"He looked around and saw how much of the political economy of New Mexico and Arizona was based on tourism and images of American Indians," Smith says. "He felt that there was a degree of exploitation in that. He didn't want to be a party to it."
But Scholder changed his mind when he realized the images of Indians that were being done were idealized stereotypes. No one was portraying Indians as they were in the 1960s.
His decision to do so was controversial. "To show Indians in the 20th century, to show Indians in a car, to show an Indian drinking a can of beer," says Smith, "all of that was subject matter that was off limits until Scholder and his colleagues (at the Institute of American Indian Arts) began to change how Indians were represented."
His style also caused a stir. Scholder used bold, pop-art colors like orange, hot pink, purple and lime green, and expressionistic brush strokes. "He painted Indians with green faces. He painted Indians distorted. It may seem tame now, but at the time that was really startling," Smith says.
Welcoming controversy
Scholder welcomed the response his art provoked. "I'm interested in someone reacting to the work and I don't much care if they react negatively or positively, as long as they react," Scholder said in a 1975 documentary about his work.
He was proud that one art dealer said "Scholder has single-handedly destroyed Indian painting," taking the comment as a compliment.
Art dealers eventually warmed to his work, and he became quite popular with collectors.
But his decision to show modern Indians grappling with personal demons--a drunken Indian staggering down a sidewalk for example--was not widely embraced.
"Most Indians at the time hated it at first, and many still do," says curator Paul Chaat Smith, who adds his own mother "still hates Scholder's work and wouldn't come to the show except that I was curating it."
For more on the subject, see Scholder's Con Game and "Fritz Scholder: Indian/Not Indian."
Below: Monster Indian, 1968. Oil on canvas. 18 x 20 inches. Collection of Loren and Anne Kieve.
Scholder once commented how he had to etch the word "Indian" into a painting in order for people to recognize the image he was presenting. I suspect he needed to reach back to the "accessories" in order to transition us to recognizing the modern Native ourselves.I find it interesting that despite comments of Scholder breaking rules when discusing his work we are still only seeing images of Indians that reflect "Indian" costume and accessories.
ReplyDeleteFor more of a scope try this
http://www.fritzscholderpaintings.com/downloads/img/fritz-scholder-man-in-blue.jpg
or this site
http://www.nativepeoples.com/article/articles/127/1/Fritz-Scholder-A-Lust-for-Life/Page1.html
(of course those accessories still sneak in, but often in a more abstract way. Your work is your work, your theme your theme..something an artist can never fully disconnect from -lol)
Art Does Imitate Life After All
ReplyDeleteSo, Scholder ended up basically aping his oppressors while denying his folly to the end.
I audited a course in contemporary Indian art in college many moons ago (North Dakota State University) where his work was highly, almost maniacally, praised by the instructor (who was not himself a painter as he only had three fingers on each hand).
I thought then (and still do) that a specially trained simian of the higher order, perhaps a mature bonobo, could have been given a dollar store pack of Chinese-made water colors, an old canvas and in an hour or two could have created something that rivaled or even surpassed most of Scholder's "acclaimed" work.
Ugh, why do people who know nothing about abstract expressionism insist on giving their 1/2 cent opinions on it?
ReplyDeleteAnd making an obvious statement like, "If it were painted in another more realistic style..." is well, obvious. Obvious that you are not an admirerer of abstract art, which is fine but to make a statement like that Rob makes you look like you are merely wanting to make a caveat to a post you didn't write on your own blog. Really? What was the point? I thought your blog was more intelligent than that? I can understand stating you don't like his style, but to then suggest that a man four years dead may have obtained your positive assurances had he painted in a style you could appreciate is just unnecessary.
For a more nuanced look at Scholder's work please visit NAICA online which will have a new edition coming out by the end o the week (week of great changes, you know the one). The curator Paul Caat Smith gives an eloquent and insightful review of the dual exhibitions on view in D.C. and the NYC.
How in the world do you know what I know about abstract expressionism, Maria? I don't recall discussing my artistic background with you.
ReplyDeleteI didn't express any opinions other than saying what I liked or didn't like. I don't need any particular expertise to do that.
You think it was obvious that "I'm not crazy about Scholder's garish, impressionistic style" before I said so? What exactly made this opinion so "obvious"?
Quote the line or lines that convinced you I didn't like Scholder's style. I'm betting you can't, which means my position wasn't obvious until I said it.
Your worthless comment amounts to, "How dare you say you don't like a great painter's work?" Which is also obvious for its blind, uncritical support of Scholder.