Commentary: The Second Coming of Arshile Gorky

In his short life, Gorky endured much: he developed colon cancer and underwent surgery, a car accident broke his shoulder, and a fire in his studio scorched some 20 paintings. As if these series of tragedies were not enough, his wife, Agnes, ran away from their home, taking their two daughters, whom Gorky adored. Adding insult to injury, she had an affair with one of his artist friends, Matta Echaurren, which was quite an affront to an Armenian male from Van.

Artists are called “sacred monsters.” We don’t know what transpired in the family. Picasso was no less a monster towards his women, but at least one of the women endured for life. Gorky was not that lucky with his wife, whom he lovingly called “Mougouch;” she selfishly abandoned him with the two children during his tragedies. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Gorky committed suicide by hanging himself at the age of 48.

Some friends, who had bought his paintings for $25 as an act of charity, sold them later for millions. Today Gorky is unreachable on the art market; his widow enjoys his estate, hopefully with clear conscience.

An Armenian novelist, Sarkis Vahakn, has written a lively novel based on Gorky’s life, which provides superb material for a movie screenplay.

Gorky eventually emerged as a defining artist of the 20th century. Very recently four books were published exploring many aspects of his art, his personality and his impact on the 20th- century American artistic  movements. The (London) Times Literary Supplement has reviewed three of those books in its April 23, 2010 issue, very appropriately coinciding with the 95th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Those books are the following: Abstract Expressionism and the American Experience, by Irving
Sandler, Arshile Gorky — A Retrospective, Tate Modern, Rethinking Arshile Gorky, by Kim. S. Theriault, Arshile Gorky, Matthew Spender, editor (the late Gorky’s son-in-law).

Conspicuously missing in this series is Michael Taylor’s outstanding
catalog for the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s Gorky retrospective.
Perhaps that is the most comprehensive volume on the artist doing justice to his life story, his origins from the cradle of the Armenian civilization (Van). Michael Taylor’s introduction, accompanying essays, the bibliography and the serious themes of all writings are on par with Gorky’s art. But we don’t find a review in the Times Literary Supplement. However, the reviewer Kelly Grover, does not mince the words like the folks at Tate. One paragraph is enough to demonstrate the respect towards historic truth
and the artist’s legacy. Thus Grover writes: “How did America snap out its instinctive provincialism and create a new global voice in art? Among the most imaginations at work was that of an Armenian refugee who arrived as a teenager at Ellis Island in 1920 in search of his father. Born Vostanig Manoog Adoian, the gifted young draughtsman had been displaced by the century’s first recorded genocide, which claimed his mother’s life.”

The Philadelphia retrospective was hailed in the art world as an epoch-making event. The exhibition moved to Tate Gallery in London to be subjected to the British colonial arrogance and condescension over smaller nations. Indeed giving in to pressures of Turkish denialists, Tate has placed a shameful disclaimer in the catalog and the website in the following text in part: “The texts associated with the exhibition are careful to qualify the emotive term ‘genocide’ in relation to the tumultuous experiences of Arshile Gorky’s early life. We are aware that the British Government has found no pre-meditation and that, therefore, the wartime events of 1915 do not constitute a ‘genocide’ in the legal definition. However, we are also aware that other bodies, including the European Parliament, have reached a different conclusion. We recognise that the ways in which the events have been described and the histories written remain contentious, and it was for these reasons that we described them as ‘widely held to be a genocide’
in recognition of their differing reception.”

Of course many Armenians have reacted with indignation, among them celebrities like Atom Egoyan, to this outdated patronizing attitude towards one of history’s most documented tragedies.

A powerful letter was sent by the past president of the International Association of genocide Scholars Prof. Gregory Stanton to Sir Nicholas Serota, director of Tate Gallery, and to Matthew Gale, the curator, in which he condemns the scandalous politicization of art and history in the following terms: “Contrary to the statement in your disclaimer, the British government has never stated that it has ‘found no-premeditation and that therefore, the wartime events of 1915 do not constitute a ‘genocide’ in
the legal definition.’ In fact, the House of Lords in 1915, using evidence
from a report written by Lord Bryce and the great historian
Arnold Toynbee, accused the Ottoman Empire of ‘making government
by massacre part of their political system,’ and of ‘systematically
exterminating a whole race out of their domain.’

“British Foreign Ministers Arthur Balfour and Lord Curzon, and Prime Minister David Lloyd George were instrumental in creating the tribunals that convicted the Young Turk triumvirate — Talaat, Enver and Jemal — of ‘massacres of hundreds of thousands of their own subjects’ which reduced the Armenian population ‘by well over a million.’ The trials of these ‘crimes against humanity,’ as the British government called them, proved the key charge of ‘premeditated mass murder.’ … So the statement in your disclaimer that ‘the British government has found no pre-meditation and
that, therefore, the wartime events of 1915 do not constitute a ‘genocide’ in the legal definition’ is false. The disclaimer must be removed from the exhibit.”

As we can see with the second coming of Arshile Gorky as a world class artist, controversy is also stirred because of his turbulent life, shared by the small nation, who has given birth to a true genius.

Gorky was the product of Genocide, and his work was indelibly impacted by that calamity, whether British high-brows would admit it or not.

In view of this violent firestorm, whatwould Gorky think and do, finding
his legacy shamefully adulterated by Genocide denialists?

Perhaps he would hang himself once again.