FROM WARSAW TO WHITECHAPEL: AN EXPLORATION OF CULTURAL AND ARTISTIC IDENTITY IN THE EARLY WORK OF ALFRED AARON WOLMARK (C. 1876–1961) SARAH MACDOUGALL EXTRACT FROM This is the full, original essay. DATE 2010. SOURCE This paper was given at the First Congress of Jewish Art in Poland, Kazimierz on the Vistula River, 27-29 October 2008 and published in Jewish Artists and Central Eastern Europe, Conferences of the Polish Society of Oriental Art, Vol. III, eds., J. Malinowski, R. Piątkowska and T. Sztyma-Knasiecka (Warsaw: DiG, 2010).
FROM WARSAW TO WHITECHAPEL: AN EXPLORATION OF CULTURAL AND ARTISTIC IDENTITY IN THE EARLY WORK OF ALFRED AARON WOLMARK (c. 1876–1961)
Described as “the first major British artist to emerge from the migrant Jewish community,”1 Aaron Wolmark, was born in Warsaw circa 1876,2 moving with his family to England in 1883; first to Devon (where there had been a recorded Jewish presence for more than 150 years) and then, to London’s East End. He later trained at the Royal Academy, where he added the English ‘Alfred’ to his name, exhibiting there (1901– 1936), as well as with various more modernist London associations including the Allied Artists’ Association (AAA, 1908–1916) and the International Society (1911–1925). Wolmark’s teenage years in the East End – then the heart of the immigrant Jewish community – and two lengthy stays in his native Poland (c. 1903–1906), had a huge visual, as well as spiritual, impact on his early work. Over the first 10–15 years of his career he produced a remarkably consistent and mature body of genre paintings of Jewish subjects executed in the manner and spirit of Rembrandt, “the only painter,” he later remarked, “who ever […] influenced him.” Then, in July 1911, after an artistic epiphany in Concarneau, Brittany, Wolmark jettisoned his early methods in favor of the “New Art” and embarked upon the pioneering “colourist” path that he followed so effectively for the next two decades of his working life. This article examines these two crucial aspects of Wolmark’s early career as he moved from traditionalism to modernism, and – in a phrase first coined by Norman L. Kleeblatt – from images of “cultural to artistic identity.”3 I will discuss a number of key images which chart this journey, touching on some of the personal, political and historical reasons for Wolmark’s “Jewish” work, as well as his artistic “conversion.” Finally, I will briefly consider his position not only as a pioneering modernist, but also as a pioneering chronicler of London’s East End Jewish ghetto.
1
Spenser (1983: 48). Exact date uncertain, he was born in Warsaw on either 25 or 28 December in either 1876 or 1877. 3 Kleeblatt (1998: 29–35). 2
1
Wolmark’s earliest known work of a Jewish subject predates his entry to the Royal Academy School of Art in 1895. Wolmark demonstrated how he valued this work by taking it with him when he returned to Poland and posing in front of it for the Jewish Chronicle over a decade later. It suggests that, inspired by his Jewish East End neighbors and possibly his boyhood memories of Poland, he had already settled on the subject matter which initially defined his career. Although subject, as an immigrant to the aggressive pressures of Anglicization and assimilation, particularly at the Royal Academy (then a bastion of high-Victorian art presided over by Lord Leighton),4 Wolmark nevertheless stuck “close to his [East End] models”5 throughout his student years; even acquiring his first East End studio before leaving the Academy. Wolmark was later critical of RA teaching however, which he believed “treated originality with suspicion,”6 throwing himself instead into his work on Jewish subjects. As a result of the mass emigration, c. 1880-1910 of Jewish peoples escaping poverty and persecution, London’s East End had been transformed in this period into a bustling microcosm of traditional Jewish life, densely populated by some 120, 000 immigrants who had fled Eastern Europe, and now found themselves in conditions barely altered from the poor shtetls they had left behind. Within Whitechapel immigrants from different regions of Eastern Europe and Russia often regrouped to form new selfcontained, Yiddish-speaking communities with their landlsleit, often forming their own shteibels and house-based workshops, where they worked within “sweated” trades such as tailoring, jewelry or furniture making. By this period however, Wolmark was living with his family in Tredegar Square, Bow, then, “an elegant residential oasis beyond the ghetto slum of Whitechapel,”7 and did not, like the next generation of Whitechapel Boys, eat, sleep and live among his subjects. Nonetheless, in contrast to his contemporary William Rothenstein (1872–1945), who together with Wolmark was credited with popularising Jewish subjects in this period, Wolmark can certainly be seen as an “insider”. (Although in practice both artists actually paid poor East End Jews to dress up and pose in the appropriate costume.) Although the Jewish “society” painter Solomon J. Solomon (1860–1927) was among his teachers at the RA. 5 Anon (1908b: 20). 6 Spencer (1976: 33). 7 Spencer (1976: 33). 4
2
There is some confusion over whether the two men worked together “paint[ing] Jewish types,”8 and whether Wolmark introduced Rothenstein to Spitalfields and helped him find local models, as he later claimed. The critic Charles Spencer believed that “Wolmark’s personality and success induced William Rothenstein to seek out Jewish themes,”9 however, Rothenstein does not mention Wolmark in his memoirs, and neither does Rothenstein’s biographer, Robert Speaight; instead, both relate how Rothenstein stumbled across worshippers in the Brick Lane Machdike Hadass synagogue by chance. Moreover, Rothenstein is known to have painted in Whitechapel between 1904–1907, while Wolmark was away in Poland for much of that period. Although Rothenstein later declared that he had “endeavored to put on to the canvas – the spirit of Israel that animates the worshippers, not the outward trappings of the ritual,”10 his concentration on the ceremonial side of Jewish religious ritual contrasts with Wolmark’s focus on the spiritual. Wolmark’s extraordinary compassion for his Jewish subjects has been identified by the English and Hebrew novelist Marton Braun, also an Orthodox Jew, as a quality of Yidishe Neshome or “innate passionate Judaism.”11 Although it was certainly true that both Wolmark and Rothenstein had popularized images of Jewish subjects, records show that Wolmark began a full five years before Rothenstein.12 Wolmark moreover, was also drawing on an older discourse, that of the Eastern Jew or Ostjüden: traditional, unassimilated and exclusive, rather than that of the assimilated Western Jew or Westjüden: cultured, acculturated and inclusive, with which the Anglicized Rothenstein (Bradford-born, to a Jewish family, though his father embraced Unitarianism) would have identified. Indeed, even the reviewer of the Jewish Chronicle, judging from a Westjüden perspective, recognized that Wolmark was depicting, the “artistic possibilities” of the Ostjüden,13 when he interpreted his Jewish East End pictures as representations of “Foreign Jewish Life.”14
8
Gordon (1971: 20). Spencer (1976b) 10 William Rothenstein to L. von Hofmann, 4 February 1903, cited Speaight (1962: 163). 11 Braun (2004: 16). 12 The earliest press report of Wolmark’s Jewish pictures dates to 1899, five years before Rothenstein began his first Jewish picture, A Ghetto Rabbi (also known as A Rabbi). 13 Anon (1908b: 20). 14 Ibid. 9
3
Wolmark was encouraged in his early work by Anna Wilmersdoerffer (1859– 1919), a cultured, affluent German-Jewish émigré (and Westjüden), whom he met three years into his art studies. Anna became Wolmark’s earliest patron and mentor, working tirelessly on his behalf: providing him with funds, commissions and sales, organizing his first one-man show in London in 1905, and providing him with a studio on his return from Poland. She also promoted his reputation by writing laudatory articles on his work for both English and German journals, most significantly in the German journal Ost und West (under the pseudonym “A May”),15 which specifically sought to “reverse Jewish ‘assimilation’ in Western and central Europe by constructing an ethnic-national identity that included East European or Eastern forms of Jewishness” and was keen to promote positive images of Ostjüden.16 Anna had also funded Wolmark’s Amsterdam trip in 1898 to see a major Rembrandt exhibition,17 resulting in his first significant Jewish picture, a large, multifigured canvas depicting a group of nine, mainly elderly, Jews gathered around a table, while an empty chair draped with a talith suggests that a tenth person is awaited. 18 The composition, treatment, tonal values and smooth paint handling all owe much to Rembrandt and when Wolmark first exhibited the work at the Royal Academy in 1903, The Art Journal’s critic understood the historical comparison, remarking that it 'ha[d] a rugged picturesqueness which the modern men do not often try to attain.”19 In 1903 Wolmark also made the first of two extended trips to Poland (again funded by Anna), specifically to execute studies for a large, ambitious canvas. He travelled to Krakow, where he remained until March 1905, and it has been suggested that Wolmark went there in order “to steep himself still further in the old ways.”20 Yet by entering within the sophisticated, urban environment of a University city, as Peter Gross observes, “this was far from a return to the shtetl of popular tradition.”21 Moreover, 15
May (1908: 599–606). Brenner (1998: 15), cited Gross (2004: 3). 17 Rembrandt, Stedelijke Museum, Amsterdam, 8 September – 31 October 1898. 18 Ten being the required number in Jewish practice to make up a formal congregation for prayers. 19 Baldry (1903: 179). 20 Emanuel (1982: 48). 21 Gross (2004: 9). I am indebted to Mrs Diana Gross, and to Dr. Eva Frojmovic of the Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Leeds, for access to the chapter “Mr Wolmark, Painter of the Ghetto” by the late Peter Gross, during the exhibition and its associated catalogue, Rediscovering Wolmark: A Pioneer of British Modernism, co-curated and co-edited with Rachel Dickson at the Ben Uri Gallery, The London 16
4
Krakow in this period was known as “a center of Jewish artistic activity associated with the Jewish national revival,” centered on the influential Polish painter Maurycy Gottlieb, whose younger brother, Leopold, Wolmark may have met at this time and later painted, and whose work broadly sought to unite Jewish and Polish themes. Wolmark may also have been influenced by Gottlieb’s one-time tutor, the highly-influential Jan Matejko (1838–1893), known for his realistic, multi-figured, patriotic, historical canvases, which both roused and reinforced the concept of Polish national identity.22 One of Wolmark’s critically-acclaimed oils illustrates Browning’s famous line “Let age speak the truth, and give us peace at last,” and features a group of some thirty scholars gathered around the sage, and was the key work (among 84 exhibits) at Wolmark’s first solo exhibition at London’s Bruton Gallery in 1905.23 This was the year that parliament passed the Aliens Act, limiting the immigration rights of foreigners,24 and the proposed Aliens Act preoccupied both the Jewish and non-Jewish press. In May when a Jewish Chronicle advertisement for Wolmark’s forthcoming exhibition drew attention to his “Important large painting […],” the reporter on the adjoining page was expressing “a sense of despair and bewilderment” at the latest reports of the Aliens Act debate. In an article entitled Master Narratives/Minority Artists25 Norman L Kleeblatt suggests that by exhibiting the oil at a time of such impassioned debate about a law primarily intended to stem Jewish immigration, Wolmark was deliberately identifying himself with “a literary theme from an ‘empowered’ author whose text positively affirm[ed] [his] racial, ethnic, and […] religious difference.” Kleeblatt contends that by identifying himself with Browning (an acknowledged Hebraicist and supporter of Jewish causes), as well as with his famous poem, 26 Wolmark was also serving “a political
Jewish Museum of Art (2004). The full revised Ph.D. has since been published at Leeds but all references in this essay are to the earlier unpublished chapter cited above. 22 See also Gross (2004). Wolmark’s biographer, Peter Risdon, also believes that he was influenced by Enoch (Henryk) Glicenstein (1870–1942) and Leopold Pilichowski (1869–1933), both of whom he knew; they were also included with Wolmark in the Austellung judischer Kunstler at the Galerie für Neue und Alte Kunst, Berlin 1907 (Risdon, 2004: 13). 23 The Last days of Rabbi Ben Ezra was offered as a limited-edition photogravure in three types: 35 signed Remarque proofs at 5 guineas each, 75 signed artist’s proofs at 3 guineas, and an unspecified number of India prints at 1 guinea (advertisement to Bruton show). 24 Gross (2001: 22–36). 25 Kleeblatt (1998: 29–35). 26 Robert Browning’s poem “Rabbi ben Ezra”, published in the monologues Dramatis Personae (1864), concerns the great 12th century poet, mathematician and scholar, Abraham ibn Ezra (1092–1167).
5
mission” at this crucial time. He concludes that in “evoking the great tradition of Eastern European Jewish scholarship, as well as the group’s reputation for spiritual generosity,” Wolmark’s painting “operated as both an act of cultural identity and a defense of his people.”27 Gross however, suggests that the conception of the oil in Krakow was “far from coincidental,” arguing that Wolmark, instead of identifying with the English Browning was actually seeking “to reconcile his Polishness, his Jewishness and his Englishness,” by consciously echoing two Polish masters – Gottlieb and Matejko. He concludes that despite Wolmark’s later insistence on his Englishness, “the act of cultural identity” that Wolmark’s picture declares is, in fact, that of the Ostjüd.28 Nevertheless, by 1906, Wolmark and Rothenstein were being classed together 29 as: “the founders of a new Jewish school in this country. They all treat the same subject – the Alien at worship and study […],”30 although Rothenstein’s observations were entirely confined to Whitechapel. Both were included in the Whitechapel Art Gallery’s extensive exhibition “Jewish Art and Antiquities” (1906), which, though it sought to promote a positive view of Jewish culture at this sensitive time, ultimately, as Lisa Tickner has commented, “held out [the culture of the assimilated organizers] for Gentiles to admire and immigrants to aspire to: they were [in effect] spectators of a culture already complete.”31 Most of the other artists (including Rothenstein) were assimilated Westjüden, and Wolmark, who, as commentators noted, had sent most of his major works to a large solo exhibition in Berlin, did not show to advantage. Ironically, it was a work by Rothenstein which was bought by a Bradford collector and presented a year later to the Tate “in the name of the Jewish Community, and as a memorial” to the Whitechapel’s Jewish Exhibition. The Tate’s acquisition of this work, “and the considerable publicity which attended it,” noted Rothenstein’s biographer, Robert Speaight, “registered […], the
27
Kleeblatt (1998: 29–35). Gross (2004: 13). 29 Along with the now less well-known figures of Isaac Snowman, Louis Conrad and Mark Zangwill. 30 Anon (1906: IV/V). 31 Tickner (2000: 155). 28
6
arrival of William Rothenstein as a senior British artist.”32 Notably, no comparable Jewish work by Wolmark was presented to a museum collection in this period. Wolmark did not confine himself to painting Jewish subjects, however. By 1908 he was also well-known for landscapes and portraits, and even in 1905, though many of the works exhibited at the Bruton were of mainly Polish subjects, very few of them were specifically Jewish. His portrayal of a family in one work caused some confusion. In the Jewish Chronicle, three different critics described it in three different reviews as (1) “a study of [an] East End Jewish family;”33 (2) “a fine thing, but has no Jewish interest, the types depicted being Russian working men and women;”34 and (3) “a modernized realistic version of the Holy Family.”35 Wolmark asserted somewhat disingenuously, that he was simply depicting “the humble interior of a Russian carpenter’s shop”,36 but he could not have been unaware of the visual precedent of a work by pre-Raphaelite John Everett Millais, also set in a carpenter’s shop and replete with Christian imagery – some of which (the table placed as altar, the grouping of the Holy Trinity and the positioning of the window) Wolmark’s canvas shares. 37 Although Wolmark continued to paint Jewish subjects until 1911, no substantial composition was ever repeated. He continued to draw on Jewish cultural imagery for his subject matter, but the handling of the paint, his palette, and the structure of the images themselves, began to undergo a transformation indicating his journey into modernism. This is best illustrated by two key transitional paintings: one depicts an Orthodox couple at home, absorbed in their Sabbath studies, while beyond the open window, the sun plays over a brilliantly-lit, urban townscape beyond, identifying Wolmark with a modernist motif typical of his English Camden Town contemporaries.38 However, it also has affinities with a similar composition by another Polish painter associated with the Krakow school, Samuel Herzenberg (1866-1908), whose monumental canvas is also split
32
Speaight (1962: 166). Cited in: Dickson, MacDougall (2004: 49). 34 Anon (1906: IV/V). 35 Anon (1908b: 20). 36 Ibid. 37 John Everett Millais (1829–1896) was on the teaching staff at the Royal Academy during Wolmark’s time there. 33
7
horizontally by a table, with a remarkably similar urban landscape complete with thrusting, industrial towers, glimpsed beyond the window.39 Wolmark’s full liberation into color coincides with his honeymoon at Concarneau, Brittany in July 1911. There in an astonishing outpouring of creativity, he averaged one canvas a day, amassing by the end of his short stay, the largest single body of work of his entire career. He also jettisoned his earlier, studied methods and manner in favor of a more vital, instinctive response, well illustrated by four self-portraits with less than a year between first and last. Wolmark presents himself in archetypal smock and cravat, the formal “uniform” of the Edwardian painter and dandy. Carefully composed and structured, mostly muted in tone and color, but with a curious suggestion of the colorist work to come, in a freeform rush of color between palette and brush. In three 1911 self-portraits, however, the traditional setting is completely abandoned and Wolmark reinvents himself as the archetypal bohemian. The first of two almost mirror images, Wolmark employs a strong, Fauve palette in homage to Matisse. In the third, the entire surface is saturated with energetically applied impasto, set against a sun-drenched yellow background. The smoother, thinner application of paint favored in the early religious works has now been completely abandoned, and the Concarneau work shows a move towards bigger, bolder blocks of color and a greater simplification of form, which owes something to Gauguin and his Pont-Aven followers. In numerous studies of the fishing community and their boats, with tall masts and colored sails, Wolmark refashioned his new subjects into strong geometric patterns indicative of his new aesthetic sensibility. Wolmark’s artistic liberation in 1911 may be linked to his personal stability at the time, for he had just married and was undergoing naturalization. But it is more likely that he was reacting to the momentous events on the contemporary British art scene, spearheaded by Roger Fry’s seminal Manet and the Post-Impressionists at London’s Grafton Gallery (1910–1911) and disseminated in influential accounts by Frank Rutter40 Alhough Hirszenberg’s painting probably originated in Łódź, and Wolmark’s certainly in London, and it is not clear whether he knew Hirszenberg’s work at this time. Hirszenberg was among those influenced by Gottlieb to study at the Krakow School of Arts; see Malinowski (1991). 40 Rutter, curator at the City Art Gallery, Leeds (1912–1917), Sunday Times critic, editor of Art News and founder of the AAA, was the author of Revolution in Art: An Introduction to the Study of Cézanne, Gauguin, van Gogh and Other Modern Painters (Art News Press, London 1910). 39
8
and C Lewis Hind.41 Yet, even prior to Concarneau, Wolmark had exhibited newer, more colorful canvases at the International Society (Grafton, spring 1911), and afterwards, at the Baillie Gallery (autumn 1911) and Goupil Gallery (winter 1911). Less than two years later he was overtly exhibited in the context of Post-Impressionism in Rutter’s Loan Exhibition of Post-Impressionist Paintings and Drawings (Leeds Art Club, June 1913) and its London successor Post-Impressionist and Futurists (Doré Gallery, October 1913). Now truly one of the moderns, Wolmark was later proud to relate that on one occasion his work was hung next to Van Gogh's because his colors were considered to contrast too violently with those of his English contemporaries. After his departure into modernism, Wolmark also physically left London’s East End. He rarely returned to his earlier subject matter, though when he did so he applied his colorist technique to intimate studies quite different from his earlier monumental canvases. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that, after his modernist epiphany, Wolmark’s interest in images of cultural identity lessened, as his affirmation of his artistic identity as a modernist became stronger. 42 His inclusion as part of an ‘embryonic East End avant-garde’ in Bomberg’s much-debated “Jewish Section” at the Whitechapel in 1914 demonstrates that he was, certainly in this period, counted among this number. 43 As the only artist in this later selection also to be included in the earlier 1906 exhibition however, his art can be seen as bridging the gap between not only traditionalism and modernism, but also perhaps between East and West. Wolmark’s early modernist experiments, together with his early work in the East End, anticipated by an entire generation the work of the next “Whitechapel Boys”: all immigrants or the sons of immigrants themselves, either born, raised or working in the East End in the first two decades of the 20th century – with painters David Bomberg, Mark Gertler, Jacob Kramer, Bernard Meninsky and poet-painter Isaac Rosenberg prominent among them – they would build upon his pioneering lead, going on to make, both collectively and in some cases, individually, an important contribution to British modernism.The last word, 41
Critic Charles Lewis Hind was author of The Post-Impressionists (Methuen & Co. Ltd, London 1911). Kleeblatt (1998: 29–35) concludes persuasively that “in the end, [Wolmark] retreated to a modernist ghetto, taking refuge in a seemingly depoliticized, highly specialized, and ultimately less threatening world.” 43 Tickner (2000: 146). 42
9
however, should go to Wolmark. In a lecture entitled “The Neglect of Art in England” (Jewish Chronicle, 25 August 1916), he declared: I used to paint Rabbis with long beards, and today I don’t, but today I am more a Jewish artist than I was then. For today I paint everything in the way that a Jew would paint, a Jew who lived in Jerusalem under bright skies, with a great love for his race and his religion, a free man in his own land.44 © Sarah MacDougall 2008/2021 Extract from: given in full Date: 2014 (revised 2021 Source: This paper was given at the First Congress of Jewish Art in Poland, Kazimierz on the Vistula River, 27-29 October 2008 and published in Jewish Artists and Central Eastern Europe, Conferences of the Polish Society of Oriental Art, Vol. III, eds., J. Malinowski, R. Piątkowska and T. SztymaKnasiecka (Warsaw: DiG, 2010)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Anon 1906 = Anon: Jewish Chronicle (Nov. 9, 1906) Anon 1907 = Anon: Jewish World (May 10, 1907) Anon 1908a = Anon: "Show Sunday. New Pictures by Jewish Artists,” Jewish Chronicle (April 3, 1908) Anon 1908b = Anon: “The Artist and His Work: Interview for The Jewish Chronicle with Mr. Alfred A. Wolmark”. Jewish Chronicle (May 15, 1908) Anon 1911 = Anon: Jewish Chronicle (July 14, 1911) Baldry 1903 = Baldry, A. L.: “The Royal Academy exhibition of 1903,” Art Journal (1903) Berger 2004 = Berger, M. et al.: Masterworks of the Jewish Museum, The Jewish Museum, New York, 2004 Braun 2004 = Braun, M.: “My Wolmark,” in: Rediscovering Wolmark: a Pioneer of British Modernism, Ben Uri Gallery, The London Jewish Museum of Art, London, 2004 Brenner 1998= Brenner, D.: Marketing Identities: The Invention of Jewish Ethnicity in “Ost und West”, Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1998 Carter 1912 = Carter, H.: “Art and Drama,” The New Age (May 2, 1912) Dickson, MacDougall 2004 = Dickson, R. & MacDougall, S.: “Hurrah for the new art! The Emergence of Wolmark the Colourist,” in: Rediscovering Wolmark: a 44
Tate Gallery Archive (TGA 721.19), cited in: Risdon (2004).
10
Pioneer of British Modernism, Ben Uri Gallery, The London Jewish Museum of Art, London, 2004 Emanuel 1982 = Emanuel, M.: The Immigrant Generations, introd. by Tumarkin Goodman, S., The Jewish Museum, New York, 1982 Gordon 1971 = Gordon, M.: “The resurrection of Wolmark,” Art & Artists (January 1971) Gross 2001 = Gross, P.: “A Cultural Moment in the Midst of Change: Background to the Establishment of the Ben Uri Society,” The Ben Uri Story, Ben Uri Gallery, The London Jewish Museum of Art, London, 2001 Gross 2004 = Gross, P.: “Mr. Wolmark, The Painter of the Ghetto,” from unpublished Ph.D. thesis by the late Peter Gross (see footnote) Gruetzner Robins 1997 = Gruetzner Robins, A.: Modern Art in Britain 1910–1914, Merrell Holberton in association with Barbican Art Gallery, London, 1997 Kleeblatt 1998 = Kleeblatt, N. L.: “Master Narratives/Minority Artists,” Art Journal 57, no. 3 (Autumn 1998): 29–35 Malinowski 1991 = Malinowski, J.: “Maurycy Gottlieb,” in: Guralnik, N. (eds.): Maurycy Gottlieb 1856–1879, Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Tel Aviv, 1991 May 1908 = May, A.: “Alfred Wolmark, ein Maler des Judentums,” Ost und West, Berlin 1908 Risdon 2004 = Risdon, P.: “Wolmark,” unpublished manuscript, compiled 2004 Rothenstein 1932 = Rothestein, W.: Men and Memories, vol. 2, Faber & Faber Ltd, London, 1932 Speaight 1962 = Speaight, R.: William Rothenstein: The Portrait of an Artist in His Time, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1962 Spencer 1976a = Spencer, Ch.: “Wolmark: Doyen of Anglo-Jewish Artists,1877–1961,” Jewish Chronicle (May 21, 1976) Spencer 1976b = Spencer, Ch.: (introduction to:) Art from the East End 1900–1976: Bomberg, Gertler, Kramer et al., Campbell & Franks Fine Arts, London, 1976 Spencer 1983 = Spencer, Ch.: The Immigrant Generations: Jewish Artists in Britain 1900–1945, Jewish Museum, New York, 1983 Tickner 2000 = Tickner, L.: Modern Life and Modern Subjects, Yale University Press, New Haven–London, 2000
11