Leseprobe

118 them. Writing about theMusée GustaveMoreau in Paris, André Breton thus spoke in 1960 of the ‘intersigns fluttering’ between two paintings, and of dreaming to ‘intercept’ them, ‘exactly half-way between the external eye and the white-hot inner eye.’ 7 Nonetheless, I was thrilled to find quoted in Masterworks an unpublished letter fromBarnes to the Amer- ican painter Stuart Davis in which, on 1 April 1942, the collector explained the inclusion of ironwork in his displays: ‘First — the motives, such as arabesques, patterns, etc., discernible in a picture have their analogue, sometimes a very close one, in the iron work. Second — we regard the creators of antique wrought iron, just as authentic an artist as a Titian, Renoir, or Cézanne. This is not to say that what they express is of equal importance or magnitude, but that they do express something of their own experience.’ 8 Since then, Richard J. Wattenmaker quoted two other letters in which Barnes gave similar explanations: on 29 December 1936, Barnes wrote to Kenneth Clark, then director of the National Gallery in London, that he was on his way to show ‘that there is no essen- tial esthetic difference between the forms of the great painters or sculptors, and those of the iron-workers of several hundred years who made such commonplace objects as 7 Breton, ‘Gustave Moreau [1960],’ 2002, p. 363.  8 Quoted after Dolkart, ‘To See As the Artist Sees,’ 2012, p. 26. The letter is quoted more extensively in Wattenmaker, ‘In the Light of New Material,’ 2015, p. 33. 9 Quoted inWattenmaker, ‘In the Light of NewMaterial,’ 2015, pp. 30 and 25.  10 Dewey, ‘The Educational Function of aMuseumof Decorative Arts,’ 1937, p. 98.  11 Dewey, ‘The Educational Function of aMuseum Figure 1: Barnes Foundation, Room 18, detail from the East wall: Masts (1919) by Charles Demuth and Reclining Nude (1923 –1924) by Henri Matisse, topped by ironwork.