I had the good fortune to go to a very good group show at the MoMA recently with the provocative title ‘What is painting?’. One among the many works that I ran into was by a lady artist of the 1970’s Lee Lozano. Not having studied at art school, I did not know much about her (well, I did later find out that she really is not a household name) until I came back home and read up a little bit about her. The more I read, the more I was fascinated by how she had managed to integrate art and life into a seamless whole. From reading, I surmised that her desire for painting went beyond the confines of the canvas and she tried through her art/life to incorporate the viewer and her life in a strange union.
In an interview on Artforum, the painter David Reed throws some light on her enigmatic personality.
I knew about her work, saw her at openings, and knew her slightly when I first came to New York. The most direct contact would have been around 1971, after she had lost her loft on Grand Street. She was looking for places to stay and considering that process part of her work, and ended up staying with me. Lee was very moody, drinking a lot of cheap wine and smoking lots of dope. I was raising my young son and had to ask her to leave after a few days. I remember thinking that she was a kind of warning about what could happen if you mixed art and life too closely, that it could get very dangerous if you had no boundaries.
Conceptual artist Sol LeWitt manages to stoke the persona further…
Lee’s relative disappearance from the historical records is sort of mysterious; the work was hardly negligible, so it’s hard to say why she didn’t have more of a career. It was definitely hard to make it as a woman artist, and she herself really withdrew from the world. The thing about not speaking with women went way beyond an art project. I remember sitting in a restaurant with her once and a waitress came to the table; not only would Lee not talk to her, she would hide her eyes. She had an extreme dislike for the company of women, thought they were evil. When she came to my studio, if my girlfriend opened the door, Lee would turn on her heels, run down the stairs, and be gone. Her wounds were self-inflicted; the withdrawal from the art world and the anti-feminism. Eventually she stopped making artworks altogether. She became a spirit who would appear and then vanish, but her work was saved by friends and those who had faith in her vision.
Critic Lucy Lippard talks about her depth.
Lee was extraordinarily intense, one of the first, if not the first person (along with Ian Wilson) who did the life-as-art thing. The kind of things other people did as art, she really did as life–and it took us a while to figure that out.
The more I read about her, the more I was impressed and humbled. The ‘art as life’ thing is hard even in small portions. In fact, many of the successful commercial artists of today treat art as a money spinner and life as a consumerist paradise awash in the glam of the cleanly laundered money spun thus.
Personally, I find it difficult to even live a small portion of my life according to some of the unconscious precepts that are dissolved into my paintings. How many of us manage to weave at least some portion of the art that we believe in into the fabric our daily lives? Have you any examples? Is it not very difficult? Is it even possible to live this ideal in a world where most artists have a ‘day job’, while, the work they do as ‘artists’ might earn them unnatural stares from their day job friends…
Lee Lozano, ‘Untitled ‘(trumpet penis)’, Crayon and graphite on paper, 11″ x 17″
Lee Lozano, ‘Grass Piece’, 1969, Ink on paper, 27.9 × 21.6 cm
Lee Lozano, ‘Ream’, 1964, Oil on Canvas, 78 x 96 inches
I’m a bit puzzled as to what life-as-art/art-as-life would actually mean. Is it used in reference to a loosely defined concept of one’s whole life as performance art? Anyway, what I’m thinking at the moment is that normally (whatever that is) it requires a good deal of preparation, work, cleaning the studio, etc. etc. to produce a work of art. How ’bout I do the corresponding sort of thing with my life during the day, and then look all artistic in the evening, does that qualify? :-) [I hope that doesn’t come across as a sneer at the topic or at Lozano. I suppose there’s more than a dash of envy, if anything. Just a point that came to mind.]
Fascinating. My first thought is that “living artistically” is as difficult to define as “art” is.
Lozano’s intent may have been artistic when refusing to speak to women but I see it as bizarre, rude and borderline abusive of people. But I suppose anyone can say they live artistically and then be judged by others as not doing so.
Maybe the bottom line for Lozano was she was terrified of being ordinary and believed art lifted her out of that ordinariness. (along with pot and LSD and cheap booze)
For myself, I try to find art in the ordinary and therefore nothing is ordinary! But, I also sometimes think that life looks so much better through the lens of a camera, or the lines of a poem and honestly, I find her Grass Piece incredibly banal, a real “so what.”
Anyway, I find living honestly to be a better challenge and where I find the most fertile ground for my creativity.
This does bring up a lot of questions for me. Like, if ripping out pages of her diary and selling them is art then by extension does that make everyone who has a blog an artist?
Just some rambling thoughts, hope they make sense…
Steve,
Many of us hope that art can indeed make changes in the social fabric that we inhabit and haunt – albeit in a small way – and in this endeavor, we try and imbue our art with sensibilities that deign it of this higher purpose. Lee was an example of an artist who chose to live her life according to what she defined as artistic – however bizarre that might be.
However hard I try, all I can do is to paint images of certain suffering souls and hope that some person might be moved by the portrayal that they might start to think and do something about alleviating suffering – not that alleviating suffering is a central tenet of my art, but one of the…
But if I were to live art as life (which you seem to playfully cast off), I would actually go out there, work with people, try and give them help and succor – but I can’t do this – as I know that my family, my work life, my source of income, would suffer if I were to ply this alternate trade.
It is indeed a powerful concept – if taken in the right sense and direction – just that a lot of us are helpless to do so – given our current conditions…
Not too sure if I made sense there – but that was my quick thoughts to your response.
Tree,
Guess art is in the eye of the creator…
Living honestly and depicting the commonplace as art through your lens may be facets of an art life continuum.
Interesting question you ask about the blogger as an artist – I do not know the answer to that. I really do not given the multiplicity of flavors that you encounter on the online bazaar. I need to think some… This brings to mind a question you asked the other day on my blog – is a blog a self-portrait of a person…
Even if I found Lee not talking to other women a little rude, I did find it commendable that she chose to live her life the way she wanted to… and had the courage to carry on (30 years is no mean feat).
I don’t know, Sunil, it looks to me more like “life as cliche” rather than “life as art”. Whatever her talents as an artist may have been, it seems like she chose to live as a caricature of the Tortured Artist rather than as a real person.
Sunil:
You get up around seven in the morning, you shower,brush,shave,don your suit and tie, make sure your shoes are shined,commute to a workplace where you may work past quitting time, commute back home to change out, do chores, eat dinner, parent, be a spouse, brood over job issues. After that you descend into the basement and try to pick up the thread. All the while the small matter of life/art and its demands hangs over your head reproachfully.
It’s a familiar life choice. Most of the artists that are discussed here chose another route. Most of the artists doing the discussing have day jobs or are retired from such. As one of these, your topic is most apropos.
One way is to make your daily life your topic. There’s a local fellow that has collaborated for years on comics that talk about what so-and-so said in the checkout line or down at the VA Hospital. He makes a living from this and awakes every morning, I’m sure, wearing his “art” hat.
Jay,
do you mean Harvey Pekar? American Splendor?
Sunil,
Your description of what you could/should do were it possible sounds to me like emphasizing your principles, which also motivate your art. It’s admirable, and would represent a unification of your art and life, but it’s not what I thought you meant when I responded earlier.
Sunil,
Many artists (and non-artists) have lived or tried to live “art as life.” Oscar Wilde comes easily to mind; a famous beauty and actor (sorry, can’t remember who) refused to go out in public except swathed in scarves once her beauty began to fade. It wasn’t fair to adoring fans, she said. And I actually understand that, since her identity, her “art,” was tied up with her public beauty.
If by “art” here, Sunil, you mean “principles,” then I think the struggle is important. No, we can’t stop hunger or fix the child who has been abused, but we can act in such a way as not to ignore the fact that we are comfortable while others suffer, and do whatever smidgen we can do alleviate those problems.
But what has that to do with art, with my art? I suppose Jay has given us one answer — make your art out of your daily life. In some sense, Sunil, I think that is what you do — you observe suffering and you depict it in your paintings, hoping that the world will take note.
Perhaps what you are thinking of is living “intentionally,” taking notice, not being too tied up with personal future and past and ideas and plans to take note of what is immediately around us. This might be a blogging process — certainly Jer’s and my southeastmain attempts to work in that way.
But ultimately I think my (best/inspired/important) art comes out of something that I will call, for lack of a better terms, an altered consciousness. It is possible that Lozano too thought this, although her method of altering her consciousness depended on notions and habits that were life-destroying, hence unsatisfactory. My “altered consciousness” states come when I forget myself, forget the goals, plans, and yes, the suffering outer world, and fall into The Zone.
I’m thinking that this will be tomorrow’s A and P post, so I’ll stop there.
You’re too hard on yourself, Sunil.
I feel there’s so much I could write in response to your comments but I’ll refrain. I will say this though, from where I’m sitting, you’re already doing all the things that you think you are not accomplishing and you seem to be doing a damn good job of it.
It’s all art; you just have to maintain Presence.
David,
Who knows, maybe she was a tortured soul… Still, I must say to maintain that same level of equanimity (however inane) for thirty years takes some dharma.
Jay,
I get up at 5:30am and leave at 6:15am to work.. I think you get the rest of it pat. Commendable.
Also, a little scary when you realize how much of your life is out there online – but then ‘if you have nothing to hide, why fear’ – goes the popular saying – I am not so sure.
You do give a good example of making parts of your daily life into ‘art’. Recently I have been wolfing down my lunch extra quick and head outside with a little point and shoot camera to take pictures of peoples faces. Sometimes I manage to break through and sometimes I get rebuffed.
Steve,
I think I should have been a little clearer with the premise of the post…
There is also the case of the first commenter going out on a limb and provoking the conversation in the hopes of making the subject a little clearer such that the rest can meaningfully join.
David, Who knows, maybe she was a tortured soul…
Maybe so. But then what we’re talking about is “mental illness as art”.
Most of the artists I know over the age of say, 40 or 45, have been doing their work for 30 years or more. It’s not that big a deal. Many of us started in early childhood and just kept going. If there’s anything to emulate about Lozano’s life, it’s simply the fact of continuing to make art. Beyond that, I think she’s helped to perpetrate the stereotype of the whacko artist that the non-art world loves to romanticize.
David,
Double shot of reason there. Good point.
I still think that ‘non-art world’ people like me like to romanticize a bit. Different people take different routes to self actualization and realization – it does not matter if the romanticized version of an artist is the one that leads you a little further towards a process of self actualization that may take a lifetime.
June,
I will be looking forward to that post on altered consciousness tomorrow. It is really amazing the variegated drives that lead all of us down the art path.
Tree:
Do you know Harvey? I heard he was doing well.
Sunil:
I was just recounting my own working life with a few deletions.
June seems to have a knack for getting people on the street to pose.
Nope. Love the movie, etc. Was wondering if that’s who you meant.
We must be Ohio neighbors.
Sunil,
The art-as-life idea sounds nice, but I think getting out of explicit “art mode” can be a good thing on a daily basis.
The “art mode” involves a more-than-usual level of observation and sensitivity. It’s perfect for standing behind the easel in the landscape, but at other times it’s not so useful and can be counter-productive. I’ve especially noticed this since having kids, because they demand special attention that doesn’t mix so well with the “art mode” — understatement!
More than trying to remain constantly in an art-as-life mindset, I think it’s important to make sure to visit the art mode each day, at least for a little while. This keeps it fresh. If the connection to art is there, it will stay strong despite the demands of ordinary daily life.
I still think that ‘non-art world’ people like me like to romanticize a bit.
Sorry Sunil, you don’t qualify as ‘non-art world’ people. You’re a painter.
…it does not matter if the romanticized version of an artist is the one that leads you a little further towards a process of self actualization that may take a lifetime.
I agree. I certainly had my own romantic notions about being an artist when I was younger. Over time I just came to think of the art as “what I do”. Plus, non-art people’s art stereotypes can really work to your advantage. When I was a teenager they helped me meet girls.
Tree:
I’m being coy about Pekar. He’s around. My wife had his daughter in school and thereby came to know his wife professionally. Harvey’s down at the library a lot where He’s something of a legend among the librarians. This can go on, but I’ll stop.
I do love this internet thing. for all I know you could be my next-door neighbor. Our identities are so plastic in this realm. Instead of a guy stuck in a suburb somewhere, I can choose to become vested as a virtual character and be the full-time artist-persona that my skills can allow. I can recast the art/life issue completely through an avatar.
Sunil:
You have spoken about your Hindu background, and I wonder if, and to what extent, that plays a part in this topic.
Karl,
Prescient words from a wise one. Worth taking away.
Thanks
David,
When someone makes art for so many years (like you do), I guess it flows from your system like all of the other natural activites like sleeping, eating, sleeping etc.
“When I was a teenager they helped me meet girls.”
;-)
Jay,
For me Hinduism is less of a religion than a way of living and conducting life. My parents for better or for worse did not teach me by rote all of the necessary mantras that a devout Hindu was supposed to know and recite in front of the gods. Instead, I think they gave me the essence of what is it is to live a way of life whose major parts included distilling dharma. Though dharma could be interpreted in a variety of ways, a narrow interpretation that I use to describe would be ‘a sense of duty’. A sense of duty applied to ones fellows, family, sentient nature and the material world. I think it is this sense of duty that guides me more than some of the strict tenets. ‘Art as life’ is an extension (in my view) of this sense of duty that permeates my life – I guess. I am not so sure on that, I am still trying to figure that one out to tell you the truth…
I guess the flexibility inherent in this religion is the fact that individuals can voluntarily choose which one of the precepts or themes that they want to live their life by – be it karma, moksha, yoga, samsara or dharma. Different people arrive at ways of living their lives by following a superset or overlaps of one or more of these individual themes…I did not want to go on and on about religion here, but since you asked…
Sunil:
Thank you. You have provided valuable insight.
I worked for a Christian from Nagpur and have counted a number of Hindi as friends, neighbors and co-workers. Through all of this I came to see the extent to which life in India is governed by precepts derived from an interwoven texture of religious, societal and economic factors. There exist firm strictures and structures that one can live by or struggle against.
Art is often defined in the States as the product of assertions of freedom and willful acts that go against the flow. One might assemble one’s own set of rules -to live by, to make art by or both – act upon them and then seek acceptance in the marketplace. This might be a little hard for many newcomers to digest. I am aware of the push and pull associated with putting down new roots and am watching your experiences with great interest.