More

Metropolitan Museum Reopens New Painting Gallery With 'Washington Crossing The Delaware'

Washington Crossing The Delaware

First Posted: 01/19/12 03:09 PM ET Updated: 01/20/12 09:45 AM ET

It was quietly dismantled at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art by staff who didn't like it, shuttled around the country for years, and held hostage in Pennsylvania by a woman who really liked it. Starting this week, Emanuel Leutze's iconic "Washington Crossing the Delaware," once the Met's redheaded stepchild, is back as a star.

Leutze's ode to the U.S. revolution now anchors the third and last addition to the museum's $100 million, 10-years-in-the-making American arts wing. It's a far cry from being kept in a small side gallery or eagerly sent on loan across the country, as it had been by the Met for more than 100 years. Since Monday, visitors can enter the New American Wing Galleries for Paintings, Sculpture and Decorative Arts -- 26 new Beaux Arts-style rooms lit by the sun -- at what wing director Morrison Heckscher calls "the 50-yard line." Leutze's painting ("the goal post") sits 150 feet west at the end of a clear sight line past high-coved rooms, made to look the way Americans would have seen it in 1864.

It wasn't always this way between the Met and its famous charge. Indeed, the museum's 48-page Leutze-centric issue of its quarterly bulletin (which visitors can and should get their hands on) reads more like a case file for a brilliant but difficult foster child than the story of a prized work of art.

From the moment Leutze's operatic panorama entered the Met's holdings in 1897 as a gift from philanthropist John Stewart Kennedy, the museum struggled with whether to display it at all. Though the painting was popular with crowds, it wasn't considered great art. It is rife with historical and physical inaccuracies (so much so, an artist was commissioned to correct it last fall). Plus the work is too large to ignore or easily get rid of. At 12 by 21 feet, the 1851 canvas could easily shade a pair of midsize Hummers parked side by side. Its surface area exceeds that of all other works in the museum's American collection, and (not unlike a Hummer's size) is both why people love it and hate it.

"It's no surprise it was a huge hit in Dallas," says Mark Thistlethwaite, a Leutze expert who teaches at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, near where the painting first appeared on loan at the 1950 Texas State Fair. "It's so dramatic -- even melodramatic. Americans by and large have always been taken with it, but it's the kind of thing the Met wasn't very keen on."

Four years before the painting was shipped to Dallas (in a lengthy process the conservator Murray Pease dubbed "the second crossing of the Delaware"), a group of irritated Met curators had taken the painting down from the walls without permission. An "anguished protest" from Pease, who knew of the difficulties of reframing such a large piece, led to Met director Francis Henry Taylor scolding his renegade staff and ordering it back up by Washington's birthday the next year, according to the bulletin.

This tension between the painting and its keepers became symbolic of the widening gap between "lowbrow" and "highbrow" camps, according to Thistlethwaite. (The painting, a favorite of editorial cartoonists, he calls "middlebrow.")

Nowhere is this disconnect more dramatic than in the story of the painting's time spent on loan near the site of Washington's actual crossing in Pennsylvania. Not only did the local parks commissioner, a fiery woman named Ann Hawkes Hutton, build a museum for the Leutze, which she believed had "come home" to its rightful place at Washington's Crossing, she threatened to never properly display it unless the Met handed rights to the painting over to her makeshift museum for good. After a series of what the bulletin calls "deceptively polite letters," and perhaps more persuasive -- threats from lawyers -- Hutton caved and the painting went back to the Met, where curators once again hemmed and hawed over how to care for their populist charge.

In 1864, before the Met existed, Leutze's portrait of Washington and his men fording the icy Delaware River was the main attraction at the New York Sanitary Fair. Even then, audiences were beginning to find the painting "out of step" and "disturbing" in the context of the Civil War, according to Jochen Wierich, a Tennessee-based curator and author of a forthcoming book on Leutze. But it brought in crowds and held a place of honor at the far end of a gallery filled with more art than had ever been displayed together in the country. The fair, a fund-raiser for Union soldiers, was the painting's last major showing before it went to the newly formed Met, along with most of the fair's other paintings. In the decades that followed, curators and visitors lost sense of how the piece might have looked at its peak. It grew dingy. The frame it was now in was "very minor," as Heckscher puts it.

When a Met staff member found a cache of old photographs, including the first anyone on staff had seen of the Leutze at the 1864 fair, the sense of the painting's original grandeur rippled through the museum. Restoring it to that state "was a no-brainer," according to Elizabeth Kornhauser, who oversaw the curation of the new American wing.

It took an independent framer 10 years to copy the gold-leaf frame that encased the Leutze at the Sanitary Fair, a project that was completed in 2010. In the meantime, the other two paintings in the photograph were brought out of the Met's collection to flank the Leutze as they once had: Frederic Church's "The Heart of the Andes," and Albert Bierstadt's "The Rocky Mountains," both standouts of 19th-century landscape painting.

Today the work is again a gallery star -- at a time when war and patriotism are once again front and center. Whether the piece will strike new audiences as "out of step" as it did then is anyone's guess. But the German-born Leutze might not find that question interesting. He conceived of the painting in the grandiose style of the Dusseldorf school not to impress his adopted country of America, but to inspire Germany to revolution. Americans, for the most part, continue to respond to the painting's overwhelming patriotism with a degree of ironic distance, according to Kornhauser, who saw it used on "The Colbert Report."

As for which visitors have taken to it without any irony over the years, in Kornhauser's observation? Why, the Germans, of course!

CLICK through a slideshow below tracking "Washington Crossing The Delaware" at the Met, before and after its transformation:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CULTURE

It was quietly dismantled at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art by staff who didn't like it, shuttled around the country for years, and held hostage in Pennsylvania by a woman who really liked it. ...
It was quietly dismantled at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art by staff who didn't like it, shuttled around the country for years, and held hostage in Pennsylvania by a woman who really liked it. ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 33
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
02:55 AM on 03/16/2012
That surely is an awesome painting. PICK UP YOUR REPRINTS of Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze HERE ON BEAUTIFUL WRAPPED CANVAS or ON REGULAR POSTER MATTE. SIZES UP TO 40X60

http://www.zazzle.com/washington_crossing_the_delaware_by_emanuel_leutze_poster-228784083316674287
11:44 AM on 01/25/2012
I don't like it because of silly politics it's just Bloody awful, the pictorial equivalent of death metal .
photo
michelesda
My micro-bio is empty.
02:37 PM on 01/24/2012
I like it, really beautiful job, and to me the painting is iconic. What do you bet even Washington would have liked it? Who cares if it's inaccurate and corny and a redheaded stepchild? America is and was a redheaded stepchild of England, innacurate and corny, but do we love it any the less for that? And all the better that it's the handiwork of a bygone Romantic era. The fact that America has created good things which are now obsolete or out of fashion gives us just that much more of a sense of what any meaningful culture ought to have; the idea that these days we've been around for awhile now, that we have a history, and are not just a flash in the pan. IMO it would do us good to have, and cherish, and celebrate, more stuff like that.
09:15 AM on 01/23/2012
Excellent slide show
08:37 PM on 01/21/2012
Ooh! Hang some Thomas Kincaid plates, one of those tapestries of dogs playing poker, a few of those big doe-eyed children paintings, a black velvet painting of Elvis and a paint by numbers version of The Last Supper and ::: Voila ::: Teabagger Art Gallery!
04:08 PM on 01/20/2012
"redheaded stepchild"???? Surely your writer can think of a better analogy than this cliche!!
01:57 AM on 01/22/2012
Yes, it is a lazy, tired cliche. Also, substitute another description, say black stepchild, and it is easy to see how offensive it is.
considerthis
I try my best
09:03 AM on 01/20/2012
It should have stayed at the Washington Crossing, PA location. The museum was just fine there and the park is a pleasant place to visit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug MacKenzie
Equality for ALL!
08:59 AM on 01/20/2012
They loved it in Dallas? Really? I'm surprised they didn't try to shoot it.
08:40 AM on 01/20/2012
Send Wall Street back to it's mother City of London! HI Mallika
08:33 AM on 01/20/2012
It's no more inaccurate than paintings of Napolean in the field that were done about the same time, or any other paintings from that period that depicted European nobility or military heroes. For that matter, it's a hell of a lot more accurate than just about any painting that was ever done of the Madonna and Child, and those are considered great art. So I think the Met either needs to accept the painting for what it is or transfer it to some other museum that values its significance as a historical and cultural touchstone.
08:19 AM on 01/20/2012
I saw the new version of crossing the delaware at the NY Historical Society, its garbage. The one at the Met, the original, is a work of art. Sometimes you wonder what the art world considers art. The Met can always display the original at my house.
photo
Count DeMonet
Knowledge is Good
08:18 AM on 01/20/2012
What did Washington say to his men before they got in the boat?
"OK men....let's get in the boat".
photo
left in vermont
go ahead. tread on them.
07:26 AM on 01/20/2012
When I was growing up, my grandmother lived on the Jersey side of where Washington crossed the Delaware. I played at being a revolutionary war soldier with my cousin on the road to Trenton in the park there. (we always won) My grandmother would often take us to the museum to see "the picture" as she called it. I stood in the house Washington planned the attack, I sometimes attended the annual re-enactment of the crossing held there every Christmas. We knew the picture was inaccurate, we could see it was so. The museum was not makeshift- as the article claims, it had an auditorium and a stage setting to display the painting. The park there is wonderful.
I am an artist. I make and love and am dedicated to abstract art. But the power this had on me as a child led me to two loves: the sweep and heroism of history and the power of art to inspire. To evaluate it as high art, or middle brow, is just impossible for me, just as trying to think of Lincoln as ugly. I can't do it, the meaning of images, and the emotion and memory is simply too strong.
I am glad the Met has restored this, it is so right.
07:07 AM on 01/20/2012
Wonderful painting. Why does art have to be journalism in our day? I love that it is not journalism--but art. Presenting not dry, concrete facts--but a dramatic emotional summation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BrokeInSoCal
06:32 AM on 01/20/2012
The new frame is beautiful.