included in the current show at Cal State L.A.s Luckman Gallery is promising. Established art stars like Ed Ruscha, Carolee Schneemann, Jim Shaw, Polly Apfelbaum, David Reed and Marlene Dumas (who recently made waves by moving from semi-obscurity to setting the auction record for female artists) are exhibited side by side with local faves like Tim Ebner, Russell Crotty and Chris Finley, plus a sizable Philadelphia contingent, including Patricia Cronin, Randall Sellers and Judith Schaechter. Then there are a few idiosyncratic curve balls, like autisticEinstein on the Beach
librettist Christopher Knowles, comix icon Charles Burns and retired performance artist Tehching Hsieh, who once had himself tied to Linda Chicken Woman Montana for a full year.
Given such inclusiveness, the show itself is remarkably consistent. Most of the work is smaller than sketchbook size, figurative or otherwise representational, and made with traditional media, primarily ink and pencil on paper. And theres something a little odd about some of the work. Certainly Dani Tulls curious fake publicity headshot of a teen girl on the phone, Dorothy Cross neo-imagist rendering of the three witches fromMacbeth,
or Adam Ross intricate aerial maps of cities would not be out of place in any contemporary gallery. But the first piece you encounter by Marnie Weber gives pause: a vintage mimeographed art history quiz sheet asks, If Van Gogh had been born 30 years sooner, how do you think he would have painted? What do you think he would have painted? Give reasons for your opinions. In apparent response to this query, Weber has painted a stripped-down red and purple expressionistic happy face. Perhaps the result of a little known side-oeuvre of interrogative pedagogical theoretical work for the animistic photo collagist? Or maybe its unfamiliarity is due to the fact that Weber was 3 at the time the painting was executed.
In fact all of the work in the show titled Very Early Pictures was produced before any of these professional artists had reached the age of consent, and therefore before theywere
professional artists (the exception being Knowles, who penned lyrics for the epic Glass/Wilson opera at age 14). Theres something about the status of this work thats interesting because its really not art, says Philly-based curator Richard Torchia as we survey the almost-installed exhibit. Im saying that with quotations around it itis
art because all children are artists, right? But in order to treat it the way we would treat professional work, the whole condition of the environment here has to be modified. I wanted to avoid being overly didactic in terms of comparing adult work of people like Ed Ruscha or Jim Shaw, so theres no contemporary work included. How can you compare?
All of this work is so random to begin with. For example, we have theone piece
that Ed Ruscha managed to keep [since] he was 7 or 8 years old, so theres no selection process. With someone like Dani Tull, whose grandmother did a lot of research about creativity and the development of cognition, all the work that he did from his childhood up to now has been preserved by his family. So this is almost about the parents as archivists or curators.
The exhibit is arranged by the age at which each work was created, with the progeny of the more dedicated archivists popping up at regular intervals. This gives the show a pedagogical feel like a visual essay on the developmental stages in artistic evolution, both in the Piaget-style terms of correspondences between emergent psychological structures and picture-making skills and in more art-world-related senses. For example:? Where and how does the urge for academically acceptable rendering overwhelm the deep psychological engagement and assured formal spontaneity that typify early childhood visual art? How is it that some people are able to retain or recover the latter? And is there any correlation whatsoever between that group of people and the segment of the population who become art-world professionals? Can you tell just by looking at a 4-year-olds drawing that hes going to be a genius? A 10-year-olds? A 17-year-olds?
that could pass for contemporary gallery fare benefit significantly from the art worlds seemingly bottomless obsession with adolescence. But this isnt entirely unprecedented. Art historian Jonathan Fineberg has traced many of the breakthroughs in my kid could do that Modernism directly to artists fascination with childrens art. I wanted to see if there was anything to the often-remarked-upon resemblance that we normally dismiss, said Fineberg to a midsize audience at Luckman the Thursday before the opening. To my surprise, I discovered that artists such as Kandinsky, Klee, Picasso, Miró and Dubuffet to name just a few were very interested in childrens drawings and mined them for ideas.
In his insightful and copiously illustrated book,The Innocent Eye: Childrens Art and the Modern Artist,
Fineberg outlines the history of childrens art in the context of art history, arguing convincingly for the influence of the prepubescent sensibility on artists from Russian avant-gardist Mikhail Larionov to Jean-Michel Basquiat and David Hockney. Simple things take on a vividness in child art that catches us by surprise, continued Fineberg. For the great modern artists, the childrens drawings seem to have added vibrancy to their explorations of whatever was most fundamental in their aesthetic projects.
But is this anything more than a search for plunder-ready sources of formal novelty? Fineberg believes so: In 1863, Baudelaire famously wrote that genius is nothing more nor less thanchildhood regained
at will. Underlying this formulation is the perception that the recovery of childhood offers a passage to fundamental knowledge about the present state of existence, and nowhere is this perception more powerful than in the realm of the visual. The artist creates a form with which to articulate that experience for which neither viewer nor artist have, until that moment, had a vocabulary. The same may be said of a childs drawing.
Curiously, many of the kids? works collected and adapted by artists over the last hundred years are considerably more powerful than most of the works in Very Early Pictures. A result of the lengthier filtering process, no doubt, but one cant help wondering whether artists are better at spotting gifted child artists than they were at being them. At some points you start wondering if theres any connection at all. Then you come across something like Jeffrey Vallances incredibly detailedAddams Family House?
sculpture, which he built at age 10 in 1965. He then sent a photograph of the model to cartoonist Charles Addams, who responded. Anyone familiar with Vallances prankish letter projects, where he solicited Art in Government drawings from Strom Thurmond and Barry Goldwater or traded neckties with Anwar Sadat (not to mention his more ambitious boundary erasures involving the King of Tonga or the Liberace Museum), must recognize this as a seminal work in the artists career. In fact, theres probably as much good art in this show as there would be in a show of contemporary works by the same group of artists.
In spite of all the isues raised, the bottom line is that theres probably as much good art in this show as there would be in a show of contemporary works by the same group of artists. Most of these questions provoked by Very Early Pictures rather than being contained in some sort of nostalgic bubble ultimately seem to address our prejudices, our criteria for valuing works of art, and the structure and meaning of the art world pretty radical stuff. Does it matter whether any of this was intentional on the part of the young artistes? I dont know, but given the way some of them turned out, I wouldnt put it past them.
VERY EARLY PICTURES
| Luckman Gallery, Cal State L.A., 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles | Through July 23
Get the Theater Newsletter
Get a rundown of upcoming theater events and ticket deals in Los Angeles.