'One Big Thing': An Interview with Roger Saydack about Modernist painter C.S. Price
In which I publish my email exchange with the author of 'C.S. Price: A Portrait' about his book and a new retrospective show in Salem, Oregon.
This week at Oregon ArtsWatch I had two pieces published about the influential Oregon Modernist painter C.S. Price, who died in 1950. He is the subject of a new book and retrospective show at the Hallie Ford Museum of Art in Salem. My story about the exhibition is here, and my article about the book is here. Neither is paywalled, and you might want to read one of those first before going further.
Neither the show nor the book would have happened without art scholar Roger Saydack (pictured above) who I met when the show opened in June. Opening receptions are always a bit overwhelming, so I didn’t take up too much of his time. We chatted briefly and pledged to continue the conversation by email.
Over the course of about a week, Roger and I had an email exchange, and we did this knowing that I would publish it here (with the usual caveats about editing for length and clarity.) He’s a fine writer, obviously, so very little editing was required. I did omit one question and his response (about how he looks at a painting) only because it got a bit technical.
If you’re among my local/Oregon readers, do get over to the Hallie Ford to check out the show, it’s well worth it. The photo below is the first Price painting Saydack saw, when he was growing up in Michigan.
You mentioned in your lecture that you discovered C.S. Price's work as a 12-year-old during a visit to the Detroit Institute of Arts. Could you tell us more about that? Clearly it made an impression!
The Fisherman was different from other paintings in the Museum. It had what today I would call an openness about it. By that I mean, it's big and clear. It's easy to see and to think about. And it wasn't trying to tell me something or show me something. I had the impression that it was asking me a question. I never had that reaction to a painting before. I remembered Price because of that encounter, and I took it for granted that one day I would find more of his paintings.
That's interesting, because I'd have thought any 12-year-old wandering through there would have been smitten with Diego Rivera's Detroit industry murals.
I've always found the Rivera murals fascinating, as well as a number of other paintings in the collection. Visiting the Museum regularly was one of the great benefits of growing up in Detroit. Growing up with the Rivera murals gave me a lasting interest both in Rivera's work and in murals in general - which I think is reflected in the attention I gave to the Timberline murals in the book.
The Fisherman is one of his late paintings, dated 1941. I wonder if your path might have been any different if your first Price painting had been one of his early, more "realistic" paintings.
I think if I my first encounter with Price was with an earlier painting, it would have at least made me curious enough to want to know how he evolved as a painter over the years. Many of his early drawings, for example, would have been enough to get me very excited about learning more about his art.
At some point your interest in Price's work evolved into a fascination with the man himself. What was it about him and his life that intrigued you? Was there anything in particular you learned that really lit a fire under you?
My interest in Price himself grows out of my curiosity about where his art came from. As I learned about Price, I saw that he believed that his philosophy of life and his life style were essential to his art and to his ability to make art. I wrote about this quite a bit in the book - but to say it in a few works - his philosophy of life gave his art a purpose and his life style give him the frame of mind that allowed his painting to achieve its purpose.
The purpose of his art was to connect with the transcendental aspect of nature that he referred to as 'the one big thing’. The frame of mind he needed was the freedom to paint without distraction or inhibition. This was possible for Price because he came to understand nature so directly during his early years in Wyoming. And, because he had the discipline to live an almost monastic life in Portland that gave him the frame of mind he needed to paint. I thought it was necessary to understand this aspect of his life so I could better understand where his art came from.
One thing I was struck by reading the book was the seemingly infinite number of ways you felt obliged to point out unknowns: We don't know if he saw a particular exhibition or painting, he never talked about this or that, we don't know why he did this, etc.
Pointing out the unknowns were important to me. I wanted to distinguish facts, from assumptions of one type or another, from speculation by me or others.
Price died seventy-five years ago, in 1950. I was fortunate to talk with several people who knew him, and a few more who spoke with those who knew Price while their memories of him were fresh. Those who knew him well said that he was not reclusive. Humble, yes. Private? Not in the sense that he might have had something he wanted to hide about his past. He was private in that he didn't particularly like talking about himself unless there was some reason to do so. The person who knew him best told me that he never thought of asking Price to explain himself or his art. Price was to be experienced, he believed.
He was so reclusive, private, and tight-lipped that I'm wondering if it felt like you were trying to solve a mystery so you could tell his story.
I don't think of Price as a mystery I was trying to solve. I was trying to understand the sources of his art.
For more than ten years, I spoke frequently with Douglas Lynch, who knew Price quite well in the 1930s and 40s. I felt close to Price when I was talking with Douglas, especially when we talked about Price's art. As an example, we discussed Price's ideas about the state of mind he needed to paint, but only so we could explore how his state of mind 'facilitated' his ability to paint. When I asked him questions about Price's personality or what it was like talking with him in his studio, Douglas courteously steered us back to Price's art. I would characterize my conversations with Douglas as a series of moments that helped me learn about Price as an artist.
Was there any particular interview you did, or just any piece of information from any source that you found, that felt like a Eureka! moment? Anything that was uniquely satisfying?
Something closer to a "Eureka "moment occurred when I returned to study once again Price's Monterey years but this time after many of the Bay Area newspapers who were active in the 1920s were digitized and had become available to researchers. It was amazing to see all the exhibitions Price was involved in, and the reviews that included comments about this work and even occasional photos. For the first time, I was able to see how Price became a Modernist, and how his art evolved and was received during those years. That was truly exciting.
Modernist is a broad term, as you know, and one thing I wondered after finishing the book was whether the speed and ease with which Price's work was largely forgotten after he died was because his brand of Modernism was so singular and personal. You cite the influence of Cezanne, who was associated with the Impressionists, and then Price clearly finds a home in an Expressionistic register, but near the end his painting became increasingly abstract. Obviously other factors were in play, like his lack of interest in promoting his work and the relatively few number of surviving paintings, but I'm curious if the sheer uniqueness of his artistic vision made it easier for him to virtually disappear?
I think he was forgotten was because his art wasn’t readily available after he died. His body of work was very small and scattered in collections around the country. Within a few years after he died, there were no galleries that marketed his paintings regularly because there no paintings that were available to them – they were all in collections. Without dealers, critics and academics having ready access to his art, it was no longer part of the national scene. Meanwhile, the art world had turned its attention to other types of painting, especially the non-representational focus of the New York School.
Price’s art was not forgotten in Portland, Seattle, and San Franciso where his paintings would turn up in galleries from time to time and in Portland and Seattle where museums had important paintings in their collections.
I don’t believe the personal nature of Price’s art made it easy for him to be forgotten. His art was and is appreciated and admired by many museum and gallery goers, painters, and arts professionals. Every time there has been a major Price exhibition, interest in his art is renewed. My hope is that the Hallie Ford exhibition and book will make Price’s art readily available and a part of the national scene once again.
I'm really curious to hear your take on the 'Self-Portrait,' because to my eyes it just seems so different from virtually everything else he did. It looks like something Francis Bacon might have done. And then, when asked, he replied, “That hunk isn't me.” Could you unpack that for us?
If you look at Price’s paintings chronologically, using the approximate dates that were assigned to them, the 1938 date seems early for this painting by a few years. Most of Price’s portrait heads were made from around 1941/42 to 1950. But it’s not unusual for artists, including Price, to work up an idea, put it away for a while, and then bring it out again and develop it further – which is what he did when he started working regularly on portrait heads in the early 1940s. For me, this painting fits in with the rest of his portrait heads. There are differences among them, but the basic concept is the same. This, like the others, is a stunning expressionist portrait.
That Price once said “That hulk isn’t me” isn’t a concern for me. No one knows what he meant by that, and Price never asked that the painting be retitled. The head in this painting is an image that looks a lot like him, in a particular moment in 1938.
Do you think there are any lessons for artists today in the way Price conducted his life and approached his work? What does his example say about the importance of developing an internal life, a contemplative life?
Price’s approach to life and art worked for him. There were costs of course, but they were worth it to him. Some artists might find it interesting to know about Price’s practices to see if something might be of benefit. Most artists that I know personally or have studied learn over time what works for them. The main take-away from Price is that he benefited significantly from making his art his priority. Again, what worked for him may not work for others.
We've talked about his reluctance to talk too much about his painting and the way his friends respected that and didn't probe too hard, but I can't help but wonder: If he were alive today, is there anything you'd care to ask him?
I doubt it would be fruitful to ask Price a ‘big’ question about art or life. I would instead try asking him a question that might open a conversation. Such as, ‘What are you working on these days?’ It would be great to hear him talk about how he makes a painting– what’s working for you in this one, how did you come up with that, have you made something like this before?
Or: ‘Have you seen the red in that Soutine painting in the Museum?’ Some painters like talking about colors and how they do or do not work together. The (French painter Chaïm) Soutine in the Portland Museum has some aggressive colors and contrasts that might get him talking. ‘ Do you think you’ll ever make up a red like that?’ ‘What would look good next to it’.
This is your first book, is it not?
I've written other books about art and music, but they are not on the scale of the Price book.
How long did it take? What was the experience like?
I began researching Price with a comprehensive critical biography in mind in the late 1980s. But my time for Price was limited then. In 2013, I retired from some of my other work, and I was able to start working more on Price. That's when I began writing sections of the book. In 2018, John accepted my proposal for HMFA to sponsor the book and an exhibition, and the major work began of writing the book I had in in mind.
The experience was great. I enjoyed the research, and I loved the writing and analysis. I challenged myself to be thorough, creative, thoughtful, fair.
I gather several people were involved in making it happen.
I had the benefit of the great team that John gave me work with: Nick Allison, a skilled and elegant copy editor who helped me write clearly and think deeply, Phil Kovacevich, a book designer who thinks like a painter, he made the text flow and brought Price's work to life, Carrie Wick, whose meticulous proofreading was always helpful and clarifying, and Silas Cook, whose installation beautifully presented Price and helped make the exhibition a rich and engaging experience.
Of course, none of this would have happened without John Olbrantz's support for the art which comes out of the Pacific Northwest and his belief that the Price project would honor the mission of HMFA and use its resources well. John is everything a Museum Director should be.
