Although figures in landscapes are more common in Stuempfig’s work than figures in interiors, this painting’s imagery of loneliness and enigmatic suspense are central to his art. Stuempfig’s themes and many of his formal devices are derived from surrealism and particularly from the variation of that movement most widely joined in the United Sates, magic realism. Like the work of this period by ANDREW WYETH, an artist living nearby in the Philadelphia area, Stuempfig’s paintings appear to be realistic but depict the world of dreams and fantasy. The objective of both painters was to evoke in the viewer a certain mood from that realm. Stuempfig freely manipulated formal devices to undercut the seeming realism of his paintings, subtly suggesting a haunting strangeness. Strong frameworks of verticals and horizontals make the space in his paintings seem clear and organized, but large, central, empty spaces and conspicuously large separations between presumably related elements give the space a dreamlike quality. Strong effects of light and shadow, often from a raking light, enhance the impression of realism by bringing out the texture of surfaces, but the overly strong contrast of light and shadow in the modeling of the figures, recalling the early baroque period, injects a note of drama and menace. In this painting the extreme contrast in the modeling of the figure is particularly puzzling because the direct light from the window is shown to be striking the wall. A further quality of disquietude and unreality comes from the difficulty the viewer experiences in seeking to identify the subject of Stuempfig’s paintings. Almost always there are figures, typically tough, adolescent males, who stand about idly, lost in their own troubling thoughts, without a relationship of position or action to any other figure or object in the painting. In the museum’s painting this sense of thematic ambiguity is heightened by the familiar surrealist device of the juxtaposition of two conceivably related objects. The viewer must wonder about the relationship between the youth and the empty birdcage resting on an upturned music stand in this painting just as one wonders about the relationship between the similarly posed young man and the isolated houses in Stuempfig’s painting, Two Houses, c. 1940s (Corcoran Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.). The stiles of the antique chair, behind which the boy stands, establish a visual metaphor for the bars of the birdcage, perhaps hinting at the youth’s spiritual captivity. The settings of most of Stuempfig’s paintings are entirely imaginary or greatly transformed, but the titles of a certain number of them acknowledge that he has painted his studio, as he may have done in the present case. The same chair and a similarly spare interior are seen in his painting Solitary Figure, 1948 (Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco). The same model may be portrayed in Stuempfig’s painting Portrait of Charles, 1949 (art market, 1974).

Four years after the stock market crash of 1929, which triggered the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt initiated the New Deal, a program of domestic reform meant to revive the economy and alleviate the problem of mass unemployment. Toward these ends, he established various new federal agencies, putting many more people to work to do the increased business of government. Thousands of artists were employed, most through the largest program, the Works Progress Administration. Although the government did not dictate the type of art that was to be produced, it did encourage the use of a representational style and American themes. As a result, most of the art created in the decade prior to World War II was humanistic in orientation.
Artists, writers, and philosophers of the period became obsessed with the social relevance of art. Although a small group of American artists did attack the societal ills of the nation (housing shortages, unemployment) and of the world in general (the rise of fascism and militarism), most adopted a more pragmatic and even positive attitude. American scene painters captured busy city dwellers on streets, in buses, at work, and at play. Occasionally artists infused an element of humor into the pathos of everyday existence, even in scenes that allude to the political disasters of the day. Regionalists were particularly fond of idealizing the past and aggrandizing the present accomplishments of the country. In fact, the myth of America as a country where everyone lives a pastoral, carefree existence emerged with new vigor in the art of the 1930s.
The diversity of the people also emerged as a strong current of social realism. Artists who were accustomed to working in their studios now looked beyond their immediate circles for models. Individuals of various races, professions, or creeds inspired some of the most moving portraits of the century and demonstrated the soul of the people.