Pop Divas

When you think of Pop Art, the art movement that dominated the late 1950s and early 1960s in America, you almost automatically cast up the wigged head of Andy Warhol. A few other names might rise up from memory— Roy Lichtenstein, James Rosenquist, or even the British artist Peter Blake—but even those names have in common one thing—they’re all men. Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists 1958-1968 at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia wants you to learn the names of the “pop divas,” the women who worked in the same culture-driven, irony-laced language as Warhol and others but were never heard, until now. Please venture over to Picture This at Big Think to read more of "Pop Divas."

[Image: John Wayne by Marisol, 1963, mixed media, 104 x 96 x 15 inches. Colorado Springs Fine Art Center, Art © Marisol Escobar/Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY.]



[Many thanks to the University of the Arts in Philadelphia for providing me with the image above from Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists 1958-1968, which runs from January 22 through March 15, 2010.]

Ladies Man

Of all the Abstract Expressionists, Willem de Kooning was always considered the most handsome, the most stylish, and the most debonair. (Val Kilmer played him in the movie Pollock.) Born April 24, 1904, came to America from his native Netherlands as a stowaway. Using his personal charm and growing artistic talent, he developed contacts throughout the New York City art world, the most important of which, at least early on, was Arshile Gorky. de Kooning painted in a very Gorky-esque style, full of the biomorphic figures Gorky is now famous for, into the early 1940s. By the 1950s, however, de Kooning had developed his own gesture-heavy style—a wild calligraphy of color. Some of the greatest examples of this style belong to the Woman series de Kooning painted in the early 1950s, beginning with Woman I (above, from 1950). de Kooning clearly has no desire to depict a woman realistically. In fact, he does everything possible to paint the figure unrealistically. Many people read misogyny into these paintings, extrapolating from de Kooning’s difficult relationship with his wife, Elaine de Kooning, and that’s certainly a possibility. But de Kooning also may be challenging the idea of portraiture and the figure itself, saying that we cannot get at the essence of humanity by painting the surface alone. Woman I, and her sisters, get at the heart of darkness within all men and women beating beneath our civilized exteriors.

In Woman II (above, from 1951), de Kooning almost seems to take a step back from the edge he approaches in Woman I. Although the heavy gestural style remains in effect, there’s a greater softness in Woman II in comparison to Woman I. Woman I’s big eyes and bared teeth seem almost animalistic. In contrast, Woman II almost seems to be smiling. It’s as if there’s a copy of the Mona Lisa buried beneath the broad brushwork. Dating the individual paintings in the Woman series is difficult because de Kooning moved back and forth from one to another over the course of several years. It’s possible that each of these versions represents a different mood (violent, tender, etc.) and that de Kooning would work on whichever version suited his present mood. Looking at them together, you get a sense of an almost fugue state in how de Kooning saw women, or perhaps just the specific women in his life.

Of the first three in the series, Woman III (above, from 1953) appears to be the most ready for action. She stands, whereas the first two in the series appear to be sitting. A smile seems to play upon her face. The big eyes of the first painting return, but with a less accusing look in them. de Kooning accentuates the breasts of this version even more, perhaps suggesting a sexual availability or aggressiveness not found in the first two. By a strange twist of fate, this version was belonged to the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art for many years. After the Iranian Revolution in 1979, however, the new regime refused to allow such a sexually charged painting to be displayed. Fortunately, it was sold out of Iran in 1994 and eventually resold in 2006 for $137.5 million USD, making it at the time the second most expensive painting ever sold. Despite the abstract expressionist style, it was clear to any observer that Woman III is all about sex, something even more permissive societies, let alone a fundamentalist religious state such as that in Iran, would want to keep under wraps. de Kooning’s women continue to amuse, frighten, entice, and offend to varying degrees, displaying the same versatility that their creator demonstrated throughout his long, distinguished career.

Hidden Behind

Abstract Expressionism quite rightfully has the reputation of being a manly man’s art movement. Jackson Pollock dripped, cussed, drank, and chain smoked his way to an early death and lasting fame. Handsome Willem de Kooning objectified women and even destroyed them in paint in his Woman series before his long slide into darkness due to Alzheimer's disease. Behind both these men, however, stood strong women artists—Lee Krasner married Pollock and Elaine de Kooning married and stood behind (and beside, above, in 1953) Willem. Born March 12, 1920, Elaine learned to love art from her mother, who took her to museums and gave her art books to study from. Elaine had already begun studying to paint when she met Willem in 1938 and became his student. Five years later, they were married, beginning a tempestuous marriage that would result in his work eclipsing hers as she sought out her own artistic space, eventually finding some success as an art critic while continuing to paint. Elaine painted in the same Abstract Expressionist style as her husband, but separated herself from his influence by seeking a softer, yet still highly expressive style.

One way Elaine separated herself from Willem and basically all the other Abstract Expressionists was in painting portraits in the Abstract Expressionist style. Elaine first painted works based on photographs of athletes, using the energy of the brushstroke to mimic the kinetic energy of athletic bodies in motion. She later moved on to painting “still” portraits that moved with painterly energy, including a portrait of soccer legend Pele. In late 1962, the Harry S Truman Library commissioned Elaine to paint a portrait of John F. Kennedy. Not satisfied with painting just one portrait of JFK, Elaine created a series of works, the largest and most colorful being that above (from 1963). Sadly, JFK was assassinated as Elaine was completing this portrait, a shock that left Elaine unable to paint for almost a year. Aaron Shikler’s official presidential portrait of the brooding JFK, painted posthumously, captures the sadness of his death, but Elaine’s portrait wonderfully captures the vibrancy and color of the living man, who embodied the hopes and dreams of so many during that exciting time. Elaine’s portrait seems almost unreal in its untainted state. It’s hard not to think of Kennedy’s death when thinking of him, but Elaine’s portrait serves as a stunning reminder of what once so brilliantly was.

Elaine continued to paint almost to the end of her life. Bacchus #3 (above, from 1978) shows the continued energy of her brush even into her late 50s. As Willem became less capable of taking care of himself and his works, Elaine assumed the role of caretaker, ensuring that he and his art would not fall into ruin. Sadly, Elaine succumbed to lung cancer at the age of 70, the consequence of decades of chain smoking. Willem, deeply shrouded in dementia by that point, became the concern of their daughter, Lisa. Chaos and questions continue to surround Willem’s last years and last works, many of which may not actually be by his hand. It was as if once the support of Elaine disappeared, Willem could no longer stand. If it’s true that behind every great man there is a great woman, Elaine de Kooning was one of the greats of twentieth century American art.