I have long been a fan of early 20th-century cartoons and Ashcan School art of the same period. Louis M. Glackens, the older brother of Ashcan School painter William Glackens, became one of the first illustrators of animated cartoons from 1915–1920, creating characters for production houses such as Baré, Pathe and Sullivan Studios. His fantastical depictions of mermaids, anthropomorphic beasts and comical characters created a paradigm for what would become Walt Disney’s masterpieces.
“Louis Glackens had a discerning eye through which he observed the human condition,” writes Ariella Wolen, curator of the NSU Art Museum’s (Fort Lauderdale) current exhibition, Louis M. Glackens: Pure Imagination. “However, while his brother was rooted in the realism of the Ashcan School, Louis Glackens chose to deliver his take on reality through a more fable-like world, in which the absurdity of life was captured through an economy of line and an abundance of wit.”
Below, Wolen reveals more about the importance of Glackens to the cartoon and animation worlds.
What separates Louis from other Puck, Judge and Harper’s cartoonists of his day?
Glackens had a particularly fluid style, his draughtsmanship appearing almost instinctive. In William Glackens’ son Ira’s memoir, he described his uncle’s drawings as having, “flowed from his pencil like water from a tap. Like Shakespeare, he never blotted a line.” His confident handling made his imagery very clear and, therefore, well-suited to illustration. His images for Puck are loaded with information and detail, but they remain clear, simple and distinct.
Why did William eclipse his brother’s work?
I would say it was partially a hierarchical matter of painting versus illustration. While illustration held a much more prominent position around the turn of the century than today—with newspaper artists such as Louis Glackens being known to broad audiences—the work was still a commercial endeavor that was made to instruction, so historically it does not have the same level of appreciation as painting.
Was it the commercial versus the “fine art” gambit?
In terms of their personal histories, I think William also had a lot of good fortune, which Louis sadly did not, though Louis had an earlier and more rapid start to success. William was part of an avant-garde artist milieu, he married into a prominent family and was always able to focus on his art. For Louis, after Puck shuttered, he struggled to find his way. He wasn’t favored by studio heads when he tried to break into the world of animation film and, eventually, he moved back to Philadelphia to live with his sister and parents. He never married and never had children. As our museum has been entrusted with the Glackens family estate, we’ve taken on the role of ensuring that not just William, but the many great artists in this family, are remembered.
