Thursday, October 28, 2010

CELTIC PRIDE


Russell is one of the most successful and decorated athletes in North American sports history. His awards and achievements include eleven NBA championships as a player with the Boston Celtics in 13 seasons (including two NBA championships as player/head coach), and he is credited with having raised defensive play in the NBA to a new level. By winning the 1956 NCAA Championship with USF and the 1957 NBA title with the Celtics, Russell became the first of only four players in basketball history to win an NCAA championship and an NBA Championship back-to-back (the others being Henry Bibby, Magic Johnson, and Billy Thompson). In the interim, Russell collected an Olympic gold medal in 1956. His stint as coach of the Celtics was also of historical significance, as he became the first black head coach in major U.S. professional sports when he succeeded Red Auerbach.
(en.wikipedia.org)


Bill Russell Game 7, 1962 Finals
Photo: AP
From sportsillustrated.cnn.com


Bill Russell and Boston Celtics coach Red Auerbach, 1967
Boston Garden in Boston, Massachusetts
Dick Raphael/NBAE/Getty Images
From From nba.com


His many individual accolades were well deserved, but they were only products of Russell's philosophy of team play. His greatest accomplishment was bringing the storied Celtics 11 championships in his 13 seasons. Until the ascent of Michael Jordan in the 1980s, Russell was acclaimed by many as the greatest player in the history of the NBA.
William Felton Russell was born on February 12, 1934, in Monroe, Louisiana. His family moved cross-country to the San Francisco Bay Area, where Bill attended McClymonds High School in Oakland. He was an awkward, unremarkable center on McClymonds's basketball team, but his size earned him a scholarship to play at the University of San Francisco, where he blossomed.
Russell grew to be a shade over 6-9, and he teamed with guard K. C. Jones to lead the Dons to 56 consecutive victories and NCAA Championships in 1955 and 1956 (although Jones missed four games of the 1956 tournament because his eligibility had expired). Russell was named the NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player in 1955.
(nba.com )
Russell averaged 20.7 points and 20.3 rebounds in his three-year varsity career. By his senior season he had matured into a dominant force who could control a game at the defensive end. With the 1956 NBA Draft approaching, Boston Celtics Coach and General Manager Red Auerbach was eager to add Russell to his lineup. Auerbach had built a high-scoring offensive machine around guards Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman and undersized center Ed Macauley, but he hadn't been able to muster the defense and rebounding needed to transform the Celtics into a championship-caliber club. Russell, Auerbach felt, was the missing piece to the puzzle.
(nba.com )


1957-1958 NBA Eastern Division Champion Boston Celtics
From mearsonlineauctions.com


1960 World Champion Boston Celtics
From mearsonlineauctions.com


1961 World Champion Boston Celtics
Standing: Buddy LeRoux (Manager), Tom Sanders, Tom Heinsohn,
Gene Conley, Bill Russell, Gene Guarilla, Jim Loscutoff, Sam Jones
Seated: K.C. Jones, Bob Cousy, Red Auerbach (coach),
Walter A. Brown (president), Bill Sharman, Frank Ramsey
From d21c.com


Russell is widely considered one of the best players in NBA history. Listed as between 6'9" (2.06 m) and 6'10" (2.08 m), Russell's shot-blocking and man-to-man defense were major reasons for the Celtics' success. He also inspired his teammates to elevate their own defensive play. Russell was equally notable for his rebounding abilities. He is one of just two NBA players (the other being prominent rival Wilt Chamberlain) to have grabbed more than fifty rebounds in a game.
(en.wikipedia.org)


Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell
Source Wilt Chamberlain Bill Russell
New York World-Telegram & The Sun staff photographer
From en.wikipedia.org


For statistical purposes only, Chamberlain is number one all time with 23,924 rebounds in 1045 games and Bill Russell is second with 21,620 rebounds in 963 games. Wilt averaged 22.9 in his career, Russell averaged 22.5. They both deserve the top spot. Both men are the only players in history with more than 20,000 rebounds in their career and a career average of more than 20 rebounds per game. The closest is Bob Petit with 16.9. Both represent an age in basketball when a center stood beneath the basket and no one got near him, no one could compete with him, with them. Close friends throughout their career until the 1969 NBA Finals, when Russell accused Chamberlain of copping out of a game in the face of a defeat, and Chamberlain later called Russell a backstabber. The two didn’t speak for more than 20 years after that. Chamberlain has the record for most rebounds in a game, 55, while Russell is second with 53, the only two men to grab more than 50 rebounds in one game. The list goes on and on… but the bottom line is, these two had one of the best individual rivalries in the history of the NBA and maybe team sports. Chamberlain maybe had a better stat line, but Russell had the titles. Chamberlain had two NBA titles, Russell had eleven. Russell was a five time MVP, Chamberlain was a four time MVP. Chamberlain did win more rebounding titles – he led the league in rebounding 11 times, while Russell led the league five times. Russell’s best was 24.7 in 1964, Chamberlain’s best was in 1961 – 27.2 rebounds per game.
(sportige.com)


Bill Russell poses for a portrait
Dick Raphael/NBAE/Getty Images
From From nba.com


Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell
Photographer Dick Raphael
From grassrootswritersguild.wordpress.com


Russell's greatest adversary, Wilt Chamberlain, entered the NBA and joined the Philadelphia Warriors for the 1959-60 season, setting up a decade-long rivalry. The debate over who was the greater player would last even longer. Chamberlain put up incredible numbers during the period in which the two went head to head, but Russell helped the Celtics hang nine NBA championship flags in the Garden in his first 10 seasons.
As Celtics player Don Nelson told the Boston Herald, "There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was."
What became clear, both during the 1959-60 season and over the next several years, was that basketball was a team game. As Russell later wrote: "To me, one of the most beautiful things to see is a group of men coordinating their efforts toward a common goal, alternately subordinating and asserting themselves to achieve real teamwork in action. I tried to do that, we all tried to do that, on the Celtics. I think we succeeded."
(nba.com )


Bill Russell poses for a 1970s photo
Boston, Massachusetts
Dick Raphael/NBAE/Getty Images
From From nba.com


Russell was revolutionizing the game in ways that were clearly understood, even if they weren't measured. His ability to leave his man and slide over to cover an opponent driving to the hoop was startling. He was unmatched at swooping across the lane like a big bird to block and alter shots. The rest of the Celtics defenders began to funnel their men toward Russell and become more daring with their perimeter defense, knowing that he was looming behind.
All of this played mind games with opposing shooters near the basket and had a disrupting effect as they began to sense Russell's imposing presence. Furthermore, other centers started to model their own defensive play after Russell's, and while they might not have been as skillful at it, it changed the way the game was played. Interestingly, Russell's style of play also rejuvenated Boston's offense. Many of the Celtics' points now came when Russell plucked a defensive rebound and fired an outlet pass to Bob Cousy, who would start Boston's vaunted and deadly fast break.
(nba.com )


Bill Russell through the Years
Ken Regan/NBAE via Getty Images
From nba.com


Bill Russell Through the Years
Dick Raphael/NBAE via Getty Images
From nba.com


Bill Russell Through the Years
Walter Iooss Jr./NBAE via Getty Images
From nba.com


Bill Russell Through the Years
NBA Photos
From nba.com


Bill Russell Through the Years
Jesse D. Garranbrant/NBAE via Getty Images
From nba.com


Bill Russell Through the Years
Joe Murphy/NBAE via Getty Images
From nba.com


Bill Russell Through the Years
Bill Russell congratulates Doc Rivers
Garrett Ellwood/NBAE via Getty Images
From nba.com


Bill Russell Through the Years
Bill Russell has a chat with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Brian Babineau/Getty Images
From nba.com


Bill Russell in Boston for Ted Kennedy’s funeral
Photo Reuters
From lejdd.fr


Bill Russell
11 NBA championship rings
Sports Museum in Boston, 1996
From soulofamerica.com


NBA Legend Bill Russell & MVP Michael Jordan
Chicago, Illinois, May 18, 1998
Nathaniel S. Butler/NBAE/Getty Images
From From nba.com

BEST RESUMES IN SPORTS:
Born: Monroe, Louisiana
Career objective: To have a huge impact on the game of basketball in the 50's and 60's by winning the most NBA Championships as both a player and a coach.
Employer: Boston Celtics (1956-1969)
Work experience: Won 11 NBA Championships with the Celtics (1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969)
NCAA Championship with University of San Francisco (1955, 1956)
Won Olympic Gold with Team USA (1956)
Notable achievements: #16 jersey retired by the Boston Celtics (1972)
Inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame (1975)
NBA All-Star 12 times
Career stats: 14,522 points, 4,100 assists, and 21,620 rebounds
Awards: Named NBA MVP (1958, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965)
References: Red Auerbach, Wilt Chamberlain
(sports.ca.msn.com)


Monday, October 25, 2010

THE AMERICAN EMPIRE



Before Rome, there was Carthage. Before Carthage, there were Greece, Macedonia, Egypt, Assyria, China. Where history has a record, it is a record of empire.
During modern times, international affairs have been dominated by empires. The Great War was a war between empires. During the first three years, the two chief contestants were the British Empire on the one hand and the German Empire on the other. Behind these leaders were the Russian Empire, the Italian Empire, the French Empire, and the Japanese Empire.
The Peace of Versailles was a peace between empires. Five empires dominated the peace table—Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States. The avowedly anti-imperial nations of Europe—Russia and Hungary—were not only excluded from the deliberations of the Peace Table, but were made the object of constant diplomatic, military and economic aggression by the leading imperialist nations.
Empires do not spring, full grown, from the surroundings of some great historic crisis. Rather they, like all other social institutions, are the result of a long series of changes that lead by degrees from the pre-imperial to the imperial stage. Many of the great empires of the past two thousand years have begun as republics, or, as they are sometimes called, "democracies," and the processes of transformation from the republican to the imperial stage have been so gradual that the great mass of the people were not aware that any change had occurred until the emperor ascended the throne.
The development of empire is of necessity a slow process. There are the dependent people to be subjected; the territory to be conquered; the imperial class to be built up. This last process takes, perhaps, more time than either of the other two. Class consciousness is not created in a day. It requires long experience with the exercise of imperial power before the time has come to proclaim an emperor, and forcibly to take possession of the machinery of public affairs.
The chief characteristics of empire exist in the United States. Here are conquered territory; subject peoples; an imperial, ruling class, and the exploitation by that class of the people at home and abroad. During generations the processes of empire have been working, unobserved, in the United States. Through more than two centuries the American people have been busily laying the foundations and erecting the imperial structure. For the most part, they have been unconscious of the work that they were doing, as the dock laborer, is ordinarily unconscious of his part in the mechanism of industry. Consciously or unconsciously, the American people have reared the imperial structure, until it stands, to-day, imposing in its grandeur, upon the spot where many of the founders of the American government hoped to see a republic.
The early history of the country presaged anything but this. The colonists were seeking to escape tyranny, to establish justice and to inaugurate liberty. Their promises were prophetic. Their early deeds put the world in their debt. Forward looking people everywhere thrilled at the mention of the name "America." Then came the discovery of the fabulous wealth of the new country; the pressure of the growing stream of immigrants; the heaping up of riches; the rapacious search after more! More!
The American Empire does not rest upon a political basis. Only the most superficial portions of its superstructure are political in character. Imperialism in the United States, as in every other modern country, is built not upon politics, but upon industry. The development of American industry, during the hundred years that began with the War of 1812, led inevitably to the unification of business control in the hands of a small group of wealth owners.
"Every man for himself" was the principle that the theorists of the eighteenth century bequeathed to the industrial pioneers of the nineteenth. The philosophy of individualism fitted well with the temperament and experience of the English speaking peoples; the practice of individualism under the formula "Every man for himself" seemed a divine ordination for the benefit of the new industry.
The eager American population adopted the slogan with enthusiasm. "Every man for himself" was the essence of their frontier lives; it was the breath of the wilderness. But the idea failed in practice. Despite the assurances of its champions that individualism was necessary to preserve initiative and that progress was impossible without it, like much other principle—fine sounding in theory, it broke down in the application.
The theory under which the new industrial society began its operations was "every man for himself." The development of the system has made every man dependent upon his fellows. The principle demanded an extreme individualism. The practice has created a vast network of inter-relations that leads the cotton spinner of Massachusetts to eat the meat prepared by the packing-house operative in Omaha, while the pottery of Trenton and the clothing of New York are sent to the Yukon in exchange for fish and to the Golden Gate for fruit. Inside as well as outside the nation, the world is united by the strong hands of economic necessity. None can live to himself, alone. Each depends upon the labor of myriads that he has never seen and of whom he has never heard. Whether we will or no, they are his brothers-in-labor—united in the Atlas fellowship of those who carry the world upon their shoulders.
The theory of "every man for himself" failed. The practical exigencies involved in subjugating a continent and wresting from nature the means of livelihood made it necessary to introduce the opposite principle,—"In Union there is strength; coöperation achieves all things."
The business men of the late nineteenth century had been nurtured upon the idea of competition. "Every man for himself and the devil take the hindermost" summed up their philosophy. Each person who entered the business arena was met by an array of savage competitors whose motto was "Victory or Death." In the struggle that followed, most of them suffered death. The first object of the economic struggle is wealth. The second is power. The gratification of personal wants is only a minor element in the lives of the rich. After they have secured the things desired, they strive for the power that will give them control over their fellows.
The possession of things is, in itself, a narrow field. The control over productive machinery gives him who exercises it the power to enjoy those things which the workers with machinery produce. The controls over public affairs and over the forces that shape public opinion give him who exercises it the power to direct the thoughts and lives of the people. It is for these reasons that the keen, self-assertive, ambitious men who have come to the top in the rough and tumble of the business struggle have steadily extended their ownership and their control.
The man fighting for bread has little time to "turn his eyes up to the eternal stars." The western cult of efficiency makes no allowances for philosophic propensities. Its object is product and it is satisfied with nothing short of that sordid goal.
The members of the wealth owning class are relieved from the food struggle. Their ownership of the social machinery guarantees them a secure income from which they need make no appeal. These privileges provide for them and theirs the leisure and the culture that are the only possible excuse for the existence of civilization. The propertied class, because it owns the jobs, the industrial products, the social surplus, the channels of public opinion and the political machinery also enjoys the opportunity that goes with adequately assured income, leisure and culture. The members of the dominant economic class hold a key—property ownership—which opens the structure of social wealth. Those who have access to this key are the blessed ones. Theirs are the things of this world. The property owners enjoy the fleshpots. They hold the vantage points. The vital forces are in their hands. Economically, politically, socially, they are supreme. If the control of material things can make a group secure, the wealth owners in the United States are secure. They hold property, prestige, power.
The owners of American wealth have been molded gradually into a ruling class. Years of brutal, competitive, economic struggle solidified their ranks,—distinguishing friend from enemy; clarifying economic laws, and demonstrating the importance of coördination in economic affairs. Economic control, once firmly established, opened before the wealth owning class an opportunity to dominate the entire field of public life.
Before the property owners could feel secure in their possessions, steps must be taken to transmute the popular ideas regarding "property rights" into a public opinion that would permit the concentration of important property in the hands of a small owning class, at the same time that it held to the conviction that society, without privately owned land and machinery, was unthinkable.
Many of the leading spirits among the colonists had come to America in the hope of realizing the ideal of "Every man a farm, and every farm a man." Upon this principle they believed that it would be possible to set up the free government which so many were seeking in those dark days of the divine right of kings. The evils of Feudalism and of landlordism were well known to the American colonists who were under the impression that they arose not from the fact of ownership, but from the concentration of ownership. The resources of the new world seemed limitless, and the possibility that landlordism might show its ugly head on this side of the Atlantic was too remote for serious consideration.
With the independence of the United States assured after the War of 1812; with the growth of industry, and the coming of tens of thousands of new settlers, the future of democracy seemed bright. Daniel Webster characterized the outlook in 1821 by saying, "A country of such vast extent, with such varieties of soil and climate, with so much public spirit and private enterprise, with a population increasing so much beyond former examples, ... so free in its institutions, so mild in its laws, so secure in the title it confers on every man to his own acquisitions,—needs nothing but time and peace to carry it forward to almost any point of advancement."
"So free in its institutions, so mild in its laws, so secure in the title it confers on every man to his own acquisitions,"—the words were prophetic. At the moment when they were uttered the forces were busy that were destined to realize Webster's dream, on an imperial scale, at the expense of the freedom which he prized. Men were free to get what they could, and once having secured it, they were safeguarded in its possession. Property ownership was a virtue universally commended. Constitutions were drawn and laws were framed to guarantee to property owners the rights to their property, even in cases where this property consisted of the bodies of their fellow men.
Surrounded by constitutional guarantees, armed with legal privileges and prerogatives and employing the language of liberty, the private property interests in the United States have gone forward from victory to victory, extending their power as they increased and concentrated their possessions.
The American worker is a citizen of the richest country of the world. Resources are abundant. There is ample machinery to convert these gifts of nature into the things that men need for their food and clothing, their shelter, their education and their recreation. There is enough for all, and to spare, in the United States. But the American worker is not master of his own destinies. He must go to the owners of American capital—to the plutocrats—and from them he must secure the permission to earn a living; he must get a job. Therefore it is the capitalists and not the workers of the United States that are deciding its public policy at the present moment.
The American capitalist is a member of one of the most powerful exploiting groups in the world. Behind him are the resources, productive machinery and surplus of the American Empire. Before him are the undeveloped resources of the backward countries. He has gained wealth and power by exploitation at home. He is destined to grow still richer and more powerful as he extends his organization for the purposes of exploitation abroad.
The prospects of World Empire are as alluring to the American capitalist as have been similar prospects to other exploiting classes throughout history. Empire has always been meat and drink to the rulers. The master class has much to gain through imperialism. The workers have even more to lose. The mere fact that the workers are so busy with the routine of daily life is in itself a guarantee that they will mind their own business.
The average worker is engaged, outside of working hours, with the duties of a family. His wife, if she has children, is thus employed for the greater portion of her time. Both are far too preoccupied to interfere with the like acts of other workers in some other portion of the world. Furthermore, their preoccupation with these necessary tasks gives them sympathy with those similarly at work elsewhere. The plain people are the bricks which the imperial class uses to build into a wall about the empire. They are the mortar also, for they man the ships and fill up the gaps in the infantry ranks and the losses in the machine gun corps. They are the body of the empire as the rulers are its guiding spirit. The work of empire building falls to the lot of the workers. The profits of empire building go to the exploiting class.
(Adapted from The Project Gutenberg eBook of The American Empire, by Scott Nearing)


Sunday, October 24, 2010

NEW YORK CITY AND PARK SCENES



Paul Cornoyer is world famous for his paintings of New York City and its suburbs. This painter-teacher was born in St. Louis, Missouri in 1864 and died in East Gloucester, Massachusetts in 1923 (where he moved in 1917). He first studied at the St. Louis School of Fine Art (1881) and first exhibited in 1887. He went to Paris in 1889 and lived there until 1894, while studying painting at the Académie Julian in Paris with Lefebvre and Constant and with Louis Blanc.
(piercegalleries.com)
An unusually energetic artist, Cornoyer’s talents impressed several residents of St. Louis, who assisted with funds for his continued study in Europe. Extant works from the period reveal a surprisingly broad and spontaneous handling of pigment, indicating even at this early date the artist’s awareness of modern painting techniques. Accordingly, in 1889, twenty-five-year-old Paul Cornoyer left the Midwest to sail for Paris, where he enrolled in the Académie Julian. Here, he joined the ranks of countless other Americans who followed the well-known method of drawing from the nude model and completing weekly theme assignments. Cornoyer received criticism from Jules-Joseph Lefebvre and Benjamin Constant. It also appears that he, like most of his colleagues, pursued a routine of independent study by visiting museums and art galleries, where he was able to compare and contrast old masters’ techniques with those of the moderns.
(rhlovegalleries.com)


A Boulevard in Paris
From the-athenaeum.org


Cornoyer remained in France for five years, painting a number of city scenes such as the Parisian Boulevard (above), which vividly captures the charm and bustle of Parisian boulevards with onion-domed kiosks and other characteristic local details. The iconic image of the Arc de Triomphe, depicted at center, anticipates Cornoyer's later paintings of architectural landmarks in city parks and plazas in New York City.
(doylenewyork.com)
When Cornoyer arrived in Paris, impressionism had already become an international movement, and he was not immune to its magnetic influence. He rapidly assimilated its basic tenets, modified the north light of the studio, and took plein-air sketching trips. In addition to visits to Gr z, Montigny, and Barbizon, his sojourn also led him through much of the rest of Europe, including Venice and London. His first attempts at the impressionist manner resulted in a well-executed but eclectic style amalgamating effects of Monet and Sisley. Shortly, however, Cornoyer seems to have settled upon a more personal manner less dependent upon the use of broken color and fat pigment. He was particularly concerned with atmospheric effects and occasionally selected street scenes to demonstrate his ability with the complexities of compositional design. He varied his technique to suit the subject matter and its relative climatic conditions. Cornoyer submitted L’avenue du Maine to the Salon in 1892 in an effort to establish himself in the dynamic art community of Paris and his first award came that year from the American Art Association in Paris, which presented him with a first prize.
In 1894, the artist sailed to New York and subsequently returned to his native city, where he took a studio to begin his career in America. This was only a year after the successful exhibition of French and other impressionist painting at Chicago’s World’s Columbian Exposition, where Cornoyer did not exhibit. But since his former art teacher Halsey Ives had been director of the Fine Arts Department there, the artist must have hoped for a reasonable acceptance of his own imported style in St. Louis. In an attempt to eliminate a reputation of provincialism, Cornoyer sent his work to various national exhibitions in the east. He was also active locally and won a gold medal from the St. Louis Association of Painters and Sculptors.
(rhlovegalleries.com)


A View of St. Louis A Triptych
oil on canvas, laid down on board,1898
From the-athenaeum.org


His friend and collector of Cornoyer's work William Merritt Chase encourage Cornoyer to come to New York City. By that time he was somewhat famous in St. Louis for having painted a mural for Planter's Hotel of the city (1894) and large canvas A View of St. Louis (above) that showed Eads Bridge.
(piercegalleries.com)


West 59th Street & the New Netherlands Hotel
Oil on canvas
Provenance Judge Amy Kinker, St. Louis, Missouri
From owengallery.com


West 59th Street (above) is also known as Central Park South. Lined with luxury hotels and apartment buildings, this street has been in the grand style since the late 19th century. In 1892 the New Netherlands Hotel opened at Fifth Avenue and Fifty-Ninth Street. It reflected a long tradition in New York of the rich having their homes in hotel which provided deluxe service without servant problems. This view is looking East down 59th street towards grand army plaza and Fifth Avenue where the hotel was located. This building was replaced in the 1920’s with the current Sherry Netherlands Hotel.
(owengallery.com)


Madison Square Looking North Up Fifth Avenue
Pencil on paper, ca. 1900-1910
From spanierman.com


Studio Garden, East Gloucester
Oil on Canvas, 1900
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


Late Afternoon, Washington Square
Oil on canvas, 1908
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


In 1908, a writer for the St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat suggested that “perhaps the best known painter who is a native of St. Louis is Paul Cornoyer. He has won an enviable reputation among the greatest artists, and the opinion prevails...that (America) will eventually recognize Cornoyer as one of its master painters.” James Huneker called Cornoyer an impressionist “. . . though sometimes with an approach to sentimentalism.” But because Cornoyer’s impressionism has since been eclipsed by more modern trends, such a prophecy has yet to be proven. It should be understood, however, that he was an accomplished and highly regarded painter throughout the era of American impressionism. From Parisian precedents, Cornoyer eventually developed a sophisticated cosmopolitanism, which he readily adapted to subjects taken from the New York environment. Despite his limitations in concept, he was a superb technician and one who was capable of a subjective description of an urban scene, a specific talent seldom demonstrated by other American impressionists.
(rhlovegalleries.com)
Cornoyer was mesmerized by New York City. As an academically oriented impressionist-tonalist, he began to paint tonal urban scenes and they sold almost immediately. He became an Associate of the National Academy of Design in 1909 (NYC) an was a member of that institution, the National Arts Club (NY), Salmagundi Club (1902, NY), Allied Artists of America (NY), Gallery on the Moors, National Society of Arts and Letters (NY), Newark Art Association and the society of Western Artists.
(piercegalleries.com)


After the Rain
The Dewey Arch, Madison Square Park
Oil on canvas
Private collection
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


Bryant Park
Private collection
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


Flat Iron Building
Private collection
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


Gloucester
Oil on canvas
Private collection
From ARC


Madison Square on a Sunny Day
Oil on board
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


New York City View in Winter
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


The New York Library
Oil on canvas
Private collection
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


The Third Avenue El
Oil on canvas
Private collection
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


Washington Square
Oil on canvas
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


Winter in Washington Square
Oil on canvas
Private collection
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


Winter, Washington Square
Oil on canvas
Private collection
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


Strollers on a City Street
Pencil on paper, ca.1910 - 1920
From spanierman.com


Old House, Moonlight Gloucester, Massachusetts
Oil and charcoal on paper
mounted on canvas, circa 1910-1919
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


The Plaza at 59th Street
Oil on Canvas, 1910
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


December - Gloucester
Oil on canvas, circa 1916
Private collection
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


After the Rain
Oil on canvas, 1922-1927
Private collection
Entered by user rocsdad
From the-athenaeum.org


Washington Square, New York
Oil on canvas
Private collection
From ARC


Dewey's Arch
Oil on canvas
Private collection
From ARC


Paul Cornoyer was a much beloved teacher. For most of his life, he taught at the Mechanics Institute in New York, and later in 1917 in East Gloucester, Massachusetts. At the time of his death in 1923 he was involved with setting up an exhibition for the local art association.
(3d-dali.com)


Sunday, October 17, 2010

DUTCH GENRE AND PORTRAIT PAINTER



The Amsterdam artist, Pieter Jacobsz Codde (Dutch, 1599-1678), was mainly known as a portrait painter, although his indoor scenes were also popular. His family portraits exude the same carefree atmosphere as his brothel scenes.
(rijksmuseum.nl)
Codde was a technically skilled painter. He is said to have studied with Frans Hals, but it is more likely that his training was with a portrait painter, inn-keeper, actor and art-dealer Barent van Someren (1572–1632) or possibly with Cornelis van der Voort (1576–1624).
In 1623 he married the 18-year-old Marritje Arents. In the summer of 1625, on a party, organized by Van Someren on his estate, Codde got into a fight with his friend, the artist Cornelis Duyster. It ended with bloodshed as the two hit each other in the face with jars. Already in 1631 Codde lived the Sint Antoniesbreestraat, then a fashionable street with many painters. In 1636 the couple divorced after he was accused of raping the maid; because nothing could be proved he was only locked up for one night. His wife went living with Pieter Potter, their neighbor and the father of the painter Paulus Potter.
(en.wikipedia.org)


The Dancing Lesson
Oil on panel, 1627
Musée du Louvre, Paris
From Web Gallery of Art at wga.hu


Musical Company
1639
Oil on canvas
Private collection
From Web Gallery of Art at wga.hu


Most of Pieter Codde best remembered works were executed in Amsterdam and were small-scale paintings. They were distinct in their silvery-gray tonalities, and many were musically themed, such as his first known genre work, Dancing Lesson (Louvre, Paris) from 1627, Musical Company of 1639, The Lute Player (Philadelphia Museum of Art) and, Concert, a piece now in the Uffizi Gallery. (Kren and Marx, Web Gallery of Art) The other piece by Codde in the Uffizi Gallery is a genre work, Conversation. Codde also painted historical religious works, such as his, Adoration of the Shepherds.
(virtualuffizi.com)
It is possible that Codde studied with a portrait painter, perhaps Barent van Someren or Cornelis van der Voort (1576–1624), since most of his earliest works, from the period 1623–7, seem to be portraits. He was particularly productive in the 1620s and 1630s, painting mainly interior genre scenes. After the mid-1640s only portraits and a few history paintings are known. It is not known how long he remained active as a painter.
(artnet.com)


A Young Student at His Desk: Melancholy
Source wga.hu
From en.wikipedia.org



Actors' Changing Room
Oil on oak, 1630s
From Web Gallery of Art at wga.hu


Lady Seated at Virginals
Oil on oak panel
Private collection
From Web Gallery of Art at wga.hu


The Young Draughtsman
From Web Gallery of Art at wga.hu
Oil on panel, c. 1630
Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels
From Web Gallery of Art at wga.hu


Portrait of a Child
Oil on canvas
Staatsgalerie, Schleissheim
From Web Gallery of Art at wga.hu


Return of the Hunters
Oil on panel, 1633
Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
From Web Gallery of Art at wga.hu


Gathered in a tall, spacious room is a festively-attired company. A few women are sitting at a table; two men have just entered. The one behind is greeted by one of the women; he proudly holds up a hare. His companion presents two partridges, also shot. This work by Pieter Codde is known as the 'Return of the Hunters'. The men, however, are not dressed as hunters and so the word 'hunting' is clearly intended metaphorically and means the 'pursuit of love'. The erotic implications - of the large bed in the corner, for instance, and the hunters' catch - would immediately have been plain to a seventeenth-century viewer. At the time 'hunting the hare' and 'fowling' were metaphors for making love. The partridge furthermore was regarded as 'the most lascivious of all birds'.
In the 17th century partridges had a bad reputation when it came to the erotic. In his book 'Iconologia of uytbeelding des verstands' - the iconography or illustration of reason - (1644) Cesare Ripa says that this bird is supreme in displaying 'unbridled lust and limitless lewdness'. Ripa claimed that 'cock partridges were so frenzied in treading their hens and aroused to such heights of lechery, that they often broke the eggs their hens were laying, since when they were laying them it was impossible to go on mating with them.' As for the hens it was also necessary to repeat the process in order to get more eggs. of all birds'.
(rijksmuseum.nl)


Portrait of a man, possibly Nicolaes Hasselaer
Oil on canvas, c.1630-1635
(rijksmuseum.nl)


A well-to-do citizen (above), fashionably dressed with a wide, lace collar, with one arm cast nonchalantly over the back of a wooden chair. In the other he holds a walking stick. The subject is probably Nicolaes Hasselaer (1593-1635). Hasselaer, who owned a brewery in Amsterdam, was a member of the city's upper class. He was a governor, or regent of the Civic Orphanage, a man of status. Hasselaer is known to history as the militia major who quelled the riot of sailors demanding a share in the booty from the Silver Fleet, the Spanish treasure fleet of 1628. The Dutch word 'regent' (from the Latin 'regere', to govern) refers to governors at every level, from the local orphanage to the civic or provincial administration of the Civic Orphanage, a man of status.
(rijksmuseum.nl)


Portrait of a woman, possibly Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen
Oil on canvas, c.1630-1635
(rijksmuseum.nl)


From her clothes it is clear that this woman (above) is a woman of considerable status. She is well-to-do and fashionable: her dress is richly ornamented, around her neck is a Millstone ruffs. The millstone ruff is a round collar made of pleated white linen. It was fashionable in Holland from the late 16th century to about 1625. They began small, but became increasing broad until finally resembling millstones. Manufacturing such large ruffs was a complicated and time-consuming task for the specialists who made them - mostly Flemish or Dutch women. A ruff like this required a great deal of material, sometimes as much as 15 meters. Usually cambric was used, a fine linen often decorated with bobbin lace. After washing and starching, it was gathered or pleated and set on a collar and then ironed into circular shapes with 'pipe' irons. These costly collars or ruffs were worn by the well-to-do, both men and women. And a cap covers her dark hair. The painting is a pendant or companion piece, of a portrait of a man, probably the Amsterdammer Nicolaes Hasselaer. Hasselaer was married to Sara Wolphaerts van Diemen (1594-1667). Presumably, therefore, she is the woman in the picture. The word pendant comes from the Latin 'pendere', meaning to hang. A pendant is a counterpart: a painting intended to hang together with its pair. They are often of the same format and with identical frames. Most pairs of paintings feature married couples. Sometimes, indeed, the background continues from one painting to the next.
(rijksmuseum.nl)
In 1636 Codde was commissioned by an Amsterdam militia company to finish a work which his famous colleague Frans Hals did not want to complete. In the 'Meagre Company', as the militia piece is called, the styles of both painters can be recognized. Pieter Codde has tried to blend his style with that of Hals; however his own style remains recognizably smoother.
(rijksmuseum.nl)


De magere compagnie
From en.wikipedia.org


'Just to see that painting would make the journey to Amsterdam worthwhile' wrote Vincent van Gogh in 1885, after having seen this work in the Rijksmuseum. He particularly liked the 'orange banner in the left corner,' he had 'seldom seen a more divinely beautiful figure'. The painting that caused such a sensation was the group portrait of the crossbowmen's militia under Captain Reinier Reael, painted by Frans Hals and Pieter Codde in 1637. The painting has been known for centuries as the Meagre Company. The portrait of the company of Captain Reinier Reael is usually known as the Meagre Company. The nickname was given in 1670 by Jan van Dijk who wrote about this militia unit: '. That since all of them are wisened and thin, they should properly be called the Meagre Company because the figures portrayed all appear remarkably thin.
(rijksmuseum.nl)
Art historian and restorer Jan van Dijk found this militia portrait by Frans Hals and Pieter Codde so 'barren and frail', in 1758, 'that they might rightfully be called the Meagre Company'. Since then this militia portrait has been known by that name instead of the exact title: Officers of the Company of the Amsterdam Crossbow Civic Guard under Captain Reynier Reael and Lieutenant Cornelis Michielsz Blaeuw.
Frans Hals was commissioned to paint the portrait of Captain Reynier Reael and Lieutenant Cornelis Michielsz Blaeuw of the Amsterdam crossbowmen's guild together with their militiamen. He was to paint the piece in Amsterdam, where the members of the company lived. For Hals, who lived in Haarlem, this involved regular trips to the capital. In fact he was rarely to make the journey at all. In 1636, three years after receiving the commission, he had still only completed part of the painting. Eventually the militiamen took him to the task. In reply he responded, as the preserved documents state, that it had been agreed he would begin the portraits in Amsterdam and complete them in Haarlem. The representatives of the guild, however, claimed that they had even offered six guilders extra per portrait on the condition that Hals travels to Amsterdam to paint the men's bodies as well as their faces. Hals was to receive 66 guilders per person upon completion of the painting, a total of 1,056 guilders for the whole work. Despite the high rate, Hals could no longer be persuaded to make the journey to Amsterdam. He suggested that the unfinished work be brought to Haarlem, where he would complete the sitters' attire. Then he proposed to finish painting the faces, assuming that the militiamen did not object to travelling to Haarlem. By now the dispute had become so heated that the guild decided to ask another artist to complete the painting. The task fell to Pieter Codde, a strange choice since Codde's paintings were usually small and meticulous. Codde lived in Amsterdam, though, and may even have been a member of the militia company.
Frans Hals painted the general outlines of the composition and completed some of the faces and hands, but only the ensign on the left, with the shiny satin jacket, is entirely by his hand. Pieter Codde painted the costumes and the portraits which Hals failed to complete.
(Web Gallery of Art at wga.hu)
The present work conforms to a type of group portrait known as the “militia company”, which is widely found in Dutch art in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Such companies, made up of volunteer members of the urban elite, existed in Holland from the late sixteenth century, assembling when their services were required. They commissioned group portraits of this type, the most famous of which is Rembrandt’s Night Watch (1642), to hang in their headquarters. During the period that the present canvas was painted these companies were still occasionally involved in military conflicts and played a role in the struggle for independence from the Spanish Monarchy.
Within the context of the Museo del Prado, it is worth noting the existence of an interesting parallel in Spain. In the same way that Hals and Codde’s painting can be considered a vehicle for visual propaganda that emphasised the willingness of those depicted to defend the Dutch Republic, a number of works executed at the court in Madrid during this period exalt the virtues of the Spanish forces. One such work is Velázquez’s Surrender of Breda, painted in 1634-35, at exactly the same time as the present work, which celebrates the capture of the Dutch city of Breda by the troops of the Spanish king. This work by Frans Hals and Pieter Codde is an expression of pride by one side in the conflict, while Velázquez’s canvas conveys comparable sentiments on the part of the other.
(museodelprado.es)
Pieter Codde was buried on 12 October 1678 in Amsterdam.