Upload
david-richard-contemporary
View
226
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Southern California Painting, 1970s: Painting Per Se, the first of four exhibitions the gallery will present over the next two years that will take an in-depth look at various aspects of Southern California painting during the 1970s— a period now being reassessed as an historically important time in California and the rest of the US. In Southern California, the 1970s saw several tendencies emerge from the “Cool School,” including Pop, hard-edge abstraction, “Fetish Finish” craze and the “Light and Space” movement, all continuing from the ‘60s, and a range of artmaking that included hyper-realism, painterly figuration, gestural abstraction, and “material” abstraction.
Citation preview
1
JULY 1 -31, 2011Curated by peter frank and David Eichholtz
Southern California Painting:Painting PEr SE
2 Cover detail,
from top to bottom:
Karl Benjamin
#7
1972, oil on canvas 30" x 40"
photo: michael faye
Courtesy louis Stern fine arts
judy ChiCago
Morning Fan - Fresno Fan series
1971, Sprayed acrylic on acrylic, 60" x 120"
photo: donald Woodman
matsumi Kanemitsu
geMini 2
1971, acrylic on canvas, 36" x 24"
Peter Plagens
instead oF Free Men
1976, oil and acrylic on canvas, 68" x 90"
jerrold BurChman
spectrum
1970, acrylics/rhoplex on paper, 114 x 108 "
published on the occasion of the exhibition, southern
California Painting, the 1970s: Painting Per se, July 1 –
31, 2011, curated by peter frank and david eichholtz.
all rights reserved
© david richard Contemporary, llC
130 lincoln avenue, Suite d, Santa fe, Nm 87501 | p (505) 983-9555 | f (505) 983-1284
www.davidrichardContemporary.com | [email protected]
Gallery Directors
david eichholtz & richard barger
Charles arnoldi
billy al bengston
Karl benjamin
Jerrold burchman
Hans burkhardt
Karen Carson
Judy Chicago
ron davis
tony delap
doug edge
merion estes
Charles Garabedian
Scott Grieger
marvin Harden
maxwell Hendler
Ynez Johnston
matsumi Kanemitsu
Craig Kauffman
Helen lundeberg
ed moses
margaret Nielsen
peter plagens
tom Wudl
Norman Zammitt
Southern California Painting, the 1970s: Painting Per Se
Curated by peter frank and david eichholtz
July 1- 31, 2011
featuring: Charles arnoldi, billy al bengston, Karl benjamin, Jerrold burchman, Hans burkhardt, Karen Carson, Judy Chicago, ron davis, tony delap, doug edge, merion estes, Charles Garabedian, Scott Grieger, marvin Harden, maxwell Hendler, Ynez Johnston, matsumi Kanemitsu, Craig Kauffman, Helen lundeberg, ed moses, margaret Nielsen, peter plagens, tom Wudl and Norman Zammitt
Judy Chicago, evening Fan - Fresno Fans series, 1971, Sprayed acrylic on acrylic, 60" x 120"
photo: donald Woodman
130 lincoln avenue, Suite d, Santa fe, Nm 87501 | p (505) 983-9555 | f (505) 983-1284
www.davidrichardContemporary.com | [email protected]
the decade of the 1970s saw an explo-
sion of art across america – everywhere,
of every kind, by everyone. Nowhere did
this explosion have more resonance than
in los angeles; during the decade the city
flooded with artists, newly graduated from
Southern California’s many art schools and
departments or attracted by the city’s grow-
ing cultural sophistication and complexity.
and nowhere more than los angeles did the
anomalies of 1970s artistic discourse make
themselves powerfully felt.
in the wake of minimalism, conceptual art,
and the proliferation of “media arts,” many
proclaimed the death of painting. but paint-
ing flourished – and, in response to the
moment’s heady sense of experiment, the
discipline mutated, fused with other prac-
tices, and generally metamorphosed as if
emerging from a chrysalis. in la, in fact,
painting seemed to emerge from a mad sci-
entist’s laboratory, a de-domesticated crea-
ture able to adopt many guises and absorb
many substances. many pictures were all
but invisible. many “paintings” lacked paint.
things hung on the wall as if on a coat rack
or shelf – or they didn’t hang at all. paintings,
paint-things, non-paintings, and un-paint-
ings could be produced as readily in a tool
shed or car repair shop as in a studio.
Such willingness to stretch the definitions of
painting almost to the breaking point could
be found all over america, but this disre-
gard for painterly tradition was particularly
acute in los angeles. Unlike New York, say,
or San francisco, la had never been much
of a painting town. its major creative indus-
try favored image over object and tended to
regard the act of painting as a backlot-work-
place job rather than a sacred ritual. the end
product was the goal, and if the end product
bespoke the process of its making, that pro-
cess was one of material fabrication rather
than personal expression.
Still, it’s hard to generalize about painting
in 1970s la, if only because, once the stylis-
tic floodgates opened, everyone seemed to
try everything – including personal expres-
sion. Several trends in painting can be traced
through the so-called “amazing decade,” and
some seem surprising in their traditionalism.
others, however, are equally surprising in the
unprecedented, and unanticipated, concep-
tion and production invested into them.
“Southern California painting in the 70s” will
trace several of the most prominent devel-
opments during this era. the first show,
“painting per se,” looks at the adherence of
major and younger artists alike to standard
painting formats and materials. “painting per
se” is a survey less of a movement than of an
attitude, an attitude toward a given practice
that defied and undermined the presump-
tions of that practice. the second show,
“Hard-edge and light and space,” presents
one of Southern California’s principal avant
garde modes as manifested in its painting.
the transition from “abstract classicism” to
“finish/fetish” had completed by the 1970s,
but in painting practices, at least, the range
of geometric and minimalist possibilities was
still available.
“figuration” comprises the third show, which
charts the range of approaches to repre-
sentational subject matter. Surprisingly, the
1970s saw the emergence of various kinds of
naturalism even as an awkward, surrealism-
inflected painterly representation persisted
and variations on pop, including hyper-real-
ism, continued to multiply. the fourth show,
“material abstraction,” charts a phenomenon
loS aNGeleS paiNtiNG iN tHe 1970S
2
3
particular to California, especially in the los
angeles area, one that embodied a reaction
to “finish/fetish” and light-and-space art.
“material abstraction” embodied a fascina-
tion with substance and process, holding
to painterly formats even while ranging far
afield from traditional painterly practice.
peter frank
los angeles, June, 2011
4
la paiNtiNG iN tHe 1970S: paiNtiNG per Se
peter frank
if the 1970s was the “pluralist decade,” what
was “plural” about it was not just style, but
gender, ethnicity, geography, social and eco-
nomic circumstance, and attitude. anything
went. but the artist (and/or dealer, cura-
tor, critic, and teacher) had to make it go.
Nothing “went” by itself. if techniques and
traditions were to be updated or discarded,
someone had to update them or put some-
thing in their place – or both.
Having reigned supreme for hundreds of
years as the medium that embodied both
artistic tradition and artistic experiment,
painting came under furious attack in the
1970s as an outmoded format, an ossified
discipline the very weight of whose history
was an impediment to aesthetic evolution
(not to mention revolution). No proclama-
tion or rallying cry reverberated more deaf-
eningly throughout the decade than “paint-
ing is dead!”
but enough artists were steeped in paint-
erly practice, still enchanted with the mys-
teries and discoveries of paint, to answer
back with a sometimes quavering but al-
ways persistent, “long live painting!” Some
of the best – most intriguing, most surpris-
ing, most inventive, most moving – painting
of the century was realized in the midst of
painting’s existential crisis. Some such paint-
ing was made with surprisingly conventional
methods (especially given what was avail-
able otherwise). and some of that paint-
ing was made in los angeles, which – un-
like art capitals such as New York, london,
berlin, and even San francisco – was not a
“painting town,” under the sway of paint-
ing’s mystique. Given its growing surfeit of
art schools and art departments, howev-
er, la was a place where one could learn,
teach, and make good painting – and where
one could tinker with painting, expanding
its techniques and tweaking its definitions
without concern for the disapproval of an
entrenched establishment.
“painting per Se” looks at the range of paint-
erly practice among la artists in the 1970s,
jumping between often polar stylistic oppo-
sites to find a commonality of material and,
to some extent, process. Some of Southern
California’s most important and most exper-
imental artists in this period were painters
– perhaps committed to painting, perhaps
simply adept at it, but willing and able to
drive home their ideas with painting and,
thus, secure (or, if you would, re-secure)
for painting an enhanced regard as a viable
realm of experiment. those who made pic-
tures exploited painting with authority equal
to those who made objects or visual fields.
those who worked with oil gained no more
or less respect from their peers than those
who worked with newer pigmented media.
those who applied pigment to paper were
not regarded as lesser painters than those
who applied it to canvas. those who ma-
nipulated the shape and surface of their
supports were as welcome to do so as were
those who worked within the rectangular
contours of the western tradition.
individual artists – notably teachers – might
challenge other painters to try it their way
or to study particular methods and models
in greater depth; but there was no blanket
condemnation of any particular practice
on the basis of any aesthetic ideology. the
mocking dismissal coming from “post-stu-
dio” artists and theorists then in ascendancy
was enough to unite figurative painter with
finish/fetish, color-field with photo-realist, in
a “rear-guard” defensive action that, in the
end, was neither rear-guard nor defensive.
5
painters held their own – and wound up
commanding respect from and dialogue
with even the most extreme conceptual-
ists. at a certain point, in fact, it occurred to
some conceptualists that the most extreme
their practice could get was…. painting.
this should explain the apparently extreme
eclecticism of this first show. it is hard to tie
the work of any two artists here to a congru-
ent aesthetic ideology, much less marketing
strategy. many of these artists – along with
their non-painting peers – were motivated
by a desire to transcend the constrictions
of style and, certainly, to thwart the manipu-
lations of the art marketplace. that mar-
ketplace, however, was in little evidence in
la. indeed, the relative paucity of galleries
served as something of a goad to artists to
“do something else,” even when that some-
thing else could still clutter up the whole
studio rather than just the desk. more than
most places, los angeles fostered an artistic
community whose members produced for
one another rather than for cadres of collec-
tors, curators, critics, or dealers.
as a group the twenty-plus artists included
in “painting per Se” range across sociologi-
cal as well as aesthetic distinctions, personal
backgrounds as well as artistic approaches.
their diversity may not cover all the myriad
bases of painterly practice in 1970s los an-
geles, but it still yields a dizzying array of
visual experience, ranging from the narra-
tive to the perceptual, sensual experience
to conceptual experience. all these art-
ists were working at the top of their game
back then, and contributing to a discourse
marked less by permissiveness than by tol-
erance; because their primary – often only –
audience was other artists, these artists felt
they had to perform at the top of their game,
and they could get away with something
recondite or nutty but not with something
lame. Some were veterans, maintaining
clear-cut modernist traditions and painting
as a site of exemplary form and image. many
others, members of the emerging or recent-
ly emerged generations, were forging new
paths, eager not so much to contradict their
elders as to build outward in every direc-
tion from their postulates. if the older artists
had been challenged with “that’s no way to
paint!”, then the younger ones heard “that’s
not painting!”, but responded to such reac-
tion with precisely the same nervy defiance.
artists, painters in particular, are not hot-
house plants. they may grow in hothouses,
but they flourish in the wild. Southern Cali-
fornia in the ‘70s was a wilderness in that
regard, poor in areas of exposure even while
rich in areas of spontaneous growth and
cultivation. as a result, painting exploded in
and around los angeles, its various manifes-
tations madly mutating and cross-breeding.
Sometimes it didn’t look or act like painting
at all. Sometimes it did. Sometimes it did
and didn’t, even when it stuck to the “rules”
of painting. it was “painting per se,” but it
was still capable of being something no one
had ever seen before.
los angeles
June 2011
6
Charles arnoldi
Untitled 1, 1976,
acrylic on canvas, 32" x 32"
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
10
hans BurKhardt
the Cathedral (VietnaM),
1970, oil on canvas, 60" x 50"
©Hans G. & thordis W. burkhardt foundation
Courtesy Jack rutberg fine arts, inc.
12
judy ChiCago
sky sUn - Flesh garden series
1971, Sprayed acrylic on acrylic, 96" x 96"
photo: donald Woodman
13
ronald davis
laMont, 1978,
Cel-vinyl acrylic on canvas,
90" x 66"
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
14
tony delaP
dedi oF desneFrU, 1976,
acrylic on canvas and wood,
89" x 73 1/2" x 3 1/2"
photo: Gene ogami, Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
17
Charles garaBedian
landsCaPe, 1976
acrylic and collage on paper,
44 1/2" x 80"
Courtesy la louver
19
marvin harden
it CoMes at the Beginning, siMPly yet graCeFUlly giVen, a giFt oF Who We are - a star,
1977, mixed media on paper,
39 3/8" x 27 9/19"
20
maxwell hendler
so MUCh For PhilosoPhy,
1976, Watercolor on paper,
10" x 9"
Courtesy manny Silverman Gallery
22
matsumi Kanemitsu
geMini i, 1971,
acrylic on canvas
36" x 24"
matsumi Kanemitsu
geMini ii, 1971,
acrylic on canvas
36" x 24"
23
Craig Kauffman
Caroline's riCkets, 1975,
acrylic on wood and muslin,
62" x 60"
© Craig Kauffman Courtesy frank lloyd Gallery
24
helen lundeBerg
dark VieW, 1974,
acrylic on canvas, 60" x 60"
photo: ed Glendinning
Courtesy louis Stern fine arts
29
norman zammitt
BUrning yelloW 1,
1978, acrylic on canvas board,
72 1/4" x 9" x 3/4"
Courtesy Newspace
30
Charles arnoldi
Untitled 1, 1976,
acrylic on canvas, 32" x 32"
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
Charles arnoldi
Untitled 2, 1976,
acrylic on canvas, 32" x 32"
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
Charles arnoldi
Untitled 3, 1976,
acrylic on canvas, 32" x 32"
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
31
Charles arnoldi
Untitled 4, 1976,
acrylic on canvas, 32" x 32"
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
Billy al Bengston
WiliWili draCUlas, 1979,
acrylic on canvas, 76 x 76 "
Karl Benjamin
#8, 1971,
oil on canvas, 68" x 68"
Courtesy louis Stern fine arts
32
Karl Benjamin
#25, 1977,
oil on canvas, 50" x 40 1/2"
photo by: michael faye
Courtesy louis Stern fine arts
Karl Benjamin
#7, 1972,
oil on canvas, 30" x 40"
photo by: michael faye
Courtesy louis Stern fine arts
jerrold BurChman
sPeCtrUM, 1970,
acrylics/rhoplex on paper
114" x 108"
33
jerrold BurChman
toUCh, 1976,
acrylics/rhoplex on paper
96" x 96"
jerrold BurChman
Untitled grey, 1972,
acrylics/rhoplex on paper
96" x 144"
hans BurKhardt
the Cathedral (VietnaM),
1970, oil on canvas, 60" x 50"
©Hans G. & thordis W. burkhardt foundation
Courtesy Jack rutberg fine arts, inc.
34
hans BurKhardt
Untitled, 1976,
oil on canvas, 60" x 50"
©Hans G. & thordis W. burkhardt foundation
Courtesy Jack rutberg fine arts, inc
hans BurKhardt
texas, 1970,
oil on canvas, 20" x 24"
©Hans G. & thordis W. burkhardt foundation
Courtesy Jack rutberg fine arts, inc"
hans BurKhardt
VietnaM, 1970,
oil on canvas, 19 3/4" x 24"
©Hans G. & thordis W. burkhardt foundation
Courtesy Jack rutberg fine arts, inc
35
Karen Carson
geoMetriC disC, ????,
acrylic on canvas, 51"
Karen Carson
BlaCk hole, ????,
acrylic on canvas, 51""
Karen Carson
desert Wheel, ????,
acrylic on canvas, 60".
36
judy ChiCago
sky sUn - Flesh garden series
1971, Sprayed acrylic on acrylic,
96" x 96"
photo: donald Woodman
judy ChiCago
sUn garden- Flesh garden series
1971, Sprayed acrylic on acrylic,
96" x 96"
photo: donald Woodman
judy ChiCago
eVening Fan sUn - Fresno Fans series
1971, Sprayed acrylic on acrylic,
60" x 120"
photo: donald Woodman
37
judy ChiCago
Morning Fan sUn - Fresno
Fans series
1971, Sprayed acrylic on acrylic,
60" x 120"
photo: donald Woodman
ronald davis
laMont, 1978,
Cel-vinyl acrylic on canvas,
90" x 66"
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
ronald davis
stroner - Floater series, 1978,
Cel-vinyl acrylic on canvas,
84" x 66"
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
38
ronald davis
yoder, 1979,
Cel-vinyl acrylic on canvas,
66" x 66"
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
tony delaP
dedi oF desneFrU, 1976,
acrylic on canvas and wood,
89" x 73 1/2" x 3 1/2"
photo: Gene ogami
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
tony delaP
the WhiM oF titUBa, 1979,
acrylic on canvas and wood,
19" x 19 5/8"
photo: Gene ogami
Courtesy Charlotte Jackson fine art
39
doug edge
ortega #3, 1977,
acrylic on canvas,
60" x 60"
doug edge
ortega #1, 1976,
acrylic on canvas,
60" x "
merion estes
laVender tWins, 1977
acrylic lacquer on vinyl,
48" x 48" x 12".
40
Charles garaBedian
landsCaPe, 1976
acrylic and collage on paper,
44 1/2" x 80"
Courtesy la louver
Charles garaBedian
still liFe With gUn, 1977
acrylic on paper,
29 3/4" x 39 3/4"
Courtesy la louver
sCott grieger
MatCh Man, 1977
oil on canvas, 27" x 31.5"
Courtesy Samuel freeman
41
sCott grieger
Past history, 1975
oil on canvas, 30" x 30"
Courtesy Samuel freeman
marvin harden
it CoMes at the Beginning,
siMPly yet graCeFUlly giVen,
a giFt oF Who We are - a
star, 1977
mixed media on paper,
39 3/8" x 27 9/19"
marvin harden
in a Brightness, as in dreaMs,
it soMetiMes seeMs that Fine
FoCUs BlUrs, 1979
mixed media on paper,
39 5/16" x 27 1/2".
42
maxwell hendler
so MUCh For PhilosoPhy,
1976, Watercolor on paper,
10" x 9"
Courtesy manny Silverman Gallery
maxwell hendler
aCqUariUM,
1979, Watercolor on paper,
6 5/8" x 13 1/2"
Courtesy manny Silverman Gallery
maxwell hendler
oh randy,
1978, Watercolor on paper,
9 5/8" x 6 3/8"
Courtesy manny Silverman Gallery
43
maxwell hendler
on yoUr oWn day,
1978, Watercolor on paper,
12 1/2" x 7"
Courtesy manny Silverman Gallery
ynez johnston
PalaCe oF the snoW leoPard,
1971, canvas
30" x 20"
ynez johnston
roUnding the shoal,
1971, canvas
30" x 20".
44
ynez johnston
By land and sea,
1973, paper
19 3/4" x 14 1/2"
matsumi Kanemitsu
geMini i, 1971,
acrylic on canvas
36" x 24"
matsumi Kanemitsu
geMini ii, 1971,
acrylic on canvas
36" x 24"
matsumi Kanemitsu
Whale, 1977,
acrylic on canvas
16" x 20"
45
matsumi Kanemitsu
Untitled, 1969,
acrylic on canvas
36" x 30"
helen lundeBerg
dark VieW, 1974,
acrylic on canvas, 60" x 60"
photo: ed Glendinning
Courtesy louis Stern fine arts
helen lundeBerg
Untitled, 1970,
acrylic on canvas, 54" x 30"
photo: ed Glendinning
Courtesy louis Stern fine arts
46
helen lundeBerg
arCanUM, 1970,
acrylic on canvas, 20" x 20"
photo: ed Glendinning
Courtesy louis Stern fine arts
ed moses
Char-kol, 1978,
tape and charcoal,
39 1/2 x 32 1/4 "
Courtesy Newspace
margaret nielsen
UsUal sUsPeCts, 1974,
acrylic on paper, 18" x 24"
Courtesy Samuel freeman
47
margaret nielsen
asPargUs tiPs, 1974,
acrylic on paper, 18" x 24"
Courtesy Samuel freeman
margaret nielsen
PalM lined, 1977,
acrylic on paper, 16" x 20"
Courtesy Samuel freeman.
margaret nielsen
niagara Falls, 1976,
acrylic and gouache on paper,
16" x 20"
Courtesy Samuel freeman
48
Peter Plagens
instead oF Free Men, 1976,
oil and acrylic on canvas,
68" x 90"
Peter Plagens
kaMeneV, 1975,
oil and acrylic on canvas,
58" x 79"
Peter Plagens
Untitled, 1977,
oil and acrylic on canvas,
66" x 92"
49
Peter Plagens
Untitled, 1978,
acrylic on canvas,
66" x 92".
tom wudl
hoMage to BUCkMinster FUller,
1973, acrylic on paper,
28" x 37"
Courtesy la louver
tom wudl
Untitled, 1979,
acrylic on perforated paper,
23 1/4" x 18"
Courtesy la louver
50
norman zammitt
BUrning yelloW 1,
1978, acrylic on canvas board,
72 1/4" x 9" x 3/4"
Courtesy Newspace
norman zammitt
yelloW to Violet ii,
1978, acrylic on canvas,
41" x 9 1/4"
Courtesy Newspace
norman zammitt
BlaCk to White,
1978, acrylic on canvas board,
16" x 12"
Courtesy Newspace
51
norman zammitt
BUFFalo BlUe,
1977, acrylic on canvas board,
9" x 12"
Courtesy Newspace
norman zammitt
elUsiVe eUreka 3,
1977, acrylic on canvas board,
9" x 7"
Courtesy Newspace
norman zammitt
geMini i,
1978, acrylic on canvas board,
9" x 12"
Courtesy Newspace
52
norman zammitt
geMini ii,
1978, acrylic on canvas board,
6" x 12"
Courtesy Newspace
norman zammitt
green one 2,
1975, acrylic on canvas board,
16" x 12"
Courtesy Newspace
norman zammitt
hard White edge 2,
1976, acrylic on canvas board,
10" x 8"
Courtesy Newspace
53
norman zammitt
north Wall 1,
1975, acrylic on canvas board,
12" x 9"
Courtesy Newspace
norman zammitt
soUth Wall 1,
1975, acrylic on canvas board,
12" x 9"
Courtesy Newspace
norman zammitt
sPeCtrUM retUrn 3,
1975, acrylic on canvas board,
12" x 9"
Courtesy Newspace
54
iSbN 978-0-9834078-5-0
priCe $20.00
130 lincoln avenue, Suite d, Santa fe, Nm 87501 | p (505) 983-9555 | f (505) 983-1284
www.davidrichardContemporary.com | [email protected]