Evidences Of Pretension And Perversion

PRETENSION AND PERVERSION (Paul Brach)

tm. ©

2007

by Paul Henrickson, © 2006 The Smithsonian Archives of American Art hold testimony, in many cases, enunciated by the subjects themselves stimulated and orchestrated by an interviewer. The few that I have seen have been informally structured and do give a somewhat enriched image of the subject beyond what a printed biographical report might have done. They are, actually, very helpful in “fleshing out” the subject and, unintentionally, perhaps, offering some uncostumed and unaccustomed views of the subject. These, theoretically, will be available to the casual as well as the serious researcher for future study. It is in that spirit that I have compiled the following observations: There were several absolutely accurate observations made by Paul Brach in the interview conducted by Barry Schwartz. Among them I would include the following: “I went through a forty-year old crisis maybe a few years later than forty, the result was an arduous, and painful and expensive psychoanalytic period, and a decision to accept that I was a very good teacher and to realize that the life I was leading in New York was very destructive. “I think that most of the children in America are sensorily (sic) deprived whether they be in the ghettos or in Beverly Hills and their education deprives them.” But, perhaps, of all Brach’s statements it is his statement in regard to social protest on the administration of world affairs that I find most heart-warmingly filled with Christian forgiveness in regard to his role as the victim of a Jew-centered universe wherein he seems honestly to give expression to the conflict produced by the eminently successful culture coup wherein the culturally productive environment of which he seems aware is populated by Jews. That conflict I would describe as an innate recognition of and distrust of the results of the misleading implications of a cultural universe where in the overwhelming majority of approved practitioners are Jews, effectively only Jews. Since this is the universe he recognizes and the one to which he makes his appeal how are we to understand the expressions of his dissatisfaction with the way his work has been received? If one were to tally the names of the people whom he mentions as having been influential, of having been instrumental or meaningfully productive and finds barely 10% of them are not Jews. The percent of Jews in the general population is far less, very much far less, than 90%. But who counts such things? I have come across this rather odd social phenomenon where so-called “minorities” feel their contributions to the larger society are unappreciated before, most notably among the northern New Mexican Hispanic. But then, a goodly percentage of these Hispanics are those who came from inquisitional Spain. The law authorizing the formation of that program was passed by the Cortez

within two days of Columbus’s departure, It is thought that the majority of the seamen on that journey were those escaping the Inquisition. It cannot be viewed that Schwartz interview, only by chance, reflects Brach’s racial prejudice because the interviewer, himself, was, perhaps, also, Jewish. Perhaps that possibility reflects Brach’s greater degree of comfort with Jews than with non-Jews. From my own experience with him in La Jolla where I had gone for a scheduled interview I witnessed the inhumanity and socially destructive nature of his universe, so I was moved by the fact in Schwartz interview he acknowledged that. I was there, waiting to be summoned for the interview, standing somewhat to the side of a circle of admiring art faculty. These faulty members had assembled, it appeared, to discuss the one member of the faculty who was not Jewish, a native Scotsman, who still painted in a 19th century Courbet-centered realism…a very much different approach to the function and purposes of art than what Brach’s work embodies. As fate would have it, the subject of their collective disdain walked in, immediately recognized the situation for what it was, and left without comment, but revealing how pissed he actually was. It was not unlike the time Jose Carreras left a rehearsal of “West Side Story” after Leonard Bernstein amusingly sang a love phrase from the score and directed it toward Carreras who left, as only a Catalan can leave, purple with rage at the insult to his masculinity. After a significant period of time, twenty-five to thirty minutes waiting to have my existence recognized, I too left, never having been recognized, never greeted, never asked to be patient, and from Brach’s point of view I had probably never appeared for the interview... I had a similar experience at I Tatti, Bernard Berenson’s home in Florence when, by invitation, I was there with two others, one Freedman, an art historian and Friedberg, an ornithologist. When during a break in the visit we all took a short walk in the garden I asked Freedman, the art historian, if he knew a friend of mine, also an art historian, Marian Ragan, attending the University of which he was a faculty member. His response was a determined, a flatly determined, “She doesn’t exist”. I made no response, but privately wondered where this man had been raised, educated and/or experienced whatever, that would account for such an inappropriate response. After a moment he modified the statement to add “…that is, I do not know her” I still ignored him and did not recognize his correction, fearful that, probably, in my vocal tone, I would reveal more than my disapproval. This idea that only Jews exist and the only value is a Jewish value had been frequently enough pointed out by those who have commented on Semitic behavior and statements which, at times, do appear to be most curiously out of place.

These actions seem to suggest a degree of insecurity and an innately functioning sense of inferiority, based, I suspect, on a misunderstanding of others’ intentional purposes. The function of most civil behavior is, I would suppose, to accomplish a mutually beneficial purpose preferably without the presence of occult influences or hidden motivations.. Going to the table with the idea of getting more from the negotiation than the other fellow is an unacceptable notion. It brings with it the inappropriate attitude of competition, which is the approach on the field of battle, where the purpose, at the table, is to find a solution…a reasonable solution. In this instance, I had simply inquired after someone we both may have known and was puzzled by this fatal response ..”she doesn’t exist”. . It might be considered that in a civilized community and in an academic institution one’s existence is not determined by one’s ethnicity, but it seems in Brach’s world, where I ceased to exist, and in Freedman’s world in which my existence had already been recognized by Berenson, I existed only in so far as I did not mention anyone who was not Jewish. The two somewhat disagreeable episodes mentioned above seem to have some inverted reference to what Brach has called an absence of feed back to his creative efforts. When he uses the, I hope, unlikely example of Alan Ginsberg “becoming the Library of Congress” it also seems to contain the germ of a hope, the seed of an expectation that the kingdom may indeed be on the verge of arriving. For non-Jews this expectation might be seen as the mirror image of Goya’s “The Sleep of Reason” but with a reverse negative twist in which we hear the promises of Cinderella’s fairy Godmother whispering the advantages of certain deceitful behaviors “because some people may not be looking very closely , everyone knows the formula and expects everyone to follow it, someone may not be watching and they might make a mistake, so be ready”. .”.

In the Schwartz interview it seemed somehow silently implied that Paul Brach felt himself to be less an artist than teacher, “a very good teacher” to use Paul’s words. While I read this description of the results of Paul’s psychoanalytical experiences I kept wondering whether the analyst had simply reassured Paul that it was permissible to accept the easier alternative to being recognized universally as a genius. The acclaim of the universe has certainly been a part of Brach’s ambition, and probably still is, despite its improbability since Israel will have to wipe Islam off the face off the earth before that happens.. Politics being one thing the relationship between artistic value and popular acclaim is something else. There was at one time a collector in Minneapolis who once a George Braque painting had left her collection it no longer had any value whatever and she dismissed it. A teacher, however, must have something to teach. In the absence of anything to teach the individual is not a teacher. If Paul did not understand where in the art universe is work stood what was it he was actually teaching? In a couple of places in the Schwartz interview Paul indicates that his work had not changed. It is hard to imagine there being no changes, hopefully developmental ones, in the work of a creative artist. It appears, however, that Paul does have something to teach and that is in the realm of attitude.

Attitude is essential in being a successful illusionist and the rewards for his success in that arena can, by his own admission, be seen in a Mercedes, Porsche and a house in the Hamptons. The question remains, however, are these rewards related to his creative graphic offerings or his ability as a slight o’ hander? It is in such places throughout the interview Paul reveals that he actually knows his value as a painter and seems to be saying that he wishes he didn’t. When Marcel Duchamp gave up painting to play chess he knew very well what the reasons were. Duchamp gave up the effort because he was no longer able to continue performing in an area he no longer found philosophically defensible. Cezanne persevered through nearly 80 decades, patiently refining and redefining, some concept he was focused upon. Brach’s concern is nearly only and entirely with the monetary symbols of success and none of these have anything to do with art. Why is this so?, because the buying public knows very little and seems not to care to know more about art, except, of course, for what it symbolizes and for that they will pay hundreds of millions. There does seem to be a correlation between monetary success and aesthetic development but it remains debatable whether the correlation is positive or negative. I suspect that correlation between the true value in a work of art and its assigned monetary value is probably a negative one and that the only statistically positive correlation between a work of art and its assigned monetary value lies in its usefulness as a symbol, not unlike the historical value of the Canaanite woman who assisted in the fall of Jericho’s walls whose value lay in her having invited in the Jewish spies not in her whoring. The Biblical account seems not to indicate ulterior motives in the invitation, but it is not illogical to wonder what a Canaanite prostitute might have had in mind when inviting Jewish soldiers into her rooms. It is competition that underscores most of Paul’s remarks regarding a measure of artistic greatness. Alternative points of view are not discussed, recognized or accepted, like the non-Jew they “do not exist”. When Paul Shapiro another aspiring Jewish painter expressed the idea that he would become Santa Fe, New Mexico’s best known painter while another painter in the room would simply be known as someone’s landlord. I had no response to the proposition since it was clear that Shapiro’s mindset was some where else. I had no response because the only competition I feel exists, properly exists that is, is the competition with oneself. Advancing the parameters of one’s own vision is adventurous enough for anyone to attempt. Somewhat like Paul Brach when he tells the story of a fellow, Goldenson by name, then head of ABC (American Broadcasting Company?) I would also have felt that the idea of selecting the ten best painters in the world to have been incredibly putz-like. Shapiro should have known better than to have expressed himself that way because he was a painter, but he obviously didn’t have the mentality of a painter…only that of a bourgeois business man or those who conduct competitions, award prizes one, two and three, and place announcements in local newspapers.

The tragedy, I think, that describes Paul Brach and Miriam Shapiro, his wife, as well, is that their major efforts seem to be going into convincing the rest of the world of their worth and if a related feedback from that effort is not forth coming Paul feels the need to consult a psychoanalyst who, apparently does little more than to legitimize Paul’s understanding of his mediocrity…although that word probably could not have been used to describe the situation for it would have uncovered the essentially negative view most psychiatrists seem to have of people’s motivations. One look at Paul’s creative efforts and the limitations of his graphic interests, abilities, and accomplishments should be sufficient even for the novice observer to arrive at a justifiable conclusion. By their fruit shall you know them. The aesthetic diet offered by Paul Brach’s work would have been, for most students I have known, a starvation diet. Brach’s statements about his own work and the nature of the work of those others he says he admires prompted me to review what images are presently available to me in order to place his work, somehow, in context. There is something disturbing about this approach as logical consistency is not among most artists’ strong points, but, then, it must be remembered that most often what it is an artist is trying to say may not have had the words invented yet to say it. That places him at a distinct disadvantage in most instances. The only time when I saw a philosophically educated participant in a discussion of aesthetics bettered by an artist was when Allen Shields joined Larry Rivers in Iowa some where. Rivers humiliated Shields merely because the disciplined and relatively polite language of the academy was overwhelmed by the lingo of the regazzi. The hep street talk is theatrically much more entertaining than the measured cadence of a philosopher and Rivers was clearly playing to the gallery. Bach is aware of this sort of relationship even if on an ever much simpler level when he referenced his own New York City snobbishness in contrast to the parochial and fringed efforts in other places like San Diego and even Los Angeles. He calls his own attitude “snobbish” which it is at its most elemental since it is without nobility. Had he possessed a keener understanding of the reasons he sought psychiatric advice in the first place he might have come to the conclusion that New York has no reason to be snobbish in the most common understanding of the term, but concerned that, and in this he was correct, it is a destructive life style. Art eschews destructive attitudes, even while it often describes them, and celebrates or illustrates disagreeable and exceptional aspects of life. Bach complains that universities do not provide the ambiance for creative artists. For the most part I agree with him, but he seems to think that this is their obligation. While I fully agree that it is beneficial for the liberally educated person to become familiar with the interests, needs and behavior of creative personalities, the obligation to find an appropriate place in which to work is that of the artist himself. The average college administrator, indeed, even the most unusually perceptive one, hardly knows what a creative artists needs by way of an ambiance, let alone able to provide it. Just ask the spouse of any artist and you’ll get, perhaps, a surprising response. Consequently I find Brach’s comment fatuous.

It is a consistent disappointment in this interview to realize that the dominant focus for Brach is the relationship of the artist with his patronizing public and their joint relationship to the larger economic picture which might make it possible for the artist to live off the sale of his work. This highly commonplace view, intensely bourgeois as it is, seems itself to be a form of .theatrical of oxymoronism. .. a marionette morality play where the words are swords and the armor paper. Statements such as “I was never rich enough or famous enough” and “I was part of the art establishment, there was no doubt about that” and finally, “that wasn’t what I wanted the world to reward me for” all suggest quite strongly that he had never become independent. There was no word about aesthetics , except that one rather oblique reference regarding the education of the senses; there was no word about those who bought his work understanding his work. In fact, I do not believe he references anyone understanding his work at all. By an illustration of “understanding” let me reference something I witnessed. A Frenchman of about 50 years see a group of paintings I had done as a result of a visit to Wales said.”When I first saw them I didn’t like them. I had been looking at all your others and then came across these and they were so different I thought them offensive. Later, when I saw them again, I saw one that seemed had Cezanne continued to paint he might have painted it.” Now, this is not only a high compliment to me, depending on your view of Cezanne, it is also an example of a perceptive mind at work. For it to be said at all means that the speaker had to know Cezanne, had to have an idea of what Cezanne was after and, even more importantly, had to be able to apply that kind of visual understanding to the work of someone else.

Recently an art dealer in the U.K. made the comment that since the artist is an unknown in London the work might find a buyer and “may get a little money at auction on a decorative basis”. …. That comment may show an understanding of the market in terms of the level of aesthetic taste but it also is a clear admission that the public at large is visually illiterate.

The Austrian painter Gustave Klimpt has been known, by some, as “a decorator”. I find the term, as it is usually used and understood, to be pejorative. In the case of the London dealer one would have to know more about the London dealer, how he thought, and in what environment he functioned. If one is concerned about the education of the senses, which seems a proper concern for those involved in the arts any degree of creative production is going to involve some invention in the area of aesthetic innovation. Studies about the economic situation or complaints about the absence of academic amenities in the working environment are inappropriate except for the economist and the psychologist. The only proper concern for a visual artist is what stands before his eyes. Energy spent in any other way is irrelevant. But Paul seems unable, or unwilling, to explain, or otherwise demonstrate, the nature of the artistic vision of which he would like to have the reader believe he is a primary exponent. If the artist is doing his job there probably will be fewer and fewer people who will understand his work until some of them have made an effort, as observers, to expand the parameters of their vision. This, sometimes, is a mere matter of shifting a visual focus. Although not physically demanding it does require a determined mental effort. In Paul Brach’s case and that of Miriam Shapiro as well, their contributions to the development of visual sophistication reaches a level no greater than that of a competent craftsman, falling somewhat short of an adequate pastiche maker, but even some competent craftsmen sometimes have moments of vision. This Smithsonian interview reads as though it were a shaped public relations presentation, a television advertisement designed to focus the observer’s attention on other than vital and essential points worthy of preservation in a nation’s repository of national thought. Paul Brach’s alleged intimate associations with a range of various talents, intended to give the reader the impression that Brach is a practitioner of advanced thought and creative production have not made the final touchdown in the game.

What is truly regrettable is that a very minor character and pretentious personality has ever been in a position to shape the future of a major educational institution. Those, whoever they may have been, who made it possible for Brach and Shapiro to function at a major educational institution, in a highly affluent community in one of the world’s most attractive climates must share in the responsibility for having deprived the students in attendance at the time of having come into contact with a more genuinely creative personality, but such is the nature of the administrations of most educational institutions. The type of personality that seems to dominate the administrations of many educational institutions simply do not understand and are apprehensive of the creative personality. Following are examples of works that Brach admits to his pantheon:

Josef Albers

|Larry Bell

Carl Anders

Paul Brach

Rauschenberg

Rauschenberg

Joan Mitchell

Larry Rivers

Larry Rivers

Miriam Shapiro

Miriam Shapiro

Judy Cohen Chicago

Robert Motherwell

There are many victims in the above scenario, not least of whom would be Paul Brach himself. The image of a potentially intelligent and possibly creative individual being so sucked in to the maelstrom of conventional ethnic myth is a frightening one. To see a six year-old so involved in the iconic reality on the movie screen that he looses bodily control is not only temporarily disagreeable it is a matter of grave concern for the parent who sees his child slipping into another dimension. Likewise the implications of placing a highly subjective and unredeemable egocentric in a position to effect major changes in people’s lives is at best questionable, yet, on the other hand exposure to the Paul Bach zeitgeist could very well be enriching if one were mature enough to evaluate the experience. This is what I have seen happening to Paul Brach, who, even in this interview can be seen struggling with a reality consciousness that insists on revealing itself to him from time to time, but which, so far had been unsuccessful in maintaining any victory over the

processes of wish fulfillment. He has a great deal of company and it is this collection of beings, together with their erstwhile supporters, who have blurred the edges of perception and created a deceptive image one characterized more by mesmeristic principles than by valid perception. Paul is not alone in this imbalance, however, Miriam Shapiro’s interview for the Smithsonian contained a similar focus on academic politics and social pretension (Miriam drove a Mercedes and Paul a Porsche) whereas had she been, as Paul described her, one of the best women painters in the country one night have expected some notable references to the meaning of her work beyond the clichés. The illustrations I have included here should illustrate the point. If nichy identifications must be used the work of Miriam Shapiro is much closer to the primitive of Grandma Moses than anything approaching Willem deKooning . Being labeled “one of the best” invites comparisons which never seem to arrive at an acceptable conclusion as to why someone may be “better” than another someone. Talking about similarities and or differences between artists produces a much more acceptable comprehension of value. To have identified Miriam’s work in this way is academically sinful, yet I can readily see some half educated social aspirant quoting as a knowledgeable source from this Schwartz interview. And so the myth gets promulgated, goes to seed like some dandelion and gets spread about. I would suppose that all creative people would like very much to have an appreciative audience, to be more exact, an intelligently appreciative audience. The sadness in this instance, according to the information Paul had provided us, is that the evidences of material reward are there for what Paul is not and this is part of the illusion and its success alone speaks volumes for the health of our system.

.