Monday, May 31, 2010

Louise Bourgeois, Influential Sculptor, Dies at 98 By Holland Cotter, from the NY Times

Louise Bourgeois, the French-born American artist who gained fame only late in a long career, when her psychologically charged abstract sculptures, drawings and prints had a galvanizing effect on the work of younger artists, particularly women, died on Monday in Manhattan, where she lived. She was 98.

Ms. Bourgeois’s sculptures in wood, steel, stone and cast rubber, often organic in form and sexually explicit, emotionally aggressive yet witty, covered many stylistic bases. But from first to last they shared a set of repeated themes centered on the human body and its need for nurture and protection in a frightening world.

Protection often translated into images of shelter or home. A gouged lump of cast bronze, for example, suggested an animal’s lair. A tablelike wooden structure with thin, stiltlike legs resembled a house ever threatening to topple. Her series of “Cells” from the early 1990s — installations of old doors, windows, steel fencing and found objects — were meant to be evocations of her childhood, which she claimed as the psychic source of her art.


But it was her images of the body itself, sensual but grotesque, fragmented, often sexually ambiguous, that proved especially memorable. In some cases the body took the abstract form of an upright wooden pole, pierced by a few holes and stuck with nails; in others it appeared as a pair of women’s hands realistically carved in marble and lying, palms open, on a massive stone base.


Among her most familiar sculptures was the much-exhibited “Nature Study” (1984), a headless sphinx with powerful claws and multiple breasts. Perhaps the most provocative was “Fillette” (1968), a large, detached latex phallus. Ms. Bourgeois can be seen carrying this object, nonchalantly tucked under one arm, in a portrait by the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe taken for the catalog of her 1982 retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art. (In the catalog, the Mapplethorpe picture is cropped to show only the artist’s smiling face.)

That retrospective brought Ms. Bourgeois, in her early 70s, the critical and popular acclaim that had long eluded her. In 1993 she represented the United States in the Venice Biennale. In an art world where women had been treated as second-class citizens and were discouraged from dealing with overtly sexual subject matter, she quickly assumed an emblematic presence. Her work was read by many as an assertive feminist statement, her career as an example of perseverance in the face of neglect.

Ms. Bourgeois often spoke of pain as the subject of her art, and fear: fear of the grip of the past, of the uncertainty of the future, of loss in the present.

“The subject of pain is the business I am in,” she said. “To give meaning and shape to frustration and suffering.” She added: “The existence of pain cannot be denied. I propose no remedies or excuses.” Yet it was her gift for universalizing her interior life as a complex spectrum of sensations that made her art so affecting.

Louise Bourgeois was born on Dec. 25, 1911, on the Left Bank of Paris, the second of three children born to Louis and Josephine Bourgeois. Her parents, financially comfortable, owned a gallery that dealt primarily in antique tapestries. A few years after her birth the family moved out of Paris and set up a workshop for tapestry restoration in Choisy-le-Roi. Ms. Bourgeois remembered as a child drawing fragments of missing images to help in the repairs.

She often spoke of her early, emotionally conflicted family life as formative. Her practical and affectionate mother, who was an invalid, was a positive influence. Her father’s domineering disposition, as well as his marital infidelities (he had a 10-year affair with the children’s English governess), instilled a resentment and an insecurity that Ms. Bourgeois never laid to rest.


Her nightmarish tableau of 1974, “The Destruction of the Father,” for example, is a table in a stagily lighted recess, which holds an arrangement of breastlike bumps, phallic protuberances and other biomorphic shapes in soft-looking latex that suggest the sacrificial evisceration of a body, the whole surrounded by big, crude mammillary forms. Ms. Bourgeois has suggested as the tableau’s inspiration a fantasy from childhood in which a pompous father, whose presence deadens the dinner hour night after night, is pulled onto the table by other family members, dismembered and gobbled up.


Similarly, for a 1994 exhibition titled “Louise Bourgeois: Locus of Memory, Works 1982-1993,” she created a single sculpture and suite of drawings in which the central image was a spider, a creature she associated with her mother, a woman of ever-changing moods.

Drawn in orange and flesh-pink gouache, it here stalked across the page and there shrunk to the size of a pea. As an immense sculpture of soldered metal tubing, it loomed ominously over the viewer but was delicate enough to quiver and sway at a touch. Fragility and fierceness were, in fact, the twin poles of Ms. Bourgeois’s art.

Often there was a precise association in her work. After she had created a number of vertical spirals that seemed to twist in space, she evoked childhood memories of the tapestry business and her family: “When a tapestry had to be washed in the river, it took four people to hoist it out and twist it. Twisting is very important for me. When I dreamt of getting rid of the mistress, it was by twisting her neck.”


At the age of 20, she entered the Sorbonne to study mathematics and geometry, disciplines that she valued for their stability. “I got peace of mind,” she later said, “only through the study of rules nobody could change.” But she left to enroll in a succession of art schools, and counted Fernand Léger among her teachers.

In 1938 she married Robert Goldwater, an American art historian noted for his pioneering work in the field then referred to as primitive art. They moved to New York City that same year, and Ms. Bourgeois attended the Art Students League, where she studied painting with Vaclav Vytlacil and also produced sculpture and prints.

She knew many of the European surrealists then arriving as refugees in New York (she later dismissed them as “smart alecks”), but the artists to whom she felt closest were the American painters who would come to be known as Abstract Expressionists.

Ms. Bourgeois had a solo show of paintings in New York in 1945 and her first exhibition of sculpture — an installation of tall, polelike figures that she intended as abstract portraits of family members and friends — four years later at the Peridot Gallery, at which time she gave up painting for good.

She enjoyed some professional success as a sculptor thereafter (she participated in the Whitney Museum of American Art’s Annual Exhibition almost yearly until 1962). But a significant shift in her career came in 1966, when she was included in an exhibition at the Fischbach Gallery in New York, “Eccentric Abstraction,” organized by the critic Lucy Lippard.

Ms. Bourgeois’s long involvement in the nascent feminist movement, about which she had passionate but ambivalent feelings, began at this time. In the following year she made her first of many trips to the marble works in Carrara and Pietrasanta, Italy, where she produced dozens of major marble pieces over several years.

After her husband’s death in 1973, she began teaching at the School of Visual Arts and elsewhere, including Columbia University, Cooper Union, New York Studio School and Yale University, which awarded her an honorary Doctor of Fine Arts degree in 1977. She also received an honorary doctorate from Pratt Institute in Brooklyn in 1993.

By the mid-1970s, with shifts in art-world trends, her reputation was steadily growing. Although she had been given only four one-woman shows in 30 years after her debut as a sculptor in 1949, from 1978 to 1981 she had five in New York alone. Her retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art the following year, the first retrospective of a woman at the museum, secured her place as an influential figure. Her reputation grew stronger in the context of the body-centered art of the ’90s, with its emphasis on sexuality, vulnerability and mortality.


Ms. Bourgeois’s first European retrospective was organized by the Kunstverein in Frankfurt in 1989. In 1993 she was chosen to represent the United States at the Venice Biennale. Her exhibition, organized by Charlotta Kotik of the Brooklyn Museum of Art and titled “Louise Bourgeois: The Locus of Memory, Works 1982-1993,” later traveled to the Brooklyn and to the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington.

A second international retrospective was organized by the Tate Modern in London and the Centre Pompidou in Paris in 2007 and traveled to New York, Los Angeles and Washington the following year. The Museo Nacional Centro de Arte/Reina Sofia in Madrid and the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg mounted retrospectives.


She also was in four Whitney Biennials, the first in 1973 and the most recent in 1997, and a number of major international shows, including Documenta and the Carnegie International.

A survey of her prints was organized by the Modern in 1994, and a survey of her drawings by the University Art Museum at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1995. At her death, two films about her had been completed. She was represented by the Cheim & Read Gallery in Chelsea.

Ms. Bourgeois was named Officer of the Order of Arts and Letters by the French minister of culture in 1983. Other honors included the Grand Prix National de Sculpture from the French government in 1991; the National Medal of Arts, presented to her by President Bill Clinton in 1997; the first lifetime achievement award from the International Sculpture Center in Washington; and election as a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.


Certainly her personal style contributed to her mystique. Petite in size, gruff of voice and manner, outspoken but suspicious of interviewers, she spent much of her time either in her home in Chelsea or in her studio in Brooklyn, where she worked with Jerry Gorovoy, her assistant since 1980.

Ms Bourgeois is survived by two sons, Jean-Louis, of Manhattan, and Alain, of Brooklyn; two grandchildren; and a great granddaughter. Her son Michel died in 1990.

A lifelong insomniac, she often stayed up drawing or writing in her journal, in the same plain, epigrammatic style in which she spoke. (Her writings and interviews were published under the title “Destruction of the Father/Reconstruction of the Father” by the MIT Press in 1998).

“I have a religious temperament,” Ms. Bourgeois, a professed atheist, said about the emotional and spiritual energy that she poured into her work. “I have not been educated to use it. I’m afraid of power. It makes me nervous. In real life, I identify with the victim. That’s why I went into art.”

LInk to NY Time Slide Show: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/05/31/arts/design/20100601-bourgeois-ss.html

For Memorial Day - Visualizing Loss: Jane Hammond’s Fallen


Visualizing Loss: Jane Hammond’s Fallen
DECEMBER 17, 2009
by Amanda Potter

This article is adapted from the author’s “Collecting Leaves, Assembling Memory: Jane Hammond’s Fallen and the Function of War Memorials” (c 2008), which appeared in the Archives of American Art Journal 47 nos. 3-4 (Fall 2008).

Jane Hammond’s Fallen (2004–ongoing) is a memorial commemorating American soldiers killed in the Iraq War. Unlike most war memorials, however, it was not commissioned. No acts of Congress were involved in its making. No fundraising drives enabled its creation. No committees have weighed its merits or demanded revisions. Instead, it is the work of a single artist, an aesthetic response to current events that is not intended for placement in a town square or on the National Mall in Washington. As a reaction to an ongoing conflict, Fallen is a recognition of the urgent need for healing and a respite from divisive rhetoric. Hammond has acknowledged this, stating that the work “has at its heart our collectivity.”

Fallen departs in many ways from the conventions of traditional memorials. Instead of stone or bronze—heavy, durable materials that connote permanence and solemnity—Hammond has used paper and ink to create more than 4,200 unique reproductions of leaves that she places on a low rectangular platform. On each leaf is written the name of an American soldier killed in Iraq. Rather than tower over the viewer, literally elevating the deceased or the cause for which they died, the work spreads out below the viewer on a determinedly human scale.


As the number of leaves has grown, the length of the pedestal has increased, but the breadth has not increased proportionally. Hammond designs a new pedestal for each exhibition site, favoring a design that is “rectangular and processional,” so that the viewer walks alongside the work and is always able to read the names that appear in the center. As a work of art, Fallen is unique because the artist does not ultimately control its completion or its dimensions; Hammond has committed herself to making a leaf for every soldier killed in Iraq as long as the war continues.

The inspiration for Fallen came to Hammond in a dream in which she was walking through a grove of trees with brilliant foliage. As the leaves fell from the trees, she saw that each was printed with the name of an American soldier. She soon began collecting real leaves and has continued to do so all across the country each autumn since beginning the work in 2004.

Hammond quickly scans the leaves to preserve their appearance, precisely aligns images of both sides, and digitally prints them onto an archival paper. She then cuts each leaf by hand with painstaking care to reproduce its unique contour, including any holes or blemishes. Hammond next thickens the stem and paints it, and the edges, by hand, at which time she writes the name of the deceased on the leaf with Sumi ink and a brush-pen. Last, she molds and shapes the leaf to give it a realistic three-dimensional presence.


As they are added to the low platform on which Fallen is displayed, the leaves form a blanket. Although every leaf has a name on it, many are overturned or covered by other leaves, so only a portion of the names of the dead are visible at any time. In this way, Hammond intends that each viewer first experiences the piece as a familiar encounter with the beauty of nature and only after connects it with loss, a sequence that is aligned with the dream that inspired the work.

The metaphor of a fallen leaf as a symbol of a life lost is not new, nor is it especially complex. Indeed, its simplicity and clarity made it an attractive symbol in propaganda for both the Germans and the British during World War II. But the power of Hammond’s work lies in part in this immediate legibility. The leaf metaphor is an elegant, deceptively simple response to the ongoing public struggle between abstraction and realism in memorials. This debate reaches far back into the twentieth century, but can be seen most clearly at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, where the unease felt by some at the minimalism of Maya Lin’s design led to the addition of Frederick Hart’s Three Soldiers and an American flag to the memorial site.

From a distance, the leaves in Fallen form a vivid field of intense color, not unlike an unstretched Jackson Pollock painting on the ground. Up close, the eyes quickly differentiate them as extraordinarily realistic individual objects, unique and vibrant, like the lives they commemorate. At the same time, leaves have no overt connection to the symbolism of patriotism or protest, and thereby avoid making an explicit political statement on the war.

An accumulation of ordinary objects that symbolizes a great loss and tries to convey its dimensions is an increasingly common motif in a variety of recent memorials. Anyone who has visited the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum can attest to the devastating experience of encountering the mounds of shoes left behind by Holocaust victims. At the Oklahoma City National Memorial, the Field of Empty Chairs depicts exactly the tragedy’s scale while simultaneously creating 168 separate memorials where visitors can mourn the bombing’s individual victims. The practice of gathering everyday things can also be seen in the informal memorials, explicitly imitating cemeteries, that have sprung up in various communities in response to the Iraq War—a field of crosses in Lafayette, California, for instance, or groups of flags flown in various cities around the country, one for each soldier killed.


Fallen is a particularly subtle and disarming example of this approach, because, unlike a mound of shoes, the sight of a blanket of fallen leaves is not uncommon. Even so, the experience helps us to make concrete the sum total of our loss, a number that, when written or spoken, is, strictly speaking, precise, but nonetheless seems woefully uncommunicative.

The labor-intensive process of creating the leaves is in itself an evocative metaphor for the shaping and preservation of a collective experience that is the primary function of any war memorial. At the same time, Hammond’s artistic choices are an admission that memory is fragile and, like autumn leaves, is shifted and rearranged with the passage of time. Her re-creation of the organic and the ephemeral in a more stable material is a moving attempt to stop time, to preserve something at a moment of particular beauty, just as the families of those killed in Iraq and society at large wish to remember these fallen soldiers.

Amanda Potter is Educator for Public and University Programs at the Wexner Center for the Arts, in Columbus, Ohio, which exhibited Fallen in spring 2008. Amanda has a master’s in art history from Williams College, and an undergraduate degree from Dartmouth College.

All images:

Jane Hammond (b. 1950)
Fallen, 2004-ongoing

Color ink jet print, printed from digital file retco and verso, on archival paper, cut, with matt medium, Jade glue, fiberglass strand, sumi ink, and additional handwork in acrylic paint and gouache, dimensions variable.

Whitney Museum of American Art, New York; purchase, with funds from Sarah Ann and Werner Kramarsky, Mr. and Mrs. David Schiff, Melissa and Robert Soros, Marion C. and Charles Burson, Toby Devan Lewis Foundation, The Judith Rothschild Foundation, Nora and Guy Barron, Pam Joseph and Rob Brinker, Greg Kucera and Larry Yocom, Ted and Maryanne Ellison Simmons, 2007.6

For an Art in America review, go to: http://www.janehammondartist.com/articles/art_in_america_fallen.pdf

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Photos from The Finer Things at Nudashank





The Finer Things
Christian Herr & John Garrett Slaby

May 14 - June 4
Opening Reception: May 14, 7 - 10pm
A two-man painting show of hair, bikes, skateboards, beards, general mischief and Pennsylvania pride.

Christian Herr received his BFA from West Chester University in Pennsylvania, and lives and works in Lancaster. He was recently interviewed on Fecal Face, and his new work will be included in Book #4 of Beautiful Decay, "Exquisite Corpse."

John Garrett Slaby received his BFA from West Chester University in Pennsylvania, lives and works in Philadelphia. His work was featured in issue 81 of New American Paintings and was 2008 winner of The Fleisher Challenge in Philadelphia. Slaby's work is also part of the West Collection.














Photos from Elements at Grimaldis Gallery


May 27 - June 26, 2010