Critics described her paintings as sincere, forthright, and direct and said they demonstrated good draftsmanship, harmonious composition, and fresh color values.

In 1929, the art historian Lloyd Goodrich said, "One knows no other painter of flowers who captures so completely their delicate life without becoming in the least sentimental about it or lapsing into merely technical fireworks.

"[2] At the same time, Margaret Breuning of the Evening Post wrote concerning the flower paintings, "It is the ability of the artist to give lyric transcription of natural forms in terms of design which imbues these canvases with their significance."

[3] Similarly, an unsigned review of 1928 said Watson succeeded in producing a "candor, directness, [and] fidelity to personal conceptions that one finds delightful in a world where there much conformity to standards of aesthetic performance from which the timid or the conventional may not deviate."

This critic concluded, "Not only sensitive perception and technical skill are to be enjoyed in this engaging exhibition, but the revelation of personality that has gone into the making of each canvas.

[10][11][note 1] In the fall of 1906, Watson moved to Manhattan to study at the Art Students League of New York and while there took instruction from the well-known portraitist, William Merritt Chase.

[5]: 13 [7] In what seems to have been her first major appearance in a Manhattan gallery, Watson contributed portraits to an exhibition at the National Academy of Design in 1916.

[22] An article in the Sunday magazine section of the New York Times said one of her portraits (that of the artist Paul Burlin) was "a fine piece of work", both "fresh in color and remarkably certain in tone values".

[26] A critic for American Art News commended "a strongly painted colorful collection of her always attractive flower pieces" in this show and, in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Hamilton Easter Field praised her artistry and her avoidance of the tricks commonly used to distract from poor workmanship.

[29][30] The Times critic said the show was so "gay and jolly it is refreshing and a pleasure to see it" but regretted that the portraits lacked the spontaneity of the flower paintings.

"[32] When, in 1928, the Rehn Galleries gave Watson a solo show of flower paintings and a few portraits, New York critics noticed the event.

A critic for the New York Sun said Watson was "a flower painter of repute" who also made attractive portraits having excellent likenesses.

[4] Helen Appleton Read, writing in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, said of the flower paintings "they are not decorations, follow no formula of design or color, but exist for themselves as works of art."

In presenting no definite manner or striking arrangement, they are apparently charming expert bits of realism, lovely because the model was so in life.

[37] Writing in the New York Times, Lloyd Goodrich called her a "portraitist of flowers", whose paintings were "alive with the freshness and the fragile brilliancy of their subjects."

"[1] In the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Helen Appleton Read's critique credited Watson with "an increased mastery of form" and said she maintained "a sincere and personal appreciation of the subject and a simple, direct method of presenting it."

In 1932, when Watson showed recent oil paintings in a solo exhibition at the Kraushaar Galleries on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, critics, again, took notice.

"[40] Edward Alden Jewell, the principal critic for the New York Times commented on Watson's "quiet passion of understanding that gets to the heart of essences".

[44][note 3] After she had established her primary residence in Manhattan and completed training at the Art Students League of New York and privately with William Merritt Chase, Watson contributed paintings to quite a few group shows at the Whitney Studio Gallery and its successors.

Commenting on a 1917 show at the Studio Gallery, a local critic called attention to "a colorful little still life of gladiolus against a blue background".

[51] When she contributed paintings to a group exhibition in 1917 at the Knoedler Galleries, the New York Times printed a reproduction of a portrait called "Young Girl" from the show.

The painting was untitled but a critic referred to it as "a colorful little still life of gladiolus against a blue background" and this suggests that it might be the watercolor, now owned by the Smithsonian American Art Museum, shown above, no.

[63] Regarding the 1940 Phillips show, Leila Mechlin of the Evening Star wrote that Watson's flower painting and two portraits had "a dash of personality but no stability".

[64] Of the same show, a critic for Art News said: "Nan Watson in 'Plums' exhibits a composition of red plums in various stages of ripeness against a violet-striped sky-blue foulard.

"[4] Another wrote: "Only the professional critic and fellow artist is conscious of the careful elimination, the sound structure and the sensitive orchestration of color which underlie [the] apparent simplicity" of her paintings.

[36] This critic also said, "While seemingly adhering to visual reality, Mrs. Watson accomplishes the difficult compromise of translating her subject into carefully organized structural designs.

[70][71][72] Her father's brother-in-law, James N. Adam, was a merchant who left Scotland in 1872 to found a successful department store in New Haven, Connecticut.

A chief source of information about her personal life is the biography of her husband written by Lenore Clark:Forbes Watson: Independent Revolutionary (Kent State University Press, 2001).

The book reports that Watson remained close to her Scottish roots, even speaking with a slight accent despite her American upbringing.

[5]: 41 [69] Women volunteers in the Red Cross Canteen Service provided coffee, snacks, and whole meals to soldiers in transit to and from battle zones and sometimes in evacuation hospitals behind the front lines.