John Currin, San Remo, 2013 |
John Currin’s current exhibition of pornography-inspired
paintings at Gagosian really brought home to me how long I have now been out of
the United States, and how out-of-touch with contemporary American painting I have
become. Not only was I not familiar with Currin’s work, despite the fact he has
had retrospectives at the Whitney, the Hirshhorn and various other major
American institutions. But I couldn’t connect with them in anyway. It is quite
clear what the paintings are trying to do, but I found them conceptually
overwrought and visually not that interesting.
John Currin, Lynnette & Jeanette, 2013 |
That said, there were elements of the paintings that I did
appreciate. In paintings that cast a critical eye over the manufacture of sex
and intimacy — as it is made by advertising,
pornography, art history — Currin paints (usually) women being sexual in ways
that we never talk about: explicitly provocative, exposed, with no
vulnerability, and no compromise. What I enjoyed was that the women’s bodies
were never perfect. While they were not “normal” in the sense that they were
not necessarily bodies that I see in the locker room at the gym, they are also
not the airbrushed perfect, flawless bodies that we see in magazines. The woman
can vary in age, size, with extra flesh, loose flesh, discoloured flesh. Their
faces are always discontinuous with the bodies: innocent, doll-like, not real.
Their bodies are voluptuous, provocative, raunchy, sometimes even grotesque.
But the grotesquery is not because of the bodies, it’s because of the positions
they are in, the explicitness of the display of female sexuality and pleasure.
John Currin, Tapestry, 2013 |
Everything about the images makes them confrontational: that
the women are looking at the viewer, and if their eyes are not, their genitals
are. They are also confrontational because we are used to sex being sold to us,
being told of our obsession with sex in ways that these images defy: genitals dominate
the image, fornicating lesbians, female orgasm, lusty, female prototypes. Even in
2013 when you would think nothing could phase us, all of these images continue to
confront. We also see these kinds of images on bus stops all over the city, but
there is a difference: the women used by advertising are airbrushed nipples and
no apparent cellulite, rather than sagging tits and oversized butts.
John Currin, Installation View at Gagosian Paris |
The images also appear confrontational because of the glib references
to art history, references that come in the use of colours that resemble aged
surfaces, the attention to detail, to character even though it’s not always present.
Currin’s paint is thin, not like an old Master painting – despite what the
gallery information claims – the surfaces have no sheen, no gloss, no density,
there’s something very exposed about the paint on the canvas. The paint
technique is however, apparently close to a sixteenth and seventeenth century
way of working. Currin paints an undercoat, in flesh colour, “raw umber” with a
binding agent of sun-thickened linseed oil. And from there he begins to build
up the flesh tones. The figures themselves are drawn from the face of his wife,
his own body parts, and often with the same bodies and faces painted over and
over again. The use of the same model also makes the paintings unsettling,
adding to the grotesquery, where the figure loses character and individuality,
becoming even more of an object of sex on display.
image copyright John Currin
No comments:
Post a Comment