NICHOLASKRUSHENICK Colorand Design Revisited Cover:Ancient lmage, 1gB4 Acrylicon canvas,60 x 50 NICHOLASKRUSHENICK Colorand Design Revisited

May24 through September13, 1992 :

Stamford Museum & Nature Center 39 ScofieldtownRoad Stamford,Connecticut 06903 WEARE PLEASED TO PRESENT

thefirst museum retrospec- tiveexhibition of thework of NicholasKrushenick. Theexhibition is a recordof the artist'sdy- namicsteady progressive developmentover the past twenty-sevenyears. As all artistsdo, he sometimes takesa stepfonruard in a newdeparture, and then fallsback to theconcepts of theprevious work, then forgesahead again merg- ingelements of both.The exhibitionis installed chronologicallyto show this developmentprocess. Itis seeing this growingprogress of the pastthree decades that makesthis retrospectiveof exceptionalinterest in understandinghis place in the historyof contemporary art,1957-1991 . DorothyMayhall Directorof Art NicholasKrushenick NICHOLAS KRUSHEN ICK'S by ChristianLeigh, Art Critic

Historyis strangeand volatile. That much we know. Butart historyis muchstranger and more volatile - especiallyif it'srecent art historyyou're talkingabout. A tenuousthough resilient game with more than one winner andfar morelosers than players, outcome is decided,almost exclusively, on whomakes the tops and bottoms of anynumber of lists. Furthermore,medals areawarded in categoriesarranged and organized by similaritiesand like- nesses.To standout in anyway too idiosyncraticor individualprovides an almostcertain guarantee of banishmentto the lowerdepths, to thefootnotes, if youwill. Whatone hastens to understandin thegame is thatthe rules are writtenand rewrittentwice as fastas the paintingsare paintedand the objects eitherchiseled, store bought, or garbagedump found. What becomes alarm- inglyclear when you have a fewseasons under your belt, is thateven the slightestmeasure of alterationto a styleor signature- a brashor brazen brushstrokewill surely do it - cansound a resoundingcall for alarmon the streetsof lowerManhattan and across the colorpages of FlashArt. ln NicholasKrushenick's brilliant career, such brash and brazen brush- strokeshave been the order of theday. Krushenickis notan artistwho has everbeen content comfortably walking an exactingline of production,even if duringhis morethan thirty years of painting,he hascontinually stuck to an intenseand focusedcourse of action. Packagedby the systemas a Pop artist,and included in manyimportant Pop shows in bothAmerica and Europe duringthe sixties and seventies (including a Documenta in 1969),Krush- enick'swork was neverabout popular culture as watereddown and filtered intohigh art, like that of a numberof artistshe hadthen been contextualized with- AndyWarhol, Tom Wesselman and RobertIndiana among them. But thenneither Jasper Johns nor Frank Stella were ever really Pop artists either. Thiswas morea matterof marketingtactics - it was easierto sell the groupby enlargingit. Thosewho knew the signs saw this happen again more recently in relationto Neo-Geoin thelate eighties. Krushenick'spaintings of caricaturedpictorial space have in theirrigor- ousstructure a psychologicalelement almost totally alien to PopArt. Withthe notableexception of RoyLichtenstein's mirror (really post-Pop paint- ings)and some of the morewhimsical early works of ClaesOldenburg, Pop Artwas morecynical than anything Krushenick was up to. lf thepublic's readingof Popwas that anybody can get it, and,consequently, do it,this was certainlynot the messageof Krushenick,whose paintings had in themboth thebest elements and the antihesis of notonly , but Abstract Expres- sionismand as well. Thesepaintings are painting parodies of the highestorder - executedwith the seriousness of AbstractExpressionism, the slightof handof Pop,and the cerebral dexterity of Minimalism. Krushenick'spaintings, even his earliest ones, are eerily ahead of their time. Infact, they have more in commonwith the work of someleading young artiststhan they do withthat of eitherWarhol or Rauschenberg.Krushenick's workforesaw the brainy abstraction of Neo-Geoby at leasttwo decades and fiveor sixmovements. all of whichwere christened in theirtime the ultimate. Krushenick'stactics are different from many younger artists today. He sometimesobscures the painting's all-important horizon line by animatingthe picture- in otherwords, he makesa cartoonof thepictorial space, filing it with guffawsand gyrations. Attention is immediatelysummoned to quandary.The outlineis createdin paradox- perhapsa sensiblewhite border that breaks anddisappears here and there - andthe interiorspace is loadedwith foibles, doubleentendres and painting in-jokes. What's funniest and ultimately most satisfyingabout Krushenick's paintings is thatthey play at orderwhile in fact oftentransmitting signals of controlled,purposeful chaos. Like the Hoover Damin the middleof a hurricane,Krushenick's paintings keep very little out, butwhat gets in is alwaysexciting and the painting always stands. Vibrant colorsconcoct crooked map-like bodies of water,which immediately suggest everythingfrom brainwaves to measuresof the heartbeat,while straight lines nevermeet where they ought to, often sidestepping one another in thecenter, slouchingthis way or thatway and back again. Krushenick'sare funny paintings of allof theideas of painting- inner spacemocks structure so as to createa somewhatdiabolical caricature of gesture.These paintings take as theirdeserved target the reveredeconomy of meansof whichMinimalism isfluent. The coloration at workis cyclical- prettypinks give way to fireengine reds and terminal oranges which then revertback to prettypink - afterimages prevail while memory intervenes to finishoff the picture.The tender dichotomy of painterlyspace is mockedat onceby the similarities between the painting's content and the joke about it containedwithin. Krushenick's inevitable end in someof thework is conjured as muchby whatis missingfrom a pictureas by whatthe picture itself does successfully. It is Krushenick'sbackground that prevents his paintings from ever beingcynical - theynever make a jokeat theviewer's expense. These paint- ingshave an amusingand good-natured quality that Neo-Geo and Appropria- tion haverarely presented. Krushenick is never moaning over what we have nowcome to knowas theEndgame of painting.Rather he takes the high roadand doubles over in laughterrather than in pain.As DonaldKuspit has pointedout, it is throughhumor that we presentthe strongest part of our- selves;in fact,a healthyego is a difficultthing to comeby thesedays. Krush- enick'swork contains equal measures of emotionalhonesty and depth of visionthat conjure images of what is, what will be andwhat never will be - all in oneobject. Ultimately, his paintings chuckle out loud at themselvesas if theywere their very own cartoon thought balloons, breaking up thisway and thatway, all the while never stopping to lookat theimage underneath. COLORAND DESIGN REVISITED

Untitled(Yellow Wave) . 1961 24 x30 RousseauGiving Love and Lions . 1962 76x51 Untitled(Loop) . 1962 65 314x 49 112 Untitled(Waves and Red Bar) . 1962 47 x31 1/2 Sonof KingKong . 1966 84x72 Eyeliner. 1969 ' 60x52 ElectricSoup . 1969 91x75 PurplePepper . 1972 50x60 YellowBelisama . 1970 60x52 SilverCraft . 1970 85 112x 57 Tailgate. 1971 90x70 ZigZag . 1972 108x72 Rippowam. 1972 108x 84 Untitled. 1973 60x50 SpringStreet . 1974 60x50 Untitled. 1974 60x50 Climax. 1975 72x60 Untitled(Red Field) . 1976 60x50 BeforeDawn . 1976 60x50 OrangeOne . 1977 72x60114 Untitled. 1977 64x50 PontNeuf . 1977 72x60 COLORAND DESIGN REVISITED

23. HollywoodHudson . 1980(collage) 25x35 24. NitroExpress . 1980 (collage) 25x35 25. StarSmash . 1980 (collage) 25x35 26. BelmontPark . 1980(collage) 25x35 27. JajMirage . 1981 80x60 28. RunawayGroom . 1983 84x74 29. PaperHearts. 1984 80x64 30. Ancientlmage . 1984 60x50 31. Motherof Plastic. 1985 80x64 32. Halley'sComet . 1985 90x70 33. RainbowRoom . 1986 84x60 34. SecondGlance . 1986 90x70 35. PurplePainting . 1987 75x64 36. GrandEntrance . 1987 80x65 37. Southof France. 1988 80x64 38. FlyPath | . 1988 90x72 39. FlyPath ll . 1988 90x72 40. FastFon,rrard . 1988 60x50 41. lntothe Sun . 1988 96x65 42. HumongousAmerican Feather Co. . 1990 90 x75112 43. Drawing. 1961. AcryliconPaper 22 112x 281t2 44. Drawing. 1961. AcryliconPaper 22 112x 281t2 45. Drawing. 1961. AcryliconPaper 22112x281t2 NICHOLASKRUSHENICK

wasborn in NewYork City in 1929,and studied art at theArt Students League,and with . His paintings are included in thecollections of oversixty major museums and corporations among which are the Museum of ModernArt, The Metropolitan Museum, The Whitney Museum of American Art,The Chase Manhattan Bank, ;The National Collection of FineArt, Washington, D.C.; the Los Angeles County Museum of Art,the Hir- ShhornMuseum, Washington, D.C.; the , Minneapolis; Yale University,the Albright-Knox Gallery, Buffalo, N.Y.; the Dallas Museum, the AldrichMuseum, Ridgefield, Conn.; the University of Wisconsin,the Neu- bergerMuseum, Purchase, N.Y.; the Baltimore Museum, the Virginia Museum of FineArt, Richmond; Galerie De Stadt,Stuttgart, Germany; Stedeliyk Mu- Seum,Amsterdam, The Netherlands;the Universityof Sydney,Australia; the BibliothequeNational, Paris - andothers. Krushenickhas had over fifty one-man exhibitions in theU.S. and abroad,notably at theWalker Art Center,, Metropolitan Museum,Miami, Florida; The Aldrich Museum, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburg; PortlandCenter for the VisualArts, Oregon; and the Universityof Washington. Abroadhe hadsolo shows in Stuttgart,Paris, Vienna, Cologne, Zurich, Basel, and Dusseldorf. Amonghis many honors are fellowship awards from the Longview Foundationand the Gugenheim Foundation. He taught art at CooperUnion, Yale,Dartmouth, Cornell, The University of California,Berkeley; and for the past14 years at the Universityof Maryland. He,his wife Julia and son Shawn, have spent most of theirlives in New YorkCity, from 1967 to 1970in Ridgefield,and from 1970 to 1972in the GutzonBorglum studio/home on Stamford'sWire Mill Road. They moved to WestRedding last fall. He is representedin NewYork City by DanielNew- bergGallery. Zig2a9,1992 Acrylicon canvas,108 x 84