By Giuseppe Marasco
New Tate Modern Show
Of interesting in this show are the Landscapes Liechtenstein Attends to. There is at play a concern with the vanishing point, and the flatness of the canvas surface. The vanishing point is traditionally associated with the limit of the spectators sight , and so the limit of what ones desire can take in. As this sort of perspective is based on mathematics. This notion came to the fore in the enlightenment, standing in for an infinite point which we long to enter and posses. Memetic. Even the idea of the landscape as an icon in its own right.
Interestingly enough the works on show aren’t particularly large. Underscoring that the idea of the sublime can occur within the idea and apparatus of the landscape, put into operation as by the conventions of this genre. As by what is held within the frame and dimensions of the work. It’s an interesting an to look on these famous dots and have them expand on that plane of the infinite. Whilst holding in mind that this is an act of volition we remain executive, and contain its duration. These element might be better seen in the later revisiting in the Chinese landscapes of Liechtenstein’s career. There is more scope for a sense of the infinite. Having looked at the distant and suggestive Chinese landscapes. There are meditations on death,eternity and Zen like simplicity. As well as curious, almost disgusting curling massed paint, used square in the foreground. Such as Landscape in a Fog 1996. which also has a light toned white-blue un-mixed oil paint applied across the length of the canvas in an abstract expressionist gesture. This happens across the band where the vanishing point is located. So that the paint gesture become at once vanishing point and painterly jouissance. The gesture become the length and expanse of a sublime landscape, becomes comment and extended on the relationship between these differing sublimes. The differing facilities, the different surface, and spaces far/near. But both languages, the same sincerity and directionality of intention. Theres something odd , possibly vulnerable about this gesture. And generally a problem with reconciling these language, or getting it right, so that they work well or in collusion. there that sense of whether Lichtenstein was up to it. But remain very interesting become of the vulnerability it displays. So it may posses a found quality, or a simple tactile record of the maker. This problem and challenge of using different registers of langauge remains interesting. How many multiples (set of language) can be supported or work well with. What design might allow an object of paint to circulate and be seen from differing aspects? Theres plenty of material for those … working to play, undermine and go back on what is the field and space of the paint. Treated here in a genuine fashion, oscillations. The tensions of success, between these visual languages keep the painting waiting to happen or on the verge of becoming. Perhaps that their claim, considering their Zen like quality – it’s nature maybe a small claim. As an idea we are left with Food for though and more possibilities.
Curious Vanitas
The Mirror series that were done before these Chinese landscapes contain some of these concerns. Humorously referred to by Lichtenstein as his self portraits. They are apart of his onset in an emptiness, Zen like, commenting on the nature of arts memetics and a reflection on the nature of reflection. Portraying Objects that reflect back, that are themselves all refection, to the point of being all camouflage, verging on appearing like war paint. Perhaps the kind that would work on the high street. These object mirrors are about looking , about the structural blind spot of the viewer about how it is that the reflection seen is the content of the viewer. and touch on the phenomena of Mental reflection. Emerged from the study of the conventions in portraying mirror in catalogues and illustrations.
Returning to the begining of the show, where the Giant brushstrokes are exhibited. You really do note the joy of the large brush strokes. The incredible expanse, and sense of what it would be to stretch out the body, crossing the canvas in making them. They do have a great energy, and I can see perfectly that Lichtenstein must have really appreciated the abstract expressionists , rather than have made ironic commentary on their work. This is interesting that this explosive breadth, would not have been possible with out the expressive capacity of abstract expressionism. A real desire to participate in its joussiance, and an understanding that this was the only way that he could approach participate and celebrate those engeries. You have to in part imagine what it must have been like as a young artist trying to make it, finding that some much of the territory of Abstract Expressionism had seemingly, already been colonized, faced with the prospect that it might just not be your thing.
Far from shutting it out, Lichtenstein keeps letting it back in… Thinking about what is let in. satisfying, for some viewers this entrance of this wild energy into this very pristine and exact design of the later work. The polemics which so angered the Abstract Expressionist still remain, and could have made for a very interesting exhibition if space for an expanded dialogue had been made.
The different art makings of Abstract expressionism could be clumsily positioned as statement versus suggestion, a kin to the Venetian art vs Florentine art. Statement art, which pop art was hijacked into, careers with it the problems of becoming or being used as symbol of hegemonic power. And as an inscrutable perfection.
I think much more could have been made from a Non Chronological curation of the show. To draw out the links between the various concerns Lichtenstein had.
this might have gone some way to combat the near uniform criticism that the later part of the show is weaker. We are all much familiar with the early career. it could have been that the intention was to deliver a satisfying punch at the beginning. But very little had really be done to show the dialogues that Lichtenstein had been engaging with in the 80s and late 90s. So that what looks like a falling off, really would have stood in much better light, contextualized along side late Salvador Dali and Jeff Koons.
