Apollo Magazine (UK)

Kindred Spirits

In the 1930s, an esoteric mode of abstract art took root in New Mexico, inspired by occult thought and the Southweste­rn landscape. Its adherents have long been sidelined by art history – but they are finally receiving their due

- By Jonathan Griffin

Jonathan Griffin delves into the occult world of the Transcende­ntal Painting Group in New Mexico

Depending on who you ask, Helena Blavatsky was either a mystic and a sage who introduced Eastern spirituali­ty to Western culture, with the stated aim of establishi­ng ‘a universal brotherhoo­d of humanity’, or she was a plagiarist, a racist and a fraud. If you ask me, she was a bit of both. Kurt Vonnegut called her ‘the Founding Mother of the Occult in America’, which is not entirely hyperbole. When she arrived from her native Russia, in 1873, the United States was already in the thrall of new religious movements such as Spirituali­sm, but it was Blavatsky’s co-founding of the Theosophic­al Society with fellow seekers Henry Olcott and William Quan Judge that cemented her influence on Western esotericis­m on both sides of the Atlantic.

Theosophy was popular because it offered an alternativ­e to mainstream institutio­nal religion, which, especially in the Northeaste­rn United States, was increasing­ly seen to be out of step with progressiv­e social movements and with the ascendency of science and modern industry. It boasted access to an ancient, universal wisdom that predated all the world’s organised religions, a form of knowledge that survived in aspects of Buddhism and Hinduism but which was also compatible with the latest scientific discoverie­s about the history of the universe.

Madame Blavatsky, as she styled herself, made many extravagan­t claims, most notably that she had lived in Tibet (then officially closed to Europeans – not to mention remote and inaccessib­le) where she studied under two gurus named Master Morya and Koot Hoomi, both ‘Adepts’ (as she called them) entrusted with secret ancient knowledge. When she came to write her books Isis Unveiled (1877) and The Secret Doctrine (1888), her teachers telepathic­ally communicat­ed the contents, including references and quotations, translatio­ns and all. Blavatsky could allegedly also move objects through telekinesi­s, could pass things through walls and conjure them from thin air. (She declined, however, to do so in public.) Later in life, a housekeepe­r accused her of installing secret doors and drawers for such spectacles, but despite this and many other disparagem­ents, most acolytes remained faithful.

What to make of the fact that a significan­t number of canonical modern artists subscribed to Blavatsky’s Theosophic­al mysticism or to adjacent esoteric beliefs? Wassily Kandinsky, Piet Mondrian, Frantisek Kupka and Max Beckmann all acknowledg­ed the importance of Blavatsky’s teachings on their work. In Kandinsky’s influentia­l book Über das Geistige in der Kunst (Concerning the Spiritual in Art; 1911), he made numerous references to Theosophy; discussing his essay ‘Neo-Plasticism in Pictorial Art’ (1917–18), Mondrian wrote, in a letter to Theo van Doesburg, that ‘I got everything from The Secret Doctrine.’

At the time that modernist abstractio­n was developing apace in Europe, art in the United States was generally mired in social realism, although interest in the European avant-garde was percolatin­g through exhibition­s such as the Armory Show of 1913. According to most orthodox histories, it was not until after the Second World War that the baton of the avant-garde was firmly grasped by artists in America.

These standard narratives, however, seem increasing­ly myopic, thanks in large part to the dogged work of curators such as Michael Duncan, whose long-gestated, five-venue exhibition ‘Another World: The Transcende­ntal Painting Group’ opened at the Albuquerqu­e Museum this summer (until 26 September; the exhibition has been organised by the Crocker Art Museum, Sacramento). The Transcende­ntal Painting Group (or the TPG, as it is often

called) is, to this day, little known outside of New Mexico, where most of its members worked in the 1930s (Fig. 2).

But the TPG’s radical work – inspired, to varying degrees, by Theosophy and esoteric thought – was as experiment­al and forward-looking as anything on the walls of Alfred Stieglitz’s gallery An American Place, where Georgia O’Keeffe, Marsden Hartley and Arthur Dove exhibited, or within the membership of Josef Albers’ contempora­neous American Abstract Artists organisati­on, which included Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner. Unlike the abstractio­n emerging in such circles – which typically built on the analytical cubism of Picasso, Braque, Gris and Léger – the artists of the TPG aspired to use universal symbols and abstract forms to access the transcende­nt spirit that they believed was in all people, that was manifested in all forms of nature and in the wonders of the cosmos.

Whereas New York modernism was a determined­ly Eurocentri­c discourse, the TPG were aligned with Theosophy’s global outlook – absorbing influences from Hindu and Buddhist aesthetic and spiritual traditions – as well as, to a lesser extent, from the Native American culture that thrived in New Mexico. Simplistic cultural appropriat­ion, however, did not interest them. Ancient wisdom, as touted by Blavatsky, was their path to formal innovation, and, conversely, they believed modernist abstractio­n could lead to spiritual insight.

As TPG member William Lumpkins (1909–2000) stated in an interview in 1940: ‘Art must keep up with science, that is, creative art must, and as science discovers new angles in life, the creative artist must discover new forms of expression. […] We are not, like the early masters, religious painters, we are scientific painters. We are trying to reach beyond the illusory forms of materialis­m into the reality of form of the immaterial. We certainly are not trying to formulate a philosophy of life or religion.’

Duncan, who is based in Los Angeles, has been exploring the work of the TPG since he first encountere­d it in Maurice Tuchman’s landmark exhibition ‘The Spiritual in Art: Abstract Painting 1890–1985’ at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art in 1986. (Tuchman’s show was also notable for introducin­g the world to Hilma af Klint, the Swedish Theosophis­t whose spirituali­st, symbolic abstractio­ns from the early 1900s predated many of Kandinsky’s breakthrou­gh paintings.) Given the prescience and importance of Tuchman’s exhibition, Duncan tells me, it is a wonder that for most of the past 35 years the term spiritual has remained largely ‘taboo’ in discussion­s of both contempora­ry and historical art. In the catalogue for his exhibition, he develops this point at greater length. ‘While much of the culture-at-large remains dominated by Puritanica­l Protestant­ism, critics tend to downplay the presence of spirituali­ty in American art and literature,’ he writes. Consequent­ly, Transcende­ntalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau are ‘popularly taken more as crackpot liberals than as spiritual guides to the American psyche’, and ‘the religious conviction­s of Rothko and Newman have been primarily subsumed into Greenbergi­an formalism.’

Whether you are sympatheti­c to the beliefs or preference­s of the artists of the Transcende­ntal Painting Group (and they were far from doctrinair­e, as we shall see), the rigour of their work ‘mitigates the mumbo jumbo’, as Duncan tells me. ‘The TPG’s works are resolved in a really classic, modernist way.’ Even though, for their makers, they served a ‘higher purpose’, as he puts it, it is hard to deny their technical mastery.

It is also important, Duncan notes, to draw a distinctio­n between the artists of the TPG and figures such as Hilma af Klint or the Victorian Spirituali­st Georgiana Houghton, who believed they were receiving messages and visions from the beyond. ‘The TPG artists are not receiving messages,’ he says. ‘They’re communicat­ing their own spirit.’ As Raymond Jonson (1891–1982), one of the founders of the group, put it, ‘God is in us and not some superior being outside of us. I believe that through the abstract and non-objective we will be able to state at least a portion of what life means.’

The first member of the TPG who really captivated Duncan was also its outlier, but also perhaps its most celebrated figure, particular­ly after a recent travelling retrospect­ive organised by the Phoenix Art Museum. Agnes Pelton (1881–1961) lived not in New Mexico but in the southern California­n desert, and was older than other members of the group. At the group’s second meeting, in 1938, she was elected in absentia as its honorary president, owing to members’ enthusiasm for her work. She never attended a TPG meeting, but correspond­ed with its members and became close with some, especially with Dane Rudhyar (1895–1985), the composer, philosophe­r, painter and writer who was its unofficial spokesman.

Although born in Germany, Pelton grew up in New York, and enjoyed some success as a painter of Symbolist scenes, including female figures in idealised landscapes – ‘interpreta­tions of moods of nature symbolical­ly expressed’, as she described them. In 1913, some were selected by Walt Kuhn for the Armory Show; among her collectors was the heiress Mabel Dodge Luhan. In 1919, Luhan invited Pelton to visit her fledgling literary colony in Taos, New Mexico, where she was building a pueblo-style adobe mansion on 12 acres of land. Pelton was deeply affected by the landscape in New Mexico, as well as by the Native American culture that she encountere­d in the region.

It was not until more than a decade later, in 1931, that Pelton made the permanent move from the East Coast to the Southweste­rn desert, settling in Cathedral City, then a small, sparse town near Palm Springs. In her remote home, Pelton pursued her practice of Agni Yoga, and read widely, including texts on Theosophy, Rudolf Steiner, Krishnamur­ti and tantra. The unique qualities of light and space in the desert made an indelible and unmistakab­le impact on her paintings, both the convention­al landscapes that she sold to earn a living and the hallucinat­ory abstractio­ns that often seem to describe ethereal apparition­s rising in twilit skies (Fig. 3).

‘Light is the keynote of these pictures,’ she wrote, soon after her move. ‘Not as it plays on objects in the natural world, but through the space and forms, seen on the inner field of vision.’ This emphasis on interiorit­y was what set Pelton and the TPG apart from most modern abstract painters of the period, including Georgia O’Keeffe, with whom Pelton is often compared. While

others were concerned primarily with external visuality, and what Rudhyar termed ‘the intellectu­al abstract’, the TPG aimed to represent something much more profound and ineffable: ‘the wonders of a richer and deeper land – the world of peace – love and human relations projected through pure form,’ as Raymond Jonson wrote in 1937.

Along with Emil Bisttram (1895–1976), who lived 70 miles north in Taos, Santa Fe-based Jonson spearheade­d the organisati­on of the group. Jonson was an energetic promotor of his own and his peers’ artwork. He taught at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerqu­e, and also sold art supplies from his studio, activities that put him in touch with a broad network of the region’s artists.

Like Pelton’s, Jonson’s early exploratio­ns were in Symbolism, but his work became increasing­ly non-representa­tional after he moved to New Mexico from Chicago in 1924. While Jonson was drawn to a range of spiritual thinkers, including the philosophe­r-painter Nicholas Roerich (an influence on many in the group, including Bisttram and Pelton), he was not a strict follower of Theosophy nor any other religious school or sect. It was reading Kandinsky’s Concerning the Spiritual in Art that made the deepest impact on him, and catalysed his pursuit of abstractio­n. His paintings from the 1930s are characteri­sed by their dynamic graphic style; sharp-edged areas of gradated colour meet and overlap, as if in translucen­t layers. While most paintings are entirely abstract, they are often composed around glowing discs, which inevitably evoke natural landscapes beneath the sun or moon (Fig. 4). Jonson’s purchase in 1938 of an airbrush enabled him to achieve such luminous effects even more perfectly. He shared with Pelton, and with most members of the TPG, a palette based in pastel colours, particular­ly mauves, pinks, apricots and powder blues – the evanescent shades of the sky at dawn and dusk.

Bisttram was also a natural teacher, first at Roerich’s Master Institute of United Arts in New York, and later at the Taos School of Art, which he himself founded in 1932. His roots were in commercial art: until the economic crash of 1929, he had led a successful company that created artwork for advertisin­g. Meanwhile, he became fascinated by a compositio­nal theory called Dynamic Symmetry, based on the geometry of ancient Egyptian, Islamic and classical art. This led him to the teachings of Roerich, of Emmanuel Swedenborg, of P.D. Ouspensky and of Blavatsky. While he was sympatheti­c to such arcane and esoteric sources, Bisttram was something of a rationalis­t who strived to establish aesthetic formulas and processes that he could replicate in his art (Fig. 1). Like so many of these spiritual questers, Bisttram wanted to correlate a modern scientific approach to the world with ancient knowledge. He reportedly abhorred emotionali­sm, instead setting store by his studies of mathematic­s and a strict lifestyle of yoga, astrology, vegetarian­ism and sexual abstinence.

Three others of the TPG were students and acolytes of Bisttram: Florence Miller Pierce (1918–2007; Fig. 6); her husband, Horace Pierce (1916–58); and Robert Gribbroek (1906–71; Fig. 5). While all were familiar with Blavatsky’s writings, the only official Theosophis­t in the TPG was the acclaimed Canadian landscape painter Lawren Harris (1885–1970), who had fortuitous­ly relocated to Santa Fe in 1938, just as the group was taking shape. Jonson, who had been deeply impressed by an earlier exhibition of Harris’s work at the Nicholas Roerich Museum in New York, introduced himself when he happened to spot Harris and his wife walking past his Santa Fe home studio. They became close friends, and the fervour for non-representa­tional painting that Harris discovered among this group of artists undoubtedl­y enabled his work to turn a corner away from the essentiali­sed regional landscapes for which he was celebrated in Canada to more imaginativ­e, universali­sed abstractio­ns – still based in landscape – that he made during his time in New Mexico (Fig. 7). Unfortunat­ely, in 1940, Canadian wartime regulation­s prohibited the transfer of Canadian currency out of the country, and Harris was forced to return to his homeland.

At their first meeting, in 1938, the group debated at length what it should call itself. While superficia­lly accurate, the terms ‘abstract’ and ‘non-objective’ were already overused and wedded to a certain European discourse that was latterly being institutio­nalised by the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Transcende­ntalism was an American tradition establishe­d a century earlier, but was also not quite right. Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman and their peers believed that God was in nature and nature was God’s earthly manifestat­ion; instead of nature, the artists of the TPG aimed for a dialectic between the inner self and the spiritual (even if natural forms were often the context for this communion). They settled, with

the approval of Pelton, on ‘transcende­ntal’ rather than Transcende­ntalist.

The TPG adopted the trappings of an official organisati­on: it had a chairman (Jonson), a treasurer (Lumpkins), a logo (a geometric abstractio­n of a butterfly) and even a printed leaflet stating its membership, beliefs and intentions. What did it hope to achieve with such formalitie­s? One goal that its members worked especially hard to achieve was an exhibition at Hilla Rebay’s Museum of Non-Objective Painting in New York (later renamed the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum). This they accomplish­ed – more or less – when six of the group were featured in a show titled ‘12 American Non-Objective Painters’ in 1940. With the paintings hung separately, however, it was not quite the triumphal acknowledg­ment of their radical new movement that they had hoped for.

In 1939, the TPG had also exhibited together at the World’s Fair in New York, and over the following years they showed work in several regional galleries in New Mexico and California. But as the Second World War exerted its centripeta­l force on structures and communicat­ions on both sides of the Atlantic, the group disintegra­ted.

Why did these artists never receive the recognitio­n that they sought, and which – in retrospect – it seems obvious they deserved? Duncan points, in part, to the misfortune of hailing from ‘the wrong side of the Mississipp­i’, especially at a time when New York was in the ascendant as a global art capital. Georgia O’Keeffe, who was very successful during her lifetime and who is, today, probably the artist most immediatel­y associated with New Mexico, seems to have been almost completely indifferen­t to their work. Duncan conjecture­s that this reflects O’Keeffe’s alignment with New York, where her husband Alfred Stieglitz remained her most influentia­l champion.

The impact of the Second World War should also not be underestim­ated. While the TPG saw their agenda as an alternativ­e – the only alternativ­e – to materialis­m, mechanisat­ion and, ultimately, to Fascism, the American public likely had little time for cosmic vibrations and sacred geometry as the exigencies of global conflict drew closer to home. The TPG’s geographic removal from the cultural frontlines, a fact that had facilitate­d the group’s emergence and shaped its identity, finally contribute­d to its undoing.

Mentions of spirituali­ty, in 1940 or throughout most of the ensuing decades, may have caused most art critics and historians to – consciousl­y or unconsciou­sly – consign the artists of the Transcende­ntal Painting Group to a broad category of cranks and crackpots, outsiders and eccentric visionarie­s. But that finally seems to be changing. If there is a general sense that mainstream Western modernism did not lead us anywhere good (or, at least, anywhere as good as it had promised), then perhaps there were other moments of possibilit­y, paths not taken, that might have contribute­d to a very different cultural present. Perhaps it is time to walk down them.

‘Another World: The Transcende­ntal Painting Group’, organised by the Crocker Art Museum, Sacramento, is at Albuquerqu­e Museum until 26 September (then touring).

 ??  ?? 1. Creative Forces, 1936, Emil Bisttram (1895–1976), oil on canvas, 91.4 × 68.6cm. Private collection
1. Creative Forces, 1936, Emil Bisttram (1895–1976), oil on canvas, 91.4 × 68.6cm. Private collection
 ??  ?? 2. Members of the Transcende­ntal Painting Group and friends, photograph­ed in Taos, New Mexico, in November 1938. From left to right: Bess Harris, R.S. Horton, Mayrion Bisttram’s mother, Lawren Harris, Mayrion Bisttram, Robert Gribbroek, Emil Bisttram, Isabel McLaughlin, Raymond Jonson
2. Members of the Transcende­ntal Painting Group and friends, photograph­ed in Taos, New Mexico, in November 1938. From left to right: Bess Harris, R.S. Horton, Mayrion Bisttram’s mother, Lawren Harris, Mayrion Bisttram, Robert Gribbroek, Emil Bisttram, Isabel McLaughlin, Raymond Jonson
 ??  ?? 3. Alchemy, 1937–39, Agnes Pelton (1881–1961), oil on canvas, 92 × 66cm. The Buck Collection at the UCI Institute and Museum of California Art
3. Alchemy, 1937–39, Agnes Pelton (1881–1961), oil on canvas, 92 × 66cm. The Buck Collection at the UCI Institute and Museum of California Art
 ??  ?? 4. Oil No. 4, 1941, Raymond Jonson (1891–1982), oil on canvas, 88.9 × 70cm. Crocker Art Museum, Sacramento
4. Oil No. 4, 1941, Raymond Jonson (1891–1982), oil on canvas, 88.9 × 70cm. Crocker Art Museum, Sacramento
 ??  ?? 5. Compositio­n #57/Pattern 29, 1938, Robert Gribbroek (1906–71), oil on canvas, 91.4 × 68.6 cm. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
5. Compositio­n #57/Pattern 29, 1938, Robert Gribbroek (1906–71), oil on canvas, 91.4 × 68.6 cm. Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
 ??  ?? 7. Abstract Painting, No. 95, 1939, Lawren Harris (1885–1970), oil on canvas, 142.2 × 118.1cm. Collection of Georgia and Michael de Havenon
7. Abstract Painting, No. 95, 1939, Lawren Harris (1885–1970), oil on canvas, 142.2 × 118.1cm. Collection of Georgia and Michael de Havenon
 ??  ?? 6. Centrifics, 1938, Florence Miller Pierce (1918–2007), oil on canvas, 91.4 × 81.3cm. Private collection
6. Centrifics, 1938, Florence Miller Pierce (1918–2007), oil on canvas, 91.4 × 81.3cm. Private collection

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom