Page 299 - The Legacy of Abraham Rothstein - text

Introduction to the sculpture

The female studies provide another sort of contrast, also discussed
at greater length in the catalogue. Briefly, AR oscillated (somewhat
hypocritically) between expressions of admiration for two types of
woman. First, as elaborated in his own writings, he extolled the
virtues of the traditional female, who remained chastely at home,
sheltered from the evils of the world outside; this model of femininity
he modified, in concession to the limited American egalitarianism of
his day, to include a college education and a professional career—but
not at the expense of domestic harmony. Carvings of this maternal
figure, as discussed above, are found among the shtetl and modern
genre types; they also occur as studies, but in a more generalized
form (see the catalogue entries).
But another sort of woman also occupied his thoughts—and
occasionally found expression in his words (see Carmel Winkler’s
reminiscences): the sexy siren who acted provocatively. This topic is
considered in more detail in the catalogue, particularly in the entry for
no. 19. AR’s attitude in this case appears late Victorian, and the
carvings of “attractive” women echo that era in their
conventionalized cheesecake poses: whether mermaid, bather, or
fully-clothed urbanite, all stand with one arm raised, hand touching
hair. The reiteration of this character (and the other “voluptuous”
nudes) may indicate the cathartic function of AR’s sculpting,
comprehensible as compensation for the psychological residue of his
upbringing in a repressive and sexually-segregated environment.
Two minor categories of object do not bear the weight of
profound psychological interpretation. First, AR carved at least
twenty pieces representing animals. These studies probably had some
value to him as amusement, as exercises in whittling (few are in
stone) or perhaps, as toys for children. Domestic animals are
decidedly in the minority, despite their availability as models; could
he have been drawn to their wilder cousins by the latter’s associations
with liberty, ferocity, and strength? Certainly, AR’s love of fishing
must be linked to the numerous piscine pieces. But how then explain
the “trophy” heads of stag and horse? Jews did not hunt; AR kept a
gun only for protection against robbers. Perhaps these curious works
indicate he might have harbored a wish to hunt animals and display

295