Editing September Morn (section)

==Reception==
In 1913, Chabas stated that he was "pained and humiliated" by the controversy over ''September Morn'',{{sfn|The Oregon Daily Journal 1913, 'September Morn'}} though he later expressed more positive views. He described the work as "all I know of painting", and responded positively to statements that it was his masterpiece.{{sfn|Monfried|1971|p=9}} In a 1914 interview, he explained that he had not meant to sell the painting, as it "was [his] wife's favorite picture".{{sfn|Oakland Tribune 1914}} At the time of his death in 1937, Chabas had only a single picture in his room: a reproduction of the painting, completed from memory;{{sfn|Monfried|1971|p=9}} he had boasted "If I had never seen it from the day I put down my brushes after painting it, I could make a perfect copy."{{sfn|The Gazette and Daily 1937}} However, not having copyrighted the work, he did not receive any royalties from the marketing frenzy in the United States; he recalled, "Nobody was thoughtful enough even to send me a box of cigars."{{sfn|Monfried|1971|p=9}}{{sfn|Hughes|1957|p=15}}

Reviewing the painting after the Salon, Tr.L. in the {{Interlanguage link multi|Larousse mensuel illustré|fr|3=Larousse mensuel illustré|lt=''Larousse Mensuel illustré''}} praised Chabas's technique as drawing "of a rare purity", and modeling "of a remarkable delicacy".{{efn|Original: "''le dessin ... d'une rare pureté, et le modelé d'une finesse remarquable''"}}{{sfn|Tr.L|1912|p=465}} Henri Frantz, reviewing the Paris Salon for ''The International Studio'', described ''September Morn'' as "one of the [Salon]'s most remarkable figure subjects", highlighting the nude's "graceful form".{{sfn|Frantz|1912|p=102}} In ''[[Le Temps (Paris)|Le Temps]]'', François Thiébault-Sisson found that, despite an "excessively translucent technique", the painting had "indisputable charm" and included "superior, very artistic, and delicately composed" imagery.<ref name="Sisson">Quoted in {{harvnb|Brauer|2011|p=123}}; translation by Brauer.</ref> A 1913 article in the ''[[Oregon Daily Journal]]'' described the model as "beautifully drawn", and suggested that "it requires a powerful imagination to find anything suggestive in the work".{{sfn|Oregon Daily Journal 1913, September Morn}}

Later reviews were less positive. The director of the Met, [[James Rorimer]], wrote in 1957 that ''September Morn'' stood at "different ends of a wide spectrum" than the works of [[Old Master]]s and "modern giants", but was important in helping viewers "realize the full benefit of our heritage" in their explorations of past and present art.{{Sfn|Rorimer|1957|p=1}} That year, the ''Montreal Gazette''{{'s}} art critic opined that the painting was banal and unacceptable for display in the Met's main hall. The reviewer suggested that ''September Morn'', with its "delicate, pearly tonality and simple, sparse, airy composition", would be best served by being displayed among works considered better by early 20th-century collectors but since reviewed poorly, to "dramatiz[e] for the public the danger of too-hasty judgments".{{efn|The critic gave several examples of such works: the paintings of the [[Barbizon school]], the mother and child paintings of [[George de Forest Brush]], and the nudes of [[William-Adolphe Bouguereau]] {{harv|The Montreal Gazette 1957}}.}}{{sfn|The Montreal Gazette 1957}}

In 1958, Blake-More Godwin of the Toledo Museum of Art stated that, although ''September Morn'' was certainly art, it was not "great art" and was overshadowed by the controversy it had created; the painting, he said, "bears the same relationship to art as a minor poem does to the classic and the imperishable".{{sfn|Toledo Blade 1958}} Three years later, in an article in ''[[The Kenyon Review]]'', Alfred Werner described ''September Morn'' as a "classic of [[kitsch]]" and "the 'idealized' nude at its worst": "without a wrinkle of the skin, without any breathing of the flesh&nbsp;... pink, soft, spineless".{{sfn|Werner|1961|pp=219–220}} This classification of kitsch has been applied by several further writers, including Kendrick{{sfn|Kendrick|1996|p=147}} and the film scholar Norman Taylor.{{sfn|Taylor|2012|p=221}}

Several writers have included ''September Morn'' in lists of works depicting children with erotic or pornographic subtexts.<ref>{{harvnb|Witchard|2009|pp=126, 186}}; {{harvnb|Wasserman|Rosenfeld|2014|p=56}}</ref> Brauer argues that although the nude "seems to embody the moral purity at puberty", this innocence is actually a fetishistic mechanism which both allowed the work to pass the censors and be eroticised.{{efn|Brauer highlights the "voyeuristic" view of the model and her pose, arguing that, although the young woman seems to stand as if embarrassed at being "caught in compromising circumstances", her right arm underscores the model's "bud-stage" breasts while the left directs the viewer's eye to her pubic region {{harv|Brauer|2011|pp=130–131, 136–139}}. She argues that the model was aged 13 when the painting was completed; the age of consent in France at the time was 16 {{harv|Brauer|2011|p=123}}. She has elsewhere questioned whether works such as ''September Morn'' can continue to be exhibited "innocent of paedophilic dimension", or whether they must be recontextualised as "awkward, anomalous and aberrant" {{harv|Brauer|2001}}.}}{{sfn|Brauer|2011|pp=130–131, 136–139}} She concludes that the painting is "paedophilically provocative", and that Chabas was protected from censure by his status as an established artist and father.{{sfn|Brauer|2011|pp=131, 139}} Such views have not been universally held. For instance, the historian [[Paul S. Boyer]] describes ''September Morn'' as "charmingly innocent",{{sfn|Boyer|2002|p=3}} and the art writer Elizabeth Lunday finds the painting to be "offensive only on the grounds of blandness".{{sfn|Lunday|2013|p=96}}