Page 50 - Studio International - February 1968

but by means of prestige which plays on the vanity Out of all this public weeping comes a singularly many of the participants have not yet managed
and ambition of the artist. vulgar, sloppy exhibition, full of vulnerable spots. to grasp.
Take, for instance, the large (fifty works) exhibi- What can one think, for instance, of Paolozzi's
tion at the SIDNEY JANIS GALLERY called `Homage slithering sculpture which happens to fit into his At the CORDIER EKSTROM GALLERY, there is an-
to Marilyn Monroe'. Some of the works, it's true, current work even without the applied title? Or of other theme show which again relieves a number of
were executed years ago while the star was still Chamberlain's scrunched-up galvanized metal contemporary artists of the responsibility of choos-
alive, and some just after her death. But the great- sculpture, gratuitously called Norma Jean Rising? ing their own theme. This one is called 'Polly-
est part of the exhibition consists of work done this Or of Chryssa's confection of neon tubes spelling morphous Images' which really deserves that a
year for this exhibition. M.M.? Or of Dali's incredibly tasteless floating `parrotty' be written as a review. The idea is that
The Monroe cult, while it doesn't compare to the column, with its photo of Marilyn Monroe as artists have painted parrots in the past (in this
cult of the Virgin in other centuries, is still a source Chairman Mao? (A fellow exhibitor told me with show, there is an early Man Ray for instance) and
of considerable serious discussion in certain surprising alacrity that Dali has become a dis- that they still like parrots. For deep reasons, I'm
quarters. It has been used to make a case for gusting old man.) sure, which I have failed to grasp fully.
modern mythology, for a new iconography in On the other hand, honour, such as it is, accrues Artists participating here, such as Indiana,
modern painting, and for the view of modern cul- for those artists who pioneered this rich vein. That Arman and Lindner, are also in the Janis show,
ture that regards film stars as victims of the masses, includes Willem de Kooning, whose painting lives adapting their unmistakable styles to the subject at
doomed to self-destruction because they have its own life among the confections surrounding it, hand. Since Lindner had a long stint as an illus-
never been understood. and Joseph Cornell, who applies his own peculiar trator in his past, it is not so difficult for him to
I'm sorry to say that this maudlin view pre- tendency to pictorial idolatry to Marilyn Monroe undertake to paint for an exhibition on a given
dominates in the Janis show. Most of the artists see as once he did the great Melba. I think, also, that theme. And Arman and Indiana are pretty apt by
a pair of lips, pouting and childlike, and eyes of Oldenburg comes out well, in spite of this being an the nature of their styles. (In fact, these artists
helpless innocence. Some have suggested a herma- assignment piece, simply because he really made stand out in both exhibitions.) But beyond a
phroditic interpretation, providing grist for the an invention suitable to the theme. His painted chuckle now and then, and surprise in the face of
mill of the new mythologists. Others have barely metal sculpture, a great caricature of a lipstick a stepped ziggurat with an egg at its crest by Mr
disguised their acceptance of the reading of with its carmine oozing out on the floor, and its Ekstrom himself—not bad at all—such an exhibi-
Marilyn Monroe by the Solons of the mass media. phallic implications, presents a metaphorical tion offers little lasting effect.
They clip a face here, a torso there, a full pose possibility denied us in the works of most of the Is the popularity of these casual exhibitions per-
elsewhere, and put them together in a mock-tragic others. haps a symptom? Do many artists jump at the
pastiche. Without the work of the crack photo- In fact, the most arresting works are surely the opportunity to paint or construe according to a
graphers for the slicks, these artists would be at a photographs, particularly the famous series by given theme because they have little left to say?
loss. That covers even their painting technique, Bert Stern with Monroe's lipsticked cancellations. Can these trivial exhibitions stand for a general
since more than one artist emulates the newspaper It is, of course, natural that direct journalism is decay of imagination? Is parrotting all there is left
photo, with smudgy shadows, violent undertones. stronger than surrogate journalism—a fact which to do? And it is not even quite the fin-de-siècle !

Oldenburg Giant lipstick (ceiling sculpture for M.M.) 1967 Robert Indiana Painting 1967, oil, 70 x 60 in.
painted metal, 72 x 72 x 36 in. Sidney Janis Gallery, New York Cordier Ekstrom Gallery, New York