CRITICAL EYE

HARMONY & DISCORD A current museum survey proves that Roy Lichtenstein’s engagement with abstraction made his Pop art crackle. BY RICHARD KALINA

THE QUINTESSENTIAL Pop artist, the master of the cartoon figure writ large, the man of whom Life magazine asked in 1964, “Is He the Worst Artist in the U.S.?,” Roy Lichtenstein, nonetheless, produced much work that is abstract in the broad sense of the word. As he said in a 1995 New York Times interview with Michael Kimmelman, “All abstract artists try to tell you that what they do comes from nature, and I’m always trying to tell you that what I do is completely abstract. We’re both saying something we want to be true.” The full-scale traveling museum survey, “Roy Lichtenstein: A Retrospective,” opening this month at the Art Institute of Chicago, naturally focuses on the artist’s well-known Pop icons. Most of us think of Pop art as representational, but a substantial number of the over 160 pieces in the show fall into the realm of the abstract. Viewing the artist’s achievement through the lens of abstraction—an approach rarely taken—allows us to look at Roy Lichtenstein: Lichtenstein from a different per- Brushstroke with Spatter, 1966, oil and Magna spective, and to connect him not on canvas, 68 by 80 inches. just to the wider range of 20th-cen- might seem a more obvious influ- Courtesy the Art tury art, but to the ongoing evolution ence on abstract painters, but Institute of Chicago. of abstract painting. could Philip Taaffe, for instance, be Lichtenstein (1923-1997) devel- seen in quite the same light without oped a methodology—a toolbox of Lichtenstein’s example? devices, effects and stylistic moves Lichtenstein’s abstractions draw OPENING imbued with a distinctive mix of from his well-honed repertory of THIS MONTH irony, craft and anxiety—that has Pop material. These works, however, “Roy Lichtenstein: had a significant impact on several may be divided into two prominent A Retrospective,” at the generations of abstract artists. I am categories—one calm, regularized, Art Institute of Chicago, one of them. Having worked early balanced and easily read, the other May 16-Sept. 3. on as his assistant, I absorbed, perceptually odd and off-putting. perhaps inadvertently, many ele- Apart from the Surrealist mash-ups ments of his studio practice and and American Indian montages of his artistic worldview. De Kooning the late ’70s and the “Reflection”

MAY’12 ART IN AMERICA 45

critical eye flow.indd 45 4/6/12 3:57 PM CRITICAL EYE Left, Brushstroke with Still Life VII, 1996, oil and Magna on canvas, 30 inches square. Courtesy Lenhardt Collection, Arizona.

Opposite, Pink Seascape, 1965, Rowlux and collaged painted paper on board, 28 by 21½ inches. Courtesy Matthew Marks Gallery, New York.

series of 1988-1990, Lichtenstein’s of the early ’70s, the Imperfect antly nonspontaneous, with clear more familiar Pop work generally Paintings of the mid- to late ’80s, color separations and comic book fits into the balanced and easily and the Abstract Paintings with hues. They are smart and witty to identifiable group. However, work- Frames from the early ’80s. However, be sure, but they are also among ing abstractly—that is, being less the dichotomy of calm and agitated Lichtenstein’s most esthetically tethered to a unifying real-world works is best demonstrated by two satisfying and pleasurable paint- signification—seemed to free him. It themes that Lichtenstein explored in ings. They combine the sensual allowed him to infuse his work with depth—brushstrokes and abstract aspects of both Pop and Abstract unease and harshness whenever landscapes. The most familiar Expressionism. In the process they he wished. This discord is percep- brushstroke paintings—those from highlight Ab Ex’s formal rather than tual and direct rather than cerebral the mid ’60s, such as Little Big emotional or transcendent qualities, and ironic. While these abstractions Painting (1965) or Brushstroke with as well as its underlying elegance might seem to be awkward or “off,” Spatter (1966)—are lively and well and legibility. they are quite intentionally so, and ordered, with a tendency toward the serve to add depth and emotional baroque. They are famously ironic LICHTENSTEIN RETURNED to the shading to Lichtenstein’s body of takes on the sacrosanct Abstract brushstroke theme repeatedly, in work as a whole. Expressionist brushstroke—that car- painting and in sculpture. Thirty Discordant abstract paint- rier of individuality, existential doubt, years after the first brushstrokes, ings appear with regularity in improvisation and irreproducibility. he made another 10 modestly Lichtenstein’s Pop oeuvre. There Lichtenstein’s brushstroke paintings scaled paintings of the subject in are, for example, the Mirror Paintings are painstakingly crafted and defi- 1996, three of which are included

46 ART IN AMERICA MAY’12

critical eye flow.indd 46 4/6/12 3:57 PM CRITICAL EYE in the show. They combine Pop LICHTENSTEIN TAKES FULL ADVANTAGE OF ROWLUX’S and Ab Ex in a much more literal VERTIGINOUS SWIRLING PATTERNS, CRUMMY BOUDOIR and disturbing way. Here again, PINKS AND AQUARIUM TURQUOISES TO MAKE A SERIES the artist goes against his procliv- ity for harmony, formal cohesion OF WORKS THAT ARE TRULY UNSETTLING. and good taste (even if this is good bad taste). In these never-before- exhibited paintings—Brushstroke Abstraction I, Brushstroke and the disharmonious, both com- greeting card-type sunsets, he also Abstraction II and Brushstroke with positionally and chromatically. took advantage of the extremely Still Life VII—Lichtenstein takes A similar dichotomy of affect simple visual sign or definition of hard-edge shapes and slathers can be seen in the landscapes of landscape—the straightforward a few chunky “real” brushstrokes the mid-’60s. During this period horizontal division of the canvas—to over them in thick lines that form Lichtenstein played with the con- create work that functions less as loosely delineated enclosures. ventions of generic landscape. In landscape than as total abstrac- The brushstrokes, laid down addition to creating variations on tion. This simplified configuration not with a brush but a cloth dipped in paint, are rendered in an especially unattractive shade of ultramarine blue, crudely and unevenly mixed with white. The Kline-like strokes are awkward and inelegant. The hard-edged elements seem designed to set the teeth on edge as well. Brushstroke Abstraction I fea- tures a field of thin and very optically active diagonal black and white stripes occupying the upper left corner of the painting and a swath of the bottom edge, a triangle of pale turquoise on the lower left-hand edge and a small section of red Benday dots on a yellow field in the lower right cor- ner. The other two paintings, in addition to the blue brushstrokes, give us a collection of planes and textures and some half-formed perspectival elements in a palette of odd tans, browns, grays and pastel yellows. These paintings are studies in immiscibility. Nothing flows or mixes smoothly—not the gestural and the geometric, not flatness and perspectival depth, not one color or texture against another, not even the blue and white paint of the brushstrokes themselves. Lichtenstein referred to the strokes in this group of works as “obliterating brushstrokes,” and we can see a distinct element of destruction and unmaking vying with his normal practice of care- ful construction. We might also note distinct affinities to the work of younger abstract painters of the ’90s, like Jonathan Lasker or Tom Nozkowski, who broke apart the conventions of well-made abstraction, courting the awkward

MAY’12 ART IN AMERICA 47

critical eye flow.indd 47 4/6/12 3:57 PM CRITICAL EYE LICHTENSTEIN ALSO ABSTRACTED LANDSCAPE ness cards and decals, tradeshow exhibits, nightclub interiors and IN THE CAUSE OF PERPETUAL DISRUPTION IN HIS the like. Rowlux, which comes in ONLY FILM INSTALLATION—THREE LANDSCAPES (1969)— a variety of patterns and colors, ONE-MINUTE LOOPS SHOWN ON THREE SCREENS. manipulates the pattern of absorp- tion and reflection of light and gives the illusion of depth and motion. It is, in a word, cheesy. shares with Minimalism the ten- white and blue—and lays them out Lichtenstein takes full advantage dency toward stasis and tranquility. in a soothing array of wavy horizontal of Rowlux’s vertiginous swirling Which is fine, if that’s what you stripes. These paintings are elegant patterns, crummy boudoir pinks want: often Lichtenstein didn’t, and a bit bland. They take a potshot and aquarium turquoises to make and to alter that tendency and still at Post-painterly abstraction, though a series of pieces that are truly keep the basic format, he had to do they themselves ultimately read as unsettling. The minimalist qual- something forceful in another direc- examples of the style. ity of their layout renders works tion. Seascape (1964), for example, Lichtenstein eventually moved to like Pink Seascape and Seascape consists of an uninflected field of destabilize matters. Rather than (both 1965) even more over-the-top: deep blue Benday dots covering restructuring the spare schematic like a highly agitated person try- more than three quarters of the composition, perhaps making ing to be very, very calm. At other horizontal canvas, topped with two it more complex, he decided to times Lichtenstein uses optical thin bands of progressively lighter introduce new and unexpected manipulation to disturb percep- blue dots, standing in for mountains, materials. A favorite of his was tion, as in Perforated Seascape #1 and a small sector of plain ground Rowlux, a thermoplastic film (Blue), 1965. In this piece, a plane that reads as sky. Another 1964 embedded with thousands of min- of perforated blue enameled metal Seascape gives us a more varied ute parabolic lenses, and used for is placed a few inches away from a set of colors—red, orange, yellow, vending machines, drum kits, busi- white background panel painted with

Perforated Seascape #1 (Blue), 1965, porcelain enamel on steel, 28½ by 42 inches. Courtesy Aaron I. Fleischman.

48 ART IN AMERICA MAY’12

critical eye flow.indd 48 4/6/12 3:57 PM CRITICAL EYE

Three Landscapes, ca. 1970-71, 35mm film transferred to video, 1-minute loop. Courtesy Whitney Museum of American Art, New York.

clumps of Benday dots. This sets up LICHTENSTEIN WAS funny, kind, ferent way. Looking at Lichtenstein a pattern of optical interference that generous and incredibly hard-work- from the point of view of abstrac- disturbs focus and makes the image ing. A productive and purposeful tion shows us an artist thoroughly very hard to locate precisely. This artist, he had a keen intelligence engaged with issues that go beyond work mixes real space and depicted linked to a high level of formal the cultural observation at which he space, crispness and softness, legi- skill, particularly in the area of was so adept, and allows his work to bility and blur, yielding an image that composition. He was also remark- achieve a deeper and longer-lasting seems simultaneously to augment ably consistent in terms of quality. relevance. and cancel itself. The disquiet abstractions are,

Lichtenstein also abstracted land- in essence, the work of an artist scape in the cause of perceptual with a clearly defined style push- disruption in his only film installa- ing up against boundaries. He tion—Three Landscapes (1969), on said in the 1995 New York Times view at the Whitney Museum earlier interview, “My work is, after all, this season [Oct. 6, 2011-Feb. 12, a kind of straitjacket.” Paintings After its Chicago debut, “Roy 2012]. In this work, one-minute like these add depth and bite to Lichtenstein: A Retrospective,” loops are shown on three screens. Lichtenstein’s oeuvre and open co-curated by James Rondeau of the Art Institute of Chicago and Each film features a variant on the an important window into a com- Sheena Wagstaff of Tate Modern, simple sea/sky division. Stability is plex artistic sensibility. travels to the National Gallery of Art, undermined, however, by the hyp- A full-scale retrospective, as Washington, D.C. (Oct. 14, 2012- notic rocking of the images (the opposed to a midcareer survey, Jan. 6, 2013); Tate Modern, London (Feb. 21-May 27, 2013); three are never in sync with each should ideally allow us to reas- and the Centre Pompidou, Paris other) and the jarring changes in sess not necessarily our overall (July 3-Nov. 4, 2013). color saturation between screen and view of the artist but rather how screen and between sky and sea the pieces fit together—to tell RICHARD KALINA is a painter within each screen. ourselves the same story in a dif- and critic based in New York.

50 ART IN AMERICA MAY’12

critical eye flow.indd 50 4/6/12 3:57 PM