I am plowing my way through the biography ‘De Kooning, an American master’ by Mark Stevens and Annalyn Swan.

THE QUESTION OF 'AMERICAN ART' - 'EUROPEAN ART'

I am not a nationalist even though I think something of a 'Western Style' exists. This style is linked to our thoughts about life and the inventions made. I don’t admire Rembrandt especially because of him being Dutch or Goya Spanish. Their place of birth, their education is only partly important. The real weight of their art comes from something that overrules their national identity.

The United States are not very far away from Europe in the way people there look at life. So the hocus pocus needed to show the birth of the ‘new American style’ makes the book weak. The writers want to prove something a priori, look for facts that show instead of taking a step back and not care. I take that step back, it is from which side you want to approach the arts.

Besides, there is no American way of making art that is independent of the European or basicly different. It is just another interpretation of the same old stuff. As the European art was a slightly different interpretation of Egyptian and Middle Eastern art.

De Kooning leaned heavily on Picasso, Mirò and Cézanne (if not even on Europen masters much further back). He did so wisely. Art is communication and if you speak a totally new language no one can understand you.

American art, should that not find its roots in the arts of the real Americans, the Indians? I would have preferred if these painters would have found their inspiration there. No word about Indians in the book and I am half way… 

ART FOLLOWS THE MONEY

In the beginning of the Twentieth century rich Americans lived in Paris spending their money on exotic European artists. Then two wars broke out and they went back home. So in the fifties there were loads of money spent on art in New York. Of course, if you spend money, at a certain point you like to spend it on a compatriot more than on an arrogant stranger…

De Kooning was only a compatriot because he was married to Elaine. 

GOSSIP

The book amuses me because of the attempt to show the master in a more sympathetic light. It walks the thin line between facts and gossip. Famous names have to pop up to give all a bigger weight… but reading between the lines… and was he such a nice guy?

It leaves me cold. The best and most famous example is Caravaggio of course, a painter by me always named when this motive shows up (and let's not forget Ribera!). The idea that a genius has to be a good person is ridiculous. I would have changed pavement if I had seen Caravaggio walking towards me. De Kooning… oh well… 

EXCAVATION

I used to be a big admirer of De Kooning’s work. It has all faded a bit but still there are works that I am deeply fond of. One of them is ‘Excavation’. De Kooning painted it around 1950.

I love this painting. It has to do with the ultimate suggestion. You feel the presence of real life forms but they never become concrete.

If ever I will try to paint abstract again, I will use this painting as inspiration, better, I will steal as much as possible.

(But I don’t belief in the contradiction abstract-figurative. In other texts I have talked about this. It is an argument over which maybe my grandfather would have broken his head. The ones who still do that now are old cows).

RIPOLL

At first ‘Excavation’ reminded me of the amazing Roman church façade of Ripoll, Spain. I wrote about this façade before but cannot find where. The magic of this sculpture is the perfect balance between volume and void, form and counter form. It dazzled me when I saw it.

But is there void in ‘Excavation’? The more I look at it, the more I feel claustrophobic. All is filled out. It represents the Manhattan way of life. Living there I lost myself in the constant vibration of the city. It ruled over me as this painting does.

BECKMANN

There are these black outlines. Beckmann comes to mind. And Beckmann referred to Roman and Gothic art (see blog by clicking on this grey Beckmann word) 

LIFE GOES ON

Where did De Kooning go from ‘Excavation’? In the biography the writers say that he didn’t want to stand still. What I see is the reintroduction of the Woman. And with that of course the form and counter form, volume and void.

I Wonder. In almost all the paintings of Women I know she is seen frontal and tits are huge. In many paintings you see an upside W, she has opened her legs… quite a statement.

What to do with your penis When you paint abstract?

THE BANAL, THE MACHO AND THE HIGH ART

What happens to me is that once I see these W’s and tits, I start seeing them everywhere. And if they are not there, I search for them. This refers to a wonderful tendency.

In Barcelona I had two cats. When I had put my shoes in an unfamiliar place, seeing them from the corner of my eyes my first thought always was that I thought seeing a cat there.

This is a characteristic painters should play with. Here it brings frontal nudity and high art together.

In this day and age, with METOO and the liberated woman it might be a bit risky, but in those days artists were still ‘tough guys’.

Naughty Willy, what an artist! See the video about LOVE beloW.

July 13, Utrecht.