|
“Insistence on clarity at all costs is based on sheer superstition as to the mode in which human intelligence functions.” - Whitehead
Philip Pearlstein “ The Barren Womb”, 1980
My relationship with Philip Pearlstein was problematic at best. We are such poles apart in our work, in our appearance, and in our being. That both of us came from Pittsburgh and had very close ties to Robert Lepper at Carnegie Tech was something Philip immediately dismissed when I first had brought it up. Philip was Lepper's assistant outside of school. Yet at the Andy Warhol Symposium at the Carnegie in 1989, Philip acknowledged sharing Lepper's ideas about art and technology with his then close friend Andy.
So in a sense we were branches from the same tree grafted onto other species. Certainly that would be the distinction between Philip and Andy and also apply to Mel Bochner and Jonathan Borofsky. Unlike other school communities, the Tech crowd has always turned their backs to each other.
Philip was a full generation ahead. I met him under circumstances of desperation when I returned to school to get my masters at Brooklyn College in 1979. Philip returned from a sabbatical the second semester so he missed my presentation of "Joseph in the Pit" as an incoming, one night presentation to the faculty. Nor was he there at the semester's end when I presented the first state of "The Visitation" to the skeptical faculty who pronounced the work "pre-Raphaelite", clearly bothered that the faces were so "emotional" while the narrative, inexplicable.
I had decided on Brooklyn College because first, it was cheap, and second, because its mandate was figurative painting. I was looking to return to brush painting after more than a decade of concentrating on grattage, but I wasn't prepared for their conservative, or rather, neo-academic orthodoxy. There were even disappointments with those of the faculty who were more open and generous. I remember Lee Bontecou turning tail when I tried to explain to her where her sculpture influenced my grattage forms. Her piece in the 1964 Carnegie International was the only work that interested me in the exhibition. I had not known anything about her-had never realized she was a woman. I had only looked at the art. Although I did not mean to invade her person, only pay my respects, I did not realize she was fragile.
I believe Philip at that moment was aesthetically at the high point of his career, or at least, in some individual works, produced some almost luminous pieces where flat painting breathed some quality of special atmosphere, as of yet, uncluttered except for essential elements. I even told him after knowing him for a while: "Philip, you better watch it. Some of your people look alive." But that was long after our initial encounters as the autumn of 1979 turned into winter.
"The Visitation," which was left in the graduate open studio, had been painted in traditional brush. It also had used as its format the frontal figures of medieval fertility tapestries celebrating marriages, one of which was at the Metropolitan Museum. I made both figures female as in the New Testament story of St. Ann visiting Mary. I also in the back of my mind was playing with gender roles between two women, who could be construed to be lovers in this hierarchal format celebrating union and fruitfulness: where in the traditional background, usually from above the male, a small figure climbs across to the tree above the female to pick her fruit. But as nothing would be generated in this instance, the caress from the hand of one turns into the suggestion of a slap, and the title shifts from "The Visitation" into "The Barren Womb."
I decided that the painting's surface needed to be more like tapestry. I started my scraping away down to the weave and removing to only a suggestion the contours defining the women's robes. Well no one in the faculty understood the attraction I had for erasure. First of all, I didn't see it as a negative action, but through reduction one aiming at a type of minimalism not associated with figurative painting. Second, without ever having concerned myself with deconstructive theory, I had developed skepticism towards the authority of the completely finished painted image as "picture". I didn't believe it as one hardly ever believes a Rubens. Third, I am attracted to the process of erosion and defacement and the other actions of time, mischief and chance.
As in my abstracted grattage works, first there is the process of building up layers, and then, the purposeful reforming the image by "erasure" and "exposure" which leads the attention to be absorbed down to the weave itself. The surface of the painting actually recedes as in relieve sculpture, and in remarking on two nudes in grattage that I was doing then, some of the faculty thought what I really should and wanted to do was sculpture. They had, I suppose, never considered painting in this manner, just as no one expected Julian Schnabel's plates.
|