llllllllllllllllllllllllll W

29Ivommigun State
University

 

1115513

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
THE FIGURATIVE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTINGS
OF DANIEL GARBER

presented by

Mary Ellen McCarthy Zang

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Mgsggrg degxeein Art History

 

 

Date August 8, 1986

0-7639 MS U in an Waive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

MSU

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:

 

 

 

Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

 

LIBRARIES
m your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
” ‘ 3'!- ‘sz". 7

 

 

THE FIGURATIVE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTINGS OF DANIEL GARBER

by

Mary Ellen McCarthy Zang

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of History of Art
1986

ABSTRACT

THE FIGURATIVE AND LANDSCAPE PAINTINGS OF DANIEL GARBER
by

Mary Ellen McCarthy Zang

Daniel Garber (1880-1958) was one of the important
American Impressionist painters. The basic concepts of
Impressionism were well established when Garber began his
career and he found them ideal means for communicating his
feelings onto canvas. Garber's paintings in the Kresge Art
Museum demonstrate his use of Impressionism and served as the
inspiration for this study. Other than one study of his
career, most of the recent literature concerning Garber is
found in studies of American Impressionism with room only for
brief overviews for individual artists. Rather than focusing
on his career this thesis deals with his paintings.

His landscapes can be divided into four categories and
associated, in the case of the "lone tree" style, with his
figurative works.

Another aspect of this study notes Garber's seemingly
unconscious use of abstraction in conjunctions with
Impressionism to create his original and subtle style that
so effectively conveyed his strong emotionalism.

This thesis is the first study to focus on his oeuvre

as a whole.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Mr. and Mrs. John F. Garber, Mrs.
Tanis Garber Page and Mrs. Dana Garber Applestein for sharing
their paintings and memories of Daniel Garber and for giving
so generously of their time. Without their help I would not
have been able to understand the artist as the intensely
personal and loving man that he was. I would also like to
thank Cheryl Liepold for her help in the archives of the
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and Kathleen A. Foster
for her insights into Daniel Garber.

I thank also my thesis advisor, Dr. Eldon Van Liere for
sharing his insight and passion for art and words, Dr. Linda
0. Stanford for her enthusiasm, organization and clear
thinking and Dr. Sadayoshi Omoto for his tenacity in
questioning my ideas.

My parents I thank for their emotional support and their
unfailing belief that I would succeed in my goals. And, far
from last, I thank my husband, Paul, with all my heart for
teaching me how to use a word processor and suffering the

lessons and subsequent frustrations with patience.

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 2 LANDSCAPE STYLES

CHAPTER 3 FIGURATIVE REPRESENTATION

CONCLUSION.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

iv

DANIEL GARBER'S BACKGROUND.

Page

16
27
37
63

LIST OF

FIGURES

14.Ian1.§....
15.1mm. .
16.EQLLLa..‘LL_Qf_I.anifi.
17.Wl.
18.W....

20.Ec_th.er_and_sg.n -

FIGURES

Page
“3
an
115
146
“7
1:8
49
50
51
52
53
514
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62

INTRODUCTION

American Impressionism is experiencing a growing wave of
popularity and Daniel Garber's paintings are being swept up
onto the crest. Garber painted toward the end of the
Impressionist movement and yet the quality and emotional force
of Garber's work have made the derisive term "academic painter"
inappropriate as a criterion for judgment. In the purest sense
of the word he was academic in that he spent most of his adult
life teaching at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts
(PAPA), in a period when Impressionism was the most established
and accepted style for the greatest number of collectors.
However,
the literal meaning of academicism has been altered over time
to suggest an art based on a formula and an unoriginal artist
lacking the talent to create a unique style. The latter
definition, if used to describe Garber, does both the artist
and critic a disservice, the artist because it ignores the
depth and feeling communicated in his works and the critic
because it acknowledges the lack of sensitivity to see beyond
the most basic aspects of a style and to be blinded to the
originality that can grow from it.

In his work Garber was not trying to make a radical“

statement or shock the viewer with distorted representation,

1

unconventional colors or compositions like some of his
contemporaries. Rather, he created "livable" pictures. As
Arthur Miller of the Lgs_Anggles_Iimes wrote, "He is one of
the most agreeable of our agreeable painters. A picture by
him on one's wall would long retain its charm and never lack
dignity".1 Garber's pictures are not glaring statements
where intimate knowledge of the artist and his theories is
required for understanding. They are more like friends, as
the relationship grows, it becomes richer. The introduction
to the surface qualities piques one's interest. As time
passes the finer qualities and inner depths that are not
immediately apparent begin to emerge, revealing a work that
can be understood and enjoyed on various levels.
Formalistically Garber was a great technician, rendering his
views of nature and home life with a gentle harmony of
detail and subtlety. His compositions are well balanced and
serene while suggesting an understanding of the contemporary
abstract art that he professed to eschewz. Emotionally his
works seduce the viewer into greater contemplation. The
images remain in the mind's eye and allow the viewer to
recall personal memories that mingle with Garber's implied
meanings. A rich, yet sometimes ungraspable, understanding
of both the artist and the viewer is created.

Impressionism was introduced to the United States circa
1880 under the auspices of the painter Mary Cassatt and the
gallery owner Durand-Ruel. The artist, being born into the

American social elite, had a network of wealthy and

influential friends whom she encouraged to patronize the
rising young Impressionistic painters from France. She made
slow but steady progress until 1886 when Durand-Ruel staged
an exhibition of 300 French Impressionist works in New York.
After this Impressionism became the new radical artistic
style with centers in Boston and New York. The Boston
artists developed a decorative interpretation, as
demonstrated by Childe Hassam and John Singer Sargent, which
was especially appealing to European aristocrats and the
taste makers of the American upper class. In New York the
style became broader and more socially conscious as
exemplified by members of the Ash Can School such as, Robert
Henri, John Sloan and George Bellows.

By the 19003 Impressionism had become the accepted
artistic style and had spread to outlying areas, developing
regional nuances as it joined other well established styles.
In Philadelphia it combined with the reigning realism of
Thomas Eakins and the uncompromising eye of Robert Henri,
who had taught at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts
before moving to New York. The new style captured the
lighting effects of a setting and the sense of a captured
moment without the loss of physical form or the gloss of
prettiness calculated to please the eye.

One of the identifiable groups practicing the
Philadelphia regional style was the New Hope Circle. This
was a loosely-knit group of landscape artists who lived in

geographic proximity to the town of New Hope, Pennsylvania

on the Delaware River, about thirty miles from Philadelphia.
The group had no dogmatic style or philosophy to bind the
members together but they shared a love of nature which was
expressed through Impressionism tempered by an understanding
and respect for naturalism. Some of the members of the New
Hope included Daniel Garber, John Folinsbee, William
Lathrop, Walter Schofield and Edward Redfield. These
artists were among the most well-respected painters of their
time although later they would be neglected by critics,
historians and the public in favor of the more radical

abstract art coming out of New York.

American Impressionism needs to be researched further
to continue exposing the forgotten talent of that time.
While the style was in flower it was constantly being judged
and compared negatively with French Impressionism. The
major difference between the two is that American
Impressionism retained more of its naturalistic heritage
while French Impressionism allowed its forms to dissolve
more fully in the pursuit of factually recording the
reflections of light. The comparison was understandable
given the similarity of surface technique, but it was
shortsighted and unfair, probably reflecting the
insecurities of Americans trained to believe that truly good
art could only be created by artists surrounded, from birth,
by hundreds of years of artistic tradition. While the

Americans captured the essence of light reflected in

landscapes, which was enough to qualify them as second-rate
Impressionists, they were faulted for not dissolving their
forms as much as the French. This lack of dissolution of
form, or rather their insistence on greater naturalism, was
seen as a reflection of their lesser talent rather than an
expression of a different heritage.3

Once it is accepted that French and American
Impressionism are two separate entities it opens the field
of American Impressionism to additional respectable
research. Artists such as Childe Hassam, Maurice Pendergast
and John Benson are becoming more widely known, as is
evidenced by scholarly publications as well as popular
posters and calendars featuring their work. Despite this
progress there are many others who deserve attention.

Daniel Garber is one who warrants greater
consideration. He painted landscapes and figures during the
first half of the 20th century with a warmth and charm that
suggests that he was personally involved with his subjects
while, at the same time, seeking a profound artistic
understanding of them. Even the harshest critics of
American Impressionism found him appealing. Royal
Cortissoz, a vocal critic of the time, had a general dislike
of the American Impressionistic style”. He was very willing
to denigrate Garber's work and yet he had to admit a charm
that overrode Garber's tendency toward repetition of motifs.

William Gerdts, a recent commentator on American

Impressionism, called Garber "the most original of the

[Pennsylvania] group and the most concerned with sunlight
and color."6. Sunlight and color were certainly high
priorities for Garber but he also dealt with a geometric
construction that combined subtle modern abstraction with
naturalistic compositions to create his unique and
compelling style.

The problem, or opportunity, in studying Garber is that
there is very little written on him to date. Kathleen
Foster has written an excellent essay entitled Dan1g1_fianhen
for an exhibition held at the Pennsylvania Academy of the
Fine Arts in 1980 in celebration of the 100th anniversary of
his birth7. Donelson F. Hoopes and William H. Gerdts have
written histories of American Impressionism which mention
Garber as one of the strongest of the late Impressionists
and briefly summarize his style8. Two exhibition catalogues
dealing with the Pennsylvania painters, by Sam Hunter and
Tom Folk include some discussion of Garber but add little to
the literatureg. Outside of these the researcher must refer
to contemporary writings on the artist. Here researchers
are handicapped because Garber rarely talked about his art.
When pressed he would give a brief description of a
particular canvas or of his philosophy of art but he shunned
analysis. He summed up his ideas when he said "I am
enthusiastic about my painting; I have few theories about
it. In art as in other things you work out your problems as
you go along, always trying to make your art better; and as

your work grows, you grow, immensely."10.

The final problem in studying Garber is the lack of
access to his art. Much of his work is still held
privately, either by the Garber family or those who bought
from the artist for their own pleasure, or by museums which,
for the most part, are not displaying them. While both
groups are very generous in sharing Garber's paintings the
viewing conditions in private homes and museum vaults do not
give his works the light needed to display all their
qualities. Because his style varied so little throughout
his career his works warrant careful scrutiny to document
the more subtle stylistic shifts. This task will have to be
left for later researchers who will have greater access to
his work as Garber's star continues to rise and his works
are once again properly displayed for public view. Here,
Garber's figurative and landscape compositions will be
categorized and parallels will be drawn between the two

subjects.

Introduction--Notes

1. Miller quoted in anonymous article, "A Garber Estimate",

Ihe.ALt_Disest. December 15, 1932. 9-9

2. Letter from Daniel Garber to his cousin Charles Garber,
March 5, 1935. Garber Scrapbook.

3. It is also interesting to note that the reaction in
Europe to the excessive dissolution of Impressionism was to
reintroduce solid form into composition, something the
Americans never lost.

4- Donelson F. Hoopes, Ihe_American_lmnzessicnists. Watson-
Guptill Publications, N.Y., 1972, p.17

5. Royal Cortissoz, "A Cortissoz Review", unknown newspaper
from Garber Scrapbook.

6. Gerdts, p.236-7

7. Kathleen A. Foster, Danigl_fianbez, Pennsylvania Academy
of the Fine Arts, 1980.

8. Hoopes, William H. Gerdts, American_lmnnessignism,
Abbeville Press, N.Y., 198A.

9. Sam Hunter, '
The Museum of Art, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 198A-1985. and
Thomas Folk. Ihe_Esnns1l1ania_Schccl_Q£_Landscane_Eaintinsi

An QnisinaI_Amenican_lmnnessienism. Allentown Art Museum.
198“.

10. Martha Cheney(?), "Portrait of a Happy Man", Bucks
Count1_ILaxsler(?), from Garber Scrapbook II.

CHAPTER 1
DANIEL GARBER'S BACKGROUND

Daniel Garber (1880-1958) was born in North
Manchester, Indiana at the time when impressionism was
introduced to America. By the early 19003 he had reached
his maturity and Impressionism was the accepted academic
style in America.

Garber seems to have had an innate need to create art,
overcoming his environment and family background to find the
beauty in nature. His home was devoid of decoration and
Garber describes the town of North Manchester as "hideous
rather than merely ugly", a place where farm concerns rather
than aesthetic were the main topics of conversation.1
Garber's family was not culturally oriented nor artistic yet
he began drawing on his own at an early age, gaining some
small encouragement when his father allowed him to set up a
studio in back of their house in North Manchester. He
pressed his advantage and persuaded his father to allow him
to attend the Art Academy of Cincinnati when he was sixteen.
It was here that he proved his dedication to , and his
talent for art by winning the "Home Scholarship" in May
1898. This was just the first of an impressively long list
of awards and prizes that Garber was to win throughout his

life.2

10

From Cincinnati Garber went to the Pennsylvania Academy
of the Fine Arts, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. While it
is not known exactly why he chose Philadelphia over Boston
or New York some suggest that it was an "atavistic longing
for his Pennsylvania Dutch background."3 While this has a
certain poeticism and serves to imbue him with a sense of
history or heritage it is more likely the reputation of the
Academy and his admiration for the artist J. Alden Weir, who
taught there, that drew him to Philadelphia.“

While at the Academy he met and married a fellow
student, Mary ("May") Franklin, who abandoned her art
studies after the marriage, feeling there was room for only
one artist in the familyS. He respected and relied on her
criticism, often stopping work on canvases she felt were
completeé. Home and family were the stabilizing force in
his life and his love and respect for May radiates from the
letters he wrote to her when he was forced to be away from
home, and from the pictures he painted of her.

His deep caring also encompassed his two children,
Tanis and John Franklin. Tanis was their first child, born
five years after the Garbers married, in 1906. An Italian
maid in their service when they lived in Europe was so
concerned about their childless state that she had charms
made to remedy the problem7. Tanis means "our daughter" in
a far eastern language, reflecting the pride the couple felt
in their newborn child. The pride is also evident in the

Sketches Garber made of her as an infant, showing a baby of

11

such innocence and sweetness that they could only be from a
parent's loving hand. She remained a favorite subject
through her childhood, appearing in canvases in quiet,
introspective moods.

John was born four years later. He didn't have the
sensitivity to art that Tanis had inherited and so had less of
an aesthetic connection with his father. But Garber's paternal
love was demonstrated in the standing offer to try to teach his
son to draw, even though they both realized the futility of the
exercise8. Garber only painted John once, at a time when the
lack of aesthetic connection was bridged by pride. John had
acquired an engineering degree, and was on the threshold of
entering, well equipped, the adult world that the artist knew
could be hard.

In 1905, when he was 25, the Academy awarded Garber the
prestigious Cresson Fellowship, an annual award which
provided two years of study in Europe for promising art
students. The Garbers spent their time in London, Italy and
France but never lost their love of America. The Academy
was pleased with the artist's progress and at the end of the
two year fellowship offered Garber a one year extension. At
the same time he was offered an assistant faculty position
at the Philadelphia School of Design for Women. Garber felt
an affinity for the American landscape and did not feel
completely at home in Europe. With the added incentive of
land purchased at Cuttalossa Glen by his father-in-law, Dr.

George P. Franklin, he opted for the teaching position and

12

home.

The glen was a picturesque, winding throat of a valley
close to the Delaware River and approximately thirty miles
from Philadelphia. The Garbers had been introduced to the
area by the painter William Lathrop, the leader of the New
Hope Circle, and had actually looked at the site Dr.
Franklin bought. They originally used Cuttalossa only as a
summer house, living in Philadelphia during the school year,
but it eventually became Garber's permanent retreat. He
took great care to make it his personal idealized haven,
tearing certain buildings down while allowing others to
decay picturesquely until the property became the world he
sought, an extension of himself. As he wrote to his cousin
George "to know me now you would have to know the place.
Everyone knows it's half of me".9

As a painter Garber remained steadfastly true to his
own Impressionistically derived aesthetic although strong
forces in the art world beckoned artists to break from
naturalism and create a new and different artistic language--
a language that some found to be untranslatable. Even
earlier, while in Europe, he opted to study on his own. He
would have been exposed to the new styles developing there
and he could have entered one of the academies, which was
common for American students, but he was satisfied to hone
his American training rather than search for new styles. He
probably would have agreed with George Grosz's opinion that

"experimentation as such is highly overrated today and

13

probably stems from a lack of ability"10.

His fidelity to his personal style continued after
the 1913 Armory show introduced the newer and more radical
European artistic styles to America, starting the avant-
garde art world on a new tangent. When questioned on his
lack of interest in experimenting with the new styles,
Garber told a reporter

"Of course, I want to follow along in art: I don't want
to bark back, and I think that my work is modern, in the
true sense of that word. But we work out our own
problems in nature, and my paths do not lie in the so
called modern art. I have too much respect for the trees
that I paint, and their true forms, to make1something out
of them that I do not feel exists in them."

Outside of Garber's obvious technical talent there is
an underlying strength that comes from his personal
involvement with his subjects. While any artist could claim
to have a personal involvement in his art, Garber was unique
in that he never used professional models nor did he, with
the exception of one canvas, paint from sketches and notes.
He needed to be in the presence of his subject to be able to
communicate his feeling toward his subject onto the canvas.
The intensity of his feeling for his subjects was suggested
when he said "it is our duty to try to render back to the
world the blessings that we receive from it; and ah artist
must try to make his fellow creatures share in the pleasure
which he has received from Nature"12. He clearly received
tremendous pleasure from nature, gleaning a sort of

religious inspiration from it. He was born a Mennonite but

had been disillusioned early when the church incorrectly

11:

predicted the end of the world13. Nature, rather than words
became his proof of a greater spiritual force. He told his
daughter, Tanis, "You only have to look at a flower to know
there's a God!"1u. His love of nature is clearly rendered

in his landscapes as his love of his family and home is

rendered in his paintings of them.

CHAPTER 1--NOTES
1. Anonymous, "Garber Exhibit to be Hung Jan. 2",
Scrapbook.

2. Kathleen A. Foster, Dan1e1_fianhgz, Pennsylvania Academy
of the Fine Arts, 1980, pp. 17-18.

3. Foster, p.19

A. Garber's admiration for the artist is well known. As a
youth he added the initial "J" to his first name in tribute
to the artist. (Foster, p.19)

5. Foster, p.20

6. Conversation with Tanis Garber Page.

7. Ibid.

8. Conversation with John Garber.

9. Foster, p.2u
10- R-H- Ives Gammell, W

W. New
York, G.P. Putmans Sons, 1946, Reviewed by Paul Zucker,
WWWfi March 19%. 99.289-

290

11. Anonymous, "Field for American Art Wonderful, Says
Garber“, Unidentified newspaper article from Garber
scrapbook II.

12. "Garber Exhibit to be Hung Jan. 2"

13. Foster, p.17 14. Ibid.

15

CHAPTER 2
LANDSCAPE STYLES

Landscapes comprise the majority of Daniel Garber's
work and are the main focus of criticism now, as they were
during the artist's life. These canvases best justify his
claim to being a modern painter. He presents his views with
a geometric clarity that Henry McBride suggested could

1

"almost be thought cubistic" and Elizabeth Cary classified

as being a "congregation of parts" rather than a
naturalistic wholez. He formed strong, angular compositions
and used technically correct trees, shrubs and hills to
soften and conceal the geometric patterning, disguising the
angular order behind naturalism. He was so adept at
capturing tree forms that critics often referred to them as
portraitsB. Whether in full foliage or stripped, he
captured a liveliness in the twisting limbs that has seldom
been matched.

The colors used for the landscapes also contribute to
their modernity. He used an even tonality that helped to
flatten the scene. His strong technical skill and
naturalistic portrayal of individual elements create an
understandable perspective. Yet the eye interchanges the
pleasant, pastoral, traditional scenes with the underlying

abstract patterning at will.
16

17

Garber saw more than idealized beauty in his
landscapes. He was concerned with man's existence within
nature and tried to incorporate that into his landscapes.
Whether a farm, group of houses or industrial quarry huts,
man, even if not depicted as such, was a part of Daniel
Garber's nature and contributed to the geometric
underpinnings of his style.

Since the beginning of time trees have been symbols for
life and and humanity, the conduit between heaven and earth.
Paul Klee took this a step further and related the artist to
a tree. He said:

"The artist, you might say, is like a tree. He has
managed to cope with this bewildering world pretty
well, we shall assume, in his own quiet way. He has
found his bearings well enough to set order into the
swirl of his impressions and experiences. This
orientation among the things of nature and life, this
order with all its many ramifications, I liken to the
roots of the tree. From these roots comes the sap
that streams through the artist and through his eye,
for he is the trunk of the tree. Under the pressure
of this mighty flow, he infuses what he sees into his
work. And just as the foliage spreads out in time and
space,uvisible from all sides, so grows the artist's
work."

The temptation is strong to relate Garber's "lone trees" to
the artist himself, especially given their portrait-like
quality and his own rapport with nature. Garber would most
likely have scoffed at this idea as he scoffed at most
attempts to analyze his work.5 But he was attuned to
nature and injected a sense of humanity and understanding
into his paintings that makes them stand above pure
representation of scenery. This was his personal touch,

choosing trees carefully and selectively rendering them to

18

translate his intensity of feeling for his surroundings. It
perhaps was not a conscious effort and yet it is clear that
the relationship of man and nature concerned him. When he
was in the mountains at Equinox, painting a commissioned
work, he wrote to his wife
"The mountains about here seem quite formidable near
Equinox--looks pretty large. But of course I know they
don't amount to much. How the people ever dig up a
living gets me. I actually only saw one farm where corn
or grain was raised. It is nothing but small patches of
hay here and there--gain business seems to be maple
butter sweet candy."
A man with the sensitivity to associate the landscape so
closely with the plight of mankind would surely translate
that concern to his work.

While Garber's landscapes certainly are a
representation of the Delaware Valley he loved to paint,
they are more than factual representations. He chose his
views and light effects carefully to communicate the beauty
he saw and felt in the area and, in a sense, transformed the
Pennsylvania landscapes into a personal earthly paradise.
When teaching, he admonished his students to form "habits of
observation" and "not to imitate a thing seen, but to train
the eye to the eventual expression of that which the mind
will choose to see"7.

Critics have classified Garber's landscapes into two
categories; one being a meticulously decorative style that
was likened to French tapestry and the other, a broader,
more relaxed approach. Further discussion of his stylistic

development would be helpful but, as suggested earlier, this

is difficult given the current viewing conditions. A more

19

fruitful and interesting avenue of study concerns Garber's
compositions. It has been noted that he repeated his
landscape motifs yet the distinctions within those motifs
have been ignored. Garber taught his students to view
landscapes as though they were a series of curtains, running
parallel to the picture plane. Foreground, middleground and
background each encompass a separate "curtain". He held
closely to his own teaching and his landscapes can be
divided into four styles, distinguished by the use of the
different planes.

The first could be called the "keyhole style” in which
trees and shrubbery are placed close to, or on the picture
plane and balanced to form a "frame” for the distant
background. This frame is painted in deeper tones with
greater detail, often involving draping vines which create a
decorative, lacy effect. The closeness of this dark "frame"
evokes a sense of a secluded, rather private spot from which
the viewer looks out onto a calm and restful landscape.

An example of the style is Wilderness, (Figure 1). The
foreground "frame" is created by the heavily massed vertical
grouping of trees on the right and the single tree on the
left. They are connected by intertwining branches above and
a dark, slightly overgrown stretch of land below. The trees
are dead and spindly, choked by the encasing vines that drip
from their branches. The dark browns and russets are
highlighted to an orange glow by a bright sun over the
viewer's right shoulder. The middleground is a blue,

20

shallow pond pierced by horizontal jetties of land. On these
stand dead white trees that echo those in the foreground.
Rising from the pond is a smoky purple hillside with a
small community picked out in white dabs. The hill reaches
up to meet the cloudy, light blue sky in the middle of the
canvas, cutting it exactly in half. The composition as a
whole is an overlapping grid of horizontals and verticals.
The sky, hill, water and foreground create the horizontals
which are crossed by the vertical elements of the trees and
clouds. It is an abstraction of planes except for the
carefully observed foreground which anchors it in
naturalism.

Two other examples of the keyhole style are 11ne_gled
Izees (Detroit Institute of Art, Merrill Fund, acquired
1918) and HaukL§_N£§L (Figure 2). Both paintings have the
same foreground laciness of Hildenness but there is a misty,
dreamy atmosphere created by less tonal variation.

The second style could be called the "lone tree" style.
In it Garber represents one large tree in the near
foreground, placed slightly off-center. Whether the tree is
relatively bare or in full foliage, Garber pays special
attention to the formation of the branches, picking trees
carefully for their interesting bough configuration. Like
the keyhole effect, the foreground plane is usually more
detailed and in darker tones than the background. Sweeping
landscapes with human elements of houses, farms or factories

form a backdrop for his trees.

21

figlfihnnx_lall£1(Figure 3) is a fine example of this,
the most easily identifiable of his styles. A virtually

bare tree is perched on a small hill slightly to the right
of center. It is a clear example of the care Garber took in
choosing his trees to reflect the complexities of nature.
The smaller branches are expertly rendered in their twisting
forms to add, through their very complexity, a touch of
movement in an otherwise still picture. They are the ever-
present undercurrents of activity in the quiet moments of
life. The late afternoon sun rakes across the twisted limbs
and casts complex shadows on the tree itself and throws a
pattern on the ground behind to lead the eye into the
pictorial space. The landscape then sweeps dramatically
though a valley, broken by cottages, villages and groves, to
a distant mounding of pale hills.

The geometry is especially noticeable in this canvas.
Again, the tree forms the major vertical element with one
limb branching off to divide the canvas exactly in half.

The horizontal striations of the rolling hills are further
broken into color blocks formed by the tree groves. The
overall tonality is so uniformly soft that the naturalism
and geometry vie equally for the viewer's attention.

Several other examples of the "lone tree” motif are
Seeingsimes_leh1eken (Figure 4), Czab_Annle (Figure 5), and
Qun_£anL£l_N£1£hDQL§(Figure 6). All share varying degrees
of flat patterning in the background and the sense of

intimacy created by the close proximity and of the trees

22

and their detailed handling.

The third style deals with the "middle distance" and is
the least distinct. Some have the feel of a distant "lone
tree" motif while others are less focused. It is as though
he was searching for a "lone tree" composition but was
unable to find the proper tree or vista to give the scene
his characteristic focus. ‘

Hill.§££eK(Figure 7) is an example of the style. This
is an autumnal landscape in greens and russets with touches
of purple. In the middle distance and virtually springing
from the center of the canvas is a pair of trees that spread
their limbs to form a "V" topped by golden leaves clustered
in pom-pon-like shapes that echo the small tree at the
bottom right which is the entry point into the picture.

This grouping of large trees casts purple shadows on a
ruined brick mill building directly behind it. The
delineation of the orange bricks echoes the "V" of the trees
and balances the horizontal and vertical linearity of the
foreground and building. The mill is seen head-on with
little sense of perspective which effectively closes the
spatial extension. The closure here is closer and more
emphatic than that created by the backing "curtain" of the
flattened distance in the "lone tree" style. Around the
edges of the canvas is softly mounded foliage that create
the suggestion of a frame. It is less specific than the
keyhole style but lends some of the same intimacy. The

central grouping of trees could also suggest a lone tree

23

classification yet it lacks the monumental force of the
trees Garber chooses for that motif.

Haunted (Figure 8) also exhibits this style. A tree
is again set back from the front plane with the buildings in
the background effectively closing off the distance. This
canvas might be considered of the "lone tree" motif, with
the careful attention to the personality of the tree, except
for the tight confinement of space.

The fourth and final classification is the "far
distance" style. This includes quarries and hillsides
viewed from a relatively high vantage point with little in
the foreground or middleground to disturb the monumental
sweep of the land.

This style is seen in Ihe_93ennys_£1en1ng (Figure 9).
Inviting the viewer into the canvas is a firey orange bush
in the bottom left corner of the front plane. The eye is
then lead across a flat pasture, peopled by barely
discernible farmers. The pasture terminates in an awe
inspiring cliff formed by the quarry excavations. Topping
this is a band of trees that cleanly meets a matching band
of sky. Garber again uses russets and purples to create a
warm and restful vista. The rhythmic horizontal banding
formed by the arrangement of his "curtains" and a hallmark
of his work, is only disturbed by the gentle curve of the
rock stratification and two small trees in the lower half of

the canvas. The trees seem to serve the same purpose as the

twisting branches in Selennny_lelley, providing points of

2n

contrast and life in an otherwise quietly ordered setting.
Here too the perspective is understood but not absolute. In
fact, the far distant landscapes are the easiest style in
which to understand Garber's modernist tendencies. With few
naturalistically rendered forms in the front plane it is
easier to dissociate the composition from the subject matter
and view the canvas an a arrangement of shapes and colors.

Other examples of the style are seen in Legzyls_flill
(Figure 10), SLQQKLQH (Figure 11) and A2L11_Land§£ane
(Figure 12). All have the sweeping vistas which are held to
a subtle sense of intimacy by the directness with which the
far side of the pictorial space is confronted. The eye has
a great distance to travel but there is never the danger of
becoming lost. Garber set limits on even his most far
reaching landscapes, controlling them as he tried to control
all of his surroundings.

There is in many of Garber's landscapes a compelling
mix of the past and present. It is in his subjects and in
his style, combining traditional compositions with a subtle
wash of the modern. He did not seek to deny the past for a
shocking modernity, but was sensitive to it. This unique
blend hints at the rich associations that people have felt
from the far distant past to the present in a lone tree or a
glimpse of the distant open land from the edge of a dark
forest.

It is too easy to discount Garber's landscapes because

cf their superficial similarity. A Frenchman noticed the

25

subtleties and commented "It can hardly be the work of a man
following a formula. The detail is painted with too much
love. Whenever one follows a formula the details are
slurred over."8 There is a warmth and sparkling light that
passes over his work creating the sense that he was truly
striving to share the pleasure he received from nature, and

succeeding.

CHAPTER 2--NOTES

1. Henry McBride, "New Garber Works Show Style Change", flex
Yenk_Sun, March 12, 1919, Garber Scrapbook.

2. Elizabeth Cary, "Pictures by Daniel Garber",,fleu_lenk
Times, not dated, Garber Scrapbook, PAFA

3. Although critics wrote of his talent with trees the fact
that it was a generally accepted talent comes from the walls
of the PAFA where it was noted that "Barns are painted by
foal? like me, but only Garber can paint a tree". [Foster,
p. 0

A. Nello Ponente, translated from Italian by James Emmons,
Klee, Skira, 1960, p.82.

5. Foster, p.27

6. Letter to May Franklin Garber, August 1, 1931(7), Garber
Scrapbook.

7. Anonymous, Recent_£aintinss_bx_2aniel_§anhen. The Macbeth
Gallery, New York, March 9-29, The Archives of American Art,
Roll N55.

8. Mr. Dauchez quoted in an anonymous and untitled article,

Ine_Bncoklxn_Dailx_£asle. April 11. 1920. Garber Scrapbook-

26

CHAPTER 3
FIGURATIVE REPRESENTATION

Garber's figurative works are only a small portion of
his oeuvre, painted mainly between 1908 and 1924, but they
possess an emotional strength that rivals his best
landscapes. The strength lies in his subject choice. He
never used professional models or photographs for his
compositions, prefering to render close friends and family,
mainly his wife and daughter, in quiet contemplation. He
did accept portrait commissions but he viewed them as
business ventures, accepting the majority during the
Depression. They are mostly solid, competent renderings
but lack the intensity seen in his chosen subjects and will
not be dealt with here.

Garber's need to manipulate his surroundings to
reflect his idealized vision of life was demonstrated in
his careful tending of Cuttalossa. He also manipulated the
compositions of his figurative works to reflect his models
and their place in his life. Men are depicted with
harsher, stronger, more masculine characteristics, showing
a tenseness that suggests a directedness and sense of
purpose. Women are softer, more delicate and are depicted
around the home where they can, by rights, be protected by
their men. His women are not chained to their environment
yet they are carefully placed in their compositions to

reflect the closed nature of their world‘. They exist in
27

28

beautiful settings where they are safe from the perils of
the world and which they enhance by their own grace and
beauty. Men also exist in his idealized world but they
maintain their contact with the world beyond their
immediate surroundings.

Garber's women occupy only the front plane of his
pictures, held in place either through their body position
or architectural elements. Their features and outlines are
softened by backlighting, allowing them, in some cases, to
blend with the natural backgrounds. They echo his quest
for an ideal life, personifying the peaceful gentleness he
tried to incorporate in his landscapes and surroundings.

His male subjects‘are handled quite differently.

Where the women are back-lit, light shines on the men's
faces, accentuating their strong features. Where the women
are confined to the front plane, the men are allowed access
to other planes. Uncluttered floor space between the men
and the viewer or doors and windows through which they
could move give the illusion that the men have greater
control and freedom in their movements.

One of the clearest examples of Garber's handling of
women is The_QLeheLd_Winnen (Figure 13). His daughter,
Tanis, sits in the lower left corner of the canvas on a
window seat, reading a book. One leg is tucked beneath her
and the other is extended creating an "L" of her body that
echoes the regularity and flatness of the canvas and window

panes. Sun streaming through the window creates a glare on

29

the top of her head and on the book in her lap which
reflects up into her solemn young face. Her right hand has
an amazingly life-like translucent glow, or as Gardner
Teall described the play of light on the figure, "the
original gives the sense, not of heavy opacity, but of

2 She

living tissue in deep shadow, well molded and vital."
is held secure in the foreground by the hanging curtains
and the foursquare grid of the window panes. Seen through
the window is a steep flowered hill suffused in sunlight.
There are clearly rendered trees, shrubs and flowers but
the impression is that of an idyllic summer backdrop
unfolded to compliment the beautiful little girl sitting
inside, engrossed in her book. The canvas is predominantly
soft blues, awash in light, again displaying an even
tonality that serves to flatten the distance into a series
of color blocks.

Another picture featuring his daughter in a garden
‘setting is is simply called Isnis (Figure 14)3. Again
Tanis is placed in the immediate foreground, backed by a
sparkling garden. She stands the full height of the
canvas, facing the viewer, leaning with her right hand
against the doorsill, her left hand in her pocket. She
wears a translucent dress that glows with the sun and seems
to evaporate and meld with the garden background. Standing
with her weight on her right leg she stares dreamily at her
right hand. Again the sun reflects off her golden hair

creating a glare that dissolves the solid form or, more

30

poetically, forms a halo around her head. As in The
Onehend_flineen the garden is brilliantly lit and inviting
yet has a peculiar sense of flatness. The confinement of
the figure is less obvious here, but present nevertheless.
Tanis is framed in the studio doorway and is blocked from
entering the background by her own positioning. It is as
though she could pivot on her right foot and go into the
garden, but her own arm bars the way. She studies the
barrier but does nothing to remove it.

In the Whit£_£QL£h (Figure 15) Garber's wife, May,
sits in a rocking chair in the lower right hand corner of
the canvas, her head leaning restfully back, lost in her
own thoughts. She is backed by vines draped randomly on
the house. To the viewer's left is a small jungle of house
plants set outside to catch the summer sun that peeks onto
the porch. Geraniums, sheffalera and poinsetta greens
balance the solitary figure of May, sitting as far as
possible from the sunlight, both formally and
philisophically--they are both vital forces that are
protected from the world by the home. They also serve to
enclose the porch, keeping her safely within its confines.
Standing like a fulcrum in the center of the canvas is the
large front door. It is opened invitingly but the front
plane remains unbroken, spanned by the Victorian
gingerbread of the screen door. Garber manages to capture
the brightness of the summer afternoon that is evident in

Tanis's garden landscapes, but in more muted tones. It is

31

as though the light reflects the buoancy of youth for Tanis
and is calmed to reflect her mother's quiet maturity. The
dominant bluish-gray and beige tonality is broken only by
the small touches of red in the geraniums and May's dress
creating a restful yet lively scene. A critic from the Neg
IeLk_Iimes was similarly impressed and said "there is a life
here, too, but a life subdued," and defined it as the
"measured movement of convention amid the spontaneities of
nature."u This painting, in my opinion, is one of Garber's
finest; incorporating his love for his wife and home in a
perfect blending of understated and sophisticated tones.

These women in quiet poses may, in part, be the result
of achieving a position that would be comfortable for the
duration of the sitting. Yet comfort was not Garber's only
concern, he wanted to capture the essence, as he saw it, of
the person. His daughter recalls with distaste a pose
wherein she was surrounded by, and held onto weeping willow
boughs as bugs climbed up and down her armss. The
painting, now destroyed, captured the childish travels of a
girl strolling aimlessly through the trees. The poses of
his women capture their basic movements, but the colors and
hazy, even tonality remove the real settings to a dream
world which fit the artist's idealized vision. Other
examples of women placed in an enclosed, safe dream world
are.EQLLna1L_Q£_Ian1§ (Figure 16), Ih§_§£nnig_flall (Figure
17), and Ihe_Qnie1e (Figure 18).

Among his figurative paintings, those dealing with men

32

are in the minority and are painted later in his career.

He did numerous charcoal drawings of his artist friends and
his son John but rarely did he render them in oil. A
notable exception is his portrait of W1111em_Lengsen
Letnnee (Figure 19). Lathrop was the spiritual head of the
New Hope Circle of artists. Garber had long wanted to
paint him and took the opportunity when the older artist's
wife was in the hospital.

The 3/4 length portrait has Lathrop standing slightly
to the left of center in an old brown corduroy jacket and
bow tie. His right hand digs into the soft corduroy pocket
which rumples comfortably around it. His left hand holds a
pipe and he gazes out an unseen window with the low sun
bathing him in warm light. The somber face with the pince-
nez glasses suggests an intelligence and wisdom befitting
his years. On the table in front of him are several books,
a paint palette, and a jar of paint brushes. The painting
conveys an intense personality which Garber either could
not, or was not interested in conveying in most of his
commissioned portraits. While it is an impressive and
moving portrait in a black and white reproduction the
emotional strength of the canvas when standing before it is
jolting. Garber captured the essence of the man and the
artist with uncommon accuracy. In a letter to his cousin
Charles he said "its much the stnenges; portrait I've ever
done, it is neg and very personal." After further

discussion he wrote "Don't blame me--I've never heard such

33

comments-- the family are just awed."6

There is a symbolism in the canvas that Garber would
surely have denied and yet is too strong to ignore. The
indications of Lathrop's art are placed in front of him:
paint brushes, palette and books. The sun streams across
these and washes over his face. Gone is the soft modeling
of features caused by gentle lighting that he used for
female subjects. Rather, the light strongly illuminates
Lathrop's forceful features. Interestingly though, the sun
is low in the sky suggesting that while he is still active
in his career, his life is advanced-~as is the day. Taken
individually these observations could, as Garber's son
suggests, simply be cases of coincidental placement of
figures and light. However, in fleshez_end_§en (Figure 20)
the elements combine too convincingly to be mere
coincidence. In it May and John Garber play chess by the
open French windows of the studio at Cuttalossa. May sits
quietly on the left contemplating her next move. She is
locked into her space by the window and chess table. John
stands across from her, relaxed, with his hands in his
pockets, leaning against the door jamb. The high summer
sun cuts sharply into the studio, casting bright, glaring
light on John and touching May only in reflection. John
stands in the only exit into the background. As in other
paintings the garden beyond the window appears rather flat
with only implied depth. however the open French doors
pull the eye, and by suggestion John, into the distance.

34

This is the only canvas in which John appears. He had just
graduated from college and was passing the time at home
before leaving to start his first job as an engineer.

As in Lathrop's portrait the lighting is an important
element. Where the artist was portrayed late in his career
with the sun low in the sky, John Garber was just starting
out and has the sun high and strong on his face. Likewise,
the tools of his established occupation stand between
Lathrop and the sunlight while John, whose career was an
open book, has nothing impeding the light or his passage
into the garden.

Garber successfully merged his perceptions of his
models' personas with his idealized concept of his world,
and their place with it. He created an idyllic atmosphere
where the human element makes Garber's sensitivity to man
and nature more accessible to viewers. It is far easier to
feel rapport with figurative paintings that to relate to
the personality of a landscape because our own experiences
are predominated by human interconnections. Garber's
choice of models, whom he knew well and for whom he had
empathy, made it possible for him to communicate stronger
feelings than if he had chosen to portray professional
models. In some paintings, particularly those of May, he
would try to distance his emotional attachment to the
subject by turning the model's face from the viewer (See
Figures 17 and 18). In his effort to depersonalize the

Subject the face was often awkwardly rendered. However,

35

the force of feeling remains strong and combines with the
solid composition and technical skill to create singularly

moving works.

CHAPTER 3--NOTES

1. It must be stressed that while a feminist sensibility
was used to note the different handling of male and female
subjects, it is important to view his work with the
attitudes of Garber's time in assessing his work to avoid
derogatory labels that would have had no meaning to him.

2. Gardner Teall, "In True American Spirit: The Art of

Daniel Garber", Heepst_lnfienne§ienel, 39, June 1921, pp.28,
77-

3. The sale of this picture at auction was the first
indication of Garbers's growing popularity with the newly
attuned collectors. The value was assessed at $10,000 but
sold for $50,000. The art world finally started to notice
Garber and he has since become a drawing card for auction
houses (source: conversations with John F. Garber and
Kathleen Foster)

4. Foster, p.32
5. Conversation with Tanis Garber Page, March 24, 1986.

6. Letter to Charles Garber, March 5, 1935, Garber
Scrapbook, PAFA

.36

CONCLUSION

Garber was a man of strong but controlled emotions.
Given cursory study the control is more evident than the
emotion. With his landscapes neatly ordered like theater
curtains and his figures placed firmly in their
compositions, the art could seem rather sterile, especially
when compared with a young avant-garde artist like Jackson
Pollock, whose career overlapped Garber's. But he was able
to communicate intense emotions and empathy for his
subjects in his more subtle and tradition-based painting
style. A suggestion of the intensity with which he
approached his art is seen when he was forced to paint less
because of a heart condition. The artist who created calm,
reflective compositions was threatened by his art because
it affected him so deeply. A clear example of the
magnitude of his emotions, outside of his art, was
demonstrated by his reaction to seeing the actor Paul
Robeson play Othello. After attending the show in Trenton,
N.J., not far from Cuttalossa, he was so moved by the
performance he was forced to stop and rest half-way home1.

His strength of feeling becomes most evident in his
figurative works. Garber only painted figures when he felt
drawn to them. They are not mere objects possessing
intriguing surfaces for light reflection. They have a
presence in the composition, an integrity that issues from

37

38

an understood and appreciated personality. This explains
why he never used models; there was no emotional
attachment. He did not know their inner virtues so he was
unable or disinterested in communicating them. His
landscapes, which comprise the majority of his oeuvre are,
in one sense, his stock-in-trade. They possess an
immediate, pleasant appeal which hints at their personality
and richness, but can just as easily be ignored in favor of
the simple pleasure of the colors and composition. It is
the association between Garber's landscapes and figurative
works that make the former more compelling. The
similarities make the inherent human quality of his
landscapes more accessible.

Compositionally Garber's figurative works are most
similar to his "lone tree" landscapes. In_the_ALbez, a
work destroyed by the artist, is the only figurative work
related to the "key hole" style. Figures seen at a
distance are scarce and have little more distinction in the
compositions than the far-off trees and shrubs. But the
similarity between the figurative works and the "lone tree"
landscapes is acute. They both have solitary elements in
the foreground, close to the picture plane and often
dominating the space. Garber rendered both the trees and
the figures with great detail and more naturalism than
would be seemly for an artist hewing rigidly to the
traditional Impressionistic style. He concentrated on the

elements that made each unique, a subtle glance or a

39

twisting twig that distinguished the subject and made it a
personal entity. But they remain things unto themselves.
The non-confrontive, meditative figures allow the viewer to
enter the same quiet state of contemplation which the
landscapes invite. He placed the carefully rendered figure
or tree against a background that vacillated between
sweeping distance and flat curtain. This similarity
strengthens the theory that Garber's trees possess human-
like attributes.

He was not a demonstrative man, being remembered by
students as gruff and non-verbal in his dealings, yet
helpful if they showed promise and determinationz. A man
possessing that sort of personal reserve would not be
comfortable advertising his emotions publicly. He would
search for a universal vehicle, one that is understandable
to the majority, and to which they would attach their own
meaning, yet still retains a strong personal meaning for
himself. Garber found his vehicle in landscapes. In light
of the parallels between the "lone tree" compositions and
his figurative works, it seems the closer his landscape
subjects came to the front plane of the canvas, the closer
the relationship between the subject and the artist.

There is, of course, some inconsistency in Daniel
Garber's work. When a subject interested him he could
internalize the essence of the scene and create a vividly
personalized canvas, combining the scene's inherent beauty

and strength and his own reaction to it. There were times,

40

though, when the vistas did not interest him and he felt
uninspired. At times like that many artists would simply
pack away their supplies and wait for the muse to return.
But Garber was made of sterner stuff, being raised on the
Protestant work ethic. As Foster wrote "his hardworking
style expected nothing to come easily so he bore down on
his objectives with uncommon persistence"3. Regardless of
inspiration he would try to create something. Garber
recognized, and agonized over, the lesser quality of some
of the paintings“ but was also concerned about making a
livings. The two motivators were at odds but the desire
for quality usually won. He often scraped out paintings
that did not suit his exacting eye6. We have lost almost
all of his early works this way. However, some works were
beyond his control. In an effort to acquire a work by
Garber patrons would often buy paintings out of the studio
before they were finished. He would then be obligated to
finish and deliver them, sometimes perhaps lacking the all-
important inspiration.

Garber knew art and knew when he had done it well. He
was proud of his work and understood the machinery of the
art world well enough to use it to promote his name. He
entered virtually every show and exhibition east of the
Mississippi River, winning numerous awards along the way,
until he became an accepted and prestigious artist7. In
the end this may have proved to be his undoing. Because he

was so appealing a painter and so sought after, at the end

L11

of his career he did not need to enter as many shows and
was not dependent on art galleries. At the end of each
season he would invite a select group of patrons to an "at
home" where he would show and sell his works. His clients
wanted his work for their personal enjoyment, not as
investment pieces or status displays. As a result they
have remained in private collections and out of
circulation. As more estates begin to change hands, and
there is economic reason for galleries and auction houses
to promote his name, his works will begin to resurface and

Daniel Garber will once again be recognized for the richly

personal style he perfected.

CONCLUSION--NOTES

1. Conversation with John F. Garber, March 24, 1986.
2. Foster, p.39
3. Ibid

4. His letters to his wife and Macbeth Galleries often
chronicaled his dissatisfaction with his work. See, for
example, letter to Macbeth, March 9, 1910. Archives of
American Art, Roll #NMc 6.

5. Economic concerns were a frequent topic in his letters
to Macbeth Galleries. He also mentioned his concern to his
cousin Charles in a letter dated March 15, 1935. Also his
willingness to accept commissioned portraits which he
disliked doing (conversation with John F. Garber).

6. Conversation with John F. Garber.

7. Once Garber arrived in Philadelphia his list of awards
reached impressive numbers. A brief sample includes: First
Place Toppan Prize of $500 in the PAFA competition in 1903,
First Hallgarten Prize at the National Academy of Design in
1909, Potter Palmer Gold Medal (and $1000) at the Art
Institute of Chicago, and the Walter Lippincott Prize
($3000) for the best oil by an American painter, both 1911,
Shaw Prize, Salamagundi Club (N.Y.C.) in 1916, First
William A. Clark Prize ($2000) at the Corcoran Exhibition
in 1921. The list continues through 1942 when he won the
Pennell Medal from the PAFA and the John Gribbel Memorial
Prize.

8. Conversation with John F. Garber.

42

43

Figure 1
Wildenness, 1912, 50" x 60", Private Collection

 

nu

Figure 2

The_flaukis_flest, not dated, 52" x 56", Cincinnati Art
Museum, Mary Dexter Fund

 

. ...r \nfi.

a.

u i." iYF-JQE i Ii.

-..F/

i .V‘ fig: .q.

Figure 3
Seleegzy_lelley, c.1928, 51" x 56", Kresge Art Museum,
Michigan State University

,_" _ r' “:1 .. .
. . . ,I .
. . 1 - J v... a”.

 

46

Figure 4
§R£1n8L1m2i_I2hian, 1936, 52" x 56", Private Collection

 

 

:47

,
m
U
8
S
u
M
t
r
A
e
g
S
e
r
K
’
2
5“.
ex
r.
Un
86
in.
F
’
d
e
t
a
d
t
O
n
’

Michigan State University

 

48

Figure 6
Qun_£euntny_fleighhens, 50 1/4'' x 60", Private Collection

 

 

49

Figure 7
50

Mill_§neek, not dated, " x 42", Private Collection

 

50

Figure 8
Heunteg, 1925, 28" x 30", New Jersey State Museum,
Trenton

 

51

Figure 9
' , 1913, 50" x 60", Philadelphia
Museum of Art, W.P. Wilstach Collection

 

52

Figure 10
Leuny;s_flill, 1922, 50" x 61", Pennsylvania Academy of
the Fine Arts

 

53

Figure 11
Sseekten, 1922, 28" x 36", formerly in the collection of
Richard Stuart Gallery

 

 

 

54

Figure 12
, 1910, 42 1/4“ x 46", The Corcoran
Gallery of Art, Museum purchase, 1911

 

 

t
r.
A
f
O
m
u
e
S
u
M
a
i
h
p
1
e
d
a
31
Ali
.0
CD;
r
u ,
g8
.11
F9
1
9

 

56

Figure 14
Ienis, 1915, 60" x 46 1/2", Warner Collection of Gulf
State Paper Corporation

 

 

57

Figure 15

EhiL§_£Q££h, 1909, 36 1/8" x 44 1/8", Private Collection

 

 

58

Figure 16
Eezsneit_e£_1enis, 1914, 30 1/4" x 24 1/2", Private
Collection

 

 

 

 

 

 

59

Figure
Ih£_§£ufl19_flall, 1914, 50 1/4" x 52", Private Collection

 

)
l
1
7/
l 4
, .
1.. A
. “1" 9i
_t- ‘- u
‘ 1 ' A J
' u fl
i ”2.“:
k “9"“,
u ,,7. 17 l
”I ~ 0‘ if
‘ 1
,.
1’
I ‘ v ‘ v. g 3‘ ‘
1‘ .'\‘ ‘ .
1 l - '
’ I '1‘.

 

 

 

60

Figure 18
Ine_Qeiele, not dated, 30" x 28", Newman Gallery,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

 

 

61

Figure 19
1935, 50" x 41 7/8",
Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts

 

 

62

Figure 20
Mothen_end_§en, 1933, 80 1/4" x 70 1/2", Pennsylvania
Acedemy of the Fine Arts

 

BIBLIQQBAEHY

Anonymous, "Award of the Popular Prize", Qannegie_flegezine,
December 1933, pp.195-296.

 

, "Daniel Garber Macbeth Galleries", Ih£_A£L_N£fl§,
Saturday March 14, 1831.

, ""Every Picture an Adventure," Says Garber at

Exhibit". Wm. January 8. 1929.

(from Garber Scrapbook)

 

"Field for American Art Wonderful, Says Garber”,
1923, (from Garber Scrapbook).

"Garber After Five Years", Ihe_AL;_Digest, January
15, 1933.

"A Garber Estimate", Ihe_ALt_Digest, December 15,

 

 

 

1932.

"Garber Exhibit to Be Hung Jan. 2 in Art Club
GallerY". The_Bcckfend_Rezistenzfiazette. undated. (from

Garber Scrapbook).

 

"Garber Wins the Popular Prize at Carnegie", Ine_ALt
Digest, December 15,1933, p.7.

"New York Sees a Less Meticulous Garber", Ihe_ALt
213251, March 15, 1931, p. 7.

Archives of American Art, Roll P74-frames 441-480, Roll D326-
frame 1004, Roll NMc 6-frames 1372-1415, Roll D131-frame
340, Roll N55-frames 780-793, Roll N736-frame 198.

 

 

Boyle, Richard J., Amenieen_lmsnessien1sm, New York Graphics
Society, Boston, Mass., 1974.

160 16'1'American Impressionism", Aeelle, August 1974,
PP- - .

 

Brown. Milton. WWW:
Desnessien, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.,
1955.

Cary, Elizabeth, "Pictures by Daniel Garber", Nen_Ienk_Iimes,
undated, (from Garber Scrapbook).

.63

64

Cortissoz, Royal, Inihnne, undated, (from Garber Scrapbook).

Domit. Mousse H., We, National
Gallery of Art, Washington D.C., 1973.

Ferber, Linda S. The Domestication of Impressionism",
Aztnens, March 1982, pp. 84-88.

Folk, Thomas, Ihe_Eennsxlxania_§2hcel_ef_Landecane_£aintinsl
An QLisinal_Amenican_Imnnessicnism. Allentown Art
Museum, 1984.

Forgey, Benjamin, "American Impressionism--from the Vital to
the Academic", Aztnegs, October 1973, pp.24-27.

Foster, Kathleen A., Deniel_fienhez, The Pennsylvania Academy
of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia, 1980.

Gerdts, William H., Amenieen_lmezess1enism, Abbeville Press,
N.Y., 1984.

Hoopes, Donelson F.. Ihe_Amenican_lmnnessienists, Watson-
Guptill Publications, N.Y., 1972.

Hunter. Sam. AmeLican_Im2Lessionisml_Ihe_Neu_che_£iLcle. The
Museum of Art, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 1984-1985.

Isaacson,Joel,"Impressionism and Journalistic Illustration",

Act Magazine, June.]2§2+_nns_&5:llfis

Jarmusch, Ann, "Philadelphia, Relentless Serenity", Aztnens,
October 1980, pp. 177-184.

Lane, James W., "Notes from NY: The Hispanic Museum and the
Impressionist Vogue", Aselle, May 1937, ppo173-81-

Lanes, Jerold, "The American Impressionist, Hirschl and
Adler Galleries; Childe Hassam, Bernard Danesber

GallerieS". Ant_Foruml_lanuanx_19§94_nnl§3:fill

Mann, Virginia, "Connecticut and American Impressionism, Ants
Megezine, November 1980, pp166-167.

McBride, Henry, "New Garber Works Show Style Change", Neg
York Sun, March 12, 1919, (from Garber Scrapbook).

Perlman, Bennard B., '
from Eakins_te_the_ALmeLx_Shcnl_1810:1913. North Light
Publishers, Westport, Conn., 1979.

Pitz, Henry, "Daniel Garber", ££§fi£il£_A£I, April 1928,
pp.252-256.

, "The Turning Wheel", Ameeieen_ALL1sL, March

 

65

1964, pp.22-28+e

Pomeroy, Ralph, "Yankee Impressionists: Impressive,
Impressionable", Azeneus, November 1968, pp.50-51+.

Ponente, Nello, Klee, translated by James Emmons,Editions
d'Art Albert Skira, 1960.

Preston, Stuart, "Paris, Petit Palais American

Impressionists", Ihe_BnLllngLen_Megezlne, June 1982,
p.382.

Russell, John, "Delayed Impressions", ALL_ln_AmeLlee, January
1981, pp96-101e

Teall, Gardner, "In True American Spirit, the Art of Daniel
Garber, HeaLatJntematienal, June 1921. PP 23, 77.

"Daniel Garber, Exponent of Nationalism in

Art", Heenst_flegezlne, January, 1917(?)(from Garber
Scrapbook)

 

Thomas, Denis, review of "American Impressionism" by Richard

J- Boyle. Connoisseur. May 1975. p-80-

Trigg, F.J., "Daniel Garber Shows New Freedom in Work",
Hegelg, March 28, 1919(7), (from Garber Scrapbook).

Varnedoe, Kirk, "Revision, Re-Vision, Re: Vision, The Status
of Impressionism". Arts_flasazine, November 1974, pp.68-
71.

Venture, Lionello, "The Aesthetic Idea of Impressionism",

IcunngI_gg_Aestheties.and_Ant_Qniticism. Spring 1941,
pp. - -

Weinberg, H. Barbara, "American Impressionism in Cosmopolitan
Context", Ants_flegeelne, November 1980, pp. 160-165.

Weller, Allen S. "Frederick Carl Frieseke: The Opinions of an
American Impressionist", ALL_Jenznel, Winter 1968, pp.
160-1650

Werner, Alfred, Review of "The American Impressionists" by

Donelson F. Hoopes, Amenleen_Alest, June 1973.

Young, Mahonri Sharp, "Purple Shadows in the West", Aeelle,
October 1973, pp.308-311.

Zucker, Paul, book review of "Twilight of Painting, An
Analysis of Recent Trends to Serve in a Period of
Reconstruction". IcuLnal_e£_Aestheties_and_ALt
Criticism, Maren 1948, pp.2§fi:flfls

66

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES

Conversation with John Franklin Garber (artist's son), March 24,
1986.

Conversation with Tanis Garber Page (artist‘s daughter) March
24, 1986.

Conversation with Dana Applestein (artist's granddaughter) March
24, 1986.

Garber Scrapbooks, including letters and undated clippings
related to the artist. Original in possession of Garber
family, copy in the archives of the PAFA.

GENERAL REFERENCE

D
s e: .0. 0“ o ;u’ -

-...‘ .4 “ 0‘
Michigan State Library, Lansing, Mich., 1924.

o 04,

I - -
o: ‘ o c: o ‘ H o :u‘ -.o -_ 4 i: o o

1219, Dorothy W. Phillips (Curator of Collections), The
Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington D.C., 1973.

, by J.C.
Cooper, Thames and Hudson, 1978.

WWW, Alice Coe McGlauflin,
editor, The American Federation of Arts, Washington D.C.,
November 15, 1935.

"I11111111111111“