Megan Keith

ARTH 3539

Clyfford Still

The artistic progression displayed by Clyfford Still's works was very interesting to

observe, from his earlier traditional pieces, to his later, more abstract ones. When visiting his

museum, I was amazed at his progression, at how different his pieces were. My roommate, an art

major, asked me if all the pieces at the museum were done by the same person. It was hard to

imagine that the huge variety of styles could all come from the same artist, all from his path to

self-discovery.

The beginning of the exhibit showcased Still's earlier works. My

favorite piece in this "era" was his drawing of a woman. The sketch

looked so realistic and lifelike, it hardly resembled Still's later work,

which can be described as incredibly abstract, with no identifiable

figures. The sketch of the woman looking off into the distance was

one of my favorite of Still's works. He

captured her emotion in a way that

many artists cannot. I found myself

wondering what she was thinking

about, and I stayed in front of this

drawing for the longest.

I really enjoyed Still's earlier works,

because I found his realistic style much more appealing than his

later abstract pieces. I have a hard time finding the "meaning" of a

work, or reading the emotion it supposedly presents. However,

with realistic works like this sketch, I am able to connect on a

deeper level than I can when observing abstraction.

Based on this realization, I also really connected with his self-portrait that was displayed

in the gallery. It was at this point in his artistic career that he was more of a realist than an

abstractionist. His self-portrait shows (in my mind), no signs of an abstract style, on the contrary,

his painting is incredibly realistic and lifelike. But Still's style soon began to change from realism

to the abstract. I categorized Still's real-life like works as his "early" era.

Soon after Still finishes the above pieces, his style begins to change, quite noticeably. His

works begin to lose their original qualities, for instance, human figures begin to take on a less

than human appearance. His figures look tired and lose even more of their human appeal. The

backgrounds of his works change to fields and the characters within the pieces change to farmers

or field hands. These works are the start of what I call Still's "early central" era. There are still

figures, those of humans and machines, but they are not as lifelike as the figures in Still's "early"

era.

I found the "early central" part of the exhibit to be a little disturbing. The figures take on

an eerie appearance, and all look on the verge of death.

The figures, although human enough, look exhausted and

lifeless. But there was still an obvious emotion that Still's

depicted in these "early central" era pieces. I felt tired just

looking at the creatures in this time period of this works.

Interestingly enough, the figures in these works

have not yet lost their gender. It is relatively easy to

distinguish male from female

form, especially in the pictures

with nude figures. But even in

the pieces that just display the

faces and upper bodies of the

subjects, the audience is able to

tell male from female. The

photo on the left is clearly male,

while the photo on the right is clearly female. The characteristics of the

"early central" era are as follows: the figures in the works are easily

established as human, male or female, but do not possess the same human-like qualities as Still's

"early" era (i.e. his Self-Portrait).

With the end of Still's "early central" era comes what I called his "late central" era,

defined by his further progression away from realistic human depictions, and farther to the

realms of abstraction. Although the above works in his "early central" era were relatively

abstract, his works and figures become far more abstract, with only a slight hint of a figure at all.

In some cases, like in the example of the painting to the right, it is debatable whether or not there

is even a presence of a human figure.

This next era of Still's works contains paintings that are becoming

more and more abstract. It is possible, in some paintings, to differentiate

between man and machine, but there is little or no certainty of figures in

some of his pieces. For instance, in the

painting to the left, it would seem that

there are, indeed, some human forms, but

it is still incredibly abstract. In the painting

to the right, however, it is not entirely

clear whether or not the main figure is

human or not.

It is at this point in Still's past that I begin to lose the ability

to identify with the works at all. The emotion is not as obvious to

the audience, and the works become overwhelmingly ambiguous.

Although there were people in the exhibit discussing what the

painter was trying to accomplish through a certain piece, I truly

believe these works do not display a clear message or intent.

With the close of Still's "late central" era comes the

beginning of his "late" era. This era is characterized by a complete loss of identifiable figures.

Most of the works in this part of his career were enormous, and seeing them in person was very

impressive. The documentary we watched of Still's life was very informative, and I remember

learning that he would stand in the middle of the huge canvas while he was painting, in order to

feel like he was in the piece. His commitment was very memorable to me.

Also interesting in these pieces was the texture. When one looks closely at the paintings

in Still's "late" era, one can see that they really are incredibly rough, with many different

textures. Although I had a difficult time

relating to these abstract works, the textures

were all very curious. I spent more time

looking closely at the paintings than I did

appreciating them from a distance. That may

have meant I lost the "big picture"

appreciation, but I was far more interested in

the close-up aspect of these abstract pieces. I had never experienced art like this before seeing

these huge pieces in the Still exhibit.

I found myself passing through this part of the exhibit quite quickly, as I was having

trouble seeing how these pieces could be considered "art". I can still, quite honestly, say that I

don't understand Still's later works. I just don't identify with them, and I couldn’t seem to put my

finger on a particular emotion or feeling that was being portrayed. My roommate forced me to go

through the exhibit twice, because it only took me about ten minutes the first time through.

However, the second trip through took almost

an hour. I forced myself to really consider the pieces,

especially the ones I thought I didn't understand. It

was during this second trip that I really fell in love

with the following painting:

I didn't even notice it the first time I went

through the exhibit. But the second time I couldn't

stop looking at it. It bothers me that I can't identify a

message or emotion that I think Still may have tried

to portray. But that made me realize that his later

works were not meant to be picked apart, analyzed, and labeled. I was appreciating art for the

sake of art. I no longer look for a certain message when looking at abstract art, I just enjoy it. I

would have never been able to learn this had I not experienced the works of Clyfford Still.