Summer is Over and We’re All Going to Die

By Chelsea Hogue


Editor’s note: We were going to publish this review while Conor Backman, Trudy Benson and Russel Tyler’s exhibition was still on view at Restrospective Gallery. But it felt too special to publish in the moment. It felt more right to publish this review, which is more of an ode to the end of a season, on the very last day of Summer. A day of lament, a day to say goodbye to warm weather and long days, a day to welcome the early chill of autumn. A day to say goodbye to blue and hello to amber. 


It’s the morning of August 15th and I tell myself that I’ll prepare to see Connor Backman, Trudy Benson, and Russell Tyler’s work at an opening at Retrospective Gallery in Hudson, NY that night; and I do, sort of. Interviews, scattered bios; that’s it. 

I’m also reading Jacques-Yves Cousteau’s account of his first forays in underwater exploration, The Silent World, and finding it difficult to do much else, other than read this book, which taps into something that feels entrenched especially in this season: a yen for the odyssey. 

It’s summer, although we’re running out of it quickly; and many of us had made plans, or had been asked, and so we had considered: what will you do? And now we’ve reached the juncture one inevitably comes to after making plans: did we do it, or did we not?

We wait all winter for the great voyage and discovery, a day much like the one on which Cousteau discovered his insatiable appetite for life in the sea:

Cousteau writes: “Sometimes we are lucky enough to know that our lives have been changed, to discard the old, embrace the new, and run headlong down an immutable course. It happened to me at Le Mourillon on that summer’s day, when my eyes were opened on the sea,” wrote the Presidential Medal of Freedom-winning, French naval officer, explorer, conservationist, filmmaker, scientist, photographer, and author in The Silent World

He was, by his rendering, inexorably drawn to the ocean; it was the haptic sensation of goggles meeting face, face immersed in the underwater world, and then he could, finally, see. What is Cousteau—and of course, I’ll ask: what are WE—looking for precisely? Is it the extra in the ordinary?  

he ocean is, and has always been, the perfect receptacle for the gussied up dreams we have for our vacations, our experiences, and ourselves. Always home to myth, and anthropomorphosized as the capricious and arbitrary female: the sea is, has always been, so terribly enigmatic

*

This has been said several times, so I’ll only say it once: poetry is thriving; lots of people are making music using instruments; and painting isn’t dead. However, it isn’t for a lack of reason that we’re constantly asked to reconsider the vitality of painting. After all, it is appearances, which we’re taught to initially distrust; and all images are inherently political—making a sharp-knifed place for all of our inmost skepticism. So when the question is posed, with one finger on the pulse: is painting dead?—perhaps it’s better phrased: what is it that we’re looking for in the first place?                 

Could it be true that we often look to materials and art, searching for a conduit through which we may find alternative and extended experiences?

Click here to discover your PaSsIoN, we’re often told, In 7 Easy Steps! Unlike Delacroix, a master in discovering the uncanny in the common: “Give me the mud of the streets,” he beckoned, “and if you will leave me also with power to surround it to my taste, I will make of it a woman’s flesh of delicious tint.”

*

Every day after school, my mother sat on top of the kitchen table, eating BBQ chips, and watching Oprah on a small TV my father had drilled into the side of a kitchen cabinet. Always stuck, always waiting for the opportune moment to find an initiative, she and Oprah called it an Aha! Moment. This is the summer that I’m going to relax. Some days, cross-legged in front of the screen, she would take notes. This is the summer that I’m going to lose weight. And on others, moved by the stories of other revelations, she would cry. This is the summer that I’m going to find myself. And sometimes she would tell me to sit down and watch, too; there was something being said that day that she thought I needed to hear.      

I think we do often look to art for alternative experiences; but that doesn’t seem to be, not to me, how it all works. Rather, it’s our present experience, which is protracted and, at best, augmented. As John Dewey stated in one of his lectures on the philosophy of art at Harvard University in 1931, collected as essays in the book, Art as Experience

“The scope of a work of art is measured by the number and variety of elements coming from past experiences that are organically absorbed into the perception had here and now.”  

*

“I recently rediscovered the ‘orange peel map’, the homolosine projection, and started thinking about the relationship of cartography to representational painting,” Conor Backman said in a conversation with New American Paintings, referencing his works containing orange peels, peeled all in one piece. “Both have always dealt with the problem of first translating the round into the flat.”

Homolosine projections are equal area maps of the world, which distort ocean areas in order to minimize the distortion of the continents. Developed in 1923, the disappearing oceans of homolosine projections feel, eerily, prescient, considering that the oceans are, in terms of marine life, disappearing. Our oceans, as we know them, will be radically different by some year that some scientists project will be near 2035; the world is currently experiencing an expansion of marine dead zones because oxygen levels have become so low that life cannot survive. 

The best-known dead zone is in the Gulf of Mexico; it’s about the size of Connecticut. 

Backman’s preoccupation with translation and representation in cartography, and how this is conceptualized in painting feels like a finger on the right spot, one of a present pain: the fading pulse.   

Scanning images from old shows and a couple of articles, here’s what I know of Trudy Benson’s paintings, pre-Retrospective show, according to the Internet: An engagement with density; big canvases with textural agility; the carpet in the Portland Airport; programmed painterly strokes; 80s sport aesthetics explodes and some of its juices are ingested by clip art; and these mixed up modes are subsumed by some German (likely), Abstract Expressionist (definitely). There’s a friction in Trudy Benson’s work and it’s formalism abutting the neoteric. I jot down a question: what do big paintings, made with pomp and tradition, but with the scaling factor of digitized culture, ask of me? 

It is always all this old stuff, meeting all this new stuff, for the first time . When Cousteau met a party of Greek divers off the coast of Corsica, he was shocked to learn that they knew nothing of stage decompression, which requires that a diver ascending from great depths halt at ten feet below the surface for 9 minutes to pass off the accumulated nitrogen. So there stood Cousteau and his men, with newfangled aqualungs, wetsuits, masks, and deep-sea diving information, facing the Greeks—a group of men who had practically lived in the water, but still using the same methods of their ancient forbearers. After so many years of popping up to the surface like champagne corks from depths of one hundred and seventy feet or more the divers had suffered from numerous debilitating pressure strokes, which had crippled their able bodies. After each dive, the Greek men were paid for the jewelers’ red coral they were gathering in sacks tied to their sinewy necks; and, earnings in hand, they drug their twisted and knotted bodies to the bars and bistros where they spent it all on booze and dice. On land, these men were the crippled and infirm; however, in the underwater world, their bones and flesh became supple again. The cold jelly of dense water lubricated their joints and they could swim with great agility, like young, lithesome ballerinas. Cousteau and Trudy Benson, with an historical perception of the present, facing the almighty past.

Benson’s work is often compared to her husband’s, Russell Tyler—the same Tyler that she is coupled with for this show. 

Tyler said of his work to Painter’s Table in 2013: 

"I want [the paintings] to have an old, modernist feel, but also looking at abstraction, not from a Greenbergian perspective...but from a nostalgic perspective...it's adding a more personal perspective...the way we see an image is a little different than a generation before us...because of what media we grew up with.” 

Antiquity: the old Beaux-Arts categories of painting and sculpting often want—or feel compelled—to address it. And it is true that we all must, at some point, contend with our ancestors, which seem to be on a shifting axis for Tyler. It was only a couple of years ago that Tyler was primarily painting scenes from dystopia—chaotic tree people in the middle of the sea, a re-rendering of a melting horseman, Frankensteined mash-ups of machines versus people. They were strange, massive, and goopy. Limbs and eyes drooling off the canvas. Almost everything on there looked like it would rather eat flesh than be flesh. Those paintings were offbeat, hard to place, and chancy. 

Walking into Retrospective Gallery on the evening of August 15th, things are as they should be: the white walls are up, the art is hung. Benson and Tyler’s paintings were, for the most part, interspersed—a Benson, a Tyler, a Tyler, a Tyler, another Benson, etc; but, unfortunately, this layout seemed to favor Benson over Tyler, whose work was dwarfed—in size and scope—by his wife’s.  

As the press release purports, Benson’s paintings in this show do depart from her previous digitally design compositions; and it seems that they have evolved. 

The stateliest of which was a large canvas, Invisible Man, taking up the majority of the right-hand wall. Backgrounded by fleshy cubes, a skin cell schema, overlaid with geometric patterning in silver, yellow, and black and white, leaving the suggestion of natural imagery reined in by tight, geometric containers. One is being pressed into the other—a cookie cutter into supple, soft dough—but what is pressing upon this or that isn’t clear, which creates an exciting tension and sense of formal unity. In Art as Experience, John Dewey breaks down substance as form: 

“[To have form] is a way of envisaging, of feeling, and of presenting experienced matter so that it most readily and effectively becomes material for the construction of adequate experience on the part of those less gifted than the original creator. Hence there can be no distinction drawn, save in reflection, between form and substance.” 

Invisible Man is thickset, athletic, and exudes great control, like an Albert Oehlen sharpened by 210%. The other works mostly follow suit, mirroring what Benson does best. 

Tyler’s work, unfortunately, doesn’t hold its shape, not completely, beside Benson’s heat. Where are the roiling lakes of fetid color wheel vomit? I asked myself. Instead, a heavy blue rectangle stacked over a yellow rectangle, also framed in blue—and here’s the cincher: a small diminutive splash of blue, in the bottom left corner of the yellow square. A painter’s commentary on painting; it seems quite self-conscious without being witty. Tyler’s lineage in these works appears to be so historically specific; I could draw his pseudo family tree: Some nearly replicas of Josef Albers, but lacking the spatial dynamism. There’s also hints of Ad Reinhardt and Hans Hoffman, etc. Is this a shift of Tyler, indicative of Jerry Saltz’s applauded/loathed, depending on your camp, article on M.F.A. Abstractions, in New York Magazine last summer?  

Going to galleries is becoming less like venturing into individual arks and more like going to chain stores where everything looks familiar.”


That being said, I did find more to admire in his gestural, impulsive works, those in which, “Tyler pushes the boundaries of confined space by allowing a certain cosmic wildness in which colors collide,” to quote from the press release. One canvas has a black background with cerulean, orange-red, peach detonations, hinting at a burst of impulsivity.

But perhaps my questions should turn back on me and I should be asked: what is it that I was looking for in the first place? Could it be that I’m lusting after an alternative experience, unable to see Delacroix’s “mud of the streets” transformed into “flesh of delicious tint,” my mind stuck in the overly romantic notion of Cousteau’s fuck-it-all, impetuous devotion to something wild and unknowable? Inner force of will and imagination vs. external catalyst and muse?

A couple of storefronts over, Conor Backman’s show, Late painter/new paint, inhabits Retrospective’s other enclave, with inhabit being the operative word here; these works are formally vital. Focusing on the familiar unifying themes of translation and that fading pulse, these pieces are collected under one thesis: Gustave Caillebotte’s 1877 painting Oarsmen Rowing on the Yerres—which Backman has repainted, repurposed, perverted, and abbreviated. 

In the largest piece, Recreation and method of reconstruction, Backman has repainted Caillebotte’s work at its original scale from a compressed JPEG. That reproduction, broken into small squares, has been reconstructed into a disarray of painted pieces—Impressionism as pixilation—on top of a backdrop of default desktop blue, the composition hinting at the pastoral scene—boat, oars, water, illumined by brilliant sunshine—but revealing nothing more than fragments—and herein we find the burden of the translator, the problem of shifting modalities, interpreted for the wall. Desktop blue, we are reminded, is not simply the most whatever color of all; it isn’t a frictionless surface. Backman’s concerns are age-old: progression, what’s new and what’s worn, but under present consideration, these concerns are rendered fresh and delivered as a show that presents more problems than answers. It isn’t grand, nor is it flashy. It’s both historical and of its time. 

In another work, the oarsmen from Caillebotte’s original painting have been clipped and superimposed onto an anachronistic suburban streetscape, no water in sight; the translator becomes the creator. It’s a good goal for an exhibition: when works are divergent, yet remain interstitial. Other pieces contain modified paint cans, filled with bold primary colors, inserted into paintings as false focal points. It’s both congruous and discombobulating; it reminds me of the plotline to a movie someone told me about several weeks ago. In the movie a woman has déjà vu constantly. That’s all I can remember.      

I had not seen the original painting by Caillebotte, Oarsmen Rowing on the Yerres, in a few years, until this show. It’s a painting of two men in a boat, out on the water. They’re wearing white t-shirts, denim, fraying straw hats. We might call these men working class, laborers, shipbuilders; they are not summering in the Hamptons, out for a leisurely row, I do not believe. They are not hoping that their jaunt will rejuvenate or revive. They do not believe that their travel plans will change everything...

The vacation, the alternative experience—it’s similar to so many artists’ attempts to divorce an object or work from its preceding events. Backman seems to pick up on the simple truth: Form does not descend from without, as if it is some transcendent outer essence. It is a process of rethinking, of déjà vu. It’s in your own backyard. It has been all of this time. It is right outside of your door. The only difference: You don’t have a backyard, or a door, because you’re just renting somewhere that’s getting hotter and more expensive.

Holy Diver

You're the star of the masquerade

No need to look so afraid

Jump on the tiger

You can feel his heart but you know he's mean

Some light can never be seen

Holy Diver

You've been down too long in the midnight sea

Oh what's becoming of me

H O L Y D I V E R – lyrics by Jacques Cousteau


Chelsea Hogue is a writer and artist based in Massachusetts and New York. Her work has previously been published in The White Review and Entropy Mag. You can follow Chelsea on Twitter here: @Chelsea_Hogue. Follow Autre on Instagram: @AUTREMAGAZINE


Read Artist Brad Phillips' Suicide Note

Tomorrow, Freddy Gallery in Baltimore will open "Problem Is You," a group exhibition featuring three artists: Aaron Carpenter, Philip Hinge, and the very much alive (but maybe not well) Brad Phillips. Instead of a traditional statement about the exhibition and the artists, the gallery offers a morbid, but brilliant, suicide note penned by Phillips, which probably sums up the exhibition more than any standard press release could. If you don't follow Phillips on Instagram, you should - it is an extenuation of the artist's unique practice that ranges from delicate near-photorealistic paintings to text based play-on-words to prose - his book Suicidal Realism is out now on the Swimmer's Group imprint. In the following suicide note, Brad Phillips offers his disdain for the mechanics of the art world and he narrates a spiritual journey of selfhood and artisthood in the midst of self doubt, depression and addition. 


Suicide Note 2015

by BRAD PHILLIPS

It’s that time again. Because it could be that time again. And this always needs revising. Things change; new people have betrayed me, I love new people, I’ve betrayed new people. But a suicide note should  traditionally always be about self hatred or aloof disenchantment with the experience of living.. Those people that write bitter blameful suicide notes don’t deserve the back-flip out of existence that suicide so beautifully offers us all.

In this iteration, I could for example, send out a fuck you to my ex wife in Vancouver Pat Cowan who never visited me in rehab and then kept the few objects that were precious to me ransom for three years hoping that one day I would twist myself into a gargoyle of apology that suited her own permanently scorned, emotionally static childlike blamelessness. But that’s not my style.

Love and money. In the last year I came to know a love I did not know existed. Unconditional. What you hear about in Helen Hunt movies. I met a woman, Lazara, who accepted me for who I was, who did not wish to change anything about me, and who let me be myself, which is not always a pleasant thing to endure. I have spent my life pretending I could change for people. I cannot change. Now the experience of being accepted as I truly am has opened up the world to me in a way I didn’t imagine possible. It’s truly beautiful. But that doesn’t mean I can continue to endure the world that she helped me expand. My being allowed to be myself is in some ways truly frightening. I always resented being asked to change this or that, but I also assumed those requests were fair, because I saw myself as a monstrous burden to those who loved me. That this woman, like some precious angel, is able to carry that weight – this in itself could be contorted, in the right mental state, as a new and different reason to end my life, because how could I let someone so brave and so kind endure so very much? Because I am far too much. I can barely lift my head, how she can carry all of me is unthinkable. I love this woman so much that it would just be another example of my own selfishness to let her take the blows my personality and instincts unknowingly reign down on her psyche, even if she is, of now, unaware of the assault.

2007 I had a solo show at Liste in Basel with a gallery in Switzerland I was working with. At the time I was with my aforementioned ex wife. I had had a very depressing year. Like the one before, like the one after, like this one, like the year of my birth. Being not that bright, I worked very hard on making the best paintings I could, and assumed that if this show went well, then the sun would shine down on me and my problems would be vanquished. Because I was naive then, at 33 I was painfully naive still. Hours before the fair even opened, my dealers told me that the esteemed Hauser and Wirth Gallery had bought my entire show. While other dealers were putting nails in the wall, my dealers put their feet on the desk. They called me ex wife and I into the booth and told me the news. I made something like seventy thousand Euros in fifteen minutes for a year’s worth of work. My ex wife beamed, my dealers beamed. I stood there like a man who had just been hung but the rope broke. I had no words. I went  to the lounge and ordered a drink, my wife followed me, we went downstairs, and I buried my face in her breast and wept like an insane person. Because nothing had changed. I felt no better. I felt no accomplishment. I felt no pride or relief. What I felt was a terrifying sameness. And in that moment, I realized that art was not the thing that would fill the hole in me. And money was not it either. All the money did was give me more money to fill my body with drugs and alcohol. Which I did promptly, for three years and change, having shows here and there where my work suffered, until I ended up living with a psychopath and a single father, drinking every waking hour and wandering skid row puking on my shoes and scoring dope.

In 2012 I went to rehab. I was 38. I was naive at 38 in that I thought if I stopped being a drug addict and an alcoholic, I would feel better. I spent three months there and nine in a halfway house and moved back to Toronto to be near my family. It was a slow motion re-enactment of my sold out show five years before. I took the drugs and the alcohol away, and I felt no better. I just experienced the reality of my mind soberly. I had a minor nervous breakdown. What lives in me is a hole. I have spent my life trying to fill it. I don’t know if I was born with this hole inside of me, or if it was carved or shot or eaten out by experience. But what I do know is that I’ve tried to fill it with everything imaginable. Sex shoplifting art women booze heroin marijuana television reading writing meditating basketball Percocet Jim Beam Ativan Budweiser Philip Roth BDSM. But the hole is insatiable. What it wants to be filled with is the end of me. I am emotionally self anthropophagous. I eat away at myself until there is nothing left. And I’ve done such a good job of it, that now, at 41, crawling into bed feels like crawling into a foxhole, getting into the shower feels like moving a piano, and I’ve eaten away at the energy I need to continue.

Young people have faith in art. Some of them think it can make them money. It has become professionalized. Some of them will make money. I was one. But faith in something that the world doesn’t need is a dangerous thing to stake your life on. I have been known primarily for making paintings. For this last show in Baltimore there are no paintings. Because my paintings aren’t mine anymore, I make ‘Brad Phillipsy’ paintings. I make paintings that look like what I make, like what people have come to expect from me. I’ve started to making paintings the way people in pornography have sex. It looks real to the viewer, but there’s no sincerity in the movement. Scenes stop and start again. Dicks go limp, people cry, lights burn out. And that is where I’ve ended up. A burned out starlet from a small town with dreams of moving from the adult film world to television then to movies, living in a trailer behind a car dealership in San Luis Obispo.

If I die before he does, Aaron Carpenter is to execute my wishes. Which are few. Give it all away to the dwindling number of people I haven’t isolated. Apologize to everyone. Cut my arms and legs off and leave me in the forest.

Life is beautiful and this is true. But the greatest beauty in being alive is that we can stop the whole show in an instant if we choose to, and I’d rather exit now with some sense of empowerment than dwindle and shrink further into myself until my spine and my belly button kiss each other and I writhe on the ground like a sun bleached salamander.

I love everyone that ever touched me.

Brad Phillips, May 15, 2015


"Problem Is You," featuring Aaron Carpenter, Philip Hinge, and Brad Phillips will be on view from June 13 to July 11th, 2015 at Freddy Gallery, 510 W. Franklin Street. Click here to read our interview with Brad Phillips. Text by Brad Phillips. 


The Agony and The Ecstasy of Richard Prince: Read the Artist's Own Words On His Inciting "New Portraits" Series

Richard Prince, 1983. Photo: Peter Bellamy

At this point, talking, criticizing, polemicizing or debating Richard Prince’s “New Portraits” series is akin to beating a dead horse. Enough already. Instead of beating the dead horse, why don’t we hear what the horse actually has to say before we deliver the final blow? Tonight, Prince is set to present a new round of his “New Portrait” series, which includes large-scale printouts on canvas of Instagram screengrabs with the artist’s comments below the photographs, which he calls “Psychic Jiu-Jitsu.” Mentioning the cost, the process, the debate, and who-said-what is irrelevant at this point, but after the opening tonight at Gagosian London, there will be a new mob of villagers at the digital gate armed with pitchforks in hand waiting to burn Prince at the stake. Just the same, there will be a new round of heretics praising him. Without veering too close to either side, I will say this: creating the “New Portrait” series is Richard Prince’s responsibility and duty as an artist. In the following essay, Prince describes in minute detail his process and evolution; from his early portraiture taken from publicity stills to his current Instagram portraits. Prince also describes his immense fascination with both current culture and subculture. You will also notice that Prince is incredibly intentional behind what he does – some artists spend 100 hours painting a portrait; Prince spends a hundred hours thinking about a portrait. What’s the difference? In the following text, Prince is also extremely candid: admitting to having a socially crippling stutter, to naively discovering social media through his daughter, and to scrolling through Instagram, which he calls a “bedroom magazine,” until the early hours of the morning. If you plan to visit “New Portraits” tonight on Davies Street, be sure to read this text before you make any conclusions, that is, if you haven't already. 


New Portraits by Richard Prince

In 1984 I took some portraits.
The way I did it was different. The way had nothing to do with the tradition of portraiture.
If you wanted me to do your portrait, you would give me at least five photographs that had already been taken of yourself, that were in your possession (you owned them, they were yours), and more importantly . . . you were already happy with.
You give me the five you liked and I would pick the one I liked. I would rephotograph the one I liked and that would be your portrait. Simple. Direct. To the point . . .

Foolproof.

I started off doing friends. Peter Nadin. Anne Kennedy. Jeff Koons. Cookie Mueller. Gary Indiana. Colin de Land.
They didn’t have to sit for their portrait. They didn’t have to make an appointment and come over and sit in front of some cyclone or in front of a neutral background or on an artist’s stool. They didn’t have to show up at all. And they wouldn’t be disappointed with the result. How could they? It wasn’t like they were giving me photos of themselves that were embarrassing.

Social Science Fiction.

Another advantage was the “time line.” If you were in your sixties and you gave me a photograph that had been taken thirty years earlier, and that’s the one I chose, your portrait ended up in a kind of time machine. I couldn’t go forward, but I could go backward. Vanity. Most of the people I did liked the younger version of themselves. So the future didn’t really matter. Half of H. G. Wells was better than no half at all.

Who knew?

After friends, I did people I didn’t know.
I had access to Warner Bros. Records and their publicity files. The files were filled with 8 x 10 glossies of recording stars that they had under contract. How I had access is beside the point. It was a long time ago. Let’s just say an A&R guy gave me access, “permission.”
I spent time in their LA headquarters, Burbank, and went thru the metal cabinets and took the “publicities” I wanted, took them home, put them in front of my camera, and made a new photograph. The first one I did was Dee Dee Ramone.
I did Tina Weymouth, Tom Verlaine, Jonathan Richman, Laurie Anderson. I did the two girls from the B-52s.
Not knowing these people, having never met them, or talked to them, but still being able to do their portrait, excited me. Satisfaction. I spent weeks in the basement of Warner Bros. I thought I had an advantage. My method, if you could call it that, was far more flexible than the regular way portraits were taken. I didn’t need a studio. A darkroom. A receptionist. A calendar. Makeup. Stylists. I didn’t have to deal with agents or the “personality,” good or bad, of the sitter. My overhead was minimal and I could do the portrait all by myself.

By myself. That was the best.

Why I Go To The Movies Alone.

At first I thought this could be a business.
Up till then none of the art that I was making sold . . . or sold enough to make a living. I had just quit my job at Time Life the year before and was trying to make a go of it living near Venice Beach in LA . . .  sharing a house with three roommates and living off the occasional sales that Hudson, my friend from Chicago, would make selling my “cartoon” drawings.
This idea of a “portrait business” made sense to me. Who wouldn’t want their portrait done this way?
I continued to do friends. Paula Greif. Dike Blair. Myer Viceman. I did everybody’s portrait for Wild History, a book that I put together for Tanam Press of downtown writing. The author’s portrait accompanied their contribution. Wharton Tiers. Spalding Gray. Tina L’Hotsky.
By the end of ’84 it was over.
I’m not sure if it was the lack of interest in me, or others. (My energy evaporated.) Maybe it was the inability to convince people to commit to a commission. It was a good idea, but after doing about forty of them, I put them in a drawer and moved on. Bored? Restless? I don’t know. Let’s just say it didn’t take off.

Leave it at that.

My cartoon drawings turned into jokes and the jokes started taking up everything. In the end, I think most people would rather have their portrait done by Robert Mapplethorpe.

Thirty years. Time passes.

The social network.

I looked over my daughter’s shoulder and saw that she was scrolling thru pictures on her phone. I asked her what she was looking at. “It’s my Tumblr.” “What’s a tumbler,” I asked.
That was . . . four years ago?
About three years ago I bought an iPhone. Someone had shown me the photographs you could take with the phone. I had given up taking pictures after they got rid of color slide film. I tried digital, but couldn’t make the adjustment. I never liked carrying a camera and was pretty much inkjetting and painting anyway . . . so the idea of using a big boxy camera with all its new whistles and bows wasn’t for me.

Enter the sandman.

The iPhone was just what I needed. I couldn’t believe how easy it was to point and shoot. You didn’t have to focus. You didn’t have to load film. You didn’t have to ASA. You didn’t have to set a speed. The clarity . . .

I could see for miles.

The photos you took were stored in the phone. And when you wanted to see them, they appeared on a grid. The best part, you could send a photo immediately to a friend, to an e-mail, to a printer . . . or, you could organize your photos, like my daughter had, and post them publicly or privately.

When worlds collide.

I asked my daughter more about Tumblr. Are those your photos? Where did you get that one? Did you need permission? How did you get that kind of crop? You can delete them? Really? What about these “followers.” Who are they? Are they people you know? What if you don’t want to share? How many of your friends have Tumblrs?

What’s yours is mine.

My daughter’s “grid” on Tumblr reminded me of my Gangs I did back in ’85 . . . where I organized a set of nine images on a single piece of photo paper and blew the paper up to 86 x 48. The gangs were a way to deal with marginal or subsets of lifestyles that I needed to see on a wall but not a whole wall. Each gang was its own exhibition. Girlfriends, Heavy Metal Bands, Giant Waves, Bigfoot Trucks, Sex, War, Cartoons, Lyrics . . . were all rephotographed with slide film, and when the slides returned, they were “deejayed” and moved around on a custom-made light box until the best nine made the cut. The “cut” was then taped together (the edges of the slide mounts were pushed up against each other and scotch-taped), the nine taped slides were sent to a lab where an 8 x 10 internegative was made, and from the internegative the final photo was blown up. I’ve probably lost you. Technical stuff . . . application and technique. Sometimes it’s better to leave the “background” out of it. Better to “take it for granted.” Why should I care how a photograph is made?

Only sometimes.

How was it called back then? Sampling?

Primitive now, but back then . . . a 50-inch photo drum was few and far between. The paper was 50 inches wide and came in a huge roll. If you wanted to, you could take a roll and roll it down the street, roll it down the sidewalk, roll it all the way down the West Side Highway.

Shakespeare’s in the alley?
No. Philip Roth is in the alley.
Joan Didion is in the alley.
Don DeLillo is in the alley.

What’s up pussycat?

There’s a lot of cats on Instagram. Food too.

And there’s tons of photos of people who take photographs of themselves. (Yes, I know the word.)

On the gram. I was just asked why I like Instagram. I said, “Because there’s rules. And if you break the rules, you get kicked off.”

I got to Instagram thru Twitter.
Twitter first.
I’m not sure when I first started tweeting, but I liked trying to fit a whole story into 140 characters.
I call it Birdtalk.
I used to Bird in the early ’90s for Purple magazine and birded in my first catalogue for Barbara Gladstone in ’87.
Short sentences that were funny, sweet, dumb, profound, absurd, stupid, jokey, Finnegans Wake meets MAD magazine meets ad copy for Calvin Klein. Think Dylan’s Tarantula. Then think some more and think Kathy Acker’s Tarantula.
Or, don’t think at all. I know I don’t.

Sometimes.

Sometimes I write down the first sentence that starts off my favorite novel.

Relative. I’m not much of a theory guy. But sometimes I think there was a reason why Einstein was a technical assistant in the Swiss patent office.

Let me fill your cup.

Twitter accepts photos, but is mainly text based. I like to combine the two and tweet both photo and text.

I called the photo/texts tweets I was posting . . . “The Family.”
I posted photos of my extended family . . . mother, brother, sister, nieces, cousins, uncles, aunts, in-laws, stepchildren, boy- and girlfriends. I would caption the photos with a short description of who, what, why . . . measuring my words so that they fit into the guidelines of the platform.
After posting the photo/text, I sent the information to my printer and ink jetted an 11 x 14 print of the marriage. I made thirty-eight “Family” tweets.

Distribution.

I placed each Family tweet in a plastic sleeve and pushpinned the sleeve to the wall. The wall was at Karma. I put all thirty-eight up. Salon style. It was Saturday. The doors opened at 12 pm. By 12:15 pm all thirty-seven were gone. One to a customer. I kept the one that had my father, mother, and sister in it. (My father and mother were naked, and my sister was sitting in between. My family wasn’t like yours. Hobnob doesn’t begin to describe them.) I sold the “family tweets” for $12 each. First come, first serve.

Well, well, well . . .
In ma ma ma my wheeeeeeeel house.
I used to stutter. By the ninth grade, the sparkle was in my eye. It got so bad, the impediment turned me into a clam. I slept all day, every day. I wouldn’t get up until Sunday. I waited for Bonanza to come on the TV. I loved the cowboy father and his three sons.

Two summers ago, my niece was working for me out on Long Island and she showed me how to screen save. I didn’t know about the option. What other options don’t I know about?

Screen Save.

This might be one of the best applications in an apparatus that I’ve ever encountered. All time. Hall of fame. First place. Just what I need. MORE photographs.

Pressing the two buttons on the phone and hearing the device grind its gears to make an exposure made me nervous. What did Harry Lime say in the movie The Third Man? “In three centuries of civilization what have the Swiss contributed to culture? The cuckoo clock.”

Hey kids . . . what time is it?

Now I have a theory.

I was beside myself.
Congratulations.

This past spring, and half the summer, the iPhone became my studio. I signed up for Instagram. I pushed things aside. I made room. It was easy. I ignored Tumblr, and Facebook had never interested me. But Instagram . . .

I started off being RichardPrince4.
I quickly recognized the device was a way to get the lead out. If Twitter was editorial . . . then Instagram was advertising.

A gazillion people.

Besides cats, dogs, and food, people put out photos of themselves and their friends all the time, every day, and, yes, some people put themselves out twice on Mondays. I started “following” people I knew, people I didn’t know, and people who knew each other. It was innocent. I was on the phone talking to Jessica Hart and had just looked at her “gram” feed before picking up the phone. I asked about a picture she posted of herself standing in front of a fireplace wearing what looked to be ski clothes and big fur boots. The post was in black and white, head to toe, full figure, and behind her, above the mantle, there was a portrait of Brigitte Bardot. I told her someone should make a portrait out of this photo. She said, “Why don’t you?”

Come to think of it.

I’m not sure if she knew about my Family Tweets. She might have. I think we even talked about them after she came to my studio for a visit. After I got off the phone, I thought about her suggestion: “Why don’t you?”

I went back to her feed and screen saved her “winter” photo. I sent the save to my computer, pressed “empty subject,” pressed “actual size,” and waited for it to appear in a doc, checked the margins and crop, clicked on the doc, and sent it to my printer. My inkjet printer printed out an 11 x 14 inch photo on paper . . . I took the photo out of the tray and put it on my desk.

Looking at Jessica’s feed reminded me of 1984. Except this time I had more than five photos to choose from. I went back to her feed a second time. I scrolled thru maybe a hundred photos she had posted and looked at all the ones that included her. The one in front of the fireplace was still the best.

Walk on.

Jessica had tons of followers. Thousands. And a lot of them had “commented” on what she posted. I read all the comments that had been posted under her fireplace photo. There was one comment I wish I could have gotten in my original screen save. When you screen save an Instagram image, you can get maybe three, four comments in the save if you include the person’s “profile” icon that appears on the upper left of the page. I decided early on I wanted the person’s icon to be part of the save. But what else could I save?

I went back to my desk and kept staring at the printout of Jessica. What do I do now?

I didn’t want to paint it.
I didn’t want to mark it.
I didn’t want to add a sticker.
Whatever I did, I wanted it to happen INSIDE and before the save. I wanted my contribution to be part of the “gram.” I didn’t want to do anything physical to the photograph after it was printed.

Five cents.

I went back to the comment.
I commented on Jessica’s photo in front of the fireplace, but my comment was one of hundreds and showed up outside, way down at the bottom . . . out of the frame.
If I wanted my comment to show up near her picture . . . how?

I got lucky.


"IG is a bedroom magazine....I can start out with someone I know and then check out who they follow or who’s following them, and the rabbit hole takes on an outer body experience where you suddenly look at the clock and it’s three in the morning. I end up on people’s grids that are so far removed from where I began, it feels psychedelic."


I’m terrible when it comes to the tech side of technology. But somehow I figured out how to hack into Jessica’s feed and swipe away all her comments and add my own so that it would appear under her post. The hack is pretty simple and anyone can do it. You hit the gray comment bar and pick a comment you don’t want and swipe with your finger to the left, and a red exclamation mark appears. You press on the exclamation mark and four things come onto the bottom of your screen.
1. Why are you reporting this comment?
2. Spam or Scam
3. Abusive Content
4. Cancel

To get rid of the comment, you click on Spam or Scam. It’s gone. Just like that I could control other people’s comments and Jessica’s own comments. And the comment that I added could now be near enough to Jessica’s photo that when I screen saved it, my comment would “show up.” Make sense? It’s about as good as I can do. What can I say? Einstein and cuckoo . . .

So now . . .

So now I was in.

Waiting to follow.

Richardprince4 would appear at the bottom of Jessica’s final portrait. My comment, whatever it would be, would always be the last comment. The last say so. Say so. That’s good. That could work. My “in” was what I ended up saying. And what I would say would be everything I ever knew . . .  what I knew now and what I would know in the future.

Tell Me Everything.

Finnegans Wake meets MAD magazine.

Zoot Horn Rollo. You seem to be where I belong (emoji).

The first three portraits I did were of women I knew. Or almost knew. Jessica, I knew. Pam Anderson, I knew. Sky Ferreira? I didn’t know, but was following her and had been reading about her new album and seeing posters of her album broadsided on sheets of ply on the Bowery and on Lafayette near Bond. I wasn’t sure what I was doing or why I chose these three. I just had lunch with Pam and had seen Jessica in LA. Sky, I was following because she seemed interesting. There was nothing more. No attraction. No fan. No desire. No date. No wanting anything from her. And the pictures she posted were candid, boozy, and seemed to be letting the viewer in on some kind of backstage diary. She also had thousands of people following her, and I could tap into her followers and follow them. I can do that? I didn’t even know I could follow the followers. Like I said, the hardware was all new . . . and I was just getting started.

The shoreline is never the same. (Like it should be.)

When I first started getting rid of comments, I thought the person whose comments I was getting rid of might get pissed. “What happened to all my comments?” I found out quickly that “the getting rid of” only affected my feed. The deleted comments didn’t affect the followers’ feeds. Their comments were still there even though they were gone from mine. All that happened is that MY comment showed up below their photo. Was I allowed? Yes. I guess so. It’s hard to explain. But the process is open, and at the moment, it’s the way it works and anyone and everyone can do it.

The language I started using to make “comments” was based on Birdtalk. Non sequitur. Gobbledygook. Jokes. Oxymorons. “Psychic Jiu-Jitsu.”
Some of the language came directly from TV. If I’m selecting a photo of someone and adding a comment to their gram and an advertisement comes on . . . I use the language that I hear in the ad. Inferior language. It works. It sounds like it means something. What’s it mean? I don’t know. Does it have to mean anything at all? I think about James Joyce confessing to Nora Barnacle. I think about opening up to page 323 of Finnegans Wake. Then I think about notes and lyricism. Policy. Whisper. Murmurs. Mantra. Quotation. Advice.
Chamber Music.
Didn’t Duke Ellington say, “If it sounds good, it is good”? He did say that, didn’t he?

Who are these people?

Larry Clark, Diane Arbus, Robert Mapplethorpe take great portraits. I’ve watched Larry take photos and I don’t know how he does it. I wouldn’t know where to begin. I could never go up to a stranger and ask them if I could take their picture. I’ve done it maybe two or three times and didn’t enjoy it. That part of art is in Larry. It isn’t in me. I feel more comfortable in my bedroom looking thru Easyriders and pouring over pictures of “girlfriends” that are right there on the page. Page after page. Looking. Wondering. Anticipating. Hoping. What will be on the next page? Will I find a girlfriend that I really like? That’s my relationship with what’s out there. It’s as close as I want to get. That’s what’s in me.

IG is a bedroom magazine.

I can start out with someone I know and then check out who they follow or who’s following them, and the rabbit hole takes on an outer body experience where you suddenly look at the clock and it’s three in the morning. I end up on people’s grids that are so far removed from where I began, it feels psychedelic. Further. I’m on the bus. I feel like I’m part of Kesey’s merry tribe. I’m reminded of Timothy Leary’s journals, which I purchased years ago from John McWhinnie, and the concentration that came over me when I discovered his hand-drawn map of his escape from jail. How he literally shimmied on a wire that had been strung up from an outer utility building to the perimeter prison wall . . . and how I would trace with my finger his overland express to Tangier, where he hooked up with Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver and spent the next year seeking asylum in different parts of North Africa, ultimately ending up in Switzerland where his ex-wife ratted him out, and how fighting extradition took up the rest of his life. Wow, now it’s four in the morning.

Tune In, Turn On, Come Out.

“Trolling.”

If you say so.

I never thought about it that way. The word has been used to describe part of the process of making my new portraits. I guess so. It’s not like I’m on the back of a boat throwing out chum.

"We’re going to need a bigger boat."

Included.

Everyone is fair.

Game.

An even playing field.

“Outside my cabin door. Said the girl from the red river shore.”

Men. Women. Men and women. Men and men. Women and women. Blacks Whites Latinos Asian Arabs Jews Straights Gays Transgender. Tattoos and scars. Hairy.

I don’t really know the score.

The ones I adore.

I just know where I belong.

“Oh, there I go. From a man to a memory.”

How do I tell you who or why I pick? I can’t. It would be like telling you why I pick that joke. WHY THAT ONE? There’s thousands of jokes. I read them all. It takes days to read just one joke book. 101 of the World’s Funniest Jokes. Days. If I get one, find one, like one, out of the 101, it’s a good day.

People on IG lead me to other people. I spend hours surfing, saving, and deleting. Sometimes I look for photos that are straightforward portraits (or at least look straightforward). Other times I look for photos that would only appear, or better still . . . exist on IG. Photos that look the way they do because they’re on the gram. Selfies? Not really. Self-portraits. I’m not interested in abbreviation. I look for portraits that are upside down, sideways, at arm’s length, taken within the space that a body can hold a camera phone. What did de Kooning say? “When I spread my arms out, it’s all the space I need.”

At first I wasn’t sure how to print the portrait. I tried different surfaces, different papers. Presentation? Frame? Matt? Shadowbox? I tried them all. Finally this past spring my lab introduced me to a new canvas, one that was tightly wound, a surface with hardly any tooth. Smooth to the touch. Almost as if the canvas was photo paper. It was also brilliantly white. I don’t think it could be any whiter. And . . . the way the ink jetted into the canvas was a surprise. It fused in a way that made the image slightly out of focus. Just enough. The ink was IN and ON the canvas at the same time. When I first saw the final result, I didn’t really know what I was looking at. A photographic work or a work on canvas? The surprise was perfect. Perfect doesn’t come along very often. The color that had been transferred from the file of the computer to the jet, from jet to canvas, was intense, saturated, rich. If someone I followed had blue hair, their hair looked like it had been dyed directly onto the canvas. Dye job. Rinsed. Beauty salon. It was brilliant, great color. You might call it “vibrant.” The vibe between the image and the process was “sent away for,” seamless, effortless . . . all descriptions I used to use when I tried describing my early “pens, watches, and cowboys.” (Has it really been forty years?) The ingredients, the recipe, “the manufacture,” whatever you want to call it . . . was familiar but had changed into something I had never seen before. I wasn’t sure it even looked like art. And that was the best part. Not looking like art. The new portraits were in that gray area. Undefined. In-between. They had no history, no past, no name. A life of their own. They’ll learn. They’ll find their own way. I have no responsibility. They do. Friendly monsters.

Speak for yourself.

To fit in the world takes time.

For now, all I can say is . . . they’re the only thing I’ve ever done that has made me happy.


Richard Prince, "New Portraits," opens tonight at Gagosian London on Davies Street and runs until August 1, 2015. Intro text by Oliver Maxwell Kupper. New Portraits text by Richard Prince. 


RICHARD PRINCE, Untitled (portrait), 2015, inkjet on canvas, 65 3/4 × 48 3/4 inches (167 × 123.8 cm). Photo by Rob McKeever