Leon Golub

(American, 1922-2004)


Abstract Expressionist Oil Painting of Delacroix Greece on the Ruins of Missolonghi





Oil on Canvas
35 3/4 x 25
Signed (lower right) Leon Golub and tilted "DX" and dated '59 on reverse

New Notes

I purchased what I believe to be an important original painting by abstract expressionist Leon Golub.


It’s worth noting – Byrd is correct. In this instance he did not paint a “woman”. Rather, he created his abstract interpretation of Delacroix’s piece…which happened to use a woman to personify the horror of men – a central theme to Golub’s future works.





Introduction

Following is an analysis regarding a unique artwork that appears to be an abstract representation after Eugene Delacroix’s “Greece Expiring on the Ruins of Missolonghi” by Leon Golub from 1959.

It wasn't until the 1980s that painter Leon Golub, born in Chicago in 1921, achieved fame with his vigorous pictures of death squads, torturers, student riots and mercenaries. As an artist unafraid to tackle political themes, to criticize U.S. policies at home and abroad, Golub merits attention. Regrettably, he is not well served by this pretentious, verbose critique-cum-personality profile. Marzorati, an editor of Harper's , treats his own gradual discovery of Golub's art and life as a central theme, as well as the book's organizing principle; the device distracts from his occasional insights. He places Golub in a continuum of "liberal artists" from Goya onward who confront cruelty. A running interview with Golub is the book's saving grace. Illustrations not seen by PW. Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

The paint color
The method of application
The very unique application of paint
Appropriate age of paints & canvas
Golub wasn’t faked at that time
The subject
The highly distinctive method of paint application and coloring is consistent with Golub’s works from this period, the corresponding age and condition of the original canvas and stretchers plus the use of a classical subject known to be available and appealing to Golub in France during 1959 make this assumption seem especially valid.

Equally important is the incredible skill associated with all the representations in this piece.

The use of a woman…appears wrong at first glance.
However…women were used…
Eyes cast away


Wrong

Provenance
The figuration



Art Fact Sheet

Medium: Appears to be both lacquer and oil on canvas

Size: 35 ¾ x 25 ¼



Signed & Titled: L/R “Golub” in a manner consistent with his recognized signature (See example at right). Also, there appears to be additional lettering above this signature consistent with the inscription on the reverse of the canvas (‘DX…’59).

Dated & Titled: ’59 on reverse plus a notation of “DX”

Provenance: Artwork was first acquired at an estate sale in Queens, New York in 2008.





Condition: Paint loss around some edges: difficult to tell if all of this is from handling damage or the artist’s hand as he often scraped & sometimes left bare various parts of his paintings. No signs of any repairs or in-painting under black light.

Leon Golub:
Distinct Method of Painting



Perhaps the most noted aspect of Golub’s artworks was his distinctive application of paint. Golub likened his process to that of a sculptor – chipping away from a resistant stone, then rebuilding, expanding, repairing, and creating – until the desired image was achieved. It is because of this technique and his ties to classicism that Golub’s works appear as aged historical perspectives – even in the face of timely events.

“As a young painter after the Second World War…Golub did not go the route of abstraction, although his early work shared some of the techniques and formal concerns of the Abstract Expressionists. Like Pollock, he took to pouring paint onto unstretched canvas on the ground, and then scraped it to achieve a distressed surface that mimics the appearance of ancient sculpture: broken, fragmented, pock-marked, eroded.”



“An important aspect of Golub’s painting from this period is the completely encrusted and corroded surface that configures the form as a scarred and wounded body. These fissured surfaces resulted in part from Golub pressing two canvases together white the paint was still in a fluid state – at the time the medium was lacquer, paint and solvent – and, after leaving them in this position for several hours, peeling them apart and then further degrading the image with solvent and scraping.”



“He depicted images of colossal nude men engaged in inexplicable, timeless, ritualized struggle. These monumental figures continuously emerge from and dissolve into the surface of the paint, and bespeak a spirit of human resistance in the face of overwhelming natural forces. Golub was interested in the eternal, the quintessentially human. Hence also his frequent depiction of the sphinx, since it poses the questions: what is it to be man, what is it to be beast?

Golub & Delacroix

Leon Golub lived in France from 1959 to 1964. It was during this time that Golub became heavily influenced by classical art as a basis for the representation of war – and the seemingly endless violence on the part of man. Golub had always been a student of historical representation in his artworks and “Golub’s penchant for classical models is an important signature”. However, it was during this time in France – against the backdrop of the Algerian War – that Golub merged these historical values into his own sense of “battle art”.



In Echo’s of the Real, Golub’s friend & biographer Jon Bird explains: “In particular, the tradition of French history painting was to become a singular reference for Golub’s own project of historical narration…in Baroque allegories and in the French Romanticism – Delacroix’s battle and hunt scenes and Géricault’s Raft of the Medusa”. It was this specific reference from Bird to the influences of Delacroix upon Golub that led to the deduction that the DX notation on the reverse of this artwork was in reference to a Delacroix artwork.

Did Golub do another Delacroix inspired piece?

Delacroix’s Greece Expiring was that artist’s second work in support of the Greeks in their war for independence – this time referring to the capture of Missolonghi by Turkish forces in 1825. “With a restraint of palette appropriate to the allegory, Greece Expiring on the Ruins of Missolonghi displays a woman in Greek costume with her breast bared, arms half-raised in an imploring gesture before the horrible scene: the suicide of the Greeks, who chose to kill themselves and destroy their city rather than surrender to the Turks. A hand is seen at the bottom, the body having being crushed by rubble. The whole picture serves as a monument to the people of Missolonghi and to the idea of freedom against tyrannical rule.”

The essence of the female subject’s role in this artwork: as both the victim & symbol of tyranny from men and their wars might explain why it piqued Golub’s interest.

It should be noted that the existence of this newfound painting from 1959 is in direct conflict to a reference by Jon Bird regarding Golub’s Birth paintings of 1956-57: “These images are amongst the few representations of the female form in Golub’s oeuvre (another does not occur until the central tortured female victim on interrogation II 1981…) However, in Leon Golub and Nancy Spero: War & Memory – Golub is specifically quoted as saying: “Images of women have played a very small role. There were birth paintings and several other paintings early on and throughout the years. Women have appeared in a male world in which men fight these battles and assume control. Always assuming control.”
Artwork Analysis

Key Observations

1. 1. The Pose: This is the most obvious indicator of the representation of Delacroix’s Greece Expiring…the gesture of the open arms in response to the horror of mass suicide.
2. 2. The Stone: Its position & coloring are totally consistent with Delacroix’s piece.
3. 3. The Knee: Its bent position – resting on the stone is consistent with Delacroix.
4. 4. The Blue Coat: The royal blue coloring…rather unique to Golub’s color palette at that time seems a key representation of the lady’s coat.
5. 5. The Veil: The heavier encrustation & ivory coloring plus the hair length are consistent. (See close-up photo on page 10)
6. 6. The Blood Splattered Loose Stone:
7. 7. The Dark “Shading”:
8. 8. Dead Soldier’s Arm: Show side-by-side lower photo comparisons to illuminate the hand. I’m assuming the dark “line” beginning under the right leg / ankle represents the dead arm of the soldier.
9. 9. The Dead Soldier’s Arm: I’m assuming the dark “line” beginning under the right leg / ankle represents the dead arm of the soldier.
10. 10. The Turkish Soldier: There appears to be an abstracted human form in the upper right corner / area which might represent the original Turkish soldier with a spear – from the Delacroix painting.

• •

• The unique color scheme of yellows, reds & oranges is consistent with other pieces from this period of Golub’s work. The photo to the right is a painting from 1959 included at Artnet.com in its comprehensive analysis of Golub’s works. The 1958 artwork on the left is from a photo included in Echo’s of the Real.
• • Show yellow & other one
• • + golub beside it
• • Eyes turned away…during this phase of Golub’s creation, the eyes of his male subjects are piercing…always forward. Quote him on women. Thus, makes sense he would have turned her away from the viewer.

• •
• • Application of paint…describe from books
• • Check…both acrylic & enamel…he used both at that time?
• • Appropriate aging
• • In 59…Golub wasn’t that important…nobody would copy him…same paint color + subject he admired ++
• • Stretchers the same + side nails? Hunter visit
• • DX & 59…same written style?
• •
• •

• The size of this painting, although smaller – is to the exact scale of the Delacroix painting: This Golub piece measures 90.5 x 64 cm…the Delacroix measures 208 x 147cm.
• • Uniquely, when compared to his paintings of male subjects during this same period – the subject’s eyes are not cast forward upon the viewer. This could be a repercussion of the subject being a woman.
• •

• The Delacroix “signature”: Delacroix signed his original painting on the edge of stone where the lady’s right foot is situated. You’ll note that the distinctive “E” (Eugene) and abbreviated first-name in Delacroix’s signature style appears to be duplicated in cursive under the lady’s right foot / on the stone – in this abstract representation. There also appears to be something else written in cursive to the left of the “E-signature” – it remains undecipherable at this time.
• • Additionally, there appears to be a “27” (with a European-styled half slash through the numeral seven) above that Delacroix signature – which would represent the date which Delacroix’s work completed (1827).
• • Hand of a master – this work is very complex. It took several months of viewing before I caught all its nuances
• •

• •

• There is a numeral “5” carved into the paint near the bottom-middle of this painting beneath the rendition of Delacroix’s signature. I’m not certain if this notation refers in some manner to the Delacroix original or if it was something unique to Leon Golub: perhaps it was first planned as a sequence of works – as with the Burnt Man series of 1960. It could also relate to the heart-shape found at Golub’s signature.

1. 1. Both used extensive “red” coloring upon the hands & face of the woman as a symbolic representation of the abuse of power / horror.
2. 2. The shape & light of the moon in the upper corner stands out more distinctly when you examine these two modern representations side-by-side.
3. 3. In the Golub work, it seems easier to notice the ivory-colored turban & sash-belt of the abstracted Turkish soldier when it’s presented next to the Caulfield work.

Top of Form
Bottom of Form

Top of Form
Bottom of Form

Artwork Images

Artwork Images

Artwork Images

Artwork Images

Artwork Images