 ...
Lucy
Baker...
. |
|
Lucy Baker, "Divine Intervention"
1996, 54" x 86" |
|
XXXXXI
first met Lucy Baker in 1972, but I did not get to know her
until the
late 70’s. She was an intelligent young painter, but I
had no idea that she would become such an amazing artist when
we married
in 1983. I liked her straight forward openness and her ability
to live in the moment. Most of all, I admired her spontaneous
good
heartedness. Lucy loved to look at art, and, like me, was insatiable.
We could look for hours and days at a time. We traveled together
in the U.S., Canada and Europe, and were fortunate enough to
visit
Japan and South Africa.
XXXXX I have been lucky enough to travel
widely and to have looked at art with many of the great lookers
who have shaped and expanded my taste, my ability to see and
love
more art. Most of them were scholars and dealers, specialists
for different types of traditional art. When it came to contemporary
art though, the only looker who opened my eyes like they did,
was
the critic, Clement Greenberg. Only Clem took the same connoisseur’s
approach: comparative evaluation of originals. This meant deliberately
developing a gift, practiced and informed looking. No one looked
at art with greater relish and seriousness than Clem. His reactions
were unpredictable and fresh because he knew how to stay open, to
“go negative” as Keats and Whitman put it. He taught
me that the critics main role was to champion the great, stay open
and keep the big picture in view. We looked at art many times together,
both here and abroad, for almost 20 years. Of course Clem was 25
years older than I was and had already followed contemporary art
for a quarter of a century before I met him. He had already championed
Jackson Pollock, the Abstract Expressionists, and the Color Field
painters. Clem had seen it all from the beginning. He lived in
New
York City and did not work, so he was very up to date. He was
utterly confident and lighting quick.
XXXXX Lucy came to know Clem and others
in the circle around him and the Color Field painters. She helped
me work on my book on Olitski in 1981. As time went by, and after
1982, I gradually came to realize that I was getting a lot more
back from Lucy’s art and eye than I was from Clem. In fact,
she was making him seem tired and outdated. I was astonished
and
excited.
XXXXXThroughout
the 70’s, Clem
and I had looked to the followers of Color Field painting for the
next great figures , and the next big movement. By appropriating
Pollock’s allover “field” for more purely painterly
ends, Jules Olitski had become the dominant figure after 1965.
Indeed, his authority was near absolute for almost all of those
new talents who followed Pollock’s path. Olitski opened the
way for a more free, and full bodied painterliness. In 1968 Larry
Poons began his remarkable cascade paintings which were made by
throwing buckets of paint onto a tacked up canvas. This extravagant
and violent way of working yielding a rough, dense, expressionistic
feeling which prefigured things to come. But, in my mind, Poon’s
color and field-like composition kept him in the orbit of Olitski.
|

Lucy
Baker, "Blinky" 2003, 24" x 18" |
XXXXA
decade later, Andre Emmerich asked me to organize a show
of new talent for his gallery. This became the “New
Generation” show of 1981. I think Clem pretty much
agreed with most of my selections. There were some marvelous
pictures but nothing that changed the state of things. Olitski
and Poons were still the leading figures.
XXXXThen,
suddenly, a new wave of Pollock-type painting appeared, but not
from the direction where Clem and I were looking. This was the
international movement called Neo Expressionism, which burst upon
the scene in the early 1980’s. In essence, it was an assertion
of Pollock’s early semi-figural, expressionist work typified
by his great Mural of 1943. Here is darkness, rawness; obsessive,
inchoate, frenzied. Here is what Nietzsche called the “Dionysian” side
of art, which he opposed to the fully sublimated “Apollonian” art
of perfect form. If Pollock’s Mural is a quintessential Dionysian
statement, then his Lavender Mist, and other classical drip pictures,
as well as Color Field painting as a whole, seem archetypically
Appollonian. Having driven Color Field painting to the loftiest
levels of beauty, sublimity, and refinement, Olitski and Noland
left little room for development. There was a need for new beginnings,
de-sublimation, the demonic.
XXXXAfter
the long rein of concept driven art, which began in the 60’s
with Pop, even the art world was hungry for heroic painting. Virtually
overnight, Neo Expressionism came to dominate in the museums and
galleries. One outstanding Neo Expressionist is the Portuguese
painter Eduardo da Rosa, but he came along later and remains unknown
in New York. Paul Georges late style is also an excellent example
of high level Neo Expressionism. So are the paintings of the “outsider”,
Thornton Dial. The best known American Neo Expressionist is Julian
Schnabel who has a robust feeling for his materials and loves heroic
scale. He has done some wonderful works and in several different
styles. He once complained that Olitski “was only painting
backgrounds”. But neither Schnabel nor any of the other neo
Expressionists fully absorbed Color Field, or had a sufficiently
inspired drawing, to back up Schnabel’s cheeky challenge.
Even the most accomplished of the well know Neo Expressionists
like Schnabel, Francesco Clemente, or Jean-Michel Basquiat, come
off as hit or miss and lacking in focus. Their success seems to
undermine
their concentration. They are too easily distracted by gimmicks
and irrelevant, conceptual gestures. Nowhere among the well known
Neo Expressionists can be found a strong, artistic personality
steadily unfolding.
XXXXIn
1984 Lucy became the one to fully realize the potential of
a post Color Field, Neo Expressionism and thereby create an
alternative to Olitski, just by becoming herself. She electrified
Color Field painting with her vivid drawing even as she sublimated
Neo Expressionism with her dazzling colors. If Olitski maintained
a lofty impassiveness, Lucy came roaring out at you. Her’s
is an altogether more aggressive and personal mode of address.
It is testimony to Olitski’s largeness that, when Olitski
first saw Lucy’s pictures, he spontaneously uttered the
word “major”.
|
|
| |
Lucy Baker, "Rhythmic Explosion"
1993, 30" x 98" |
|
XXXXXPollock-type
painting has sometimes been criticized by feminists and others for being
?macho?, favoring as it does, the big attack, largeness and expressive
power. But, male or female, if the artists feel strongly, he or she must
express themselves vigorously in order to be true to themselves. Consider
the case of Helen Frankenthaler who has been the leading female in the
development of Pollock-type painting. Her historic role was to unite Pollock’s
stained and bare canvases of 1951 with bright color. She precipitated a
second wave of Color Field painting. She has been amazingly consistent
over many years. She has painted many splendid large pictures. But, she
rarely reaches the authority and power of Morris Louis and, within her
own generation, she must be ranked, in this respect, after Louis, Olitski,
Kenneth Noland and Friedel Dzubas. As great as she is, in this company,
her work seems a bit soft, light and “feminine”. Lucy on the
other hand, could not be more “macho”, more hard hitting and
powerful although she too has her subtlety and refinements. Unlike Frankenthaler,
who is completely the colorist, Lucy is the expressionistic, sculpture/draftsman
type like Picasso, David Smith and Pollock. Drawing and hand writing, involve
kinesthetic arm, wrist, and finger movements and express the personal self
most directly, its unique rhythm, character, and feel. (Lucy studied Chinese
calligraphy at Goddard College). Draftsmanship also lies closest to conception,
indeed, it is conception taken in its broadest sense. This is why the great
sculpture/draftsman types are often leaders, opening up new vistas. This
has certainly been the case with Lucy who has been the key figure for an
entire movement of brilliant artists, the New New Painters. He she has
led both stylistically and in the use of the new acrylic paints and gels.
She fully embraced the new gel already in the early 60’s before it
had been clarified and while it still had a yucky, repugnant look. And
she immediately put to use all of the new acrylic paints which technology
has subsequently made available. Child of the 60’s, she can show
a tacky, punk, psychedelic sensibility and can sometimes carry physicality
to the edge of grossness.
|
Lucy
Baker, "Zulu", No. 35, 2086, 64" x 59" |
XXXXLucy’s
Neo Expressionist figure style grew organically out of her
abstract style, but was further inspired by seeing Zulu dancers
in South Africa. Skeletal and gestural her naked male figures
are featured in her Zulu series, and Human Being series, where
they perform a demoniac, ecstatic dance of death. These paintings
are also virtuoso, “one shot” performance done
without sketches. They show the same aliveness, singularity
and fearless freedom characteristic of all of her works. Lucy
also loves to paint animals, especially horses, in styles which
range from the sharpest realism to the classical to the expressionistic.
The same range can be found in her seascapes, landscapes, and
occasional portraits.
|
Lucy Baker, "David and Goliath", 1988,
117" x 1865" |
XXXXThe
best of Lucy’s heroic scaled, narrative pictures like
David and Goliath, Destiny, The Golden Door or The Death of
Mandla are often inspired by her dreams and in my view, go
beyond Matisse’s Red Studio, Music, and Dance, which
they recall. Lucy’s pictures are much larger and far
more intense in both drawing and color. They are also genre
defying (like Matisse’s cut outs) in that they are not
exactly paintings and far too intense and commanding to be
stage design. De Rosa calls them “banners”. Whatever
we call them though, they convey vigor and boundless confidence.
They have an epic drama and raucous humor.
|
Lucy
Baker, "A Clear Day," 1994, 18" x 24 |
XXXXBy
turns, Lucy’s paintings can be tacky and classical, punk
and exquisite, extravagant and severe, and much more. All the
while she has done outstanding sculpture: carved, modeled and
assembled; figurative and abstract. The big point here is the
largeness of her mind, how much she has to say. |
|
Lucy Baker, "Horse," 1985, Bronze, 18" x 19"
x 6.5"
|
|
|