LEO'S LESSONS

Author(s): Robert V. Storr

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Source: Notes in the History of Art, Vol. 31/32, No. 4/1, SPECIAL ISSUE IN MEMORY
OF LEO STEINBERG (1920-2011) (Summer 2012/Fall 2012), pp. 61-69
Published by: Ars Brevis Foundation, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41552788 .
Accessed: 31/01/2013 09:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Ars Brevis Foundation, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Source:
Notes in the History of Art.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:33:51 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LEO'S LESSONS
RobertV. Sten-
The portalsand cloistersof Moissac are
betterthanwhatcan be said of them.To
be withthemis to be happyindeed.And
to studytheirdetails is to live in perpet-
ual discoveryand pride.
- Meyer Schapiro,in a letterto his
wife,Dr. Lillian Milgram (1929)
Even thoughmy only advanced degree is a
Masterof Fine Artsin PaintingfromtheArt
Instituteof Chicago, I considermyselffairly
well educated.In today's world,however, I
would no longerbe eligible formanyof the
academic and museumjobs thatI was lucky
enough to get before the tyrannyof the
Ph.D. became nearlyabsolute.In explaining
how and where I learned whateverI have
managed to learn, the third volume of
Maxim Gorky's memoirs comes to mind.
Gorkyironicallyentitledhis account of his
early life My Universities.Following My
Childhood and the equally ironic My Ap-
prenticeship,it tells of his trainingin the
school of hardknocksin czaristRussia. My
upbringingwas not as harsh,but my intel-
lectualcomingof age, in manyrespects,was
comparablyhaphazard. Thus, "My univer-
sities" largely consisted of the bookstores
and libraries where I was employed, my
minimal wages paying for the studio art
classes that were my primaryobject. My
seminars and tutorialswere the extended
conversationsI engaged in withpatronsin
the course of doing routinebusiness with
them:locating and orderingbooks, selling
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:33:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
them the TLS or the NYRB, and generally
playing the role of informedmiddlemanin
theirpursuitof knowledge.My interlocutors
included Saul Bellow, Daniel Boorstin,
Lerone Bennett, Mircea Eliade, Roman
Jakobson,Octavio Paz, and a hostof less fa-
mous but equally impressive writersand
scholars.Such easy acquaintancewithgreat
mindswas a bit like thatof a bartenderwith
his "regulars."Since therewere few bars in
the neighborhoods in which I plied my
trade,my chance to listenwas increasedby
thelack of competition,while thequalityof
thetalk was enhanced by greatersobriety.
Precocious exposureto such literatecom-
pany emboldened me to seek it out laterin
life. While an undergraduate,I attendeda
lectureby a youngarthistorianthenteaching
at the University of Pennsylvania- Leo
Steinberg.His talk,directfromthepages of
a yet-to-be-published collection of his es-
says, Other Criteria: Confrontationswith
Twentieth-Century (1972), was on Pablo
Art
Picasso's reinterpretations of Eugne Dela-
croix's paintingLes Femmes d'Alger. I at-
tended because, even thoughI was young
and ignorant,I was Picasso-mad. While still
in myteens,I had lived fora yearin France.
For nightson end duringthatyear,I pored
over cheap littlepocketreproductionsof Pi-
casso's work- some in garishpostcardcol-
ors, others in delicious photogravuregri-
saille. I read everythingI could about him.
In a desperateattemptto make at least visual
contact with my hero, I hitchhikedto the
 62
south of France and found my way to the
master'svilla,La Californie,onlyto discover
thathe had long since decamped to a remote
castle in Mougins. My infatuationwithPi-
casso was equivalent to the kind of crush
my contemporarieshad on rock stars,the
cruxof thatfixationbeingtheartist'spersona
ratherthantheessence of his art.
Leo Steinbergchangedthat- suddenly-
radically. It is no exaggerationto say that
Leo opened myeyes to thepoeticsof picture
making- or, in the case of Les Femmes
d'Alger, pictorial restructuring. His thesis
was that Picasso had remade Delacroix's
composition in the course of the twenty-
fourpaintingshe based upon it and that,in
theprocess,he had reconfigured theoriginal
syntax of Cubism thathe had invented with
Braque into an infinitelypliable, inherently
reversiblespatial mesh the likes of which
had neverbeforeexisted in Westernpaint-
ing. Leo's argumentdid not issue froma
theoryabout the historical imperativesof
themedium,nordid it engendersuch a the-
ory.Neitherwas it a commentaryon thees-
tablishedliteratureof Picasso (althoughin
Leo's studies of Michelangelo, debater's
points scored against careless scholarship
was a chief source of pleasure for him).
Rather,Leo's largerconclusionsand smaller
digressions derived fromintense, scrupu-
lous, prolonged, and repeated scrutinyof
theworksof artunderdiscussion. Sustained
looking was the predicateforthought - its
driving force and itsfuelrather than a means
of perfunctory ratification
of receivedideas
about thingsothershad seen and reported
on.
Once upon a time,one could expect such
sustainedlooking to be the verifiablebasis
for any art historian'sthinkingor writing
about topics thatmatteredto him or herbe-
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:33:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
cause the speaker or writerand the public
shared the experience of thatwork- or at
least sharedtheexperienceof havinglooked
withthatappetiteand attentiveness to com-
parable works. This can no longer be as-
sumed in an era whendirectobservationhas
been replaced by the "close" readingof re-
productionsand texts based on reproduc-
tions, and when "strong misreadings" of
WalterBenjamin and a host of speculative
thinkersruminating on thedisappearanceof
"aura" serve as an alibi fordisregardingthe
nuances embedded in the originalimage or
artifact.(Like Marx, Freud,and manyof the
seminal theoristsof the twentiethcentury,
Benjamin shouldnotbe blamed forthemis-
uses to whichhis essays have been put,much
less the willfulmisunderstanding theyhave
given rise to.)
That said, Leo did enjoy special access to
manyof thethingshe focused on, in partic-
ularto Picasso's Les Femmesd'Alger.Even-
tually,so did I. The seriesof fifteencanvases
was initiallyboughtas a block by New York
collectorsVictorand Sally Ganz. Some were
sold offin shortorder,othersmoregradually.
A core group of fourpaintingsin the series
remainedin theirhands untiltheirdeathsin
1987 and 1997, respectively.For decades,
these paintingshung in a small red-walled
sittingroom on the second floor of their
apartmenton Gracie Square. Guests could
lingerforhours and in total comfort,reaf-
firmingMatisse's conceptthata good paint-
ing should be like thearmchairintowhicha
tiredman of the world happily sinks at the
end of theday.
In Matisse's conceit,such a businessman
would thenturnhis attentionfromtherealm
of moneymakingto higher aesthetic con-
cerns and apply the same measure of con-
centrationto the subtletiesof art thathad,
 63
duringbankinghours,been devoted to bal-
ance sheetsand productionschedules.In the
past, collectorsof this kind created signifi-
cant force fields in the wider art world by
virtueof theirgenuinecommitment and con-
noisseurship. To that extent, Matisse's
ideal- like Baudelaire's fantasyof Edenic
"luxe calme et volupt" upon which it was
based- emitsa faintflickerof truthas long
as those who have witnessedsuch commu-
nionbetweenproudpossessors and magnif-
icentpossessions are around.
Certainly,Victor Ganz, a wholesaler of
costume jewelry, and Sally Ganz, who
startedout as a salesclerkat Macy's, looked
with such ardor and discrimination.That's
whytheyboughtart.And certainlyLeo, their
frequentvisitor,claimed his seat in thatred
room and staredat the amazing arrayof Pi-
cassos beforehimwiththesame ardor.This
was fittingsince Les Femmesd'Alger were
painted shortlyafterMatisse's death, the
artists'long-standingrivalryand the prece-
dentof Matisse's Moroccan and otherOri-
entalistpaintingsbeing very much on Pi-
casso's mind.
One will not findmuch about the social
and politicaldimensionsof artin Leo's writ-
ings,exceptforthesexual politicsof Christ's
image. In conversation,though, Leo was
alertto therealitiesof power and thepotent
illusionsof ideology in which artwas inex-
tricablybound. How could a studentof the
Renaissance notbe? Or, forthatmatter,how
could anyone born close to the turmoilof
thetwentieth centuryavoid such awareness?
Knowing that Leo's fatherwas a leading
lawyer in Socialist circles and, briefly,min-
isterofjustice aftertheRussian Revolution
locates his heritage in the secular Jewish
communityof the world Gorky described,
althoughLeo's tangentialrelationshipto that
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:33:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
world was perhaps culturallycloser to the
one rememberedby Vladimir Nabokov in
Speak Memory.Sufficeitto say thatnothing
muchescaped his notice.If he chose to focus
on what picturesmean, it was because pic-
tureswere,in his understanding of them,es-
sentiallyorderly and intentional.This was
in contrastto the chaos and senselessness
outside of them,a chaos over which he had
no control,whiletheformand contentfound
withintheframingedge of a paintingoffered
an irresistible
challengeto his synthetic
mind
thatpromiseda kindof intellectualsalvation.
In this, Leo perhaps shared something
withClementGreenberg.But,unlikeGreen-
berg,he did not see art as a path to power
overothersor rewardsoutsideof experience.
He was certainlyworldly enough to have
chosen the alternativeroutethatGreenberg
chose and become a brokerand a guru.But
Greenberg wanted what he did not have,
whereas Leo wanted more of what was al-
ready within his grasp: the sophisticated,
sometimesdialogic but more oftensolitary,
pleasuresof activecontemplation. To theex-
tentthathis endeavor was dialogic (in the
sense thatMikhail Bakhtinused theterm-
Bakhtin is anotherRussian source helpful
when thinkingabout Leo), his interlocutors
consistedof a handfulof studentsand former
students (Prudence Crowther and Sheila
Schwartzfirstand foremost),othermore or
less freelancescholars (among themDavid
Levi Straussand myself),and variousmem-
bers of the academy who established and
maintainedstrongties withhim.
It must be said in the latterconnection
thatfora man of his public reputation,Leo
had a remarkablyambivalent, frequently
rockyrelationshipto those at the top of the
academic heap. The Universityof Pennsyl-
vania was a fineplace forhim to settlein.
 64
But, withregardto professionalstanding,it
wasn'tHarvard,Princeton,orYale. Nor,with
a New York compass in hand, was it Co-
lumbia or the Instituteof Fine Arts,where
he earnedhis Ph.D. in 1960. The veryqual-
ities that attracted him to independent
thinkerscaused him to be theobject of sus-
picion and even scornin fieldswhereschol-
arly"ownership"of topics and deferenceto
reigningauthoritiesare sacrosanct.No less
a mandarinthan E. H. Gombrich sounded
the alarm when he damned Leo's brilliance
in analyzingMichelangelo withthefollow-
ing praise: "He has produced a book to be
reckonedwithbuta dangerousmodel to fol-
low." Withinuniversityguilds,thisis tanta-
mountto blackballinga member.
The ban playeditselfoutwithLeo seeking
out or being soughtout by unlikelyvenues.
Thus it was thatalong withRobertRosen-
blum,anotherpariahin doctrinally pureneo-
formalist circles, Leo became a regular
speakeron EighthStreetat the traditionally
modernistNew York Studio School, where
he was paid virtuallynothing,or on theroad
inAmerica,wherehe commandedhandsome
fees fromthose unaware of the degree to
which he had become a problematic- in-
deed, unwelcomed- figure in many aca-
demicenclaves closer to home. Justhow un-
welcomed can be measuredby the factthat
it was not until2006- promptedby my in-
tercessionwiththethen-directorMarietWest-
ermann- thatLeo was invitedback to speak
at the Instituteof Fine Arts in New York.
Meanwhile,theUniversity ofTexas atAustin
became therepositoryof his large,idiosyn-
craticcollectionofprintsand drawings.Cov-
eringeverything fromItalian old mastersto
JasperJohns, collectionwas a reminder
the
ofwhatwas once readilyavailableto bargain
huntersin the portfoliosof dealers around
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:33:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
town,withLucien Goldschmidtbeing at the
top of the pyramidand Pageant and other
East Village outletson Book Row forming
thebase. Leo lived withthe arthe could af-
fordand huntedforit withoutcompunction.
How many of the generationsschooled to
scold "object fetishists"and contentto live
in austeresurroundings, uncontaminated by
thelustforvisual or tactiledelightsor unable
to confess theircravingforthem,can even
begin to understandthe differencebetween
theirarthistoryand Leo's frankly hedonistic
intellectualpursuits.That rigorousinquiry
intoaestheticthingsdemandedantiaesthetic
posturingto prove its seriousness- or was
even withinthescope of thosecursedwitha
"tin eye"- was, fromLeo's vantage point,
simplyabsurd.
That he savored words just as avidly is
obvious fromhis elegant,epicurean prose.
Roland Barthes famously wrote in The
Pleasures of theText:
If I read thissentence,thisstory,or this
word withpleasure,itis becausetheywere
written in pleasure.. . . The textyou write
mustproveto me thatit desiresme. . . .
Writing is thescienceofthevariousblisses
oflanguage;itsKama Sutra.
This perfectlydescribes the pleasures of
Leo's writing,the natural- indeed, legiti-
mate- offspring of his promiscuousreading
coupled with his fidelityto all the nuances
of his second language, English, and his
abiding sensitivityto the several othersin
whichhe was literate,if notfluent.
It was listeningto Leo lectureon Picasso
and thendiggingup essays whereverI could
findthem- inArtinAmericaand October-
thatprovidedme witha model forhow in-
tricatelyunfoldingthoughtscan be clearly
articulated,and withproofof how important
 65
itis to conveytheperceptualcomponentsof
conceptual formulaswith verbal precision
and all pertinentphenomenological detail,
which is farmore thanmost criticsdare or
deign to include. Actually meetingLeo re-
sultedfromhavinglearnedto strikeup con-
versations with my bookstore customers.
Following several missed opportunitiesat
art parties,where we crossed paths afterI
entered"society"in mycapacityas a curator
at MoMA, I was asked to presentan award
to him at a dinner.I took the opportunity to
discuss Philip Guston,about whom he had
writtenearly and eloquently.Later, I sent
him a copy of a monographon Guston that
I had writtenwith a dedication that T. S.
Eliot had inscribed to Ezra Pound: "II
miglior fabbro." Was it flattery?Yes, but
withoutpretenseor shame.Was he flattered?
Yes, again: Leo had a healthyvanitybutone
robustenough to relish sincere admiration
and able to resist insincere praise. Many
years later,when Leo wrote in my copy of
Other Criteria thathe felt"honored to in-
scribe thisfora dear friend,"I was embar-
rassed butimmenselyproud.
Afterourcontactat thatawardsceremony,
we metperiodicallyfordinnerat his apart-
ment.The location was dictatedby his un-
relenting consumption of cigarettes- no
restaurantwould have him- that he sus-
tained until the last couple of years of his
life. By then,infirmity confinedhim to his
small,art-crammed, book-lined,smoke-fra-
grant rooms. So pungentwere theythathe
didn't really need a lit cigaretteto fill his
lungs with nicotine. In case of an emer-
gency- which would have amounted to a
suicidal urge- he had storedseveralcartons
in the icebox, along with the remnantsof
the take-outChinese and Indian meals on
whichhe subsisted.
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:33:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
But let us returnto the Ganz apartment,
where Leo and I separatelyspent so much
timesurroundedby astonishingworksof art.
This was the crucial site not only of many
of his meditationson Picasso, buta source-
or,at theveryleast,theincontrovertible con-
firmation - of the thesis that he argued in
his "ContemporaryArtand the Plightof Its
Public." Based on lecturesgiven at theMu-
seum of Modern Artin 1960 and firstpub-
lished in Harper's Magazine in 1962, this
essay was thepredicateforhis groundbreak-
ing texts on the then-emergingNeo-Dada
vanguard. Of these, the most notable are
"JasperJohns:The FirstSeven Years of His
Art"(1962), which initiallyappeared in the
journal Metro and was then reissued in a
deluxe edition by George Wittenborn,and
Leo's descriptive analysis of the "flatbed
pictureplane" foundin theworkof Rausch-
enbergand Warholthatwas featuredin an-
otherMoMA lectureof 1968 and appeared
in printas "Reflectionson the State of Crit-
icism" in Artforumin March 1972 and in
Other Criteria the same year.Whereas the
lattertwo essays are about art's production,
the formerone concerns its receptionand,
more importantly, the origins of resistance
to the "new" that he heralded with signal
insightin theessays on Neo-Dada.
Althoughan arthistorianbelongingto one
of thelast generationsforwhom thealways
debatabledistinction betweenthingsthathad
"stood the testof time" and those thathad
yetto do so determinedthe propersubjects
of studywithinthediscipline,Steinbergsaw
theprimarystumblingblock to open-minded
recognitionof previously unseen and un-
sanctionedartas one between the moderns
and the more moderns,the old new and the
new or newer new. In supportof this con-
tention,Leo tracesthechain of rejectionsof
 66
risingavant-gardes bypreviousavant-gardes,
fromtheImpressionists'discomfortwiththe
Post-Impressionists to thePost-Impression-
ists' resistanceto theFauves, to theFauves'
push againsttheCubists,to theCubists' dis-
missal of the Surrealists.
To be truthful, I have added thelast linkin
thatchain. But it follows fromLeo's logic
and identifiesanotherpointof agreementbe-
tween us: our impatience with Clement
Greenberg'sideologicallydrivendistortions
ofthedocumentedhistoryof modernart.Al-
fred Barr and his collaboratorsfounded a
Museum of ModernArtand not a Museum
of Modernism for very good reasons, al-
thoughGreenbergconstantlycomplainedof
the institution'spluralistic practices, and
William Rubin, Greenberg'sde facto agent
of influenceat the helm of the all-powerful
Departmentof Paintingand Sculpturefrom
the late 1960s throughthe 1980s, triedto
streamlinetheintrinsically angularand con-
tentiousaccountof modernartthatBarrcre-
atedthroughexhibitionsand collections,and
to hide muchof theevidence of Barr's con-
tradictory and unfashionableenthusiasms.In
short, I am referringto Barr's exceptional
for
capacity entertaining divergentand com-
petingpropositions about what modernart
shouldbe, on theunderstanding thatmodern
art was by definitionthe aggregate of all
thosepropositionsand all thosemutuallyex-
clusiveclaims- all thoseadversarialbutcon-
tiguous,if not overlapping,"modernisms."
The precise reasons forGreenberg'scon-
temptfor Surrealism matterless than the
factthathe treatedit as fundamentallyun-
worthyof considerationexcept for its in-
convenientyet undeniable contributionsto
the kinds of abstractionhe championed as
thehistoricallymandatednextstepafterCu-
bism,suchthatin a monographthathe wrote
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:33:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
on JoanMir- a Surrealist,ifevertherewas
one- Greenberg reclassifies the Spanish
artistas a late Cubist.This insuresgenealog-
ical and liturgicalconsistencyalong theway
toward Abstract Expressionism and Post-
PainterlyAbstraction,Greenberg'struepas-
sions. But while Greenberg'srationalewas
essentiallya matterof maintainingformalist
pieties and buttressing theirinstitutional
de-
fenses- and while similar preoccupations
with purity and power haunt every pro-
nouncementmade by his formeracolytes
among Neo-Formalist scholars and critics
of today,startingwithRosalind Krauss and
her coterie, whose house organ published
Leo even as theyignoredhis implicitcritical
and scholarlydissentfromtheirpartyline-
the dilemma thatLeo himselffaced when
crawling the galleries or sitting in the
Ganzes' apartmentwas of a different, more
libidinousorder.
Ratherbeingtheproductof scholasticdis-
putes about the Will of Historyor the ulti-
mate,incommensurablespecificitiesof var-
ious media,thestrugglesamongavant-gardes
for the attentionand, subsequently,the fi-
delityof the public hinged on (1) the con-
victionof artiststhattheprinciplesand prac-
tices to whichtheydevotedthemselvesheld
the key to inexhaustible possibilities of
experience and understanding,and (2) the
public's desireformoreof whatit had come
to love in one kind of art and its anxiety
whenfacedwiththeprospectoflovingsome-
thingelse. For Leo, thatanxietywas crystal-
lized bytheenigmatic,seeminglyantigestural
grisaille surfaces of Jasper Johns's early
paintings.Everythingabout themcalled for
a basic revisionof Leo's tasteand his think-
ing to the extentthat they appeared to be
theantithesisof thekindof passionate,full-
tilt painterlinessassociated with Abstract
 67
Expressionism and its School of Paris
antecedents.
The Ganzes never pursued AbstractEx-
pressionism,stickingwith Picasso instead.
However,theywere prescientcollectors of
Johnsand Rauschenberg - generallydeemed
the principalAmerican heirs of Duchamp,
who was widely regarded as the anti-Pi-
casso - as well as Frank Stella and Eva
Hesse, who firstmetJohnsat a partyat the
Ganz apartment.Thus, catty-cornerto Pi-
casso's greatWomanin an Armchair(1913)
hungJohns'sLiar (1961) and Diver (1962),
while on the wall opposite it was Johns's
Souvenir 2 (1964) just across the doorway
fromPicasso's The Dream (1932). There
were otherPicassos in the room and other
Johnsworks,too, and in therooms beyond,
still more of each as well as paintingsby
the otherartistscited above and artistsso
far unmentioned,like Richard Tuttle and
Melissa Miller.
In its high concentrationof radicallydif-
ferentart by exigentlydifferentartiststhe
Ganz Collectionexemplifiedtheproblem-
or plight,as Leo called it- of the public
with regard to modern and contemporary
art,and respondedto it withan affirmative
embrace of potentiallyincompatibleexam-
ples. Not out of a failureon the partof the
Ganzes to noticethedistinctionsamong the
workson display and certainlynot out of a
lazy eclecticism or worse- the need to
hedge bets against thejudgmentof history
(theywere in everyway exactingconnois-
seurs)- but instead out of the realization
thatmakinga choice againstthebest of one
first-rank artistwho had opened theirmind
and eyes forthe sake of thebest of another
who had done the same was self-defeating.
Torn,like Leo, betweentheirdevotionto
Picasso (and, in his case, Guston and de
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:33:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Kooning) and theirattractionto Johns,they
understood that their world had been ex-
panded by the painfuldoublingof theirde-
sire and thattemporarybutunavoidable be-
trayal of one passion for another was a
naturalfunctionof desire's unfettered oper-
ation. Sittingin thatroom,it was sufficient
to turnone's gaze 10 to 20 degrees in any
directionto find oneself surrenderingto a
new infatuation in theinstantthatone started
to regretthe previous one. The infidelities
to which one was inspiredin thatharemof
pictures- especially in the red room that
housed Picasso's reinterpretations of Dela-
croix's renditionof an Algerian seraglio-
were deliciously delirium-inducing. And-
prompting his great critical duel with
William Rubinby openingdiscussionof the
paintingup to an examinationof how the
viewer's awareness of themultiplegazes of
Picasso's alternately savage and alluringsub-
jects- had Leo not called Les Demoiselles
d'Avignon "philosophicalbrothel"?
a
Confrontedby such choices, normative
theoriesof taste(Greenbergianmodernism)
and deterministic theories of cultural
progress(its postmodernist spin-offs)fallby
the wayside. Although Leo never referred
to himin thecase forserialaestheticadultery
thathe makes in "ContemporaryArtand the
Plightof Its Public," an amicus briefcan be
found in Barthes's previously cited The
Pleasures of the Textand in his A Lover's
Discourse: Fragments.Leo's pleasureswere
artand literature - in thatconnection,I have
leftout his lifelongaffairwithJamesJoyce,
to myknowledgehis only homotextualliai-
son, althoughthereis muchto be said about
the breadthand depth of his reading- and
his discourse trulythatof a man unwilling
to renounceor disguise his eruditelust in a
period when in intellectuallyrespectable
 68
company the love of art dare not speak its
name.
Among arthistorians,Leo had his admir-
ers. But he, in turn,admired relative few.
Feuds are endemic to the field,and, gifted
withboth a sharp pen and a sharp tongue,
he had a knackformakingthemostof them,
as Rubin learned. One senior colleague he
deeply respectedwas Meyer Schapiro,who
late in life also found an audience for his
morphingideas among paintersand sculp-
torsat the Studio School at a timewhen art
historiansof modernarthonoredhimmostly
by ignoring him, except when "second-
guessing"or "correcting"his earlywritings.
How manywho quoted Schapiro in articles
about artof the 1930s to the 1950s have ex-
pressedanysympathy forhis supportof Bob
Thompson and GandyBrodie or anycurios-
ity about his long correspondencewiththe
This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:33:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
gender-bending mysticalbait-fisherman and
seasonal painterForrestBess?
By contrast,a live, mutuallyinvigorating
currentpassed between Leo and Meyer,as
it does when polar opposite come together.
Meyer's turnof minddirectedLeo to many
aspects of critical discourse that Leo es-
chewed- chiefly,Marx and semiotics.But,
like Leo, Meyer was groundedin the con-
tentmenthe foundin looking and the reve-
lationsthataccumulatedfromsustainingthe
effort.Winningintramural argumentscomes
in a poor thirdto these enduringrewards.
To stressthatpoint,I began thistestimonial
withan epigraphfromMeyer,who was also
amongtheextramural professorsof "myuni-
versities."But it is fromLeo thatI learned
themostand to whom I will always be most
indebted.
 PrudenceCrowther,
(Photo:courtesy 2010)

This content downloaded on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:33:51 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions