Picasso’s American debut was a financial flop

Penguin Random House

‘Picasso’s War” by Foreign Affairs senior editor Hugh Eakin, who has written about the art world for publications like The New York Review of Books, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and The New York Times, is not about Pablo Picasso’s time in Nazi-occupied Paris and being harassed by the Gestapo, nor about his 1937 oil painting “Guernica,” in response to the aerial bombing of civilians in the Basque town during the Spanish Civil War.
Instead, the Penguin Random House book’s subtitle makes a clearer statement of intent: “How Modern Art Came To America.” This war was not between military forces but a cultural war combating America’s distaste for the emerging modernism that had flourished in Europe in the early decades of the 20th century.
Eakin was present at The Norfolk Library Saturday, March 16, for a conversation with Robert Dance, author of the 2023 biography “Ferocious Ambition: Joan Crawford’s March to Stardom,” a member of the library’s board of directors and a trustee of the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art in Hartford. The event was a “bonus” part of the Haystack Book Festival, a program presented by the Norfolk Foundation — delayed from the event’s 2023 October panel discussions due to scheduling.

Eakin and Dance’s conversation touched on the 1913 Armory Show in New York City. Also known as the International Exhibition of Modern Art, the Armory Show was a groundbreaking event and marked the inaugural showcase of modern art in the United States. It served as a pivotal platform, acquainting American audiences — for better or worse, per the conservative attitudes of the day — with prominent European avant-garde figures like Marcel Duchamp and Henri Matisse, catalyzing a profound shift in the landscape of American art.
“The one thing to keep in mind is that images circulate easily today, so we’re even familiar with art that we haven’t seen, but the opposite was true 100 years ago,” Eakin said at the Norfolk Library. “Everything had to be seen, you had to confront it, and there was a scarcity, especially of new art. Access to artworks was very limited unless you were traveling to Europe. The [American] taste at the time was: You have a country that is an insecure, powerful new country that’s just arrived on the world scene. What [America] wanted more than anything was to be regarded as a great European power. America wanted to have those Old Master paintings, paintings that were owned by princes and kings.”
This was also the shared opinion of such influential shapers of East Coast America’s established art world, like art collector and philanthropist Isabella Stewart Gardener, who went on to found Boston’s Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1903; financier John Pierpont Morgan, one of the greatest benefactors of the Metropolitan Museum of Art; and art collector and industrialist Henry Clay Frick, whose collection of distinguished Old Master paintings can be seen today at The Frick Collection on the Upper East Side of New York City.

“The idea of new art having value was a shocking concept,” Eakin continued. “There was also a larger tradition of insecurity, but also theorizing about deviant art — what would come to be called ‘degenerate art.’ We think of this as a Nazi term, but actually, the conversation about degeneracy in art starts in the United States, and it starts very much with shows like the Armory Show.”
Picasso had actually shown work in America prior to the 1913 Armory Show. In 1911, Alfred Stieglitz, an American photographer and gallerist who would go on to marry modernist painter Georgia O’Keeffe, showcased the first exhibition of Picasso’s drawings in the United States in his gallery 291, located on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue. Eakin noted that 83 cubist drawings by Picasso were shown, each priced at $12 dollars. Only one sold — to American artist and critic Hamilton Easter Field. The two had already met in Paris.
For a pop culture perspective of Picasso at the time, we can look to James Cameron’s 1997 blockbuster “Titanic,” where Kate Winslet’s American socialite character Rose has brought Picasso’s 1907 pro-cubist oil painting “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” aboard the RMS Titanic. This is a bit of historical revisionism, as “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” did not sink with the ship but is hanging in The Museum of Modern Art thanks to an acquisition by the museum’s patron, Lillie P. Bliss, who features prominently in the later half of Eakin’s book. Still, the remark by Rose’s fiancé, an American industrialist, rings true for the time and his own social circles: “Something Picasso… He won’t amount to a thing. Trust me, he won’t.”
State Sen. Stephen Harding
NEW MILFORD — State Sen. and Minority Leader Stephen Harding announced Jan. 20 the launch of his re-election campaign for the state’s 30th Senate District.
Harding was first elected to the State Senate in November 2022. He previously served in the House beginning in 2015. He is an attorney from New Milford.
In his campaign announcement, he said, “There is still important work to do to make Connecticut more affordable, government more accountable, and create economic opportunity. I’m running for reelection to continue standing up for our communities, listening to residents, and delivering real results.”
As of late January, no publicly listed challenger has filed to run against him.
The 30th District includes Bethlehem, Brookfield, Cornwall, Falls Village, Goshen, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Fairfield, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Sherman, Warren, Washington, Winchester and part of Torrington.
MILLERTON — James (Jimmy) Cookingham, 51, a lifelong local resident, passed away on Jan. 19, 2026.
James was born on April 17, 1972 in Sharon, the son of Robert Cookingham and the late Joanne Cookingham.
He attended Webutuck Central School.
Jimmy was an avid farmer since a very young age at Daisey Hill and eventually had joint ownership of Daisey Hill Farm in Millerton with his wife Jessica.
He took great pride in growing pumpkins and sweet corn.
He was very outdoorsy and besides farming, loved to ride four wheelers, fish, and deer hunt. He also loved to make a roaring bonfire.
He was a farmer, friend, husband, father, son and brother. He will be missed by many.
He is survived by his father, Robert Cookingham, wife Jessica (Ball) Cookingham, daughters, Hailey Cookingham-Loiodice (Matt), Taylor Ellis-Tanner (Jimmy) and sister Brenda Valyou, as well as many cousins, nieces and nephews.
He is predeceased by his mother, Joanne (Palmer) Cookingham.
His daughter, Hailey, will always keep his legacy alive by their father-daughter antics, such as their handshake, nicknames and making “quacking noises” at each other.
Services/Memorials will be held at a later date.
The Kenny Funeral Home has care of arrangements.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.