Reflective Paper: The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas

In the chapter entitled “Gertrude Stein In Paris”, Gertrude Stein writes of her experiences living and socializing with the artists in Paris, all while working on her own writing. This writing takes on a unique reflection, as Stein writes this story from the point of view of her lover, Alice B. Toklas. The result is a piece of writing in which the reader sees Gertrude Stein as she sees herself, through the retelling of various anecdotes involving famous artists, such as Picasso and Matisse. 

While Stein wrote her book Three Lives in Paris, the artists that she was socializing with were also creating new, innovate work. Stein tells a story of purchasing a painting from Matisse when he was a struggling artist, and how that lead to her friendship with the Matisse family. Stein also had the opportunity to pose for a Picasso painting. In addition, she writes of being present when Picasso and Braque met, the two of whom would go on to pioneer the cubism movement. Clearly, Stein was exposed to an abundance of art that challenged previous traditions by introducing new forms of representations; the effects of this exposure are seen through the writing of Gertrude Stein.

The cubism movement established by Picasso and Braque began as these two artists were exploring new ways of representing the world they observed. Rather than replicate the image they viewed onto their canvas, these artists choose to deconstruct the objects they observed and represent them from multiple viewpoints. In this way, the objects became subjective and reflected the view of the artist. In Gertrude Stein’s writing, she is implementing this template of deconstruction toward literature.

Traditional literary form dictates that an autobiographical account be told from the first-person point of view through the use of “I”. In The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, Stein represents her experiences from a new perspective. Through descriptions of herself, such as “This pleased Gertrude Stein immensely, she did not believe that any one could read anything she wrote and be interested. In those days she never asked any one what they thought of her work, but were they interested enough to read it,” the reader sees Gertrude Stein from a new perspective. The way Stein perceives herself becomes an additional layer to the retelling of these stories.

To make matters more convoluted, occasionally Stein uses the first person and tells a story as Alice B. Toklas observing her. For example, “I have heard Picasso and Gertrude Stein talk about it often and neither of them can remember... As I say Gertrude Stein and Pablo Picasso immediately understood each other.” In this passage, the reader is learning how Gertrude Stein perceives her lover, Alice B. Toklas, to perceive Stein. This form of storytelling adds a unique perspective to the writing of Stein. Through these multiple viewpoints, Stein is mirroring the cubist approach in her literature.

In an odd way, Gertrude Stein aligns herself closer to the reader through her distant approach to the telling of these stories. Through detaching herself from her own experiences and observing them as a third party, Stein joins the reader in viewing this aspirational world as a voyeur. The reader and Stein both experience this world as an outsider looking in. Through this exploration of new forms, Gertrude Stein is changing the way she sees her past, and the way the reader sees Gertrude Stein.

Reflective Paper: A Fine Disregard

Through A Fine Disregard, Kirk Varnedoe tackles the complex issue of explaining the genesis of modern art. Modern art, as explained by Varnedoe in the text, began with the rejection of traditional aesthetic practices in favor of exploring new ways of communication. This movement pushed art from the literal into the realm of abstraction. Varnedoe repeats the argument made by many art historians that there was a sense of predestination to this movement. Proponents of this argument see the current aesthetic practices as superior to the former practices, and view the modern art movement as a product of “the most advanced intellectual spirit of its time and place.” In this sense, the progression of art has a logical sense and it’s development can be tracked and predicted. Varnedoe rejects this argument as ignorant of the complexity of art; the idea of predestination does little justice to the innovation that begat modern art.

In addition to rejecting the argument of predestination, Varnedoe also discusses the argument on the opposite side of the spectrum: Modern art was not a product of the search for a superior aesthetic, but rather a response to the social conditions of the time. This argument has basis in that behind a piece of art there is an intention to express a viewpoint. Similar themes across art by the same artist give the observer a sense of the ideologies of the artist. Varnedoe accepts this argument as having more validity than the previous, but still finds discongruity between the argument and the art. This argument does not explain the pursuit of new forms characteristic of early modern art. Varnedoe explains that “if literalism and critical precision were the aims, certainly these artists were foolish to pursue them in terms of unfamiliar and often willfully illegible, nonreferencial new forms.” The new forms became a device to respond to social conditions, but the new forms did not emerge because they needed to fill that role. Again, this argument overly simplifies the modern art movement.

Instead of accepting these previous explanations for the beginning of modern art, Varnedoe chooses to speak in more vague terms about this story. Varnedoe speaks about a “frame of mind” that was essential in propelling this movement. When artists did not feel as restricted to follow traditions, they allowed themselves to explore the options that were always available to them, but never acted upon. The specific aesthetics cultivated during early modern art were not as important as the willingness to experiment beyond the previously established confines. Varnedoe also mentions that the environment around the artists played a large role in encouraging this movement. The readiness of the observers to accept new forms created an “interplay between the possibilities a culture offered, and those it proved willing to accept.” This interplay drove the evolution of the modern art movement.

Defining a movement with such expansive and diverse qualities like modern art proves to be a difficult task. While Varnedoe rejects many explanations for how modern art began, he offers little of his own explanation for why modern art began at that specific moment in time. Varnedoe gives detailed information on how the movement progressed and the creative environment it created; however, it seems he believes the origin to be simply someone tried it and it worked. Perhaps there is no rational justification beyond what is stated by Varnedoe, but his lack of addressing the issue he continues to raise makes the writing feel incomplete. Varnedoe speaks briefly about how modern art should be viewed as a product of evolution, much like the natural world, but again his analogy is missing its “big bang theory” to explain its primary source. A Fine Disregard may never answer these questions, but it successfully articulates the importance of the modern art movement and gives good reason why these questions should be addressed.