By about 1950, forward-looking New York painting was seen as synonymous with abstraction, especially charged, gestural Abstract Expressionism. But there was also a strong group of dissenters: artists, all born in the 1920s and many of them students of Hans Hofmann, who never lost their enthusiasm for recognizable imagery, without rejecting Abstract Expressionism’s love of malleable oil paint. Although most of them began as abstract artists, they all evolved into painters working from observation, using a fluid, urgent touch to translate their perceptions into eloquent, highly individualized visual languages, almost always informed by the hand; that is, unlike the Color Field and Minimalist artists, these artists remained, for the most part, “painterly” painters. In light of their important contributions to twentieth-century American art, The Artist Book Foundation presents the catalogue for the Brattleboro Museum & Art Center's eponymous 2020 exhibition, Figuration Never Died: New York Painterly Painting, 1950–1970. These rebellious artists include Lois Dodd, Jane Freilicher, Paul Georges, Grace Hartigan, Wolf Kahn, Alex Katz, Albert Kresch, Robert de Niro Sr., Paul Resika, and Anne Tabachnick. The compelling figurative work they made between about 1950 and 1970, in contrast to the prevailing Abstract Expressionism of the time, constitutes a significant chapter in the history of recent American Modernism. Their work not only greatly expands our conception of the story of New York painting, but it also presages and contextualizes today’s multiplicity of artistic concepts and processes. Given both the aesthetic diversity of today’s New York art world and the dependence of many younger artists on digital media or the appearance of digital media, it seems an appropriate moment to reconsider the work of these daring pioneers, as both precursor and opposition to current norms. It is especially important to do this now, while some of these artists are still alive.

Note copy pertains to both volumes of this double issue:

Nearly 46 million Americans live in rural counties – areas with small populations that are often located far from large cities. Yet we know relatively little about how living in a rural area influences child and adolescent life trajectories and adult outcomes when compared to their urban counterparts. In this special double issue of RSF, sociologist Shelley Clark, epidemiologist Sam Harper, and agricultural economist Bruce Weber, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors provide a comprehensive look at the impact that growing up rural has across the lifespan, examining both the challenges and advantages of growing up in rural America.
 
The 15 articles in this double issue explore the effects of rural life on family, educational attainment, economic security, and health. Issue 1 looks at the impact of rural families and schools on children’s and adolescents’ educational aspirations and wellbeing. Contributors Jennifer Sherman and Kai A. Schafft find that while rural gentrification brings needed resources to struggling communities, it can also exacerbate educational inequality. Jessica C. Drescher and colleagues reveal that only modest differences in educational outcomes exist between rural and non-rural students overall and that socioeconomic status is less predictive of academic achievement in rural areas compared to non-rural areas. Ryan Parsons shows that rural students with college aspirations, particularly students of color, incur social and emotional costs in pursuing upward mobility not experienced by their urban counterparts, such as having to permanently relocate to more advantaged areas.
 
Issue 2 examines transitions to adulthood in rural areas and the longer-term influences of growing up in rural areas on adults’ health and economic attainment. Emily Miller and Kathryn Edin find that low-income rural young adults have children and marry earlier than their peers, but achieve other markers of adulthood, such as leaving the parental home, more slowly and often only tentatively. Robert D. Francis shows that rural, working-class men will employ various strategies to improve their employment opportunities in ways that support their identities as rural, working-class men. For example, they pursue additional education and training in fields that will allow them to continue to hold traditionally masculine, working-class jobs, such as obtaining credentials to be truck drivers or mechanics. Evan Roberts and colleagues find that growing up on or moving to a farm were associated with better health outcomes. Emily Parker and colleagues find that rural residents who live in counties that receive a higher amount of federal funding and moved from their home county in adulthood were more likely to achieve higher educational attainment and earnings than those in counties that received less funding.
 
This volume of RSF provides a more nuanced understanding of the advantages and disadvantage of growing up in rural areas and how it shapes the life trajectories of rural Americans.
 
 

Note copy refers to both issues. This is a double issue.

 
Nearly 46 million Americans live in rural counties – areas with small populations that are often located far from large cities. Yet we know relatively little about how living in a rural area influences child and adolescent life trajectories and adult outcomes when compared to their urban counterparts. In this special double issue of RSF, sociologist Shelley Clark, epidemiologist Sam Harper, and agricultural economist Bruce Weber, and an interdisciplinary group of contributors provide a comprehensive look at the impact that growing up rural has across the lifespan, examining both the challenges and advantages of growing up in rural America.
 
The 15 articles in this double issue explore the effects of rural life on family, educational attainment, economic security, and health. Issue 1 looks at the impact of rural families and schools on children’s and adolescents’ educational aspirations and wellbeing. Contributors Jennifer Sherman and Kai A. Schafft find that while rural gentrification brings needed resources to struggling communities, it can also exacerbate educational inequality. Jessica C. Drescher and colleagues reveal that only modest differences in educational outcomes exist between rural and non-rural students overall and that socioeconomic status is less predictive of academic achievement in rural areas compared to non-rural areas. Ryan Parsons shows that rural students with college aspirations, particularly students of color, incur social and emotional costs in pursuing upward mobility not experienced by their urban counterparts, such as having to permanently relocate to more advantaged areas.
 
Issue 2 examines transitions to adulthood in rural areas and the longer-term influences of growing up in rural areas on adults’ health and economic attainment. Emily Miller and Kathryn Edin find that low-income rural young adults have children and marry earlier than their peers, but achieve other markers of adulthood, such as leaving the parental home, more slowly and often only tentatively. Robert D. Francis shows that rural, working-class men will employ various strategies to improve their employment opportunities in ways that support their identities as rural, working-class men. For example, they pursue additional education and training in fields that will allow them to continue to hold traditionally masculine, working-class jobs, such as obtaining credentials to be truck drivers or mechanics. Evan Roberts and colleagues find that growing up on or moving to a farm were associated with better health outcomes. Emily Parker and colleagues find that rural residents who live in counties that receive a higher amount of federal funding and moved from their home county in adulthood were more likely to achieve higher educational attainment and earnings than those in counties that received less funding.
 
This volume of RSF provides a more nuanced understanding of the advantages and disadvantage of growing up in rural areas and how it shapes the life trajectories of rural Americans.