 

StillLife with Clarinet and Guitar, 1915 

Watercolor. 71/2 ■ 6 in. 

No. 273 

■< Plate 243 

Pablo Picasso 
Hiulcquiii. 1915 
Oil 721/4x413/5 in. 

No. 251 

■* Plate 246 

Pablo Picasso 

ir(i/;(i7/i with Giiitiir, 1915 

Oil, 723/4-291/2 in. 

No. 250 

Plate 248 

Pablo Picasso 

Girl with a Hoop, 1919 

Oil, 311/8 X 153/4 iji. 

No. 254 

Plate 250 

Pablo Picasso 
Still Life with Guitar, 1915 
Watercolor, 53/4x42/4 in. 

No. 272 

^i ■■^_. 


Plate 251 

Pablo Picasso 

Man Seated at Table, 1916 

Gouache, IO3/4X 83/4 in. 

No. 274 

Plate 253 

Pablo Picasso 

Man tvith a Guitar, 1915 

Engra\'ing, 5i/i6x49/i6 in. 

No. 285 

Plates 254, 255 

Pablo Picasso 

M^ix JACOB: 

Le Siege de Jerusalem, 1913 

Dr>'points, Plate I 63/i6x49/i6 in. 

Plate III 65/i6X45/,6 in. 

No. 287 

< Plate 252 

Pablo Picasso 

Man with a Dog, 1914 

Etching, 107/s x Ss/s in. 

No. 283 

Plate 256 

Pablo Picasso 
Matt with Pipe Seated in Armchair, 

Gouache, 13 x lO^/i^ in. 

No. 275 

Plate 257 

Pablo Picasso 

Bottle, Playing Card and Pipe on 

Table, 1919 

Oil, 193/4x24 in. 

No. 253 

object, another re-created in analytical terms and a third 
created by a s)Tithetic procedure. This abrupt return 
to naturahsm was interpreted by many people as a 
renunciation of Cubism, an admission of defeat. But 
Picasso is no purist, no respecter of conventions, least 
of all of those which he might be creating for himself 
in his o^\-n work. He aheady knew where the limitations 
of the naturahstic approach lay; now he was trying to 
fmd out those of Cubism, as Oris was to do after him. 
This brought Picasso to the reahzation that the naturalistic 
approach to reaht)' with its inevitable iUusionism was, 
in its way, no less vaHd than that of Cubism, and that 
they should be regarded as complementary to each other. 
This double-play — which Picasso put to a hving test in 
his designs for the ballet Parade (1916-17) — has prevailed 
in his art ever since, and it reflects a conviction, which 
is certainly Cubist in spirit, that the painter cannot fully 
express what he sees and knows about reality if he 

Plate 258 

Pablo Picasso 
Harlequin, 1918 
Oil, 58x261/2 in. 

No. 252 

Plate 259 

Pablo Picasso 

Pierrot and Harlequin, 1920 

Gouache, IO1/2X81/4 in. 

No. 277 

Plate 261 ► 

Pablo Picasso 

Guitar and Music 

Score on a Table, 


Gouache, IO1/2 x 8 in. 

No. 278 

Plate 260 

Pablo Picasso 

Open Window at St. Raplmd, 1919 

Gouache, 13-V4 - 9^4 in. 

No. 276 

re-creates it only in a single manner. Thus Picasso 
alternated between two pictorial approaches to reaUt)' 
in order to find something more, because experience 
had taught him that a whole is made up of the sum of 
its facets. And the outcome of these various experiences 
is revealed in the elaboration and new monumentahty 
of two such impressive late Cubist figure paintings as 
Hiirlcqiiiii (1918) and Girl with a Hoop. Moreover, at this 
stage Picasso turned his attention to the problem (which 
Gris had dealt with five years earher) of marrying, in 
synthetic Cubist terms, the confmed internal space of 
a room with the external space beyond an open window 
(Still Life oil a Table in Front of an Open Window, 1920). 

But the synthetic Cubist procedure reached one of its 
fullest and most successful attainments in two great 

Plate 262 

Pablo Picasso, Tliree Masked Musicians, 1921 
Oil, 80x74 in. 

No. 256 

* Hayden's painting of a similar 
subject, exhibited at thelndependants 
in the spring of 1920, a hfeless 
confused work, gives the measure 
of the difference between an un- 
inspired Cubist imitator and one of 
the creators of the style. 

figure compositions which Picasso painted at Fontainebleau 
in the summer of 1921, the two versions, so alike and 
yet so different, of Three Masked Musicians* Here, formal 
clarity, simplicit)^ monumentaHty, richness of color and 
a subtly varied but never excessive use of ornamental 
passages combine with hmnor, gaiety and vivid charac- 
terization to re-create three famihar personages of the 
Commedia dell'Arte, which Picasso had already made 
his own in a number of earher works. 

Braque: 1917-21 


Braque : Painting 1917-21 

Ph. 263, 2i 

Braque's close partnership with Picasso was brought to 
a sudden end when he was recalled to his regiment at 
the outbreak of war. Thus the continuity of Braque's 
pictorial evolution, unhke that of Picasso, was interrupted 
for three years. When he was able to paint again, after 
recovering from a serious headwound, he had to find 
his way alone, and not unnaturally this took time. But 
eventually Braque's individual personality, which had 
already been manifest in his paintings of 191 3-1 4, emerged 
fully in a glorious series of paintings done between the 
summer of 191 7 and 1921. After some new experiments 
with papiers coUes on a much bolder scale, and painting 
a large full-length figure {The Guitar-Player, 1917-18) in 
a stiff, greatly elaborated synthetic Cubist idiom, Braque 
foimd a freer and more masterly way of handling 
form and space in late Cubist paintings such as 
Tlie Guitar (191 8) and Still Life with Musical Instruments 
(1918). Braque was not attempting to carry on from 
the point where he had left off, nor did he, unlike Picasso, 
re-examine the values of naturahsm. Braque simply 
modified his earHer synthetic Cubist idiom to suit his 

Plate 263 

Georges Braque 

Still Life with Musical 

Instruments, 1918 

Oil, 35 X 25 in. 

No. 35 


Plate 264 

Georges Braque 

Guitar, 1918 

Oil, 353/4x213/4 in. (Oval) 

No. 34 

Juan Gris: 1913-21 


* The figure appears rarely as a 
subject in the work of Braque, even 
between 1908 and 1914; in the 
immediate post-war he again con- 
centrated on still life which, as in 
the work of Chardin, became a 
symbol of himian delights and 
activities. Braque executed no figure 
subject between 1918 and 1922. 

new vision of a more sensuous reality and began to 
work with bolder, looser, more tactile (though nonetheless 
flattened) forms, more resonant colors and subtler varia- 
tions of texture. Where Braque had been primarily 
concerned before 19 14 with solving problems of form 
and space in a rational manner and had only begun 
during the last few months before his mobilization to 
allow decorative and sensuous values to play an active 
part in his painting, between 191 8 and 1921 these became 
major considerations. Like Picasso, Braque too was 
trying to humanize and enrich his late Cubist style,* 
though by very different and wholly personal means. His 
work at this time is characterized by its serenity, smooth- 
ness, suavity and resonance; his forms are more freely 
invented, and have an appealing pliability, but they are 
still Cubist in conception although they correspond more 
nearly than before with natural appearances, hi short, 
Braque was trying in these late Cubist paintings to arouse 
in the spectator not so much a visual or intellectual as 
a tactile experience of reality and space. This was Braque's 
personal contribution to the expressive range of late Cu- 
bism, and he continued to elaborate it in a succession of 
luscious, sonorous, lyrical still lifes during the next ten 

Juan Gris : 
Painting 1915-21 

hi 191 5, with the experience o£ papiers colles behind him, 
Gris first attempted to enlarge the expressive possibihties 
of his painting and then to make it more concrete. In 
a letter of March 191 5, he remarked that he had given up 
'those inventories of objects' which he had now come to 
think of as 'bormg,' and was aiming at a much greater unity 
in his composition. This did not prevent Gris, however, 
from undertaking still hfe compositions with more objects 


Plate 265 

Juan Gris 

Still Life with Grapes, 1915 

Papier colle, lOx 13 in. 

No. 131 

Plate 268 ► 

Juan Gris 

Breakfast, 1915 

Oil, 361/4x283/4 in. 

No. 118 

Plate 266 

Juan Gris 

Coffee-Grinder and Glass, 1915 

Oil, 15x113/4 in. 

No. 117 

than before, because he enjoyed the challenge to his inven- 
tiveness and sense of logic of the need not only to re-create 
their forms and volumes but also to establish the complex 
spatial relationships between them. This Gris managed by 
an inteUigent combination of fragmentation, literahsm, 
drawing and changes of view-point helped by chiaroscuro 
to bring out volumes. So conscious was he that he had 
made progress, however, that Gris was writing of his 


Plate 269 

Juan Gris 

StxW Life with Poem, 1915 

Oil, 313/4x251/2 in. 

No. 119 

•< Plate 267 

Juan Gris 

Still Life ill Front of an Open 
Windoiv: Place Ravignan, 1915 
Oil, 457/8 X 351/8 in. 

No. 116 

* In 1910-11, Picasso and Braque 
had painted one or two views from 
their studio windows in Montmartre 
and Cerct, and in 1915 Picasso 
painted a Still Life on a Table in a 
Landscape (Basel Museum). But only 
external space was involved in all 
of these paintings. 

work, in June, as being 'less dry and more plastic' At 
that time he ventured on a major innovation.* In the 
composition Still Life in Front of an Open Window [The 
Place Ravignan), Gris had to create a smooth transition 
from an interior space to an exterior space, which 
meant solving problems of natural light and recession. 
These Gris handled not merely cleverly but inventively, 
and without recourse to scientific perspective. He 
based his composition on layers of tonally differentiated, 
transparent planes, placed one over the other at different 
angles, and on a contrast in scale between objects on the 
background plane and those in the foreground. Gris 
thus created a movement forward from the pale blue 
backgroimd plane of the house to the front edge of the 
table, where he introduced warmer tonalities. And he 
emphasized this movement, which was bound up with 
separating the two areas of space, by diagonals rumiing 
in from the side of the canvas to create a narrow window- 
opening, in front of which he introduced, to mark the 
division, a plane of darker color. 

Next, throughout the summer of 191 5, Gris turned his 
attention to developing the 'sensitive and sensuous' 


Plate 270 

Juan Gris 

Open Window, 1917 

Oil, 393/8 X 28-Vs ill. 

No. 124 

* Perhaps this new preoccupation 
was an outcome of his conversations 
with Matisse in the previous summer. 

Plate 272 

Juan Gris 

Siphon and Glass, 1916 

Gouache, H^/jX 13-V4 in. 

No. 135 

aspects* of painting, which he felt he had until that 
moment disregarded. First he experimented in some 
small and simple still lifes with textural variations and 
ornamental motifs. But this phase was of short duration 
because, during the fall and winter of 1915-16, Gris 
allowed his paintings to become more 'concrete and 
concise' again (letter of December 1915) as he clarified, 
purified and made them more legible. Gris reduced 
the number of objects represented, used fewer 
simultaneous aspects, relied for his spatial effect on 
a bolder and more economical planar structure and 
used pointillistic dotting to ventilate the composition 
and create an ornamental effect [Tlic Breakfast; Still Life 
with a Poem). At the same time Gris adopted conceptual 
rather than visual forms, to which he had inclined hitherto, 
so that he re-created objects in more generalized terms 
[The Grapes, 1916). That is to say, objects lost their indi- 
viduality but became more unified. Simultaneously Gris 
cut down the range of colors in his set of basic forms, 
but enriched them in another sense by introducing a 

•< Plate 271 

Juan Gris 

Grapes, 1916 

Oil, 213/4 XI8V2 ill. 

No. 121 

Plate 276 

Juan Gris 

Siphon, Checker-hoard and 

Glass, 1917 

Charcoal, I81/2X I21/4 in. 

No. 137 


rf li 


■ « - /% ^ 

-\ 01!^^ 

£^ - _ 


Plate 275 

Juan Gris 
Still Life, 1917 
Pencil, 243/3 X 187/8 in. 

No. 136 


hate Cubism: igi4-2i 

pk)- of formal metaphors and correspondences between 
Pi. 274 them (Sfi7/ Life xuith Bottle and Dish, 1917). His out- 
standing achievement in this phase, and one of his greatest 
Cubist works, is the formally simple, serene, and monu- 
Pl. 2 J 8 mental Portrait of Josette. 

* Venturi No. 572, of c. 1SS6, now 
in The Arc Institute of Chicago. 
Presumably Gris only knew the 
painting from a reproduction. 

But other influences were also at work in Gris' painting at this 
time. He began, Hke Picasso, to make naturahstic drawings 
of objects, and also some portraits. He looked back from 
his new stand-point at the work of Cezanne, whence he 
had begun, and in 191 8 re-interpreted a Portrait of 
Mine. Cezanne'*' in the flattened terms of a late s^-nthetic 

Plate 277 

Juan Gris 

Madame Cezanne (After a painting by 

Cezanne), 1918 

Oil, 357/sX 283/8 in. 

No. 127 

Plate 278 ► 

Juan Gris 

Portrait of Josette, 1916 

Oil, 451/2x231/2 in. 

No. 122 


Late Cuhisin: 1914-21 

Cubist idiom. Gris also came under the influence of two 
sculptor friends, Lipchitz and Laurens, and painted a 
number of still lifes in imitation of their painted Cubist 
PL 279 bas-rehefs [Still Life with Guitar, 1917). Then in 1917-18, 
as a reaction against the austerity of his work in 191 6, 
Gris experimented again with more complex composi- 
tions, painted in brighter colors and enriched with a 
variet)' of ornamental patterning. The impressive, animated 
Pi. 280 Harlequin with a Guitar (1917), which makes an interesting 
Pi. 258 contrast Math the more statuesque Harlequin (191 8) painted 
by Picasso a few months later, is an outstanding example. 

Plate 280 

Juan Gris 
Harlequin with Guitar, 1917 

Oil, 391/4x251/2111. 

No. 126 


■^ Plate 279 

Juan Gris 

Still Life ti'ith Guitar, 1917 

OH, 281/2 X 36 in. 

No. 125 

Shortly after this, in 1919-20, Gris, who felt that in the past 
few years he had been concerned with 'a too brutal and 
descriptive reality' in his paintings (letter of August 1919), 
abandoned his late synthetic Cubist style for a more fluid, 
more 'poetic' type of painting which, while it retained 
something essential of Cubism, became increasingly 
legible up to the time of his death in 1927. 

Gris' work reflects his intellectual lucidity and integrity, 
as well as his scientifically conditioned mind. For eight 
years he went on analyzing, defming and extending the 
pictorial conceptions and possibilities of Cubism in a 
limited field of his own until he arrived at a logical 

2 JO Late Cubism: ig 14-21 

conclusion. Where Braque and Picasso had always relied 
on intuition and would momentarily sacrifice stylistic 
purity to some strong personal emotion or fantasy, Gris 
could not be deflected from the straight path, so that 
he remained itp till 1919 a highly orthodox exponent of 

However, no sooner had Braque, Picasso and Gris succeeded 
in enriching and humanizing the late Cubist idiom 
than the Purists — Ozenfant and Jeanneret (later known 
as Le Corbusier) — launched a movement in opposition 
to all that Cubism stood for, proclaiming a machine- 
conscious aesthetic designed to express a standardized, 
impersonal and uihuman vision of reahty. The Cubist 
artists, they said, had bankrupted representational art and 
created disorder by sanctioning the individual's right to 
treat forms as he liked. Equally, the Purists attacked the 
non-figurative artists for denying the possibilities of paint- 
ing by rejecting intelhgibility and visually perceived evi- 
dence in favour of barren geometrical forms and signs. Thus 
the launching of the review L' Esprit Nottveaii in the 
fall of 1920, which became the mouthpiece for these 
new theories, was an event which announced the end 
of The Cubist Epoch, although the spirit of Cubism 
lived on for a long while in the painting of those 
few truly creative artists who had been deeply involved. 

rf Cubist Sculpture 

Cubist sculpture must be discussed apart from the painting 
because it followed other paths, which were sometimes 
similar but never parallel. Some of the sculptures in 
question can be related to Cubist paintings of various 
dates; others belong to the category of constructions, 
collages and papiers coUes; while stiU others are works 
in which elements of Cubism were used to reahze new 
sculptural forms. There is no simple definition of what 
constitutes a Cubist sculpture: what counts are the artist's 
will to figuration and his conception of how to handle 
form and create volume. It is, therefore, fruitless to look 
for a common styhstic denominator linking all the sculp- 
tures included here. Much Cubist sculpture was frankly 
experimental, much was tentative or banal, and some of 
it was made for specific personal reasons by painters, 
though all of it explores different aspects of visual and 
formal experience. Speaking generally, Cubist sculpttire 
lacks direction because, before 1914, there was no full-time 
sculptor with as dominating and creative a personahty 
as Braque, Picasso or Oris in painting, while after 1914 
the two major Cubist sculptors, Laurens and Lipchitz, 
took late Cubist painting as their point of departure. 

When Cubist sculptures are assembled in mass they form 
therefore a disharmonious ensemble, from which a few 
pieces stand out because the artist's sincerity and inven- 
tiveness have enabled him to achieve a convincing sculp- 
tural reahty. Apart from two pieces by Picasso, and 
Duchamp-Villon's Seated Girl, which can only have 
been seen at the time by a few friends, no significant 
Cubist sculpture was made in Paris before 1914-15, 
when Lipchitz and Laurens belatedly began to evolve 
a genuinely Cubist sculptural idiom. The only other 
noteworthy Cubist sculptures made before 1914 were 

2^2 Cubist Sculpture 

either the work of Gutfreimd in Prague, who did not 
exhibit in Paris, or of Boccioni in Milan, whose Bottle was 
exhibited there in the summer of 191 3. Sculpture therefore 
forms an interesting appendage to, rather than an integral 
part of, the international Cubist achievement. 

Picasso, de La Fresnaye, The first true Cubist sculpmre was Picasso's impressive 

Czaky and Filla IVoinau's Head, modeled in 1909-10, a counterpart in three 

Pi. 2S1 dimensions to many similarly analytical and faceted 
heads in his paintings of the time. The influence of 
sculptural conceptions on Picasso's pictorial thinking in 
the early Cubist years has akeady been discussed ; here he 
reversed the process and modeled this Woman's Head 10 test, 
in the hght of reaht)-, his pictorial technique of expressing 
volmne through faceting. Picasso respected the mass 
of the head and set out to investigate, through surface 
protrusions and hollows, how Hght strikes, models or 
transforms such a complex structure. At the same time, 
he turned the head on its vertical axis so as to induce 
the eye to feel its way around it. The experience thus 
gained was of sersice to him in the immediate develop- 
ment of his painting. Picasso's only other Cubist sculpture, 
Pis. 2S2, 2S3 a small but prett)' object, is the Absinthe Glass of 1914. 
Once again there is a close tie-up -^-ith Picasso's painting 
because here, as in the ]]\vnan'sHead, he took an object which 
he had analyzed and re-created in numerous drawings 
and paintings of 1913-14 and modeled it in three 
dimensions. Picasso's treatment of the glass's form like his 
arrangement of its planes is freer than in the paintings, but 
Picasso used poLntilhst dotting on this soUd surface in the 
same wa}' as in his paintings to evoke transparency and create 
a decorative eSect. In addition, he opened up one side of 
the glass to make its internal volume palpable. Over the 


Plate 281 

Pablo Picasso, Woman's Head, 1909-10 
Bronze, I6V4 x 93/4 x IO1/2 in. 

No. 288 


Plate 282 

Pablo Picasso 
Absinthe Glass, 1914 
Painted bronze, 81/2 x 61/2 in. 

No. 290 

rim he placed an actual straining-spoon and a false lump 
of sugar, thereby conscioush" creating, as in his papiers 
coUes, a contradiction between two t}"pes of imreal reaHt}-. 
Yet it is doubtful whether Picasso reallv thought of this 
glass as a sculpture, because he painted each of the six 
casts differently, and gave them different textures, thereby 
making each into a unique "object.' Genetically, in fact, 
the Absiiitlie Glass takes its place among those guitars 
and viohns which Picasso, like Braque, made of card- 
board and string during the smnmer of 1912 and the 
hoDie-carpentered stiU Hfes, made of scraps of wood and 
metal, which Picasso constructed in 1914-15. The 1912 
musical instruments were primarily investigations of form 
and volume, objects existuig in paintings transposed for 
study in three dimensions. But because of the materials 
of which they were made, and their lack of mass, they 
became important as fore-runners of papiers colles and gave 
reaHr\- to the idea of the tahleaii-ohjet. The later and 

Plate 283 

Pablo Picasso, Absinthe Glass, 1914 
Painted bronze, 8^/2 x 61/2 in. 

No. 289 

* See G. Seligman, Roger de La 
Frcsiiaye (London, 1969), Catalog 
No. 67, and pp. 20-22. 

* See Zervos, Picasso Catalogue, 
Vol. II, Nos. 112, 113; and Vol. VI, 
Nos. 975, 1064. 

Plate 284 

Joseph Czaky 

Standing Woman, 1913-14 

Bronze, 311/2x81/4x85/8 in. 

No. 60 

more complex still life constructions are still better 
examples of what was meant by a tahleau-ohjet. To make 
these, Picasso nailed together scraps of wood and metal, 
much as he composed papiers coUes, then shaped and 
painted individual elements to give them a representa- 
tional significance. Thus Picasso made the humblest 
materials serve his creative purpose by using them to 
compose an object which evoked a visual reality, but 
whose own reahty was independent of and additional to 
the reality evoked. 

Early Cubist paintings by Picasso also provided the basic 
inspiration for de La Fresnaye's Italian Girl (191 1). 
De La Fresnaye got to know Duchamp- Villon in the 
sculpture studio of La Grande Chaumiere in Montparnasse 
in 1910, and Germain Sehgman suggests that the small 
group of sculptures which de La Fresnaye made in 191 1 
were probably the joint outcome of this friendship and 
of a desire to master the human figure 'in all its aspects' 
before attempting 'its abstraction into essential physical 
and descriptive elements.' At all events, de La Fresnaye's 
bronze has unmistakable origins in one of his own 
paintings of 1910, which is not in the least Cubist, 
Vltalienne de face* But when he came to model the 
figure, de La Fresnaye clearly tried, in the pose and in the 
faceting of the body and hmbs, to take as a guide 
certain of Picasso's drawings of 1907,* though he gave 
the girl a silly simpering facial expression. In short, 
de La Fresnaye made use of Cubism more as a styhstic 
mannerism than as a source of formal discovery or 

Joseph Czaky, a self-taught Hungarian sculptor living 
in Paris who was included in the Section fOr show 

Plate 285 

Roger de La Fresnaye 

ItnliaiiGirl, 1911 

Bron2e, 24)-; 12 in. 

No. 155 


Pi. 284 

* e.g. Zervos, Vol. II, Nos. 65, 117. 

in September 1912, is another artist for whom Cubism 
was a surface disciphne. The tentative faceting in Czaky's 
Standing Woman (191 3-14) is no more than an aid to 
evoking volume. On the other hand in his Head (1914, 
Musee Municipal d'Art et d'Industrie, St. Etienne) he used 
greatly simpUfied forms and a few broad planes more 
constructively, though it is easy to find models for 
this conception in certain 'negroid' heads by Picasso of 
1907-08.* In 1919-20 Czaky came briefly under the 

Plate 286 

Emil Filla 

Mans Head, 1913-14 

Bronze, ISVs in. high 

No. 94 

influence of Laurens and Lipchitz before turning to 
straightforward figurative sculpture around 1925. 

Another piece of sculpture which can be discussed in 
Pi. 286 this context is Filla's Head of 1913-14, his only surviving 
piece. Here the mass of the head is respected as in Picasso's 
Woman's Head of 1909-10. But Filla treated his head with 
a severe frontahty and tried to create volume not with 
faceting but with a few block-like forms whose alternately 
flat and transverse planes are designed to evoke mass. 
This procedure also reflects the influence of Gutfreund. 

Duch amp-Villon and Archipenko 


Duchamp- Villon and 

* Leger, Gris, Gleizes, and Archi- 
penko were involved. 

PL 287 

From his beginnings as a self-taught sculptor in 1901-02, 
until 1912, when he was responsible for carrying out some 
styHzed cubistic ornamentation on the facade of the Cubist 
House at the Salon d'Automne, Raymond Duchamp- 
Villon tried his hand at different styles ranging from 
art nouveati, Rodin and Gauguin to Maillol and JUatisse. 
But from the autumn of 1912 on, when he was exposed 
to the discussions of the Cubist group wliich met under 
the aegis of his two brothers at Puteaux,* Duchamp- 
VUlon's sculptural conceptions rapidly changed. This is 
seen first in The Lovers (1913), a classic theme wliich 
Duchamp-Villon treated in low relief, the bodies being 

Plate 287 

Raymond Duchamp- ViUon, The Lovers (Final State), 
1913, Bronze rehef, 263/4 x 393/8 in. 

No. 75 

represented ^^■ith abstract geometricized forms, which 
are not connected but separated from each other, as 
in Leger's work of the time, and arranged contrast- 
ingly to set up a surface rhythm in a single plane. In 
his Seated Girl (1914) of a year later, Duchamp-Villon 
carried this procedure fiilly into three dimensions, 
re-creating the different parts of the girl's body with 
a static and unified arrangement of oval or conical forms 
which are fully rounded and have closed contours. This 
figure, which is clearly related to paintings by Lcger, 
although without the internal movement evoked by 
formal and color contrasts, seems to be an expression 
of Duchamp-Villon's belief that The sole purpose of the 
arts is neither description nor imitation but the creation 

Plate 288 

Raymond Duchanip-ViUou 
Seated Girl, 1914 
Plaster, 12V2x4x4'/2 Ih. 

No. 76 

Plate 289 

Raymond Ducliamp-Villon 

Siiicill Hcrsc, 1914 

Bronze, 15-'/^ in. high 

No. 77 


Plate 290 

Raymond Duchanip-Villon, Larg^e Horse, 1914 
Bronze, 393/s >' 39-V8 x 2O3/4 in. 

No. 78 

of unknown beings from elements which are alwa)-s 
present but not apparent.' Duchamp-Villon's next work, 
Pis. 2Sg, 2go The Horse (1914), which was to be his major achievement, 
represents yet another, ahhough considerably less Cubist, 
sculptural aesthetic. He began this sculpture in the spring 
of 1914 as a group with a rider trying to restrain a rearing, 
almost mechanically impelled, horse. At that time, the 
representation of the beauty of machines, of speed and 
of kinetic effects were constant topics of discussion, and 
Duchamp-Villon had seen how they were expressed in 
the work of Marcel Duchamp, the Futurists, Picabia and 
Leger. At all events, when Duchamp-Villon completed 
the fifth and tmal version of his Horse in August 19 14, 
it was totally transformed and had come to embody 
a ver)' different sculptural conception. He had dispensed 
with the rider and extracted from the horse a non- 
figurative mechanistic symbol of Horse-Power, which was 

2i\2 Cuhist Sctilpttm 

much closer to a Futurist sculptural conception. Thus in 
the two years between 191 2 and 1914, Duchamp-Villon 
(he was to die in 191 8 of typhoid contracted at the front), 
who had a real understanding of the language of sculpture, 
looked at the possibilities of making Cubist sculpture and 
passed on to sometliing else. 

The very individual work of Alexander Archipenko, 

a Russian from the Ukraine who had arrived in Paris 

in 1908, can also be considered here because he was 

associated with the Section d'Or. In 191 2, Archipenko 

suddenly turned from making conventional figurative 

Plate 291 sculpture to working in a very modern sculptural idiom 

. , , , , ■ , of his own invention. His first piece, Walkiua Figure 

Alexander Archipenko ^ 

Figure in Movement, 1913 (1912), already displays many of the styhstic elements 

Collage and colored crayon, which from then on were to characterize his work : formal 

183/4x123/8 111- abstraction, the use of forceful rhythms, the replacement 

j^Q 2 of solid volumes by voids, and the reversal of roles 

between concavities and convexities. The result is an 
object composed of highly stylized, abstract forms, which 
have little power to evoke a figurative image, although 
by the way planes arc slanted and rhythms set up the 
displacement of a mass through space is suggested. There 
is of course nothing Cubist about such a piece of sculpture. 
Subsequently (1912-17) Archipenko experimented rest- 
lessly with new techniques and new technical means 
in an attempt to find a sculptural style. But the most he 
arrived at was a hybrid form which he called 'sculpto- 
painting.' This entailed the creation, in half-rehef, of 
an illusionistic object made, on the principle of papier: 
colles, of glass, metal, wood, papier mache and other 
materials affixed to a flat background and painted in garish 
colors. These works were figurative and constructed 
along synthetic Cubist lines, but Arcliipenko half- 


Plate 292 

Alexander Archipcnko 

J'Voiihvi with a Fail, 1914 

Polychrome Bronze, 351/2 in. high 

No. 2 

Plate 293 

Alexander Archipenko 
Head: Coiistnictioii with Crossing 
Planes, 1913 
Bronze, 15>:7"-( 8 in. 

No. 1 


* G. H. Hamilton, Painting and 
Scniptnrc in Enropc iSSo-ig^o (Lon- 
don, 1967), p. 173. 


modeled his volumes and composed his figures of rigid 
geometrical forms — ovoids, cones and cyHnders — thereby 
creating mannered, decorative ensembles rather than 
sculptures. His Woinau with a Fan (1914), a painted relief 
sculpture, shows how soon he substituted decorative 
stylization for any concern with re-creating reality. 
Archipenko's most interesting and inventive essay in 
Cubist sculpture is the Head: Construction of Crossing 
Planes of 191 3, which was a serious attempt to transpose 
the sort of head painted by Braque and Picasso into a 
simple three-dimensional form. Then in 191 7-1 8 Archi- 
penko made a series of painted still life reUefs, using a 
planar structure derived from synthetic Cubism, which 
relate to similar works of that date by Laurens and 
Lipchitz. At the start, Archipcnko seemed to want 
to create Cubist sculpture, but he soon gave up the 
struggle and, as George Hamilton has pertinently 
remarked,* allowed facile solutions to 'substitute for the 
content with which his forms might have been endowed.' 

?44 Ciihist Sculpture 

Boccioni and Weber Boccioni made some twelve sculptures in all between 191 1 

and 1914: only five have survived, although we know 
the others from photographs. Most of Boccioni's sculptures 
were extensions into three dimensions of his pictorial 
conceptions and hence, as Futurist works, concerned with 
the continuity of movement in space, with the play of 
light or with the fusion of a figure and its surroundings. 
Symbolism, expressionism, simultaneity and Impressionism 
provide their constituents and there is no evidence in them 
of Cubist conceptions or techniques. However, Abstract 
Voids and Solids of a Head (late 1912), subsequently 
Pis. 2g4, 2p5 destroyed, and Developiueiit of a Bottle in Space (winter 
1912-13), made by Boccioni after his trips to Paris in 
191 1-12, when he visited Duchamp-Villon and Archipenko 
in their studios, must both be considered as basically 
* G. Ballo, Boccioni (Milan, 1964), Cubist works. The Head* was executed as a rehef in 
pis. 237, 239. J shallow space and conceived formally in similar terms 

to certain early Cubist analytical heads in paintings by 
Braque and Picasso and to Oris' Portrait of his Mother 
(191 2). A preliminary drawing, which is more or less 
naturaHstic in conception though slightly formalized, 
shows a static head flattened and 'attacked' by broad 
beams of light and space which dig into the cheeks and 
chin. Boccioni, who, in his Preface to the catalogue of 
the Exhibition of Futurist Sculpture in Paris in June 191 3, 
wrote of 'the entrance of a void into the solid which 
is traversed' by a ray of light and claimed to have found 
a way of representing this by 'uniting blocks of atmosphere 
with more concrete elements of reality,' had literally 
tested the form-creating possibiHties of his theory by 
transposing this drawing into carved and modeled relief 
terms. Very soon after this, however, Boccioni set about 
making a fully three-dimensional sculptural rendering of 
a bottle and dish standing on a table. Here he cut out 


Plate 294 

Umberto Boccioni, Dcvclopiucnt of a Bottle in Spitcc, 1912 No. 9 
Bronze, 15 ^- 24 in. 

Plate 295 

Umberto Boccioni 

Bottle, Table and House, 1912 

Pencil, 131/8x91/2 in. 

No. 10 

the workings of pictorial light in order to concentrate on 
volume, form and the inter-relation of the planes involved, 
hi other words, he set about reconciling an analytical 
Cubist approach with the Futurist concept of active 
forces which traverse and radiate from an object existing 
in space and time, and thereby create its presence 
in relation to its surroundings. 'My sculptural ensemble 
develops,' Boccioni wrote in the same Preface, 'in the 
space formed by the depth of the volume and shows 
the density of every aspect not just a number of immobile 
aspects in silhouette.' This statement formulates the 
advance that Boccioni considered he had made in his 
sculpture over the true Cubist painters. Hence the 
way in which Boccioni's Bottle, whose form has not 
been fragmented, opens up in a continuous spiral 
movement to reveal, by an inter-play of convex and 
concave surfaces, both its solid form and its interior 


Plate 296 

Max Weber 
Spiral Rhythm, 1915 
Bronze, 241/4 in. high 

No. 321 

In these two works Boccioni undoubtedly made a re- 
markable contribution and showed, as had Picasso in 
his 1909 Woman's Head, as Duchamp- Villon was to do in 
his Seated Girl (1914), and as Gutfreund was already doing 
in Prague, that a sculptural equivalent could be found 
for the Cubist conception of representing form, space and 
volume in non-imitative plastic terms on the flat surface 
of a canvas. However, no-one, it seems, understood or 
attempted to follow the different but adventurous lefHs 
of these four artists. Even Boccioni veered away from 
Cubist thinking in his subsequent sculptures. Thus these 
Cubist sculptures represent a series of interesting beginnings 
with no sequels. 

This is a convenient point at which to mention also 
the unique piece of partially Cubist sculpture by the 
Pi. 2g6 American artist Max Weber, Spiral Rhythm (1915), which 
was inspired by a torso, translated into rounded and 
faceted forms, but given an abstract rhythmic evolution. 



Gutfreund Otto Gutfreund, the Czech sculptor, was in Paris in 

1909-10 when he worked under Bourdelle. The first 
sculptures he made after returning to Prague date firom 
191 1 and show him building up anguished, rather baroque 
figures through a succession of broadly faceted planes. 
These build up a sense of mass but also add, by the 
play of light and shade which they create, to a general 
dramatic effect, hi 19 12, however, Gutfreund began to 
Ph. 2gj — 2gg break down his figures into much bolder formal masses, 
which he assembled as a complex structure of planes 
— vertical, horizontal and diagonal — whose concavities, 
convexities, and curves produce a sense of move- 
P/. J02 ment and space [Reclining Woman with a Glass, 
1912-13). This sculptural conception undoubtedly owed 
a lot to early Cubist paintings, though Gutfreund, like 
his painter friends of the Avant-Garde group, was not 
interested in producing a calm or monumental effect. 

Plate 297 

Otto Guttreund 
Sfaiidiiig Niidc, 1911 
Charcoal, I71/2 < 12 m. 

No. 142 

Plate 298 

Otto Gutfreund 

Study for Sculpture, 


Ink, 107/8 < 83/4 m. 

No. 143 

Plate 300 

Otto Gutfreund 
Woman's Head, 1919 
Bronze, lO'/g in. high 

No. 141 

Plate 299 

Otto Gutfreund 
Mail's Head, c. 1914 
Charcoal, Wk-'Xl^U'm. 

No. 145 

because he wished to infuse his sculpture with a sense of 
spiritual exaltation [Female Head; Tlie Cellist; The Embrace 
all 1912-13). However, in the last major work he 
produced before the war, the Ctibist Bust of 1913, 
Gutfreund abandoned this conception for a more static, 
monumental effect. This sculpture, which should be 
compared with Filla's chunky Head of about the same 
date, is elaborately constructed in synthetic Cubist terms. 
Planes rising from the base create a pyramidal structure, 
into which the head is integrated and re-created by a 
succession of parallel vertical and horizontally transverse 
planes. The spatial structure is thus established, and vol- 
ume is then created by a sweeping curve receding from 
the forehead and by tunneled openings cut into the mass. 
This Cubist Bust is one of the most serious and inventive 
attempts to transpose the synthetic Cubist technique into 

Plate 301 

Otto Gutfreund 

Cubist Bust, 1912-13 

Bron.^e, 235/8 in. high 

No. 140 


Plate 302 

Otto Gutfreiind, Rccliiiiiig IVoman with Glass, 1912-13 No. 139 
Bronze, 7''/s"< H in- 

* He could have seen their works in 
the gallery of Lconcc Rosenberg. 

sculptural terms. But Gutfretind was not able to pursue 
his own experiment because he enlisted in the French 
army and could not work again until 19 19. At that 
time he produced, in Paris, a small Fctnalc Head, which 
he again conceived in synthetic Cubist terms, and which 
seems to owe something to Laurens and Lipchitz,* as 
well as some tentative, schematic still Ufe constructions. 
After that Gutfreund's sculpture ceased to be Cubist, 
but these few early works represent an interesting 
personal achievement. 

Lipchitz, Oris, Laurens 
and Braque 

hi 1914-15 a new conception of Cubist sculpture began 
to be developed in Paris, under the impact of synthetic 
Cubism, by Jacques Lipchitz, a Lithuanian who had 
arrived there in 1909, and Henri Laurens, a native Parisian. 
These two artists, whose work was not without 
a reciprocal influence on the painting of Gris, Picasso 


Plate 303 

Jacques Lipcliitz 

Head (Study for bronze 'Head'), 1915 

Pencil, 11x9 in. (Oval) 

No. 198 

Plate 304 

Jacques Lipcliitz 

Head, 1915 

Bronze, 24'/2 in. high 

No. 191 

Pi 305 

Cubist Sculpture 

and Braque, were independent spirits who made a 
remarkable addition to the range of Cubist expression, 
though in a less experimental and more strictly formal 
sense than the sculptures discussed hitherto. 

During the first four years of his career, Lipchitz produced 
mannered, art iwuvcau-type decorative figures before 
taking up Cubist techniques late in 1914. By 
this time he had already met Picasso, through Diego 
Rivera, and in 19 15 was to become very friendly with 
Oris. Thus Lipchitz was in contact with two 
major exponents of true Cubism. His first sculpture which 
reveals a Cubist influence was Sailor with a Guitar: there, 
a basically naturalistic and roundly modeled figure 
became stylized through a combination of flat planes, 
faceted surfaces and disjointed formal elements, which 
Lipchitz linked in an uncomfortable jaunty 
rhythm of curves and angles, hi 191 5-16, however, 
Lipchitz dispensed with naturalism and the descriptive 
details which he had used in the Sailor to create in Head, 
Half-Standing Figure and some similar works, a group of 
semi-abstract sculptures composed along synthetic Cubist 
lines. These works (some modeled, others carved in 
stone) had a figurative significance and remained legible. 
They were predominantly composed of tall, rectangular 
planes arranged vertically, but in order to evoke a mass 
in space Lipchitz set others diagonally or had the 
verticals traversed at different levels. 

This group of works represents the period of greatest 
concentration and personal discovery in Lipchitz's develop- 
ment of Cubist sculpture. In the years of his friendship 
with Oris, between 1916 and 1919, Lipchitz's work 
reflects a different approach to Cubist sculpture. 


Plate 305 

Jacques Lipchitz 

Sailor with a Guitar, 1914 

Bronze, 30 x 12 in. 

No. 190 

Plate 307 

Jacques Lipchitz 

Standing Figure, 1916 

Stone, 421/4 ■< 9 in. 

No. 193 

Plate 308 

Jacques Lipchitz 

Half-Standing Figure, 1916 

Bronze, 38^/4 in. high 

No. 192 

Plate 306 

Jacques Lipchitz 

Figure, 1915 

Gouache, 18i/2> 14in. 

No. 199 



Cubist Sculpture 

Pi 311 

Ph. jog, 310 

Plate 309 

Jacques Lipchitz 
Bather in, 1917 
Bronze, 281/2 in- liigh 

No. 194 

That is to say, he made his subjects — bathers, sailors, 
a pierrot playing a clarinet, men playing guitars — less 
abstract and more legible (as Gris was doing), while 
emphasizing their mass, hi these figures, Lipchitz used 
chunky, geometricized forms, which he articulated, in 
order to evoke volume, with some analytical faceting, 
a counter-play of protruding and receding planes, and 
some curves. These sculptures are thus fuller and more 
vital than his static works of the preceding phase, but 
less synthetic Cubist in conception. Between 1920 and 
1926, however, Lipchitz was to take up synthetic Cubist 
methods once more and give them a more plastic 
sculptural interpretation. But in the meanwhile, under 

Plate 310 

Jacques Lipchitz 
Bather, 1919-20 
Bronze, 28 x 9 x 9 in. 

No. 197 

Plate 312 

Jacques Lipchitz 
Seated Man with Guitar, 1918 
Bronze, 30 x 1 52/4 x 1 31/2 in. 

No. 195 

Plate 311 

Jacques Lipchitz 

Woman ii'ith Drapery, 1919 

Bronze, 37 in. high 

No. 196 

the joint influences of Gris and Laurens, Lipchitz worked 
(1918-20) on a series of more pictorial low reliefs (some 
painted) with still lifes as their subject, which were 
sculptural interpretations of the greatly clarified formal 
repertoire of late Cubism. 

Lipchitz's sculpture before 1914 was banal, just as the 
late-baroque style he has cultivated since 1928 has led 
to works which are more vigorous than artistically 
meaningful. Cubism thus provided Lipchitz with an 
inspiring formal discipline between 1914 and 1921 and 
led to his discovering new sculptural methods for evoking 
form and volume. This was his creative contribution and 
the fulfilment of his many conversations with Gris. But 

Plate 313 

Juan Gris 

Harlequin, 1917 

Painted plaster, 21 1/2 x 13 x 10 in. 

No. 138 

Plate 314 ► 

Georges Braque 
Standing Figure, 1920 
Bronze, 71/2 x 2^/4 in. 

No. 48 

in exchange these conversations must also have stimulated 
Pi. 313 Gris to produce his painted plaster Harlequin (1918), 
which was executed tinder Lipchitz's super\dsion. The fig- 
ure is severely frontal and built up with simple, massive, 
block-like forms, volumes being evoked by planes set 
at angles (as in Lipchitz's sculptures) and by conca\-ities. 
The role of color in this sculpture has nothing to do 
with Its decorative role in Archipenko's "sculpto- 
paintLng.' Gris, like Laurens, used color to prevent the 
planes and volumes of his Harlequin being "distorted' by 
the play of natural hght. This Harlequin, which is devoid 
of decorative motifs or descriptive details (except tor the 
moustache) relates to such figure paintings by Gris as 
The Touraine Peasant (1917-18) and anticipates by its 
formal clarit)- and economy the Harlequins he was to 
paint in 1919-20. 

Lipchitz, Gris, Laurens and Braque 


* See M. Laurens, Henri Laurens 
(Paris, 1955), pp. 75, 92. 

Laurens learned about Cubism directly from Braque, ^^ith 
^^•hom he had a close lifelong friendship from the time 
of their meeting in 191 1. The fruits of this friendship 
are apparent in the work of both men in different ways 
and at different times, one of them being Braque's 
Standing Figure of 1920, a decorative figurine which was 
his first attempt at working in three dimensions. This 
tigurine is not conceived fullv in the round and exists 
more or less on a single plane, the geometric body 
structure and palette being stamped into the plaster. 
However, although Braque's handling is more fluid than 
that of Laurens, one is reminded in the lines of the 
silhouette, the pose, and the internal structure, of drawings 
and engravings by Laurens of 19 19, as well as of his 
wooden sculpture Woman Playing a Guitar (1919) or his 
Standing Xiide of 1921.* 

* ibid. pp. 22-41. These are unfor- 
tunately too fragile to travel. 

Laurens was self-taught and took up sculpture after 
working with a stone-mason who carved decorative 
motifs on buildings. However, Braque was not Laurens' 
only close friend among the Cubist painters; by 1915, 
he was also on very friendly terms with Picasso and 
Gris, so that throughout the war years (he was unfit 
for mihtars' service) Laurens could remain closely in 
touch with the development of Cubist painting. Laurens' 
first Cubist works date from 191 5. Those in three 
dimensions were still life compositions or figures executed 
in wood or metal, a sort of tahlean-ohjet which he was 
to continue making imtil 19 18.* These constructions 
were more carefully made, more elaborated and conceived 
in more sculptural terms than Picasso's home-carpentered 
works. Not only did Laurens build up his subject with 
a clearly articulated structure of planes, to create volume 
and define a spatial area, but he also distinguished between 

Plate 315 


Henri Laurens 
Head of a Boxer, 1916 
Ink, 57/5 \ 41/2 m. 

No. 167 

planes by painting them in different colors. He then 
completed the reality of his composition by painting in 
a few descriptive details. These constructed 'objects' are 
not, properly speaking, sculptures. They are brilliant and 
inventive interpretations in three dimensions of synthetic 
Cubist paintings. Laurens represented the same combina- 
tions of objects, used the same planar structure, substituted 
lengths of wire for lines which would have been drawn, 
and introduced similar decorative passages — pointillistic 
dotting, checker-board squares. The points of resem- 
blance with paintings by Oris of 191 5-17 are un- 
mistakable. But Laurens was also working in two 
dimensions at the same time (1915-18), treating the same 
subjects in papicrs colics. This was a medium which he 
used most effectively and in his own way, working with 
bolder simpler forms than either Braque or Picasso had 
done before 1914 and employing strong chiaroscuro to 
produce an enhanced relief effect. 

Plate 316 

Henri Laurens 

Head, 1917 

Ink and collage, 2IV4X I71/4 in. 

No. 164 

Plate 317 

Henri Laurens 

Guitar, 1917-18 

Papier colle, 187/8x251/4 in. 

No. 166 

Plate 318 

Henri Laurens 

Woman with Mantilla, 1917 

Papier colic, 231/4 x I51/2 in. 

No. 165 


Plates 319, 320 

Henri Laurens 

Paul DERMEE: Spiralis, 


Two etchings 

each 123/4x87/8 in. 

No. 172 













Plate 321 

Henri Laurens, Musical Instruments, 1919 
Painted stone relief, 19'/2x28i/4 in. 

No. 161 

In 191 8, Laurens gave up these rsvo methods and took 
to direct carving in stone or modeling in plaster. This 
de\'elopnient coincided ^^■ith an important change in his 
conception of three-dimensional Cubism. Some of these 
new works, a series of colored stiU life reHefs, were 
surface-modeled transpositions into stone of the sort of 
compositions he had previously executed in papiers colles, 
and were thereiore basically s'VTithetic Cubist in conception 

Pi. 321 [Musical Instruments, 1919). But at last Laurens also began 
to evolve a form of Cubist sculptiure existing fully in 
the round. In the works of this latter t)-pe, Laurens 
worked along synthetic Cubist lines in so far as he 
rehed on frontality and a layer-upon-Iayer structure of 
broad parallel planes to evoke voliune and establish a 

Pi. J22 progression in space ( IT 'oiiian with a Guitar, 19 19) . However, 

he complemented this \\ith an invented personal technique 

Pis. 323. 324 of faceting and hollowing-out [Man with a Pip:, 1919), 

derived partly from the anahtical Cubist procedure, 

devised to preserve the frontaht)' and yet, by a system of 

Plate 322 

Henri Laurens, Woman wirh Guitar, 1918 
Stone, 231/4 -; 9^|s in. 

No. 158 

Plate 324 

Henri Laurens 
Man's Head, 1919 
Stone, 17 in. liigh 

No. 159 

Plate 323 

Henri Laurens 

Man with a Pipe, 1919 

Stone, 143/4 in. high 

No. 160 

Plate 325 

Henri Laurens 

Giiiun, 1920 

Terracotta, H'A x 43/4 x 35/s in. 

No. 163 

Plate 326 

Henri Laurens 
Bottle and Glass, 1919 
Painted stone, 

133/8 x43/s-: 41/2 in. 

No. 162 


angles, changes of level and penetration, invite the 
eye to move around and through the mass and feci 
its solidity. As Laurens himself said: 'In a sculpture 
it is necessary for the voids to have as much importance 
as the full volumes. Sculpture is first and foremost a 
matter of taking possession of space, a space limited by 
forms' (Bottle and Glass, 1919). Laurens' real concern in 
his Cubist sculptures was with re-creating an image of 
reality, with preserving a sense of the mass from which 
it had emerged, and with achieving this through a clear 
and logical planar structure {Guitar, 1920). That is why 
he feared the distorting effects of 'variations of light' and 
of cast shadows on stone or terracotta and often painted 
his sculptures in these media. 

Laurens was not the most adventurous of the sculptors 
who worked in a Cubist idiom. But even with his limited 

262 \ 

Plate 327 

Henri Laurens 
Anselme, 1920 
Ink, 91/4x61/4 in. 

No. 168 

Plate 328 

Henri Laurens 
Young Woman, 1919 
Etcliing, ys/g X 53/4 in. 

No. 169 

Plate 329 

Henri Laurens 

Girl with a Fan, 1921 

Etcliing, 125/3x97/8 in. 

No. 171 

aims he acliieved results which are impressive, by reason 
of the artistic sincerity and purely sculptural virtues which 
his works display. Even Giacometti paid homage to 
Laurens' unique position among the sculptors of his 
generation when he wrote : 'Laurens is one of the very 
rare sculptors who render what I experience in front of 
living reahty, and that is why I find a likeness in his 
sculpture, a likeness which gives me a reason to love and 
admire it.' 



After all this we are entitled to ask What is Cubism-: 
There is no easy definition, so we must try to answer 
the question obliquely. Cubism cannot be defmed in 
terms of style, nor of subject-matter, nor of some 
particular technique, nor as an aesthetic theory or system. 
Nor was Cubism inspired by any particular philosophy. 
It was a combination of vision, of understanding, of 
veracity, of modernism and of a will to represent a 
contemporary realir)\ Cubism was also the outcome 
of a conviction that the established methods and con- 
ventions of art (painting in particular) were outdated 
and false, and of an intuition that, if they willed 
it, a new generation of young artists could discover 
or invent new means of pictorial expression. One 
major consideration was the determination to express 
the solid reality of things without having recourse 
to eye-fooling devices. More than this. Cubism was 
an attempt to make of each picture a new tangible 
reality rather than an illusory image either of some 
imaginary ideal or of some purely visual sensation of 
reality. This was the essence of the new realism which 
Cubism enshrined. To quote Braque, its aim was 'not to 
try and reconstitute an anecdotal fact but to constitute 
a pictorial fact.' 

In the seven-year period between 1907 and 1914, the 
true Cubists made all their essential discoveries and 
innovations and became masters of a new pictorial idiom. 
From 19 1 4 on, their efforts were directed towards 
enriching and humanizing a language of which, at that 
moment, they had done little more than establish the 
sohd foundations. Their conceptions were imitated, 
misconstrued, travestied, but sometimes interestingly and 
creatively enlarged upon by their contemporaries. 

i64 Conclusion 

However, when everything is taken into account, it 
becomes obvious that the true Cubists and the artists 
of the various Cubist movements succeeded between 
them, before 1914, in giving to the twentieth century 
a new conception of pictorial representation and 
in changing the course of art throughout the western 

They had toppled the system of scientific linear perspective 
which had prevailed in European painting since the 
Renaissance, and had established the artist's right to look 
at tilings from several view-points simultaneously and to 
incorporate into a work of art knowledge gained 
from other than purely visual sources. They had 
separated the pictorial functions of color, form and 
volume, allowing them to co-exist and function inde- 
pendently. They had estabHshed a wholly new relationship 
between the abstract, formal organization of a work of 
art and its representational content. They had evolved 
a more surface-conscious type of painting, and had found 
a way of expressing volumes and representing space 
without penetrating into false depth. They had undermined 
the conception of hellc peiuturc and the idea that works 
of fme art can only be made with fme materials, proving 
this with the two wholly new techniques of collage and 
papicrs coUes as well as with their scrap constructions. Other 
artists, in Paris and elsewhere, had taken up these 
discoveries and applied them to other, often more 
ambitious, purposes. But there is a vital division between 
anything Cubist in style or spirit and those supposed 
extensions of Cubism which turned into non-figuration. 
Cubism was essentially an art of reaHsm. And the true 
Cubists felt this so deeply that they turned back each 
time they found themselves approaching total abstraction 

Conclusion 265 

By 1919-20, it was no longer necessary or possible for 
those who had been involved with Cubism before the 
war to come together again and continue the movement. 
The former concentration and sense of communal 
effort had been dispersed, too many of the artists 
concerned were asserting their mdividual personalities, 
many erstwhile Cubists had abandoned the struggle or 
were dead, a neoclassical reaction had been launched 
under the slogan 'Lc Rappcl a VOnire' and lastly Purism 
and Dada had arrived on the scene. 

Yet it was at this time that true Cubist art at last came 
fully into its own in Paris and Braquc was accorded 
the 'great man' statits which he had never enjoyed before. 
Leonce Rosenberg held a series of major one-man 
shows at his new gallery L'Eftort Moderne, including 
those of Braque, Gris, Leger, Picasso, Gleizes, Laurens 
and Lipchitz, while a major group of Cubist works \vas 
assembled at the Salon des Didependants of 1920. Also, 
the dispersal at auction in Paris between 1921 and 1923 of 
the remaining pre-war stock of Cubist paintings by Braque, 
Gris, Leger and Picasso, belonging to the Kahnweiler 
Gallery, brought several hundred examples suddenly before 
the eyes of an awakening public. 

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s the new pictorial 
conceptions of Cubism continued to influence successive 
generations of artists, as did the new techniques of collate 
and construction. Cubist methods influenced the art of 
camouflage during the First World War, and the design of 
modern architecture afterwards, while for the past forty 
years the influence of Cubism has penetrated commercial 
and applied art. Thus it is no exaggeration to say that Cub- 
ism initiated one of the greatest artistic revolutions ever, 

266 Conch 


added to which its continuing influence proves that it 
has been a major force in the development of western 
art. Fifr\- years have now passed since the movement 
as such ended. It is therefore appropriate to survey it 
as a whole and take stock, as no pre\'ious generation has 
done, ot its clarit)-, strength, inventiveness and ultimate 
artistic greatness. 



Ven," complete Bibliographies, covering histon-, style criticism, 
journalism, exhibition catalogs, artists' statements etc., and 
relating to The Cubist Epoch in France have recently- been 
published in Edward Fr>-'s Ciihisiii (London/New York 1966) 
and in John Golding's Cubism: A History and an Analysis igoj-14 
(2nd edition, London 1968). These rsvo books are easily available 
for consultation and therefore I shall not duplicate unnecessarily 
their admirable compilations. Edward Fr\ 's critical and explanatory 
analysis ot true Cubist art, though its range is ob\aously limited, 
is the most serious and reliable text on the subject which has yet 
appeared. In addition, his book contains a useful anthology in 
English of critical texts of the years 1905-25, particularly noticeable 
among them being the fascinating statement by Braque 
{Archiicaural Record, New York, May 1910) which Mr. Yzy 
unearthed and here re-printed for the first time. Unlike any 
other volume devoted to Cubist art, iMr. Fr\-'s is really mnltiim 
in parvo. 

Mr. Fr\- and Dr. Golding have listed all the early publications 
on Cubist painting by D. H. Kahnweder, A. Gleizes and 
J. Metzinger, G. Janneau etc. No student of Cubism today would 
forget to look at them, pretentious, confusing and uninspired 
though for the most part they are. However, no Bibliography 
^^iII tell the student how essential it is to consult not the daily 
press of the time but the famous periodicals, and that is why 
I have decided, in drawing up a short reading list, to mention 
them more prominently. And here I would also draw attention 
to the invaluable, amiotated collection of allGmllaume ApoUinaire's 
art- writings — G. ApoUinaire, Chroniqncs d'Art 1902-18 (Paris 
i960) — so brilliantly compiled and edited by Prof essor L. C. Breunig. 
If the student will read this one volume he will find that he 
has saved himself many hours of library research and acquired 
a vital key to many aspects of Parisian thinking in the period 
before 1914. But he must not read into ApoUinaire's journalistic 
writings more than they were intended to signify- at a particular 
and brief moment in time. 

2/0 Bibliography 

Artistically, the present exhibition covers a much wider field, 
especially in terms of the geography of Europe, than either 
Mr. Fry or Dr. Golding attempted in their books or Bibliographies. 
So these other aspects require bibliographical implementation. 
I have therefore listed, under their respective countries, certain 
publications which are important for the study of national 
schools. I have also listed any publications which have appeared 
since 1965 and which seem to me of real value. Similarly, I have 
listed some little publicized volumes which refer to individual 
artists included in this exhibition. Lastly I have chosen a few 
works of a general nature which are informative and reliable. 


P. Cabanne, L' Epopee (111 Cuhismc. Paris, 1963. 

H. B. Chipp, Theories of Modern Art. University of California 

Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968. 

G. H. Hamilton, Painting and Sculpture in Europe 1880-1940. 

London, 1967. 

Jean Laude, La Peinture Fran^aise {1903-14) et 'I'Art Negre.' 

Paris, 1968. 


G. H. Hamilton and W. C. Agee, Duclmnip-Villon. New York, 1967. 

A. M. Hammacher, Lipchitz. London, 1961. 

M. Laurens, Henri Laurens, Scnlpteiir. Paris, 1955. 

R. Lebel, Siir Marcel Dnchanip (widi Catalog). Paris, 1959. 

F. Meyer, Chagall. Paris, 1964. 

G. Seligman, Roger de La Fresnayc (with Catalog). London, 1969. 


Apollinaire et le Cuhisme, Musee des Beaux Arts, Lille, April 1965. 

Guillaume Apollinaire, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, November 


La Peinture sous le Signe de Blaise Cendrars, Galerie Louis Carre, 

Paris, June 1965. 

Bibliography ' 271 

A la Rencontre de Paul Reverdy, Fondation Maeglit, St. Paul 
de Vence, 1970. 


L'Esprit Noiipean, Paris, 1920-25. 

Montjcie!, Paris, 1913-14. 

Nord-Siid, Paris, 1917-18. 

Lcs Soirees de Paris, Paris, 1912-14. 


L. G. BucHHEiM, Der Blaiie Reiter. Feldafmg, 1959. 

L. ScHREYER, Erinnerungen an Sturm und Baiihaiis. Munich, 1956. 

N. Walden, Herwarth Walden. Berlin, 1963. 

N. Walden and L. Schreyer, Der Sturm, Bin Eriiinermissbiich. 

Baden-Baden, 1954. 


Der Sturm, Berlin, 1910-15. 


G. Ballo, Boccioni (with Catalog). Milan, 1964. 

M. Carra, Carlo Carra (Catalog), 2 vols. Milan, 1967. 

R. Carrieri, 7/ Futurismo. Milan, 1961. 

D. Gambilla and T. Fiori, Archivi del Futurismo, 2 vols. Milan, 


M. W. Martin, Futurist Art and Theory. London, 1968. 


Lacerha, Florence, 1913-15. 



Le Cubisme a Prague et la Collection Kramdf, Exhibition at Museum 

Boymans-van Beuniiigen, Rotterdam, January 1968. 

2^2 BibUooraphY 

Giitfmiiid, Exhibition at Museum des 20steii Jahrhunderts, Vienna, 
April 1969. 


Uiiielecky Mesiaiik, Prague, 1911-14. 


C. Gray, The Great Experimem: Russian Art, 1S63-1922. London, 


A. Archipenko, Archipciiko: Fifty Creative Years, igoS-_=iS. 
New York, i960. 

M. W. Brown, The Story of the Armory Sliow, New York, 1963. 
L. Goodrich and ]. I. H. Baiir, American Art of Our Century, 
New York, 1961. 
H. Hess, Fehunger, New York, 1959. 

B. Rose, American Art Since igoo. New York, 1967. 


Archipenko, ]'isionnaire International, Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington D.C., 1969. 

Tlie Armory Shoir: jiotli Ainiiversary Exiiibition, Munson-WilHams- 

Proctor Institute, Utica, 1963. 

In addition to the publications listed above, students should 
consult the often highly documented catalogs of important 
retrospective exhibitions of the following artists held bodi in 
Europe and America since 1955: Braque, Gris, Leger, Picasso, 
Gleizes, Le Fapconnier, Delaunay, Duchamp, Feininger, Mondrian, 
Severini, Villon, Marc, MaleNnch, Weber, Laurens, Lipchitz, 
Herbin and Havdcn. 

Artists and Their Dates 




Archipenko, Alexander 


Balla, Giacomo 


Benes, Vincenc 


BocciONi, Umbcrto 


Braque, Georges 


Bruce, Patrick 


Campendonk, Heinrich 


Capek, Joseph 


Carra, Carlo 


Cezanne, Paul 


Chagall, Marc 


CzAKY, Joseph 


Delaunay, Robert 


Derain, Andre 


DucHAMP, Marcel 


DuCHAMP-ViLLON, Raymond 


DuFY, Raoul 


DuNOYER DE Segonzac, Andre 


Feininger, Lyonel 


Ferat, Serge 


Filla, Emil 


Gleizes, Albert 




Gris, Juan 




Hayden, Henri 


Herein, Auguste 


Klee, Paul 


KuBisTA, Bohumil 


La Fresnaye, Roger de 


Larionov, Michel 


Laurens, Henri 


1 887-1964 







1 887-1927 
1 882-1960 




Artists and Their Dates 

Le Fauconnier, Henri 

Leger, Fernand 

Lewis, Wyndham 

Lhote, Andre 

LiPCHiTZ, Jacques 

Macdonald-Wright, Stanton 

Macke, August 

Malevich, Kasimir 

Marc, Franz 

Marcoussis, Louis 

Marchand, Jean 

Marin, John 

Metzinger, Jean 

MoNDRiAN, Piet 

Moreau, Luc-Albert 

PiCABiA, Francis 

Picasso, Pablo 

PopovA, Liubov 

Prochazka, Antonin 

Rivera, Diego 

Russell, Morgan 

Severini, Gino 

SiRONi, Mario 

SoFFici, Ardengo 

Stella, Joseph 

Udaltsova, Nadezhda 

Villon, Jacques 

Weber, Max 




































1 878-193 5 






1 872-1944 


1 879-1953 


I 889-1924 



1 879-1964 

check List 

In measurements, height precedes width and depth. 

ARCHIPENKO, Alexander 

[Plate 293] 

[Plate zgz] 

[Plate 2gi[ 

1 Head : Construction with 
Crossing Planes, 1913 

Bronze, 15x7x8 in. 
Signed and dated on base 

Perls Galleries, New York. 

2 Woman with a fan, 1914 

Polychrome bronze, 351/2 in- 
Signed and dated bottom right 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Latner 
and family, Toronto, Canada. 

[Plate 172[ 

BENES, Vincenc 

[Plate 14S] 

BALLA, Giacomo 

4 Speed of an Automobile + 
Lights, 1913 

Oil on paper on cardboard, 

191/2 X 271/2 in. 

Signed bottom left: Balla 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Morton 
G. Neumami, Cliicago, 111. 

5 Tram Station, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 28 x 225/8 in. 
Signed on back: l\ Benes 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

BOCCIONI, Umberto 

[Plate 180] 

[Plate iSg] 

Figure in Movement, 1913 

Collage and colored crayon 
on paper, 18^/4 x 123/8 in. 
Signed and dated bottom 
centre: Archipeiiko, Paris 1913 

The Museum of Modern Art, 
New York, Gift of Perls Gallery. 

[Plate 2g4[ 

6 Elasticity, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 393/s >' 393/8 in. 
Signed on back: Bcccioni 

coll. Dott. Riccardo Jucker, 

7 Spiral Composition, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 373/8 x 373/s in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 
Boccioni, 1913 

GaUeria Civica d' Arte Modema, 

8 The Ungraceful, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 31i/2~- 3I1/2 in. 

coll. Countess Fiammctta 
Gaetani d'Aragona, Rome. 

9 Development of a Bottle in 
Space, 1912 

Bronze, 15 "■;24 in. 

Mrs. Barnett Malbin, Birming- 
ham, Mich. (The Lydia and 
Harry Lewis Winston 


[Plate 203] 

BRAQUE, Georges 

[Plate 1 76] 

10 Bottle, Table and House, 


Pencil on paper, 131/3x91/2 in- 
Signed bottom right : Bocdoni 

Raccolta Civica Bertarelli, 


11 Study for 'The 
Ungraceful,' 1912-13 

Ink and charcoal on paper, 

113/4x9 in. 

Signed bottom right : Boccioni 

Raccolta Civica Bertarelli, 

12 Study for 'Horizontal 
Volumes,' 1912 

Pencil and ink on paper, 

173/4x237/8 in. 

Signed bottom right: Boccioni 

Raccolta Civica Bertarelli, 


[Plate 5[ 

[Plate 7/ 

[Plate 1 7/ 

14 Nude, 1907-08 

Oil on canvas, 553/4 x 40 in. 
Signed bottom right: 
G. Braqne 

Galerie Alex Magny, Paris. 

15 Trees at L'Estaque, 1908 

Oil on canvas, 31 x 23^/8 in. 
Formerly signed on back 

Private collection, France. 

16 Harbor in Normandy, 1909 

Oil on canvas, 32 x 32 in. 

The Art Institute of Chicago, 
Chicago, III., Samuel A. Marx 
Purchase Fund. 

[Plate 17 5[ 13 Figure Study, 1913 

Pencil, ink and vi'ash on paper, 

111/2x9 in. 

Signed bottom right : Boccioni 

Raccolta Civica Bertarelli, 

[Plate 1 S[ 17 Fishing Boats, 1909 

Oil on canvas, 36 x 283/4 in. 
Signed bottom right : 
G. Braqne 

coU. Mr. and Mrs. John 
A. Beck, Houston, Texas. 

Check List 


[Plate 23] 

[Plate 24] 

[Plate i6[ 

[Plate 2g] 

[Plate 3o[ 

18 Piano and Mandola, 1909-10 [Plate 34] 

Oil on canvas, 361/8 > Ifi'/s in. 
Signed on back 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museum, New York. 

19 Violin and Palette, 1909-10 

Oil on canvas, 36V4X 16''/8 in. 
Signed on back 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museum, New York. 

20 Rio Tinto Factories, 1910 

Oil on canvas, 255/8 x 2I1/4 in. 
Signed on back 

Musee National d'Art 
Moderne, Paris. 

21 The Table, 1910 

Oil on canvas, 15 x 21^2 in. 
Signed on back: Braqiie 

coU. Mr. and Mrs. Ralph 

F. Cohn, New York. 

22 Female Figure, 1910-11 

Oil on canvas, 36 x 24 in. 
Signed bottom right : 

G. Braqiie 

The Carey Walker Foundation, 
New York. 

[Plate 26] 

[Plate 47 [ 

[Plate 5o[ 

[Plate 31] 

24 Still Life with Dice and 
Pipe, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 3IV2 x 23 in. 


Signed on back 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Robert 
Eichholz, Wasliington, D.C. 

25 Guitar, 1910-11 

Oil on canvas, 91/2 X 13-V4 in. 


Signed on back : G. Braqiie 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Norton 
Simon, Los Angeles. 

26 Homage to Bach, 1912 

on on canvas, 21 1/4 x 28-V4 in. 
Signed bottom left : 
G. Braque 

Sidney Janis Gallery, New York. 

27 The Gueridon, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 455/8 x 31''/8 in. 
Signed on back 

Musee National d'Art 
Modeme, Paris. 

28 Still Life with Pipe, 1912 
Oil on canvas, D'/s x 163/$ in. 
Norton Simon Foimdation, 
Los Angeles, Cal. 

[Plate 42 [ 23 Violin and Candlestick, 1910 

Oil on canvas, 24 x I93/4 in. 
Signed on back : G. Braque 

coU. Rita and Taft Schreiber, 
Beverly Hills, Cal. 

[Plate 46[ 29 Guitar, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 29 x 24 in. (Oval) 
Signed on back: G. Braque 

The Carey Walker Foimdation, 
New York. 


check List 

[Plate 2og] 30 Still Life with Clarinet and 
Violin, 1912-13 
Oil on canvas, 215/8 x 167/8 in. 
Signed on back: G. Braqne 

Narodni Galerie, Prague, 
(Kramaf Collection). 

[Plate 213] 31 The Guitar Player, 1913-14 

Oil on canvas, 511/4x28^4 in- 
Signed on back 

coll. Heinz Berggruen, Paris. 

[Plate 210] 32 Violin (Valse), 1913 

Oil on canvas, 28V8 x 21 1/4 m. 
Signed on back: G. Braqne 

Private Collection, Rome. 

[Plate 216] 33 Still Life with Ace of 
Clubs, 1914 

Oil on wood panel, 

141/2 X 21 m. (Oval) 

Mrs. Barnett Malbiii, Birming- 

liam, Mich. (The Lydia and 

Harry Lewis Wmston 


[Plate 264] 34 Guitar, 1918 

Oil on canvas, 353/4x213/4 in. 


Signed bottom right : 

G. Braqne 

Private Collection, France. 

[Plate 263[ 35 Still Life with Musical 
Instruments, 1918 

Oil on canvas, 35 x 25 in. 

Papiers colles 
[Plate igg] 

[Plate igS] 

[Plate 206] 

[Plate 20c] 

[Plate 201 [ 

Signed bottom center : 
G. Braqne 

Norton Simon Foimdation, 
Los Angeles, Cal. 

36 Glass and Playing Card, 1912 
Papier colle and charcoal on 
paper, ll-Vs x 18'/8 in. 
Signed bottom left : 

G. Braqne 

Los Angeles County Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, Cal. 

37 Man with a Pipe, 1912 
Papier colic and charcoal on 
paper, 243/8 x I91/4 in. 
Signed on back : G. Braqne 

Kunstmuscum, Basel, Gift of 
Raoid La Roche. 

38 Glass, Carafe and 
Newspaper, 1913 

Papier colle on paper, 

24-VsX 111/4 in. 

Private Collection, Basel. 

39 Still Life on a Table, 1913 

Papier colle on paper, 
181/2x243/4 in. 

coll. Monsieur and Madame 
Claude Laurens, Paris. 

40 The Program, 1913 

Papier colic on paper, 
283/4x363/8 m. 

coU. Mrs. Barbara Reis Poe, 
Los Angeles, Cal. 

check List 


17=^ 7 ,- 

ii' \i 





[-platc 54] 

[Phtc 53] 


41 Still Life, 1912 

183/4x247/3 in. 
Signed bottom right : 
G. BriKjiie 

Estate ot 
Lester F. Avnet, 
New York. 

42 Guitar on a Table, 1909 

Etching, numbered bottom 

left 11/25; edition of 25 

published 1954 

51/2 '< 77/8 in. on full sheet 

121/2 ■; 133/4 in. 

Signed bottom right below 

print : G. Brnqtic 

Private Collection, France. 

43 Job, 1911 

Drypoint; edition of 100 
pubhshed 1912 


S'/s X y/s in. on full sheet 
81/4X 121/2 in. 

Signed bottom right below 
print : G. Braque 

The Museum of Modern Art, 
New York, Gift of Victor 
S. Ricscnfeld. 

44 Pale Ale, 1911 

Etchuig; edition ot 50 
published 1954 
I81/2 X 13 in. on full sheet 
227/16X 173/4 in. 
Signed bottom right : 
G. Braqne 

coll. Dr. and Mrs. Abraham 
Melamed, Milwaukee, Wise. 


Check List 

[Plate 3S] 

[Plate 33] 

[Plate 36 [ 


[Plate 314[ 

45 Fox, 1911-12 

Etcliing; edition of 100 

published 1912 

211/2 X 15 ill. on full sheet 

251/4X195/8 in. 

Signed bottom right below 

print: G. Braqtie 

The Museum ot Modem Art, 
New York, Abby Aldrich 
Rockefeller Fund. 

46 Bass, 1911-12 

Drypoint and etching; edition 

of50pubhshed 1950 

18x I215/16 in. on full sheet 

253/4x195/8 in. 

Signed bottom right below 

print: G. Braqiie 

The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York, Purchase. 

47 Cubist Still Life II, 1912 

Drypoint and etching; edition 
of50pubhshed 1953 
I215/16X 177/8 in. on full sheet 
195/8 X 251/4 in. 
Signed bottom right below 
print : G. Braqiie 

The Museum of Modem Art. 
New York, Purchase. 

48 Standing Figure, 1920 

Bronze ; one of 3 specially cast 
for the artist in 1954. (Exists 

also in an edition of 6 in white 

plaster made in 1920) 

71/2 x 23/4 in. 

Signed on base: G. Braqiie 

Numbered 1/3 

coll. Monsieur and Madame 
Claude Laurens, Paris. 


[Plate 143[ 

49 Harlequin and Columbine, 


Oil on canvas, 641/2 x 78 in. 

coll. Morton D. May, 
St. Louis, Mo. 

CAPEK, Joseph 

[Plate 136[ 

50 Cubist Figure, 1913 

Hand colored linoleum cut on 



Signed and dated bottom right : 

Joseph CapekjlPlJ 

The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York, Gift of John Torson. 

CARRA, Carlo 

[Plate ijg] 

51 Woman with Glass of 
Absinthe, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 265/8 x 20^/8 in. 

coll. Dott. Constantino Marino, 

check List 


[Plate 177] 

Papier colle 
[Plate 190] 



52 Woman at Window 
(Simultaneity), 1912 

Oil on canvas, STVs ■- 52^/8 in. 
Signed and dated top left: 
C. Cam 912 

coll. Dott. Ricardo Jucker, 

53 Bottle of Wine, 1914 

Papier colic on board, 

16 X 131/2 m. 

Signed and dated bottom right : 

Gmn 914 

coll. Mr. and fvirs. Sidney 
E. Cohn, New York. 

54 Carriage at Night, 1912 

(Study for painting of same 

Pencil on paper, 215/8 x 291/2 in. 

coll. Dott. Massimo Carra, 

[Plate iSi] 55 Boxer, 1913 

Ink on paper, I71/2 -,11 in. 
Signed bottom right : 
C. Cam) 913 

coll. Eric Estorick, London. 

[Plate 1S2J 56 Portraitof Soffici, 1914 

Ink, collage and watercolor 
on paper, 81/4 x S'^/s in. 
Signed, dated and inscribed 
bottom right: C. Carra 914 
ritratto di Soffici. 

coll. Dott. Massimo Carra, 

[Plate iS4[ 57 Standing Figure (Idol), 1914 

(First study for painting 
Penelope, 1917) 

PencU on paper, 44''/s ^: I81/2 in. 

coll. Dott. Massimo Carra, 


[Plate 116J 

[Plate ii7[ 

58 Still Life, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 25 ■ 3O3/4 in. 
Signed on back: Chagall, 

coll. Eric Estorick, London. 

59 Adam and Eve, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 63-Vi6 x 447/8 in. 
Signed bottom left 

City Art Museum of St. Louis, 
St. Louis, Mo., Gift of Morton 
D. May. 

2$ 2 

Chech List 

CZAKY, Joseph 

[Plate 2S4J 

60 Standing Woman, 1913-14 

Bronze, 3I1/2 x 81/4 x S-Vs in. 
Signed and dated on base at 

Musee National d'Art Modeine, 

[Phte Si] 64 Window on the City n, 1912 

Oil on canvas, IS^/sX IVjs in. 
Signed and dated on back 

coU. Madame Sonia Delaunay, 

[Plate 76] 


[Plare 79] 

[Plate S3] 

[Plate So] 

61 The EiiFel Tower, 1911(:) 

Oil on canvas, 791/2x541/2 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right: 
r. delaunay 1910 
Inscribed bottom left: 
La Tour 1910 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museum, New York. 

62 The City Seen from an 
Open Window, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 571/2 ;< 44i/s in. 
Signed, dated and inscribed 
bottom left: la vilk 1911 
r. delaunay 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museimi, New York. 

63 The Towers of Laon, 1912 

OU on canvas, 632/4 x 51i/s in. 
Signed bottom left 

Musee National d'Art 
Modeme, Paris. 

65 Tower with Ferris Wheel, 

1910 (or 1911:) 
(Study for The Red Tower, 
1913-14; coll. The Solomon 
Guggenheim Museum, 
New York) 

Ink on paper, 251/2x191/2 in. 
Signed bottom left: Delaunay, 
Paris, 1909-10; dated again 
top left: 1910. 

The Museum ot Modem Art, 
New York, Abby Aldrich 
Rockefeller Fund. 

[Plate 77] 66 The Eiffel Tower 1910(r) 

(Study for The Eiffel Tower, 

1911(0; No. 61) 

Ink on cardboard, 

211/4x191/4 in. 

Signed and dated bottom left : 

r. delaunay, 1910 

The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York, Abby Aldnch 
Rockefeller Fund. 

[Plate 78] 67 The Eiffel Tower, Paris, 


Transfer hthograph after 
No. 61 


*: \ 



Signed bottom left below 

print: r. dclamtay 

Inscribed bottom right: 

La Tour 1910, dated on back 

The Museum ot Modern Art, 
New York, Abby Aldrich 
Rockefeller Fimd. 

68 The City Seen From an 
Open Window, 1926 

Transfer lithograph after a 
painting of 1911, 

The Museum of Modern Art, 
New York, Lent by The 
International Arts Foimdation. 

DERAIN, Andre 

[Plate 60] 

69 Still Life on a Table, 1910 

Oil on canvas, 361/4x281/3 in. 
Signed bottom right 

Musee d'Art Moderne de la 
Ville de Paris, Paris. 

[Plate 5g[ 70 Cadaques, 1910 

Oil on canvas, 235/8 x 283/4 in. 
Signed on back 

Narodni Galerie, Prague, 
(Kramaf Collection). 

DUCHAMP, Marcel 

[Plate 107] 

(L. A. only) 

[Plate loS] 

(N. Y. only) 

[Plate log] 

(N. Y. only) 

71 Portrait, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 57-Vs x 44''/s in- 
Signed bottom lett and on 
back: Marcel DiichaniiJ 11 

Philadelphia Museum of Art, 
Louise and Walter Arensberg 
Collection, Philadelphia, Pa. 

72 Portrait of Chess-Players, 


Oil on canvas, 395/s x 393/4 in. 
Signed bottom left : Marcel 
Diichanip 11 

Philadelpliia Museum ot Art, 
Louise and Walter Arensberg 
Collection, Philadelphia, Pa. 

73 Nude Descending a Stair- 
case No. I, 1911-12 

Oil on cardboard, 
373/4x231/2 in. 
Signed and mscribed bottom 
left: Marcel Diichaiiip 11 
Nu descendant nil escalier 

Philadelpliia Museum of Art, 
Louise and Walter Arensberg 
Collection, Pliiladelphia, Pa. 



check List 

[Plate 1 1 0] 74 Nude Descending a Stair- 
case No. 2 (Definitive 
version), 1912 

Oil on canvas, 58 x 35 in. 
Signed and inscribed across 
bottom: Marcel Diiclmmp 12 
Nil descendant un escalier 
Signed on back: Marcel 
Duchamp 12 

(L. A. only) Philadelphia Museum of Art, 

Louise and Walter Arensberg 
Collection, Pluladelplxia, Pa. 


[Plate 2S7] 

[Plate 2SS] 

[Plate 2Sg[ 

[Plate 2 go] 

75 -The Lovers (Final State), 


Bronze relief, 263/4 x 393/s in. 
Signed bottom right 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. A. J. Lamer 
and family, Toronto, Canada. 

76 Seated Girl, 1914 

Plaster, I2V2 x 4 x 41/2 in. 

coll. Vincent To veil, Toronto, 

77 Small Horse, 1914 

Bronze, ISVs in. high 

coll. Edgar Kaufmann, Jr., 
New York. 

78 Large Horse, 1914 

Bronze, 393/8 >; 393/s x 2O3/4 in. 
Signed and dated on base: 
R Diichanip-Vilkmll9U 

A. (L. A. only) 

B. (N. Y. only) 

DUFY, Raoul 

[Plate S] 

Numbered 4/6 

Walker Art Center, Min- 
neapolis, Minn., T. B. Walker 
Foundation Aquisition. 

Numbered 5/6 
Institute, Utica, N.Y. 

[Plate 15] 

79 Green Trees at L'Estaque, 


Oil on canvas, 281/2 >' 231/2 in. 
Signed bottom right 

coll. Henri Gaffie, Beaulieu 

80 Factory, 1908 

Od on canvas, 36x281/2 in. 
Signed bottom right 

coll. Henri GafiEe, Beaulieu 


[Plate 137] 

[Plate 139] 

81 Bicycle Race, 1912 

OU on canvas, 3I1/2 x 393/4 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left 

coU. Mr. and Mrs. Leonard 
Hutton, New York. 

82 The Bridge I, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 3I1/2 x 391/2 in. 
Signed and dated top left 

Check List 


[Phte 13S] 

I Plate 141] 

I Plate 142] 


[Plate 140] 

[Plate 136] 

Washington University Gallery 
of Art, St. Louis, Mo. 

83 Gelmeroda IV, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 391/3 x 3I1/4 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 
Feiiiiiiger, 15 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museinn, New York. 

84 Avenue of Trees, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 313/4x391/2 in. 
Signed bottom right : 

Private Collection, New York. 

85 Markwippach, 1917 

Oil on canvas, 3I-V4 x 39^/4 in. 
Signed and dated top left 

Cleveland Museum of Art, 
Cleveland, Ohio. 

86 Vollersroda, 1918 

Ink and wash, 7^1 g x 9^1 » in. 
Signed bottom left: Feininger 
Inscribed lower center: 

Los Angeles County Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, Cal., 
Purchased with Graphic Arts 
Council Funds. 

87 The Gate, 1912 

Drypoint and etching, 
lOs/s 73/4 in. 

Signed and dated in plate 
bottom left: Lyoiiel Feiniiiger 
Sept. 4, 1912 

The Museum of Modern Art, 
New York, Gift of 
Mrs. Donald B. Straus. 

FERAT, Serge 

[Plate 233[ 

FILL A, Emil 

[Plate i4o[ 

[Plate 135] 

[Plate 13S[ 

88 Still Life with Violin, 1913 

Oil with collage on canvas, 
211/4x255/8 in. 
Signed bottom right 

coll. Madame Roger Roussot, 

89 Salome, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 54x31i/4 in. 
Signed bottom right 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

90 Man's Head with Hat, 1916 

Oil on canvas, 283/s ■: 2O1/4 in. 
Signed and dated top right 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

91 Still Life with Pears, 1915 

Watcrcolor and ink on paper, 

105/8x235/8 m. 

Signed and dated bottom right 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 


Check List 

[Plate 157] 


[Plate 130] 


[Plate 286[ 

92 Figure, 1921 

Ink on paper, 24''/8 < I81/2 in. 
Signed and dated top right 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

93 Female Figure, 1913 

Drypoint, IT'/s > 14 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

94 Man's Head, 1913-14 

Bronze, ISVs in. high 
Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

GLEIZES, Albert 

[Plate 62[ 

[Plate 6s] 

[Plate 64] 

95 Women in a KLitchen, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 46-V8 ■ 371/4 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 
Alb Gleizes 11 

Marlborough Galleries Inc., 
New York. 

96 Harvest Threshing, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 106 x DS'/s in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 
Albert Gleizes 1912 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museum, New York. 

97 Landscape at Toul, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 353/4 x 281/2 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left 
and on back : Alb Gleizes 13 

The Columbus Gallery of Fine 
Arts, Columbus, Ohio, Gift of 
Ferdinand Howald. 

[Plate 63[ 98 The Football Players, 


Oil on canvas, 89 x 72 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left : 
Albert Gleizes, 1912-13 

Lent by the National Gallery 
of Art, Washington, D.C., 
Ailsa Mellon Bruce Fund 1970. 

[Plate 67] 99 Portrait of Igor Stravinsky, 


OU on canvas, 51 x 45 in. 
Signed, dated and inscribed 
bottom right : Igor Slrauiiisky 
1914 Albert Gleizes 

coll. Richard S. Zeisler, 
New York. 

[Plate 23$] 100 Broadway, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 38^/4 x 30 in. 
Signed, dated and inscribed 
bottom left : Broadway 
Alb Gleizes 15. 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Arthur 
G. Altschul, New York. 

[Plate 68] loi Dancer, 1917 

Oil on canvas, 391/2 x 30 in. 


coll. Mr. and Mrs. Sidney 

E. Cohn, New York. 

check List 


[Plate 6g] 

[Plate 162] 

[Plate 7o[ 

[Plate 71] 

102 Study No. I for 'Portrait 
of an Army Doctor,' 1915 

Ink on paper, 1 1^4 x 9 in. 
Signed, dated and inscribed 
bottom right: Alb Gleizes 
Totil 1915 pour le portrait du 
Prof. Lambert. 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Musciun, New York. 

103 Study No. 2 for 'Portrait 
of an Army Doctor,' 1915 

Ink on paper, 7 < 5'/2 in. 
Signed bottom right : 
Alb Gleizes Totil 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museum, New York. 

104 Study No. 5 for 'Portrait 
of an Army Doctor,' 1915 

Ink on paper, 9^/5 x 7^/5 in. 
Signed bottom right : 
Alb Gleizes Toul 1915 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museum, New York. 


[Plate 163] 

105 Cats, 1911-12 (e) 

Oil on canvas, 331/2 x 33^/4 in. 
Signed bottom right : 
N Gontcharova 

The Solomon R. GuggenJieim 
Museum, New York. 

GRIS, Juan 

[Plate 22o[ 

[Plate 22s[ 

[Plate 221] 

[Plate 223J 

106 The Looking Glass, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 35 x 26^/8 in. 
Signed on back: 
N Gontcharova 

Galleria del Levante, Milan- 

107 Bottle of Wine and Water 
Jar, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 21^/4 ■ 13 in. 
Signed bottom left : Juan Gris 

Rijksmuseum KroUer-MiiUer, 

108 Portrait of Picasso, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 36V8 x 291/4 in. 
Signed and inscribed bottom 
left: Hommage a Pablo 
Picasso, Juan Gris 

The Art Institute of Chicago, 
Chicago, lU., Gift of Mr. Leigh 
B. Block. 

109 The Artist's Mother, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 213/4 X' 18 in. 
Signed top left: Juan Gris 

Private Collection, France. 

no Guitar and Flowers, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 441/3 x 275/8 in. 
Signed bottoni right : 
Juan Gris 

The Museum of Modern Art, 
New York, Bequest of Anna 


Check List 

Erickson Levene in memory of 
her husband, Dr. Phoebus 
Aaron Tlicodor Levene. 

[Plate 224] III Still Life with Bottle and 
Watch, 1912 

(Not in exhibition) Oil and collage on canvas, 
253/4 X 351/4 in. 

Signed bottom left : Jiuvi Gris 
coll. Herr Hans Grether, Basel. (L- A. only) 

[Plate 226[ 112 Playing Cards and Glass of 
Beer, 1913 

Oil and collage on canvas, 
205/8 X 143/8 in. 
Signed and dated on back : 
Juan Gris 4-13 

The Columbus Gallery of Fine 
Arts, Columbus, Ohio, Gift 
of Ferdinand Howald. 

[Plate 22y] 113 Landscape at Ceret, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 36'/4 ■ 235/s in. 
Signed and dated on back : 
Juan Gris 9-13 
Modema Museet, Stockholm. 

[Plate 22g[ 114 Guitar on a Chair, 1913 

OU and collage on canvas, 

393/3 X 255/3 in. 

Formerly signed and dated on 

back: Juan Gris 9-13 


Private Collection, France. 

[Plate 23o[ 115 Figure Seated in a Cafe, 1914 
Oil and collage on canvas, 
39 X 281/4 in. 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Leigh 
B. Block, Chicago, 111. 

[Plate 26'j[ 116 Still Life in Front of an 
Open Window : Place 
Ravignan, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 457/8 -< 35'/8 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left : 
Juan Gris 6-1915 

Philadelphia Museum ot Art, 
Philadelphia, Pa., Loirise and 
Walter Arcnsberg Collection. 

[Plate 266[ 117 Coffee-Grinder and Glass, 


Oil on canvas, 15 x II3/4 in. 
Signed and dated top left : 
Juan Gris 7-13 

Private Collection, California. 

[Plate 268] 118 Breakfast, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 361/4 :< 283/4 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left: 
Juan Gris 10-1915 

Musee National d'Art 
Modemc, Paris. 

[Plate 26g[ 119 StUl Life with Poem, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 313/4 x 251/2 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left : 
Juan Gris 11-15 

Norton Simon, Inc., Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, Cal. 

[Plate 2J3] 120 Fruit-Dish on a Table, 1916 

Oil on wood panel, 
193/4x24 in. 

Signed and dated on back: 
Juan Gris 3-1916 

check List 


coll. Gerard Bonnier, 

[Plate 2yi] 121 Grapes, 1916 

Oil on wood panel, 
213/4 XI81/2 in. 
Signed and dated top right : 
Juan Gris 6-16 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Paul 
Tishman, New York. 

[Plate 27S] 122 Portrait of Josette, 1916 

Oil on wood panel, 
451/2x281/2 in. 
Signed and dated top left: 
]iian Gris 9-16 

Private Collection, France. 

[Plate 274] 123 Still Life, 1917 

Oil on wood panel, 29 x 36 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left : 
Juan Gris 2-1917 

The Minneapolis Institute of 
Arts, Minneapohs, Minn. 

[Plate 270] 124 Open Window, 1917 

Oil on wood panel, 
393/8x285/8 m. 

Signed and dated bottom right : 
Juan Gris 2-1917 

(N. Y. only) Philadelphia Museum of Art, 

Louise and Walter Arensberg 
Collection, Philadelphia, Pa. 

[Plate 27g[ 125 Still Life With Guitar, 1917 

on on canvas, 281/2 ■< 36 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left: 
Juan Gris 11-17 

Private Collection, New York. 

[Plate 280] 126 Harlequin with Guitar, 1917 

Oil on wood panel, 
391/4x251/2 in. 

Signed and dated bottom right : 
Juan Gris 12-17 

The Alex HiUman Family 
Foundation, New York. 

[Plate 277] 127 Madame Cezanne, 1918 

(After a painting by Cezanne) 

Oil on wood panel, 
357/8x283/8 in. 

coll. La Haye Jousselin-Perrone, 

Papiers colles 

[Plate 2oS[ 128 Guitar, Glasses and Bottle, 


Papier coUe on canvas, 

235/8 X 317/8 in. 

Signed on back: Juan Gris 

National Gallery of Ireland, 

[Plate 233[ 129 Fruit-Dish and Carafe, 1914 

Papier coUe on canvas, with 
oil paint and colored chalks, 
361/4 X 251/2 in. 
Signed on back: Juan Gris 

Rijksmuseum KroUer-MiUler, 

[Plate 232[ 130 Still Life With a Bunch of 
Grapes, 1914 

Papier coUe on canvas with 
gouache and pencil, 
317/8 x235/s in. 


Check List 

Signed and dated bottom left: 
Jiiati Gris, 19U 

Galerie Beyeler, Basel. 

[Plate 263] 131 Still Life with Grapes, 1915 

Oil, papier coUe and watercolor 

on board, 10 x 13 in. 

Signed bottom left: Juan Gris 

Private collection. 


[Plate 2ig[ 

[Plate 27 i] 

[Plate 276] 

132 Place Ravignan, 1911 

Pencil on paper, lyi/s ■- 12 in. 

Estate of 
Lester F. A\Tiet, 
New York. 

[Plate 222] 133 Flowers in a Vase, 1911-12 
(related to No. 110) 

Charcoal on paper, 171/2:- 12in. 
Signed bottom left : Juan Gris 

coll. James W. Alsdort, 
Wumetka, 111. 

[Plate 22S] 134 Still Life with a Guitar, 1913 

Watercolor and charcoal on 
paper, 255/s ■; I8V4 in. 
Signed and inscribed bottom 
right : .4 inon cher ami 
Kahnweiler, Bieii aflectiicuscment 
Juan Gris. 
(N. Y. only) Private collection. New York. 

[Plate 272[ 135 Siphon and Glass, 1916 

Gouache and pencil on paper, 
173/4x133/4 in. 

[Plate 313[ 

(N. Y. only) 

Contemporary' Art Establish- 
ment, Ziirich. 

136 Still Life, 1917 

Pencd on paper, 243/s x IS'^/s in. 

Kunstmuseum, Basel, Gift of 
the Karl-August-Burckhardt- 

Koechhn Fund. 

137 Siphon, Checker-board and 
Glass, 1917 

Charcoal on paper, 

I81/2 X 121/4 in. 

Signed, dated and inscribed top 

right: a Madame Marcillac, 

amicalemeiit, Jtiai! Gris, Paris 1917 

The Art Institute of Chicago, 
lU., Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Leigh 
B. Block. 

138 Harlequin, 1917 

Plaster, carved and painted, 
211/4x13x10 in. 

Philadelphia Museum of Art, 
Philadelphia, Pa., A. E. Gallatin 


[Plate 302] 

139 Reclining Woman with 
Glass, 1912-13 

Bronze, 77/8 x 11 in. 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

check List 


[Plate 301] 

[Plate joo[ 

[Plate 2g/] 

[Plate 2gS[ 


140 Cubist Bust, 1912-13 
Bronze, 235/s in. high 
Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

141 Woman's Head, 1919 
Bronze, IC/s in. high 
Narodni Galcric, Prague. 

142 Standing Nude, 1911 

Charcoal on paper, 17'/2 - 12 in. 
Grosvenor Gallery, London. 

143 Study for Sculpture, 1912-13 
Ink, colored chalk and pencil 
on paper, lO'/s x 8V4 in. 
Grosvenor Gallery, London. 

144 Figure, 1913 

Ink and pencil on paper, 
171/2x12 in. 

Grosvenor Gallery, London. 

[Plate 2gg[ 145 Man's Head, c. 1914 

Charcoal on paper, 
187/sX 121/4 in. 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 
HAYDEN, Henri 

[Plate 236[ 

146 Still Life with a Bottle of 
Milk, 1917 

Oil. on canvas, 18 \ 241/2 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right: 
Hay den 1917 

Private collection, Llarrogatc, 

HEREIN. Auguste 

[Plate 114[ 

KLEE, Paul 

[Plate 147[ 


147 The Village, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 32 ■ 251/2 in. 
Signed bottom center: herhiii 

Rijksmuseum Kroller-Miillcr, 

148 Homage to Picasso, 1914 

Oil on board, 

133/4 X 111/2 in. (Irregular oval) 
Signed and dated top left: 
Kke 1914-192 

coll. Peter A. Riibel, Cos Cob, 


Check List 

[Plate 1 46] 149 Red and White Domes, 1914 

Watercolor on paper on board, 
53/4x53/8 in. 
Signed top left: Klee 
Inscribed along base : Rote 
If. weisse Kuppehi 1914-43 

Kiinstsanmilung Nordrhein- 
Westfalen, Diisseldorf. 

KUBISTA, Boliumil 


[Plate 131] 150 Portrait, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 26 x 2O1/2 in. 
Signed top right: 
B Kubista 1911 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

[Plate 132] 151 Landscape (The Village), 1911 

Oil on canvas, IS'/s > 21 1/4 in- 
Signed top right : 
BKtihistn 1911 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 
LA FRESNAYE, Roger de 

[Plate 128] 

[Plate 283] 

Albright-Knox Art Gallery, 
BufFalo, N.Y. 

154 Three Figures, 1913 

Charcoal on paper, 1 93/4 x 25 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 
R lie La Fresnaye 1913 

Los Angeles Comity Museum 
ot Art, Los Angeles, Cal., 
Mr. and Mrs. William Preston 
Harrison Collection. 

155 Italian Girl, 1911 

Bronze, 24x12 in. 
Incised at base on right: 
R de La Fresnaye 2/6 

The Joseph H. Hirshhorn 
Collection, New York. 


[Plate i6o[ 

[Plate 126] 

152 Bathers, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 631/2 -< 50' /2 in. 
Signed bottom right: 
R de La Fresnaye 

coll. Nathan Cuniniings, 
New York. 

[Plate 127] 153 Marie Ressort, 1912-13 

Oil on canvas, 581/8 x 38 in. 

[Plate 16 1[ 

156 Glasses, 1911-12 (?) 

Oil on canvas, 41 x 381/4 in. 
Signed bottom right: 
M Larionov 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museum, New York. 

157 Woman Walking on the 
Boulevard, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 453/4 x 33''/s in. 
Signed on back: M Lariotiov 

coll. Madame Michel Larionov, 

Check List 



[Plate 322] 

The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York, Gift of Curt 

Papiers colles 
(Plate 316] 

[Plate 324] 

[Plate 31 8[ 

[Plate 317] 

158 Woman with Guitar, 1918 

Stone, 231/4 X 97/3 in. 

coll. Madame Claude Laurens, 

159 Man's Head, 1919 

Stone, 17 in. high 
Incised near base : H. L. 

Mrs. Baniett Malbin, Birming- 
ham, Mich. (The Lydia and 
Harry Lewis Winston 

[Plate 323] 160 Man with a Pipe, 1919 

Stone, I4-V4 in. high 

(N. Y. only) coll. Mr. and Mrs. Irving 

W. Rabb, Newton, Mass. 

[Plate 321] 161 Musical Instruments, 1919 

Painted stone relief, 
191/2x281/4 in. 

coll. Mrs. A. Sharpe Maremont, 
Scottsdalc, Ariz. 

[Plate 326[ 162 Bottle and Glass, 1919 

Stone, painted and carved, 
133/8x4^/8x41/2 in. 
Incised at base: HL 

coll. Monsieur and Madame 
Alfred Richer, Paris. 

[Plate 323] 163 Guitar, 1920 [Plate 327[ 

Terracotta, I41/4 x 43/4 x S^/g in. 
Incised inside base : H L 

[Plate 313[ 

164 Head, 1917 

Ink and collage on paper, 

213/4 X 171/4 m. 

Signed and dated bottom right : 


coll. Mr. and Mrs. Irving 
W. Rabb, Newton, Mass. 

165 Woman with Mantilla, 1917 

Papier colic on board, 
231/4X151/2 in. 

coll. Monsieiu: and Madame 
Claude Laurens, Paris. 

166 Guitar, 1917-18 

Papier colle on board, 
187/5x251/4 in. 
Signed and dated top lett : 
Laurens IS 

coll. Monsieur and Madame 
Claude Laurens, Paris. 

167 Head of a Boxer, 1916 

Ink on tracing paper, 
57/8X41/2 in. 

coll. Monsieur and Madame 
Claude Laurens, Paris. 

168 Anselme, 1920 

Ink on tracing paper, 
91/4x61/4 in. 


Check List 

coll. Monsieur and Madame 
Claude Laurens, Paris. 

[Plate 328] 169 Young Woman, 1919 

Etching heightened witli 
watercolor, V^/g x 5^/4 in. 
Signed bottom right: 
H. Laurens, 19 

coll. Monsieur and Madame 
Claude Laurens, Paris. 


170 The Table, 1921 

Etching ; artist's proof, 
13x193/4 in. 

Galcric Louise Leiris, Paris. 

[Plate 32g[ 171 Girl with a Fan, 1921 

Etching ; artist's proof, 

125/8 V 97/g in. 

Galerie Louise Leiris, Paris. 


Illustrated Books 

[Pktes3ig,32o]i72 Paul DERMEE : Spirales 

Illustrated with two etchings 
by H. Laurens 

Pubhshed by Paul Albert Bitot, 
1917, in an edition of 225 
copies, of which 20 signed and 
numbered by artist and author. 
Each etching 12^/4 ■: S^s in. 
signed and dated on plate : 
HL 17 

Kunstmuseum, Bern. 

173 Raymond RADIGUET : 
Les Pelican 

Illustrated with six etcliings by 

H. Laurens, one additional 

etching on cover 

Published by Kalmweiler, 1921, 

in an edition of 112 copies 

signed and numbered by artist 

and author 

Cover Etching, 3i5/i6x4 in. 

Plate 1,33/3x65/8 in. 

Plate2, 29/i6Xlii/i6in. 

Plate 3, 97/3x43/4 in. 

Plate 4, 111/16x23/8 in. 

PlateS, 2i/8Xlii/i6in. 

Plate 6, 913/16x61/4 in. 

Fidl page measures 127/8 x 9 in. 

Each illustration is signed on 

plate : H L 

The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York, Gift of 
Mrs. Stanley Resor. 


Plate 1 

Plate 3 


Plate 6 





Plate 2 

■f: --^^Wtzh^ 


check List 



[Plate 61] 

174 Abundance, 1910-11 

Oil on canvas, 751/4 x 481/2 in. 
Signed bottom left : 
Le Faucoiinier 

Haags Gemeentemuseum, The 

[Plate g2[ 

LEGER, Fernand 

[Plate 84] 

[Plate 85[ 

[Plate 86[ 

[^late 87] 

175 Woman Sewing (Portrait of 

the Artist's Mother), 1909 rpy^^ g j 

Oil on canvas, 283/8 >'- 21 1/4 in. 
Private Collection, Paris. 

176 Table and Fruit, 1909 

Oil on canvas, 33 x 39 in. Z^^^"^^'' ^ 7[ 

Signed bottom right : F Leger 

The Minneapolis Institute of 
Arts, Minncapohs, Mimi. 

[Plate 95] 

177 Nudes in a Landscape, 


Oil on canvas, 471/4 x 67 in. 
Signed bottom left: F Leger 

Rijksmuseum KroUer-MiiUer, 

178 Smokers, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 51 x 37''/8 in. [Plate $4] 

The Solomon R. Guggenlieim 
Museum, New York. 

179 Study for 'Woman in Blue,' 


Od on canvas, 5I1/2 x 39 in. 
Signed bottom right: 
F Leger 12 

Musee Fernand Leger, Biot. 

180 Contrast of Forms, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 391/2 x 32 in. 
Signed and dated on back : 

The Museum of Modern Art, 
New York, The Philip 
L. Goodwin Collection. 

181 The Stairway, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 562/4 x 461/2 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right 

Kunsthaus, Ziirich. 

182 Houses Among Trees, 1914 

Oil on canvas, 5I1/4X381/4 in. 
Signed on back: Pay sage 
No. 3 F Leger 

Kimstmuseum, Basel, Gift of 
Raoul La Roche. 

183 Two Figures, 1914 

Oil on canvas, 317/8 x 255/8 in. 
Signed and dated on back: 
F Leger 14 

coll. Mrs. Anne Burnett Tandy, 
Fort Worth, Tex. 

184 Still Life on a Table, 1914 

Oil on canvas, 353/4 x 28 in. 
Formerly signed and dated on 

check List 


[Phitc gi] 

[Plate 93] 

[Plate go[ 

[Plate 96[ 

back : Nature Morte F Lcgcr 14 


Private Collection, France. 

185 House Among Trees, 1912 

Gouache on paper, 17^2 >' 13 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. James 
H. Clark, Dallas, Tex. 

186 Drawing for 'Contrast of 
Forms No. 2,' 1913 

Wash drawing on paper, 

19 X 25 in. 

Signed bottom left : F L 

Saidenberg Gallery, New York. 

187 Two Reclining Women, 


Gouache on paper, 
193/4x251/8 in. 
Signed and inscribed bottom 
center : Deux Femmes 
Couchees F L 13 

Mr. Stephen Halon, 
New York. 

188 Woman and Still Life, 1914 

Gouache on paper, 


Signed and dated bottom right : 


coll. Mr. and Mrs. James 
H. Clark, Dallas, Tex. 

LHOTE, Andre 

[Plate 113] 

189 Portrait of Marguerite, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 633/* x 331/2 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 
A. Lime 1913 

Private Collection, Paris. 

LIPCHITZ, Jacques 

[Plate 303[ 

[Plate 304[ 

[Plate 30 8 [ 

[Plate 307] 
(L. A. only) 

[Plate 309] 

190 Sailor with a Guitar, 1914 

Bronze, 30 > 12 in. 

Incised on back edge of base: 

JLpchitz 14,317 

Albright-Knox Art Gallery, 
Buffalo, N.Y. 

191 Head, 1915 

Bronze, 241/2 in. high 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Bernard 
J. Reis, New York. 

192 Half-Standing Figure, 1916 

Bronze, 383/4 in. high 

Marlborough Galleries, Inc., 
New York. 

193 Standing Figure, 1916 

Stone, 421/4 x 9 in. 

Norton Simon, Inc., Museum 

of Art, Los Angeles, Cal. 

194 Bather III, 1917 
Bronze, 281/2 m. high 


Check List 

Incised on base : 6l~Lipchitz 

Norton Simon, Inc., Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, Cal. 

Estate of 
Lester F. A-\Tiet, 
New York. 

[Plate J 12] 195 Seated Man with Guitar, 


Bronze, 30 x I53/4 x I31/2 in. 
Incised on back of base : 

coll. Rita and Taft Schreiber, 
Beverly Hills, Cal. 

[Phtejii] 196 XX'oman -w-ith Draper>-, 1919 

Bronze, 37 in. bigh 

coll. Mr. and ^'Irs. Ted Weiner, 
Fort Worth, Tex. 

[Plate 310] 197 Bather, 1919-20 

Bronze, 28x9x9 in. 
Incised on base: Lipchitz 

coll. Jane Wade Lombard and 
Leigh R. Lombard, New York. 


[Plate 303] 

198 Head, 1915 

(Study for No. 191) 

Pencil on paper, 
11x9 in. (Oval) 
Signed bottom right : Lipchitz 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Bernard 
J. Reis, New York. 

[Plate 3o6[ 199 Figure, 1915 

(Study for Sculpture) 

Gouache and crayon on paper, 


Signed top right : Lipchitz 


[Plate ig6] 

200 Sj-nchromy in Purple, 1917 

Oil on canvas, 36 ■. 2S in. 

Signed on back: 

S MacDoiiald-Wright 

Los Angeles Counrj- Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, Cal., 
Purchase with Count>^ Fimds. 

MALEVICH, Kasimir 

[Plate 163] 

[Plate 164] 

[Plate 166] 

201 Scissors Grinder, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 313/8 x SP/g in. 
Signed bottom left : K M 

Yale Universit^^ Art Gallers-, 
New Haven, Coim., Gift of 
Collection Societe Anon^-me. 

202 Portrait of Matiushin, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 41^/4 x 42-Vs in. 
Signed on back, top left 

coU. George Costakis, Moscow. 

203 Musical Instruments, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 32'/s x 27^1$ in. 
Formerly signed top right; 
illegible after restoration 

Stedehjk Museum, Amsterdam. 

check List 


MARC. Franz 


[PLite 144] 204 Stables, 1913-14 

Oil on canvas, 29Vs ■< 62V4 in. 
Signed bottom right : M 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museum, New York. 



[Phtc 124] 205 Bar du Port, 1913 

Oil on wood panel, 

317/8 x20i/sm. 

Signed and dated bottom right : 

Ahrcotissis 1913 

coll. Madame Marcoussis, Paris. 


[Phie 118] 206 Portrait of Gazanion, 1912 

India ink and pencil 
on paper, 25 ■: I91/4 in. 
Signed top left : i\/ 

coll. Bernard Walker, 
Bloomfield Hills, Mich. 

[Plate 237] 207 Still Life on a Table, 1921 

Gouache on paper, 20 x 12 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left: 
Louis Marcoussis 1921 

coU. Mr. and Mrs. Arthur 
G. Altschul, New York. 


[Plate 122] 208 The Beautiful 

Martiniquaise, 1912 

Drypoint (Unique print of 

second state), I53/4X IP/s in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 
Marcoussis 1912 

coll. Madame Marcoussis, Paris. 

[Plate 11 g] 209 Portrait of Guillaume 
ApoUinaire, 1912 

Drypomt (Furst version), 
191/2x11 in. 
Signed bottom right 

(N. Y. only) Philadelphia Museum of Art, 

Philadelpliia, Pa., Louise and 
Walter Arensberg Collection. 

[Plate 120] 210 Portrait of Guillaume 
A-ollinaire, 1912-20 

Etching and dr>-point (Second 
version) nimibered bottom 
left X/X (30), 193/s X IO1-V16 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right: 
Marcoussis 1912—1920 

The Art Institute of Chicago, 
Chicago, III, Gift of Mr. and 
fvlrs. Morton Neumann in 
memory of Carl O. Schniewind. 

[Plate 123] 211 Head of a Woman, 1912 
(Study for No. 208) 

Drypoint, 111/4x8-^8 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right, 
covered by mat : 
19 L M 12 

The Art Institute of Chicago, 
Chicago, lU. 



[Plate 73[ 212 Cubist Landscape, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 32 x 39 in. 


Check List 

[Plate 72] 213 

{Plate 75] 

[Plate 74] 

Signed bottom right : 
J Metzinger 

Sidney Janis Gallery, New York. 

Portrait of Gleizes, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 251/2 x 2IV4 ni. 
Signed bottom right: 

Museum of Art, Rjiode Island 
School of Design, Providence, 
R. I. 

214 Dancer in a Cafe, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 571/2 x 45 in. 
Signed bottom left: 

Albright-Knox Art Gallery, 
Buffalo, N.Y. 

[Plate 23S[ 215 StiU Life, 1917 

Oil on canvas, 32 x 255/8 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right 

The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, Acquired by 
M. L. Amicnberg Foundation, 
Joseph Hazen Foundation and 
Joseph Hazcn. 

216 Head of Woman in a Hat, 


Charcoal on paper, 
Signed bottom right : 
] Metzinger 

Estate of 
Lester F. Avnet, 
New York. 


[Plate I2g[ 

[Plate 133[ 

[Plate 131] 

[Plate 135[ 

[Plate i3o[ 

217 Horizontal Tree, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 29^/8 x 437/8 in. 
Signed bottom left: Mondrian 

Institute, Utica, N.Y. 

218 Tree, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 37 x 271/2 in. 

Museum of Art, Carnegie 
Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

219 Female Figure, c. 1912 

Oil on canvas, 451/4 x345/s in. 
Signed bottom left : Mondrian 

coll. S. B. Slijper, on loan to 
Haags Gemeentemuseum, The 

220 Color Planes in Oval, 1914 (?) 
Oil on canvas, 423/8 x 31 in. 

Signed at bottom : Mondrian 

The Museum of Modern Art, 
New York, Purchase. 

221 Self-Portrait, f. 1911 

Charcoal and ink on paper, 
25 X 19 in. (probably inked 
much later) 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. James 
H. Clark, Dallas, Texas. 

Check List S 


[Plate 134] 222 Church Facade, 1912 

Charcoal on paper mounted 
on board, 39 ■- 243/4 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 

Estate of 
Lester F. Aviiet, 
New York. 

[Plate 132[ 223 Reclining Nude, c. 1912 

Charcoal on paper moimtcd 
on board, 37 < 63 in. 
Signed bottom left: P M 

Sidney Janis Gallery, New York. 
PICABIA, Francis 

[Plate iii[ 

224 Procession in Seville, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 48 < 48 in. 
Signed bottom right : Picahia 
Inscribed top right : 
La Procession Seville 

coll. Herbert and Namicttc 
Rothschild, New York. 



[Plate 2] 226 Les Demoiselles d' Avignon, 


Oil on canvas, 96 x 92 in. 

(N. Y. only) The Museum of Modern Art, 

Aquired through the LilUe 
P. Bliss Bequest. 

[Plate 4[ 227 Still Life with a Skull, 1907 

Oil on canvas, 451/4 -^ 345/8 in. 
Signed on back 

Hermitage Museum, Leningrad. 

[Plate g[ 228 Nude with Draperies, 1907 

Oil on canvas, 597/8 ~~.' 393/4 in. 
Signed on back 

Hermitage Museum, Leningrad. 

[Plate ii[ 229 Three Women, 1908 

Oil on canvas, 783/4 x 7O1/2 in. 
Signed on back 

Hermitage Museum, Leningrad. 

[Plate 112[ 

225 Star Dancer and Her School 
of Dancing, 1913 

Watercolor on paper, 
217/8x297/8 in. 

Signed and dated bottom right: 
Picahia 1913 

The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, The Alfred 
Stieglitz Collection. 

[Plate 13] 230 Horta de San Juan : 
Factory, 1909 

Oil on canvas, 207/8 ^-i 23-^8 in. 
Signed on back 

Hermitage Museum, Leningrad. 

[Plate 14] 231 Seated Woman, 1909 

Oil on canvas, 36V4 x 291/2 in. 
Private Collection, France. 


Chech List 

[Plate 19] 

[Plate 28[ 

[Plate 32] 

[Plate 27] 

[Plate 35[ 

[Plate 44[ 

[Plate 41 [ 

[Plate 33] 

232 Landscape with a Bridge, 1 909 

Oil on canvas, SP/s x 393/$ in. 
Signed bottom right : Picasso 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

233 Nude, 1910 

Oil on canvas, 38V2 >'~ 30 in. 

Albright-Knox Art Galler\-, 
Buft'alo, N.Y. 

234 Portrait of D. H. Kahn- 
weiler, 1910 

Oil on canvas, 395/8 x 285/8 in. 

The Art Institute of Chicago, 
Cliicago, 111., Gift of 
Mrs. Gilbert W. Chapman 
in memor>' ot Charles 
B. Goodspeed. 

235 Woman, 1910 

Oil on canvas, 391/2 x 321/4 in. 

Signed on back : Picasso [Plate 4>l 

coll. Mrs. Gilbert W. Chapman, 

New York. 

236 Absinthe Glass, Bottle, Pipe 
and Musical Instruments on 
a Piano, 1910-11 

Oil on canvas, 19^/4X511/4 in. 
Signed on back: Picasso 

coil. Heinz Berggruen, Paris. 

[Plate 31 [ 

[Plate 213[ 

237 Man Smoking a Pipe, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 36 x 281/4 in. 


Signed top right : Picasso 

The Kimbell Art Foundation, 
Fort Worth, Tex. 

238 Still Life with Clarinet, 1911 

Oil on canvas, 24 x I93/4 in. 
Signed on back : Picasso 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

239 La Pointe de la Cite (The 
Point of the lie de la Cite, 
Paris), 1911 

Oil on canvas, 351/2 x 28 in. 

Norton Simon, Lie, Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, Cal. 

240 Clarinet Player, 1911 

Oil on canvas, Wis X 271/8 in. 
Formerly signed on back 

Private Collection, France. 

241 Violin, Glass and Pipe on 
Table, 1912 

Od on canvas, 3lVs x 2I1/4 in. 


Signed on back: Picasso 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

242 Seated Woman with Guitar, 

Oil on canvas, 39^1 s x 32 in. 
Signed bottom right : 
Picasso 13 

The Pasadena Art Museum, 
Pasadena, Cal.. Gift of Galka 
E. Schever. 

check List 


[Plate 211] 

[Plate 214[ 

[Plate 21S] 

[Plate 217] 

[Plate 243[ 

[Plate 242[ 

243 Musical Instruments, 1913 

Oil on canvas 39-Vs -; 3P/s in. 


Signed on back 

Hermitage Museum, Leningrad. 

244 Playing Cards, Bottle and 
Glass, 1914 

Oil on canvas, I41/2 x 19-V4 in- 
Signed and dated top right: 
Picasso 1914 

coll. Dr. J. B. Hanson, Monaco. 

[Plate 244[ 

[Plate 246] 

245 Fruit-Dish, Bottle and 
Guitar, 1914 

Oil on canvas, 36^1 4\ 283/4 in. 

Signed bottom right: Picasso l^ ''''^'^ -45j 

Pri%-ate Collection, Rome. 

246 Majolie, 1914 

Oil on canvas, 18i/2'<215/s in. 
Signed on back: Picasso 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Harry 
W. Anderson, Atherton, Cal. 

247 Vive la France, 1914 

on on canvas, 2O1/2 ■< 25 in. 
Signed on back 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Leigh 
B. Block, Cl-ucago, 111. 

248 Still Life with Fruit, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 25 :■: 31 '/i in. 
Signed and dated bottom right: 
Picasso 15 

The Columbus Gallery of Fine 

Arts, Columbus, Ohio, Gift of 
Ferdinand Howald. 

249 Guitar, Bottle and Flute on 
a Table, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 42 ^v 28 in. 
Signed and dated top right: 
Picasso 15 

coll. Wright Ludington, Santa 
Barbara, Cal. 

250 Woman with Guitar, 1915 

OU on canvas, 72^/4 x 291/2 in. 
Signed center right : Picasso 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Norton 
Simon, Los Angeles, Cal. 

251 Harlequin, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 72^/4 x 41-Vs in. 
Signed and dated bottoni right: 
Picasso 1915 

The Museum of Modern Art, 
New York, Acquired tlirough 
the Lillie P. Bliss Bequest. 

252 Harlequin, 1918 

Oil on canvas, 58 < 261/2 in. 
Signed bottom right: Picasso 

coll. Joseph Pulitzer, St. Louis, 

[Plate 2}7[ 253 Bottle, Playing Card and 
Pipe on Table, 1919 

Oil on canvas, 19-^/4 ■, 24 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left: 
Picasso 1919 

Norton Simon, Inc., Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, Cal. 

[Plate 25S[ 


Check List 

[Plate 24S] 254 Girl with a Hoop, 1919 

Oil on canvas, Sli/g x I63/4 in. 
Signed and dated top right : 
Picnssc 1919 

Musee National d'Art 
Modeme, Paris. 

[Plate 1] 255 Still Life on a Table in 

Front of an Open Windo^v, 


O'A on canvas, 641/2 "■' 43 in. 
Signed and dated bottom nglit : 
Picasso 1920 

Norton Simon, Inc., Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, Cal. 

[Plate 262] 256 Three Masked Musicians, 


Oil on canvas, 80 x 74 in. 
Signed bottom left : Picasso, 
dated on back ; inscribed bottom 
center: Fontainebleau 1921 

(L. A. only) Philadelphia Museum of Art, 

Philadelphia, Pa., Gallatin 

Papers colies 

[Plate 204[ 257 Bottle and Glass, 1912 

Papier colle, charcoal and oil 
on paper on canvas, 
243/8 xl87/sui. 
Signed on back: Picasso 

(N. Y. only) Kunstsammlung Nordrhein- 

Westfalen. Diisseldorf. 

paper, 245/8x185/8 in. 
Signed on back 

The Metropolitan Musetmi of 
Art, New York, The Alfred 
Stieghtz Collection. 

[Plate 212] 259 Glass and Bottle of Bass, 


Papier coUe, pencil, \vash and 
wood shavings on paper, 
227/16X 173/4 in. 

(N. Y. only) Private Collection, New York. 

[Plate 203] 260 Guitar and Glass, 1913 

Papier coUe on paper, 

187/8x143/8 in. 

Signed on back: Picasso 

Marion Koogler McNay Art 
Institute, San Antonio, Tex. 

[Plate 202[ 261 Still Life with Newspaper, 


Papier coUe and pencil on 
paper, 255/s x 19-V4 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 
Picasso 911914 

coll. Dr. Jean Dalsace, Paris. 

[Plate 207[ 262 Glass, Pipe and Lemon, 1914 

Papier coUe on paper, 
193/4 X 251/2 in. 
Signed and dated top right: 
Picasso 1914 

S^viss Private Collection. 

[Plate 20i[ 258 Bottle and Glass on Table, 


Charcoal, ink and collage on 

[Plate 10] 

263 Nude with Drapery, 1907 
Watercolor and pencil on 

check List 


paper on canvas, 12 ;< 91/4 in. 
Signed bottom left : Picasso 

Mrs. Robert E. Simon, Los 
Angeles, Cal. 

[Plate 12] 264 Standing Figure, 1907-08 

(Study for Tlinv Women) 

Watcrcolor on paper, 


Signed bottom right : Picasso 

The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, Gift of Miss 
Leah Barnett in memory of 
Dr. Avrom Barnett. 

[Plate 21] 265 Woman's Head, 1909 
Ink and wash on paper, 
25 X 193/8 in. 
Signed and dated on back 

The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, The Alfred 
Stieglitz Collection. 

[Plate 22] 266 Woman's Head, 1909 

Ink and wash on paper, 

243/4 xl87/s in. 

Signed and dated on back 

The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, The Alfred 
Stieglitz Collection. 

267 Female Nude, 1910-11 

Charcoal on paper, 
Signed on back 

The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, The Alfred 
Stieglitz Collection. 

[Plate 4o[ 

[Plate 39] 


268 Standing Woman, 1911 

Ink on paper, I21/2 -< 71/2 in. 
Signed bottom right and on 
back : Picasso 

coll. Mrs. Bertram Smith, 
New York. 

269 Man's Head, 1911-12 

Charcoal on paper, 
241/2x19 in. 
Signed on back 

The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, The Alfred 
Stieglitz Collection. 


Check List 

[Plate 260] 

[Plate 2>g] 

[Plate 57] 270 Seated Man, 1912 

Ink on paper, 12i/s x 7^/4 in. 

The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, The Alfired 
Stieglitz Collection. 

[Plate 24j] 271 Woman with Guitar, 1914 

Pencil on paper, 25 x I83/4 in. 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museum, New York. 

[Plate 25o[ 272 StillLife with Guitar, 1915 

Pencil and watercolor on 
paper, 5-V4 ^: -P/4 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 
Picasso 15 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Norton 
Simon, Los Angeles, Cal. 

[Plate 24g] 273 Still Life wth Clarinet and 
Guitar, 1915 

Pencil and watercolor on 

paper, 71/2 ■; 6 in. 

Signed bottom right : Picasso 

coU. Mr. and Mrs. Norton 
Simon, Los Angeles, Cal. 

[Plate 231] 274 Man Seated at Table, 1916 
Gouache on paper, 
IO-V4 :■ S^U in. 

Signed and dated top right : 
Picasso 1916 

coll. Heinz Berssruen. Paris. 

[Plate 236] 275 Man with Pipe Seated in 
Armchair, 1916 

Gouache, watercolor and pencil ' '^"^ '"' 
on paper on canvas. 

[Plate 261 [ 



Signed bottom right ; Piaisso 

coll. Bdta and Taft Schreiber, 
Beverly Hills, Cal. 

276 Open \^'indow at 
St-Raphael, 1919 

Gouache on paper, 

133/4x93/4 in. 

Signed and dated bottom left: 

Picasso 19 

Private Collection, New York. 

277 Pierrot and Harlequin, 1920 

Gouache on paper, 

101/2X81/4 in. 

Signed bottom left : Picasso 

Private Collection, New York. 

278 Guitar and Music Score on 
a Table, 1920 

Gouache on paper, IO1/2 x 8 in. 
Signed bottom left: 
Picasso, 20 

Private Collection, New York. 

279 Two Nude Figxures, 1909 

Dr>'point; edition of 100 
printed in 1909, 


Signed bottom right : Picasso 

The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York, Purchase. 

280 The Fruit Dish, 1909 
Dr^'point; edition of 100 

[PLtc 37] 


printed in 1909, 


Signed and numbered bottom 

right: Picasso SljWO 

Los Angeles Coimt>' Museum 
ot Art, Los Angeles, Cal., 
Purchase with Junior Art 
Council Funds. 

281 Bottle of Marc, 1911-12 

Drypoint; edition of 100 

printed in 1912, 


Signed bottom right : Picasso 

The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York, The Lillie 
P. Bliss Bequest. 



[Plate 32] 

[Plate 252] 

282 Man's Head, 1912 

Etching; edition of 100 printed 

in 1912, 

51/8x45/16 in. 

Signed bottom right: Picasso 

The Museimi of Modem Art, 
New York, Giftof Abby 
Aldrich Rockefeller. 

283 Man with a Dog, 1914 

Etching; edition of 50 printed 

in 1930, 

Wis X 85/s in. 

The Museum of Modem Art, 

New York, Larry Aldrich Fund. 

284 Man with a Hat, 1914-15 

Etcliing; printed in 1947 as an 

illustration to a new edition of 

A. Gleizes and J. Metzinger 

Dii Ciibisme (Paris 1947) 


coll. Edward Albee, New York. 


Check List 

[Plate 2ijf7 285 Man with a Gmtar, 1915 

Eng^a^^ng; edition ot 100 

printed in 1929, 


Signed bottom right : Piaisso 

A. (N. Y. only) The Museum of Modem Art, 

New York, Gift of Mr. and 
Mrs. Walter Bareiss. 

B. (L. A. only) Los Angeles Counts- Museum 

of Art, Los Angeles, Cal., 
Purchased with Graphic Arts 
Council Funds in memory' of 
Sigbert Marcy. 

Illustrated Books 

[Plates 48, 49] 286 Max JACOB : Saint Matorel 

Illustrated ■\\-ith 4 etchings by 
Picasso executed at Cadaques 
in the summer ot 1910 
Published by D. H. Kahnweiler, 
Paris, in February 1911 in an 
edition of 106 copies signed by 
author and artist 
Plates I and FV, T-'Ax S'/ie in. 
on full page IO1/2 X S'/g in. 
Plates n and EI, 73/4 x 51/2 in. 

The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York, Purchase. 

[Plates 234, 287 Max JACOB : Le Siege de 
253J Jerusalem 

Illustrated with 3 dr^'points by 
Picasso executed in 1913 
PubHshed by D. H. Kahnweiler, 
Paris, in January- 1914 in an 
edition of 106 copies signed by 
author and artist 

(Not illustrated) 

(Plates I and HI 
not Ulustrated) 

Plate I, 63/i6x49/i6in. 
Plate II, 61/3x41/2 in. 
Plate in,65/i6x4-Vi6 in. 
The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York. Gift of Frank 

[Plate 281] 

288 Woman's Head, 1909-10 

Bronze, I61/4 • 93/4 x IO1/2 in. 
Incised on left side of neck: 
" Picasso 

A. (N. Y. only) Fort Worth Art Center 

Museum, Fort Worth, Tex., 
Gift of Mr. and Mrs. J. Lee 
Johnson HI. 

B. (L. A. only) Same sculpture but numbered 

on neck 3/9 (re-cast of 1959), 
Norton Simon, Inc., 
Museum of Art, Los Angeles, 

[Plate 2S3[ 289 Absinthe Glass, 1914 

Painted bronze with silver 


One ot 6 identical but 

difierendy painted casts, 

81/2 X 61/2 in. 

Signed near base with letter 

'P raised in bronze 

The Musernn of Modem Art, 
New York, Gift of 
Mrs. Bertram Smith. 

[Plate 282[ 290 Same sculpture differently 

Philadelphia Museum of Art, 
Philadelphia, Pa., Gallatin 

check List 


POPOVA. Luibov 

[Phte 16S] 

[Plate 167] 

The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, The Alfred 
Stieglitz Collection. 


291 Two Figtires, 1913 
Oil on canvas, 63 >: 48''/8 in. 

coll. George Costakis, Moscow. Paintings 

[Plate 193] 

292 The Traveller, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 56 >, 4I1/2 in. 

Norton Simon, Inc., Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, Cal. 



[Plate 154[ 

293 Girl with a Peach, 1911 

Oil on canvas. 13-^/4 \ IP/s in. 
Signed bottom right : 
Ant. Prochdska 

Narodni Galerie, Prague. 

RIVERA, Diego 

[Plate iis[ 

[Plate 240] 

294 Portrait of Jacques Lipchitz, 


Oil on canvas, 25=/8 x 21^/8 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right: 
D M Rivera 14 

The Museum of Modern Art, 
New York, Gift of T. Catesby 

295 The Cafe Terrace, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 23''/s x 191/2 in. 
Signed bottom left : D M R 

296 Armored Train in Action, 


Oil on canvas, 46 "% 341/2 in. 
Signed bottom right: 
G Sever iiii 

coU. Richard S. Zeisler, 
New York. 

[Plate igi[ 297 Seated Woman, 1916 

Oil on canvas, 393/8 x 3l7/s in. 


Signed bottom center: 

G. Severini 

(N. Y. only) coll. of Mr. and Mrs. Eugene 

J. Keogh, New York. 

[Plate ig2[ 298 StUl Life with Pumpkin, 


Oil and collage on wood, 
361/4x255/3 in. 
Signed bottom right: 
Severini: dated on back 

coO. Dott. Emilio Jesi, Milan. 

Papier colle 

[Plate 17 3[ 299 StUl Life with 'Lacerba,' 


Papier coUe, gouache, uik and 
charcoal, 195/s x 235/s in. 
Signed and dated bottom 
center: G. Severini, 1913 


Check List 

[Plate 174] 

[Plate 178[ 

[Plate 183] 

[Plate 187] 

[Plate 188] 

Musee d'Art et d'Industrie, 
St. Etienne, France. 

300 Self-Portrait in Straw Hat, 


Charcoal on paper, 

The Art Institute of Chicago, 
Chicago, 111., Gift of Margaret 
Bay Blake. 

301 Dancer, 1912-13 

Crayon on paper, 26 x IS^s in- 
Signed bottom right : 
G. Sevcrini 

The Museum of Modem Art, 
New York, Anonymous gift. 

302 The Train in the City, 1914 

Charcoal on paper, 
195/8x251/2 in. 
Signed bottom right : 
G. Severini 

The Metropohtan Museum of 
Art, New York, The Alfred 
Stieghtz Collection. 

303 Bottle, Vase and Newspaper 
on Table, 1914 

Charcoal and collage on paper, 
221/8 xl85/s in. 

The Metropohtan Museiun ot 
Art, New York, The Alfred 
Stieghtz Collection. 

304 Seated Woman, 1914 
Watercolor on paper, 

16x131/2 in. 
Signed bottom right: 
G. Severini 

coU. Mr. and Mrs. Sidney 
E. Cohn, New York. 

SIRONI, Mario 


[Plate 183] 

305 Self Portrait, 1913 

Oil on canvas, 2O1/4X I91/4 in. 
Signed and dated bottom left: 
5i>o/Ji J913 

Galleria Civica d'Arte 
Modema, Milan. 

SOFFICI, Ardengo 

[Plate i86[ 

[Plate 171] 

306 Lines and Volumes of a 
Figure, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 13^V4X II3/4 in. 

Galleria Ci\'ica d'Arte 
Modema, Milan. 

307 Decomposition of the 
Planes of a Lamp, 1912 

Oil on board, 13^/4 x II3/4 in. 

coU. Eric Estorick, London. 

UDALTSOVA, Nadezhda 


[Plate i6g[ 

308 At the Piano, 1914 

Oil on canvas, 42 ■, 35 in. 

Yale University- Art Gallery, 
New Haven, Conn., Gift of 
Collection Societe Anonyme. 

Check List 


[Plate 170] 309 Violin, 1914 

Oil on canvas, 20"/s ^ \6^^li6 in. 
Signed on back (by artist's son 
A. Drevin) 

coU. George Costakis, Moscow. 
VILLON, Jacques 

[Plate ioo[ 

[Plate gS] 

[Plate 104] 

[Plate 106] 

310 Little Girl at Piano, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 51 x 38 in. (Oval) [Plate 10 1[ 
Signed on left : J. Villon 
Dated on back 

coll. Mrs. George Acheson, 
New York. 

The Art Institute of Chicago, 
Chicago, 111., Gift of Frank 
B. Hubachek. 

[Plate 105[ 314 Tightrope Walker, 1913 

Drypoint; edition of 28, 
153/4X117/3 in. 
Signed bottom right 

The Art Institute of Chicago, 
Chicago, 111. 

311 The Dinner-Table, 1912 

Oil on canvas, 25^/4 :■; 32 in. 
Signed and dated top right : 
J. Villoti 1912 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Francis 
SteegmuUcr. New York. 

312 Portrait of Mile Y. D., 1913 

Oil on canvas, 50^/4 :■: 35 in. 
Signed bottom right: 
Jacques Villon 

Los Angeles Counr>' Museuni 
of Art, Los Angeles, CaL, Gitt 
of Anna Bing Arnold. 

313 Portrait of an Actor 
(Felix Barre), 1913 

Drypoint; edition ot 32, 
153/4 ~' 123/3 in. 
Signed bottom riglit 

315 Mile Y. D., Full Face, 1913 

Drypoint; edition of 28, 
215/8x163/8 in. 
Signed and numbered bottom 
left: 17 J Villon 

coll. Mr. and Mrs. Louis 
Kaufman, Los Angeles, CaL 

[Plate gg[ 316 The Dinner-Table, 1913 
Drypoint; edition of 30, 
Signed bottom right: 
Jacques ]'illon 

The Museum of Modern Art, 
• : New York, Purchase. 

[Plate 102] 317 Portrait of a Young 
Woman, 1913 

Df ypoint ; edition of 25, 

211/2 XI61/4 in. 

Signed in plate bottom right 

Los Angeles County Museum 
of Art, Los Angeles, CaL, 
Purchase with County Funds. 

[Plate 103] 318 Yvonne in Profile, 1913 

Drypoint; edition ot 23, 


Chech List 



[Plate ig3] 


Signed in plate bottom right 

Los Angeles Counts' Museum 
ot Art, Los Angeles, Cal., 
Purchase with Counrv Funds. 

[Plate igj] 

319 Athletic Contest, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 40 X 60 in. 
Signed bottom right : 
Max Weber 1915 

The Metropohtan Museum of 
Art, New York, George 
A. Heam Fund. 

[Plate 2g6[ 

320 Rush Hour, New York, 1915 

Oil on canvas, 36 x 30 in. 
Signed and dated bottom right : 
Max IVeher 1915 

The National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, D.C., Gift of the 
Avalon Foundation 1970. 

321 Spiral Rhythm, 1915 

Bronze, Cast No. 3/3, 
241/4 in. high 
Signed on base 

colJ. Hale R. Allen, New York. 



Roman numerals refer to pages, italic 
numerals to Plates and those in bold 
face to the Check List. 

AUard, Roger, 97 

Amsterdam, 14, 102 

Apollinaire, Guillaimie, 17, 27, 34, 60, 

65, 66, 68, 70, 75, 94, 97, 98, 99, 

103-12, 125, 127, 128, 131, 132, 137, 

166, 209 
Archipenko, Alexander, 97, 102, 105, 

112, 239, 242-3, 244, 254 

Figure in Movement, 2gi, 3 

Head: Comtrnction with Crossing Planes, 
243 ; 293, I 

Walking Figure, 242 

Woman \fitli a Fan, 243 ; 2g2, 2 
Armor>' Show, New York, 175-6 
Artistes de Passy, Les, 104 
Art nouveau, 156 
Avant-Garde Czech artists. See Group 

of Avant-Garde Artists 

Balla, G., 164; Speed of an Automobile + 

Lights, 1/2, 4 
Barcelona, 14, 102 
Benes, Vincenc, 151, 153; Tram Statioti, 

14S, 5 
Berlin, 14, 105-6, 142 
Blaue Reiter group, Munich, 14, loi, 

III, 144, 146, 151, 156, 157 
Blue Rose group of yotmg Russian 

artists, 156, 15S 
Boccioni, Umberto, no, 164-5, 167-8, 

170, 172, 232, 244-6 

Abstract Voids and Solids of a Head, 244 

Bottle, Table and House, 232, 245; 2g}, 

Development of a Bottle in Spi,ce, 244; 

294, 9 

Elasticity, 169; iSo, 6 

Figure Study, 175, 13 

Spiral Composition, 1 Sg, 7 

Study for ^ Horizontal Volumes,' 176, 12 

Ungraceful, Tlte, 169 
Bomberg, David, 181, 182 
Braque, Georges: principal references, 

27-30, 37-42, 44-6, 48-54, 56-60, 62, 

64-5, 183, 185-6, 188-94, 219, 221, 
255; other references, II— 6, 18, 20, 
25, 32, 67-70, 72, 75-6, 78-80, 83, 86, 
88-9, 92-3, 98-102, 105, loS-io, 112, 
114-5, 120-1, 124, 131-2, 137, 142, 
146, 151-3, 155-7, 169-70, 175. 177, 

iSl, I97-S, 200-2, 204, 209, 230-1, 
234, 243-4, 250, 265 

Bass, 55, 46 

Cubist Still Life n, 36, 47 

Female Figure, 48; jo, 22 

Fishing Boats, 3 8-40 ; iS, 17 

Fox, 52-3 ; 3S, 45 

Class and Playing Card, 185; igg, 36 

Glass, Carafe and Newspaper, 206, 38 

Gueridon, Tlie, 51), 27 

Guitar (1910-1), 26, 25 

Guitar (1912), 46, 29 

Guitar (191S), 219; 264, 34 

Guitar on a Table, 54, 42 

Guitar-Player, The (1913-14), 193, 

194; 215, 31 
Guitar-Player, The (1917-1S), 219 
Harbor in Xormandy, 38-40; 17, 16 
Homage to Bach, 57-58; 47, 26 
Job, S3, 43 

Man with a Pipe, 185; igS, 37 
Nude, 27-9, 67, 156; J, 14 
Piano and Mandola, 44; 23, 18 
Portuguese, Tlie, 54, 64; 43 
Program, Tlie, 186; 201, 40 
Rio Tinto Factories, 16, 20 
Rooftops at Ceret, 36 
Standing Figure, 255; 314, 48 
Still Life on a Table, 186; 200, 39 
Still Life with Ace of Clubs, 216, 33 
Still Life with a Pipe, 57; 51, 28 
Still Life with Clarinet and Violin, zog, 


Still Life ifith Dice and Pipe, 52; 34, 24 
Still Life with A{usical Instruments, 219; 

263, 35 
Table, Tlie, 48 ; 2g, 21 
TItree Figures, 6 

Trees at L'Estaque, 29-30; 7, 15 
Violin (Valse), 191; 210, 32 
Violin and Candlestick, 53-4; 42, 23 
Violin and Palette, 44, 45 ; 24, 19 
Breton, Jean-Louis, 106-7 
Bruce, Patrick, loi, 104, HI, 178 

Briicke group, 142, 151, 157 

Brussels, 14 

Budapest, 14 

Burgess, Gelett, 27-8, 32 

Cadaques, 67 

Campendonck, Heinrich, 144, 14S; 

Harlequin and Columbine, 14S; 1.^5, 49 
Capek, Josef, 151, 153; Cubist Figure, 

156, 50 
Carta, Carlo, 164, 167, 169, 170 

Bottle of Wine, igo, 53 

Boxer, i Si, 55 

Portrait of Marinetti, 169 

Portrait of Soffici, 1S2, 56 

Standing Figure (Idol), 1S4, 57 

Wotnanat Window (Simtiltaneity), 177, 

Woman with Glass of Absinthe, 169; 

'-g, 51 

Cendrars, Blaise, 98-9 

Ceret, 52, 56, 64 

Cezanne, Paul, 18-22, 24, 26, 2S-9, 
34-5, 38, 40, 68, 72, 78-9, 85-6, 115, 
127-9, 134. 137. 143, 156-7,176,196 
Apres-Midi a Naples, Un, 21 
Tentation de St. Antoine, La, 21 
Woman in Blue, 86 

Chabaud, HO 

Chagall, Marc, 98, 104, iii, 129-31 
Adam and Eve, 130-1; 117, 59 
Cubist Landscape, 131 
Cubist Still Life, 129; 116, 5S 

Circle of Modem Artists, Amsterdam, 

Cocteau, Jean, 12S 

Collage, 58 

Collioure, 207 

Cologne, 14, 142 

Courbet, Gustave, 17-9 

Cubo-Futurism, 102 

Czaky, Joseph, 236-8 
Head, 237 
Standing Woman, 237; 2S4, 60 

Dada, 15, 16, 102, 126, 265 
Davies, Arthur B., 175 



Delaunay, Robert; principal references, 

68-70, 78-80, 82-5, 105-6; other 

references, 15, 72, 88, 94, 96, 98-104, 

108, no, 115, 129, 132, 142-4, 146-7, 

149, 155, 165, 169. 172, 175-8, 180-1 

City of Paris, Vie, 83, S2 

City Seen From an Open Window, Tlie, 
83; 62 

Eiffel Tower (1910 or 1911), 79-80; 
77, 66 

Eiffel Tower (1910?), 79, 61 

Eiffel Tower (1926), 78, 67 

Tower with Ferris Wheel (Study for 
'Tlte Red Tower'), 76, 65 

Towers of Laon, The, 82-3; So, 63 

Window on the City U, 84; Si, 64 
Derain, Andre, 20, 26, 60, 65-8, no, 

146, 151 

Bathers, 22, 67; 55 

Cadaques, 68 ; 59, 70 

Still Life on a Table, 68; 60, 69 
DiaghUew, Serge, 15, 156 
Divisionism, 165, 166 
Duchamp, Marcel: principal references, 

I12-4, 120-5; other references, 15, 

96-7, 100, 102, 104, iio-i, 118, 150, 

165, 167, 175, 241 

Coffee-Grinder, The, 122-3 

Nude Descending a Staircase No. 1, 
123; log, 73 

Nude Descetiding a Staircase No. 2, 
114, 118, 123-4; tio, 74 

Portrait, 121; 107, 71 

Portrait of Chess-Players, 114, 12 1-2; 
loS, 72 

Sad Young Man in a Train, 123 
Duchamp-Villon, Raymond, 97, lOO-i, 

104, n2-3, 115, 134. 155. 175, 236, 
239-41, 244 

Large Horse, 241; 2go, 78 
Lovers, The, 239-40; 287, 75 
Seated Girl, 231, 240, 246; 2S8, 76 
S»i<i/( Horse, 241; 2Sg, 77 

Dufy, Raoul, no 
Factory, 23, 80 
Green Trees at L'Estaque, 37-8; 8, 79 

Dumont 105, no 

Dunoyer de Segonzac, Andre, 70, 97, 

105, 127 
DUsseldorf, 14, 14a 

Eight, The, 150 
Expressionism, 106, 152, 175 

Falk, loi, 156 

Fauve, 18, 25-30, 66, 6g, 72, 108, 121, 

128, 137, 142, 156, 158, 175 
Feininger, Lyonel, 143-4, 178 

Avenue of Trees, 141, 84 

Bicycle Race, 144; 137, 81 

Bridge I, The, 143 ; 159, 82 

Gate, The, 136, 87 

Gelmeroda IV, 144; 13S, 83 

Harbor, Tlte, 143 

Markwippach, 144; 142, 85 

Vollersroda, 140, 86 
Ferat, Serge, in, 128, 209; Still Life 

with Violin, 235, 88 
Filla, Etnil, 150-3, 155, 238 

Bathers, 152-3; 153 

Female Figure, 150, 93 

Figure, 157, 92 

Man's Head, 238, 248; 286, 94 

Man's Head with Hat, ) 55, 90 

Salome, 141), 89 

Still Life with Pears, 158,91 
Fort, Paul, 98, 108 
Friesz, lOi, 151, 155 
Frost, Arthur, in 
Fry, Edward, 27 
Fry, Roger, 180 
Futurism, Futurists, 15, 96, 99-101, 106, 

in, 115, 122, 144, 147, 151, 153, 

164-75, 177. 181-2 

Gaudier-Brzeska, Henri, 181 

Gauguin, Paul, 18-20, 25, 70, 128-9, 
134, 142, 156-8, 160 

Giacometti, 262 

Girieud, 105 

Gleizes, Albert, 68-75, 98, 100-2, 104-5, 
108-9, in-2, 115, 130, 137, 155, 157, 
167, 175, 200, 239, 265 
Broadway, 75; 259, 100 
Dancer, 75; 68, loi 
Football Players, Tlie, 63, 98 
Harvest Threshing, 72, 74, 114; 65, 96 
Landscape at Toul, 75 ; 64, 97 

Man on a Balcony, 66 

Portrait of Igor Stravinsky, 75 ; 67, 99 

Studies for 'Portrait of an Army Doctor,' 

69-71, 102-4 
Woman with Phlox, 72 
Women in a Kitchen, 72, 114, 118; 

«^, 95 

Gleizes, Albert, and Metzinger, Jean, 
Du Cubisme, 17-9, 72, 78, 103 

Gocar, Josef, 155 

Gogh, Vincent van, 18, 25-6, 137, 142, 

Golden Fleece, The, 1 56 

Golden Fleece exhibition, Moscow, loi 
Gontcharova, Nathalie, 14, 15, 146, 
156, 158, 159-60 
Cats, 163, 105 
Cyclist, The, 160 

Looking Glass, The, 160; 162, 106 
Machine's Engine, The, 160 

Goodrich, Lloyd, 177 
^ris, Jiun: principal references, 196-S, 
200-2, 204-5, 221-4, 226, 228-30, 
253-4; other references, 12-6, 60, 75, 
77, 97-8, 100-2, 105, 109, in-2, 128, 
132, 138, 151, 155, 157, 189, 207, 209, 
231, 239, 249-50, 252, 255-6, 265 
Artist's Mother, The, 198, 244; 221, 

Bottle of Wine and Water far, 196; 

220, 107 
Breakfast, 224; 268, I18 
Bullfighter, The, 231 
Coffee-Grinder and Glass, 266, 117 
Figure Seated in a Cafe, 204; 230, 115 
Flowers in a Vase, 197; 222, 133 
Fruit-Dish and Carafe, 204; 233, 129 
Fruit-Dish on a Table,- 273, 120 
Grapes, 224; 271, 121 
Guitar and Flowers, 198; 223, no 
Guitar, Glasses and Bottle, 189; 208, 128 
Guitar on a Chair, 204; 229, II4 
Harlequin, 254; 313, 138 
Harlequin with Gititar, 228; 280, 126 
Landscape at Ciret, 202; 227, II3 
Madame Cezanne, 226; 277, 127 
Man in a Cafi, 114 
Open Window, 270, 124 
Playing Cards and Glass of Beer, 202; 
226, 112 



Place Rauigtiaii, 21 g, 132 
Portrait ofjosette, 226; 27 S, 122 
Portrait of Picasso, 19S, 201; 223, 108 
Siphon and Glass, 272, 135 
Siphon, Checker-board and Glass, 276, 

Still Life (oil), 226; 274, 123 
Still Life (pencil), 273, 136 
5(i7/ Life in Front of an Open Window: 

Place Ravignan, 223; 267, II6 
Still Life with a Bunch of Grapes, 232, 

Still Life u'ith a Guitar, 228, 134 
Still Life with Bottle and Watch, 114, 

200, 202; 224, III 
Still Life with Grapes, 263, 131 
Still Life with Guitar, 228; 279, 125 
Still Life with Poem, 224; 26g, 119 
Touraine Peasant, The, 254 
Washstand, The, 202 
Group of A vant-Garde Artists (Skupina 
vytvamych umelcu), lOI 151-2, 155 
Gutfreund, Otto, 150-I, 153, 155, 232, 
238, 246, 247-9 
Cubist Bust, 248; 301, 140 
Man's Head, 247; 299, 145 
Reclining Woman with Glass, 247; 

30^> 139 
Standing Nude, 247; 297, 142 
Study for Sculpture, 247; 2g8, 143 
Woman's Head, 249; 500, 141 

Habasque, Guy, 79 

Hamilton, G. H., 112, 243 

Hayden, Henri, iii, 209, 218; Still Life 

with a Bottle of Milk, 236, 146 
Herbin, Auguste, 100, iio-i, 128; The 

Village, 114 147 
Hofman, Vlatislav, 155; Design for a 

Suite of Furniture, 155; I3g 
Horta de San Juan, Spain, 30, 36 
Hourcade, Olivier, 97, 105 

Impressionism, Impressionists, 17-8, 25, 

127, 156 
Independants, Societe des, 13, 70, 75, 

97, 100, 124, 137, 143, 151, 166, 265 

Jacob, Max, 60, 98 

'Jack of Diamonds' Society, Moscow, 

loi, 156-7, 158 
Janak, Pavel, 155 
Jarry, Alfred, 34 

Jastrebzoff-Ferat, Serge. See Ferat 
Jeanneret, Charles-Edouard (Le Corbu- 

sier), 230 

Kandinsky, Wassily, 146, 156, 175-6 

Kiev, 156 

Kirchner, 176 

Klee, Paul, loi, 144, 147, 148-9 

Homage to Picasso, 149; 147, 148 

Red and White Domes, 149; 146, 149 
Kramaf, Dr. Vincenc, 151 
Kubista, Bohumil, 150, 152, 153 

Landscape, 132, 151 

Portrait, 131, 150 
Kuhn, Walt, 175 
Kupka, Frank, 15, 100, 105, ill, 114-5, 


Laforgue, Jules, 120 

La Fresnaye, Roger de, 70, 97, 100-2, 

104, III, 134-6, 146, 155, 175, 236 

Bathers, 135; 126, 152 

Conquest of the Air, 136 

Italian Girl (oU), 134; 123 

Italian Girl (bronze), 134, 236; 2S3, 

Marie Ressort, 135; 127, 153 

Tliree Figures, 136; 12S, 154 
Larionov, Michel, 14, 15, loi, iii, 146, 

156, 158-9 

Glasses, 159; 160, 156 

Woman Walking on the Boulevard, 159; 
t^i, 157 
La Roche Guyon, 40-1 
Laurencin, Marie, 97, 100, 104, 109 
Laurens, Henri, 15, 207, 228, 238, 243, 

249, 253-6, 258, 261-2, 265 

Anselme, 327, 168 

Bottle and Glass, 261 ; 326, 162 

Girl tfith a Fan, 32g, 171 

Guitar (papier coUe), 317, 166 

Guitar (terracotta), 261; 323, 163 

Head, ji6, 164 

Head of a Boxer, 313, 167 
Man U'ith a Pipe, 258; 323, 160 
Man's Head, 25S; 324, 159 
Musical Instruments, 258; 321, 161 
Paul DERMEE: Spirales,3ig, 320, 172 
Woman with a Guitar, 25S; 322, 158 
Woman with a Mantilla, 31 S, 165 
Young Woman, 32S, 169 

Le Beau, 105 

Le Fauconnier, Hemi, 6S-72, 101-2, 
108, iio-i, 137, 147, 156-7, 163, 167; 
Abundance, 70-1, 77; 61, 174 

Leger, Femand: principal references 
85-6, 88-94, 96; other references, 98, 
101-2, 105, 108, 110-2, 114, 126, 135, 
137. 157, 162, 167, 172, 175, 209, 
239-41, 265 
Bridge, Tlie, 85 
Contrast of Forms, 93 ; g2, 180 
Drawing for 'Contrast of Forms No. 2,' 

93 ; g3, 186 
House Among Trees, 92; 91, 185 
Houses Atnong Trees, 92, 94; 97, 182 
Nudes in a Landscape, 86, 88, 90; S6, 

Smokers, 90; 87, 178 
Stairway, The, 91-2; Sg, 181 
Still Life on a Table, 92, 94; g4, 184 
Study for 'Woman in Blue,' 88, 179 
Table and Fruit, 86; 83. 176 
Three Figures 90 
Two Figures, 94; g3, 183 
Two Reclining Women, 92; go, 187 
Woman in Blue, 90 
Woman Sewing (Portrait of the Artist's 

Mother), 85; 84, 175 
Woman and Still Life, g6, 188 

Lehmbruck, 176 

Lentulov, loi, 156 

L'Estaque, 29-30, 37 

Lewis, Wyndham, 181, 182 

Lhote, Andre, 70, 97, loi, 105, iii, 
127-8, 155, 157; Portrait of Marguerite, 
128; 113, 189 

Lipchitz, Jacques, 15, 207, 228, 238, 243, 
249-50, 252-4, 265 
Bather, 252; 310, 197 
Bather III, 252; jop, 194 
Figure, 306, 199 
Half-Standing Figure, 250; 308, 192 



Head (Study for bronze 'Head'), joj, 

Head, 250; 304, 191 
Sailor with a Guitar, 250; 505, 190 
Seated Man with Guitar, 312, 195 
Standing Figure, 30J, 193 
Woman with Drapery, 252; 311, 196 
London, 181 

MacDonald-Wright, Stanton, ill, 17S; 

Synchromy in Purple, ig6, 200 
Macke, Auguste, loi, 144, 147, 148-9 
Malevich, Kasimir, 14, 15, 146, 15S, 

160, 162, 164 

Musical Instruments, 162; 166, 203 

Portrait of Matiushin, 162; 164, 202 

Scissors Grinder, 162; 163, 201 

Woodcutter, Tlie, 160 
Manes Union of Artists, loi, 150-1, 155 
Marc, Franz, lOI, 142, 144, 146-7, 148 

Stables, 147; i^^, 204 

Tiger, The, 147; 143 
Marchand, Jean, 70, 105, no, in, 127 
Marcoussis, Louis, 100, lOi, 105, 109,111, 

131-4, 155, 200, 209 

Beautiful Martiniquaise, The, 122, 208 

Bar du Port, 133; 124, 205 

Checker-Board, Tlie, 132 

Habitue, TIte, 133-4, 209; 241 

Head of a Womati, 123, 211 

Man Playing a 'Cello, 121 

Portrait ofGazanion, 132; 118, 206 

Portrait of Guillautne Apollinaire 
(1912), 132; iig, 209 

Portrait of Guillaume Apollinaire 
(1912-20), 120, 210 

Still Life on a Table, 23-, 207 
Mare, Andre, 97 
Marin, John, 176-7; The Woolworth 

Building No. 31, 177; ig4 
Marinetti, F. T., 164, 167, 172, iSl 
Matisse, Henri, 20, 24-7, 37, 66, 104, 

no, 156-7, 160, 176, 206-7, 224 

Blue Nude, Tlie, 22, 28, 67; 3 

Goldfish, 206 

Pink and Blue Head, 206, 207; 234 
Mayakovsky, V. V., 15S 
Mercereau, Alexandre, 98, loi, 108, 155 
Metzinger, Jean, 6S-70, 72, 75-8, 98, 

I0I-2, 104, 10S-9, 1 1 1-2, 128, 130-1, 
137-8, 142, 155, 157, 163, 166-7, 200, 

Cubist Lofidscape, 77 ; 75, 212 
Dancer in a Cafe, 78 ; 73, 214 
Head of IVoman in a Hal, 74, 216 
Portrait of Gleizes, 77, 114; 72, 213 
Still Life, 23S, 215 
Yellow Feather, Tlie, 114 

Milan, 14, 156, 165 

Mondrian, Piet, 14, 15, 100-2, 137-S, 
140-2, 155, 176 
Church Facade, 140; 134, 222 
Colour Planes in an Oral, 140; 133, 220 
Female Figure, 138; 131, 219 
Horizontal Tree, 137-8; I2g, 127 
Reclining Nude, 132, 223 
Self-Portrait, 138; 130, 221 
Still Life with a Ginger-Pot, 138 
Tree, 138, 140; 133, 218 

Moreau, Luc-Albert, 97, 105, 127 

Morosov, Ivan, 157 

Moscow, 14, loi, 156 

Munch, Edvard, 142, 150, 175 

Munich, 14, 142, 156. See also Blaue 
Reiter group 

Nabis, The, 18, 70, 121, 156-S, 160, 175 
Nayral, Jacques, 98, 105, 108 
Neo-Impressionism, 25, 69-70, 137, 156 
Neue Kunstler\'ereiiijgimg, 14, 146 
New York, 14, 102, 175, 17S, 180 

Odessa, 156 

Orphism, 14, 102, 106, in, 149, 151, 

Ozenfant, Amedee, 230 

Pach, 'W^alter, 175 

Papiers colles, 1S5-6, 18S-91 

Pellizza, Giuseppe, 165 

Picabia, Francis, 15, 97, 102, 104-5, 
IIO-i, 125-6, 175, 241 
Dances at the Spring, 114, 125-6 
Procession in Seville, 125-6; iii, 224 
Star Dancer ami Her School of Dancing, 
126; 112, 225 

Picasso, Pablo: principal references, 

20-4, 26-8, 30-6, 38, 41-2, 44-6, 
4S-54, 56-60, 62, 64, 183, 185-6, 
188-94, 210-I, 215, 217-8, 231-2, 
234, 236; other references, 11-6, 65, 
67-70, 72, 75-80, 88-9, 92-3, 98-102, 
105, 108-10, 112, 114-5, 120-1, 124, 
126, 128, 131-2, 134, 137, 142, 146, 
149, 151-5, 157-8, 162, 166, 169-70, 
175-7. iSi, 196-8, 200-2, 204-7, 209, 
219, 221, 230, 237, 243-4, 249-50, 
255-6, 265 
Absinthe Glass, Bottle, Pipe and Musical 

Instruments on a Piano, 52; 33, 236 
Bottle and Glass, 186; 204, 257 
Bottle and Glass on Table, 203, 258 
Bottle of Marc, 52-3 ; 37, 281 
Bottle, Playing Card and Pipe on Table, 

257, 253 
Bowb, 35 

Clarinet Player, 50; 31, 240 
Demoiselles d'Avignon, Les, 16, 21, 

22-4, 26-7, 30, 65-6; 2, 226 
Flowers and Glass, 35 
Fniit-Dish, Tlie, 20, 280 
Fruit-Dish, Bottle and Guitar, 194; 

21 S, 245 
Girl with a Hoop, 217; 24S, 254 
Glass and Bottle of Bass, 191; 212, 259 
Glass of Absinthe, 232, 234; 2S2, 283, 

289, 290 
Glass, Pipe and Lemon, 1S9; 207, 262 
Guitar and Glass, 203, 260 
Guitar and Music Score on a Table, 261, 

Guitar, Bottle and Fruit, 210; 244, 249 
Harlequin (1915), 210; 243, 251 
Harlequin (191S), 217, 228; 238, 252 
Horta de San Juan: Factory, 36; 13, 230 
Landscape with a Bridge, 42; ip, 232 
Majolie, 64; 217, 246 
Man Seated at Table, 231, 274 
Man Smoking a Pipe, 54; 44. 237 
Man with a Dog, 232, 283 
Man u'ith a Guitar, 233, 285 
Man with Pipe Seated in an Annchair, 

255, 275 
Man's Head (charcoal), jp, 269 
Man's Head (etching), 32, 282 
Max JACOB: Saint Matorel, 48, 49, 




Max JACOB: Le Siege de Jhtisalem, 

234, 235, 287 
Musical hislntmeiits, 211, 243 
Nude (1909-10), 76; 23 
Nude (1910), ^8, 76; 2S, 233 
Nude in a Forest, 32 
Nude with Draperies, g, 228 
Nude with Drapery, 32-3; 10, 263 
Opeti Window at St. Raphael 260, 276 
Pierrot and Harlequin, 23g, 277 
Playing Cards, Bottle and Glass, 214, 244 
Pointe de la Cite, La, Si; 33, 239 
Portrait ofClovis Sagot, 1 80-1 
Portrait of D. H. Kahnweiler, 51; 32, 


Seated Mail, 57, 270 

Seated IVoman, 36, 4s; 14, 231 

Seated Woman with a Guitar, 191; 213, 

Standing Female Nude, 32 
Standing Woman, 40, 268 
Staiuling Figure (Study for 'Tliree 

Women), 12, 264 
Still Life on a Table in a Landscape, 223 
Still Life on a Table in Front of an Open 

Window, 217; 1, 255 
Still Life with a Caned Chair, 183 
Still Life u'ith a Clarinet, 54; 41, 238 
Still Life with a Clarinet and Guitar, 

249, 273 
Still Life with a Skull, 24-5 ; 4, 227 
Still Life with Fruit, 210; 242, 248 
Still Life U'ith Guitar, 230, TTji 
Still Life with Newspaper, 186; 202, 

Tliree Masked Aiusicians, 16, 218; 262, 

Three Women, 31, 86; 11, 229 
Violin, Glass and Pipe on Table, 57; 

45, 241 
Vive la France!, 210; 243, 247 
Woman, 50; 27, 235 
U'oiMim u'lr/i Guitar (1914), 247, 271 
K'uinaH u'i(/< Guitar (1915), 210; 246, 

HVmijn'i Head (ink studies), 46, 151; 

21, 22, 265, 266 
[FoMjdH'i Head (sculpture), 46, 232, 

238, 246; 2S1, 288 
Pointillism, 194 

Popova, Liubov, 14, 163-4 

Traveller, The, 16 j, 292 

Two Figures, 1 6S, 291 
Post-Imptessiouism, iS, 25, 156, 180 
Pound, Ezra, 181 
Prague, 14, loi, 150, 151, 155 
Previati, Gaetano, 165 
Prochazka, Antonin, ijo, 153; Girl with 

a Peach, 134, 293 
Purism, Purists, 16, 102, 265 
PuteaiLx Group and the Section d'Or 

exhibition, 14, 104-5, I12-5, 132, 

134, 200, 236, 239, 242 
Puy, no 

RaTOal, Germaine, 207 
Raraal, Maurice, 60, 97, 98, 105 
Rayonnism, 14, 15, 102, III, 146, 147, 

Realism, 17 

Rebel Art Center, The, iSi 
Reverdy, Pierre, 98, 105 
Riabouchinsky, Nicolai, 156 
Rivera, Diego, loo-i, in, 128, 155, 

209, 250 

Cafe Terrace, Tlie, 128; 240, 295 

Portrait of Jacques Lipchitz, 12S; Jij,294 
Robbins, Daniel, 74 
Roberts, William, 181 
Rose, Barbara, 177 
Rosenberg, Leonce, 265 
Rouault, Georges, 104, no 
Rouen, 100 
Rousseau, Henri, 31, 34, 78, 85, 146, 

15S, 176 
Roussel, Raymond, 120 
Russell, Morgan, in, 178, iSo 
Russolo, Luigi, 164, 167 

St. Petersburg, 156 

Salmon, Andre, 22-3, 31-2, 60, 66, 97, 

103, 105. 108 
San Francisco, 176 
Shchukin, Sergei, loi, 157, 162 
Section d'Or. See Puteaux Group 
Segantini, Giovanni, 165 
Seligman, Germain, 236 
Sembat, Marcel, 107 

Serusier, 134 

Seurat, Georges, iS, 137 

Severini, Gino, 100, no, 164-7, 170, 
172, 181, 209 

Armored Train in Action, 1^3, 296 
Bottle, Vase and Newspaper on Table, 

1S7, 303 
Dancer, ijS, 301 
Seated Woman (1914), iC>i'f, 304 
Seated Woman (1916), Jpj, 297 
Self-Portrait in Straw Hat, 1J4, 300 
Still Life with 'Lacerba,' 172; 1J3, 299 
Still Life with Pumpkin, ig2, 298 
Train in the City, TIte, 1 S3, 302 

Sironi, Mario, 172; Self Portrait, 1S3, 305 

Soffici, Ardengo, 100, 151, 165, 166, 170 
Decomposition of the Planes of a Lamp, 

'7', 307 
Lines and V^olumes of a Figure, 1S6, 306 

Soirees de Paris, Les (Cubist re\-iew), 128 

Sorgues, 183 

Spala, Vaclav 151, 153 

Stella, Joseph, in, 176, 178 
Battle of Light, Coney Island, 178 
Brooklyn Bridge, 17S 

Stieglitz, Alfred, 176 

Suprematism, 102, 162 

Surrealists, 16 

Symbolism, Symbolists. 108, 156, 165, 

Synchronism, 178, 180 

Tatlin, Vladimir, 15S, 162-3, 164 
Tobeen, 105 

Udaltsova, Nadezhda, 14, 163-4 
At the Piano, i6g, 308 
Fiii/m, 170, 309 

Valensi, 105, no, in 

Vauxcelles, Louis, 37, 69 

Venice, 165 

Vera, no 

Vienna, 156 

Villon, Jacques, 97, 100-2, 104, 109, ill, 
112-4, 115, 117-8, 121, 150, 155, 175 
Dinner-Table (drypoint), gg, 316 



Dimier-Table (oil), 115; p^, 311 
Little Girl at the Piano, 114, 117; 100, 

Mle. Y. D., Full Face, 101, 315 
Portrait of an Actor (Felix Barre), 106, 


Portrait of Mile. Y. D., 117-S; 104,312 
Portrait of a Young Woman, 102, 317 
Seated Woman, iiS, 120 

Soldiers on tlie March, 118 
Tightrope Walker, 103, 314 
Yvonne in Profile, 10 j, 318 
Vlaminck, Maurice, 16, 66 
Vorticism, Vorticists. 102, iSa-2 

Wadsworth, Edward, 181 
Walden, Hern-anh, 106 

Weber, Max, 176, 178 

Athletic CotUest, 176, 178; igs, 319 
Composition with Three Figures, 176 
Grand Central Terminal, 178 
Rush Hour, Xeu' York, 176, 178; ig7, 

Spiral RJiythm, 246; 2g6, 321 

World of Art, Tlie (Mir Iskusstva), 156 

Wright, Wilbur, 59 


Photo Credits The Author and the PubUshers wish to thank the Museums, 

Galleries and Private Collectors who kindly supplied photographs 
for this book and acknowledge the work of the foUowiug photog- 
raphers : 

Bacci, Milan; S.P.R.L. Bauters, Brussels; Barney Bursttin, 
Boston; Geoffrey Clements, Staten Island, New York; Frangois 
Daulte, Paris; Editions Cercle d'Art, Paris; Hans J. Flodquist, 
Stockholm; John R. Freeman and Co., London; Giacomelii, 
Venice; Gilbert Studios Ltd., Toronto; Sherwin Greenberg, 
Buffalo; Hence Griffith, Dallas; Peter Heman, Basel; G. Howald, 
Berne; Etienne Hubert, Paris; Walter Klein, Diisseldort; Joseph 
Klima, Jr., Detroit; Paulus Leeser, New York; Robert E. Mates, 
New York; J. Mer, Biot; O. E. Nelson, New York; Richard 
Nickel, Park Ridge, 111.; Giorgio Nimatallah, Milan; Irving 
J. Newman, Greenwich, Conn. ; Karl Obert, Santa Barbara, Cal. ; 
Phaidon Press, London; Phototheque Europeenne, Paris; Eric 
PoUitzer, Garden City Park, New York; Gordon Roberton, 
London ; Walter Rosenblum, New York ; Savage Studio, St. Louis, 
Mo.; John D. Schiff, New York; Robert S. Scurlock, New York; 
Service de Documentation des Musees Nationaux, Versailles; 
Elton Schnellbacher, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Adolph Studly, New York; 
Soichi Simami, New York; Eric Sutherland, Walker Art Center, 
Minneapohs; Charles Swedlund, Chicago; Taylor and Dull, 
New York; Thames and Hudson, London; F. J. Thomas, Holly- 
wood; Charles Uht, New York; Malcolm Varon, New York; 
Marc Vaux, Paris; Ron Vickers, Toronto; and Alfred J. Wyatt,