UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Carl Schaefer, the paintings of the 1930’s Johnston, Peggy 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 J65.pdf [ 14.15MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094893.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094893-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094893-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094893-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094893-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094893-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094893-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094893-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094893.ris

Full Text

CARL SCHAEFER: THE PAINTINGS OF THE 1930'S by Peggy Johnston B.A., Carleton University, 1973 A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts xn The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Department of Fine Arts) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard The University of B r i t i s h Columbia October, 1980 (c) Peggy Johnston, 1980 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C olumbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f P/N& A £ f 5 The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date . ABSTRACT Carl Schaefer i s a Canadian painter who has worked i n Toronto and southwestern Ontario since the late twenties. His style developed from the landscape t r a d i t i o n established by the Group of Seven; yet he evolved a d i s t i n c t s t y l e i n the t h i r t i e s , l a r g e l y affected by the medium of watercolour and a personal approach to a fa m i l i a r countryside. This thesis, e n t i t l e d Carl Schaefer: the Paintings  of the 1930's, i s a study of Carl Schaefer's work and the a r t i s t i c environment i n which he painted during the decade of the 1930's as a means of showing the development of what i s considered his mature s t y l e and of establishing him as one of the distinguished painters of the period. Though now singled out for t h e i r importance i n a retrospective view of the 1930's, Carl Schaefer's paintings warrant a more thorough study. This thesis intends, in Chapter I to trace his early development, bringing i n his background and early art t r a i n i n g , the influence of his teachers, several of whom were members of the Group of Seven, of his contemporaries and of those a r t i s t s whom he both admired and f e l t a sympathy for. Chapter II examines the milieu i n which Carl Schaefer worked by following c r i t i c a l reaction to exhibitions and to a r t i s t i c trends i n Canada (with an emphasis on Ontario). The landscapes and s t i l l l i f e s of the t h i r t i e s are the subjects of Chapters III and IV. Here, selected works have been studied as a means of tracing his style from the early works u n t i l 1940. Chapter V looks at c r i t i c a l reaction during the 193 0's to Carl Schaefer's work in order to e s t a b l i s h his place among his contemporaries. The e x i s t i n g material, that i s to say, paintings, pri n t s and drawings, exhibition catalogues, h i s t o r i e s of Canadian ar t , l e t t e r s , a taped interview, a monograph and p e r i o d i c a l a r t i c l e s (with p a r t i c u l a r emphasis here on those written during the 1930's) have been studied as the background for t h i s t h e s i s . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION page 1 CHAPTER I-Carl Schaefer's Background, Training and Early Influences . . . 8 CHAPTER II ' The C r i t i c s ' Assessment of Painting i n Canada (and Ontario i n particular) during the 1930's 28 CHAPTER III The Landscape Paintings 49 CHAPTER IV The S t i l l L i f e Paintings 62 CHAPTER V C r i t i c i s m and Evaluation of C a r l Schaefer's Paintings i n the 1930's 73 CHRONOLOGY 8 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY 87 ILLUSTRATIONS 94 V LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1 Carl Schaefer, Pine Pattern, Pickerel River, 1926 2 Carl Schaefer, The River, Winter, Hanover, 1926 3 Carl Schaefer, Ontario Farmhouse, 1934 4 Carl Schaefer, The Voelzing Farmhouse, 1934 5 Carl Schaefer, Drawing of the Voelzing Farmhouse, 1932 6 Carl Schaefer, Storm over the F i e l d s , o i l , 1937 7 Carl Schaefer, Storm over the F i e l d s , watercolour, 1937 8 Carl Schaefer, Moon over the Don J a i l , 1938 9 Charles Burchfield, The Edge of Town, 1921-41 10 Carl Schaefer, Rain Cloud over the F i e l d s , Waterloo County, 1964 11 Carl Schaefer, Farmhouse by the Railway, 1938-39 12 Carl Schaefer, Before Rain, Parry Sound, 1937 13 Carl Schaefer, Summer Harvest, Hanover, 1935 14 Katsushika Hokusai, Mount F u j i i n Fine Weather, c. 1825 15 Carl Schaefer, Wheatfield, Hanover, 1936 16 Carl Schaefer, F a l l Ploughing at Schomberg,. 1937 17 Carl Schaefer, F i e l d s , Township Normandy, 1936 18 Carl Schaefer, R.R. No. 3, Hanover, 1936 19 Carl Schaefer, Concession Road, Township Bentinck, Hanover, 1937 20 Carl Schaefer, View of Hanover, 1937-38 21 Carl Schaefer, The Voelzing Farm, Hanover, Township Bentinck, Grey County, 1938 v i 22 Carl Schaefer, Wheat Stooks, No. 2, Hanover, 1939 23 Carl Schaefer, Wire Fence, Hanover, 1937 24 Carl Schaefer, The Brunt Barns, Hanover, 1937 25 Carl Schaefer, Harvest F e s t i v a l , 1936 26 Carl Schaefer, S t i l l L i f e with Landscape, 1939 27 Carl Schaefer, Yellow Apples on a F a l l Landscape, 1939 28 Carl Schaefer, Apples, 1933 29 Carl Schaefer, Pears, 1934 30 Carl Schaefer, Eggplant and Peppers, 1938 31 Paul Cezanne, S t i l l L i f e with Apples and Oranges, 1895-1900 32 Charles Demuth, Eggplant and Tomatoes, 1926 33 Carl Schaefer, S t i l l L i f e , 1938 34 Carl Schaefer, Rock and Pines, Pickerel River, 1927 35 Carl Schaefer, Late Sun and Oatfields, 1939 1 INTRODUCTION • The a r t i s t i c career of Carl Schaefer has spanned more than f i f t y years; at 77, he i s s t i l l painting. Over those years he has worked i n o i l , watercolour and egg tempera, as well as making prin t s and drawings. This thesis w i l l deal with a small portion of that career, a period of about ten years, beginning with the early t h i r t i e s and concluding with the award of a Guggenheim Fellowship i n March 1940. He was the f i r s t Canadian to be granted t h i s fellowship and i t allowed him to spend a year working i n Vermont."'" The choice of time i s not an arbit r a r y one, but i s based on the importance of these years i n the establishment of Carl Schaefer's s t y l e , a style which has subsequently changed l i t t l e i n fundamentals. The di r e c t i o n of his work was governed by a number of factors; his a r t i s t i c a f f i l i a t i o n s — p a r t i c u l a r l y with members of the Group of Seven, student days at the Ontario College of Art, during which he had his f i r s t exposure to art history and l i t e r a t u r e — and poverty which imposed on him a medium and a subject matter that he might otherwise have ignored. Histories of Canadian art single out Carl Schaefer for s pecial attention i n chapters devoted to a r t i s t s working i n the decade following the Group of Seven. 2 Some describe him as a r e g i o n a l i s t ; ^ others remark on his break from the Group of Seven's t r a d i t i o n of the formidable 3 b r i l l x a n t canvases, which alone might be considered a 4 noteworthy contribution to painting i n the t h i r t i e s . Most, however, recognize i n his work of t h i s period a strong, i n d i v i d u a l style which established him as a major Canadian landscape painter.^ Dennis Reid wrote of the series of landscapes painted i n Hanover during the t h i r t i e s : The group of spreading ' f i e l d ' canvases pro-duced at Hanover, some more than four feet wide — i s the most moving series of pictures painted i n Canada i n the t h i r t i e s . They a l l display heroic breadth.6 Reid's focus on the paintings of the 1930's i s 7 common to most of the writing on Carl Schaefer. A l l t h i s attention given by the c r i t i c s to the Hanover period of Carl Schaefer's career suggests that i t takes a more important place i n any retrospective view of Canadian painting than his subsequent work. The post-Hanover period, however, has been p r o l i f i c and i n many respects broadening i n both subject matter and theme. The year i n Vermont marked the end of the Hanover period and the war years, when he was overseas as an o f f i c i a l Canadian war a r t i s t ^ presented him with a dr a s t i c change.in g subject matter. He never returned to paint Hanover 3 after the war, but after several years of searching for a new subject he se t t l e d on Waterloo County i n Ontario where he has worked ever since. His work i n Waterloo has been recognized by the University of Waterloo who honored him with a Doctor-:- of Letters (honoris causa) i n 19 76; i n 197 8 he received the award of• " -Order of Canada. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of reproductions and documentary material also makes the 19 30's the most accessible period to consider. While these are Carl Schaefer's best known ten years, they warrant a more careful study. I propose f i r s t of a l l to trace Carl Schaefer's a r t i s t i c development from his youth u n t i l he reaches what has been considered his mature st y l e at the end of the 19 30's. In order to do t h i s , I s h a l l speak about his education i n Toronto at the Ontario College of A r t r and also the various a r t i s t s for whom he f e l t sympathy and who may be considered i n f l u e n t i a l figures i n the development of his s t y l e , choice of medium and subject. It w i l l be necessary even to consider his physical well-being, affected as was that of many of his contemporaries by the depression which also had a strong influence on his d i r e c t i o n . I intend also to look at the milieu i n which 4 y Carl Schaefer worked, largely through the writings of the art reviewers and c r i t i c s i n Toronto i n the 19 30's. Through the c r i t i c s ' a r t i c l e s , i t i s possible to see the trends i n painting, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Ontario at t h i s time. Carl Schaefer's work during these years included not only paintings but also p r i n t s and drawings; I propose to study his p r o l i f i c output by focussing on landscape and s t i l l l i f e painting i n o i l and watercolour and I s h a l l bring i n his graphic work i n order to throw l i g h t on the paintings. And of the paintings I s h a l l be select i v e and concentrate on those which bring out" most c l e a r l y the development of h i s sty l e during these ten years. I s h a l l conclude with a c r i t i c a l assessment of Carl Schaefer's work by the art c r i t i c s and reviewers who came to know his work i n the t h i r t i e s . 5 FOOTNOTES """During the year 194 0-41 i n New England, Carl Schaefer studied lithography and printmaking at Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire under Ray Nash. 2 Donald Buchanan, The Growth of Canadian Painting (Toronto and London: C o l l i n s , 1950), pp. 61 & 62. "...His best work i s a d i s t i n c t form of regional a r t , presented, not with dramatic realism, but i n a dry, ret i c e n t s t y l e . . . " Paul Duval, Four Decades (Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Company, Limited,.1972), p. 37. "In an era when the word 'regional' has often been used i n a derogatory way, Carl Schaefer has always rea d i l y confessed to being a regional painter. He has said: 'I find that the best subjects for me are concentrated i n a pretty small area!'" Margaret Gray, Margaret Rand and Lois Steen, Carl  Schaefer (Toronto: Gage Publishing, 1977), p. 2. "Schaefer makes no apology for being a r e g i o n a l i s t . For him there w i l l always be so much to discover i n one small piece of land." Charles C. H i l l , Canadian Painting i n the T h i r t i e s (Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1975), p. 89. "Returning to Hanover year after year Carl Schaefer interpreted the landscape i n a l l i t s many moods and facets, becoming a 're g i o n a l i s t ' a r t i s t i n the truest sense of the term." George Johnston, "Carl Schaefer: A r t i s t and Man," Queen's Quarterly, Vol. LXI, No. 3 (Autumn 1954), 348. "Carl has never been interested i n figures and he wisely stays away from them. They scarcely appear, even i n c i d e n t a l l y , i n his paintings. Nevertheless his r e a l i n t erest i s i n men, and he expresses his feelings about them by showing t h e i r own feelings towards t h e i r f i e l d s and the houses and barns they keep. He sees men, i n other words, i n t h e i r land and t h e i r work. This i s what i s known as regional painting." 6 Barry Lord, The History of Painting i n Canada;  Toward a People's Art (Toronto: NC Press, 1974), p. 180. "...Schaefer re s o l u t e l y turned his r e s t r i c t i o n s to advantage, and made some memorable paintings of wheatfields and farm houses around his family home that catch the s p i r i t of the region." Christopher Varley, Carl Schaefer i n Hanover (Edmonton: The Edmonton Art Gallery, 1980) . "Schaefer i s usually referred to as a r e g i o n a l i s t , for he strongly i d e n t i f i e s with the areas he paints, but I want to d i s -tinguish his work immediately from the so-called regionalism of his U.S. contemporaries, the American Scene painters. Whereas the Americans tended to use t h e i r a r t primarily for t o p i c a l s o c i a l commentary and as a weapon against the 'ultra-modernism' of European ar t , Schaefer's e s s e n t i a l i n t e r e s t lay i n the analysis and depiction of h i s immediate surroundings." With the exception of George Johnston's passage, a l l the above-noted excerpts describe Carl Schaefer's regionalism as simply capturing the essence of a region by painting i t over and over i n a l l i t s various looks and moods. Johnston, however, emphasizes man's role i n the f i e l d s , barns and houses of the region, rather more i n the s p i r i t of Charles Burchfield's f e e l i n g s , say, towards houses of which Burchfield wrote i n 1916: "A house i s often more moody than nature. They are b u i l t by men as dwellings... and t h i s strange creature r e s u l t s . In the daytime they have an astonished look; at dusk they are e v i l , seem to brook over some crime... Each one i s i n d i v i d u a l " . From John I.H. Bauer, Charles  Burchfield (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1956), p. 34. For a further discussion of Carl Schaefer and Charles Burchfield, see pages 20,21 & 22. For a further discussion of Carl Schaefer as a regional a r t i s t see page 13 and footnotes 11 and 13 of Chapter I. 3 J. Russell Harper, Painting in Canada: A History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966), p. 325; H i l l , p. 89; George Johnston, "Carl Schaefer", Canadian  Art, March 1960, p. 65; G. Campbell Mclnnes, "Contemporary Canadian A r t i s t s . No. 1 - Carl Schaefer," The Canadian  Forum, Vol. XVI, No. 193 (February 1937), 18. 7 ~*Jehanne Bi e t r y Salinger, "Comment on Art," The Canadian Forum, Vol. XII, No. 136 (January 1932) , 142; G. Campbell Mclnnes, "Contemporary Canadian A r t i s t s . No. 1 - Carl Schaefer," The Canadian Forum, Vol. XVI, No. 193 (February 1937), 18. 5Duval, p. 37; Lord, p. 180; Dennis Reid, A Concise History of Canadian Painting (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1973), 178. 6Reid, p. 179. 7 The exceptions are the writings on his war paintings and the a r t i c l e s by George Johnston, which deal l a r g e l y with the post war period. Also the monograph by Gray, Rand and Steen. g His wartime subjects were airplanes, machinery and the men who operated whem, as well as a i r f i e l d s and skies. George Johnston's a r t i c l e "Carl Schaefer" i n Canadian Art, March 1960, pp. 65-71 and 99 deals i n part with t h i s period. 8 CHAPTER I Carl Schaefer's Background, Training and  Early Influences Carl Schaefer was born i n Hanover i n 190 3. His family were well-established farmers of German o r i g i n who had s e t t l e d i n Bruce and Grey Counties of southwestern Ontario i n the mid-nineteenth century; i t was i n t h i s r u r a l environment that Carl Schaefer grew up. At the age of eighteen he entered the Ontario College of Art i n Toronto. These early years played a decisive role i n his choice of an a r t i s t i c career. It was from his Grandfather Fellman that he had his i n i t i a l exposure to craftsmanship and . working with one's hands. Fellman was a furniture f i n i s h e r by trade and his grandson f e l t a sympathy for the care and s k i l l that he put into his work. He too had the urge to use his hands, and drawing was what attracted him most strongly. His formal education was basic; he had only two years of high school, and before entering the Ontario College of Art i n 1921, his knowledge of art and l i t e r a t u r e was limited. He r e c a l l s from his childhood, readings by his Great-grandfather from Goethe, S c h i l l e r and the B i b l e , and although he remembers almost nothing of the readings, he attributes to them 9 his e a r l i e s t consciousness of things l i t e r a r y and vi s u a l and the f i r s t awakening of his awareness of the mystical. Growing up on a farm i n s t i l l e d i n him a f e e l i n g for the land which was to have a strong e f f e c t on his painting during the depression years. He was f a m i l i a r with i t , he knew the f i e l d s , as he says: . . . l i k e the back of my hand. This was my heritage. It was what I got from my family. It was something s o l i d . It was a very b ig and important thing i n my l i f e . 2 When he went to Toronto to study, he had no pre-conceived notions about ar t , no theories and very l i t t l e formal knowledge, only an eagerness to learn. Perhaps the single most i n f l u e n t i a l person i n his development as a painter was his teacher, J.E.H. MacDonald, a member of the Group of Seven who took a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n him. He introduced him to art history and to art theory through the writings of Roger Fry and C l i v e B e l l and the Bloomsbury Group xn general. MacDonald was not a formally trained teacher, but taught his classes what he knew and what interested him and t h i s , along with his support had a l a s t i n g e f f e c t . In his f i r s t year at the Ontario College of Art i n 1921, J.E.H. MacDonald taught Carl Schaefer design and l e t t e r i n g . He also introduced him to William Blake, Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman 10 and the nature writers. 4* A discovery Carl Schaefer made on his own was William Morris, whose craftsmanship again aroused i n him an enthusiasm for the work of man's hand. In Carl Schaefer's own work t h i s was r e a l i z e d i n the art of drawing. During the early twenties when he was a student, the Group of Seven was beginning to be recognized as a d i s t i n c t , progressive movement i n Canadian art. In 1920, a year before he enrolled at the Ontario College of Art:;;-.- i t s members held t h e i r f i r s t e x hibition as a group at the Art Gallery of Toronto. Grand and b r i l l i a n t canvases i n o i l depicted the rugged northern Ontario landscape. As a pup i l of two of i t s members, J.E.H. MacDonald and Arthur Lismer (who also taught him at the Ontario College of Art) he was ine v i t a b l y impressed by t h e i r views, enthusiasm and style and one recognizes many of t h e i r features i n his paintings of the twenties, and even those of the early t h i r t i e s . For instance, Pine Pattern, Pick e r e l River (Fig. 1) a small o i l painted i n 1926 , depicts a northern Ontario scene of rocks, white pihes^ and bedraggled jack pines, i n the manner of MacDonald or Lismer. The surface i s 11 f l a t l y painted, the trees f decor active; the whole composition has a poster q u a l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y i n the i n t e r l a c i n g art nouveau treatment of the branches. At the same time, i t reveals an i n t e r e s t i n l i n e not so apparent i n the Group's work, which possibly stems from his love of drawing. The draughtsmanship i s more apparent i n another o i l of the same year, The River, Winter, Hanover (1926) (Fig. 2). Although painted i n his native Hanover, i t has the starkness and forbidding quality of one of Lawren Harris' Lake Superior paintings.^ Unlike Pine Pattern (Fig. 1) t h i s sketch i s more highly abstract, emphasizing the shapes through l i n e and marked -contrasts of dark and l i g h t . Such a divergence shows that he was s t i l l experimenting and had not yet arrived at his own p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e . The northern landscapes of the l a t e twenties were painted on f i s h i n g t r i p s with his friends Lowrie Warrener and George Pepper,^ and he says of these experiences: The north surprised me a great deal because here were great whalebacks, great rocks. The great bold forms r e a l l y shook me. What could you do with them? Here were pines which I f e l t to be l i k e those of the Group of Seven. I never f e l t that I was painting imitations of the 'unpopular' Group of painters. I drew trees looking l i k e trees, and a rock looking l i k e a rock i n bold forms, and I used very close observation. 1^ 12 During his college years, he gained p r a c t i c a l experience through work on theatre stage and set designs for Hart House, the Royal Alexandra and Princess Theatres and the Grand Opera House. After leaving the Ontario College of Art i n 1924, Carl Schaefer found work decorating church c e i l i n g s i n southern Ontario and Toronto as well as apartment and o f f i c e buildings. These commissions were often obtained for him through J.E.H. MacDonald and carried out with Thoreau MacDonald, whom Carl Schaefer had come to know through his association with his father. Usually MacDonald would design the work and Carl g and Thoreau would execute i t . In 1929 he became a display designer for the T. Eaton Company and from 19 30 on he taught one day a week at Central Technical School i n Toronto. The Depression brought unemployment, and although Carl Schaefer continued with his part-time teaching, he was unable to support his wife and two sons on freelance jobs and was forced to return to his childhood home of Hanover, where he spent his summers and Christmases i n the home of his grandparents from 19 32 to 19 40. This was the land he knew from childhood, i t was a part of him, and i t was during these summers that he 13 painted i t over and over gain. In 19 32 he began painting the Hanover ser i e s ; with these landscape paintings, done i n o i l and watercolour, as well as with pen and ink drawings, he established himself as an a r t i s t i n his own r i g h t , no longer t r a i l i n g i n the shadow of the 9 . . . . Group of Seven. These paintings reveal a f a m i l i a r i t y and sympathy with the landscape which became singular to Carl Schaefer. They earned for him the l a b e l of ' r e g i o n a l i s t 1 painter, one which he r e a d i l y acknowledges 10 and accepts. Although i t i s an unreliable term, which can be used both to praise and condemn, i t has a true sense which can be applied to the Hanover paintings: \ lof or pertaining to a p a r t i c u l a r region or d i s t r i c t . " * " 1 I t i s meaningful here because these paintings portray one region of Ontario over and over i n i t s various 12 moods and seasonal changes. Such a single-minded concentration on one region i n painting a f t e r painting sets Carl Schaefer apart from his predecessors, the Group c f Seven and also from his contemporaries, many of whom were following the Group t r a d i t i o n of painting, on a large scale, hinterland country that had not previously been regarded as 13 painting subjects. Their country was untouched, rugged and formidable; they sought out dramatic subjects 14 and composed them of many varied elements. Their i n t e r e s t was not i n what was fa m i l i a r but what was new, and they moved on through the northland i n search of yet undiscovered,subjects. Carl Schaefer, on the other hand, r e s t r i c t e d by poverty, chose to paint his home, and scenes he could almost recreate with his eyes closed. His farm upbringing i n s t i l l e d i n him a love of the land and t h i s region p a r t i c u l a r l y . This love, combined with his exposure to the Group of Seven and the art scene i n Toronto, would naturally have led him to choose the landscape subject rather than portraiture or generic subjects. At the time he was s t a r t i n g out i n Toronto there was r e a l l y l i t t l e t r a d i t i o n i n p o r t r a i t painting, except perhaps i n the world of officialdom and these tended to be taken by the academicians. An i n f l u e n t i a l teacher l i k e J.E.H. MacDonald would probably not have encouraged him in such a d i r e c t i o n . As well, for whatever reason, Carl Schaefer seemed to have had no p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n the human figure or understanding of i t . He chose rather to paint the same f i e l d s , barns, houses and fences i n one composition a f t e r another, each d i s t i n c t from one another with a freshness of approach one might not expect from 15 such r e p e t i t i o n . H is p a i n t i n g s convey the same l o v e of the country as the Group's, y e t what he sees and achieves i s the a n t i t h e s i s o f t h e i r approach and g o a l . The Group of Seven p a i n t e d quick o i l sketches on l o c a t i o n , l a t e r to be p a i n t e d up i n t o l a r g e , o i l p a i n t i n g s i n the s t u d i o , one composition o f t e n being the composite o f s e v e r a l sketches, or p o s s i b l y an e l a b o r a t i o n of one. C a r l S c h a e f e r would study the landscape b e f o r e him f o r f i f t e e n o r twenty minutes, then t u r n h i s back on i t to p a i n t i t i n water-c o l o u r . He would t u r n away with the i d e a o f the composition i n h i s mind, p r e f e r r i n g not t o keep l o o k i n g up at what he was p a i n t i n g , f o r f e a r t h a t i t might d i s t r a c t him by i t s d e t a i l . Many of the w a t e r c o l o u r s produced i n the f i e l d are f i n i s h e d works, perhaps s l i g h t l y touched up l a t e r i n the s t u d i o . Some became bases f o r l a r g e r o i l s , although they are f i n i s h e d works i n themselves. T h i s i s the case, f o r example, of O n t a r i o Farmhouse f o r which there e x i s t s a w a t e r c o l o u r ( F i g . 4), a pen and i n k drawing ( F i g . 5 ) , and a l a r g e o i l ( F i g . 3) and a l s o w i t h Storm  over the F i e l d s f o r which there i s both a w a t e r c o l o u r ( F i g . 7) and an o i l ( F i g . 6). During the t h i r t i e s , C a r l Schaefer made a conscious d e c i s i o n t o switch from the medium o f o i l t o t h a t o f 16 watercolour. I t was not a sudden decision but b u i l t up slowly during the depression years when he worked i n both o i l and watercolour as well as pen and ink. By 1940, the year he went to work i n Vermont, he was painting almost exclusively i n watercolour. In some respects, his choice of watercolour and his method of painting i n the f i e l d (to which either drawing or watercolour most e a s i l y lends i t s e l f ) were the r e s u l t of need. Paper and watercolour paints were cheaper; then too, f i n a n c i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s confined his f i e l d t r i p s to the area around Hanover. There were other considerations too, which led to his choice of the watercolour medium and the Hanover subjects. Frank Carmichael was the f i r s t to suggest he try water-colours ; i t was on a day painting expedition to S t r e e t s v i l l e in 19 33 and Carmichael supplied him with a good piece of I t a l i a n paper. He t o l d Carl Schaefer that his painting was too t i g h t , he should loosen i t up for watercolour, 14 but the e f f e c t of his comment was encouraging. Lawren Harris, however, in a l e t t e r of 19 36 advised Carl Schaefer against giving up o i l painting. He begins his l e t t e r by saying what glowing reports he receives of C a r l 1 s work and continues: Your watercolours impress them as p a r t i c u l a r l y f i n e . This led me to wonder i f perhaps you have 17 been neglecting o i l s . I f there i s a chance of your doing so forgive me i f I suggest that i t might prove a mistake. I don't know of course i f you have been neglecting o i l painting. I. merely take a chance and i n a l l humility suggest you keep working i n o i l s as well as water colour. Each medium has i t s own virtue but o i l s seem capable of a deeper, a profounder and a more exhaustive expression. I f e e l the results are of equal importance i n the evocative power working i n the a r t i s t as much as i n the paintings created. And that for the f u l l tide of an a r t i s t s creative power to flow o i l as well as watercolour and other'mediums are e s s e n t i a l , and that o i l s c a l l out deeper resources. About th i s time, Carl Schaefer was attracted by Japanese painters, es p e c i a l l y the a r t i s t Hokusai. His sympathy for that a r t i s t ' s work i s not surprising, considering his i n t e r e s t i n pen and ink drawing and the predominance of l i n e i n his own work, both o i l and 16 watercolour. He also came to admire the work of the American painter Charles Burchfield, who preferred watercolour (and t h i s may have encouraged his preference too); and i t would seem that many circumstances favoured t h i s medium. While Carl Schaefer denies d i r e c t influence from any a r t i s t , he admits that certain painters inspired him. He feels an a f f i n i t y with the mystical northern European painters, Hieronymous Bosch, Peter Brueghel, Albrecht Al t d o r f e r and Jacob van Ruysdael, p a r t l y because of his 18 own Germanic background but more because he feels a sympathy with these painters. It i s in his use of l i g h t that a mystical or visionary quality appears. In a dramatic landscape such as Storm over the Fields (Fig. 6) (see pp. 49-51 for a f u l l e r discussion of t h i s painting), the l i g h t , the source of which i s unnatural, emanates from the centre of the f i e l d . It i s easy to suggest that t h i s sort of otherworldly glow i s no more than a t h e a t r i c a l interpretation of an impending storm, something Carl Schaefer would have mastered from his days of painting stage sets. However, his admitted i n t e r e s t i n the mystical aspects of the northern European painters, mentioned above, and of Paul Nash, Samuel Palmer and Charles Burchfield, suggests that one must inte r p r e t his use of l i g h t as more than simply drama. Other paintings possess t h i s same qu a l i t y , namely Yellow Apples on a F a l l  Landscape (1939) (Fig. 27), Eggplant and Peppers (1938) (Fig. 30) or Farmhouse by the Railway (1938-39) (Fig. 11). Paul Nash was both a watercolourist and a visionary and these q u a l i t i e s i n his painting as well as h i s writing about painting and nature, show s i m i l a r i t i e s with Carl Schaefer's expressed views. Of l i g h t in a landscape, for example, Nash wrote i n 1949, describing the view seen from the morning-room window of his family home: 19 Like the t e r r i t o r y i n Kensington Gardens which I found as a c h i l d , i t s magic lay within i t s e l f , implicated i n i t s own design and i t s relationship to i t s surroundings. In addition, i t seemed to respond i n a dramatic way to the influence of l i g h t . There were moments when, through t h i s agency, the place took on a s t a r t l i n g beauty, a beauty to my eyes wholly unreal. I t was t h i s 'unreality' or rather t h i s r e a l i t y of another aspect of the accepted world, t h i s mystery of c l a r i t y which was at once so elusive and so p o s i t i v e , that I now began to pursue and which from that moment drew me into i t s e l f and absorbed my l i f e , 17 Carl Schaefer got to know Paul Nash's work i n the late twenties, through a book of engravings of poisonous plants. He spoke of t h i s book as "...a contact with workmanship and craftsmanship and a good deal of art and I admired him a great deal. At the time Carl Schaefer had been doing some l i n o cuts but t h i s book encouraged him to do engravings on wood. He produced these between 19 30 and 19 35; t h e i r advantage, he explained was that although i t was d i f f i c u l t to s e l l anything because i t was depression times, i t was possible to s e l l engravings at a cheaper price than a painting or drawing, say $1.50 or $1.75. 1 9 The three most important Canadian figures i n Carl Schaefer's early development were J.E.H. MacDonald, his son Thoreau and Lawren Harris. J.E.H. was r e a l l y h is 20 teacher and h i s mentor. He taught him brushwork, drawing 20 and d e s i g n . Thoreau was h i s very good f r i e n d who p u b l i s h e d h i s drawings throughout the t h i r t i e s i n The Canadian Forum. Lawren H a r r i s , on the o the r hand, was an i n t e l l e c t u a l ; he taught C a r l Schaefer about a b s t r a c t i o n , 21 he encouraged him and gave him s t r e t c h e r s of canvas . Then t o o , i n the e a r l y t h i r t i e s when the Hanover s e r i e s was begun, C a r l Schaefer was f a m i l i a r w i t h the work of Char les B u r c h f i e l d and he corresponded w i t h h i m ; he may be c o n s i d e r e d , a long w i t h the above-mentioned Canadians as a s i g n i f i c a n t f i g u r e i n the development of C a r l 22 S c h a e f e r ' s mature s t y l e . A l though the two p a i n t e r s d i d not meet u n t i l 1938 or 1939, C a r l Schaefer was f a m i l i a r w i t h B u r c h f i e l d 1 s work and would have seen h i s f i r s t e x h i b i t i o n i n Toronto 23 i n the m i d - t h i r t i e s . The resemblance between them appears most c l e a r l y i n the way each approaches h i s s u b j e c t . The human f i g u r e r a r e l y appears i n t h e i r c o m p o s i t i o n s , never i n t h i s p e r i o d of C a r l S c h a e f e r ' s work and o c c a s i o n a l l y though i n c i d e n t a l l y i n B u r c h f i e l d 1 s . L i k e C a r l S c h a e f e r , he p a i n t s what he knows and f e e l s c l o s e t o ; f o r him i t i s houses on the edge of town, f o r C a r l Schaefe r i t i s more o f t e n f i e l d s and f e n c e s , though houses are f r e q u e n t l y 21 included. They choose subjects which reveal the work of man rather than the empty northland of the Group of Seven, which excludes humanity. Burchfield's houses are animated, some almost resemble faces; Carl Schaefer's f i e l d s and houses too are f u l l of l i f e : everywhere except i n the unruly skies, man's presence i s i m p l i c i t in them and they are moody, l i v e l y and often f u l l of humour. A comparison of Carl Schaefer's Moon over the Don  J a i l of 1938 (Fig. 8) and Charles Burchfield's The Edge  of Town, 1921 (Fig. 9) i l l u s t r a t e s the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n approach to t h e i r subject and t h e i r treatment of i t . The buildings convey a moodiness, a despondent a i r . In the Burchfield they are more animated even than the figures on the street. The monochromatic colours and uneasy skies i n t e n s i f y the a i r of melancholy. Carl Schaefer includes one of his trademark symbols of the landscapes of t h i s period, a dead tree. Unlike his landscapes, however, there i s nothing i n t h i s painting to give one hope. A j a i l , f u l l moon, dead tree, back a l l e y a l l convey despair. The only bright spot i s the street l i g h t and i t s sphere of radiance i s dismally small. The edges of town, the slums with t h e i r ramshackle Victorian buildings are Burchfield's "region" just as the f i e l d s and farms of 22 Hanover are Carl Schaefer's. In Moon over the Don J a i l , Carl Schaefer has digressed from his landscapes to capture "...that great, grey f o r t r e s s , ominous and g r i m " ^ and to protest i t s presence. Charles Burchfield was la b e l l e d a ' r e g i o n a l i s t ' i n an attempt to associate him with the r e g i o n a l i s t movement in the Mid-West i n the t h i r t i e s , although he never 25 e n t i r e l y f e l l within that category. He i s also l a b e l l e d 2 6 a romantic. But i n the sense that he, l i k e Carl Schaefer, always painted a p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t or region, he might also be considered a 'regionalist' painter i n the true meaning of the word. By the late t h i r t i e s , Carl Schaefer had achieved what I consider to be his mature s t y l e , and had established himself as a prominent Canadian painter. Recognition of his success i s evident not only through favourable c r i t i c a l reviews for his contributions i n the various society exhibitions, small group shows and a one man show but through several major acquisitions by private c i t i z e n s and g a l l e r i e s (in spite of a general cautiousness about purchasing paintings during depression years) and through 27 his appointment to a r t i s t i c s o c i e t i e s . In March 1940 he was awarded a John Guggenheim Fellowship for Creative Painting, the f i r s t Canadian to receive t h i s honour. It 23 allowed him to spend a year working i n Vermont and studying in New Hampshire. The fulfilment of t h i s fellowship marked the end of the Hanover paintings. 24 FOOTNOTES Interview with Carl Schaefer, Toronto, 26 June 1976. In a l a t e r discussion of l i g h t i n Ca r l Schaefer's paintings, I pay further attention to t h i s awareness of the mystical. See page 18. 2 Russell Harper (Ed.), Carl Schaefer Retrospective  Exhibition, Paintings from 1926 to 1969 (Montreal: S i r George Williams University, 1969), 4. 3 Interview, 26 June 1976. 4 Interview, 26 June 1976. 5 Lawren Harris' Lake Superior paintings were done about 1924 and undoubtedly Carl Schaefer, through his acquaintance with him, had seen these canvases. He used to v i s i t Harris at the Studio Building i n Toronto where he painted. Harris gave him some stretchers of canvas. It was on one such stretcher that Ontario Farmhouse was painted. Carl Schaefer explained that he never would have bought such a large canvas, he could not have afforded i t . Interview, 26 June 1976. Twelve drawings from these northern f i s h i n g t r i p s have been reproduced in Northward Journal: A Quarterly  of Northern Arts, February 1979, pp. 23-49. Accompanying the drawings are excerpts from Carl Schaefer's diary, pp. 51-71 and an a r t i c l e by George Johnston, "Carl Schaefer: The French and Pickerel River Drawings, 1926-1933," pp. 19-22. 7 Russell Harper (Ed.), Carl Schaefer Retrospective  Exhibition, Paintings from 1926 to 1969, p. 6. q Thoreau MacDonald, Letter to George Johnston, 26 February (about 1958), i n the possession of George Johnston. Under J.E.H. MacDonald, he worked on St. Ann's Church, Toronto, the Claridge Apartments and Concourse Building, Toronto. Carl Schaefer, Biographical Information. 25 " G r a h a m M c l n n e s i n r e v i e w i n g C a r l S c h a e f e r ' s O n e M a n S h o w a t t h e P i c t u r e L o a n S o c i e t y , T o r o n t o i n 1 9 3 7 d e s c r i b e d h i s p r o g r e s s : " H e h a s p a s s e d f r o m s t u d e n s h i p t o i m i t a t i o n , f r o m i m i t a t i o n t o u n r u l y c h a o s a n d f r o m t h i s c h a o s h e h a s e m e r g e d t o f i n d h i m s e l f a n d t o s t a t e w i t h a p p a r e n t f a c i l i t y , a n d i n a n e x t r e m e l y p e r s o n a l w a y , t r u t h s a b o u t h i s e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t h a v e n e v e r b e f o r e b e e n s t a t e d s o s i m p l y , s o c o n v i n c i n g l y a n d w i t h s u c h a g e n u i n e d e v o t i o n t o t h e s t r i c t r e q u i r e m e n t s o f c o m b i n e d p l a s t i c a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l f o r m . " F r o m " T h e W o r l d o f A r t , " S a t u r d a y N i g h t , 2 3 J a n u a r y 1 9 3 7 , p . 1 6 . 1 0 D u v a l , F o u r D e c a d e s , p . 3 7 . I h a v e s e l e c t e d t h i s r e f e r e n c e w h i c h d e s c r i b e s C a r l S c h a e f e r a s a r e g i o n a l p a i n t e r f o r i n i t D u v a l s t a t e s t h a t C a r l S c h a e f e r " . . . h a s a l w a y s r e a d i l y c o n f e s s e d t o b e i n g a r e g i o n a l p a i n t e r " . T h e e a r l i e s t d o c u m e n t a t i o n w h i c h r e f e r s t o h i m a s a r e g i o n a l a r t i s t i s D o n a l d B u c h a n a n ' s a r t i c l e " C a r l S c h a e f e r : R e g i o n a l P a i n t e r o f R u r a l O n t a r i o , " C a n a d i a n G e o g r a p h i c a l  J o u r n a l , 3 6 ( A p r i l 1 9 4 8 ) , 2 0 0 - 2 0 1 . I n a n a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d " V a r i a t i o n s i n C a n a d i a n L a n d s c a p e P a i n t i n g , " U n i v e r s i t y  o f T o r o n t o Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . X , N o . 1 ( O c t o b e r 1 9 4 0 ) , 4 2 h e d e f i n e s C a r l S c h a e f e r ' s p a i n t i n g a s r e g i o n a l w i t h o u t e v e r u s i n g t h e t e r m . " L e t u s l o o k a t h i s m a s s o f w a t e r -c o l o u r s , d o n e , t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e m a t l e a s t , i n B r u c e a n d G r e y C o u n t i e s i n W e s t e r n O n t a r i o . T h e y a r e f i r s t o f a l l d o c u m e n t a t i o n . H e r e a r e r a i l - f e n c e s , r o l l i n g f i e l d s o f w h e a t a n d o a t s , t y p i c a l f a r m h o u s e s , p a t c h e s o f w o o d e d k n o l l s , a s t o n e s c h o o l - h o u s e , r u r a l c e m e t e r i e s . T h e y a r e p a i n t e d s i m p l y , w i t h o u t s e n t i m e n t o r s h o w . U n l i k e s o m e o f t h e c o m p o s i t i o n s o f M a c D o n a l d a n d L i s m e r , y o u d o n o t t h i n k o f t h e m o f t e n a s c o u r a g e o u s p a t t e r n s . Y o u a d m i r e t h e m u s u a l l y f o r o t h e r r e a s o n s . I n t h e i r d r y n e s s o f f o r m a n d l i n e , i n t h e i r r e s t r a i n e d u s e o f c o l o u r ( a l t h o u g h c r i s p l y g a y g r e e n s t e m p e r e d w i t h s t r o n g y e l l o w s c a n b e u s e d w i t h e m p h a s i s b y S c h a e f e r w h e n h e w i s h e s ) , i n t h e i r a l m o s t o b s t i n a t e r e p e t i t i o n o f w h a t m i g h t b e t h o u g h t c o m m o n p l a c e s u b j e c t s — f r u g a l , p r o f i t - e a r n i n g w o o d l o t s , b r o a d b u t n o t l i m i t l e s s e x p a n s e s o f g r a i n , s c a t t e r i n g o f t r e e s a l o n g t h e e d g e o f a m e a d o w , t h e m o n o t o n o u s r o l l o f f i e l d a n d h i l l o c k i n a p l e a s a n t b u t f a r f r o m s p e c t a c u l a r c o u n t r y s i d e — y o u a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h a r e a l i s m t h a t i s n e w i n c o n t e m p o r a r y C a n a d i a n p a i n t i n g " . 1 1 O x f o r d D i c t i o n a r y . 2 6 z I t i s w o r t h n o t i n g h e r e t h a t t h e t e r m " r e g i o n a l i s t " a s a p p l i e d t o t h e p a i n t i n g s o f C a r l S c h a e f e r h a s a d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g t o t h a t a p p l i e d t o a g r o u p o f A m e r i c a n S c e n e p a i n t e r s i n t h e 1 9 3 0 ' s i n t h e m i d - w e s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s . A m o n g t h e A m e r i c a n S c e n e p a i n t e r s w e r e s u c h r e g i o n a l i s t s a s T h o m a s H a r t B e n t o n , G r a n t W o o d a n d J o h n S t e u a r t C u r r y ( t o n a m e t h e b e s t k n o w n ) w h o i n s t i l l e d i n t h e i r w o r k a s o c i a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s , a m y t h o l o g i z i n g o f t h e w o r k i n g m a n i n h i s r u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t . 1 3 . . . . . W i t h o u t s i n g l i n g o u t p a i n t e r s , a n u m b e r o f c r i t i c s m e n t i o n e d t h e a r t i s t s w h o w e r e t i e d t o t h e G r o u p t r a d i t i o n . F o r i n s t a n c e , G r a h a m M c l n n e s , i n p r a i s i n g C a r l S c h a e f e r f o r g l e a n i n g w h a t h e c o u l d f r o m t h e G r o u p a n d t h e n b r e a k i n g a w a y w r i t e s : " T o d o t h i s a t a t i m e w h e n a g r e a t n u m b e r o f y o u n g p a i n t e r s w e r e s l a v i s h l y i m i t a t i n g t h e G r o u p , s e e i n g l i f e a t s e c o n d - h a n d a n d r e d u c i n g t h e i r d i s c o v e r i e s t o f o r m u l a e , i s e v i d e n c e o f h i s g r e a t s t r e n g t h o f c h a r a c t e r . " T h e C a n a d i a n F o r u m , V o l . X V I , N o . 1 9 3 ( F e b r u a r y 1 9 3 7 ) , 1 8 . O r A u g u s t u s B r i d l e , i n r e v i e w i n g t h e s e c o n d e x h i b i t i o n o f t h e C a n a d i a n G r o u p o f P a i n t e r s i n 1 9 3 6 , w r i t e s : " A s n e v e r b e f o r e i n t h e h i s t o r y o f i n s u r g e n t a r t s i n c e 1 9 1 9 , l e d b y G . J a c k s o n f r o m Q u e b e c , t h e s e 6 0 e x h i b i t i o n i s t s r e m i n d u s t h a t 9 9 - 1 0 0 t h o f C a n a d a i s y e t u n c o n q u e r e d b y t h e p a l e t t e , a n d t h a t m o r e o f i t i s s o l i t u d e t h a n s o c i e t y . T h e s e f o l k h a v e p u s h e d b a c k o u r h o r i z o n s , a n d k i l l e d o f f a l o t o f o u r h u m a n i s m . I n t h e i r e f f o r t t o m a k e r o c k s , o l d d e a d t r e e s a n d i c e b e r g s s i n g t h e m u s i c o f t h e s p h e r e s , t h e y h a v e s h o v e d t h e c h e e r f u l c o m m o n c r o w n o f f t h e r o a d . " " C a n a d i a n G r o u p S h o w S p l e n d i d b u t U n h u m o r o u s , " T o r o n t o  D a i l y S t a r , 1 1 J a n u a r y 1 9 3 6 . 1 4 I n t e r v i e w , 2 6 J u n e 1 9 7 6 . " ^ L a w r e n H a r r i s , L e t t e r t o C a r l S c h a e f e r , 1 5 A u g u s t 1 9 3 6 , i n t h e P u b l i c A r c h i v e s o f C a n a d a , O t t a w a . 1 6 C a r l S c h a e f e r a v i d l y r e a d w h a t e v e r a r t j o u r n a l s a n d b o o k s h e c o u l d f i n d . H e h a d a c c e s s t o S t u d i o I n t e r n a t i o n a l a n d s o m e A m e r i c a n p e r i o d i c a l s a n d n e w s p a p e r s . I n t e r v i e w , 2 6 J u n e 1 9 7 6 . I n t h i s w a y , h e m a y h a v e s e e n r e p r o d u c t i o n s o f H o k u s a i ' s w o r k . 2 7 1 7 P a u l N a s h , O u t l i n e : a n a u t o b i o g r a p h y a n d o t h e r  w r i t i n g s ( L o n d o n : F a b e r & F a b e r L t d . , 1 9 4 9 ) . 18 I n t e r v i e w , 2 6 J u n e 1 9 7 6 . 1 9 I n t e r v i e w , 2 6 J u n e 1 9 7 6 . 2 0 I n t e r v i e w , 2 6 J u n e 1 9 7 6 . 2 1 S e e f o o t n o t e 5 . 2 2 I n t e r v i e w , 2 6 J u n e 1 9 7 6 . 2 3 C h r i s t o p h e r V a r l e y , C a r l S c h a e f e r i n H a n o v e r , I n t r o d u c t i o n . 2 4 G r a y , R a n d a n d S t e e n , C a r l S c h a e f e r , p . 2 0 . 28 CHAPTER II The C r i t i c s ' Assessment of Painting i n Canada  (and Ontario i n particular) during the 1930's The v i s u a l arts of the 1920's were dominated by a group of r a d i c a l young painters, the Group of Seven whose break from the t r a d i t i o n a l s t y l e of landscape painting of the Royal Canadian Academy surrounded them with controversy i n t h e i r early years as a Group. 1 Their struggle for recognition had been a long one. In 19 33, however, the Group embraced a larger membership and named i t s e l f the Canadian Group of Painters. By then, i t was established country-wide. Its o r i g i n a l members were the core of th i s new Group and s t i l l a dominating force within i t . Although the Group had disbanded — MacDonald had died in 19 32, Varley had moved to the West Coast i n 1926 and Harris to the United States — i t s painting style and approach s t i l l held the commanding position in th i s new body. In Toronto i n the t h i r t i e s , where the young painters were most strongly affected by the Group t r a d i t i o n of rugged landscape painting, the s t i l l l i f e , f i g u r a t i v e painting and portraiture were, on the whole, neglected. Their subjects were out of key with the Group's n a t i o n a l i s t i c 29 s p i r i t . A manifesto published by the Group at the time of i t s expansion into the Canadian Group of Painters i n 19 33 declares the preference of i t s members for landscape: The Group of Seven has always believed i n an art i nspired by the country, and that the one way i n which a people w i l l find i t s own i n d i v i d u a l expression i n art i s for i t s a r t i s t s to stand on t h e i r own feet and by d i r e c t experience of the country i t s e l f . . . t o produce works of i t s own time and place. ...2 This only mildly suggests t h e i r preference for the land as subject; however, A. Y. Jackson, one of i t s members, was more emphatically c r i t i c a l of any divergence from this t r a d i t i o n and l a b e l l e d such a divergence, a n t i -n a t i o n a l i s t . In a l e t t e r of 19 38 to H. O. McCurry, the Director of the National Gallery of Canada, he wrote with disdain of the aims of contemporary art i n th i s country: ...There has been a l o t of persistent e f f o r t to e s t a b l i s h painting which has no r e f l e c t i o n of the Canadian background. The in t e r n a t i o n a l outlook i s the thing and from that standpoint i t i s of very l i t t l e importance. There has, at the same time, been an e f f o r t to b e l i t t l e the Canadian movement by people who have no fe e l i n g for the country and i t has resulted in a kind of sneer when the north country i s mentioned. With a l l the young people here there i s no longer any desire to go north. They do s t i l l l i f e and back yards and when you t r y to arrange an international show i t i s almost impossible to fi n d a dozen canvasses of any di s t i n c t i o n . 3 30 The inference of his f i n a l statement i s c l e a r , that neither a s t i l l l i f e nor a backyard could be considered a Canadian painting of any d i s t i n c t i o n . Several trends appear to emerge from the c r i t i c a l writing of the t h i r t i e s , or rather one trend predominates and two or three others emerge as accompaniments to i t . The p r i n c i p a l trend i s to continue painting the Canadian landscape, i n the t r a d i t i o n established by the Group of Seven. Naturally, the role of the Royal Canadian Academy i s not infrequently brought under discussion i n r e l a t i o n to t h i s trend. Some c r i t i c s focus t h e i r attention on nationalism, which i s one of the accompanying trends mentioned above, vis a v i s the Canadian painter's awareness of painting i n Europe and the United States. The l i n k between nationalism and landscape painting has already been made clear. The other concern of some c r i t i c s and c e r t a i n a r t i s t s i s the a r t i s t ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to s o c i a l conditions and p o l i t i c s as contrasted with his r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to art for i t s own sake. To continue painting the countryside, oblivious of the troubled times a l l around and the approach of war seems irresponsible to some; others, however, defend i t . By examining c r i t i c a l reaction to the major exhibitions of the time (especially those held i n Ontario), one gets an impression of the c r i t i c a l atmosphere i n 31 which Carl Schaefer worked. I s h a l l do t h i s according to the trends outlined above and where possible, chronologically. The continued in t e r e s t i n painting the rugged Northern Ontario landscape met with a mixed c r i t i c a l response. Robert Ayre, i n reviewing the f i r s t e x h i b i t i o n of the Canadian Group of Painters, held at the Art Gallery of Toronto i n December 19 33 wrote o p t i m i s t i c a l l y of the new works, though he did not f a i l to notice the influence of the Group: The younger men and women have brought a new energy and a new v i s i o n . Canada i s growing up. It i s true the Laurentians and Algonquin, Muskoka and Georgian Bay are s t i l l being painted, we are s t i l l i n v i t e d to look at pines, pools and lakes and rocks, but the revolutionary s p i r i t remains revolutionary by moving away from extra-human landscapes.4 For the most part, however, i t i s the o r i g i n a l members of the Group who have not been able to break away from 5 t h e i r own landscape t r a d i t i o n . Ayre also applauded the disappearance of academic influence, the appearance of figura t i v e painting and a growing awareness among such younger a r t i s t s as Gordon Webber, Andre B i e l e r , Yvonne McKague and Charles Comfort of s o c i a l conditions, human concerns. Not only are we moving toward human l i f e , away from landscape, which i n the long run must be 32 s t e r i l e , but i n growing up we are beginning to show the e f f e c t s of the profound disturbances in human a f f a i r s which have shaken the world; s o c i a l implications are creeping in.6 The Royal Canadian Academy was, i t must be remembered, s t i l l a society with an established reputation and i t i n v a r i a b l y received a reaction from the c r i t i c s . Robert Ayre was pleased to note i t s gradual disappearance i n 19 33 but recognized that the Canadian Group of Painters s t i l l faced the prejudices of those " . . . P h i l i s t i n e s who i n s i s t that painting i s a matter of o l d m i l l s and 7 duck-ponds". Wyly Grier, a member of the Academy, on the other hand, lamented the decline of Academic d i s c i p l i n e , and therefore the disappearance of fig u r a t i v e painting: In t h i s age i t would seem that the dread of being thought Academic (like Michel Angelo, for instance); or of t e l l i n g a story ( l i k e Giotto, for instance) keeps a number of painters s i l e n t on the subject of mankind. And the net r e s u l t i s that we are continually experiencing, at the hands of the painters, the t h r i l l s , the r i s i n g s and sinkings, the qualms and the raptures of a sort of p i c t o r i a l scenic railway journey.8 The l a s t Group of Seven exhibition as such was held at the Art Gallery of Toronto i n December of 19 31. In summing up i t s contribution to Canadian painting, Jehanne Bietry Salinger noted that even the Royal Canadian Academy (whose annual exhibition she had recently viewed in Montreal) had greated benefited from the revolutionary 33 influence of the Group of Seven " . . . a l l because the Seven did some 12 years ago, shake the Barbizon and 9 Dutch shackles which held Canadian art i n bondage." Lucy Van Gogh's review of the November 19 34 Royal Canadian Academy exhibition at the Grange i n Toronto was as unruffled as the exhibition i t s e l f ; with the exception of her enthusiasm for an Edwin Holgate contribution (Holgate was an i n v i t e d contributor), the review displays utter boredom: The autumn show of the RCA, now on view at the Grange i s , i f anything, more p l a c i d than usual. To change the metaphor, the academic pool has not been troubled by any angel; unruffled, smooth, quite b e a u t i f u l , but quite devoid of any healing power, i t mirrors the ancient landscape i n the ancient way, and gives a vague impression of waiting, of remembering dimly that i t once was s t i r r e d , of wondering where the angel has gone and when i t w i l l return. Not p a r t i c u l a r l y , I think, of wanting i t to return. Academies do not l i k e to be troubled.10 Frank Underbill's reaction to the 19 36 annual exhibition of the Royal Canadian Academy i s considerably less tolerant than Lucy Van Gogh's to the 19 34 show, for he writes: ...The authorities (of the Toronto Art Gallery) have shown t h e i r sense of the f i t n e s s of things by staging the annual display of the RCA r i g h t up against the paintings of Van Gogh. Experiences such as these (the other was a v i s i t to the Association of Canadian Bookmen's book f a i r ) 34 leave one i n a jaundiced mood for the contemplation of Canadian art i n general.H The jaundiced mood brought on by Canadian art permeates his review of The Yearbook of the Arts i n  Canada, 19 36 (ed. by Bertram Brooker). He feels ex-asperated at the continued predominance of what he 12 describes as " r u s t i c rumination" among Canadian a r t i s t s . Underhill takes the Canadian a r t i s t to task for his lack of p o l i t i c a l commitment or s o c i a l conscience, an apathy he attributes to his r u s t i c nature. He i s p a r t i c u l a r l y disturbed by t h i s apathy at a time when he feels c i v i l i z a t i o n i s undergoing such an upheaval 13 "...not merely an economic but a s p i r i t u a l c r i s i s . . . " p a r t i c u l a r l y when the editor Bertram Brooker encourages a r t i s t s to stay away from controversy i n t h e i r a r t . His review prompts a public row over the role of the a r t i s t i n society. The sculptor, Elizabeth Wyn Wood responds by arguing that i t i s imperative that art remain detached from p o l i t i c s . A r t i s t s , she claims, have in no sense been blinded by nationalism, and are f u l l y 14 aware of what i s happening around them. The public squabble subsides with painter, Paraskeva Clark's a r t i c l e "Come Out from Behind the Pre-Cambrian Shield"; she opposes the views of Elizabeth Wyn Wood 35 and Bertram Brooker and encourages a r t i s t s to lend 15 t h e i r support to the s o c i a l struggle through t h e i r art. This a r t i c l e , written on her behalf by Graham Mclnnes, appeared i n The New Frontier, a r a d i c a l journal of Canadian l i t e r a t u r e and s o c i a l c r i t i c i s m , published i n Toronto for only a year and a half (1936-37)."^ Jehanne Bietry Salinger wrote art reviews and c r i t i c i s m for The Canadian Forum i n the early t h i r t i e s . An American, she may have been more aware than her contemporaries of a rather s t i f l i n g nationalism i n Canada for i n reviewing the 1930 annual R.C.A. ex h i b i t i o n she writes: When a Canadian reputation i s at stake there i s , i n Canada, no l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m exercised, no more than there i s any discriminating c r i t i c i s m of Canadian playwriting, dramatics, music or the fine arts. It i s understood by a l l who serve as c r i t i c s that i t i s unbecoming and unworthy of a c i t i z e n or resident of Canada to declare any product of Canada — be i t of the hands or of the mind — a s being anything but outstanding.17 Salinger's reaction to the 59th annual e x h i b i t i o n of the Ontario Society of A r t i s t s in A p r i l 19 31 represents her view of Canadian art at that time. The few noteworthy contributions, among them paintings by Jack Humphrey, Bertram Brooker, Yvonne McKague, A. J. Casson and Carl Schaefer, the sculptures of Edward Norman and Florence 36 Wyle and the wood carving of Thoreau MacDonald, give her hope that Canadian art w i l l come to l i f e , that the a r t i s t s w i l l break away from t h e i r art s o c i e t i e s which can only produce " . . . t h i n , p r o v i n c i a l , s t a l e . . . " works that do not 18 i n any sense exhibit the true a b i l i t i e s i n the country. Interestingly, she reverses her scornful p o s i t i o n i n her f i n a l a r t i c l e for The Canadian Forum, written shortly after her return to the United States. From a new view-point i n C a l i f o r n i a , she praises the honesty and freshness of Canadian painting, the r e s u l t she believes of the painter's love for his subject. She arrives at t h i s view by way of her disappointment i n the dextrous but e s s e n t i a l l y "hot house" flavour of European- and Mexican-influenced American p a i n t i n g . 1 ^ In January of 19 36 the second ex h i b i t i o n of the Canadian Group of Painters was held at the Art Gallery of Toronto. On view were 200 paintings by 2 8 members and 31 i n v i t e d contributors. Among those represented were Lawren Harris, Arthur Lismer, A. Y. Jackson and Frank 20 Carmichael (now seen as the pioneers of the new group ), Edwin Holgate, Prudence Heward, George Pepper, Yvonne McKague, Isabel McLaughlin, Anne Savage, Lawren Harris J r . , L. L. F i t z g e r a l d , Charles Comfort, Bertram Brooker 37 and Carl Schaefer. A l i v e l y c r i t i c a l response, for the most part very favourable, provides us with a look at the state of Canadian painting (in Ontario i n pa r t i c u l a r ) in the mi d - t h i r t i e s . G. Campbell Mclnnes, for instance, an enthusiastic supporter of Canadian painting applauded the painters who had struck out on t h e i r own, while acknowledging t h e i r indebtedness to the Group of Seven (a debt he 21 considers f a r more acceptable than one to the R.C.A.). His opening paragraph sets the tone of his generous and enthusiastic a r t i c l e : Perhaps the most encouraging thing about the fine e x h i b i t i o n at the Toronto Art Gallery i s that the tendency to a somewhat s l a v i s h imitation of the Group of Seven has to a very large extent disappeared.22 Augustus B r i d l e , writing for The Toronto Daily Star, good-humouredly complains of the exhibitors' preference for the untamed northern landscape at the expense of humanity: In the e f f o r t to make rocks, o l d dead trees and icebergs sing the music of the spheres, they have shoved the cheerful common crowd o f f the road. In tr y i n g to make new s t y l i z e d symphonies of colour, rhythms and design, they ignore the everyday humoresque right under t h e i r noses.^3 He i s s u f f i c i e n t l y interested i n the ex h i b i t i o n , however, to devote a second week's review to the work of the i n v i t e d 38 contributors, among whom i s Carl Schaefer.^ The e x h i b i t i o n i s described as a landmark i n 25 Canadian painting by R. G. Kettle i n Queen's Quarterly. His response o v e r a l l i s enthusiastic though he too cannot ignore the obvious comparisons with the Group of Seven. Without actually naming the R.C.A., he notes that i n post-war painting, Canadians had set out to break away from "...the nineteenth century attitude which demanded that i t s art be s t o r y - t e l l i n g , descriptive and romantic, and aim at the most perfect photographic representation..." (which are obviously the ideals of the Academy) and had, in his view, succeeded. He delights both i n the d i v e r s i t y of outlook and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and i n the exhibition's a c c e s s i b i l i t y to the average spectator. Unlike B r i d l e , he finds t h i s a c c e s s i b i l i t y i n a greater predominance of the human figure and also i n a reduction i n scale of the landscape compositions, and i n t h e i r greater intimacy. He attributes these improvements to the influence of European painting. How the public w i l l respond to the inevitable i n f l u x of European abstract painting raises 2 8 questions i n his mind. In three a r t i c l e s , one by Pearl McCarthy i n The  Globe and Mail i n 1938 and two by G. Campbell Mclnnes, 39 one i n Queen's Quarterly i n the summer of 19 38 and one i n Saturday Night i n December 19 37, the tone i s more despondent. The f i r s t of these i s an a r t i c l e on fashion and s t y l e i n Canadian a r t , the second an evaluation of Canadian art and the t h i r d a review of the t h i r d e x h i b i t i o n of the Canadian Group of Painters. While each points out the importance of i n d i v i d u a l expression, each, i n varying degrees and s t y l e s , disapproves of the l i n g e r i n g influence of the Group of Seven and the i n a b i l i t y of i t s successors to shake of f that influence. Pearl McCarthy concludes that time and public opinion w i l l separate the a r t i s t s of fashion from those of s t y l e . The s t y l e of art should change with our time, r e f l e c t i n g the new ideas, but the temporary circumstances should not be allowed to obscure the l a s t i n g truths. They do not i n the work of strong-minded a r t i s t s . They do i n the work of a r t i s t s who imitate a point of view. The former have s t y l e , the l a t t e r follow fashion. 29 She singles out Carl Schaefer's Ontario Farmhouse, 19 34 (Fig. 3) as setting a s t y l e : When Carl Schaefer painted his b r i l l i a n t stark farmhouse, we admired, but were t e r r i f i e d of admiring too loudly because we feared that here was another point of view which less o r i g i n a l minds might grasp, producing a whole l i n e of bleak houses and stark f i e l d s of which we should t i r e as we t i r e of a modish hat.30 40 Unlike most c r i t i c s who tend to expect the painters to be clear-sighted about the future of painting and therefore capable of more s e l f - c r i t i c i s m , p a r t i c u l a r l y about exhibition selections, McCarthy implicates the public in deciding the d i r e c t i o n art w i l l take by giving them, along with time, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for weeding out the 31 good from the medxocre. The source of mediocrity in painting i s to be found i n the indecisiveness of the painters, according to Graham Mclnnes. He praises and encourages a r t i s t s who are i n pursuit of a new and i n d i v i d u a l expression but f e e l s , on the whole, a lack of commitment over the previous 32 five years, a "...languishing i n the doldrums". On a brighter note, however, he assures the reader that Canadian art i s i n a t r a n s i t i o n a l phase, and he i s 3 3 hopeful that the s i t u a t i o n w i l l improve. He advises a r t i s t s "...to paint sincerely and with deep f e e l i n g from the reservoir of experience, with an eye to the 34 touchstone of t r a d i t i o n " . He too places a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y with the public "...to help, to encourage and to t r y and 35 understand". Barker F a i r l e y ' s a r t i c l e "Canadian Art: Man vs. Landscape" of 19 39 i s much the strongest on the subject 41 of the Canadian preoccupation with the land, and almost despairing i n i t s tone. He finds i t hard to believe that the landscape i s s t i l l such a popular subject among Canada's painters: That there should be a strong landscape movement here i s understandable enough, not to say i n -evitable, given such a geography as ours. But that i t should go on and on, with increasing competence i n some quarters but with — on the whole — decreasing v i t a l i t y , to the v i r t u a l exclusion of any strong creative impulse to paint humanity — t h i s i s very disquieting f o r any who care about these matters.3o In a l l c r i t i c a l writing on painting of the t h i r t i e s in Canada, l i t t l e attention i s paid to what was happening a r t i s t i c a l l y elsewhere i n the world. At most there was a mild concern that abstract and s u r r e a l i s t painting might creep into Canada. While the subject of nationalism does not often come into the open, i t i s implied by the absence of any comparisons to painting outside of Canada. For t h i s reason, the exhibition of Canadian a r t held at the Tate Gallery i n London, England i n 19 38 i s of special i n t e r e s t . I t was a retrospective view of Canadian art from Indian and French Canadian to contemporary work. Canadian art was now to be judged by people who had never seen the great rugged northland of Ontario, the mountains and towering trees of the West Coast or even the more set t l e d r u r a l areas of Quebec and Ontario. 4 2 Two reviews appear i n The Canadian Forum — one by Northrop Frye i n January 1939 and one by an English c r i t i c , E r i c Newton in February 19 39. Frye's a r t i c l e interests us, not so much for his supportive stance of the works presented as for his recounting of the reaction of the B r i t i s h . It should be mentioned f i r s t , however, that Frye was disappointed, for the most part, i n the selection of works, adding that i t must have been a d i f f i c u l t task to choose an exhibition for so mixed a 37 public. The e x h i b i t i o n , he explains, was opened by a puzzled Duke of Kent who, according to The Times said "...that Canadian painting was very i n t e r e s t i n g and that the r e a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g thing about t h i s e x h i b i t i o n was 31 that i t gave the English a chance to see t h i s painting". Frye goes on to express his uncertainty about the reaction of the i n t e l l i g e n t English public but he i s most unimpressed by the response of t h e i r press which he describes as inadequate, slovenly, contemptuous and patronizing. He concludes that because the European influence, i n both /American and Canadian painting, i s so s l i g h t , the i d e a l international setting for Canadian 39 exhibitions would be New York. What E r i c Newton t r i e s to i d e n t i f y i n his review "Canadian Art Through English Eyes" i s a national s t y l e 43 and a national point of view. He claims to f i n d i t among the twentieth century works; the essence of Canadian art has been found here by the painter ignoring his European heritage and painting his country as he understands i t . He pays greatest attention to the Group of Seven (which he labels "School of Thomson") and explains that he feels that i f one looks beyond the s u p e r f i c i a l aspects of t h e i r s t y l e , that i s to say, over-s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , over-emphasis i n colour, a lack of atmosphere and subtlety i t i s possible to see that they learned more from Canada than Constable. He also singles out for comment Morrice — who provides r e l i e f for the 40 English eye — David Milne and Emily Carr. Newton feels that the Englishman i s convinced by the e x h i b i t i o n that Canada: . . . i s today leading an independent a r t i s t i c l i f e of her own, more so perhaps than any other part of our empire. In the best sense of the word the exhibition i s national and expresses a t r u l y national s p i r i t . In these days when to hear the word national makes most of our hearts sink, that i s something to be proud of.41 Graham Mclnnes mentions the c r i t i c a l reaction to the Tate Gallery exhibition in a book he brought out in 1939 c a l l e d A Short History of Canadian Art. Though the ex h i b i t i o n made clear "...the organic unity of Canadian a r t . . . " , the c r i t i c a l reaction he f e l t was 44 not as enthusiastic as i t had been i n the 1924-25 exhibition. He goes on to say that "...while we may attribute t h i s i n part to a certain condescension on the part of the English c r i t i c s , i t would seem that the indecision of the l a s t decade was r e f l e c t e d i n our 42 painting and that the c r i t i c s were quick to spot i t " . The end of the decade i s reached then on a rather subdued note. For the most part the o v e r a l l c r i t i c a l view was that there seemed not to have been any strong new directions i n Canadian painting but rather a continuation of a trend in landscape painting launched by the Group of Seven. Mclnnes, who maintained, through-out the t h i r t i e s a strongly supportive voice delivers gentle but firm advice to both a r t i s t and public at the end of his A Short History of Canadian Art: A l l that i s needed i s fresh enthusiasm — but t h i s time l e t i t be based not so much on the discovery of a country. That has been done. Let i t be based th i s time on the discovery of a r t , and a l l that i t means...Let the emphasis be less on the subject, and more on what i s done with i t ; less on d i r e c t i o n l e s s strength, and more on t r u l y painterly q u a l i t i e s . If those things are done, the 'Canadian Scene 1 w i l l come to l i f e automatically, so long as we are Canadians, and paint with complete honesty and genuine f e e l i n g . The most we can do as non-artists i s to help, to encourage, and to t r y and understand.4 3 45 In s p i t e of the apparent l a c k o f d i r e c t i o n , a number of Canadian p a i n t e r s d i d make s t r o n g , i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s , moving o f f i n d i v e r s e d i r e c t i o n s , perhaps to e s t a b l i s h an independence from the Group of Seven, w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t u n l i k e the twent ies i n which a group movement stands o u t , the t h i r t i e s are marked by i n d i v i d u a l successes . Char les H i l l has c e l e b r a t e d the achievements of the t h i r t i e s ' p a i n t e r s i n h i s e x h i b i t i o n Canadian  P a i n t i n g i n the T h i r t i e s o f 1975. Among the p a i n t e r s represented i n t h i s e x h i b i t i o n f o r h i s own p a r t i c u l a r and d i s t i n c t s t y l e i s C a r l Schaefe r . 46 FOOTNOTES For a f u l l account of the Group of Seven story, see Peter Mellen, The Group of Seven (Toronto, Montreal: McClelland & Stewart Limited, 1970). 2 "Group of Seven issues statement defending aims," Montreal Gazette, 31 January 1933. 3 A. Y. Jackson, Letter to H. 0. McCurry, 9 June 1938, i n the National Gallery of Canada. 4 Robert Ayre, "Canadian Group of Painters," The Canadian Forum, Vol. XIV, No. 159 (December 1933), 100. ^Robert Ayre, p. 100. Robert Ayre, p. 100. 7 Robert Ayre, p. 100. g Wyly Grier, "Pictures at the Canadian National Exhibition," The Canadian Forum, Vol. XI, No. 122 (November 1930), 64. 9 Jehanne Bietry Salinger, "Comment on Art - The Group of Seven," The Canadian Forum, Vol. XII, No. 136 (January 1932), 143. "^Lucy Van Gogh, "World of Art," Saturday Night, 17 November 1934, p. 11. 1 J"Frank Underhill, "The Season's New Books," The Canadian Forum, Vol. XVI, No. 191 (December 1936) , 27. 12 Frank Underhill, p. 28. 1 3Frank Underhill, p. 28. 14 Elizabeth Wyn Wood, "Art and the Pre-Cambrian Shield," The Canadian Forum, Vol. XVI, No. 193 (February 1937), 13-15. 47 Paraskeva Clark (as t o l d to G. Campbell Mclnnes), "Come Out from Behind the Pre-Cambrian Shield," New  Frontier, Vol. I, No. 2 (April 1937), 16. 16 The presence of t h i s Marxist journal i s an i n d i c a t i o n at the time of a growing p o l i t i c a l awareness among Canada's a r t i s t s and i n t e l l e c t u a l s though i t i s also true that throughout the t h i r t i e s The Canadian Forum took a p o l i t i c a l stand. 17 Jehanne Bietry Salinger, "The Academy Show," The Canadian Forum, Vol. XI, No. 123 (December 1930), 100. 18 Jehanne Bietry Salinger, "One More Ex h i b i t i o n , " The Canadian Forum, Vol. XI, No. 127 (April 1931), 261. 19 Jehanne Bietry Salinger, "A Canadian P a r a l l e l i n Art," The Canadian Forum, Vol. XII, No. 139 (April 1932), 266. 2 0G. Campbell Mclnnes, "World of Art," Saturday Night, 18 January 1936, p. 4. 2 lG. Campbell Mclnnes, p. 4. 22 G. Campbell Mclnnes, p. 4. 23 Augustus B r i d l e , "Many Gaze Calmly at Picture Exhibit," Toronto Daily Star, 4 January 1936. 24 Augustus B r i d l e , "Canadian Group Show Splendid but Unhumorous," Toronto Daily Star, 11 January 1936. 25 R. G. Kettle, "The Canadian Group," Queen's Quarterly, Vol. XLIII (Spring 1936) , 78. 2 6R. G. Kettle, p. 78-79. 2 7R. G. Kettle, p. 78. 2 8R. G. Kettle, p. 80. 29 Pearl McCarthy, "Art and A r t i s t s , " The Globe and  Mail, 28 March 1939, p. 26. 48 3 0 P e a r l McCarthy, p. 26. For a f u l l d i s c u s s i o n o f Onta r i o Farmhouse, see Chapter I I I , pages 51-53. 3 1 P e a r l McCarthy, p. 26. 32 G. Campbell Mclnnes, "Canadian A r t , " Queen's  Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . XLV (Summer 1938), 239. 33 G. Campbell Mclnnes, p. 240; G. Campbell Mclnnes, "World o f A r t , " Saturday N i g h t , 4 December 1937. 34 G. Campbell Mclnnes, "Canadian A r t , " Queen's  Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . XLV (Summer 1938), 244. 35 G. Campbell Mclnnes, p. 244. 3 6 Barker F a i r l e y , "Canadian A r t : Man v s . Landscape," The Canadian Forum, December 1939, p. 284. 37 Northrop F r y e , "Canadian A r t i n London," The  Canadian Forum, V o l . XVIII, No. 216 (January 1939), 304. 3 8 Northrop Frye, p. 3 04. 39 Northrop F r y e , p. 304-305. 40 E r i c Newton, "Canadian A r t Through E n g l i s h Eyes," The Canadian Forum, V o l . XVIII, No. 217 (February 1939), 344-345. 41 E r i c Newton, p. 344-345. 42 G. Campbell Mclnnes, A Short H i s t o r y o f Canadian  A r t (Toronto: The MacMillan Company of Canada L t d . , 1939), 96. 43 G. Campbell Mclnnes, p. 97. 49 CHAPTER I I I Tne Landscape P a i n t i n g s Since i t i s most r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f what people know of C a r l S c h a e f e r ' s p a i n t i n g s , not o n l y o f the t h i r t i e s , but of h i s e n t i r e c a r e e r , I have s t a r t e d t h i s chapter w i t h Storm Over The F i e l d s o f 1937 ( F i g . 6) r a t h e r than f o l l o w a c h r o n o l o g i c a l sequence. F o r m a l l y , i t i s a simple composition: low, u n d u l a t i n g h i l l s covered by f e n c e d - o f f g r a i n and s t u b b l e f i e l d s l e a d the eye back to a h o r i z o n l i n e about midway up the canvas, above which i s a dark, cloudy sky. The c o l o u r s are s u b t l e greens, browns, y e l l o w s and grey and b l a c k . The p a i n t i n g has captured a d i s t u r b i n g mood as a storm blows up over the f i e l d s - much of the dramatic nature of t h i s landscape i s achieved by the c o n t r a s t o f dark and l i g h t . Such s t r o n g c o n t r a s t s are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of C a r l Schaefer's s t y l e ; i n t h i s p a i n t i n g the sky conveys an u n s e t t l e d , stormy mood and the l i g h t areas possess an u n r e a l b r i l l i a n c e . The sky a g a i n s t the h o r i z o n i s made up o f s o l i d , a b s t r a c t b l o c k s o f c l o u d s , b l a c k on the undersi d e but with s m a l l openings between, where l i g h t shines through: behind them i s a g r e y i s h l a y e r , than an almost f l a t , b l a c k sky along the h o r i z o n , broken o n l y by a s l i m area of l i g h t i n the l e f t c o r n e r 50 which has an eerie e f f e c t because of i t s f a n t a s t i c nature. The f i e l d s of the foreground give the viewer a sensation of movement; the brush strokes rush the eye to the glowing f i e l d s of the middle and background. The storm i s a l l the more threatening because of the unnatural but b r i l l i a n t l i g h t which gives the composi-t i o n an otherworldly f e e l i n g . This f e e l i n g might be described as visionary."'" Such a f e e l i n g emanates from the paintings of Paul Nash and early Burchfield. I t s view i s also the expansive one of the Group of Seven. The subject i s smaller, more fam i l i a r and more intimate, the brushwork i s f i n e r , as i t would not be i n a Group canvas, but the o v e r a l l e f f e c t i s grand. The water-colour which corresponds to the o i l , also painted that year, conveys the same f e e l i n g , though i t s scale i s smaller. Whereas many a r t i s t s painting up a large o i l from a small sketch lose the s p i r i t of the o r i g i n a l composition i n the achievement of a more c a r e f u l l y composed, exact and often s t i l t e d f i n i s h e d product, Carl Schaefer makes the t r a n s i t i o n with ease, achieving perhaps with greater i n t e n s i t y the mood and inner l i g h t which i s so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of his work, and the imme-diacy of a watercolour painted on the spot. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to look forward t h i r t y years to 51 a work of 1964, Rain Cloud Over The F i e l d s , Waterloo  County (Fig. 10) and note the difference i n mood from that of Storm Over the Fields (Fig. 6). The l a t e r painting depicts a similar scene i n a s i m i l a r composi-t i o n ; and i t i s a watercolour. What Ca r l Schaefer learned i n his early years and the s t y l e and technique he came to use during the t h i r t i e s i s s t i l l v i s i b l e i n Rain Cloud Over The Fields (Fig. 10). I t depicts with assurance what the e a r l i e r work achieves through studied and dramatic means. Carl Schaefer i s now com-p l e t e l y at home with his medium and uses h i s brush d e f t l y and simply. This work i s a mere matter-of-fact portrayal, i t conveys none of the s u r r e a l , f a n t a s t i c q u a l i t y of the e a r l i e r work. The painter imposes less of himself on i t . The moodiness of Storm Over The  F i e l d s (Fig. 6), which may well have r e f l e c t e d the uneasiness of the times, has vanished from the l a t e r work. Ontario Farmhouse of 1934 (Fig. 3) i s another large o i l preceded, i n t h i s case, by a watercolour of 1934, and also a pen and ink drawing, of 1932. Although Carl Schaefer was already working extensively i n water-colour when t h i s canvas was painted, i t has none of the f l u i d i t y and ease of the watercolours, or even of such a l a t e r o i l as Storm Over The F i e l d s (Fig. 6). It has 52 a tightness and precision found i n his pen and ink drawings, c e r t a i n l y i n the drawing for t h i s painting, and a concern for d e t a i l which i s close to p o r t r a i -ture. Nonetheless, i t i s a magnificent painting and recognizably Carl Schaefer's i n the attention to d e t a i l , the sky and the dramatic placement of the house, no matter how removed i t seems from the pure landscapes of the same time. The huge farmhouse, placed diagonally, as i n the watercolour The Voelzing  Farmhouse, 1934 (Fig. 4), though unlike the farmhouse of the drawing which faces f r o n t a l l y , towers out of the s l i g h t mound on which i t stands. The b r i l l i a n t blue sky i s abstract, i n the manner reminiscent of Lawren Harris. The foreground depicts layers of d i f f e r e n t vegetation c a r e f u l l y separated from one another and painted i n an excessively orderly fashion. A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c dead tree stands to the r i g h t of the house. Throughout the t h i r t i e s , the dead tree i s a favourite motif i n Carl Schaefer's work. It appears not only i n such landscapes as Farmhouse By The  Railway,(Fig. 11), Ontario Farmhouse (Figs. 3,4, & 5), (both paintings and drawing) and Summer Harvest (Fig. 13), but i n his s t i l l l i f e s as well and the cityscape Moon Over The Don J a i l (Fig. 8). With 53 the exception of the last-mentioned painting, i t s hopelessness i s always countered by the promise of new l i f e i n a f i e l d of grain or a table of f r u i t . A composition similar to Ontario Farmhouse (Fig. 3) i s found in a watercolour of 1937, Before  Rain, Parry Sound (Fig. 12) - similar i n that the focal point i s a building i n the centre. Although the same nervous attention to d e t a i l appears i n the foreground growth, and the flower garden to the r i g h t of the building, the composition i s more re-laxed than Ontario Farmhouse (Fig. 3). The sky, again menacing, i s no longer the abstract one of the e a r l i e r o i l . Carl Schaefer seems to be more at ease now with his s t y l e , enough, at any rate to break away from the r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed by his formal approach i n works of the e a r l i e r t h i r t i e s . A work, representing the same stage as Ontario Farmhouse (Fig. 3) i s Summer Harvest, Hanover, 1935 (Fig. 13). Like Ontario Farmhouse 1934, (Fig. 3) i t i s a highly s t y l i z e d work and busy i n d e t a i l . It i n v i t e s comparison with a p r i n t by Hokusai (whom I have mentioned e a r l i e r as being an important 2 influence ) of c. 1825 e n t i t l e d Mount F u j i In Fine  Weather (Fig. 14). The treatment of the clouds i n both works i s s i m i l a r , as i s the subtle use of 54 colour and the nervous brushwork of the grasses. It i s worth mentioning also the attention he paid 3 to Chinese painting , p a r t i c u l a r l y of the Tang Dynasty, i n which l i n e was dominant over colour to an extent that colour was almost monochromatic. This, undoubtedly, encouraged him to pay p a r t i c u l a r attention to l i n e , a t r a i t that can be traced back to his association with Thoreau MacDonald. There i s a s t i f f n e s s i n t h i s painting, in the orderliness of the fences and the stooks of hay, which i s not found i n the Hokusai or the Chinese painting, and which i s considerably modified i n Carl Schaefer's paintings of the late t h i r t i e s . Summer Harvest, Hanover, 1935 (Fig. 13), i s painted i n o i l and t h i s may account for some of i t s s t i f f n e s s . Later works in watercolour display a much greater ease i n brushwork, a qual i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of that medium. The technique I have been discussing, that i s of painting i n watercolour, of bringing the painting almost to i t s finished stage i n the f i e l d , of using a limited and subdued palette which was nevertheless capable of dramatic contrasts, and making b r i l l i a n t use of the white of his paper to give an e f f e c t of inner l i g h t d iffused throughout the subject, had already come to a recognizable development by the 5 5 m i d - t h i r t i e s a n d h a s b e e n a p p a r e n t i n t h e p a i n t i n g s I h a v e b e e n d i s c u s s i n g e x c e p t p e r h a p s O n t a r i o F a r m h o u s e ( F i g . 3 ) , w h e r e i t m i g h t b e d e s c r i b e d a s s t i l l t e n t a t i v e . T h e s e q u a l i t i e s o f h i s s t y l e b e c o m e m o r e p r o n o u n c e d i n t h e l a t t e r h a l f o f t h e d e c a d e w h i c h m i g h t l e a d o n e t o e x p e c t a s o f t e n i n g i n h i s s t y l e . S u c h a s o f t e n i n g d o e s o c c u r b u t n o t s o a s t o w e a k e n t h e s h a r p n e s s a n d a n g u l a r i t y a n d o c c a s i o n a l o b s e s -s i o n w i t h m i n u t e d e t a i l w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e s O n t a r i o  F a r m h o u s e ( F i g . 3 ) o r S u m m e r H a r v e s t , H a n o v e r ( F i g . 1 3 ) . W h e a t f i e l d , H a n o v e r , 1 9 3 6 ( F i g . 1 5 ) m i g h t b e c o n s i d e r e d a t r a n s i t i o n a l w o r k , b e t w e e n t h e s t i f f , l e s s c o n f i d e n t S u m m e r H a r v e s t , H a n o v e r ( F i g . 1 3 ) o r O n t a r i o  F a r m h o u s e ( F i g . 3 ) , a n d t h e e a s i e r , m o r e p e r s o n a l F a l l  P l o u g h i n g A t S c h o m b e r g ( F i g . 1 6 ) . T h e s k y s t i l l h a s a n a b s t r a c t q u a l i t y , t h o u g h n o t t h e e x t r e m e a n g l e s o r b r i l l i a n t c o l o u r s o f t h e s k y o f t h e O n t a r i o F a r m h o u s e ( F i g . 3 ) . T h e s e s u b j e c t s s e e m t o b e c h o s e n t o m e e t h i s i n t e r e s t i n o r d e r l y c o m p o s i t i o n - a s i n t h i s c a s e , a p a r t i a l l y h a r v e s t e d w h e a t f i e l d w i t h r e g u l a r l y p l a c e d w h e a t s t o o k s . H i s b r u s h w o r k c o n s i s t s o f a n u m b e r o f f i n e r e p e t i t i o u s s t r o k e s , v e r y l i k e t h o s e i n t h e H o k u s a i p a i n t i n g , a n d p e r h a p s r e m i n i s c e n t o f p o i n t i l l i s m . T h i s s t y l e o f b r u s h w o r k h a s c o m e t o b e a r e c o g n i z a b l e f e a t u r e . A l t h o u g h h e p a i n t e d t h i s i n o i l , h e h a s 56 applied the paint i n parts as though i t were water-colour, very t h i n l y and with long strokes, leaving sections of canvas to show through. The b r i l l i a n c e of the colours i n Ontario  Farmhouse (Fig. 3) i s seldom found i n either land-scapes or s t i l l l i f e s a f t e r the m i d - t h i r t i e s , when he favours d u l l browns, greens and golds. By the early t h i r t i e s he had absorbed as much as he was going to of the abstract style he learned from Lawren Harris ^ and had moved on from the f l a t two-dimensional decorative s t y l e which may be seen i n some of his drawings, such as Rock And Pines, Pick e r e l  River, 1927 (Fig. 34), and paintings, such as Pine  Pattern, P i c k e r e l , 1926 (Fig. 1) of his early career. He describes his new approach as "... a fusion of Northern and Southern aspect" (Northern and Southern refer to Ontario); also as "the decorative giving way to a stark realism".5 with his s i m p l i f i e d and austere realism comes a confidence i n technique. The landscapes i n p a r t i c u l a r become less and l e s s cluttered; f i e l d s are marked o f f with wooden fences, small clu s t e r s of v e r t i c a l l i n e s indicate crops growing, horizontal demarcations indicate a furrowed f i e l d . The impression of a glowing inner l i g h t i s sometimes given by unpainted sections. In Late Sun And O a t f i e l d s of 1939, ( F i g . 35 ), the g r e a t e r p a r t of the p a i n t i n g i s a l i g h t c o l o u r , g i v i n g a sense of l u m i n o s i t y . A few simple l i n e s form t r e e s or fences around f i e l d s o f o a t s . F a l l P loughing At Schomberg of 1937 ( F i g . 16) conveys the ease and f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h which C a r l Schaefer now uses wa t e r c o l o u r . The medium i t s e l f demands a l e s s s t u d i e d treatment of i t s s u b j e c t and allows him t o work, as he p r e f e r s , i n the f i e l d , p a i n t i n g the f i n i s h e d work i n the presence o f the s u b j e c t r a t h e r than from a sketch.6 L i k e many of the landscapes o f the l a t t e r p a r t of the decade, t h i s seems a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , f u l l o f v i t a l i t y and sympathy with the s u b j e c t but w i t h none of the moodiness of a work l i k e Farmhouse By  The Railway ( F i g . 11). P a i n t e d a t the end o f the decade, Farmhouse By  The Railway , 1938-39, ( F i g . 11) has un uneasy a i r about i t , r e m i n i s c e n t of C h a r l e s B u r c h f i e l d ' s The  Edge of Town ( F i g . 9). I t possesses a l l o f C a r l Schaefer's i d e n t i f i a b l e gloomy f e a t u r e s - a broken down fence, dead t r e e and t h r e a t e n i n g sky - and i t s gloominess here i s i n t e n s i f i e d by the ramshackle s t a t e o f the b u i l d i n g s , the r a i l w a y t r a c k s , a bent telephone p o l e and r a t h e r d u l l ochre c o l o u r i n g . 58 There i s hope, however, i n the ripe garden i n front of the house and a touch of humour i n the precarious angle of the out-house. Just as his treatment of the watercolour medium in the t h i r t i e s takes on a d i s t i n c t l y Schaeferian look i n i t s colours and brushwork, so too Carl Schaefer's view of a subject and compositional i n t e r -pretation of i t come to be d i s t i n c t l y his own. The vantage point i s frequently high, and i n the manner of the seventeenth century Dutch landscape, his out-look may be from a high promontory, the edge of which appears i n the foreground of the painting.^ F i e l d s , Township Normandy 1936, (Fig. 17) 8, R.R. No. 3, Hanover 1936 (Fig. 18) ,Concession Road, Township  Bentinck, Hanover 1937,(Fig. 19) and View of Hanover, 1937-38 (Fig. 20) are viewed i n th i s way. As usual as the high vantage point, however, i s a low one, from which the painter sometimes looks s t r a i g h t ahead, though more often his view has an upward d i r e c t i o n . Examples of t h i s upward view can be seen i n Farmhouse By The Railway, 1939 (Fig. 11), Storm  Over The F i e l d s , 1937 (Fig. 6) Wheat F i e l d , Hanover, 1936 (Fig. 15), The Voelzing Farm, Hanover, Township  Bentinck, Grey County, 1938 (Fig. 21) and Ontario  Farmhouse, 1934 (Fig. 3). 59 For the most part, Carl Schaefer w i l l choose an angle from which he can introduce a strong diagonal -a diagonal formed by a road, a fence, a h i l l or a l i n e of uncut grain against a f i e l d of cut grain. To complement these diagonals, the skies may extend or otherwise mirror them. The countryside around Hanover nat u r a l l y lent i t s e l f to geometric d i v i s i o n s , as Christopher Varley has noted i n his introduction to the catalogue C a r l Schaefer i n Hanover ^. Ca r l Schaefer did not hesitate to take advantage of t h i s natural layout to heighten the mood, say, of an impending storm or to accentuate the a r c h i t e c t u r a l style of a farmhouse or barn, by setting the orderly countryside or building against an unruly sky. The Ontario Farmhouse (Fig. 3) provides the most obvious example of t h i s sort of dramatic juxtaposition, though many of the Hanover landscapes could be singled out; and even some of the close up studies of grain stooks such as Wheat Stooks, No. 2 Hanover, 1939 (Fig. 22) or a broken fence Wire Fence, Hanover, 1937 possess t h i s same t h e a t r i c a l i t y . In c e r t a i n works Ca r l Schaefer tends to emphasize the horizontal appearance of the countryside. View of Hanover, 1937-38, (Fig. 20), while composed i n an almost standard way with diagonals leading the eye into the back-60 g r o u n d , h a s s t r o n g h o r i z o n t a l b a n d s , e c h o e d i n t h e l a r g e s t i l l s k y . I n T h e B r u n t B a r n s , H a n o v e r , 1 9 3 7 ( F i g . 2 4 ) , h e h a s u s e d h o r i z o n t a l b a n d s i n t h e f o r e -g r o u n d f i e l d s a n d f e n c e , a n d i n t h e s k y , g i v i n g t h e p a i n t i n g a v e r y s h a l l o w d i m e n s i o n w h i c h b o t h d r a w s t h e e y e t o t h e a n g u l a r i t y o f t h e f a r m b u i l d i n g s a n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e a c c e n t u a t e s t h e i r f l a t n e s s . 61 FOOTNOTES "*"For a f u l l e r discussion of the mystical q u a l i t y of Carl Schaefer's l i g h t , see Chapter I, page 18. 2 See Chapter I, page 17 and Footnote 17. 3 The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto has a f i n e Chinese c o l l e c t i o n which Carl Schaefer would have known. 4 See Chapter I, pages 16 and 20 and Footnote 5 for a discussion of Carl Schaefer and Lawren Harris. 5 Carl Schaefer, Accomplishments 3, p. 2. ^See Chapter I, page 15 for a f u l l e r description of Carl Schaefer's method of painting in the f i e l d . 7 It i s worth noting again Carl Schaefer's i n t e r e s t i n the work of Jacob van Ruysdael. g See attached chronology for exhibitions to which Carl Schaefer contributed during the 1930's. 9 Christopher Varley, Carl Schaefer i n Hanover, Introduction. 62 CHAPTER IV The S t i l l L i f e Paintings Landscape has always been Carl Schaefer's major subject, i n the t h i r t i e s as well as at other stages of his career. His persistence, i n spite of the c r i t i c s ' attacks ^ (and he was, by no means, alone i n that persistence) demonstrates the strength of his convictions. At the same time that he was producing his landscapes, however, he also painted, drew and engraved a number of lovely and unusual s t i l l l i f e s . S t i l l l i f e painting has been compared to chamber music. There i s something about the r e l a t i v e l y small scale of the genre and the intimacy of i t s composition and subject matter which i s re-miniscent of a s t r i n g quartet. The viewer tends to f e e l he i s being permitted to see something of the personal side of the a r t i s t ; through his books or other belongings he i s allowed a glimpse of the a r t i s t ' s own l i f e which may not reveal i t s e l f i n his commissioned or public works. In some respects, the s t i l l l i f e painting or drawing i s the antithesis of the landscape. Where the former tends to be small and intimate, the l a t t e r , while often, though not always, on a large 63 scale, i s necessarily of a grander nature. The a r t i s t ' s eye i s forced to incorporate a broader view; i t i s unconfined by a wall, curtain or table, but allowed to scan and absorb several acres of f i e l d s or a h i l l s i d e ; sometimes the panorama i s i n f i n i t e . The difference between the two naturally demands a d i f f e r e n t type of composition: the s t i l l l i f e i s close to the painter and he paints what he sees before him in accurate d e t a i l , whereas the landscape painter must record an impression, perhaps exaggerating c e r t a i n features and even omitting others. The integration, then, of s t i l l l i f e and landscape into one composition would seem to be para-doxical. But t h i s i s what Carl Schaefer has done in several s t i l l l i f e s of the t h i r t i e s , namely Harvest F e s t i v a l of 1936, (Fig. 25), S t i l l L i f e With  Landscape of 1939 (Fig. 26) and Yellow Apples On A  F a l l Landscape of 1939 (Fig. 27). To continue the music metaphor, the combination of these two genres i s as unusual as the combination of a s t r i n g quartet with a symphony. Carl Schaefer's venture into t h i s type of composition i s unusual but e n t i r e l y suc-ce s s f u l and very suitable to his s t y l e . In t h i s study, I s h a l l examine seven s t i l l l i f e paintings by Carl Schaefer done during the nineteen 64 t h i r t i e s . They are: Apples, 1933 (Fig. 2 8 ) , Pears, 1934, (Fig. 2 9 ) , Harvest F e s t i v a l , 1936 (Fig. 2 5 ) , Eggplant And Peppers, 1938 (Fig. 3 0 ) , S t i l l L i f e , 1939 (Fig. 33), S t i l l L i f e With' Landscape, 1939 (Fig. 26) and Yellow Apples On A F a l l Landscape, 1939 (Fig. 27) . Apples, 1933 (Fig. 28) i s a small watercolour that belongs among his early paintings. Like many of i t s period, t h i s work i s not unmistakeably h i s , though i t does reveal an excellence in draughtsman-ship and sensitive use of watercolour both of which q u a l i t i e s remain i n l a t e r works of greater d i s t i n c -t i o n . Pears, (Fig. 29 ), a watercolour s t i l l l i f e of 1934 , painted only one year later.than the Apples (Fig. 28), displays his own style with greater assurance. The brushwork, for example i n the white cl o t h and the r e p e t i t i o n of l i n e to demarcate folds s t r i k e a f a m i l i a r note i n the mind of the viewer acquainted with the f i e l d s of stubble i n any of Carl Schaefer's landscapes of t h i s period. There i s a randomness about the composition, which i s curiously at odds with the inherent nature of s t i l l l i f e . The subject has unmistakably been composed, the pears c a r e f u l l y placed on the white 65 clo t h and primitive patterned material. Yet the composition i s not centred - i t seems weighted down on the l e f t side. This apparent imbalance i s stressed by the p a r t i a l pear i n the l e f t corner -cut o f f by the picture frame - and the large empty space of the upper r i g h t , the f i r s t timid appearance of landscape i n a s t i l l l i f e . Both these features have a disconcerting e f f e c t on the viewer's impre-sion of space. While the frame's intrusion on the composition i n the bottom l e f t corner has the e f f e c t of reminding us of the two dimensionality of the surface, the empty landscape of the upper r i g h t corner tempts our imagination into space. Our perceptions are further played with by the ambiguity of the viewpoint. One i s reminded of a Cezanne such as S t i l l L i f e With Apples And Oranges of 1895-1900 (Fig. 31), both i n the discrepancy of viewpoint and i n the treatment Of the draped white c l o t h , where the material seems to have given up i t s suppleness for s t i f f , almost sculptural f o l d s . Carl Schaefer's debt to Cezanne seems to me unquestionable, though i t may be unconscious.2 Harvest F e s t i v a l , an o i l of 1936 (Fig. 25) i s unmistakably C a r l Schaefer's. His style here, 66 compared to that of the s t i l l l i f e of three years e a r l i e r , i s firm and confident. Squash, marrow, vegetables and pears are the subject; behind them, through a p a r t i a l l y curtained window, spreads a f i e l d of grain stooks. The colours are h i s favourite natural, earthy ones, deep and sombre. What i s most o r i g i n a l about t h i s and a number of other s t i l l l i f e s i s the landscape i n the background. It i s re-miniscent of a type of composition, established i n the Renaissance, for port r a i t u r e , i n which the s i t t e r would be positioned before a window. Beyond that, an almost endless v i s t a would l i e , suggesting perhaps the extent of the s i t t e r ' s property.-* Here, while the composition may prompt such associations i n the mind of the viewer, the intent i s d i f f e r e n t . The farmland of the background i s the source of the foreground subject; i t s i n c l u s i o n i s , i n a sense, an acknowledgement of i t s importance. Leading the eye into the background i s a sheer, draped curtain, which reaffirms the presence of humanity. The meticulous attention to d e t a i l in the border of the curtain i s very l i k e the care given to the d e t a i l s of the Ontario Farmhouse (Fig. 3 ) . Unlike the landscapes of these years, however, t h i s composition i s l i t by a natural source which shines i n from the 67 l e f t side. The sky does not have the usual, unsettled clouds, but i s clear and calm - the mood i s one of calm. The only unsettling feature i s the large dark area of wall i n the upper r i g h t corner, forming a blank rectangle above the eggplant. As with Pears, (Fig. 29), Carl Schaefer has again allowed the picture frame to intrude upon the composition, cutting o f f the l e f t side of the pumpkin, at the same time leaving the r i g h t corner empty. The awesome qual i t y which permeates the land-scapes of the late t h i r t i e s manifests i t s e l f i n Eggplant And Peppers (Fig. 30), a watercolour of 1938. Both the subject matter and the formal treatment of the composition are melancholy and unsettling. Sharp diagonals intercept one another to divide the r i g h t side of the painting, and these d i v i s i o n s are heightened by strongly contrasted areas of l i g h t and shadow. Here, as in many of his landscapes, the composition has no i d e n t i f i a b l e l i g h t source; i t seems mysteriously l i t from within. In the centre stands an eggplant, surrounded on either side by peppers. In choice of subject matter, i t bears a resemblance to a s t i l l l i f e by the American painter Charles Demuth c a l l e d Eggplant And Tomatoes, 1926 (Fig. 32), though the s i m i l a r i t y ends there. The 68 American s t i l l l i f e i s a matter-of-fact portrayal of vegetables: they r e f l e c t Demuth's a t t r a c t i o n to t h e i r pleasing shape and colour. Undoubtedly Carl Schaefer i s drawn by these same q u a l i t i e s but through them he evokes a mood of melancholy and uncertainty. Although there i s not a landscape background, nor any definable boundary such as a table edge or wall, one i s tempted to compare the c l o t h on which the vegetables stand with a stormy sky, i n the same vein as the abstract sky behind the Ontario Farmhouse (Fig. 3). I t i s t h i s piece of material, with i t s sharp folds and strongly contrasted areas of l i g h t and shadow, that over-powers the composition, even the smooth, s o l i d , centrally-placed eggplant. The viewpoint i s unam-biguous; i t i s low,,almost exaggeratedly so, allowing the eggplant to assume extreme porportions. A watercolour s t i l l l i f e of the same year, e n t i t l e d simply S t i l l L i f e , (Fig. 34), depicts a potted plant, a philodendron and a bowl of apples on a table. The portrayal of t h i s subject i s con-siderably more straightforward than that i n Eggplant  And Peppers, (Fig. 30). Here the viewpoint i s unambiguous, the table i s c l e a r l y outlined; t h i s painting conveys none of the austerity or tension 69 expressed by the draped cl o t h of the l a t t e r . The only disturbing features are the s l i g h t downward slope of the table surface and the b r i l l i a n t but inexplicable l i g h t behind i t . A comparison of th i s work with the Apples (Fig. 28) of f i v e years e a r l i e r reveals the development of Carl Schaefer's painting technique. The compositions are very sim i l a r but s t y l i s t i c a l l y they vary greatly. The e a r l i e r work i s s k i l l f u l l y , i f somewhat academi-c a l l y , worked, whereas the l a t e r work shows a good deal more f l o u r i s h and assurance. The brush strokes have become firmer and bolder; the palette r e f l e c t s his preference for sombre hues, interspersed i n high contrast with almost white areas. One f e e l s that the painter has arrived at maturity, and an examination of any of the l a t e r works confirms such a f e e l i n g . S t i l l L i f e With Landscape (Fig. 26) of 1939, depicts a s t i l l l i f e which has almost moved from an i n t e r i o r to an exterior location; that i s to say the window frame has disappeared and the surface on which the f r u i t stands i s un i d e n t i f i a b l e , though a heavy curtain remains prominent i n the l e f t corner. The angularity of the draped cloth, pears and curt a i n i s mirrored i n a more subdued manner i n the sky and 70 and even the hint of a town i n the far background, and softened by the roundness of the bowl and the rounded, r o l l i n g f i e l d s beyond. In i t s merging of the inside and outside worlds t h i s s t i l l l i f e i s rather l i k e a t r a n s i t i o n a l stage between the e a r l i e r Harvest F e s t i v a l (Fig. 25) i n which the s t i l l l i f e i s d i s t i n c t l y separated from the landscape and Yellow Apples On A F a l l Landscape (Fig. 27) of the same year i n which the s t i l l l i f e i s e n t i r e l y absorbed into the landscape. Yellow Apples On A F a l l Landscape (Fig. 27), a watercolour of 1939, i s unusual as a s t i l l l i f e i n i t s landscape setting and mood; here the apples are incorporated into the f i e l d s that stretch out behind them. The juxtaposition i s a strange one—the autumn f r u i t i n the foreground with ominous, stormy skies over r o l l i n g f i e l d s i n the background. Carl Schaefer has suggested that t h i s painting i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the dark mood of the late .thirties when everyone knew that was imminent.4 Charles H i l l i n Canadian  Painting In The T h i r t i e s remarks on the "sentiment of impending menace" of much of his work of 1939 and 1940 and likens i t to the work of Charles Burchfield during t h i s same period. He writes of his painting: "While the apples s t i l l hold out the p o s s i b i l i t y of abundance and regeneration, the storm clouds, dead trees and autumn colours bespell decay". 6 C e r t a i n l y the dead trees i n the background and the f a c t that i t i s a f a l l scene have gloomy overtones. The dead tree i s a favourite motif, perhaps even a symbol, as I have already suggested, i n the t h i r t i e s paintings; while i t s implication c l e a r l y i s of death and transience, that implication i s softened by i t s usual placement beside a f i e l d of ripe or harvested grain, which symbolize l i f e and regeneration. He does not view h i s land with despair, but as George Johnston writes with "fatalism, which i s not sentimental nor pessimistic but simply a country man's f e e l i n g for the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of growth and decay and the change of the seasons".^ 72 FOOTNOTES See Chapter II for a discussion of the c r i t i c s ' reactions to landscape painting i n the 1930's. 2 Among Carl Schaefer's f i r s t contacts with the world of art c r i t i c i s m was Cl i v e B e l l ' s writing, through whom he learned about Cezanne. For him, discovering Cezanne was "...a great revelation". Interview, 26 June 1976. 3 - • An 18th century painting Robert Andrews and His Wife (c. 1748-50) by Thomas Gainsborough i s a t y p i c a l example of t h i s type of portraiture i n which the s i t t e r s are surrounded by t h e i r property and world possessions. 4 Interview, 26 June 1976. 5 Charles H i l l , Canadian Painting in the T h i r t i e s , p. 91. 6Charles H i l l , . p . 91. 7 George Johnston, "Carl Schaefer: A r t i s t and Man," Queen's Quarterly, Vol. LX'I, No. 3 (Autumn 1954), 349. 73 CHAPTER V C r i t i c i s m and Evaluation of Carl Schaefer's Paintings i n the 1930's Carl Schaefer, l i k e many of his contemporaries, was reared i n the painting t r a d i t i o n of the Group of Seven; 1 he was formally taught by two of i t s members, MacDonald and Lismer, though he also learned from the others, notably Harris, Carmichael and Jackson; and i n the s p i r i t of t h e i r search for subjects and t h e i r way of painting he went north where he was confronted with t h e i r landscape, which he represented i n th e i r style and by t h e i r method, i. e . by painting up a larger canvas from a quick sketch made on the spot. He soon moved away from t h e i r large northern subjects, however, and painted i n a more intimate, less abstract manner than t h e i r large canvases allowed. He also discovered that the medium of watercolour was more suited to h i s temperament and to the f i e l d s and houses and skies that were his subjects. Gradually he abandoned the method of sketching the f i e l d i n an t i c i p a t i o n of a larger o i l painted up i n the studio. He made finished paintings i n the f i e l d . This marked his style and distinguished him from the Group, his teachers and many of his contemporaries. 74 Carl Schaefer l e f t the Ontario College of Art i n 1924 without graduating ("I never graduated from anything", 2 he claims ), to make his way as a freelance painter, doing sign painting, murals or whatever he could get that would pay him. That year he held his f i r s t one man show in the F i r e H a l l of his native Hanover, Ontario. From then on he contributed to at least one exhibition a year, l o c a l , national and i n t e r n a t i o n a l . At f i r s t his contributions were i n the f i e l d of graphic a r t , then o i l paintings appear and by the mid-thirties he was c h i e f l y exhibiting water-colours. It was C a r l Schaefer's graphic work which f i r s t came to the attention of the public and i n his a r t i c l e "The Amateur Movement in Canadian Painting" i n The Yearbook of 3 the Arts i n Canada, 1928-29 , Fred Housser singles out Carl Schaefer and Thoreau MacDonald among the young 4 generation of painters. Of them he writes: "MacDonald's pen drawings of animals and imaginative northern landscapes have a naive s i m p l i c i t y , while Schaefer's pen-work i s 5 more rugged and s p i r i t e d " . At t h i s stage of his career he s t i l l painted or drew the uninhabited northern landscape. Two reviews of the 63rd annual exhibition of the Ontario Society of A r t i s t s i n March 1935 comment on Carl Schaefer's contributions. Among his fellow contributors are Frank Panabaker, Bertram Brooker, Dorothy Stevens, Wyly Grier, Kenneth Forbes, George Reid, Gordon Webber and Kathleen Daly. Pearl McCarthy, the art c r i t i c for The Mail and Empire, though g r a t i f i e d by the inclusion of not only landscapes but buildings, seascapes and the human figure i s , however, cautious i n her praise. She considers the paintings good but wonders i f they w i l l achieve importance of a l a s t i n g nature. Her admiration then for "...the b r i l l i a n c e of Carl Schaefer's b i t t e r painting of a Canadian farmhouse..." (Ontario Farmhouse, 1934 (Fig. 3) 7) stands out. On the other hand, Lucy Van Gogh, writing i n Saturday Night, i s less enthusiastic. Her boredom with the s i m i l a r i t y of Ontario Society of A r t i s t s ' s exhibitions to one another from year to year i s undisguised and the adjective "competent" describes Carl Schaefer's work as i t does everyone else's. The conclusion of her review i s not e n t i r e l y without hope as he writes: The general trend of the Ontario Society of A r t i s t s has been for some years i n the d i r e c t i o n of competence. I t i s possible that there i s now a trend i n the d i r e c t i o n of something better, but i t has not got far enough to be v i s i b l e . 8 By 1935, Graham Mclnnes has appeared on the art scene as Saturday Night's regular columnist of "World of Art" 76 though his a r t i c l e s appear also i n The Canadian Forum, Queen's Quarterly from time to time and i n The New Frontier during i t s b r i e f l i f e t i m e . His admiration for Carl Schaefer's work i s consistent and i s not only enthusiastic but i n t e l l i g e n t and s p e c i f i c . His praise singles him out from his contemporaries, for example, in his review of the 8th annual exhibition of the Canadian Society of Painters i n Watercolour at the Grange, Toronto i n A p r i l 1935: "There i s an aggressive power in his work, coupled with an imaginative vein that i s lacking i n most of his 9 colleagues..." Mclnnes has divided the landscape painters i n Canada into three groups, the f i r s t belongs to the academic school, the second to the "Canadian School" and the t h i r d i s a group of experimenters. Carl Schaefer stands out i n the "Canadian School" for his contributions Spring Evening, The Churchyard and Pears. Others i n t h i s category are A. J. Casson and Frank Carmichael. Pearl McCarthy's review of t h i s same exhibition also notes that Carl Schaefer, had by t h i s time, established his own s t y l e . s u f f i c i e n t l y to be distinguished from followers of the Group: "Carl Schaefer's contribution indicates that he w i l l not s e t t l e into a c l i c h e expression".''"^ Carl Schaefer f i r s t exhibited outside a society or large-scale exhibition i n 1932 when the Art Gallery of Toronto 77 presented David Milne, Paraskeva Clark, Caven Atkins and Carl Schaefer i n an Exhibition by Young Canadians. Of the approximately 65 works by Carl Schaefer, not one was a watercolour; some were o i l canvases, others o i l sketches and a large number were pen and ink drawings, lithographs and wood engravings. Many derive from f i s h i n g t r i p s on northern Ontario r i v e r s , for at that time he had not yet returned to his home in Hanover. A second of these small group exhibitions, Six Canadian Painters was.held i n December of 1935. On t h i s occasion his co-exhibitors were John Alfsen, Caven Atkins, Thoreau MacDonald, Pegi Nicol and Robert Ross. He contributed f i v e works, two o i l s , Orchard and Begonia and Pears and three watercolours, Farm, Township Bentinck, The Farmhouse of John Voelzing, Hanover and Late F a l l ; one i s a s t i l l l i f e and the others are landscapes from around Hanover. These works drew and admiring review from Graham Mclnnes who f e l t that of the six, Carl Schaefer and Pegi Nicol produced the most int e r e s t i n g work. In my opinion, Mr. Schaefer i s one of the foremost of our younger a r t i s t s . His development has been slow but i t i s a l l the better for that, for his seriousness and his concentration have at length imposed upon his native s e n s i b i l i t y and his untrammeled fe e l i n g for paint, a coherence and a form which e l a s t i c though i t i s , does not permit him to slop 78 over into b e a u t i f u l but d i r e c t i o n l e s s excess. Mr. Schaefer also has a strong vein of mildly s a t i r i c a l humor - I would ask you to look at "Orchard". The selection of work he has here -o i l and watercolour, s t i l l l i f e and landscape -show him now master of himself and his medium. He i s going to be very important.l x That year, the National Gallery of Canada, under the dir e c t o r s h i p of H. 0. McCurry bought two watercolours, Green Valley and F i e l d s , Township Normandy for $60 each. 1 2 Two others were bought by Vincent Massey. As I noted e a r l i e r , i n Chapter I I , Augustus B r i d l e was c r i t i c a l of the sc a r c i t y of humanity i n the second exhibition of the Canadian Group of Painters held i n early 1936 at the Art Gallery of Toronto. He drew attention to the paintings of some of the i n v i t e d contributors, paintings he considered among the best i n the exhibition. Of Carl Schaefer's Summer Harvest, he wrote: "Schaefer's Summer Harvest, on the rocks, i s quite magnificent as p i c t o r i a l drama — with no harvesters" Graham Mclnnes 1 praise of Carl Schaefer's entries i n the same exhi b i t i o n i s more generous. He not only praises his i n d i v i d u a l i t y but also compares his entry Spring Ploughing to Paul Nash's Hampton Common: This highly i n d i v i d u a l a r t i s t , who may yet have the dubious p r i v i l e g e of becoming a chef d'ecole, shows two canvases. "Summer Harvest" i s a magnificent and s t r i k i n g thing but for me "Spring Ploughing" i s the better picture of the two. I t 79 seems better coordinated, more sensitive with more of the r e a l p l a s t i c and less of the dramatic q u a l i t i e s . If f e e l that Mr. Schaefer has achieved here something analogous to John Nash's "Hampton Common" shown here i n November. A t h i r d and unfavourable view of Summer Harvest i s found i n the following excerpt from a l e t t e r to the editor of The Globe: "Summer Harvest" i s a dreadful example of modern art where every canon and fundamental observed by about a l l the great a r t i s t s of the United States and England p a r t i c u l a r l y i s f l a g r a n t l y flouted. Let me p a r t i c u l a r i z e . The view i s about the same in make-up, ri g h t and l e f t side excepted. The sky i s a c t u a l l y 'funny', supposed clouds are simply t h e a t r i c a l sky borders (I know so well, for I painted theatre productions once upon a time)I The f i e l d s are just l i k e plum puddings with countable plums. More than that, the view occupies about half of the picture h o r i z o n t a l l y : no atmosphere at a l l ; distance hard and impossible. As a f i n a l l a s t straw, I do not find a single b i t of good drawing or other redeeming feature in i t . It i s designated 'outstanding' and i n The Globe too. I am sorry for your young a r t i s t s . Art i s s t i l l long and hard with a bewildering l o t of problems to face and conquer, and they w i l l never get beyond the Christmas-card e f f e c t i f they imitate such u t t e r l y hopeless s t u f f . 1 5 William G i l l , Newton Highlands, Mass. In 1936, Carl Schaefer's paintings received more favourable c r i t i c a l attention than previously. Graham Mclnnes not only anticipates that he w i l l perhaps become Canada's most important landscape painter but also recognizes i n his paintings of t h i s year what has come 80 to be known since as his "regionalism"." 1"" In his summary of the season's a r t i s t i c a c t i v i t y , Mclnnes predicts that the future of Canadian painting l i e s i n the work c h i e f l y of David Milne, Carl Schaefer, Alexandre Bercovitch, F. H. Varley and Arthur Lismer and to a lesser extent John Lyman, Louis Muhlstock, Jack Humphrey, F r i t z Brandtner, Pegi Nicol and Paraskeva Clark. The following passage describes Carl Schaefer as a regional painter: Schaefer...a s k i l l e d and sensitive a r t i s t , and competent i n many media...has set out to paint what he sees about him, and to put l i f e and strength into the commonplace and the near-at-hand, transmuted by the a r t i s t ' s eye.17 His one-man show of watercolour paintings organized by Douglas Duncan was the f i r s t e x h ibition of the Picture Loan Society held i n January 1937. (The object of the Picture Loan Society was to make Canadian paintings more accessible to the Canadian public by renting the works on a monthly basis and putting the r e n t a l fee towards the purchase price i f the rentor chose to buy the work.) Purchases were rare during depression years so his sale that month to Douglas Duncan of Winter Landscape #2, Hanover, would have meant a great deal to an a r t i s t i n Carl Schaefer's poor f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n . As well, of course, recognition i n the form of a purchase was important moral support for an a r t i s t . Again Mclnnes gives him a 81 glowing review, though he stresses that his judgements on art are personal and the reader must decide for himself whether or not he agrees with him. He writes: Therefore when I say that Carl Schaefer i s the most important of our younger painters, and that his One Man Show at the Picture Loan Society...is an exhi b i t i o n that should not be missed, I am laying down no immutable law but merely expressing a personal belief.18 By the end of the decade he was an i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y recognized painter and engraver. In 1933 and 1936 he contributed wood engravings to the International Exhibition of Wood Engravings i n Poland. An o i l Spring Ploughing was entered i n an exhibition of contemporary a r t of the B r i t i s h Empire i n celebration of George VI's coronation i n 1937. In 1938 he contributed to the annual ex h i b i t i o n of the Royal Scottish Society of Painters i n Watercolour and i n the same year three works made up part of the exhibition A Century  of Canadian Art at the Tate Gallery i n London, England. Recognition of his success as a painter came i n 1940 when he became the f i r s t Canadian to receive the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship for Creative Painting. This was a great honour and with some additional f i n a n c i a l assistance from the Canadian art patron J. S. McLean, i t allowed him to spend his year 82 working i n Vermont."1"^ His move to Vermont marked the end of the Hanover paintings. Here, i n the r o l l i n g Vermont h i l l s , he was confronted with a very d i f f e r e n t countryside to that of Hanover. He studied lithography and printmaking at Dartmouth College i n New Hampshire under Ray Nash. His work that year produced watercolours, several o i l s as well as lithographs and etchings but as George Johnston has written: " . . . i t was the f i r s t year of the war and although he did some good paintings while he was away, he seemed to be f i n i s h i n g up an older time rather 20 than preparing himself for something new." On h i s return to Canada he joined the R.C.A.F. as a war a r t i s t and painted overseas from 1943 to 1945. Following the war he did not go back to Hanover to paint the country, skies and farms as he had i n the t h i r t i e s . 83 FOOTNOTES See Chapter I, pages for a f u l l e r discussion of the role of the Group of Seven i n Carl Schaefer's a r t i s t i c development. 2 Gray, Rand and Steen, Carl Schaefer, p. 8. 3 Fred Housser, "The Amateur Movement i n Canadian Painting," Yearbook of the Arts i n Canada, 1928-29, Bertram Brooker, Ed. (Toronto: The MacMillan Company of Canada Limited, 1929), 88. 4 Others i n t h i s group are George Pepper, Lowrie Warrener, Robert Ross, John Byers, Edward Drover and Edith Manning. 5 See Northward Journal: A Quarterly of Northern Arts, February 1979, p. 23-49 for the drawings from Carl Schaefer's Northern Ontario painting t r i p s . c Pearl McCarthy, "Ontario Society of A r t i s t s Exhibition Holds the Interest," The Mail and Empire, 2 March 1935, p. 5. 7 See page 39 for another quotation by Pearl McCarthy on Ontario Farmhouse. Q Lucy Van Gogh, "World of Art," Saturday Night, 9 March 1935, p. 15. g Graham Mclnnes, "World of Art," Saturday Night, 20 A p r i l 1935, p. 20. "^Pearl McCarthy, "Canadian Society Art E x h i b i t Opens," The Mail and Empire, 5 A p r i l 1935, p. 15. 1 1Graham Mclnnes, "World of Art," Saturday Night, 14 December 1935, p. 13. 12 Gray, Rand and Steen, Carl Schaefer. 13 Augustus B r i d l e , "'Canadian Group* Show Splendid but Unhumorous," Toronto Daily Star, 11 January 1936. 84 Graham Mclnnes, "World of Art," Saturday Night, 18 January 1936, p. 4. He refers to John Nash — t h i s must be a p r i n t i n g error for i t should be Paul Nash. lb William G i l l , "Quite Disappointed i n Canadian A r t ' " The Globe, 22 January 1936, p. 4. "^Graham Mclnnes, "World of Art - Watercolours," Saturday Night, 18 A p r i l 1936, p. 8. 17 Graham Mclnnes, "Thoughts on Canadian Art," Saturday Night, 1 August 1936, p. 11. 18 Graham Mclnnes, "World of Art," Saturday Night, 23 January 1937, p. 16. 19 Gray, Rand and Steen, Carl Schaefer, p. 26. 85 CHRONOLOGY This chronology covers the period with which t h i s thesis i s concerned, beginning with Carl Schaefer's f i r s t exhibition i n 1924 and ending with the year 1940 when he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship. 1924 - f i r s t e x hibition, F i r e H a l l , Hanover, Ontario 1925 on - contributed at least one drawing, p r i n t or o i l to the annual Ontario Society of A r t i s t s exhibitions 1927 on - contributed drawings and p r i n t s to the Ontario Society of Graphic Art exhibitions 1928 - i n v i t e d contributor to Group of Seven exhibition 1929 on - contributed to the Canadian National Exhibition annual exhibitions 1930 on - contributed to the National Gallery of Canada annual exhibitions of Canadian art 1931 - i n v i t e d contributor to Group of Seven exh i b i t i o n 1932 - E x h i b i t i o n by Young Canadians, Art Gallery of Toronto — David Milne, Paraskeva Clark, Caven Atkins, Carl Schaefer 1932 - i n v i t e d contributor, Royal Canadian Academy exhibition 1933 - contributed to F i r s t i n t e r n a t i o n a l Exposition of Wood Engraving, Poland 1933 on - contributed to exhibitions of the Canadian Society of Painters i n Watercolour 1933 - i n v i t e d contributor to the f i r s t e x h ibition of the Canadian Group of Painters 86 Six Canadian Painters, Art Gallery of Toronto — John Alfsen, Caven Atkins, Thoreau MacDonald, Pegi N i c o l , Robert Ross, Carl Schaefer in v i t e d contributor to Exhib i t i o n of Contemporary Canadian Art to Southern Dominions, c i r c u l a t e d by Carnegie Corporation, New York One Man Show of Watercolours, Picture Loan Society i n v i t e d contributor to Exhibition of Contemporary Art from Dominions of B r i t i s h Empire as part of George VI's coronation celebrations i n v i t e d contributor to 85th Annual E x h i b i t i o n Royal Scottish Society of Painters i n Watercolour, Edinburgh i n v i t e d contributor to A Century of Canadian Art, Tate Gallery, London in v i t e d contributor to Great Lakes E x h i b i t i o n , A l b r i g h t Art Gallery, Buffalo i n v i t e d contributor to 18th International Water-colour Exhibition, Art I n s t i t u t e of Chicago i n v i t e d contributor to Exhibitions of Canadian Art, New York's World Fair contributor to Canadian Group of Painters exhibition One Man Show, Picture Loan Society, Toronto Four Canadian A r t i s t s , Art Gallery of Toronto — David Milne, Caven Atkins, Paraskeva Clark and Carl Schaefer 87 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Abel l , Walter. "Canadian Aspirations i n Painting." Culture, 3 (1942), 172-182. Abell, Walter. "Neighbours to the North." Magazine of  Art, October 1942, pp. 209-11. Alford, John. "Trends i n Canadian Art." University of  Toronto Quarterly, January 1945, pp. 169-180. Ayre, Robert. "Canadian Group of Painters." The Canadian Forum, Vol. XIV, No. 159 (December 1933), 98-99. B a i g e l l , Matthew. The American Scene: American Painting  of the 19 30's. New York: Praeger, 19 74. Bauer, John I.H. Charles Burchfield. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1956. B e l l , Andrew. "Contemporary Canadian Water-Colours." The Studio, A p r i l 1952, pp. 106-111. B i e l e r , Andre. "On the Canadian Group of Painters: The Relation of the Emotional Content of a Picture to the Technical Means Employed to Express i t . " Maritime Art, 2 (April-May 1942), 118-123. Br i d l e , Augustus. "'Canadian Group' Show Splendid but Unhumorous." The Toronto Daily Star, 11 January 1936. B r i d l e , Augustus. "Many Gaze Calmly at Picture Exhibit." The Toronto Daily Star, 4 January 19 36, p. 17. Brooker, Bertram. "When We Awake." Yearbook of the Arts  i n Canada 1928-29. Ed. Bertram Brooker. Toronto: MacMillan, 1929. Brown, Milton W. American Painting from the Armory Show  to the Depression. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955. Buchanan, Donald W. "Carl Schaefer: Canadian Painter." The Studio, February 1942, p. 49. 88 Buchanan, Donald W. "Carl Schaefer: Regional Painter of Rural Ontario." Canadian Geographical Journal, 36 (April 1948), 200-201. Buchanan, Donald W. "Contemporary Painting i n Canada." The Studio, A p r i l 1945, pp. 98-111. Buchanan, Donald W. The Growth of Canadian Painting. Toronto and London: C o l l i n s , 1950. Buchanan, Donald W. "The Story of Canadian Art." Canadian Geographical Journal, Vol. XVII, No. 6 (December 1938), 273-282. Buchanan, Donald W. "Variations i n Canadian Landscape Painting." University of Toronto Quarterly, Vol. x, No. 1 (1940-41), 39-45. C a r r o l l , Joy. " A r t i s t i n Perspective: Carl Schaefer." Canadian Art, May-June 1965, pp. 38-40. "Carl Fellman Schaefer." Ontario Library Review...  Quarterly, August 1949. Clark, Paraskeva (as t o l d to G. Campbell Mclnnes). "Come out from behind the Pre-Cambrian Shield." New Frontier, Vol. I, No. 2 (April 1937) , 16-17. Duval, Paul. Four Decades. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Company, Limited, 1972. F a i r l e y , Barker. "Canadian Art: Man vs. Landscape." The Canadian Forum, Vol. XIX, No. 227 (December 1939), 284-286. Frye, Northrop. "Canadian Art i n London." The Canadian  Forum, Vol. XVIII, No. 216 (January 1939) , 304-305. Gagnon, Francois-M. "Painting i n Quebec i n the T h i r t i e s . " Journal of Canadian Art History, Vol. I l l , Nos. 1 & 2 ( F a l l 1976). G i l l , William. "Quite Disappointed i n Canadian Art." The Globe, 22 January 19 36, p. 4. 89 Gray, Margaret, Rand, Margaret, Steen, Lois. Carl  Schaefer. Toronto: Gage Publishing, 1 9 7 7 ^ Grier, E. Wyly. "Pictures at the Canadian National Exhibition." The Canadian Forum, Vol. XI, No. 122 (November 1930), 62-63. "Group of Seven issues statement defending aims." Montreal Gazette, 31 January 19 33. Harper, J. Russell, ed. Carl Schaefer Retrospective Exhibition. Paintings from 1926-1969. Montreal: S i r George Williams University, 1969. Harper, J. Russell. Painting i n Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1966. Harris, Lawren. Letter to Carl Schaefer, August 15, 19 36. In the Public Archives, Ottawa. Heller, Nancy and Williams, J u l i a . The Regionalists. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1976. H i l l , Charles C. Canadian Painting i n the T h i r t i e s . Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1975. Housser, Fred. "The Amateur Movement i n Canadian Painting." Yearbook of the Arts i n Canada, 192 8-29. Ed. Bertram Brooker. Toronto: MacMillan, 192 9. Hubbard, R. H. The Development of Canadian Art. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 196 3. Interview with Carl Schaefer. Toronto, 26 June 1976. Jackson, A. Y. Letter to H. 0. McCurry, 9 June (1938). In the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa. Jacob, Fred. "In the Art G a l l e r i e s . " The Mail and Empire, 18 February 1928, p. 21. Johnston, George. "Carl Schaefer." Canadian Art, March 1960, pp. 65-71 and 99. 90 Johnston, George. "Carl Schaefer: A r t i s t and Man." Queen's Quarterly, Vol. LXI, No. 3 (Autumn 1954), 345-352. Johnston, George. "Carl Schaefer: The French and Pi c k e r e l River Drawings, 1926-19 33." Northward  Journal: A Quarterly of Northern Arts, 13 (February 1979), 19-22. Kettle, R. G. "The Canadian Group." Queen's Quarterly, Vol. XLIII (Spring 1936), 78-81. Kettle, R. G. "Public versus Painters." Queen's Quarterly, Vol. XLIII (Summer 1936) , 186-192 . Lewis, Wyndham. "Canadian Nature and i t s Painters." Wyndham Lewis on Art: Collected Writings 1913-1956. New York: Fund & Wagnalls, 1969, pp. 425-429. Lismer, Arthur. "Art Appreciation." Yearbook of the Arts  in Canada, 1928-29. Ed. Bertram Brooker. Toronto: MacMillan, 1929. Lord, Barry. The History of Painting i n Canada: Toward  a People's Art. Toronto: NC Press, 1974. MacCallum, H. R. "The Group of Seven, a Retrospect." Queen's Quarterly, Vol. XI (May 1933), 242-252. McCarthy, Pearl. "Art and A r t i s t s . " The Globe and Mail, 2 8 March 19 38, p. 26. McCarthy, Pearl. "Canadian Group Canvases Explore New T e r r i t o r i e s . " The Mail and Empire, 3 November 1933, p. 5. McCarthy, Pearl. "Canadian Society Art Exhibit Opens." The Mail and Empire, 5 A p r i l 1935, p. 15. McCarthy, Pearl. "O.S.A. Exhibition Holds the Interest." The Mail and Empire, 3 March 19 35, p. 5. MacDonald, Thoreau. Letter to George Johnston, 26 February (about 1958). In the possession of George Johnston. 91 Mclnnes, Graham. "Canadian Art." Queen's Guarterly, Vol. XLV (Summer 19 38) , 2 39-24T: Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "Contemporary Canadian A r t i s t s . No. 1 - Carl Schaefer." The Canadian Forum, Vol. XVI, No. 193 (February 1937), 18-19. Mclnnes, Graham. A Short History of Canadian Art. Toronto: The MacMillan Company of Canada Limited, 1939. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "Thoughts on Canadian Art." Saturday Night, 1 August 1936, p. 11. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "Thoughts on Canadian Art." Yearbook of the Arts i n Canada 1936. Ed. Bertram Brooker. Toronto: The MacMillan Company of Canada Limited, 19 36. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "World of Art." Saturday Night, 20 A p r i l 1935, p. 20. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "World of Art." Saturday Night, 11 May 19 35, p. 6. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "World of Art." Saturday Night, 14 December 19 35, p. 13. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "World of Art." Saturday Night, 18 January 1936, p. 4. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "World of Art." Saturday Night, 21 March 19 36, p. 10. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "World of Art: Water Colors." Saturday Night, 18 A p r i l 1936, p. 8. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "The World of Art." Saturday  Night, 23 January 1937, p. 16. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "The World of Art." Saturday  Night, 10 A p r i l 1937, p. 20. Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "World of Art." Saturday Night, 14 December 19 37. 92 Mclnnes, G. Campbell. "New Horizons i n Canadian Art." New Frontier, June 1937, pp. 19-20. Nasgaard, Roald. Paper on Regionalism delivered at UAAC, Toronto, February 19 75. Nash, Paul. Outline: an autobiography and other writings. London: Faber & Faber Ltd., 1949. Newton, E r i c . "Canadian Art Through English Eyes." The Canadian Forum, Vol. XVIII, No. 217 (February 1939), 344-345. Reid, Dennis. A Concise History of Canadian Painting. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1973. Robert McLaughlin Gallery. Carl Schaefer, paintings  1932-1976. Oshawa, 1976. Salinger, Jehanne Bietry. "The Academy Show." The Canadian Forum, Vol. XI, No. 123 (December 1930), 101-102. Salinger, Jehanne Bietry. "A Canadian P a r a l l e l i n Art." The Canadian Forum, Vol. XII, No. 139 (April 1932), 266-261. Salinger, Jehanne Bietry. "Comment on Art." The Canadian Forum, Vol. XII, No. 135 (December 1931), ]02. Salinger, Jehanne Bietry. "Comment on Art. The Group of Seven." The Canadian Forum, Vol. XII, No. 136 (January 1932), 142-143. Salinger, Jehanne Bietry. "One More Exhibition." The Canadian Forum, Vol. X i , No. 127 (April 1931) , 261-262 . Schaefer, Car l . Accomplishments 3: Record of Career as  a Student of~Art and as a Creative Worker. Schaefer, Car l . Biographical Statement. Schaefer, C a r l . "Carl Schaefer i n Hanover." Update. Edmonton Art Gallery, Vol. 1, No. 2 (March/April 1980). 93 Schaefer, Car. "Painting Expeditions North, 1926 & 192 7; Lower French/Pickerel River." Northward Journal:  A Quarterly of Northern Arts, 13 (February 19 7 9 ) , 51 - 57. Schaefer, C a r l . "A P o r t f o l i o of Drawings." Northward Journal: A Quarterly of Northern Arts, 13 (February 1979") , 22-49. Schaefer, C a r l . "Water Colour as a Painting Medium." Maritime Art, 3 (April-May 1943), 110,111,125 and 131. Underhill, Frank. "The Season's New Books," rev. of Yearbook of the Arts i n Canada 19 36, ed. Bertram Brooker. The Canadian Forum, Vol. XVI, No. 191 (December 1936), 27-28. Van Gogh, Lucy. "World of Art." Saturday Night, 9 March 19 35, p. 15. Van Gogh, Lucy. "World of Art." Saturday Night, 17 November 1934, p. 11. Varley, Christopher. Carl Schaefer i n Hanover. The Edmonton Art Gallery, 19 80. Wood, Elizabeth Wyn. "Art and the Pre-Cambrian Shield." The Canadian Forum, Vol. XVI, No. 19 3 (February 1937) , 13-14. Woodcock, George. "There are no universal landscapes." Artscanada, October-November 19 78, pp. 37-42. 2 Carl Schaefer, The River, Winter, Hanover, 1926 o i l , C o l l . A r t i s t 4 Carl Schaefer, The Voelzing Farmhouse, 1934 watercolour, National Gallery, Ottawa 96 5 Carl Schaefer, Drawing of the Voelzing Farmhouse, 1932 pen drawing, C o l l . G. Johnston, Quebec 6 Carl Schaefer, Storm over the F i e l d s , 1937 o i l , Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto 8 Carl Schaefer, Moon over the Don J a i l , 1938 Watercolour, Private C o l l e c t i o n 9 Charles Burchfield, The Edge of Town, 1921-41 Watercolour, Atkins Museum 10 Carl Schaefer, Rain Cloud over the F i e l d s , Waterloo  County, 1964, Watercolour, C o l l . A r t i s t 11 Carl Schaefer, Farmhouse by the Railway, 1938-39 O i l , Art Gallery of Hamilton, Hamilton 12 Carl Schaefer, Before Rain, Parry Sound, 1937 Watercolour, Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto 14 Katsushika Hokusai, Mount F u j i i n Fine Weather, c. 1825 Colour P r i n t , Atami Museum, Shizuoka-Ken 15 Carl Schaefer, Wheatfield, Hanover, 1936 O i l , National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa 16 Carl Schaefer, F a l l Ploughing at Schomberg, 1937 Watercolour, Art Gallery o f Ontario, Toronto 102 18 Carl Schaefer, R.R. No. 3, Hanover, 1936 Watercolour, Hart House, University of Toronto, Toronto 103 19 Carl Schaefer, Concession Road, Township Bentinck, Hanover, 1937, Watercolour, Private C o l l e c t i o n , Vancouver 20 Carl Schaefer, View of Hanover, 1937 Watercolour, Parkwood, Oshawa 104 iBTKil/AflMiMCwm Wonn./ar Tnwnvhin Rontinrk drnv Cmmtv .Iiilv ?ft 1938 21 Carl Schaefer, The Voelzing Farm, Hanover, Township Bentinck, Grey County, 1938, Watercolour, C o l l . A r t i s t 22 Carl Schaefer, Wheat Stooks No. 2, Hanover, 1939 Watercolour, Anon. C o l l e c t i o n 105 23 Carl Schaefer, Wire Fence, Hanover, 1937 O i l , University College, University of Toronto, Toronto 24 Carl Schaefer, The Brunt Barns, Hanover, 1937 Watercolour, C o l l . M. & R. Schwass, Toronto 25 Carl Schaefer, Harvest F e s t i v a l , 1936 O i l , Pickering College, Newmarket 26 Carl Schaefer, S t i l l L i f e with Landscape, 1939 Watercolour, C o l l . A r t i s t 27 Carl Schaefer, Yellow Apples on a F a l l Landscape, 1939 Watercolour, National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa 28 Carl Schaefer, Apples, 1933 Watercolour, C o l l . L. P. Harris, S a c k v i l l e , N.B. 108 29 Carl Schaefer, Pears, 1934 Watercolour, Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto 30 Carl Schaefer, Eggplant and Peppers, 1938 Watercolour, C o l l . Mr. & Mrs. L. Buckby, Ottawa Paul Cezanne, S t i l l L i f e with Apples and Oranges, 1895-1900, O i l , The Louvre, Paris Charles Demuth, Eggplant and Tomatoes, 1926 Watercolour 110 ~~33 Carl Schaefer, S t i l l L i f e , 1938 Watercolour, C o l l . Mrs. Pearson, Ottawa 34 Carl Schaefer, Rock and Pines, Pickerel River, 1927 Pen Drawing 35 Carl Schaefer, Late Sun and O a t f i e l d s , 1939 Watercolour, Dept. of External A f f a i r s 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094893/manifest

Comment

Related Items