Soberscove Press

Artists’ Sessions at Studio 35 (1950)

In April of 1950, about two dozen of the artists who came to be known as the “Abstract Expressionists” met for a series of discussions about their own work as well as the contemporary scene. Nearly 60 years after the actual meetings took place, the transcript of “Artists Sessions at Studio 35 (1950)” still pulses with the heated discussions around basic artistic issues like titling, process, relationship to history, community, and professionalism. Often referenced, but rarely fleshed out, this series of closed meetings allows readers fly-on-the-wall access to the artists' discussions. The goal of the current reprint is to refresh this document by giving it a new life in a new form.

Excerpts from the original introduction

In the late fall of 1948, three abstract painters, William Baziotes, Robert Motherwell, Mark Rothko, and an abstract sculptor, David Hare, began a small cooperative school in Greenwich Village in New York City; somewhat later, they were joined by another abstract painter, Barnett Newman. In the interests of introducing the students to as wide an experience as possible, other advanced artists, one by one, were invited to speak to the students on Friday evenings. The Friday evenings were open to the general public, and quickly became a physical place for everyone interested in advanced art in the United States to meet; the audiences averaged about 150 persons, all that the loft on Eighth Street that housed the school could hold.

…In the fall, several teachers in the New York University school of art education, Robert Iglehart, Hale Woodruff and Tony Smith, privately took over the loft and continued Friday evenings, though not the school; it became known as “Studio 35” after the address, 35 East Eight Street; the Friday evenings were continued until April, 1950.

…Many acquaintanceships and friendships grew up among the artists as a result of these meetings, which tended to become repetitious at the end, partly because of the public asking the same questions at each meeting. To sum up the meetings, on the suggestion of Robert Goodnough, a graduate student in the N.Y.U. school of art education, who had been helping his instructors with the meetings of the second season, it was decided to have a closed, three-day session among the advanced artists themselves, with the dialogue taken down stenographically. There was no preliminary discussion of what was to be said; nothing was arranged but the dates, Friday, Saturday and Sunday afternoons, 4 to 7 p.m., April 21–23, 1950. Among the dozens of advanced artists asked to participate, the following attended one or more sessions: William Baziotes, Janice Biala, Louise Bourgeois, James Brooks, Willem de Kooning, Jimmy Ernst, Herbert Ferber, Adolph Gottlieb, Peter Grippe, David Hare, Hans Hofmann, Weldon Kees, Ibram Lassaw, Norman Lewis, Richard Lippold, Seymour Lipton, Robert Motherwell, Barnett Newman, Richard Pousette-Dart, Ad Reinhardt, Ralph Rosenborg, Theodoros Stamos, Hedda Sterne, David Smith and Bradley Walker Tomlin.

The moderators were Alfred H. Barr, Jr., the only non-artist participant and one of the most noted modern art scholars; Richard Lippold; the sculptor, and Robert Motherwell, the painter, who had acted as moderator throughout the first season of the Friday evenings. Lippold tended to carry the principal burden of moderating the first day, Barr the second, and Motherwell the third; Barr was prevented from being present the first day and from the first half of the final day. The meetings were arranged by Robert Goodnough, who has drastically edited the following text (perhaps half) of the original transcript of the proceedings…

EXCERPT FROM THE FIRST DAY–APRIL 21, 1950

LASSAW: I would consider a work finished when I sense a “togetherness,” a participation of all parts as in an organism. This does not mean that I entirely understand what I have created. To me, a work is at first, quite unknown. In time, more and more enters into consciousness. It would be better to consider a work of art as a process that is started by the artist. In that way of thinking, a sculpture or painting is never finished, but only begin. If successful, the work starts to live a life of its own, a work of art begins to work.

ERNST: My work consists of two separate stages of development. I consider a painting almost “finished” when I am half finished with it, when I have reached what seems to be the greatest measure of surprise. The rest of the action is disciplinary on my part. When I see that I am beginning to destroy the surprise—the basic element of that surprise—then it is time for me to stop.

POUSSETTE-DART: For me it is “finished” when it is inevitable within itself. But I don’t think I can explain anything about my painting, just as I can’t explain anything about a flower or a child. When is anything “beautiful” or finished? I can’t discuss things about my paintings. The true thing I am after goes on and on and I never can completely grasp it.

LIPTON: I think that we require time and intimacy and aloneness.

BIALA: I never know when it is “finished.” I only know there comes a time when I have to stop.