http://www.sanjeev.net/tam/Building%20Tradition%20II%20label%20copy.doc Michele Russo (U.S., born 1909) Brown Nude, 1960 Oil on canvas Tacoma Art Museum, Gift of Herbert and Lucia Pruzan The female nude has been an important subject for Michele Russo throughout his career. Early works such as Brown Nude show Russo’s engagement with color and modeling as well as European art history. For example, the distortion of the figure and the provocative pose recall important precedents such as Pablo Picasso’s 1907 masterpiece Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, a group portrait of prostitutes in an early cubist style. Russo, however, lessens the sensuality of the figure by eliminating bodily details and concentrating on an abstract, geometric arrangement of expressive brushstrokes nude female seated - russo http://www.ogallerie.com/auctions/2009-06/618_1.jpg MICHELE RUSSO: Very definitely. I did not speak English and within a week of having arrived here, I was put in school, and that was a very difficult kind of situation for me. The adjustment was not easy insofar as the social world. I dressed differently, I looked different, I behaved different. So, as a result, I became a kind of a target. It was very much of a ghetto world, where people who are slightly different are apt to be very noticeable, and I think I was very noticeable at that time, not only for not speaking the language but for many other things as well. So I became kind of aware of myself in that sense, as an outsider. I had been somewhat aware of that even in Italy. I remember as a child people making some comments that I probably could never master the Italian language. I don't know why they did that, but somehow or other that kind of impressed me, and I have always carried that idea, that somehow I could never master their language. Then when I came here, of course, I found myself in a similar situation as regards to the English language. So I think I felt maybe I was just a natural-born foreigner. JANE VAN CLEVE: What about the art? A young man interested in art-- wouldn't that have been kind of controversial with certain mentalities at that time too? MICHELE RUSSO: Very much so, I think, but the school I went to was a very, very progressive school. The arts and crafts were very, very important and students were encouraged to do all kinds of craftwork and artwork. So in a sense, maybe I was conspicuous because I enjoyed a certain amount of prestige with the teachers in the school because of my skills as a student. And I think the teachers were very beautiful to me. I think they paid a great deal of special attention to me, which was probably a source of embarrassment for me, as I remember. I was not a particularly articulate or communicative or cooperative boy, but they had a great deal of patience with me and pushed me into positions, I would say, of leadership and activity in the school. I was also a very good student, from a scholastic point of view, and I think teachers kind of enjoyed having me around. I sense also a quality of fear in your work. I can't explain this very well, but... MICHELE RUSSO: Well, I suppose there is the element of shock. I think there's a certain, I might say, arrogance, which I have a tendency to associate with myself. I think of myself as a very humble person, but I think in my practical life oftentimes I resort to a kind of arrogance. Whether that is actually arrogance or forcefulness I really don't know, but I've liked the idea of making an impact. Even if you don't make a point, I think it's very important to have an impact. And I think that the impact should be one that more or less establishes itself indelibly on the memory. JANE VAN CLEVE: Well, I think when you have female forms around a big shoe, or you have a woman juggling hats, or you have a painting of one hat, you know, that there's an impact that's very provocative. MICHELE RUSSO: Yes. JANE VAN CLEVE: The image may be direct, but the response to it tends to be complex. MICHELE RUSSO: Well, I think because it makes a direct reference to the male/female problem and relationship in a way that goes right to the heart of it, and deals with the actual, some of the elements of chauvinism and some of the symbols, like the hats and the big shoes and the umbrellas, and the woman playing with the man's symbols, women playing and juggling hats. I think that sort of thing is a kind of a direct confrontation, dealing with the issue of man and woman. And I think it's a very important part of that issue. JANE VAN CLEVE: But the funny thing is your tone, because there's always a lot of humor conveyed. And also a kind of innocence; you know, you're not acerbic in those confrontations. MICHELE RUSSO: Well, I believe in that. I don't think that all relations between men and women can be reduced to chauvinistic, critical experiences. I think the element of play is very important. And I think the element of absurdity is very, very important. Life would be impossible without people having this ability to play and to engage in the absurd and that this is really a very important part of the relationship between men and women. And I rather like this; I find it very engaging, very human and very revealing, and also very humorous, because of the contradictions, and the absurdity and the irrationality I think is a very essential part of life. I define reality to include all those things. JANE VAN CLEVE: How can you teach a student to begin to get on the path where he or she eventually understands what you understand? MICHELE RUSSO: Oh, by shocking them a great deal of the time, and... Yes, I think really by shocking them, and by associating with them. I think that's a very important part. At first they become very suspicious and very insecure in relation to these ideas, but once they know you they develop a sense of security which comes from your personality, and they begin to find some of these ideas kind of interesting to explore. And drop all of their so-called negativism toward these ideas. Originally their concept of what is possible is to reject all these ideas, where my concept is to face up to all of these ideas and to recognize their legitimacy as an important part of life. So I think a lot of the students eventually become kind of liberated from their fears and frustrations once they discover that these things are a very interesting resource. Was there at that time concern for artists' rights? MICHELE RUSSO: Very much so. As a matter of fact, the Oregon chapter of Artists' Equity was one of the most active and energetic nationally. And we raised the question of an ethical code for artists. The national office finally yielded and assigned this project to the Oregon chapter. We created the first ethical code for the artists' profession, which is reported as such by the New York Times, that this was the first time in the history of art that a code for artists had been created. JANE VAN CLEVE: What kind of code? Was it concerning subject matter or fee or...? MICHELE RUSSO: No. For example, the situation at that time was full of aesthetic hostilities that existed by one camp of artists against another camp of artists. We created a code of aesthetic nonpartisanship and complete freedom of expression, that artists should associate with each other in promoting aesthetic pluralism, and cooperating with each other in promoting this freedom of expression, and that they should not divide themselves into hostile camps on aesthetic philosophy, which did a great deal of harm to the artists, created a great deal of confusion in the communities and suspicion toward the aims of artists. I remember this as a very important point. Did the gallery system exist by this time? MICHELE RUSSO: Well, Portland had very little gallery experience. Louis Bunce had maintained a gallery for a number of years called the Kharouba. But this gallery eventually disappeared; after years of gallant sacrifice in showing contemporary art and local art, eventually the gallery closed, and for a time there was no art gallery whatsoever. This created an enormous need. The artists felt the pressure to create a gallery and we came together with the idea of a cooperative at that time. I think many of the Equity chapters had organized cooperatives around the country, and so the idea came into being that we might be able to organize a cooperative. And this is interesting, how Arlene Schnitzer got involved. Arlene Schnitzer knew the real estate situation here and she was a student at the school, and when she heard that we were looking for a location, she offered her assistance to us. We went around and looked at a number of places largely through her. In the course of doing this, I had a number of conversations with Arlene in which I kind of deplored the fact that we had to organize our own gallery and how nice it would be if some good person in the community, with business sense and ability, could undertake to underwrite a gallery for us. And a few days later Arlene announced to the community that she would open a gallery. JANE VAN CLEVE: And that's The Fountain? MICHELE RUSSO: And that's how The Fountain Gallery came into being. As a matter of fact, I remember at the last moment Arlene came to me and said, "What shall we call it?" My recommendation was... [Break in taping] MICHELE RUSSO: ...The Fountain Gallery. n my own case I've always felt that I was completely free to pursue my own direction in my work, and I think the work that's shown there in The Fountain Gallery has always had a great deal of diversity and reflects generally all the different directions that local artists happen to be interested in. JANE VAN CLEVE: I wanted to bring up The Fountain fire, which was kind of an illustration of how expensive a disaster can be to the individual artist, as well as the community. You lost a lot of work in The Fountain fire. When was that? MICHELE RUSSO: I'm not really very good at dates; I can't remember. JANE VAN CLEVE: In the sixties, I guess. MICHELE RUSSO: It's almost ten years, I believe, that the fire took place. JANE VAN CLEVE: In the seventies, then [1977--Ed.]. MICHELE RUSSO: Yes, I lost about 60 paintings. Actually the losses were incalculable. There were so many works lost by so many people. The Fountain Gallery, fortunately, and unfortunately-- fortunately for us who were artists-- had a lot of space in the building available for storage and so a lot of us artists were utilizing this space. I had over a hundred paintings in the building. And of course a lot of the artists lost many, many paintings. JANE VAN CLEVE: How do you get over something like that? MICHELE RUSSO: I don't think you do. (chuckles) There's no way of getting over it; that was just an enormous disaster, and it was a very shocking disaster. It left a kind of a big hole in your own personal history. I probably lost the equivalent of five or six years' work in The Fountain Gallery fire. I think the fire shocked the whole community so that it seemed that following the fire, The Fountain Gallery received much more support and response from the community than they did previous to the fire. JANE VAN CLEVE: As it made the news, and everybody suddenly realized how much went up in smoke. MICHELE RUSSO: Yeah. And that, without meaning to, you begin to corrode the notion of what good art is. MICHELE RUSSO: Also I think there's a community concern and a shying away from controversy. I think one of the real merits of art is its controversial nature. And I think most people in public life really do not want to face any controversy, do not want to be involved in controversy, and are really fearful that art will provoke the hostility of the community. I think controversy is the greatest contribution that art can make. I think a work of art that is not controversial is a work of art that does not have any life. It must be a dead boring work of art that does not provoke people's curiosity and some discussion about it. I think actually the merits of art are precisely that. [Break in taping] JANE VAN CLEVE: How is your work controversial? MICHELE RUSSO: Well, my work was controversial because it dealt with the figure and I think it's still controversial because I think the figure is a very controversial issue in our time. The fact that I paint nudes today creates some controversy and some embarrassment. Though people seem to enjoy the nudes, they have some embarrassment in identifying themselves with owning a nude or bringing a nude into their home. They feel uncomfortable. I think on the part of the public there's a general discomfort about the nude. It's very hard for people not to associate nudity with some kind of obscenity or some kind of pornography. So I think people are rather puzzled about their reaction to the nude. JANE VAN CLEVE: Well, your figures are so present, but at the same time there's also qualities of awkwardness. You know, the pelvic area might be very dark and mysterious and... MICHELE RUSSO: Well, there's I think an element of confrontation, the way I paint the nude, because it just puts the question before the person who's looking at it very directly of what [is] his attitude about the nude. Because the nude very boldly states what it is as a nude. It's sexual and it's real and ideal, and I think the audience finds it a challenge. So I think people are both intrigued by it and puzzled by it, causing some embarrassment. JANE VAN CLEVE: Why was the figure controversial at the time that you decided to be a figurative painter? Was it your treatment? MICHELE RUSSO: The figure was controversial because it happened at a time when aesthetically the country was tied up around the issue of modern art and abstract art. So the figure at that moment was identified with traditional realism, as I think it even is today. And since that was a moment of bitterness and of conflict in the struggle that abstract art was trying to establish its legitimacy at that time, there was a strong feeling between the figurative work and abstract work. Also I think abstraction has some kind of significance other than just being abstract in the twentieth century. I think in the twentieth century, the abstract has become very important because there is a certain dilemma about the human figure. JANE VAN CLEVE: In real life. MICHELE RUSSO: In real life. I think that some of the positive values that people had about human life have been lost, and in the twentieth century there is a real crisis around the role of the individual in our time. The role of the individual in our time is threatened; it's doubtful. There's a great deal of cynicism as to the capabilities of the individual in solving problems. And there's some question even as to man's existence in the twentieth century and the significance of his existence. So that the figure itself is not only controversial in relation to the aesthetics of abstract art, but it's also very controversial on a philosophical and social basis. For that reason, I think there's a great deal of ambiguity about how does one respond to the human figure. In the Renaissance, for example, the human figure was a heroic image. Man was visualized as an individual who could conquer the problems of the world, or who was big enough to face the problems of the world. In the twentieth century man has become a kind of an impotent individual in the largeness of our society. So I think there's a great deal of confusion as to how to identify the human figure. JANE VAN CLEVE: But the impact of your paintings even when they make for a confrontation, there's also a kind of quality of innocence or vulnerability. MICHELE RUSSO: That's right, because I feel very strongly about that. I don't see the human figure as having the heroic dimensions of the Renaissance. I associate that with a kind of academic outlook and interpretation of the human figure. Nor do I associate the human figure with some of the negative symbolism that has been given in the twentieth century. The human figure in the twentieth century often becomes a kind of mechanical composite and highly dehumanized. It becomes a very negative symbol and it is used as a critical symbol. I myself-- maybe it's because I still have faith in man (chuckles)-- would like to present the human figure in terms of our time but in a positive manner. JANE VAN CLEVE: Well, I think you do. [Break in taping] JANE VAN CLEVE: I think your figure is positive, and I think that there's also a quality where the figure is sort of poised on a moment. MICHELE RUSSO: Yeah. JANE VAN CLEVE: It's that dramatic quality again, where you feel like something's going to happen in the next move. You also have a series of paintings involving men and women and I know you've been asked a million times why the men are dressed and the women aren't. MICHELE RUSSO: Well, I think that has both some traditional significance. I think traditionally artists have used the female human figure to be a symbol, the figure has been a symbol of expressing a certain kind of idealism-- it's a symbol of poetry, a symbol of inspiration, a symbol of beauty. It's been used symbolically in a very valuable way, and I think probably mostly because artists are males and this is a reflection of their need to create these symbols that express some of their own impulses and feelings. I think the male figure was presented oftentimes heroically as a warrior (chuckles) and always had the dress and the apparel of the heroic individual. We find probably a predominance of nude women in art, but the male is dressed. In my own thinking, I find that the dress is a kind of an armor and a facade. I really believe that people create facades and conceal themselves behind the facades. I think that the woman in her nudity is vulnerable, and that to me is very, very important. Vulnerability in our time is a very critical and very, very important aspect of life. Vulnerability probably means honesty, frankness and the ability-- and sensibility-- and I think the woman to be always in the nude, while the man not only turns out to be dressed but he's also a kind of a juggler and a performer. And so I see men and women kind of gaming with each other. I think that is an important aspect of the relationship between men and women, and I rather like that. I think that that's one of the last things that are left to people to do with each other! (laughs) I also think that sexuality in our time is an important issue, that sexuality in the past has been very much discredited in many ways and identified with corruption and degeneration. I myself don't feel that way at all about sexuality and I would like to celebrate (chuckles) the importance of sexuality, because again I think if individuals have anything important in their relation to each other I think sexuality is a very important part of that relationship. JANE VAN CLEVE: Often your couples look like they're kind of posing for somebody watching them. It reminds me of snapshots of people on the porch or people on the beach being photographed by an outsider. MICHELE RUSSO: Because I think, the paintings are not something objective, but they are really in effect confrontations. I feel that I am engaged in a confrontation, and I think I am inclined to create an image which creates a confrontation with the onlooker, so that they are... This is kind of interesting. I think, for example, Manet's Olympia is one of the remarkable paintings of the world, because this nude woman does precisely that. I think it was that quality that provoked so much resentment toward the painting and Manet at the time, that this woman just stood and defiantly looked at her audience and said, "Look at me. Here I am." (chuckles) JANE VAN CLEVE: Um hmm, um hmm. MICHELE RUSSO: And I think paintings are confrontations. Maybe it's out of this realization that the paintings have worked themselves out to more or less have that function. JANE VAN CLEVE: The figures also tend to be pretty active-- you know, women kicking-- or even if they're in a state of repose, their arms are in odd positions and you'll sort of emphasize the awkwardness of the figure. MICHELE RUSSO: Well, I'm interested in awkwardness, and I'm interested in the gesture. Since I do not paint figures that can be identified facially to certain specific characteristics, they are more or less identified through their movement, through their awkwardness. What they are doing is what tells you who they are. And so this awkwardness and this quality of movement has been very important. I think it's very important in modern art, I think in the Impressionists, and particularly an artist like Degas, who searched out aspects of the human being. He concentrated a great deal on what people did with their limbs, with their arms, with their hands, and was very much interested in conveying quality of life through these gestures and motions rather than the specific representational aspects of the human figure. As a matter of fact, he even gave them an animal-like kind of physical existence. I find that very, very engaging and I find I'm fascinated also by certain aspects of absurdity and contradiction, which I think are very valuable in life and I think that perhaps that is an attractive element that makes me pay more attention. Interview with Michele Russo Conducted by Jane Van Cleve At the Artist's studio in Portland, Oregon August 29, 1983 Quotes and excerpts must be cited as follows: Oral history interview with Michele Russo, 1983 Aug. 29, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/russo83.htm http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/russo83.htm http://www.askart.com/AskART/artists/biography.aspx?searchtype=BIO&artist=103012 in the summary section about the artist "examples of HER work" A key figure in bringing modernist painting to the Pacific Northwest, Michele Russo was known for bold use of and enlivend brush work and for his expressionist style. Artistic influences were German Expressionism and the Mexican muralists including José Orozco. Russo also did many drawings. He was born in Waterbury, Connecticut, then a manufacturing community of many immigrants, especially Irish and Italian, and he later he referred to his childhood as having been nude painting example from the above askart site UNTITLED FROM: WWW.LAURARUSSO.COM (niece) Throughout Michele Russo's (1909-2004) life, as an artist and outspoken advocate, he centered his attention on the human condition and consequently the ideals of man. In his art, he considers humanity in both its whimsy and its foibles. Stylistically, his developed an interest in the figure and a distinctive simplicity of form and line early on. He "never felt a conflict between the abstract and the image." His figures, removed from specific meaning, go beyond the confines of the canvas to evoke universal qualities. This exhibition presents works from the estate. Michele Russo made significant contributions to the Northwest throughout his life. After graduating from Yale in 1934 and marrying fellow artist, Sally Haley he arrived in Portland in 1947. He taught at the Pacific Northwest College of Art for over 25 years and became an active advocate for the arts during the politically charged 1950s. He was a founder of the Portland Center for the Visual Arts and was the first artist appointed to the Metropolitan Arts Commission in the 1970s. Throughout his career, Michele Russo's work has been in major exhibitions nationally and is in many public and private collections. Russo was honored with a fifty-year retrospective at the Portland Art Museum in 1988.