post-Surrealism: Mind Actions and Metaphors

Post-Surrealism in the Artists’ Words

Post Surrealism: Mind Actions & Metaphors Transcript:

Post-Surrealism: Mind Actions & Metaphors

Text:

Post-Surrealism in the artists’ words…

In this video, through writings, lectures, and interviews, artists Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg discuss the development of Post-Surrealism, its classical roots and structure and its rational, idea-driven subjectivity.

[Image: Lorser Feitelson, Narcissus, 1936. Oil on primed and unprimed wood, 58 x 21 in.]

[Image: Helen Lundeberg, The Isle, 1934. Oil on carton, 9 x 17 in.]

Text:

Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg founded the Post-Surrealist movement in Los Angeles in the early 1930s. The movement is also known as New Classicism, Subjective Classicism, Subjective Abstraction and Abstract Surrealism.

Text:

Lundeberg painted one of the first Post-Surrealist paintings, Persephone, in 1933.

[Image: Helen Lundeberg, Persephone, 1933. Oil on Celotex, 25 1/8 x 17 ¼ in.]

Text:

The following year to coincide with the first exhibition of Post-Surreal paintings at the Centaur Gallery in Hollywood, Lundeberg and Feitelson published a Post-Surrealist Manifesto titled “NEW CLASSICISM.”

Text:

Lundeberg wrote the text for the manifesto’s pamphlet that included an image of her painting, Plant and Animal Analogies, 1934.

[Image: “New Classicism” pamphlet, 1934.]

Text:

In the following excerpt from Tom Boles’ 1987 documentary, Helen Lundeberg: American Painter,* Lundeberg discusses the birth of the movement and its rejection of certain Surrealist ideology.

Video: Helen Lundeberg speaking in Helen Lundeberg: American Painter video excerpt:

[Image of “New Classicism” pamphlet]

1933 was also the year when Lorser and I began to really formulate the idea of a New Classicism which used elements used by the Surrealists, the association of ideas connected with objects and so on. But, we didn’t like the automatism that was involved in Surrealism. Lorser was a Classicist which meant that he believed in structure. He said to record dreams or fantasies isn’t necessarily art. You have to do something with it, you have to make a painting.

We started out by calling it New Classicism or Subjective Classicism and tacked on somewhere the word Post-Surrealism which was sort of sassy because Surrealists were riding high then. And that’s the name that stuck.

Text:

“Because this art only functions in the mind of the beholder, we term it subjective. Because it can only function in the beholder’s mind when the sequence of ideas is perfectly prefigured, both as to their forms and their relationships, we call it classical.

The name of this art is SUBJECTIVE CLASSICISM.

It is better known as POST-SURREALISM.

Like surrealism, it employs mental images. Unlike surrealism, it arranges these rationally to serve reasonable ends. Like cubism it aims at formal perfection. Unlike cubism, its end is meaning.”

-Lorser Feitelson, Post-Surrealism essay notes

Text:

In the 1970s, Lorser Feitelson and Diane Moran met in person and corresponded regularly while Moran prepared to write her dissertation titled “The Paintings of Lorser Feitelson” that was subsequently published in 1979.

Their correspondence regarding Post-Surrealism appear throughout this video.

Lorser Feitelson writing to Diane Moran: “As you know, Postsurrealism, in contrast, is deliberate engineering of psychological situations: it is totally mind-made and critically considered. It is an expression of pure intellectual structuring…our desire [was] to put the emphasis on a unity that was psychological, that belonged to the world of the mind rather than to the pleasure of the eye.”

January, 15, 1976

Audio:

Lorser Feitelson speaking in a class lecture, date unknown:

[Image: Lorser Feitelson, Pears: Organization of Perceptive and Introspective Forms, 1934. Oil on Celotex board, 38.875 x 30.5 x 2 in.]

It was a conflict as to genesis and also the ideals. Many of the Surrealists simply said the act itself of the beyond the rational is sufficient. [Image: Lorser Feitelson, Genesis #2, 1934. Oil on fiberboard, 40 ¼ x 48 in.]We maintained that the subconscious meanderings, all of the activities, the psychological activities, are absolutely valid, just as valid as any object that is born out of perception. [Image: Helen Lundeberg: The Red Planet, 1934. Oil on Celotex, 30 x 24 in.] So, we put introspection and perception within a picture, but we believed that it only becomes a work of art, rather than simply another kind of an experience when it is organized into some kind of an aesthetic form. The structure should be aesthetic. [Image: Lorser Feitelson, Filial Love, 1937. Oil and casein on fiberboard, 24 x 30 in.] And this made a demand upon the artist that he organize his work. He can use irrational properties, but he has got to be most rational about the structure. He has got to know what he is doing. [ Lorser Feitelson: Genesis First Version, 1934. Oil on fiberboard, 24 x 30 in.] He cannot say these things are automatic. It is the reverse. He is a composer. He is a conductor. So, this was the break.

Video:

Helen Lundeberg speaking in Helen Lundeberg: American Painter video excerpt:

[Image: Helen Lundeberg, The Mirror, 1934. Oil on Celotex panel, 30 x 24 in.]

We distinguished between the kinds of paintings that could be called Subjective Classicism or the New Classicism. [Image: Helen Lundeberg posing for National Art Week, WPA publicity photo. November 16, 1940.] And one kind we called “Idea-Entity” and the other “Mood-Entity.” [Image: Helen Lundeberg, The Mirror, 1934. Oil on Celotex panel, 30 x 24 in.] Now my first mirror painting belongs to the “Mood-Entity” category because it doesn’t express an idea, it puts forth a mystery.

Another painting which I guess would fall into the “Idea-Entity” category is the Double Portrait of the Artist in Time. [Image: Helen Lundeberg, Double Portrait of the Artist in Time, 1935. Oil on fiberboard, 47 ¾ x 40 in.] I was playing with infancy and adulthood. The central figure in the foreground is a child about two years old which I did from a baby portrait that had been made of me, I still have it. [Image: Photograph of Helen Lundeberg as an infant, circa 1910.] And by painting the infant as real and smiling and holding a little budding flower in her hand and sort of casting a shadow from her to the wall back of her and up the wall and overlapping a self-portrait I had done earlier, I was sort of playing with time in reverse as it were. As if the infant shadow forecast the adult.

Text:

[Image: Photograph of Lorser Feitelson, circa 1937.]

Feitelson also used ideas of time, perception and directing the viewer’s viewing experience within an artwork.

[Image: Lorser Feitelson, Notes regarding The Nature of the Conditioner, circa 1930s.]

[Image: Lorser Feitelson, Susanna and the Elders, 1935. Oil on Firtex, 25 x 56 in.]

Text:

“Forms, either perceptive or conceptive (diagrams, drawings, etc.), arranged to emphasize their intellectualsignificance and relationships, appeal in their synthesis or composite to our conscious, intellectual nature rather than to our sensual, emotional, or subconscious nature.”

-Lorser Feitelson, NOTES re: “INTELLECTUAL OR IDEA-ENTITY,” April 5, 1935

Text:

Feitelson and Lundeberg made many preparatory sketches and drawings for their Post-Surreal paintings.

As Feitelson mentioned, the artists conceived of themselves as “conductors” of the viewer’s viewing process. This required planning and the understanding of form and structure.

Audio:

Lorser Feitelson lecturing on Post-Surrealism at the Los Angeles Art Association Gallery on September 15, 1974:

It looks very, very much designed. It is constructed. It is anything but an automatic reaction. So, in Classicism, we have this structure, the willful structure. The composing and recomposing until the artist feels that there is an impeccable unity.

[Series of images of preparatory drawings and their related paintings:

Images next to one another: (left) Lorser Feitelson, Study for Genesis #2, 1934. Colored pencil on paper, 10 x 8 in. (right) Lorser Feitelson, Genesis #2, 1934. Oil on fiberboard, 40 ¼ x 48 in.

Images next to one another: (left) Lorser Feitelson, Pears, Perception and Introspection, 1934, Graphite on paper, 11 x 8 in. (right)Lorser Feitelson, Pears: Organization of Perceptive and Introspective Forms, 1934.

Images next to one another: Helen Lundeberg, (left) Drawing for Eyes and (right) Eyes, 1938. Oil on Masonite, 16 ¼ x 13 ¼ in.

Images next to one another: (left and right) Lorser Feitelson, Studies for Flight Over New York, 1935. Graphite on paper, 12 x 9 in. each.

Images next to one another: (left) Lorser Feitelson, Study for Flight Over New York, 1935. Colored pencil on paper, 10 ¾ x 11 in. (right) Lorser Feitelson, Flight Over New York at Twilight, 1936. Oil on canvas, 54 x 64 in.

Images next to one another: (left) Helen Lundeberg, Drawing for Microcosm Macrocosm, 1937. Pencil on paper, 15 ½ x 6 ¼ in. (right) Helen Lundeberg, Microcosm and Macrocosm, 1937. Oil on Masonite, 28 ¼ x 13 ¾ in.]

Text:

Additionally, in a class lecture from 1970, Feitelson speaks about the importance of the diagram as a structuring device that put an emphasis on perception and concept.

Audio:

Lorser Feitelson speaking:

We are dealing with perception, visual perception. [Image: Lorser Feitelson, Diagram of Maternity, circa 1931. Diagram has additional text reading “Vertical rhythm (purple lines) of highest point (A) and lowest point (B). Vertical ascending levels (yellow lines) and descending levels. Unity attained through direction (Orange lines)”] Almost photographically. [Image: Lorser Feitelson, Maternity, circa 1931-1932. Oil on canvas, 50 x 60 in.] And we are dealing with the most lucid form of concept which is the diagram.

Text:

In another excerpt from Feitelson’s 1974 lecture at the Los Angeles Art Association Gallery, he describes how the diagram moves the viewer’s eye between various “symbols of the mind” to convey concept.

Audio:

Lorser Feitelson speaking:

It depends upon the path that the eye will move from here to there and the swinging back and forth. Through conceptual means, diagrams, symbols. These things are not realities. These are symbols made by the mind to reach the other person’s mind.

[Image: Lorser Feitelson, Diagram of Maternity, circa 1931. Closeup and panning diagram to focus on the lines/paths that the eye will move.]

[Image: Helen Lundeberg, Plant and Animal Analogies, 1934-1935. Oil on Celotex, 24 x 30 in.]

Video:

Helen Lundeberg speaking in Helen Lundeberg: American Painter video excerpt:

[Image: Camera pans over Plant and Animal Analogies, moving from one symbol to another]

Through the association of ideas with objects, one could construct a painting whose structure was really subjective.

[Image: Helen Lundeberg, Relative Magnitude, 1936, Oil on Masonite, 37 x 31 ½ in.]

This painting, Relative Magnitude, I consider my one humorous painting. I got a lot of fun out of the idea of the old astronomer sitting here staring through his telescope. Of course, the comparison is to a little ant on the book page here and the enormity of the marble he is looking at which looks like some tremendous planet rising over the hill line of the drapery.

[Camera pans over Microcosm and Macrocosm, 1937.]

This painting, which is called Microcosm and Macrocosm, shows you the microcosm here is blown up by a microscope to show all of these little creatures in it. And here is a further blow up and here is an enlargement of one. And the little glass in the hand of the figure here is a sort of symbol for the microscope and the telescope. So, here we come to some macrocosm. And here is the blow up of one of these tiny things which is Saturn.

[Image: Microcosm and Macrocosm, 1937. Oil on Masonite, 28 ¼ x 13 ¾ in.]

Text:

In a private study group in 1975, Feitelson speaks with his students about the Post-Surrealist emphasis on reason.

This emphasis on reason was contrary to irrational movements of hatred and upheavals in the world order in the 1930s, including those that were leading to World War II.

Audio:

Lorser Feitelson speaking:

[Image: Lorser Feitelson, Flight Over New York at Twilight, 1936. Oil on canvas, 54 x 64 in.]

But the intellectual side, I think at that time, received approval or there was already a main will to approve anything that was unemotional. [Image: Lorser Feitelson, Love: Eternal Recurrence, 1935-1936. Oil on canvas, 54 ¼ x 66 ½ in.] See I am talking about the conditions of where it was going towards the emotionalism about Naziism, Communism, Fascism and all kinds of “isms,” and Ku Klux Klan and you had all kinds. [Image: Lorser Feitelson, Post Surreal Configuration: Eternal Recurrence, 1940. Oil on canvas, 49 ¾ x 72 ½ in.] That an art that is talking about sanity, that it is trying to celebrate reason. Welcome the first time that somebody who thinks reason is worth something.

Text:

Feitelson and Lundeberg also experimented with using shaped canvases to emphasize concepts within their work.

Video:

Helen Lundeberg speaking in Helen Lundeberg: American Painter video excerpt:

[Image: Video pans over Cosmicide, 1935]

The painting, Cosmicide, puzzles people sometimes because of its strange shape. But, Lorser and I had been talking about the shapes of paintings and why they should always be rectangular. So, I thought I would try a blunted triangle because it suited my subject matter, “cosmicide”, very well.

[Image: Cosmicide, 1935. Oil on Masonite, 39 ½ x 23 ¼ in.]

Text:

Feitelson’s shaped painting Life Begins, 1936, includes collage elements from an article titled “Life Begins” in Life Magazine’s first issue.

Feitelson discusses Life Begins within this 1970 class lecture:

Audio:

Lorser Feitelson speaking:

[Image: Life Begins, 1936. Oil and collage on Masonite, 23 ¼ x 27 ¾ x 2 in.]

This is my own concept which was based upon something I noticed: the first issue of Life Magazine. While working on a larger mural, I had many, many people in my studio working on the mural and this first copy came in. It sold for 10 cents in those days, but you couldn’t get that damn dime. It was the depths of the Depression. And I liked the cover. It was not a painting job. It was a photograph. I loved its honesty. A babe is born. And I loved the caption “Life Begins.” Geeze, I thought it was wonderful. And even there you have a connection, a concept. Beyond just simply talking about obstetrics and the human animal, but also talking about a magazine beginning. There you have it. Metaphor. There, around the studio, we always had all kinds of books, Helen had one of her books on astronomy and I said “my god,” it made me think the whole cosmic thing, actual things, here, things around us. We’re without ego, the world is too small for us, we’re nothing, less than that also, when we think of these great big galaxies. And the moment you look at that, here it looks like new bodies being born in the heavens, field matrix, the real mother. Then you’re charged up with the condition of that, you can commence projecting that concept on anything you see: the ordinary little peach that had been the interior removed and a little peach alongside of it on a plate becomes something else and I don’t think I have to describe it. And it automatically becomes a birth scene. There is the beginning of concept in art. This is what we were fighting for in the very early 30s. This is what we call Post-Surrealism. Not merely to use the visual experience but the thoughts that are aroused by it within this thing called art. So, a work of art can have a couple of concepts. This is what it was about.

Text:

As discussed, Lundeberg and Feitelson experimented with controlling the viewing experience through the use of the diagram and shaped canvases.

Feitelson also explores the influence of film techniques on their thinking in the 1930s in a letter to Diane Moran dated January 15, 1976:

“Regarding the influence of film techniques: of course, we envied the director’s power to control the sequence, juxtaposition, and duration of visual materials to create his desired meanings and configurations of such meanings, and the quantity and quality of these meanings. In other words, he has the device, through kinetic pictures, to control the order and duration of viewing. These advantages are beyond the means of the painter, who is working on a flat plane and cannot completely control the viewer’s path of vision.”

Text:

In the 1930s, Feitelson made the following sketches “dealing with possible methods of physically controlling the sequence of viewing.”

Feitelson’s descriptive notes as written to Diane Moran appear with each sketch that follows.

[Image: “Controlled” sequence contemplation, Sheet 1, circa 1930s.]

“Beneath the heading ‘controlled sequence contemplation,’ [is] a very loose sketch showing a gallery room and 2 viewers. On the wall is a work physically structured to make it impossible to view the paintings all at once: the spectator is compelled to see the configurations one at a time. The sketch on the bottom of the sheet shows how my GENESIS #1 could be painted on the surface of a vertical cylinder rather than on a flat plane.”

[Image: “Controlled viewing sequence,” Sheet 2, circa 1930s.]

“Sheet #2 shows proposed physical arrangements of sections of a work- again, to compel the viewer to see each configuration in relation to its neighbors according to the artist’s editing.”

[Image: “Controlled viewing sequence,” Sheet 3, circa 1930s.]

“Sheet #3, in our upper left, shows a gallery wall supporting three panels arranged like a screen; the panel on our right is flush with the wall, the panel on our left is extended into space, supported by the connecting central panel…Also on this sheet (3) are drawings of the material of GENESIS #1 and GENESIS #2. The one on the lower left is a shaped board containing and controlling the configurations. The one on the top right, which is obviously using the props of GENESIS #1, demonstrates the employment of diagrammatic circles and rectangles, overlapping each other to make obvious to the viewer the principle ‘cast of characters.’”

[Image: “Controlled viewing sequence,” Sheet 4, circa 1930s.]

“On Sheet #4, on our left, is again GENESIS #1, with a finitely described container which, again, would employ descriptive color within the container only. The idea was to give fullest descriptive information only to the principal ideational participants. At any rate, we were then, as you can see in these drawings of the 30s, deeply concerned with problems of controlling viewing.”

[Image: “Kinetic Vision Construction of Genesis #2,” Sheet 5, circa 1930s.]. “It demonstrates the idea of a construction arrangement in which actual 3D objects appear together with painting on screen-arranged panels. Naturally, actual 3D space is used as a stage. It is too bad that these ideas were not realized because we were too preoccupied with the Art Project and other activities.”

Text:

Lorser Feitelson was an influential teacher.

The seeds of classical influence on Post-Surrealism were evident in Feitelson’s teaching practice in which he emphasized a classical, formalist approach.

Video:

Helen Lundeberg speaking in Helen Lundeberg: American Painter video excerpt:

[Image: Photograph of Lorser Feitelson, November 1931, Pasadena]

He not only taught me about the art of drawing the figure, but he made great diagrams on a board before the class analyzing everything from the Old Masters to Modern Masters.

[Image: Lorser Feitelson, Diagram analyzing “Gothic” rhythm versus Italian Renaissance figure structure, 1932.]

[Image: Lorser Feitelson, Teaching demonstration: figure studies, circa 1940s-1960s]

Text:

Other artists associated with the Post-Surrealist movement included:

Grace Clements, Knud Merrild, Harold Lehman, Helen Klokke, Lucien Labaudt, Elizabeth Miller, Ethel Evans, Ben Berlin, Phillip Goldstein (later Philip Guston), Reuben Kadish.

Text:

The first Post-Surrealist exhibitions held in the Los Angeles area were:

First Western Exhibition of Surrealisme and New Classicism (Post-Surrealism), Centaur Gallery, 1934

Post Surrealist and Surrealist Exhibition, Hollywood Gallery of Modern Art, 1935

Post-Surrealists and Other Moderns, Stanley Rose Gallery, 1935

[Image: Post-Surrealists and Other Moderns pamphlet cover, Stanley Rose Gallery, May 1935]

[Image: Post-Surrealists and Other Moderns pamphlet with the names of exhibiting artists: Feitelson, Lundeberg, Picasso, Derain, Dali, Kadish, Merrild, Goldstein, Taeuber-Arp, Leger, Hofer, Gris, Arp (written in are the additional names of Braque and Lipschitz [sic]]

Text:

These exhibitions were followed by Post-Surrealist exhibitions at the San Francisco Museum of Art (now the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art) in 1935-1936 and the Brooklyn Museum in 1936.

Video:

Helen Lundeberg speaking in Helen Lundeberg: American Painter video excerpt:

[Image: Double Portrait of the Artist in Time, 1935. Oil on fiberboard, 47 ¾ x 40 in.]

Double Portrait of the Artist in Time was included in the large Post-Surrealist show which first went to the San Francisco Museum of Art and it was invited to the Brooklyn Museum and kept there for five months. [Images: Archival Photographs of the San Francisco Museum of Art building exterior and the Brooklyn Museum building exterior] Our show at the Brooklyn Museum got a very nice notice from Edward Alden Jewell who was the great panjandrum art critic of the New York Times at that time. [Image: New York Times review by Edward Alden Jewell, “Brisk Pace in Museums,” May 17, 1936.]

As a result of that eastern show, three of us received invitations to the Museum of Modern Art’s 1936 show “Fantastic Art, Dada, and Surrealism.”

[Image: Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism exhibition catalogue title page and interior page with image of Feitelson’s Genesis, first version, 1934.]

Text:

These important museum exhibitions were followed by a 1938 group exhibition titled POSTSURREALISM at the Stendahl Galleries in Los Angeles.

[Image: Front and back of exhibition announcement with the names of exhibiting artists: Feitelson, Lundeberg, Klokke, Labaudt, Mills, Evans and writing by Earl Stendahl.]

Video:

Helen Lundeberg speaking in Helen Lundeberg: American Painter video excerpt:

[Image: The Evanescent, 1944. Oil on canvas, 36 3/8 x 60 in.]

The painting called The Evanescent is dated 1941/44. Now I was working for the Arts Project during ’41 and ’42, but I was also painting for myself in my own time. I think you might call it the last real Post-Surrealist painting that I did.

Text:

Though Feitelson and Lundeberg adhered to Post-Surrealist tendencies in their artwork for close to a decade, Post-Surrealism as a group of artists exhibiting together lasted only six years.

Lorser Feitelson to Diane Moran, January 15, 1976:

“Postsurrealism, as a group exhibiting activity, did not last very long because first the government art projects, and then WW II, disrupted all of us.”

[Image: Lorser Feitelson, Post-Surrealist Configuration: Genesis (no. 3), 1943. Oil on canvas, 30 x 45 in.]

Text:

Post-Surrealism influenced Feitelson’s and Lundeberg’s future work in different ways.

For Feitelson, an emphasis on the psychological and emotional properties of color and form carried over into his Magical Forms and Magical Space Forms paintings that he began in the mid-1940s.

Lundeberg’s paintings retained the focus on subjectivity and mood even when the paintings became more abstracted.

[Images next to one another: (left) Helen Lundeberg, The Table, (Green Table), 1949. Oil on board, 7 ½ x 11 in. (right) Helen Lundeberg, Interior with Table, 1960. Oil on canvas, 36 x 30 in.]

[Images next to one another: (left) Helen Lundeberg, White Trees, 1947. Oil on wood, 8 ½ x 9 ¾ in. (right) Helen Lundeberg, Tideland (Low Tide Tideland), 1987. Acrylic on canvas, 50 x 50 in.]

[Images next to one another: (left) Lorser Feitelson, Magical Forms, 1944. Oil on canvas, 29 7/8 x 35 7/8 in. (right) Lorser Feitelson, Magical Forms, 1947. Oil on canvas, 36 x 30 in.]

[Images next to one another: (left) Lorser Feitelson, Magical Space Forms, 1951. Oil on canvas, 49 ¾ x 74 5/8 in. (right) Lorser Feitelson, Magical Space Forms, 1951. Oil on canvas, 58 3/8 x 82 in.]

Text:

All artworks by Helen Lundeberg and Lorser Feitelson

© The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

All quotes from letters between Lorser Feitelson and Diane Moran are courtesy of Diane Moran.

The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation wishes to thank Diane Moran, Ph.D., for donating these letters to our foundation and for her contributions to the scholarship and discourse on the careers of Feitelson and Lundeberg.

All video excerpts of Helen Lundeberg:

The Feitelson / Lundeberg Foundation thanks Tom Boles for the use of video excerpts pertinent to the Post-Surrealist movement.

Audio recordings of Lorser Feitelson in order of appearance:

Lorser Feitelson, Class Lecture, date unknown. ©The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Post-Surrealism Lecture, September 15, 1974. The Los Angeles Art Association Gallery. ©The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Class Lecture, 1970. Art Center College of Design. ©The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Post-Surrealism Lecture, September 15, 1974. The Los Angeles Art Association Gallery. ©The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Thursday evening private study group, 1975. ©The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Class Lecture, 1970. Art Center College of Design. ©The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Credits for artworks and documentary photographs are listed in the order in which they appear.

Lorser Feitelson, Narcissus, 1936. Oil on primed and unprimed wood, 58 x 21 in. / 147 x 53.3 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Helen Lundeberg, The Isle, 1934. Oil on carton, 9 x 17 in. / 22.9 x 43.2 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Helen Lundeberg, Persephone, 1933. Oil on Celotex, 25 1/8 x 17 1/4 in (63.8 x 43.8 cm). Orange County Museum of Art Costa Mesa, CA. Museum purchase with funds provided through prior gift of Lois Outerbridge, 1999.014. Photo: Bliss Photography.

Lorser Feitelson, Pears: Organization of Perceptive and Introspective Forms, 1934. Oil on Celotex board, 38.875 x 30.5 x 2 in. Collection of the Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, Gift of the Marie Eccles Caine Foundation. 1986.60.

Lorser Feitelson, Genesis #2, 1934, oil on fiberboard, 40 1/4 x 48 in. (102.1 x 121.8 cm), Smithsonian American Art Museum, Museum purchase.

Helen Lundeberg, The Red Planet, 1934. Oil on Celotex, 30 x 24 in. (76.2 x 61 cm), Collection of Rick Silver and Robert Hayden III.

Lorser Feitelson, Filial Love, c. 1937. Oil and casein on fiberboard. Panel: 61 x 76.2 cm (24 x 30 in.). Collection Zimmerli Art Museum at Rutgers University, Gift of The Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg Feitelson Arts Foundation. 82.059.001. Photo Jack Abraham.

Lorser Feitelson, Genesis First Version, 1934. Oil on fiberboard; 24 x 30 in. (61 x 76.2 cm). San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Gift of Helen Klokke. Photograph: Katherine Du Tiel.

Helen Lundeberg, The Mirror, 1934. Oil on Celotex panel, 30 x 24 in./ 76.2 x 61 cm. Collection of the Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, Marie Eccles Cain Foundation Gift, March, 1988. 1986.28.

Helen Lundeberg posing for National Art Week, WPA publicity photo. November 16, 1940. Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Helen Lundeberg, The Mirror, 1934. Oil on Celotex panel, 30 x 24”, 76.2 x 61 cm. Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, Marie Eccles Cain Foundation Gift, March, 1988. 1986.28.

Helen Lundeberg, Double Portrait of the Artist in Time, 1935, oil on fiberboard, 47 3/4 x 40 in. (121.3 x 101.6 cm.), Smithsonian American Art Museum, Museum purchase.

Infant portrait of Helen Lundeberg, circa 1910. Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Helen Lundeberg, Artist, Flowers, and Hemispheres, 1934. Oil on fiberboard, 24 x 30 in. (60. 96 x 76.2 cm). San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Gift of Helen A. Klokke.

Lorser Feitelson, circa 1937. Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Lorser Feitelson, Notes regarding The Nature of the Conditioner, Circa 1930s. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Susanna and the Elders, 1935. Oil on Firtex, 26 x 56 in. The Buck Collection at UCI Jack and Shanaz Langson Institute and Museum of California Art. Museum Object Number 1268.

Lorser Feitelson, Study for Genesis #2, 1934. Colored pencil on paper, 10 x 8 in. Museum Purchase with the Dorothy Wanlass Endowment Fund. Collection of the Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art, Utah State University.

Lorser Feitelson, Genesis #2, 1934. Oil on fiberboard, 40 1/4 x 48 in. (102.1 x 121.8 cm), Smithsonian American Art Museum, Museum purchase.

Lorser Feitelson, Pears, Perception and Introspection, 1934. Graphite on paper, 11 x 8 in. Gift of Tobey Moss. Collection of the Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art, Utah State University.

Lorser Feitelson, Pears: Organization of Perceptive and Introspective Forms, 1934. Oil on Celotex board, 38.875 x 30.5 x 2 in. Collection of the Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art, Utah State University. Gift of the Marie Eccles Caine Foundation. 1986.60.

Helen Lundeberg, Drawing for Eyes, Circa 1938. Image courtesy of the Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Helen Lundeberg, Eyes, 1938. Oil on Masonite, 16 1/4 x 13 1/4 in. Collection of Stephen M. Bull and Terese Svoboda.

Lorser Feitelson, Study for Flight Over New York, 1935. Graphite on paper, 12 x 9 in. / 30.5 x 22.9 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Study for Flight Over New York, 1935. Colored pencil on paper, 10 3/4 x 11 in. / 27.3 x 27.9 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Flight Over New York at Twilight, 1936. Oil on canvas, 54 x 64 in. / 137.2 x 162.6 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Helen Lundeberg, Drawing for Microcosm Macrocosm, 1937. Pencil on paper, 15 1/2 x 6 1/4 in. / 39.4 x 15.9 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Helen Lundeberg, Microcosm and Macrocosm, 1937. Oil on Masonite. Framed: 37 x 19 1/2 x 1 5/8 in.; Sight: 28 1/4 x 13 3/4 in. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, purchased with funds provided by Mr. and Mrs. Robert B. Honeyman, Jr. (M.2003.50), photo ©Museum Associates/LACMA.

Lorser Feitelson, Diagram of Maternity, circa 1931-1932. Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Lorser Feitelson, Maternity, circa 1931-1932. Oil on canvas, 50 x 60 in.; framed: 66 3/8 x 56 7/8 in. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, gift of Charles McCutcheon (33.14). Photo © Museum Associates/LACMA.

Lorser Feitelson, Diagram of Maternity, circa 1931-1932. Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Helen Lundeberg, Plant and Animal Analogies, 1934-35. Oil on Celotex, 24 x 30 in. The Buck Collection at UCI Jack and Shanaz Langson Institute and Museum of California Art (1257).

Helen Lundeberg, Relative Magnitude, 1936. Oil on Masonite, 37 1/2 x 31 1/2 in. The Buck Collection at UCI Jack and Shanaz Langson Institute and Museum of California Art (1258).

Helen Lundeberg, Microcosm and Macrocosm, 1937. Oil on Masonite, Framed: 37 x 19 1/2 x 1 5/8 in.; Sight: 28 1/4 x 13 3/4 in. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, purchased with funds provided by Mr. and Mrs. Robert B. Honeyman, Jr. (M.2003.50), photo ©Museum Associates/LACMA.

Lorser Feitelson, Flight Over New York at Twilight, 1936. Oil on canvas, 54 x 64 in / 137.2 x 162.6 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Love: Eternal Recurrence, 1935-1936. Oil on canvas, 54 1/4 x 66 1/2 in. / 137.8 x 168.9 cm. Collection of Phoenix Art Museum, Gift of Dr. and Mrs. Lorenz Anderman. Image courtesy of Phoenix Art Museum.

Lorser Feitelson, Post Surreal Configuration: Eternal Recurrence, 1940. Oil on canvas, 49 3/4 x 72 1/2 in. / 126.4 x 184.2 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Helen Lundeberg, Cosmicide, 1935. Oil on Masonite, 39 1/2 x 23 1/4 in. (100.33 x 59.06 cm). Sheldon Museum of Art, Nebraska Art Association, Gift of the Peter Kiewit Foundation, N-583.1981.

Lorser Feitelson, Life Begins, 1936. Oil and collage on Masonite, 23 1/4 x 27 3/4 x 2 in. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, purchased with funds provided by Mrs. W. H. Russell (by exchange), the Blanche and George Jones Fund, and the Modern and Contemporary Art Council, with the cooperation of the Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg Feitelson Arts Foundation and Tobey C. Moss Gallery (AC1996.103.1), photo ©Museum Associates/LACMA.

Lorser Feitelson, Controlled Sequence Contemplation Sketches 1-5, circa 1930s. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Photograph of Lorser Feitelson, November 1931, Pasadena. Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Lorser Feitelson, Diagram analyzing “Gothic” rhythm versus Italian Renaissance figure structure, Dec. 2, 1932. Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Lorser Feitelson, Teaching Demonstration: figure studies, circa 1940s-1960s. Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg papers, circa 1890s-2002, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Mills, Elisabeth Ann, curator Post-Surrealists and Other Moderns. Los Angeles: Stanley Rose Gallery, May 1935. Exhibition brochure. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Helen Lundeberg, Double Portrait of the Artist in Time, 1935, oil on fiberboard, 47 3/4 x 40 in. (121.3 x 101.6 cm.), Smithsonian American Art Museum, Museum purchase.

Edward Alden Jewell, “Brisk Pace in Museums,” New York Times, May 17, 1936.

Barr, Alfred H. Jr, ed. Fantastic Art, Dada, Surrealism. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1936. Exhibition catalogue.

Stendahl, Earl, Postsurrealism. Los Angeles: Stendhal Galleries, 1938. Exhibition brochure.

Helen Lundeberg, The Evanescent, 1941-1944. Oil on canvas, 36 x 60 in (91.4 x 152.4 cm). Philadelphia Museum of Art: Purchased with the McNeil Acquisition Fund for American Art and Material Culture, the Center for American Art Acquisition Fund, and the Elizabeth Moran Endowment for American Art, 2019, 1019-204-1.

Lorser Feitelson, Post-Surrealist Configuration: Genesis (No.3), 1943. Oil on canvas, 30 x 45 in. The Buck Collection at UCI Jack and Shanaz Langson Institute and Museum of California Art.

Helen Lundeberg, The Table, (Green Table), 1949. Oil on board, 7 1/2 x 11 in. / 19.1 x 27.9 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Helen Lundeberg, Interior with Table, 1960. Oil on canvas, 36 x 30 in. / 91.4 x 76.2 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Helen Lundeberg, White Trees, 1947. Oil on wood, 8 ½ x 9 ¾ in. / 21.6 x 24.8 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Helen Lundeberg, Tideland (Low Tide Tideland), 1987. Acrylic on canvas, 50 x 50 in. / 127 x 127 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Magical Forms, 1944. Oil on canvas, 29 7/8 x 35 7/8 in. / 75.9 x 91.1 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Magical Forms, 1947. Oil on canvas, 36 x 30 in. / 91.4 x 76.2 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Magical Space Forms, 1951. Oil on canvas, 49 3/4 x 74 5/8 in./ 126.4 x 189.5 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

Lorser Feitelson, Magical Space Forms, 1951. Oil on canvas, 58 3/8 x 82 in./ 148.3 x 208.3 cm. Collection of The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation.

The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation would like to thank the following institutions and collectors for their support of this project:

Orange County Museum of Art

Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art, Utah State University

Smithsonian American Art Museum

Rick Silver and Robert Hayden III

Zimmerli Art Museum, Rutgers University

San Francisco Museum of Modern Art

UCI Jack and Shanaz Langson Institute and Museum of California Art

Stephen M. Bull and Terese Svoboda

Los Angeles County Museum of Art

Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution

Phoenix Art Museum

Sheldon Museum of Art, University of Nebraska

Philadelphia Museum of Art

Music: Valerie Gordon, piano

Baldassare Galuppi, Sonata Nr. 12 in F Minor

Domenico Scarlatti, Sonata Nr. 168 in F

Niels Gade, Elegie in E Minor

The Feitelson/ Lundeberg Art Foundation thanks Valerie Gordon for recording the music for this video.

For further reading on Post-Surrealism:

Michael Duncan, Post Surrealism. Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art, 2002. [Exhibition catalogue]

Diane Moran, Lorser Feitelson and Helen Lundeberg: A Retrospective Exhibition. San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, 1980. [Exhibition catalogue]

Diane Moran, Lorser Feitelson: Eternal Recurrence. The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation and Louis Stern Fine Arts, 2014. [Monograph]

Suzanne Muchnic, Helen Lundeberg: Poetry Space Silence. The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation and Louis Stern Fine Arts, 2014. [Monograph]

Post Surrealism: Mind Actions & Metaphors

The Feitelson / Lundeberg Art Foundation