Behind the scenes: treatment of Robert Motherwell’s ‘El negro’

Robert Motherwell’s El negro recently made a trip to the National Gallery of Australia’s paper conservation department for some preventative treatment. We paid a visit to conservator Fiona Kemp to bring you these special behind-the-scenes shots of conservation in action!

You can read more about the making of El negro in the Tyler Graphics Ltd. print documentation here: http://nga.gov.au/internationalprints/tyler/pamphlets/TylerTGL/MotherwellNegro.pdf For more information on Motherwell and his work with Tyler, visit our website: http://nga.gov.au/internationalprints/tyler/DEFAULT.cfm?MnuID=2&ArtistIRN=22859&List=True

A page from the book at rest on the paper press Wearing gloves, Fiona moves the page from the press Spraying the pages to relax the paper fibres The pages looking pristine!

Word pictures

To celebrate the National Year of Reading the children’s gallery here at the NGA is showing Word Pictures, an exhibition that focuses on the use of text in works of art. Four artists from the Tyler Collection – Jasper Johns, Bruce Nauman, Claes Oldenburg and Robert Rauschenberg – are represented. Below we have compiled a selection of  images showing these important artists at work on projects featured – or related to those featured – in the exhibition. Hover your cursor over the images to read descriptions.

Jasper Johns

Alphabet  1969

Johns created a series of works involving the letters of the alphabet at Gemini GEL in 1969. Letters and numbers are a recurring theme in Johns’ art – check out his Color numeral series here: http://tylerblogs.com/2011/03/09/jasper-johns-the-color-numeral-series/

        

Bruce Nauman

Clear vision  1973

In Clear vision Nauman juxtaposes the words ‘clear’ and ‘vision’ with vigorous marks that, ironically, blur the text and render it unclear. We looked at another or Nauman’s text-based works recently: http://tylerblogs.com/?s=bruce+nauman. Below you can see an image of the artist working on a similar project at Gemini GEL.

Claes Oldenburg

The letter Q as beach house, with sailboat  1972

Oldenburg’s  quirky work is one of several created during the same period in which letters take on the characteristics of objects: here the letter Q becomes a beach house, situated idylically on the shores of a tranquil stretch of water. Like Johns, Oldenburg’s work often features letters and numbers. The image below shows him at work on a later print Chicago stuffed with numbers, that demonstrates this preoccupation.

      

Robert Rauschenberg

Cardbird III  1971

Rauschenberg’s Cardbird series plays with language in different ways. Aside from the obvious inclusion of the text printed on the works themselves, the title ‘cardbird’ is a play on ‘cardboard’, the material used to create the works. You can read more about the work here: http://nga.gov.au/Rauschenberg/

The Word pictures exhibition runs until February 10, 2013 – don’t miss it!

New look Tyler Collection website

Over the past few months we have been compiling new information for the Gallery’s Kenneth Tyler printmaking collection website, and working to make the site easier to use. The results are now online for you to explore here: http://nga.gov.au/InternationalPrints/Tyler/Default.cfm?MnuID=12

An important addition to the site is the new Tyler Graphics Ltd (TGL) team page, dedicated to the immensely talented group of printers and workshop staff that made the astonishing print projects produced at TGL possible. This page reveals the truly collaborative nature of the Tyler workshops and the unique working environment that existed there. To bring you this information we contacted several former staff members and asked them to share with us their memories of the TGL workshops – with some fascinating insights and often amusing recollections.

Yasu Shibata speaks of the excitement surrounding the production of Frank Stella’s The Fountain; the breadth of John Hutcheson’s printmaking knowledge and experience is truly staggering; and Barbara Delano recalls Saturdays with Robert Motherwell. Mark Mahaffey’s recollection of David Hockney’s 1984 visit to the workshop involves a pet rabbit; Kim Halliday reminisces about the camaraderie of the shop; and Duane Mitch remembers burgers and beers after the Chicago Art Fair. More of this valuable background information around the workings of a major print workshop will be added as we continue to make contact with TGL staff members.

We hope you will take a moment to explore the wealth of material available on the website and would love to hear your comments and feedback either here on the blog, or via the Tyler Collection email address: TylerCollection@nga.gov.au

Mark Mahaffey’s pet rabbit, Stones, alongside a Christmas message from David Hockney – just one of the stories that emerged from our discussions with TGL staff members.

Helen Frankenthaler and Kenneth Tyler: a 25 year collaboration

Kenneth Tyler and Helen Frankenthaler worked together on many print projects in a collaborative relationship that spanned 25 years. Below Ken remembers working with Helen and discusses her approach to printmaking.

Helen Frankenthaler’s death on December 27, 2011 is a great loss to the world and, within that, the world of art. She will be remembered for her unshakeable confidence, indefatigable in her creation of abstract images.  Helen was both meticulous and experimental in her painting and printmaking, often challenging the traditional methods.  Her quick-witted and funny side often interrupted her more energetic and demanding personality.  Loyal to her art and friends, Helen will be remembered and missed by all who had the great fortune to know and work with her.

I first formally met Helen in 1972, when she visited me at my Los Angeles workshop, at my invitation.  The workshop impressed her but she felt it too ‘industrial,’ so she declined my offer to work there.  She was quite cordial, however, and we kept in touch.  Then in 1976, we began working together, starting in my small Bedford, New York, workshop and continuing in my expanded Mt. Kisco, New York, workshop from 1987 to 2001.

In 1961, Helen urged Robert Motherwell (to whom she was married from 1958-1971) to join her in working atULAE.  He was 46 and she 33 at the time. Bob had made his very first intaglio prints with Hayter’s Atelier 17 in NYC in the early 1940s.  Until Bob’s death in July 1991, his painting and printmaking had a big influence on Helen, who often referred to him and his work while we were collaborating.  Both Bob and Helen would study what the other had printed in my workshop and usually make favorable comments on each other’s work.

There are many similarities between the working methods of the two artists.  First and foremost, they shared a keen interest in the liquidity and translucency of gestural mark-making.  Many of their prints were created from the first painted marks on a printing element, or that first motion of the wrist in the act of drawing.  Helen would place great importance on precise registration and exact color matching once she started to construct her prints.  When she spent too much time fussing with this, it could be detrimental to the print.  Bob, on the other hand, was not as interested in cross-hair precision and rather liked the accidental.  For him, a poorly inked print on newsprint or a collage element miss-aligned on the page could be exciting; he would question why we couldn’t just make at-random impressions and call them editions.  Yet, he was prone to refine each image he made.  But this was the philosophical mind of Motherwell, who questioned printmaking and the art form it produced, as he did painting. I often mused about what would have  happened if Helen had lived nearer to me and we had spent more time making and discussing prints, as I did with Bob.

My first impression of Helen was that she had little understanding or was not particularly interested in the nitty-gritty processes and techniques of printmaking, and therefore did not fully realize the potential the medium offered.  It seemed that at ULAE, where she had worked primarily since 1961, she formed a general indifference to the details of technique and was not prone to investigate possible alternatives other than the ones she had adopted.  This I think was true when she worked at making screenprints and etchings in other workshops.  Most of her prints up to this time were colorful, of one medium, usually modest in scale, and displayed a fine graphic touch. My view changed once Helen and I developed what became a wonderful confrontational and trusting collaboration, based on pushing the limits of her printmaking.

Helen was fond of mixing her own colors, even though they had to be remixed by the printers during proofing to obtain the effect she wanted (more opaque or more transparent) when printed on the various trial papers that seemed to precede every edition. Helen loved to try many variations in color and select different papers during proofing, and was always eager to work on the trial or color proofs with various drawing and painting materials.  Over the years, this approach produced many proofs, but brings into question whether this made any serious contribution to altering the edition print being worked on.  Exceptions would be when she used color trail proofs to define, refine or alter the color printing order in a print, or edit the use of a printing element(s) in a color print.

My efforts to guide her into new approaches for prints paid off when we ventured into woodcuts.  The first breakthrough was the creation of Essence Mulberry.  After Essence Mulberry, I think Helen started to believe that a print could be as good as a painting.  She certainly started to believe that other hands could be as important (in a limited controlled way) as hers in the making of a print.  This thought was carefully guarded in public until we embarked on the Genji woodcut project when Helen was 67 years old.  By then she was recognized as a major printmaker.

During the Essence Mulberry project, for the first time I was permitted to assist in shaping her carved marks with sanding during the proofing stages.  Another ‘first’: John Hutcheson and I used the color blend-roll technique and the offset press to print the woodblocks. Our print history and the trust and respect we had, made the ‘trial and error’ method we employed in making the woodcuts possible.  This dynamic give-and-take also set the arena for creating the dyed paper pulp sheets which Freefall and Radius were printed on.  Prior to permitting Yasu Shibata to carve Helen’s blocks, I was given the green light for applying the pochoir technique on her prints: Yellow Jack, This is Not a Book, and the Genji editions…evidence that Helen’s collaborative trust grew deeper and deeper.

The fluidity of the tusche is an important part of Helen’s lithographic vocabulary, one she often referred to when making prints.  She was always fascinated with the flow of liquids and the shapes they formed when dried.  Helen, in my opinion, was at her best when she made a spontaneous gesture drawing in lithography or intaglio, and left it without further addition or correcting.  The exception was with her woodcuts, where refinement seemed necessary to form the image.  For the Genji and Madame Butterfly woodcuts, she made wonderful painted wood panels that were used as the guide for making the color woodcuts on colored handmade papers (made by John Hutcheson and Tom Strianese). Yasu carved the many blocks, closely collaborating with Helen on every nuance of carving and printing.  For Radius and Freefall, she painted color paper pulp maquettes, splashing away in our paper mill.  These studies were interpreted by Tom into numerous stencils, the stencils then employed to apply color pulp to handmade paper substrates.  These lushly colored sheets were used for the woodcut editions.

The initial trial process in printmaking results in inked variations of the printing elements that the printers make on press.  Some are made to test pressure in printing; ink saturation into the paper; quality of color; and most to refine the inked image onto paper for the artist to approve.  Helen used these trials to define her image-making and make the printing involvement much more akin to how she worked in her painting studio – changing direction, cropping of edges or adding a new passage.  When focusing on a single medium and a single printing element, this process is relatively easy to alter using the trial proofs as an initial guide for printing.  However, when there are more than one medium or more than one printing element, the process becomes increasingly complex and time-consuming.

Here lies the conundrum. Spending time proofing and altering the colors and printing elements does produce a lot of proofs, but also taxes the patience of the printer(s).  With certain techniques, it can also jeopardize the quality of the printing element(s) in producing faithful reproductions of the marks originally made by the artist.  For example, a delicate tusche wash on stone or plate is limited by how many times it can be printed, closed down and opened up again for edition printing, without a loss of fidelity to the original printed version.  The same is true when transferring marks from one printing element to another.  Extensive color proofing can be very injurious to the printing element(s) and knowledgeable printers will try to avoid the practice whenever possible.  It is true that the unexpected trial in the printmaking process can often lead the artist into an entirely different direction, and perhaps result in more exciting and successful printed images.  Knowing this risk and having experienced good results in the past, Helen often requested lengthy color proofing sessions and used the resulting proofs to create new ideas for editions, or for finding a new path to improving the printed image.

Keeping this practice in balance and yet encouraging innovation and experimentation is often difficult for a printer with high printing standards, even when one believes in breaking the rules.  Here is where a good collaborator, in my opinion, directs the printing process for the betterment of making the artist’s image without sacrificing the quality of the printed surface.

In my workshop, I always insisted that the technical aspects of the craft be decided mainly by the printer, with the artist controlling the aesthetic aspects. In a highly charged creative atmosphere, these two objectives can easily become blurred.  Therefore, successful collaboration requires mutual respect and trust in each other’s abilities and talent.  This is evident in long protracted projects with complicated histories.  I believe a rich working relationship with an artist takes time and builds from project to project.  With Helen, our collaboration spanned more than 25 years.  It was quite an adventure, for many of the works we produced, the rules in printmaking were broken and quite a few unorthodox methods were employed. Helen’s printmaking, like her life, was filled with color, experimentation, and wonderfully exciting art.  Add to that her, and my, passion for pushing outside the norm, and one can easily see how and why we teamed up with such gusto.

Remembering John Chamberlain and Helen Frankenthaler

 

  

John Chamberlain, 1927-2011  and Helen Frankenthaler, 1928-2011 

The closing month of 2011 saw the deaths of two great artists represented in theTyler collection – John Chamberlain on December 21 and Helen Frankenthaler on December 27. During the course of their long careers these two artists made significant contributions to the art world and their loss will be deeply felt.

Chamberlain worked with Tyler at Gemini GEL in 1971 to produce a small multiple: Le molé. The basis for this sculpture was a crumpled paper shopping bag that Chamberlain coated in polyester resin and then cast. It was then aluminium plated and covered with silicon oxide, giving the work a lustre that resembles the assemblages created from car parts for which he is best known.

 Le molé, 1971

Read more about Chamberlain’s life and work in the New York Times: http://ow.ly/8vCqf

Frankenthaler and Tyler worked together for decades on several projects. Beginning in 1976 and continuing until the close of the Tyler Graphics workshop in 2001, theirs was a working relationship marked by innovation and adventure. The prints she created at Tyler Graphics are typical of her signature style, where pools of pools of colour spread spontaneously across the surface. Achieving the fluidity that is so characteristic of her canvases was no mean feat in print, but a challenge that Tyler met with his usual enthusiasm and technical skill. The resulting prints are some of the most beautiful to come out of the workshop.

Below you can see a selection of works from some of the projects Frankenthaler completed at Tyler Graphics. You can read a New York Times article published after her death here: http://ow.ly/8vCxk

         

Essence mulberry, 1977

 

Tales of Gengi III, 1998

Madame Butterfly, 2000

More information about both Chamberlain and Frankenthaler and their work with Tyler can be found on our website: http://nga.gov.au/InternationalPrints/Tyler/Default.cfm. You can also read Roberta Smith’s article discussing Chamberlain and Frankenthaler here: http://ow.ly/8vCoW.

Ken Tyler’s personal account of working with Frankenthaler is forthcoming.

 

Behind the scenes: Tyler collection rehang

Because of their sensitivity to light, works on paper displays are changed more frequently than paintings or sculptures. This is great for regular visitors to the National Gallery, as it means added opportunity to see the breadth of the Tyler collection. For an idea of what is involved in changing a gallery display, this month we’re taking a behind-the-scenes tour of an International Prints rehang.

Rehanging a gallery is more complex than you might imagine and involves the coordination of many different departments. At least three months before a rehang takes place, curators decide what to display and negotiations with conservation, mount-cutting and framing staff as to how best exhibit and protect the works begin. We looked at this process in last month’s entry here. The Exhibition Design Department is consulted and sometimes a mock-up of the wall is created. Exhibition designers are also responsible for creating labels and wall texts when required.

As the date of the rehang approaches the Exhibitions Department liaise with registration staff to coordinate the movement of artwork between galleries and storage spaces. On the day of the rehang security staff block public access to areas where work is to be carried out, and the installations team prepare their equipment. Curatorial staff are on hand to layout the works and conservation staff are present to condition check the art as it comes off display.

In mid-November we installed Tyler collection works in the Pop and Contemporary International Art galleries. You can see what happened that day in the photo series below.

1. The gallery space is cordoned off from the public and the installations team bring their equipment in on trolleys.

2. Coming off display in the Pop gallery were Jasper John’s Color numeral series and two prints by David Hockney, to be replaced by Johns’ Black numeral series and Hockney’s Wind  and Snow from the Weather series. Going up in the Contemporary gallery were Spoleto circle and Balance by Richard Serra.

3. When laying out or removing works from the wall, the installations crew use blocks: framed works are never placed directly onto the ground, instead felt covered blocks are used to cushion any impact.

4. Works waiting to be hung are brought to the space by registration staff in A-frame trolleys. These trolleys will then be filled with works coming off display for return to storage

5. The conservation team inspect each work thoroughly to ensure that it is clean and bug-free before returning to storage. In the highly unlikely event that a bug has made it into the gallery space and onto an artwork, ensuring that it doesn’t then travel to art storage areas is essential.

6.Installations staff calculate where to insert hanging devices.

7. Curatorial staff observe the proceedings and advise where to position works. Despite careful planning, sometimes  proposed layouts change when the works are brought to the gallery space. This was the case here, when only two of the intended four Richard Serra works were hung.

8. The final hang. Make sure you come in and see these works in the flesh before they change again!

   

 

 

Frank Stella awarded the ISC’s ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’

 

Last month Frank Stella was awarded the International Sculpture Center’s (ISC) Lifetime Achievement Award at a gala event in New York City. Established in 1991, the award recognises artists whose sculptural practice has made ‘exemplary contributions to the field of sculpture’ and who are considered ‘masters of sculptural processes and techniques’.

Stella and Ken Tyler share a collaborative working history that spans three decades and countless innovative projects across an astounding range of media. Tyler was invited by ISC to give a lecture at the presentation of Stella’s award and the transcript of this is published below.[1]

Ten years ago, I had the privilege of speaking at Frank’s National Arts Club Awards ceremony and remember a comment the master of ceremonies, Phil Leider made: ‘Frank Stella is the best all around artist the United States has produced.’

Having worked with Frank since 1967 I fully agree with Phil, and would add that Frank is also one of the  most challenging and thoughtful artists to collaborate with. More than any of the other artists that I have worked with, he has helped shape the direction of my printmaking and publishing. Frank’s work has also widened my views on mixed-media and multidimensional art, and even architecture, site planning, and the intermingling of all of the above. Even since my retirement in 2002 from printing and publishing, he continues to form my understanding of art with his sculptures and continual innovations and insights.

Our working relationship began in Los Angelesin the 1960s with my Buster Keaton style attempts to get Frank interested in printmaking. I need not bore you tonight with the story of the tusche-in-the-pen.[2]

Although it took some time, once he fell in love with the print medium, I tried my best to keep up with him in his enthusiasm and rapid flow of ideas. It was like having a racetrack-fast approach, which I muse about as the ‘Stella Formula 1 Express’. The accelerating momentum as a project developed was energizing: as Grand Prix goes, working with Franks is ‘The Grandest’, most especially because after a race is done, the achievement remains like fuel for another. Each project I have done with Frank has propelled the next.

My collaborations with Frank spanned 35 years and has resulted in nearly 400 editions of prints, multiples, monotypes and monoprints created in myCaliforniaandNew Yorkworkshops. We also made: original tapestries in France and Australia; editions of silk scarves in Italy and Korea; editions of ceramic plates in Korea; experimental dress designs in Hong Kong; transfer of his graph paper design to a model for BMW’s 1976 Le Mans race car; prototype paper pop-up sculpture with a leading paper engineer in Chicago; engraving designs for his ‘smoke ring’ images by Tumba Bruk in Sweden; and numerous paper maquettes and honeycomb metal panels for his reliefs made in Arizona and Connecticut.

My first venture outside the workshop with Frank took place shortly after we completed our first print together – Star of Persia,1967 – a lithograph printed with metallic inks. Frank wanted to complete his copper painting series during this time in California with an immense 41 foot-wide painting, titled Sangre de Christo. I arranged for him to make this painting in a friend’s four-car garage and worked with Imperial Ink Co. in Los Angeles to devil up a metallic copper ink that he could easily brush onto canvas.

Then, in the early 1970s, I introduced Frank to Tomkins Tooling, a pattern maker that the workshop was using to make wood multiples. Soon after, a selection of Frank’s Polish Village Reliefs were reproduced as wood reliefs by Tomkins Tooling, including five small maquettes. These maquettes became the models for the Paper Pulp Reliefs that were made in 1974, shortly after I left my workshop inLos Angeles to set up a new shop in Bedford, New York. The Polish Village Reliefs project became a template and springboard for our future work together.

Having completed a successful handmade paper project with Robert Rauschenberg in Ambert, France in 1973, I wanted to continue working with handmade paper and build a facility to do so in my new workshop. Restless to begin a paper project with Frank, I decided to work with John Koller at his papermaking studio in upstate Connecticut. Koller’s shop used Frank’s wood maquettes from his Polish Village series to construct wire mesh patterns that were sewed together, forming 3D relief moulds. These moulds were dipped into a vat of paper pulp, creating sculptural papers in relief. Frank liked our first trials in this medium and agreed to make his Polish Village series in editions of paper pulp. A combination of limited variant editions with hand-coloring gave Frank the opportunity to paint each paper relief impression in paper pulp while they were still wet and newly formed. After the reliefs were dried, he then further painted them in his New York City studio.

     

From these first paper reliefs we moved on to collaborate on larger and more complicated paper forms in my new, expanded workshop and paper mill in Mount Kisco, New York. We worked with the Tallix foundry to make experimental relief castings in different metals from the Polish Village Reliefs. This project, though, was abandoned. Nine years later, in 1983, we worked again with the foundry to create bronze elements for Frank’s Playskool Series comprised of nine metal wall relief editions, that he uniquely colored with patinas, paints and inks. In 1996, we ventured once more into relief, this time using molds in a vacuum machine to form large circular reliefs 4.5 feet in diameter in both paper and plastic, which Frank individually painted in his studio.

Working on projects outside my workshop with Frank usually originated from our ‘how to’ discussions and my volunteering to explore feasible alternatives for the answers to his questions. Having had a rather chequered background in a variety of manufacturing pursuits helped me to design and build equipment for the workshop and aided in my multiple making projects. Helping Frank solve some of his technical issues was a welcome addition to my workshop activity and created a symbiotic relationship between us.

By the late 70s I had become involved with the construction of Frank’s etched metal relief sculptures. We continued our printmaking, pushing the limits of what a print could be, until we were creating very large, colourful and complicated mixed media works that were often three dimensional. These defied traditional categorization, bringing into the mix sculpture, and always painting, which is unavoidable since painting infuses nearly everything Frank does – layer upon layer and brushstroke after brushstroke. The workshop adopted the practice of team printing and often all of the staff was employed to build a Stella print in ever-increasing size and complexity. The largest is The Fountain, 1992, a mural work in an edition of 8 that measures 7.5 by 23 feet. It is a masterful 67 color woodcut, etching, aquatint, relief, screenprint, drypoint, collage, print hand-colored on three sheets of handmade paper that took fifteen printers a year and half to make. For this project I had a custom made 500 ton hydraulic press with a printing bed size of 92 x 130 inches constructed.

I was always willing to invest time and money in bigger and more ambitious artist projects, as was Frank. Together, over the years, we drove our accountants crazy. Our projects blurred the boundaries of what works of art on printed and unprinted paper could be and that, for me, justified the cost.

Large scale is not always better, but neither of us fell for simplistic maxims. We followed our instincts and let our boundless appetites for size keep a healthy and hearty fire in the belly. Like racehorses, we chomp at the bit, charging at full gallop as soon as we hear the starting bell. Just look at the oversize presses and papers I made and Frank’s huge paintings, sculptures and collages. Our question was never ‘how big’, it was ‘how to make it happen’, and Frank would add ‘how soon can it be created and worked on?’

Discovering new materials, processes and techniques was a constant activity for the workshop, which we shared with Frank. Not every discovery materialized into a project, but quite a few were definite winners. One was the unexpected result we got from wiping etching ink onto a shard of etched magnesium from one of Frank’s honeycomb relief panels being constructed at Swan Engraving Company[3], and printing it onto a sheet of handmade paper at the workshop. Impressed with the bold, graphic stamped look that this trial produced, Frank started to search for more fragments which he collaged together to produce the powerful black and white Swan Engravings series in the early 80s, a series that propelled Frank into prominence in contemporary printmaking.

Along with the serendipitous find, Frank found a discarded plywood backing board from the milling machine that was used for routing out his relief shaped honeycomb panels. The board had all of the marks from the router cutting through the panels and into the wood, making what Frank exclaimed, ‘was a marvelous drawing reminiscent of a Pollock painting.’ Ferrari-esque speedlines winding with spontaneity….that he could not have better planned.

It was a Eureka moment!

That board, printed in ink onto a newly made sheet of colored handmade paper, became the beginning of the Circuits series. The 16 prints in this series took three years to complete. Meanwhile, we held Swan Engraving hostage until we had every backing board used for Frank’s sculpture series in our workshop.

               

When I first introduced Frank to Swan Engraving in 1974 to help him with etching one of his aluminium reliefs, I had no idea that the etched magnesium plates made at Swan that we were using as printing elements in the workshop would be the same metal and etching technique that Frank would adopt for the surfaces of his honeycomb reliefs. By 1980, I was assisting Frank with setting up a fabricating studio at Swan Engraving for making honeycomb panels with magnesium etched surfaces and routing and assembling the panel parts for his Exotic Bird Relief Series. I also participated in acquiring from Hexcel Corp. in Arizona the honeycomb metal used in the making of panels. This involvement led me to inventing an archival paper panel patented as ‘Tycore’ that was first used to make scaled models of Frank’s reliefs and later as a substrate to print his editions of large 5 by 7 foot hand colored screenprints.

We spent a lot of time at the Swan Engraving studio in Bridgeport, racing each other down Connecticut’s winding Merritt Parkway, from and to my Bedford, New York shop. Needless to say, Frank had a faster car and was better at racing then I was, so I was always late to work.

It wasn’t very long before Frank observed at the workshop that an inked magnesium plate could be also the unpainted surface on one of his relief sculptures. So my etchers started to travel to the Bridgeport studio with their inks, rollers and supplies and also to Franks 13th street studio in New York. One of my etchers, Rodney Konopaki, was fond of saying that he had wiped the largest etching plate, referring to the relief panels for Frank’s marvelous sculpture titled Loomings (3X), 1986. By this stage, Frank no longer spoke about his printmaking as a ‘hobby’ as he once remarked in the 60s. He was now joyfully using printmaking processes in his own sculptures to great effect.

As Plato said, ‘Because we’re the playthings of the Gods, playing is our most serious activity.’ Frank and I certainly had our share of fun and excitement in the many projects we were involved with.

One of my observations about collaborating with Frank is that he is all about making his art and getting the creative task at hand completed as quickly as possible –  all his inspiration in high-gear – and then spending countless hours revising and working on the details. Of course, in a workshop environment this can be difficult, since most processes and techniques are labor intensive and time consuming. Over the years Frank got somewhat used to this and adapted less impetuous behavior, but not entirely without occasional colorful outbursts amid clouds of cigar smoke.

I found Frank, at times, to be keenly interested in new technology. Once introduced to new ideas, he could quickly single out what he wanted to use. Then, when he became impatient with the time it would take to select and use the parts of it that he liked, he would reach out for outside expertise. This ability to add new materials and techniques to his art is of great value for Frank, as well as an expensive one. I have always admired him for his willingness to invest – to bet the farm so to speak – on his art making.

Frank has always been a generous collaborator, giving praise whenever a task was well done. He also shared his enthusiasm for techniques with other artists. For example, when Frank invited his friend Anthony Caro (who at the time was working at my workshop) to the foundry where he was working to show him the sand castings made with molten lead in a giant sand box that he was using in his large sculptures. Frank urged Tony to try his hand at making some trial studies in the sand, but Tony wasn’t ready right then to use the sand casting technique. I’m sure that observing Frank’s ambitious sand drawings with assemblage in the large foundry sand boxes for the first time was a bit intimidating. I believe that, given enough time, Tony too would have been in the sand box playing. As Tony and I left the foundry that day, Frank was with his two dogs, encouraging them to leave their paw prints in the sand along with his own marks.

    

Frank works at seeing, and also at not seeing what he’s not interested in. His focus is on the form he is making, not the process that makes it. He delegates the process part to you to engineer while he finds ways to proceed in making his art. Everyone therefore has a vested interest in the outcome. It’s a set-up from the beginning and one you don’t want to fail at, so you put forth a lot of effort in doing your part in the collaboration. The success rate for working with a diverse group of tradesmen in making large-scale sculpture can be slim, especially if you can’t motivate and communicate your ideas. I have always marveled at Frank’s style of collaboration: it runs the gauntlet of saying very little with some body language and occasional quips of humor, to giving a dissertation on the subject or task at hand.

Joan Mitchell commented to me in 1992 – when Tyler Graphics was having a Mitchell/Stella print exhibition at our gallery – that I enjoyed collaborating with Frank because he was a hands-on guy like me who liked ‘stuff.’ ‘Stuff’ for Joan was technology and machines, the very things she did not indulge in. And here we have part of the answer as to why some collaborations are more complicated than others – involvement with ‘stuff’.

Observing Frank working in various shops and studios since the 70s, I have seen him embrace new ways to make his sculptural work: from aerospace honeycomb panels in metal and fiber, formed metal, poured metal and sand casting, to 3D additive technology for forming shapes from computer designs. He uses his handmade elements like bent tubing and fiber sheets, along with new materials and techniques, to produce exciting abstract forms, painted and unpainted. The new forms always have the ‘Stella look’, no matter how many state-of-the-art materials or technologies are used. It is of no surprise that he is adding advanced three dimensional printing from digital designs to create his new sculptures, since he has been adding new ‘stuff’ to his sculptures for some time.

This is one of the dichotomies that strikes me: Frank is an artist who states he has no interest in technology; and yet he seeks out and uses new resources and an often futuristic know-how. He definitely shows a natural affinity for the cutting-edge.

He also has a keen eye and a gift for educating. For example, on the Colbert Report on television last year, Frank made a brief guest appearance in an art skit involving a photo portrait of Colbert, worked on by his other guest artists. When Colbert asked Frank if he thought the revised portrait was ‘art’ he replied, ‘if you want to look for art, you can find it’ and then he disappeared. Poof! Like Houdini…..

This is, I think, the serendipitous and open-minded way Frank finds many of his images. With a Melville-like appreciation of high and low, squalid and pristine, silly and serious, it is no wonder that ‘stuff’ from so many sources makes Stella’s studio a place for alchemy. A rusted hulk of steel, the left over armature of a foundry casting, or tourist’s Brazilian twisty beach hat, can become a sculpture with profound grace and impact.

We can only speculate, given more resources and materials to discover, how much further Frank will push his art. We are fortunate to have this titan, uninterrupted in his lifelong art-making endeavors, always surprising us with his intellect, dynamism and invention.

Congratulations Frank on your well earned award this evening.

For more information on the art of Frank Stella and his collaborations with Ken Tyler, visit the Kenneth Tyler Printmaking Collection website: http://tinyurl.com/44z7lnd.


[1]  http://tinyurl.com/5syylfj The ISC’s website lists criteria for the award and past winners.

[2]Tyler is referring here to the way in which he managed to convince Stella to start making prints. When first approached by Tyler with the idea of making lithographs, Stella refused, saying he couldn’t work by drawing with tusche as he only drew with felt-tipped pens.Tyler took this as a challenge and disguised lithographic tusche as ink in a marker pen, thus beginning their 35 years of collaboration.

[3] Swan Engraving Company is located in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and specialises in metalwork. Stella and Tyler worked extensively with the company during the creation of several of Stella’s print series.

Joan Mitchell: the blueness of blue

Ken Tyler:  The title ‘Blueness of Blue’ is not intended to suggest that Joan’s work was all about blue. Color and, in particular, the color blue was often discussed in great detail during my printmaking collaborations with Joan. I’m using blue as a metaphor for her thoughts about art.

 Her studies of Matisse, van Gogh, Cézanne and Monet (although she denied being influenced by Monet on many occasions but mentioned his use of blue often) led to a mastery of color unparalleled by her contemporaries. I never worked with anyone since Albers that had such a keen knowledge of color and how colors interacted with each other. Joan’s works are about the colors in life as she observed and recorded them in paint, pastel and ink.

She made her first prints at Oxbrow in Michigan in 1943 and for the next 38 years occasionally worked in lithography, etching and screenprinting. I first became familiar with her prints while working with Tallace Ting in 1964. He had just completed a portfolio of litho prints by 12 artists in Paris, one of whom was Joan. Working with Ting, Sam Francis, Paul Brach and Mini Shapero during the 60s at Tamarind Lithography Workshop in Los Angeles, I heard many stories about Joan and how her impious language could often be as colorful as her paintings.

I was most fortunate to have worked on printmaking projects with Joan in 1981 in my Bedford, New York and 1991-92 in my Mount Kisco, New York workshops. She still had that flamboyance. I found her to be a very bright, charming and lovable person, with a good sense of humor. When she wasn’t being charming and sweet waxing about poetry, jazz or art, she could take on the role of a tough-talking, hard-drinking soldier type with an irreverent tongue. She was very fond of using the ‘f’ word in all its tenses, usually preceded by ‘mother’. For the most part this was an endearing expression, most likely a hangover from her ‘Cedar Bar’ drinking days with the abstract painters, such as Willem de Kooning and Franz Kline, whom she would affectionately refer to as ‘the boys’.

 

We had a lot in common, our midwest background and studies at the Art Institute of Chicago and our many mutual art world friends and acquaintances. During the eleven years that I knew Joan, I visited her at her home and studio in Vetheuil, France and in Paris. I am happy to say that our friendship was very rewarding and I learned a great deal about her life, her art and her ideas about painting. What she practiced in painting as an ‘additive painter’ she also practiced in printmaking.

She was fond of saying, ‘Get on with it’, urging you to move on with the conversation or task at hand and that is exactly what she did in her life and work. However, there were also moments when she would choose to linger and extrapolate. She had little patience for anyone analysing or offering suggestions about her work. Joan had a very endearing grin along with her dog-like smirk and sometimes snarl that warned people she took no prisoners. There were times when she was very amusing with descriptive comments like, ‘Don’t give me any of your gooey guck colors’ or ‘You’re my Indiana overachiever’.

I had the privilege of chauffeuring Joan at high speed in a wheelchair on a private tour of the Matisse Retrospective Exhibition at MoMA on October 16, 1992, stopping often at every painting she adored. It was the day after our family doctor in Mount Kisco, New York, diagnosed her as having terminal lung cancer. That day was a difficult one for her, but she managed to articulate on every picture of interest and singled out some with dominant blue passages explaining the unique qualities that excited her. ‘Paul Cézanne said that “Blue gives other colors their vibration”, and I think that blue is one of the most f—— beautiful colors’ – this sort of dialogue went on throughout our visit. Her understanding of art history and the craft of painting was formidable. For me this was a day to remember and I have often reflected on it.

Joan returned to Vetheuil, France, shortly after our museum visit and passed away on October 30, 1992, at the age of 67.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 504 other followers

%d bloggers like this: