abstract: The Romanian avant-garde artist Constantin Brancusi is considered one of the most significant artists of modern sculpture. This is due to his innovative use of materials, such as wood and marble, and his reduction and precision of form. Brancusi developed his abstraction with "primitive" sources of art in mind. This thesis examines how and to what extent primitivism played a central role in Brancusi's sculptures and his construction as a primitive artist. Romanian folk art and African art were the two main sources of influence on Brancusi's primitivism. Brancusi identified himself with the Romanian peasantry and its folk culture. Romanian folk culture embraces woodcarving and folk literary fables--both of which Brancusi incorporated in his sculptures. In my opinion, Brancusi's wood pedestals, such as the Endless Column, are based on wood funerary, decorative, and architectural motifs from Romanian villages. Brancusi was exposed to African art through his relationship with the New York avant-garde. The art dealers Alfred Stieglitz, Marius de Zayas, and Joseph Brummer exhibited Brancusi's sculptures in their galleries, in addition to exhibiting African art. Meanwhile, Brancusi's main patron John Quinn also collected African art. His interaction with the New York avant-garde led him to incorporate formal features of African sculpture, such as the oval forms of African masks, into his abstract sculptures. Brancusi also used African art to expose the racial prejudice of his time. African art, along with Romanian folk art, informed Brancusi's primitivism consistently throughout his long career as a modern sculptor. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Art History 2014

<p>The conditions for art in Romania have gone through big changes since the collapse of the regime in December of 1989. Under the Communist regime the artists had to work within a dualistic system completely unlike the one that developed in the West during the same period.</p><p>Similar to the other countries of the former Eastern block, the communist Romanian state had understood the great potential that art has as a form of propaganda. Thus the regime secured full control over the art that would be allowed into the public space. In response to the confines set on the artistic expressions, a non-official art began to develop alongside the official art of the state.</p><p>These two layers of Romanian art history were dissolved when Ceausescu’s regime finally came to an end in 1989. The underground art was suddenly available to an audience, while the official art was discredited. Out of the chaos that followed, a new Romanian art was born. During the 1990’s many Romanian artists started to process the past to try to understand their present situation, while others investigated Romanian identity as perceived from the outside.</p><p>The main focus of this paper has been to look at the conditions for contemporary Romanian art under Communism, and how they have changed since 1989.</p><p>My research has been based on literature such as The History of the Romanian People (1970), Primary Documents (2002) and Actionism in Romania during the Commuinist Era (2002), as well as on my own interviews with artists Constantin Mara, Ion Grigorescu, Matei Lazarescu, Kuki Constantinescu and Stefan Constantinescu.</p>

The conditions for art in Romania have gone through big changes since the collapse of the regime in December of 1989. Under the Communist regime the artists had to work within a dualistic system completely unlike the one that developed in the West during the same period. Similar to the other countries of the former Eastern block, the communist Romanian state had understood the great potential that art has as a form of propaganda. Thus the regime secured full control over the art that would be allowed into the public space. In response to the confines set on the artistic expressions, a non-official art began to develop alongside the official art of the state. These two layers of Romanian art history were dissolved when Ceausescu’s regime finally came to an end in 1989. The underground art was suddenly available to an audience, while the official art was discredited. Out of the chaos that followed, a new Romanian art was born. During the 1990’s many Romanian artists started to process the past to try to understand their present situation, while others investigated Romanian identity as perceived from the outside. The main focus of this paper has been to look at the conditions for contemporary Romanian art under Communism, and how they have changed since 1989. My research has been based on literature such as The History of the Romanian People (1970), Primary Documents (2002) and Actionism in Romania during the Commuinist Era (2002), as well as on my own interviews with artists Constantin Mara, Ion Grigorescu, Matei Lazarescu, Kuki Constantinescu and Stefan Constantinescu.