The Women of Atelier 17: Modernist Printmaking in Midcentury New York
Review by Jennifer Farrell
While there is certainly no dearth of scholarship on midcentury art in the United States, especially work made in New York City, this informative and important new book proves that there are still many areas in this period which demand further study. In The Women of Atelier 17, the independent historian Christina Weyl closely examines a world largely ignored in both art history and cultural studies—modernist printmaking and work done by female artists at the celebrated print studio when it operated in Gotham. Using archival sources, interviews, skillful visual analysis, as well as literature from a variety of fields (including art history, women’s studies, cultural studies, history, sociology, and other subjects), she considers both their work and influence, in this particular field and beyond it.
The Women of Atelier 17: Modernist Printmaking in Midcentury New York
By Christina Weyl
Yale University Press, 2019
296 pages
The influence of these women artists as it turns out, was profound. But in most cases it has not been analyzed or even considered, because of the methods and models commonly used to measure the impact of individual artists or ‘schools,’ Weyl persuasively argues—a critique that might well be applied to other studies. In this way, The Women of Atelier 17 provides both a well-researched and thorough account of the subject, as well as a model for scholars in whatever discipline to expand beyond conventional methods for assessing and measuring legacy. Weyl focuses on previously unrecognized connections among the studio’s female artists, taking a broad view of its influence; intellectual, technical, and artistic discoveries; as well as the networks and support systems that proved critical for their creative and professional development.
Toward the goal of expanding understandings of women's exploration of avant-garde printmaking at Atelier 17's New York workshop, this book has two main arcs. First, it unpacks the complexity of midcentury gender norms and develops their influence on printmaking. Weyl then adds "The book's second arc seeks to unravel the complex artistic hierarchies at midcentury and their impact on the commercial viability and critical visibility of women artists' Atelier 17 prints." And indeed, she reveals how the implications of gender kept “crafts” separate from the “fine arts,” and explains in great detail the systems of support women offered each other at the studio and beyond. These influences and networks, she argues, extended to younger female artists, printmakers, and publishers who interacted with, were mentored by, or studied with the women of Atelier 17, as well as to later female artists who benefited from the barriers they had broken and the art they created.
The book moves roughly chronologically, with most of the chapters focused on the period between 1940 and 1955[1] when Atelier 17 was operating in New York. The first chapter examines Atelier 17 itself, the print studio Stanley William Hayter opened in late 1920s Paris (later named such because of this address, 17 rue Campagne Premiere). Hayter’s goal was to democratize printmaking, to rethink the studio model, to train a new generation of artists in intaglio printmaking techniques, and to create and promote modernist prints. To achieve all this, he fostered a collaborative atmosphere at the workshop and created a space where techniques and discoveries were freely shared by artists to create new possibilities for printmaking. In addition to developing original compositions and skillfully executing them on a plate, each student was expected to be proficient in every stage of printmaking—i.e. marking, inking, and printing. The workshop served as a locus for both established artists and more emerging figures, and it was in this fertile environment that numerous printmakers developed new artistic approaches and learned printmaking techniques. In 1940, like many artists and intellectuals, Hayter fled Europe for the United States, where he ran a workshop, also called Atelier 17, in New York City, largely under the aegis of The New School, before returning to Paris.
In Paris, Atelier 17 was dominated by Surrealists and members of the Ecole de Paris, such as artists André Masson, Max Ernst, and Joan Miro. In New York, Surrealism continued to dominate both the practice and pedagogy of the studio, a reflection of Hayter’s own interests and that of the numerous European artists in exile who visited and worked at the studio. While these more established European artists were frequently in the studio—both to work and to connect with each other—the majority of Atelier 17’s students and members were American and, within this group, nearly 100 were female, a dramatic increase over the number at the Paris studio. Weyl notes that from its inception, Atelier 17 “had been remarkably open to women’s participation and valued their contributions to experimental printmaking.” She explains, however, that some women artists, especially those with more prominent male partners, were reluctant to work at the studio, viewing it as a space in which they did not belong. Several of these artists, such as Dorothy Dehner, later worked at the New York workshop, however, a decision that reflected increased confidence and feelings of independence, both of which frequently resulted from ending their relationships with male partners.
Because Hayter demanded technical proficiency from all his students in every aspect of printmaking, women were required to engage in activities and practices from which they had traditionally been excluded, even in contemporary print workshops and art classes. Thus in addition to creating art using a variety of techniques (including engraving, traditionally considered a more “masculine” practice due to the difficulty of using a burin to mark the metal plates), all students had to prepare, mark, and ink their own plates, as well as to use the printing press. These activities were physical and dirty and just by participating in them, these female artists crossed barriers and inspired women, both at the workshop and in future generations. Hayter also frequently assigned other responsibilities, such as serving as a master printer and editioning[2] the prints of prominent artists or acting as a monitor and supervising the studio. Such activities not only allowed the women to develop professional credentials but, because of the respect accorded Hayter and his methods, signaled to the art community that these women had the skills, confidence, and experience to run a print studio and interact with established artists as peers, even producing prints that would carry their signatures.
Weyl skillfully contextualizes the work of the women artists of Atelier 17 in the worlds of printmaking and midcentury art, as well as larger social contexts. She uses the term “Rosies” to refer to women who, like Rosie the Riveter, entered the factories and other non-domestic spaces to do manual work, often involving heavy machinery. At the same time, Weyl shows how objects, materials, and practices more associated with the domestic realm, such as fabrics and laces, and even Karo corn syrup, became instrumental tools in the women’s arsenal, allowing them to realize textural effects and capture the impressions of brushstrokes in their prints. In a nod to domesticity, some of the women artists referred to their artistic notes about processes and methods as “recipes,” a term that perhaps deliberately or not, linked their instructions to the small stove in Hayter’s studio that all members and students used to heat their plates and melt the wax ground. Yet while Sue Fuller’s discovery of a sugar lift (or lift ground) technique involving Karo syrup had dramatic implications for the field, in the literature promoting the method, her name and related credit are absent.
While gender discrimination was not absent from Atelier 17, it was dramatically less than what artists experienced elsewhere during this period (or that the women of Atelier 17 experienced when they worked in other mediums), thus providing the ability to learn skills and techniques, as well as to gain experience they simply could not access in other studios or schools. Weyl convincingly argues that this professional training, and the confidence and knowledge it provided, transformed these artists, as well as the female artists and printmakers they influenced, either directly (in workshops they opened or supervised), or via opportunities later available because of their example.
Weyl contextualizes the period well, distinguishing Atelier 17’s collaborative atmosphere (especially, but not only, in regard to women artists) from other print studios and contemporary art schools. Atelier 17 also provided printmakers, including numerous female artists, opportunities to participate in group exhibitions that featured the studio at venues such as the Museum of Modern Art, and prominent commercial galleries where they would not normally have had access. This affiliation allowed them to continue to gain entry into such exhibitions, as well as to show their work to influential patrons, critics, curators, and artists.
Atelier 17 did not ensure that its female members achieved critical acclaim, however, or develop a modernist style. Affiliation did not, moreover, set its women on any determined path toward feminist activism, “even though the studio’s unique workspace definitely fostered franker conversations about art-world sexism.” As Weyl notes, “artists of this generation simply wanted a seat at the table, metaphorically speaking, and Atelier 17 offered the unrestricted and less-biased environment they needed at this historical moment.” While the studio has long been recognized as a centerpiece of New York City’s midcentury art community, its significance for women of this generation, and those who followed them, has just not been.
The women of Atelier 17 still faced multiple challenges, both in regard to appropriate places to work, as well as the work’s physicality. Indeed, it was the physical labor of making engravings and woodblocks, as well as operating the printing press, that often provided the confidence and interest that led many of the women artists to move into the creation of sculpture. Weyl carefully analyzes the apathy and resistance these artists encountered when they expanded into three-dimensional work. While some figures, such as Louise Bourgeois and Louise Nevelson are perhaps today best known for their installations and sculptural work, others, such as Worden Day and Sue Fuller, never achieved recognition for their pieces.
The book examines artists individually, rather than as a group, and generally focuses on specific experiences during a limited time period, rather than surveying entire careers. Weyl does not present the works examined as representing a unified aesthetic or even a “feminine style of printmaking”— in fact, she carefully describes the resistance some had to identifying as feminist artists or even participating in exhibitions devoted exclusively to women artists. Rather she looks at the various ways they applied what they learned at Atelier 17 to their art; prints, as well as paintings and sculpture. She also examines how the women learned from Hayter’s model to design or run a workshop that was collaborative, experimental, and comprehensive, demanding students master all elements of production, and unpacking what that meant professionally.
Female artists found their work—and their positions as artists—often ignored or dismissed by prominent galleries, curators, critics, and other artists, as Weyl demonstrates vividly, pulling from reviews, journals, correspondence, archival sources, and interviews. Gender factored particularly in criticism of the women’s paintings and sculptures, commonly accused of being derivative, decorative, or “craft” (not high art or intellectual, but domestic, unskilled, feminine). Even though many female Atelier 17 artists did indeed use materials, such as fabrics and lace, to provide textural effects (generally prints, although Weyl also examines collages and sculptures), male Atelier 17 artists remained immune from such accusations. Indeed, male avant-garde artists–-such as Kurt Schwitters and Robert Rauschenberg—are celebrated for their use of unconventional materials, a practice that reflects Rauschenberg’s often-quoted statement about his art existing in the gap “between art and life,” as well as breaking down the boundaries between various art forms and hierarchies. Weyl connects female artists’ use of found materials to artistic exploration, as a way to pay homage to family members (such as the incorporation of vintage lace). Many also used these fabrics because of dire economic conditions; some began conserving and recycling materials during the Great Depression, others always struggled because of the limited opportunities for women, or the demands of raising a family. Printmaking was already considered a “lower” art by many, contrasted against “higher” forms like painting and sculpture, so women printmakers were doubly cursed.
The prejudice against printmaking ultimately benefited females artists, however, Weyl argues, as it was far more welcoming than painting or sculpture. The women of Atelier 17 were able to help in the production, exhibition, and reception of modernist printmaking more broadly, and to showcase their own work in local, national, and international contexts. They “activated webs of solidarity among women during years often thought to have very few instances of collective activity. Indeed, their cooperative activity within the commercial marketplace for midcentury printmaking may be one of the clearest indications of the ways these women artists inspired future feminist practices." Their art and use of materials, often associated with craft and femininity, anticipated key artistic movements such as feminist art, fiber art, assemblage, and neo-dada. In fact, some artists, such as Mary Beth Edelson, even made direct reference to the Atelier 17 women in works such as Some Living American Women Artists of 1972. Weyl also connects the networks the women established with the women-run galleries that opened in the 1970s, arguing that their “selfless promotion on behalf of others foregrounds the communal strategies” such places adopted.
Indeed, Weyl convincingly argues that the paradigms currently used for judging notions of influence and impact are deeply problematic and reflect limited definitions that often focus on just a few celebrated figures. Weyl offers detailed discussions of some of the most celebrated women of Atelier 17—Louise Nevelson , Dorothy Dehner, and Louise Bourgeois—but also gives great attention to artists who might be less familiar, such as Anne Ryan, Sue Fuller and Minna Citron, whose work deserves fresh attention. Many of the lesser-known figures launched careers in art, and exhibited regularly and had their works collected by major museums. They promoted their art in books and articles, lectures in museums and universities across the country, and exhibitions that traveled nationally and internationally. Others opened print studios that reflected Hayter’s more open and egalitarian atmosphere in which they shared information about formal developments as well as printmaking techniques, in addition to training students in all elements of print production. In this way, they created several generations of artists. Importantly, Weyl notes that while some decided to pursue other careers, their contributions were also significant.
Women of Atelier 17 has a rather modest title, which could easily lead one into thinking it is merely a survey of a celebrated studio’s female artists. But Weyl’s book is much more complex, and her project far more radical, than one might suspect. Full of lush illustrations and detailed biographies, the book easily draws in the reader, Weyl doing an excellent job of simplifying and explaining printmaking terms and process throughout the book. But the monograph ranges far beyond an expanded understanding of Atelier 17 and the lines of Hayter’s impact to larger examinations of the social, political, economic, and cultural fields in which these artists operated, taking up critical questions about the ways in which gendered, racial, and power bases are created and maintained, and the economic, social, and political forces that control narratives regarding artistic importance and influence. Such an endeavor is long overdue, and would greatly enrich numerous disciplines.
Jennifer Farrell an Associate Curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art where she is responsible for modern and contemporary prints, illustrated books, and artists' books. Her publications include Get There and Decide Promptly: The Richard Brown Baker Collection of Postwar Art (2012). She earned a PhD from the Graduate Center, CUNY.
[1] While the majority of the book is devoted to these 15 years, Weyl also considers their work made in the decades that followed, as well as other artists and movements during the later decades.
[2] The process of producing multiple proofs or prints from a plate, while also removing any proofs that have irregularities or errors and supervising the numbering of the prints and signing.