Monir Farmanfarmaian-notable auction sales

The Paradox of an Unquiet Aesthetic

Farideh Lashai (1944–2013) occupies a singular position in modern Iranian art—a multidisciplinary visionary whose fifty-year career defied categorization while interrogating the boundaries between the personal and political, the aesthetic and activist.[1] Posthumously, her market surge challenges the art world’s marginalization of Middle Eastern women artists. According to ArtTactic’s 2021 report, while female artists account for only 2% of global auction sales, Lashai’s posthumous success places her among pioneers like Shirin Neshat.[2] 

Artistic Evolution: From Luminous Abstraction to Animated Protest 

Fig. 1: Farideh Lashai, Catching the Moon (2010–2013). Projected animation with sound in stainless-steel water-well, 30.75 x 25.5 in. (78 x 65 cm). Sound: Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata, Op. 27 No. 2, Movement 3, performed by Valentina Lisitsa. Edition of 7, 2 APs.

Early Period: The Poetry of Materiality (1960s–1990s)

Lashai’s early paintings, characterized by ethereal translucency, drew comparisons to Joan Mitchell. Critic Negar Azimi in Artforum notes her vases’ lucent quality as harbingers of later political works.[3] 

 Multimedia Breakthrough: The Animated Landscape Series (2000–2013)

Fig. 2: Farideh Lashai, Prelude to Alice in Wonderland (2010-2012), Painting with projected animation and sound; oil, acrylic and graphite on canvas, 110 × 160 cm (43.25 × 63 in).

In her final decade, Lashai pioneered a groundbreaking synthesis of painting and video projection, transforming her abstract landscapes into dynamic theaters of memory. (See Fig. 1) Works like Rabbits, Prelude to Alice in Wonderland (2010-2012), (Fig. 2) fused Lewis Carroll’s absurdism with Iranian topography, creating what she called "grotesque parables of power." This technique culminated in her When I Count... series (2010–2012), where hand-drawn animations of spectral figures traversed painted terrains-a direct response to Goya’s The Disasters of War and the trauma of Iran-Iraq War displacements.[4] Media Farzin emphasizes how these works "literalized the ghosts of history," with projections functioning as "both witness and aftermath." Lashai’s own words from Shal Bamu clarify her intent: "I animated the landscapes so they might speak—not of picturesque valleys, but of the mass graves hidden beneath them."[5] 

Shal Bamu: Auto-Fiction as Historical Archive

Structure and Literary Innovation 

Shal Bamu (2003) is her original short story, part of the Persian collection The Caged Leopard's Memoirs (Khaterate Palanghe Dar Bande), which blends poetic prose with themes of captivity, longing, and existential reflection. In Shal Bamu, Lashai uses rich, symbolic imagery to explore themes of freedom and constraint, possibly reflecting her own experiences living through Iran's political and social transformations. The narrative is introspective, layered with metaphors, and carries a melancholic yet lyrical tone-characteristic of Lashai's multidisciplinary artistry (she was also a renowned painter).[6] 

Market Analysis: Posthumous Recognition – Technical Specifications & Provenance 

Auction Performance & Work Specifications 

1. When I Count, There Are Only You... But When I Look, There Is Only a Shadow (2010–2012)(Fig. 3)

Fig. 3: Farideh Lashai, When I Count, There Are Only You... But When I Look, There Is Only a Shadow (2012–2013). Suite of 80 photo-intaglio prints with projection of animated images, 75.5 x 122 in. (191.8 x 309.9 cm).

o    Medium: Mixed-media installation (oil on canvas + HD digital projection)

o    Dimensions: 200 × 300 cm (triptych)

o    Projection: 12-minute loop, 1080p resolution 

o   Auction: Christie’s Dubai, March 2018 | Hammer Price: $ 275,000  (275,000(est.200,000–$300,000)

o    Provenance:

·   Created during Lashai's residency at Dar al-Handasah, Beirut 

·   Exhibited at 2012 Venice Biennale (Iran Pavilion) 

·    Private collection, Dubai (2012–2018)[7]

2. Flying Horses (2007) 

o    Medium: Acrylic and ink on canvas 

o    Dimensions: 200 × 150 cm (triptych) 

o    Auction: Bonhams Dubai, March 2019  | Hammer Price: $120,000 (est. $90,000–$150,000)

o    Provenance:

·   From "Mythologies" series 

·   Exhibited at Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art (2009) 

·   Private collection, London (2009–2019)[8]   

Market Trends Analysis 

o         Price Trajectory: 300% increase in value (2013–2023) 

o         Average annual growth: 18.7%[9] 

o         Collector Profile:

   ·  62% institutional buyers (museums, foundations) 

   · 38% private collectors (primarily Middle Eastern diaspora) 

o         Installation Requirements:

   · Climate-controlled environment (21°C ± 2°) 

 ·  Professional projection calibration 

  ·  Estate-approved technicians[10] 

Authentication Process

All auctioned works include: 

1. Certificate from Lashai Estate 

2. Exhibition history documentation  

3. Materials analysis report 

4. Digital provenance record[11] 

Market Drivers

1. Scarcity: Only ~200 known paintings[12] 

2. A significant portion of buyers are Iranian expatriates, according to market observers (Advocartsy, 2023).[13] 

Collector Motivations

·     Poetic Visual Language: Literary-infused narratives.

·     Political Resonance: Exile, memory, and identity.

·     Legacy Scarcity: Limited corpus enhances exclusivity.[14]

A Woman’s Place in the Auction World

The art auction industry has historically been male-dominated, but artists like Lashai challenge this trend. Her success not only highlights the rising interest in Middle Eastern contemporary art but also underscores the importance of recognizing female artists who were once overlooked.[15] 

The Endurance of Shadows 

Lashai’s legacy persists not only in auction records but in her ability to merge formal innovation with historical reckoning. As her works continue to circulate among institutional and diasporic collectors, they reinforce her vision of art as an act of resistance—one where, as Media Farzin observes, the spectral and the tangible collide.[16] The sustained demand for her pieces, particularly among Iranian expatriates, underscores a collective need to engage with unresolved histories, ensuring that her "animated landscapes" remain both an aesthetic triumph and a haunting testimony.[17]

Essay by Malihe Norouzi / Independent Art Scholar

References:

Section 1: The Making of an American Modernist (1887–1918)

Academic Foundations and the Rejection of Tonalism

Georgia O’Keeffe’s early artistic development (1887–1915) was characterized by a gradual departure from conventional representation toward an instinctive yet disciplined modernism, shaped by her academic training, intellectual curiosity, and the vast American landscape. Born in Wisconsin, she came of age during the decline of genteel artistic traditions, witnessing the shift from Tonalism with its softened contours, muted palettes, and atmospheric obscurity toward a more incisive and individualized mode of perception. Her formal education began at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and continued at New York’s Art Students’ League under William Merritt Chase (1849–1916). Though she later admired Chase, O’Keeffe initially emulated his painterly approach, which prioritized fleeting optical effects of light and shadow a method she ultimately rejected in favor of abstraction.[1]

The 1915 Breakthrough: Dow’s Musical Pedagogy and Abstraction

A pivotal transformation occurred in 1915 while teaching in the expansive terrain of the western Plains, where she synthesized diverse influences into a radically abstract style. Under Arthur Wesley Dow’s tutelage at Columbia Teachers College, O’Keeffe learned to visualize abstract forms through musical rhythms, a pedagogical approach that profoundly shaped her practice. By the late 1910s, she began transposing auditory experiences such as the resonant calls of cattle at dusk into vivid visual forms, exemplified in works like Red and Orange Streak (fig. 1), where the horizon erupts in chromatic intensity. Despite her insistence that her art emerged solely from personal experience, O’Keeffe engaged deeply with contemporary intellectual currents, including literature, philosophy, and avant-garde criticism. Her exposure to Camera Work connected her to modernist discourse, and her rejection of traditional conventions became an assertion of autonomy. As she later asserted, constrained by the limited freedoms afforded to women, she resolved to define her own artistic parameters.[2]

Fig. 1: Georgia O'Keeffe, Red and Orange Streak, 1919,

Oil on canvas, 27 × 23 inches (68.6cm × 58.4 cm).

The 1917–1918 Watercolors: Childlike Vision as Radical Practice

Upon returning to New York in 1917, O’Keeffe entered into a lifelong professional and personal partnership with Alfred Stieglitz, a relationship that endured until his death in 1946. This alliance with modernism’s foremost promoter exposed her to new influences through the male-dominated circle of artists associated with Gallery 291, further shaping her evolving practice.[3] A series of watercolors from this period (1917–18) demonstrates O’Keeffe’s deliberate engagement with the medium’s inherent unpredictability such as uneven transparency, pigment bleeding, and textural ridges alongside an intentional evocation of naïve draftsmanship.[4] Here, her approach reflects a studied emulation of the selective forms and simplified gestures characteristic of children’s art. Rather than adopting conventional juvenile motifs (e.g., houses, chickens), she internalized the schematizing logic of a child’s visual language to articulate her own sense of awe while confronting the vast Texan landscape under starlit skies. [5]

This sensibility is particularly evident in her deployment of the spiral motif within the Evening Star watercolors (fig. 2) and the Light Coming on the Plains (fig. 3) series, where the tremulous quality of line suggests the unsteady hand of a child. The rhythmic brushwork, akin to the arcing motion of a child drawing a rainbow, transmutes celestial energies into visual cadences.[6] Unlike Kandinsky, who embraced the unrestrained aesthetic of preschool scribbles, O’Keeffe negotiated a balance between childlike simplicity and formal precision a synthesis informed by Dow’s Japanese-derived principles of decorative spatial composition. These works not only anticipate her later return to representation after another abstract phase but also coincide with her first year cohabiting with Stieglitz.[7]

Fig. 2: Georgia O'Keeffe, 1917, Evening Star No. IV, 1917،

Watercolor on paper, 8⅞ × 12 inches (22.5 × 30.5 cm).

 Fig. 3: Georgia O'Keeffe (1887–1986), The Light Coming on the Plains, No. I, 1917,

watercolor on paper (mounted on newsprint), 8⅞ × 11⅞ inches (22.5 × 30.2 cm).

Section 2: Stieglitz’s Photographic Framing (1917–1925)

The "Great American Sexquake": Freudian Readings of Modernist Art

The Stieglitz circle’s engagement with early 20th-century sexual liberation movements was inextricable from their artistic praxis. As Benjamin de Casseres proclaimed, the "Great American Sexquake" of the 1910s–1920s reframed sexuality as a sacramental force against Puritanical repression.[8] This discourse permeated the criticism of Paul Rosenfeld, who eroticized the works of Arthur Dove and Georgia O’Keeffe through a Freudian lens. Dove’s abstractions were lauded for their "tremendous muscular tension" and "male vitality," while O’Keeffe’s paintings were reductively interpreted as expositions of "women’s sexual feelings".[9] Stieglitz amplified these readings through his 1921 exhibition of nude photographic studies depicting O’Keeffe in post-coital states images that transformed her body into a public spectacle "Naked on Broadway" and her art into a marketable extension of her sexuality.[10]

The Woman-Child Paradigm: Stieglitz’s Essentialist Vision

Stieglitz’s 1919 essay Woman in Art codified his essentialist vision of O’Keeffe as the archetypal woman-child, whose creativity emanated from the womb as the "seat of her deepest feeling".[11] This construct, indebted to Havelock Ellis’s theories of feminine infantilization and Freud’s On Narcissism (1914), positioned O’Keeffe’s art as a primal, preverbal expression of the "unconscious body".[12] Stieglitz's photographic portraits (1917-1935) visually reinforced this narrative. In (fig. 4), O'Keeffe appears with her long hair flowing over bare shoulders as she stretches her arms upward, connecting her fingers to the elongated lines that spiral rhythmically toward the frame's top edge. These compositions reflect the influence of Anne Brigman's dancing nudes, whose bodies merged poetically with natural forms a visual language that taught Stieglitz how to make O'Keeffe's body articulate its latent sexual truths.[13]

Fig 4: Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keeffe (Nude No. 8), 1918,

palladium print, 7⅛ × 9 inches (18.1 × 22.9 cm).

 The earlier 1917-1918 portraits focused on O'Keeffe's hands, with their distinctive elongated fingers arranged against her artworks, suggesting the artist magically conjuring her images into being (Fig. 5).[14] The later works instead position O'Keeffe-as-Lover performing a choreographed dance that manifests her maternal relationship to her creations, particularly through compositions where her extended arms and fingers visually merge with the flowing lines of the paper itself. O’Keeffe’s hands merge with her abstract paintings, embodying his belief that her works were "paint-babies" birthed from somatic intuition rather than intellectual labor.[15]  

Fig. 5: Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keeffe in Gallery 291, 1918,

silver gelatin print, 19 × 23.9 cm (6¹⁄₁₆ × 9¼ inches).

Anne Brigman’s Legacy and the Limits of Agency

Stieglitz’s photographic staging of O’Keeffe was deeply informed by his earlier work with Anne Brigman, whose wilderness nudes pioneered the conflation of female creativity with organic forms. His 1918 portraits of O’Keeffe, maternal sexuality as natural (see Fig. 6) replicated Brigman’s visual syntax: twisted limbs against an ancient gnarled tree at Lake George, spiraling gestures mirroring abstract compositions. However, where Brigman asserted agency as both artist and subject, Stieglitz reduced O’Keeffe to a mediated image a "universal woman-child" whose pain and primitivism were aestheticized for public consumption.[16]

Fig. 6: Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keeffe at 291, 1917,

silver-platinum print, 19 × 23.9 cm (7½ × 9⁷⁄₁₆ inches).

Section 3: O’Keeffe’s Subversions and the Stieglitz Circle’s Contradictions

Strategic Complicity: The "Phallic Woman" and Editorial Control

Recent scholarship complicates narratives of O’Keeffe as a passive victim. Her strategic collaboration with Rosenfeld (editing his 1924 Port of New York) and her manipulation of phallic imagery such as holding Abstraction phallic sculpture, Hands1919, (Fig. 7), where she "fondles the genitals of the photographer" reveal her tactical engagement with gendered constructs As Marcia Brennan argues, O’Keeffe became the "phallic woman" who repurposed masculine tropes to assert artistic autonomy.[17]

Fig. 7: Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keeffe - Hands, ca. 1919.

Gelatin silver print, 7 1/2 × 9 7/16 inches (19 × 24 cm).

Gendered Double Standards in Critical Reception

The circle’s critical apparatus applied divergent standards to male artists: Dove’s abstractions were celebrated as both "embryonic" and "phallic," while John Marin’s works were praised for their "fluid and phallic" duality. In contrast, Hartley and Demuth both gay faced homophobic readings of their art as "effeminate" or "depraved", exposing the limits of the circle’s progressive veneer.[18]

Toward Part II –The Breaking Point (1927-935)                                                             

While Stieglitz’s early portraits (1917–1925) established O’Keeffe as modernism’s eroticized archetype, his later images produced amid growing public scrutiny (1927–1935) would amplify their contentious dynamic. Part II examines how O’Keeffe navigated these controversies, reclaiming agency through her later work in New Mexico as Stieglitz’s mythmaking collided with her defiant reinvention.[19]

Essay by Malihe Norouzi

 References:

Leading Iranian Women Artists Breaking Price Records

A Study of Shirin Neshat's Market Dominance

The contemporary Iranian art market has witnessed an extraordinary phenomenon: women artists now command the highest auction prices in the country's history. Among these trailblazers-Monir Farmanfarmaian's geometric mirrors, Farideh Lashaei's calligraphic abstractions, Parastou Forouhar’s digital art and political installations, Golnaz Fathi's minimalist gestures, as well as others like Farah Ossouli, Shadi Ghadirian and Pouran Jinchi-none have achieved the sustained commercial success of Shirin Neshat.[1] This article, the first in a series examining Iran's top-selling women artists, analyzes how Neshat's politically charged photographs and videos have become blue-chip assets, consistently achieving top prices at Sotheby's, Christie's, and Phillips auctions, and establishing her as both a critical and commercial powerhouse. Through an analysis of auction records, exhibition histories, and collector trends, this study reveals how Neshat and her contemporaries navigate the intersection of artistic merit and market demand.

Key discussion points include: 

1. Market Leadership: How Neshat's auction prices compare to other top Iranian women artists. 

2. Institutional Validation: The role of museum acquisitions in boosting commercial value. 

3. Cultural Capital: Why politically charged works command premium prices. 

4. Market Barriers: Challenges in tracking private sales of performance and video art. 

Shirin Neshat’s Auction Records and Market Value: A Study of Commercial Success in Contemporary Art

Shirin Neshat (b. 1957) is one of the most prominent contemporary artists of Iranian origin, whose works explore themes of gender, identity, and political conflict. Her photographs and video installations have achieved significant commercial success in the global art market, with several pieces fetching high prices at auction. By referencing verified auction data and institutional acquisitions, this study provides a comprehensive overview of Neshat’s commercial prominence in contemporary art. 

Shirin Neshat’s art, deeply rooted in the socio-political dynamics of post-revolutionary Iran, has garnered international acclaim. Her works, particularly from the Women of Allah (1993–1997) and Soliloquy (1999) series, have become highly sought after by collectors and institutions. While her photographs have well-documented auction histories, her video installations-such as Turbulent (1998), pose challenges in market valuation due to their limited editions and private sales.[2] 

Fig. 1: Shirin Neshat, Women of Allah, 1994, Ink on photograph, 12 × 9 in (30.5 × 22.9 cm).

Top Auction Records of Shirin Neshat’s Artworks

1. Untitled Women of Allah Series, (1994)

- Auction House: Sotheby’s Dubai (2008) 

- Sale Price: $217,000 (Estimate: $100,000–150,000) 

- Details: This photograph, part of Neshat’s iconic Women of Allah series, features Farsi calligraphy superimposed on a veiled woman’s face. The sale exceeded expectations, reflecting strong demand for her politically charged imagery. (Fig. 1)[3]

Fig. 2: Shirin Neshat, Rebellious Silence, 1994, Ink on photograph,12 × 9 in (30.5 × 22.9 cm).

2. Rebellious Silence, (1994) 

- Auction House: Christie’s Dubai (2008) 

- Sale Price: $193,000 (Estimate: $80,000–120,000) 

- Details: Another seminal work from Women of Allah, this piece juxtaposes Persian poetry with imagery of armed women, reinforcing Neshat’s critique of gender roles in Islamic societies. (Fig. 2)[4]

Fig. 3: Shirin Neshat, Untitled (from Soliloquy Series), 1999, Black-and-white photograph, ink, 40 × 30 in (101.6 × 76.2 cm).

3. Soliloquy, (1999)

- Auction House: Phillips London (2014) 

- Sale Price: $365,000 (Estimate: $200,000–300,000) 

- Details: A large-scale photograph from her Soliloquy series, this work explores themes of exile and cultural displacement, resonating with diasporic audiences. (Fig. 3)[5] 

4. Passage (2001)  

- Auction House: Sotheby’s New York (2021) 

- Sale Price: $441,000 (Estimate: $300,000–500,000) 

- Details: This haunting image from the Passage series reflects on mourning and ritual, further cementing Neshat’s reputation in contemporary photography. (Fig. 4)[6]

Fig. 4: Shirin Neshat, Untitled (from Passage), 2001, Cibachrome print, 38 7/10 × 60 in (98.4 × 152.4 cm).

5. Turbulent (1998) – Private Market Valuation

While Turbulent-Neshat’s Golden Lion-winning video installation-has never been publicly auctioned, its market value is estimated to exceed $700,000 in private transactions. (ArtTactic, 2023, p.34) However, due to the opaque nature of video art sales, this figure remains speculative. (Fig. 5)[7] 

Fig. 5: Shirin Neshat, Turbulent, 1998, Black-and-white video installation (duration: 10 min).

Factors Driving Neshat’s Market Success

1. Institutional Recognition

Neshat’s retrospectives at the Tate Modern, Guggenheim Museum, and Hirshhorn Museum have amplified her market visibility. Institutional acquisitions often precede spikes in private collector demand (Daftari, 2013, pp.172-175)[8]

2. Political and Feminist Themes

Her works engage with postcolonial and feminist discourses, attracting collectors interested in Middle Eastern contemporary art. (Dabashi, 2010, pp. 312-315)[9]

3. Limited Editions 

Most of Neshat’s photographs are released in small editions (often under 10), enhancing their scarcity and auction premiums. (Gladstone Gallery, 2023, p. 8)[10]

Challenges in Verifying Private Sales

Unlike paintings, video installations like Turbulent are typically sold through galleries (e.g., Gladstone Gallery) or acquired by museums without public price disclosures. While auction records for her photographs are well-documented, private sales rely on secondary sources, making precise valuations difficult.[11] 

Shirin Neshat’s auction records demonstrate her strong market presence, particularly in photography. While her video works remain elusive in public sales data, their cultural significance ensures high demand among private collectors. Future research should track gallery transactions and institutional acquisitions for a fuller understanding of her market trajectory. 

Essay by Malihe Norouzi / Independent Art Scholar 

References:

Section 1: The Stieglitz-O’Keeffe Conflict (1920–1929)

The tensions implicit in Stieglitz’s photographic project-his simultaneous celebration and containment of O’Keeffe’s genius-reached their breaking point between 1927 and 1935. Despite his manifesto-like declarations against “fuzzyism,” Stieglitz’s nude studies of O’Keeffe remained paradoxically aestheticized, their compositions creating emotional distance even as they purported to reveal intimate truths.[1]

Fig 1 (left): Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keeffe with Matisse Bronze, 1921, palladium print,

sheet: 24.1 × 19 cm (9 1/2 × 7 1/2 in.), mount: 56.5 × 46.4 cm (22 1/4 × 18 1/4 in.).

Fig 2 (right): Alfred Stieglitz, Georgia O'Keeffe; a portrait, 1922, palladium print, 7 7/16 x 9 7/16 in (18.9 x 24 cm).

As public fascination with their artistic-personal partnership grew (fueled by exhibitions like the 1926 Seven Americans), O’Keeffe began strategically distancing herself from the “woman-child” persona Stieglitz had crafted. This section analyzes her defiance through pivotal developments: her increasing retreats to New Mexico and her ironic exploitation of the vaginal symbolism critics had imposed in her large-scale flower paintings. This growing resistance manifests visually in Stieglitz’s 1921 portrait (Fig. 1), where O’Keeffe clutches a Matisse bronze-originally exhibited at 291 as an exemplar of modernist primitivism with palpable discomfort. Matisse’s figurine, based on his study of African sculpture, now replaces the spoon as the signifier of O’Keeffe’s “primitive” identity. Yet this later staging diverges significantly: a sullen O’Keeffe, brow furrowed, looks away from the statuette, which she holds reluctantly, its presence a burden. Unlike earlier nude studies, she wears a plain white tunic, maintaining the dark/light dichotomy but stripping away the earlier photograph’s confessional intensity.[2]

Throughout the 1920s, Stieglitz’s portraits most frequently depicted O’Keeffe enveloped in dark clothing, her feminine attributes obscured-hair concealed beneath hats, her face often expressing sadness or melancholy (Fig. 2). Counter to these severe images, Stieglitz persisted in framing her work through an eroticized, Freudian lens, reinforcing the sensationalism of his 1921 exhibition.[3] As O’Keeffe endured recurring illnesses and critical scrutiny, she suffered silently, hoping the unwanted erotic interpretations would fade.[4] Her painterly reinventions from 1923 to 1933 provided novelty while covertly subverting the “woman-child” trope. In these formal shifts, we see O’Keeffe excising sexual performativity from her identity as modernism’s feminine archetype.[5]

Section 2: Formal Experimentation and Spatial Innovation (1920–1929)

Fig 3: Georgia O'Keeffe, Red, Yellow and Black Streak, 1924, oil on canvas, 39 3/8 x 31 3/4 in (100 x 80.6 cm).

Fig 4: Georgia O'Keeffe, Grey, Blue and Black- Pink Circle, 1929, oil on canvas, 36 × 48 in (91.4 × 121.9 cm).

O’Keeffe developed motifs serially, manipulating color and form to explore expressive possibilities. Her adjustment of the pictorial frame-mimicking a camera lens-alternately expanded or contracted spatial relationships, destabilizing viewer expectations. In 1920s canvases, she shifted perspectives radically: gazing upward at sky and trees, downward at the ground, or spinning laterally as if turning in place. These spatial experiments subverted traditional landscape horizontality, rendering Lake George as a panorama of sheer energies (Fig. 3).[6]

By the late 1920s, her edges dissolved into fluttering floral movements, exhausting the lyrical line as a language of femininity. The abstract spirals of 1915, which O’Keeffe had reinvented as expressions of interiority, now emerged organically in nature. In Grey Blue and Black-Pink Circle (Fig. 4), the spiral evokes the magic of a kachina doll, its vortex drawing the viewer’s eye into a swirling rhythm. This bodily engagement where viewers feel engulfed by the painting’s movement-is central to her work’s impact.[7] 

Section 3: Floral Imagery and Critical Reception (1920s–1930s)

In the 1920s, Georgia O’Keeffe began her iconic exploration of floral imagery-a subject that crystallized her central artistic concerns. While flowers had traditionally been relegated to the domain of amateur female painters, O’Keeffe radically redefined them, rendering petals that strained against the canvas edges and magnifying their reproductive anatomy with an almost confrontational intensity. Her use of vivid, saturated hues which she provocatively termed "magnificently vulgar" further disrupted conventional expectations.[8]

This bold approach invited highly gendered interpretations from contemporary critics. Paul Rosenfeld, for instance, framed her abstractions as revelations of "feminine sexuality’s mystery," while Henry McBride famously labeled her a "priestess of mystery" in 1927. Similarly, Louis Kalonyme asserted in 1928 that O’Keeffe’s work stripped away civilization’s constructed femininity to expose a primal, "natural" essence. Such readings, however, often conflated her art with essentialist notions of womanhood-a reduction O’Keeffe vehemently resisted.[9]

Fig 5: Georgia O’Keeffe, Jack-in-the-Pulpit No. IV, 1930, oil on canvas, 40 × 30 in (101.6 × 76.2 cm).

Among her most significant floral works, the Jack-in-the-Pulpit series (comprising six paintings of varying scales) exemplifies her subversion of both botanical and gendered conventions. The sequence progresses from an external view of the flower to an almost microscopic examination of its stamens and pistils. The painting (fig. 5) epitomizes O’Keeffe’s manipulation of scale and spatial ambiguity: the flower’s interior dominates the composition, blurring distinctions between interior and exterior, mass and void. Deep blue voids at the canvas corners envelop the central form, while the inky blackness of the petal’s core suggests an abyss penetrated by a flame-like protrusion. The pistil’s form oscillates between phallic solidity and cavernous depth, destabilizing fixed interpretations.[10]

These formal ambiguities mirror the androgynous duality of O’Keeffe’s imagery, which defies simplistic gendered readings. She rejected critics’ insistence on a "feminine" symbolism, arguing that such interpretations obscured her work’s broader metaphorical dimensions-its interplay between body, nature, and landscape. For O’Keeffe, metaphor was not merely stylistic but epistemological, a means of understanding one reality through another. The Jack-in-the-Pulpit series, like her finest works, invites viewers to re-examine the familiar through this destabilizing lens.[11] 

Section 4: American Identity and Late Career (1930–1972)

New York to New Mexico: Shifting Perspectives (1925–1930s)

In 1925, after her marriage to Stieglitz, the couple moved into the Shelton Hotel’s upper floors, where O’Keeffe began her iconic series of New York city spaces and skyscrapers. These works functioned as a subversive, gender-bending project, asserting her autonomy within the male-dominated modernist movement (Fig. 6). By 1929, her artistic trajectory shifted dramatically when she accepted an invitation from Mabel Dodge, the famed patron of the New York avant-garde, to visit New Mexico. The region’s stark landscapes ignited a profound connection, marking the birth of the “O’Keeffe myth” and her enduring association with the American Southwest.[12]

Fig 6: Georgia O'Keeffe, The Shelton with Sunspots, N.Y., 1926,

oil on canvas, 122.6 × 76.9 cm (48 1/4 × 30 1/4 in.). 

In 1925, after her marriage to Stieglitz, the couple moved into the Shelton Hotel’s upper floors, where O’Keeffe began her iconic series of New York cityscapes and skyscrapers. These works functioned as a subversive, gender-bending project, asserting her autonomy within the male-dominated modernist movement (Fig. 6). By 1929, her artistic trajectory shifted dramatically when she accepted an invitation from Mabel Dodge, the famed patron of the New York avant-garde, to visit New Mexico. The region’s stark landscapes ignited a profound connection, marking the birth of the “O’Keeffe myth” and her enduring association with the American Southwest.[12]

Fig 7: Georgia O'Keeffe, Gerald's Tree I, 1937, oil on canvas, 40 × 30 1/8 in (101.6 × 76.5 cm).

 Challenging American Narratives (1930s–1940s)

Fig 8: Georgia O'Keeffe, Cow's Skull with Calico Roses, 1931, oil on canvas, 91.4 × 61 cm (36 × 24 in.). 

O’Keeffe’s engagement with American identity directly contested the era’s prevailing artistic narratives. While Eastern peers romanticized the “American scene” through clichéd depictions of farmsteads and livestock, her firsthand immersion in the Southwest exposed the artifice of such urban projections.[14] During the 1930s cultural nationalist debates, she redefined Southwestern iconography: pelvic bones framing azure voids and rams’ skulls hovering above eroded mesas became both earnest explorations and sly critiques of nativist expectations.[15] Cow’s Skull with Calico Roses, 1931(Fig. 8), epitomized her vision-an America distilled to its essence, far beyond urban confines.[16] 

Fig 9: Georgia O'Keeffe, Pelvis Series, Red with Yellow, 1945,

oil on canvas, 36 × 48 in (91.4 × 121.9 cm).

Her hardened, sun-bleached palette reached its zenith in the Pelvis Series (1940s), where animal bones framed desert skies as portals to cosmic infinity (Fig. 9). As she wrote to Anita Pollitzer in 1944: “The bones seem to cut sharply to the center of something that is keenly alive in the desert even though it is vast and empty” (O’Keeffe, 1987, p. 211).[17]

Late Radicalism and Legacy (1940s–1972)

O’Keeffe’s late career saw two radical departures:

• The Black Place landscapes (1940s–50s): Geological forms dissolved into undulating waves of gray and pink, echoing her floral abstractions but with geologic austerity.

• The Sky Above Clouds murals (1965–67): Painted at nearly 80 years old, these 24-foot canvases abandoned terrestrial perspectives entirely, merging Minimalist repetition with her lifelong pursuit of essential forms.[18]

Even as macular degeneration left her legally blind by 1972, O’Keeffe continued producing stark charcoal abstractions, paradoxically returning to the reductive language of her 1915 works. This full-circle journey-from abstraction to representation and back-cemented her legacy as a relentless innovator across six decades.[19]

Section 5: The Legacy of Georgia O’Keeffe

O’Keeffe resisted being labeled a woman artist, yet her work transcended this category entirely. By distilling the natural world into abstracted forms, she created enduring symbols woven into the mythology of American art. Today, the majority of her oeuvre is preserved by the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum in Santa Fe, a testament to her cultural permanence.[20]

Though her popularity waned mid-century, the 1970 Whitney Museum retrospective reignited public fascination, aligning her legacy with the era’s feminist movement. By 84, her central vision had failed, yet she continued painting and persisted in producing watercolors, pencil sketches, and clay works. Her final works, reduced to essential abstract lines, echoed the radical simplicity of her 1915 charcoals, completing a circular artistic journey.[21]

Over seven decades, O’Keeffe shaped American modernism as a central figure in the Stieglitz Circle while defying gendered constraints. Though she rejected explicit feminist readings of her flower paintings, artists like Judy Chicago and Miriam Schapiro drew inspiration from their perceived feminine iconography. With over 2,000 works, her prolific output cemented her as a pioneering force. The Georgia O’Keeffe Museum, the first U.S. institution dedicated to a female artist, underscores her monumental impact, fostering scholarship through its research center and fellowships.[22]

Essay by Malihe Norouzi / Independent Art Scholar

References:

1.Stieglitz, Alfred. (1926) [Letter to Herbert Seligmann, 22 February 1926]. In: Seligmann, H.J. (1966) Alfred Stieglitz Talking. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 61-62.

2. Cauman, John. (2001) 'Henri Matisse, 1908, 1910, and 1912: New evidence of life'. In: Greenough, S. et al. Modern Art and America: Alfred Stieglitz and His New York Galleries. Washington: National Gallery of Art, p. 93.

3. Epstein, Daniel Mark (2001) What Lips My Lips Have Kissed: The Loves and Love Poems of Edna St. Vincent Millay. New York: Henry Holt and Company, p. 135.

4. James, Rebecca Salsbury (1963) [Letter to Georgia O'Keeffe], 6 September 1963. Georgia O'Keeffe Papers, Yale Collection of American Literature (YCAL), Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Yale University.

5. Oaks, Gladys (1930) 'Radical writer and woman artist clash on propaganda and its uses', New York World, 16 March, Women's section, pp.1, 3.

6. O'Brien, Frances (1920s) [Interview notes with Georgia O'Keeffe], unpublished manuscript, pp.5, 18.

7.Kalonyme, Louis (1929) 'Georgia O'Keeffe', [Introduction to exhibition catalog]. Intimate Gallery, New York, pp. xxxiv-xl. Reprinted in: Lynes, Barbara Buhler (1999) Georgia O'Keeffe and Alfred Stieglitz: The Passionate Eye, pp.278-282.