Neo Rauch: parahttp://www.metmuseum.org/special/se_event.asp?OccurrenceId=%7B8A3293A2-4A10-483D-B226-E22C4E8E6905%7DMay 22, 2007–October 14, 2007The Gioconda and Joseph King Gallery, Lila Acheson Wallace Wing, Modern ArtMy thoughts on the exhibition:
Neo Rauch: Para at the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Moving Forward or Paradictable?
Prior to my excursion (or should I go as far to say pilgrimage?) to the much anticipated Neo Rauch Exhibit entitled Para, I had my preconceptions of what my experience would be like to finally stand in front of this artist’s bewilderingly beautiful works. I assumed that I would be awestruck by his mastery of material, sophisticated compositions and complicated spatial arrangements. I thought that because reproductions of Rauch’s paintings have affected me so much, then his actual paintings would sweep me off of my feet; they would thrust me into the uncanny world that he has fashioned- a place where anything is possible.
I became interested in the 47-year-old German artist when I stumbled across an article on Leipzig painters titled, “Figuring the New Germany” in the June/July 2005 issue of Art in America (Volk154). The article featured Rauch, amongst several other German painters working out of Leipzig. Fascinated by his surprising juxtapositions, ambiguous narratives and assertion with paint, I was hooked- Rauch reeled me in and I took the bait. When I heard that the Met was going to feature Rauch’s work, I knew that this was not an opportunity that I could miss. As artist Laurel Sparks said to me about going to this exhibit, “Run, don’t walk” (Sparks).
Upon entering the Gioconda and Joseph King Gallery adjacent to the contemporary art wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I was taken aback by the small size of the room where the exhibition was displayed. At first glance, the room seemed to conflict with Rauch’s work- there was an especially cacophonous relationship between the larger paintings and the low ceilings. Despite my initial impression, I thought that a thorough read of the introductory text posted on the wall would offer a more substantial foundation for the show- beyond the limitations set by the room; I did not want to delve into the work until I read the exhibit introduction. Apparently, as the text on the wall expressed, Rauch painted the 15 paintings (all dated 2007) specifically for this show (Tinterow).
Initially, Rauch considered addressing subjects of museums but the images developed differently (Tinterow). Imagery in the show included the usual-unusual relationships, seemingly disconnected figures akin to John Heartfield’s photo collages and active scenes contrasted by looming stillness and mystery similar to R.B. Kitaj. Rauch slightly shifted away from his bright color palette and introduced new characters wearing different costumes (see
Vater (Father),
Die Fuge (The Fugue/The Gap), and
Para).
“Para”, the exhibition’s title, sets the tone for the entire body of work. Rauch stated (with the title), he hopes to set in motion a string of associations here with the prefix para: paranormal, parallel, paradox, and so on (Tinterow). By setting the stage for the viewer with the simple prefix “Para”, the meaning of his mysterious works remains allusive.
Rauch implements similar strategies found in works by surrealists Giorgio de Chirico and Rene Magritte including dream logic’s displacement, condensation, and improbable relationships. Rauch openly admits to adopting unlikely or surprising juxtapositions analogous to Max Erst and Bathus (Tinterow). Rauch stated however, that, “He has no use for the cultishness of classic Surrealism or for its tight repertoire of methods. In fact, just the opposite is true: on my canvas, as in my mind, anything is possible” (Tinterow). Such a statement as this one contradicts the gestalt of Rauch’s work. Rauch’s investigation seems to follow a very similar path as the surrealist’- including their tight repertoire of methods. Rauch positions himself amongst the surrealists when he stated that his “imagery springs from his dreams” (Tinterow). It is difficult to exclude him from a conversation about contemporary notions of Surrealism when the artist speaks of how his dreams influence his work. While Rauch’s styles may “change at a whim" as Charlotte Mullins expresses in her book Painting People: figure painting today, this idea is also familiar to Ernst, with his use of frottage and Dali’s photo collages (Mullins140).
I am in no place to say that Rauch’s process is formulaic, but I can say with confidence that his use of color, space, and disjointed figurative relationships is tightly woven into his style- which can not be separated from the language that the surrealist’ helped develop seventy years ago. Mr. Rauch can certainly continue to make commanding work while embracing his root in surrealism- I am not sure why it was important for the Met to defend Rauch’s division from Surrealism as pronounced in the text on the exhibition wall. Perhaps such a charge was made to strengthen Rauch’s credibility as an important contemporary artist.
Rauch’s work not only pay’s homage to the surrealist, his images evoke the theatrical lighting found in Baroque painting, the vivid colors and banal color harmonies found in Neo- Expressionist works, the rawness found in Social-Realism, and the occasional pop-culture references. Beyond Rauch’s adoption of various tactics found in past generations, his current body of work alludes to the past through the surface treatment of several canvases. Many of the works look aged; with their uneven finishes, cracked paint-surfaces, and darkened colors, one could believe that these works have been in the museum for ages, despite the modern, urban settings/architecture found in several of the paintings. While Mr. Rauch could have created such an affect to strengthen the works appeal as 19th and early 20th century tribute paintings (along with the figure’s costumes) (see
Vater (Father),
Die Fuge (The Fugue/The Gap), and
Para), the works could have been painted quickly and haphazardly thus creating a similar outcome. If in fact the irregularities were unintentional, and merely affects of a tight deadline (15 paintings in 5 months), then Rauch can add this to his repertoire or bag of tricks. Frankly, I think it was a positive addition (I can not speak for the art preservers and restorers though).
While I was impressed with the number of canvases in this show, I did not leave the exhibition with high hopes. Rauch claims, “On my canvas, as in my mind, anything is possible” (Tinterow). After seeing his most current work, I do not know that he truly embraces this. If he does embrace this notion, why is his work of 2007 lacking possibility and instead, oozing predictability? Like Lisa Yuskavage, Rauch’s popularity, (as seen through the lengthy waiting list to receive one of his works), may have put a stilt in his artistic development, freedom, and/or opportunity to experiment. Could this be because art buyers expect to purchase a predictable Rauch piece? If so, they are in luck- his work of 2007 will not confuse them.
Works Cited
Mullins, Charlotte. Painting People: Figure Painting Today. New York:
D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers, Inc, 2006.
Sparks, Laurel. Personal Conversation. June 29. 2007.
Tinterow Gary, curator in charge of the department of 19th-century, Modern and
contemporary art for the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Neo Rauch: Para. “Exhibition wall text”: N.P: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007
Volk, Gregory. “Figuring the New Germany.” Art in America Brant Publications,
Inc. June/July 2005: 154-159, 197
