Donas and Archipenko. A dialogue in form and colour

The exhibition Donas, Archipenko and La Section d’Or. Enchanting Modernism is now on view at the KMSKA. Or the rediscovery of an artist couple. A conversation with curators Peter J.H. Pauwels and Adriaan Gonnissen.

By Nathalie Pauwels

Enchanting Modernism focuses on a short but turbulent period: 1916 to September 1921. In those years, the Antwerp painter Marthe Donas (1885–1967) arrives in Paris, becomes acquainted with Cubism, moves to Nice, works side by side with the Ukrainian-American sculptor Alexander Archipenko (1885–1967) and, after the war, achieves international recognition through exhibitions with the art group La Section d’Or. Meanwhile, she has a brief relationship with Archipenko.

In 2016, the monographic Donas exhibition was held at the MSK in Ghent. With Enchanting Modernism, the KMSKA now presents the story of Donas, Archipenko and La Section d’Or. Why?

Peter J.H. Pauwels: ‘You can see the exhibition in Ghent as the introduction of a fairly unknown artist, but one exhibition does not yet “make” a name. Now we are presenting the international story, with Archipenko and her contemporaries from La Section d’Or.’

Adriaan Gonnissen: ‘Donas is the only Belgian female artist with whom you can indeed tell a strong international story, featuring works by Mondrian, Archipenko and Léger. Belgian artists are supposedly always “late”, but Donas is right at the heart of the artistic upheavals in Paris. That is her natural context. We hope that this exhibition, once again accompanied by an English-language catalogue, will now offer a broader view of her work, and also of the Donas–Archipenko couple.’

Would Donas have developed differently without Archipenko?

Adriaan: ‘Major names in the avant-garde world, such as the writer Guillaume Apollinaire and the Berlin gallerist Herwarth Walden, already regarded Archipenko before the First World War as the groundbreaking sculptor. He came from an artistic family with Slavic-Byzantine roots, including painters on both sides. In Paris, he drew inspiration from the Louvre. At the first La Section d’Or exhibition in 1912, he was immediately one of the stars. From his arrival in 1909, he knew the right people. After the war, he reactivated that network, both for himself and for Donas.’

Peter: ‘These were also intellectual circles of a high calibre, including Baroness d’Oettingen, Serge Férat and Apollinaire. Archipenko himself was well-read, just like Donas, who came from the upper bourgeoisie and was interested in philosophy.’

In 1917, Donas left Paris for Nice due to financial difficulties, where she gave drawing lessons to a wealthy lady. Archipenko had already been there since the beginning of the war. Did Donas’ erudition attract him?

Peter: ‘He saw not only an educated woman, but also an artist with ideas. In my view, they could hold high-level conversations.’

Adriaan: ‘It must have happened quickly between the two, as Archipenko broke up with his girlfriend when Donas arrived.’

Peter: ‘Donas was talented. She did not start drawing because of him. But it is not difficult to show how Archipenko influenced Donas. As soon as she was with him, her art changed. She immediately began adopting his discoveries: the forms, the play with shadows, the negative space. Harder is to demonstrate how Donas influenced him. After all, they lived together for a year in Nice and then spent another intensive year together in Paris.’

Adriaan: ‘She did not copy Archipenko, but cultivated her own artistry. Her textures are more refined, her colours pearlescent. Donas was trained as a painter and executed her dégradés far more delicately than Archipenko.’

Peter: ‘Archipenko’s drawings, unlike his sculptures, are not masterpieces. They were more about developing ideas. Archipenko worked quickly and forcefully. In fact, that was perfect: she was not a sculptor, he was not a painter.’

Donas knew well where her strength lay.

Adriaan: ‘After the war, she questioned her art through her contacts with Albert Gleizes at La Section d’Or and with Theo van Doesburg. This immediately allowed her to break away from Archipenko. She let go of the sculptural, but Archipenko’s idea of emptiness remained. She found abstraction fascinating and admired Mondrian and Theo van Doesburg. Yet she sincerely asked Van Doesburg where it was all headed. At a certain point, “we can go no further.”’

This touches on the issue of how art history long regarded abstraction as an endpoint.

Peter: ‘For decades, we viewed art as an evolution from figuration to abstraction, an idea originating in the art theory of the 1950s. Today, there is a reassessment of figuration. What was once seen as “decline” now appears simply as another form of being “modern.” We often see Donas’ most abstract period around 1920 as her peak. What comes afterward is judged as a decline. But she kept exploring, changing her style, and remained consistent in her search.’

This brings us seamlessly to La Section d’Or, the third pillar of the exhibition. Archipenko and Donas created a great deal of new art together during the war in Nice, while much of the art world was largely at a standstill. After the war, they returned to Paris to exhibit again, but this time without the mediation of art dealers and galleries. How does La Section d’Or fit into this picture?

Peter: ‘Archipenko asked Albert Gleizes and Léopold Survage to start a new group, including members such as Fernand Léger, Serge Férat and Louis Marcoussis. La Section d’Or mainly brought together foreigners, many Russians. The three founders led the group and the rest joined in. As a group, you are stronger.’

Adriaan: ‘There were no fixed rules, and the statutes did not prescribe how one should paint. In the exhibition, we call it “enchanting” modernism: it was playful, colourful. There were several women in the group. Besides Donas, think of Natalia Goncharova and Hélène d’Oettingen. It was a mix of decorative and geometric Cubism. And Archipenko always retained that classical beauty. It was modernism without coldness.’

And they thought internationally.

Peter: ‘After an exhibition in Paris, a tour followed through the Netherlands, then Brussels, Geneva, Rome. They also immediately sought contact with Germany – the defeated country – via Der Sturm, the gallery of Herwarth Walden.’

Adriaan: ‘They also picked up artists along the way during their tour, such as Mondrian. They were really focused on a European network. Donas often showed the most work, and at the highest prices. But they couldn’t visit all the planned cities. After the war, many roads were damaged and transport was expensive. And Archipenko’s large sculptures were difficult to transport. Paintings were just manageable. That’s why many modern artists chose smaller formats; it was more practical.’

How did modernists reach a wide audience?

Peter: ‘At the beginning of the 20th century, the general public did not see much of the avant-garde. There were no museums for contemporary art, and success depended on a gallery or a mention in the press. Yet we now present those few artists as greats, as if everyone was copying Picasso. It was about interaction: creative people coming together at the right place at the right time.’

Adriaan: ‘It was also about conversations in cafés, where they dined together in the evenings and discussed their ideas, about old and new art. Archipenko did not have many solo exhibitions, and shows sometimes lasted only ten days. His influence grew through publications in magazines, usually featuring the same five or six photographs. Photography was expensive.’

Donas exhibited both solo and in groups and received good press. But that did not last. Archipenko moved to Berlin, La Section d’Or fell apart, and without a dealer or gallery, Donas could no longer connect with the avant-garde. The flame seemed to fade as quickly as it had ignited.

Peter: ‘Between 1919 and 1920, everything went perfectly for her. Very briefly. She did not manage to find a new network, neither in Paris nor in Belgium after her return and marriage. Because she happened to be a woman at the wrong time? Perhaps.’