Nr. 4 (21) anul VI / octombrie-decembrie 2008 - ROMDIDAC

EX PONTO NR.4, 2008
116
become well known to American readers even before the 1926 exhibition
and the scandal stirred up the American public and excited the press. From
1913 to 1929, the American press dedicated an important number of articles
to Brâncu[i’s art. The first series published between 1913 and 1924 focused
primarily on his modernist aesthetics; the second series from 1926 to 1929
and after tried to justify his excessive modernist ideas through his embedded
Romanian identity.
Bird in Space, 1923
New York Times was one of the broadly read
newspapers which reviewed his exhibitions wherever they
were organized, New York or Paris. Although its readers
might have found the continuous reference to Brâncu[i’s
origin redundant, both the anonymous chroniclers and the
critics who signed their articles repeated at some point in
their texts that the modernist sculptor was Romanian. The
October 3, 1926 issue published the article New York’s
Statues Called Ridiculous in which the columnist quoted
Brâncu[i’s opinions about American architecture and
sculptures in public places. While he praised the New York
architecture as “poetic,” “modern,” and “beautiful,” he called
its sculptures “ridiculous” and in complete disharmony with
their context. It would not take long before his own pieces
would be declared “Kitchen utensils,” in their turn. The man
who dared to criticize American public art is presented as:
“Brâncu[i is short, has iron-gray hair and wears a bushy
beard. He was born Rumanian, but has been working at
his art for the last twenty-five years in Paris.” It seems that the author of the
text tried to excuse his rudeness by referring to his “barbaric” origin. For this
category of reviewers, the Romanian sculptor together with the French artists
in his group were the others, not only in specific terms of aesthetics, but also
in the more general terms of morals and culture. 9
One month later, L.K. came back to the same topic of New York architecture
and skyline, as seen through the eyes of the Romanian sculptor: “I couldn’t
have done better.” At the end of November 1928, a short note about the
Romanian artist appeared in New York Times under the title Brâncu[i Work
Duty Free. The reiteration of his origin maintained the indirect references
to Romanian identity in the public eye as long as Brâncu[i’s works were
contested, admired, commented on, or simply mentioned. 10
Conclusion
In the long run, Romanian identity in the United States has been borne
by Romanian folk costumes and the art of Brâncu[i. The fact that famous
American museum such as the MOMA and the Philadelphia Museum of Art
have in their permanent collections valuable pieces by Brâncu[i maintains
Romanian identity culturally alive for those interested in arts. Continuing the
dream of American collectors, John Quinn and Louise and Walter Arensberg,
these museums preserve and exhibit the most precious aspect of Romanian