Printer Friendly

Susan Rothenberg: United States.

Turning-points shows in art come with a sense that you know everything about them sub specie aeternitatis. You feel you have a key to artistic significance past, present, and future. This is a mistake. The key has you. The knowledge imparted replaces you, the knower. It assumes you shape, fills your needs as fluid fills a mold. Overload of gratification blows the fuses of your intelligence. You must wait years for your historico-hysterical epiphany to cycle back as cultured common sense. Finally you discover that you were largely right, largely wrong, or nuts.

I was right, wrong, and nuts--and inarticulate and sent--when I saw three big, gawky paintings by Susan Rothenberg at the post-Minimalist-gangster alternative space 112 Greene Street in the autumn of 1975. Those were laboratory days. The show was a eureka. That the paintings were paintings, perfectly comfortable as such in a savagely matter-of-fact raw space, was remarkable. Painting had been dead lately, burnt to a crisp by the phenomenological stare. I was right about this: these were paintings. That they were by someone I had only just heard of, a woman, made it better. An unsuspected reset button had been pushed. New game.

I was wrong about the new game mattering as much as I needed it to matter. I wasn't conscious enough of my role in the transaction: a New York parochial art fancier, nostalgic for the tradition of Abstract Expressionism while committed to accepting the unfriendly news of each new esthetic adventure. Or maybe I did know that, except for "parochial." I was unaware of how the centrality of New York's world view had diminished with the rise of European, notably German wisdoms that I was five years from starting to grasp. If in 1975 you were Gerhard Richter, say, you could have seen at a glance that Rothenberg's triumph was local and concerned mainly with the past.

The nuts part is the whole way of thinking that had me in thrall: comprehending yourself as an organic weather vane, a Romantic gismo for registering history via esthetic sensation. You should have better uses for your life. I didn't. It was my desire to toss my otherwise valueless self into the tribal bonfire of art's illuminati, to make the blaze brighter. This almost never happened. I was forever framing remarks preparatory or retrospective to the big moment. When the big moment arrived, as with Rothenberg's paintings, I was dumbstruck. Nuts.

The critical significance of Rothenberg's 1975 show is accounted in a one-liner that everybody got right away and that has not budged in 18 years: introduces symbolic imagery into Minimalist abstraction. Joel Shapiro was seen to be doing something similar in sculpture. His name and Rothenberg's were often linked. A largely godforsaken movement eventuated, the last New York movement: New Image. You were impressed to the extent that you had been resigned to the imperative of abstraction as an ineluctable natural force pushing out to the horizon. What I sensed at 112 Greene Street was a global, terrific implosion.

Hello, horsie.

There were horses. "Horses," actually, but the mere reference to something really existing was so astonishing that the distinction between the crude renderings on canvas and sizable creatures that eat oats seemed trivial. Rothenberg had embedded horse outlines and silhouettes, painted with densely black tempera, in feathery fields of black or terra-cotta acrylic gesso, struggling to adjust shape to support so as to yield the then compulsory effect of flatness, presentness, presence--however you wanted to characterize the self-evident, surfing-the-tide-of-history, drop-dead look of the era. The struggle succeeded by failing.

The large format of the pictures was a gesture of ambition that was also an act of obedience to going notions of what a "serious" artwork should be like. This scale was beyond the ready command of Rothenberg's talent at that initial stage of her art. You could smell the sweat. Her palpable effort was fantastically poignant, carrying the charge of something half-forgotten and so wonderful I could hardly believe it: sincerity. (Sincerity is the purity of an intention that the observer understands and countenances.) One knew that Rothenberg meant this stuff by the intensity of her fealty to the very norms she transgressed with her equine apparitions. Setting herself outside he pale while clawing to get back in, she was the whole parable of the Prodigal Son in one stroke.

You had to be there for the full message of rightness, wrongness, and nuttiness, but you still get to look at the paintings. I saw them again in Rothenberg's recent retrospective. They look great. The impression they give of powerful vulnerability or vulnerably power--as if a gorilla were doing its damnedest to fit in at a tea party--has increased, if anything. They are the sort off nakedly achieved artworks that can make an aimless young person suddenly think "I want to be an artist." Of course, the paintings seem smaller now than I remember. In my mental image from 1975, they remain stubbornly vast, because they occupied entirely and changed the world I knew.
COPYRIGHT 1993 Artforum International Magazine, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:painting
Author:Schjeldahl, Peter
Publication:Artforum International
Date:Sep 1, 1993
Previous Article:Bill Viola: The Passing.
Next Article:Jeff Koons: Christ and the Lamb.

Related Articles
Susan Rothenberg: paint & form.
Joan Simon.
Susan Rothenberg.
NPCA announces speakers for 2004 Annual Meeting.
Susan Rothenberg: Sperone Westwater.
Brush strophes.
Artists speak: Susan Rothenberg.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters