Frank
Stella
|

Chatal
Huyuk Shrine A. 1999
cast scrap and steel
120" x 141" x 175"
|
XXXXX At
long last, Frank Stella has satisfied his hunger for greatness.
Of course, from the first, Stella has had enormous artworld
success. Yet despite this success, Stella has always been
controversial, and has had his detractors, especially among
advocates of Color Field painting. Not one of the Color Field
painters who I knew thought much of his paintings and the
critics and collectors have been divided. Clement Greenberg
selected Stella for his important “Post Painterly Abstraction” exhibition
in 1964, but soon thereafter, lost all interest. Michael
Fried, another early advocate, lost interest somewhat later,
after failing to turn Stella toward Color Field painting.
On the other hand, Former Chief Curator of the M.O.M.A.,
William Rubin, who at first favored Color Field and Olitski,
turned away from them and to Stella already in the 60’s.
As for the big collectors of Color Field, David Mirvish has
always loved Stella’s work and has even been a patron,
while Lewis Cabot and George and Lois de Menil have shown
no interest.
|
| ..........As
for myself, I never got much back from Stella’s paintings.
I have stood before them many, many times and given them
my full attention. But compared to the best of his contemporaries
like Morris Louis, Kenneth Noland, Jules Olitski, Friedel
Dzubas, or Helen Frankenther, Stella’s paintings
seemed to me tight and mute. In 1977 when I wrote a monograph
on Noland, also a geometric painter, Stella seemed to me
the perfect foil. Noland used geometry to free himself,
to exploit his genius for color. His paintings were strong,
clear, buoyant, open, sensuous, and radiant. They were
simple yet elusive, literal yet alive. In contrast, Stella’s
had no heartbeat. Like Ellsworth Kelly, and the Pop painters,
such as Lichtenstein and Rosenquist, Stella’s paintings
often seem more like design objects, applied, graphic art,
rather than a rich, passionate, personal, statements in
paint. Another ready comparison is Mondrian, whose best
pictures, despite being much smaller, have far more visual
energy, intensity, clarity, and power of conviction than
anything by Stella in the 60’s. (Especially if we
choose a Mondrian from the late 20’s and 30’s,
his most focused period.) Stella’s famous saying “what
you see is what you see” confirmed my reactions to
his pictures. He here embraces the dead, denying art’s
miraculous, life giving spirit, its supreme gift. |
...........Stella
is exemplary in his titanic ambition, his productivity, and
his willingness to pioneer new technology. But, by and large,
his paintings have often seemed to illustrate ideas or project
an attitude or intellectual position rather than be deeply
felt. There are exceptions, and some are better than others,
but, considered as expression, his 60’s pictures demonstrate
little more than a modest design talent.
........... In the late 1950’s,
when Stella first encountered the New York artworld, he was drawn,
not to followers of Pollock or the Color Field painters, but
to artists who came from commercial art like Robert Rauschenberg
and especially Jasper Johns. They were the beginning of what
was to become a fashionable taste for an idea driven art, which
was identified, by Tom Wolfe in his book the Painted Word. This
taste still dominates today. Like the early Pop Artists, Stella
had instant success. He created what was essentially a Pop version
of high-end abstract painting.
|
| ...........Stella
did some surprisingly authentic Johns influenced pictures
before his first famous series, the “Black Pictures.” These
latter have more refinement and warmth but already seem
over controlled and pale as expression. I sort of liked
his subsequent aluminum series, with its blocky friendliness.
Still, less is basically less, as Stella himself proclaimed.
The best examples of this kind of “Minimalist” painting
are certain pictures by members of the Color Field School
like Newman, Rothko, Louis, Noland, Olitski and Poons,
in which less is decidedly more. They exalt us, justify
us, open us up, not close us down.
|
| ...........Stella’s
Protractor Series were sympathetic even touching in that
they showed an exuberant personality held back by rigidity
and a priori thinking. But there was here also a real decorative
elan, something which has since served him very well, especially
in his scheme for a Toronto theater and other commissions.
He has since even showed a vision for architecture.
........... In the early
70’s, as if in penance for the sensual outburst of
the Protractors, Stella did a series of pictures, the “Concentric
Squares”, which are more rigid, didactic and illustrative
than ever. “Diderot”, a huge version of his
earlier “Jasper’s Delemma”, may be the
non-plus ultra of this group. It has the most commanding
scale and power of any of Stella’s paintings. But
since he has made it impossible to see both sides of this
double, concentric rectangle at the same time, the experience
becomes unpleasant even hostile. This reminds me of Serra,
king of art as threat. Serra can be great, as in his last
two shows at the Gogosian Gallery, where he achieved a
stark yet warm elegance full of wonder and awe. On the
other hand, when he is merely threatening or illustrating
a paraphrasable idea he becomes, for all his swagger, expressively
feeble, just like Stella in most of his paintings. But
Stella is now showing himself to be a far larger sculptor
than Serra.
.......... Stella has usually
been a leader and very influential. He was a key figure in
the beginnings of Minimalism. And throughout the 70’s,
he more and more adopted the gestures of Abstract Expressionism,
anticipating Neo-Expressionism. At the same time, he underwent
the standard Minimalist transformation from painting to sculpture,
in his case to high relief. But whatever chance these reliefs
had as expression was overpowered and cancelled out by the
mechanically “expressionistic” way with which they
are painted. The color is confused and the paint handling merely
dutiful. The painting acts as an irritating visual static,
which keeps the viewer away and frustrated. Psychologically,
Stella here hides his spontaneous feelings, which exist in
the three dimensional relief, behind the look of passionate
painting.
..........Stella’s second, 1987 M.O.M.A.
retrospective, first revealed him as a major sculptor. Some large, late, unpainted,
aluminum reliefs were far and away the best works in the show. This was again
confirmed when I attended the Norton Lectures, later published as ‘Working
Space”. Stella is very intelligent and these lectures contain many interesting
ideas and perceptions. Yet his central concept is simplistic. Modern painting
has reached a dead end in flatness and needs a savior who can create for it
a new “Working Space”. It is true that no important painters had
appeared in the Abstract Expressionist tradition since the 60’s and this
tradition seemed to have atrophied. Stella called it “imageless painting”,
in other words, Olitski and his followers. But this was only a temporary situation.
In the 80’s, the Abstract Expressionist tradition came roaring back with
Neo Expressionism and the New New. In any event, for Stella in the 70’s,
painting was being suffocated by flatness. Stella’s Abstract Expressionist
reliefs were the answer and he the savior. I love the way he casts himself
as a hero deciding the future of western painting. He has a gaudy ego like
Courbet or Picasso.
...........But there is an odd disconnect between
Stella’s insistence that he is advancing modern painting while everyone
could see that his works were better characterized as painted reliefs. It was
as if Stella was backing out of painting into sculpture but didn’t want
to face it. Caravaggio was only smokescreen. He longed for the spatial freedom
which only sculpture can provide.
.......... Instead of celebrating painting’s
possibilities then, Stella despaired of its limitations. Above all, painting
offers an ideal visibility. Since man made walls, he has had a ready made,
ideal, parallel surface in his habitual field of vision which cries out to
his creative imagination. Note that when paintings are displayed with sculptures,
the paintings usually dominate visually and get seen first. Ad Reinhardt once
quipped that sculpture was something you trip over trying to see a painting.
Painting’s province is this ideal visibility – not its literal
flatness.
.......... Of course, both painting and relief
can occupy this ideal plane. And painting can become very relief-like, most
remarkably in the pictures of the Belgian, Bram Bogart or the New New painters,
Steven Brent and Bruce Piermarini. Powerfully relief-like too is that remarkable
single work by Jay Defeo, The Rose, today in the Whitney Museum of Art. All
these works are grossly sculptural but they still feel like paintings. All
show a love of paint and painting, which is what I miss in Stella’s works
of this period. These are failed reliefs rather than a new kind of painting,
at least for me.
...........Over
the past 30+ years, Stella’s work has become ever
more three dimensional, but this transition to sculpture
has been mostly missteps and misfirings (e.g. “The
Cone and Piller” series or the perversely misnamed “Easel
Picture” series). But there were also occasional
bursts of pure lyrical delight like the Playskool series.
Success usually required that the sculptures remain unpainted
or be only sparsely painted. Then, in the late 90’s
Stella’s sculpture suddenly became much more confident
and consistent. In his recent writing too, one can tell
that he has finally gained focus and found religion. He
has accepted influence from Hans Hofmann, Larry Poons and
Jules Olitski. His proclaimed desideratum has gone from “what
you see is what you see” to “continuous movement”, “expansiveness”,
and “exaltation”.
............Three of his last, big, New York sculpture
shows have been spectacular and the forth, while shown in too small a space
and suffering from a somewhat arty finish, also was high level. Completely
fearless, Stella’s recent sculpture can be heroic and commanding; it
moves from the raw to the refined, the funky to the elegant, the austere to
the luscious with breath-taking freedom. If his two-dimensional work still
remains lifeless or merely decorative, he can now paint his sculptures with
inspired abandon.
The arc of Stella’s career is unique and inspiring. He has used fashionable
success as a painter to become a sculptor of Whitmanesque largeness, a late blooming
Rodin for our time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|