southern california painting, 1970s painting per se

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

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.

130 lincoln avenue, Suite d, Santa fe, Nm 87501 | p (505) 983-9555 | f (505) 983-1284

www.davidrichardContemporary.com | info@davidrichardContemporary.com

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"

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

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

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.

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

Charles arnoldi

Untitled 1, 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"

jerrold BurChman

sPeCtrUM, 1970,

acrylics/rhoplex on paper

114" x 108"

hans BurKhardt

the Cathedral (VietnaM),

1970, oil on canvas, 60" x 50"

©Hans G. & thordis W. burkhardt foundation

Courtesy Jack rutberg fine arts, inc.

Karen Carson

geoMetriC disC, 1979,

acrylic on canvas, 51"

judy ChiCago

sky sUn - Flesh garden series

1971, Sprayed acrylic on acrylic, 96" x 96"

ronald davis

laMont, 1978,

Cel-vinyl acrylic on canvas,

90" x 66"

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

doug edge

ortega #3

1977, acrylic on canvas,

60" x 60"

merion estes

laVender tWins, 1977

acrylic lacquer on vinyl,

48" x 48" x 12"

Charles garaBedian

landsCaPe, 1976

acrylic and collage on paper,

44 1/2" x 80"

Courtesy la louver

sCott grieger

MatCh Man, 1977

oil on canvas, 27" x 31.5"

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"

maxwell hendler

so MUCh For PhilosoPhy,

1976, Watercolor on paper,

10" x 9"

Courtesy manny Silverman Gallery

ynez johnston

PalaCe oF the snoW leoPard,

1971, CaNvaS

30" x 20"

matsumi Kanemitsu

geMini i, 1971,

acrylic on canvas

36" x 24"

matsumi Kanemitsu

geMini ii, 1971,

acrylic on canvas

36" x 24"

Craig Kauffman

Caroline's riCkets, 1975,

acrylic on wood and muslin,

62" x 60"

helen lundeBerg

dark VieW, 1974,

photo: ed Glendinning

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"

Peter Plagens

instead oF Free Men, 1976,

oil and acrylic on canvas,

68" x 90"

tom wudl

hoMage to BUCkMinster FUller,

1973, acrylic on paper,

28" x 37"

Courtesy la louver

norman zammitt

BUrning yelloW 1,

1978, acrylic on canvas board,

72 1/4" x 9" x 3/4"

Courtesy Newspace

Charles arnoldi

Untitled 1, 1976,

Charles arnoldi

Untitled 2, 1976,

Charles arnoldi

Untitled 3, 1976,

Charles arnoldi

Untitled 4, 1976,

Billy al Bengston

WiliWili draCUlas, 1979,

acrylic on canvas, 76 x 76 "

Karl Benjamin

#8, 1971,

Karl Benjamin

#25, 1977,

oil on canvas, 50" x 40 1/2"

photo by: michael faye

Karl Benjamin

#7, 1972,

photo by: michael faye

jerrold BurChman

sPeCtrUM, 1970,

114" x 108"

jerrold BurChman

toUCh, 1976,

96" x 96"

jerrold BurChman

Untitled grey, 1972,

96" x 144"

hans BurKhardt

the Cathedral (VietnaM),

1970, oil on canvas, 60" x 50"

Courtesy Jack rutberg fine arts, inc.

hans BurKhardt

Untitled, 1976,

Courtesy Jack rutberg fine arts, inc

hans BurKhardt

texas, 1970,

Courtesy Jack rutberg fine arts, inc"

hans BurKhardt

VietnaM, 1970,

oil on canvas, 19 3/4" x 24"

Courtesy Jack rutberg fine arts, inc

Karen Carson

geoMetriC disC, ????,

acrylic on canvas, 51"

Karen Carson

BlaCk hole, ????,

acrylic on canvas, 51""

Karen Carson

desert Wheel, ????,

acrylic on canvas, 60".

judy ChiCago

sky sUn - Flesh garden series

1971, Sprayed acrylic on acrylic,

96" x 96"

judy ChiCago

sUn garden- Flesh garden series

96" x 96"

judy ChiCago

eVening Fan sUn - Fresno Fans series

60" x 120"

judy ChiCago

Morning Fan sUn - Fresno

Fans series

60" x 120"

ronald davis

laMont, 1978,

90" x 66"

ronald davis

stroner - Floater series, 1978,

84" x 66"

ronald davis

yoder, 1979,

66" x 66"

tony delaP

dedi oF desneFrU, 1976,

89" x 73 1/2" x 3 1/2"

photo: Gene ogami

tony delaP

the WhiM oF titUBa, 1979,

19" x 19 5/8"

photo: Gene ogami

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".

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"

sCott grieger

Past history, 1975

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".

maxwell hendler

so MUCh For PhilosoPhy,

10" x 9"

maxwell hendler

aCqUariUM,

6 5/8" x 13 1/2"

maxwell hendler

oh randy,

9 5/8" x 6 3/8"

maxwell hendler

on yoUr oWn day,

12 1/2" x 7"

ynez johnston

PalaCe oF the snoW leoPard,

1971, canvas

30" x 20"

ynez johnston

roUnding the shoal,

1971, canvas

30" x 20".

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"

matsumi Kanemitsu

Untitled, 1969,

acrylic on canvas

36" x 30"

helen lundeBerg

dark VieW, 1974,

helen lundeBerg

Untitled, 1970,

helen lundeBerg

arCanUM, 1970,

ed moses

Char-kol, 1978,

tape and charcoal,

39 1/2 x 32 1/4 "

Courtesy Newspace

margaret nielsen

UsUal sUsPeCts, 1974,

margaret nielsen

asPargUs tiPs, 1974,

margaret nielsen

PalM lined, 1977,

Courtesy Samuel freeman.

margaret nielsen

niagara Falls, 1976,

acrylic and gouache on paper,

16" x 20"

Peter Plagens

instead oF Free Men, 1976,

68" x 90"

Peter Plagens

kaMeneV, 1975,

58" x 79"

Peter Plagens

Untitled, 1977,

66" x 92"

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

norman zammitt

BUrning yelloW 1,

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,

16" x 12"

Courtesy Newspace

norman zammitt

BUFFalo BlUe,

9" x 12"

Courtesy Newspace

norman zammitt

elUsiVe eUreka 3,

9" x 7"

Courtesy Newspace

norman zammitt

geMini i,

9" x 12"

Courtesy Newspace

norman zammitt

geMini ii,

6" x 12"

Courtesy Newspace

norman zammitt

green one 2,

16" x 12"

Courtesy Newspace

norman zammitt

hard White edge 2,

10" x 8"

Courtesy Newspace

norman zammitt

north Wall 1,

12" x 9"

Courtesy Newspace

norman zammitt

soUth Wall 1,

12" x 9"

Courtesy Newspace

norman zammitt

sPeCtrUM retUrn 3,

12" x 9"

Courtesy Newspace

iSbN 978-0-9834078-5-0

priCe $20.00

southern california painting, 1970s painting per se

death of painting

peter frank

sprayed acrylic

david eichholtzjuly

suite d

santa fe

art schools

conceptual art

Documents

hidden treasures -...

southern painting

1970s arena ads

cold war 1970s

late 1960s-1970s

1970s microteach

painting the southern border - cesnur · painting the...

university of southern queensland art in parallax...

inside 1970s suburbia

lawn painting versus...

the early 1970s

1970s presentations

variations of the southern patagonian icefield since the...

cold war 1970s. cold war 1970s the cold war begins to thaw

1970s tv quiz

lesson 4: making generalizations -...

southern california painting, 1970s

women 1970s

southern metal industry co., ltd. introduction southern...

post-watergate 1970s