THE FEITELSON/LUNDEBERG ART FOUNDATION

At the time that I met Feitelson (Fall 1959- thereabouts), it had been my experience, and it was common for art instructors, to take one of two points of view.  One was to  academisize art, as in 19th century naturalism as the ”only way to paint” (Feitelson would say “the codification of art”).  The second, and most prevalent was to encourage you “to do your own thing”, by making empty compliments -- a kind of vague reference to fashionable abstract expressionism. None of them compared to Feitelson’s intelligence and integrity.

As an artist, intellectual and educator Feitelson had a deep understanding and insight into the whole of art. His grasp, depth and scope seemed limitless. He was an accomplished artist, a collector, curator and lecturer, as well as a teacher. I realized here was an experienced artist with great integrity, who was deeply knowledgeable, who had thought about art and teaching. He knew how to convey a usable understanding of that world...past and present...idea by idea...ordered and comprehensible. “Art education for artists - the studio approach”, he would say.

This “studio approach” was the basis for all of Feitelson’s teaching. He brought to us the world of pictorial ideas as “art realities”. Meaning, I believe, the organization and visual qualities that result in a particular expression, resulting from the artists’ thinking. He said, that in art  “the context becomes the concept”. And, that “all art is concept art”. These principles Feitelson demonstrated in his lectures and analytical drawings for the lectures. It was done with clarity and logic revealing the ideas and formal themes in particular paintings or art movements. His aim was to enlighten our understanding of pictorial forms including their composition - paintings’ totality or unifying principles. While drawing he talked about the artists’ influences, interests, ideals and culture...in other words, the context that became the visual concept. With intelligence he brought the ideas to life wholly and clearly and, he set our imaginations on fire.

Take for example a virgin and child painting by Raphael Sanzio 1483-1520 entitled La Belle Jardinaire (Madonna and Child with Saint John the Baptist), 1507 in the collection of the Louvre Museum. There were many artists working in what was and is known as Classical Form or Ideal Form. The Catholic church referred to it as Universal Form. It was the predominant form of the Florentine High Renaissance for artists such as Ghirlandaio, Botticelli, da Vinci and many others. There were study groups attended by artists and scholars - secular and religious. Learned people researching and reflecting on newly discovered Greek and Roman art and philosophy - with a particular emphasis on Plato’s writing on Ideal Form (see Plato’s Symposium.) Also the Roman Catholic church, a major art patron and authoritative and powerful influence, its theological credo was influenced by Plato’s writing on Ideal Form. Plato stated that ideas are eternal and reside in the soul. The church stressed that ideas are eternal, but that they are revealed by God. This is known as Divine Law. God was the source of all ideas, not man. Such was the social and artistic context when Raphael came to Florence.

Raphael’s pictorial or visual concepts had to embody principles that expressed universality, idealism and permanence. This was especially so given the forces behind such auspicious subject matter. It demanded more than mere illustration or storytelling. The experience of exaltation and monumentality had to be designed into the very forms of the painting. The first and last principles are the totality of the picture plane. Raphael structures the largest figure on the central axis in a pyramid form. And, then creates interest with the other figures and shapes of drapery around the virgin’s base, all with lucidity and equilibrium. All of these forms are abstracted and simplified towards a geometric purity. The forms’ simplicity emphasizes their mass and linear contours, which are given light and soft shadows as the forms transition into their roundness and thematic cohesiveness with the frame. These same Classical Forms are some of which Feitelson worked with throughout his artistic career. 

Lorser Feitelson’s classes and private study groups were about “the doing” of art. At the time of the study group that I attended (mid 1970’s), he was working on his Hard Edge/Line paintings. However, it was characteristic of him to set his personal concerns aside and focus on the interests and needs of the students. Each meeting began with his critiques of the students’ paintings, which were to be based on the pictorial ideas in his lecture and drawing-analysis of the previous meeting. I recall 4 subjects discussed: “controlling the spectator’s eye movement” with analysis of his painting Maternity, 1931-1932 and a Tintoretto painting. Others were on Bonnard’s sensate color and Soutine’s destabilizing spaces and shapes. And, once he said to us to take two artists of very different pictorial forms like Henry Moore and El Greco. Demonstrate what Henry Moore might do with an El Greco composition? Feitelson was always sensitive to the student’s “individual” solution for the concept. He commented on their success and their short comings, also offering suggestions to advance the ideas in the painting.

At the same time, a group of nine or ten of his former students, including myself, opened a co-op gallery for showing our work which we named Seventh Street Gallery. Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg attended many of our openings. Their enthusiastic words of support and advice weighed heavily with us. I knew that Feitelson had invited many students to exhibit at the Los Angeles Art Association Gallery. (In fact, that was the exhibit when I first met him.) During the 1970’s I was an exhibiting member and volunteer. I did some archive work and helped Feitelson hang the monthly exhibitions. Besides learning about how to organize an exhibition, he often expressed his ideals for the organization. And, how as president, he felt a responsibility to the public. He wanted it to be a truly democratic gallery. Characteristic of his integrity Feitelson succeeded in offering exhibitions of local unknown contemporary artists which was counter to the “dollar as bottom line salesmanship” of most art galleries. And, counter to the “power-plays” of the museum curators and art critics.

Sadly, in the Spring 1978 Feitelson was gravely ill, however he insisted on hanging the show. It was to be his last. He was a great, great teacher and artist.

Our foundation is proud to share Lorrie Madden’s experiences studying with Feitelson at Art Center College of Design and in private study groups focusing on painting composition. Her art continued to be enriched by his support and friendship until his death in 1978.

Madden is a figurative artist in Los Angeles who taught analysis of form, life drawing and painting at “Art Center” for 35 years. Typical of artists mentored by Feitelson, Madden’s work incorporates analysis of what in art interests her from time to time. As you can see, this Madden painting has a Chinese influence. Most importantly, it is not an imitation of Feitelson. It is wholly her own.

Wendy Van Haerlem, 2019