Pictured is an artwork by Georgia O’Keefe. Photo provided.

By Dee Anna Muraski

This week and next, with the help of Dee Anna Muraski, we will explore a new direction in art with you. Here is an excellent two-week series on modern art offered to us by Muraski.

If we take a broad-brush stroke to the 1900s, it is interesting what appears. America was flush with innovation and tumultuous times. They seemed to be at odds with themselves on one side, yet catapulted to greatness on the other, possibly due to these constraints. Prohibition and women’s suffrage were dichotomies pulling our citizens to extremes. They also had a president who was assassinated and the successor suffered a stroke. They were young teenagers trying to make their mark but not sure where to passionately fling that falling arrow.

Thus, it is no surprise that during this time of innovation, riots and vast change — we saw the birth of modern art. Experts do not agree on the exact beginning of modern art; however, earliest estimates are 1860. But they do agree modern art evolved. There are many derivatives of “modern art;” yet generally this means a break from the older traditions of art: the subject, how the subject appears, the technique, where the painting happens, what it is painted on and how it is painted. Tradition might dictate a staged painting of two females in dresses by a window, using oil paints, painted inside on canvas while using typical brush strokes. Conversely, a modern art piece at the time could be a subject of wildly different colors, painted outside and using paint thrown on the canvas.

Europe was a hub of the modern art movement and it was introduced to America by a young, restless female named Georgia O’Keeffe. In 2014, one of her paintings sold at auction for $44.4 million, holding a record for the highest amount paid to a female artist. A record she previously held was when her artwork of calla lilies sold for $6.2 million in 2001. Interestingly, O’Keeffe was classically educated and trained in art, which allowed her to stretch the boundaries of what she knew. I believe she realized at this time that art was not just a reproduction of what she saw in front of her but rather her interpretation. This can be very individual for each of us dependent upon our life experience, age and education. But what an amazing impact that can have on the lens we use to view everything.

Another influencer in those times was Alfred Stieglitz, a prominent photographer who later became O’Keeffe’s publicist and husband. Photography afforded her the ability to see how an item looked from a very close perspective, which changed the vantage point dramatically. Not surprisingly, she first received notoriety for being the nude model for many of Stieglitz’s photography exhibits in the early 1900s.

Much to her chagrin, due to this association, her early artwork, though quite innocent, was immediately construed as sexually explicit. There was another reason this bothered her, as she believed her art had synesthesia, which was the ability to associate colors with emotion. Thus, soft, slow music and tranquil feelings might produce blue and green images in those having this capability. However, in resolve, she did end up painting a series of watercolor self-portrait nudes.

While we would be hard-pressed to think of a 100-year-old item that still functions unfettered in its original condition, Georgia O’Keefe’s original color abstractions from 1915 to 1917 could possibly be more popular now than at their inception. That’s not too bad for being 100 years old. Next week, we will take a look at the rest of O’Keefe’s impressive 60-year career in art.