Paul Shapiro.the Real One

PAUL SHAPIRO……………..the real one THE καιρός for the LEGEND OF PAUL SHAPIRO

BEING AN AUTHORITY)

tm. © 2009

…..being the difference between magic and reality …..EXPOSITIONS AND REVELATIONS by Paul Henrickson. Ph.D. One of the things I have noticed about people obsessed by some matter or other is that when triggered they amost inevitably put into words the real meaning of which cannot be mistakened by the clear-minded, objective and perceptive observer. The criminal lets you know…he speaks his posession.Thus, Paul Shapiro annouced his challenge to me. Why Paul Shapiro had preceeded me to my appontment with Arlene Lewallen I do not know, but he had, and firmly seated at the table with Arlene made no sign to move when I, by prearrangement , sat in the third of four chairs around the table in the gallery of the Lewallen Contemporary. Arlene recognized my arrival, of course, but said absolutely nothing when Shapiro made the following anouncement and directed it to me. ” I (referring to himself) am gong to be Santa Fe’s best known painter, while you (that is, me) will be known only as Doris Cross’s landlord.” I will admit to some surprise and bewilderment at hearing this proclamation and wondered about its origin. I was, to be truthful, somewhat perplexed for, to begin with, I wasn’t absolutely sure, when I had walked into the room, that this was Paul Shapiro and when the statement’s probable meaning dawned on me I became thoroughly stunned by this undilutedly impolite behavior…rude without reservation. Arlene appeared disturbed and unable to say a word, which, I think, characteristic of some innate modesty; she was unable to take command. I, unwilling to assume the responsibilities of ruling in someon else’s domain, looked with disdain upon Shapiro and left without a word……..expecting a call from Arlene at some later time which never came. My only other and rather remote contact with Shapiro had been throuh the purchased office of Doris Cross who had suggested, in her quiet way, that I go see the exhibition of Shapiro then at Lewallens Contemporary before she had moved into Elain’e Horwitch’’s space. Doris had thought I might learn something. She did not tell me what and I had, I believe, mistakenly thought Doris thought his work might have some thing to teach me about mine. Now, in retrospect, it seems she had been operating as his agent for, at this time, I had been writing art critcisms.

Doris also did this for Harold Joe Waldrum, so again, in retrospect it seems a few artists sought my approval through Doris Cross….in some round about way. And it was this, which reminded me of Simon the magician’s approach to Peter, the fisherman. These seakers did not know that the only secrets they needed for a viable success lay within themselves. Yet, it seems, the greater part of professional success throughout the world is purchased, not won. The one answer I had for Paul at that time but did not say, and now, some thirty years later, will say, was that he might well become Santa Fe’s best known painter, but it would not be for the exellent genuiness of his work which, today, does exemplify the naked –emperor authority of a pasticher, that is, pasticcio one who, in

theatre, is a burlesque comedian, in the early American West, a snake oil salesman, in the early years of this Christian epoch, a Simon Magus, a magician able to fool the hoy polloi who, understandably do not see the evidence very clearly which made it possible for some to believe Magus was god and, in our day, that the work of Emile de Hory was a genuine Modigliani. Such is, regretably, despite the current popularity of being democratic, the nature of the”common” man. He is common. In Paul Shapiro’s case he does not present work that he says is someone elce’s he presents work that is basiclly fraudulent as it claims, which it does at least by implication, to be a work of creative genius where, in point of fact, it is merely a truly clever manipulation of pigment that resembles something genuine accomplished by another. On the matter of being genuine…regretably, at this point in time I have only the internet pages to provide me with the information I need, but, because it is the imagry, as opposed to textural claims, this may not really be a problem for if one analyzes the sequential development of the Shapiro approach one comes up with the notion that while he is truly effective with whatever he decides to do one can only lament that he hasn’t yet decided to be Paul Shapiro. On the other hand perhaps he is being the real, and the only, Paul Shapiro possible for him which is testing his technical abilities to mimic against the sense of realityof others. He may, in truth, exhibit himself in the only way he can as a mirror-like image of any one of a select group of others who are not the Paul Shapiro walking around Santa Fe. It is in this way Paul is Simon Magus who was stoned to death by the common man for being shown up as a fraud…one doesn’t fool Mother Nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp1mk9bdsdM Messalina & whore. The reader is free to make whatever association seems proper.

Now, a clarification as to the rich association with Doris Cross is required. It began when I and Rolf Koppel were both faculty at The University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls and he and I shared a large residence near the University.Some of the faculty at that tme were expressing disatisfaction with the then Head of the Department, Harry Guillaume. I had my own and separate dissatisfactions with Harry to which I had not given expression…preferring to work around them if possible. Ultimately, three new faculty members came into the scene Ken Lash fom the San Fancisco Art Institute who was unsympathetic to statistial evaluations of behavior and a fellow by the name of Ausprich who came in as Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts and Doris Cross who came as an “artist in residence”. Of the three it was only Doris, who actually had no academic qualifications whatever, who was the most successful as an educator. With Koppel’s encouragement she invited me to comment on her proposed new approach to image making. It was what turned into her dictionary column work. While I had been away for the summer she rented my then five bedroom victorian house on Seerley Blvd. for the summer and stayed there an extra two months after my return while she searched for another place to live. In return for my hospitality for providing board and room for those two months she gave me an 8”x8“ woolen weaving picturing the Lion of Judah. Within two weeks after moving to her new quarters she invited me for dinner. The dinner was a serving of steamed stringed beans and through her natural-to-her difficulty in expressing herself in a logical sequence of words tried to explain to me what it was she had in mind to do. I listened attentively but still left for home very perplexed. “What was that woman talking about?” It may briefly have occurred to me the rational for hiring anyone as a teacher so incapable of stringing together a meaningful phrase might properly be questioned, but I soon dismissed the thought accepting, instead, the obligation of an educator to listen, to carefully listen, to someone elce’s efforts…and to respect those efforts. The evening ended and I arrived the two blocks distance to my home much more at a loss than when I had left it a couple of hours earlier. But eventually, it all started to fall into place when Doris called herelf a “destructivist”. What Doris proposed was to recreate out of the destroyed dictionary column, any dictionary column, a new thing, a different kind of thing with a different kind of meaning. While, at the outset, this was certainly a revolutionary approach and I still did not understand why she was making it and I certainly had arrived at no conclusions as to how she had reached the decision to be a “destructivist”…she had not seemed to me to be a Rosa Luxemburg. There is yet another aspect of Paul Shapiro’s critical comment regarding his prohesized importance and my relationsip to Doris Cross. It must be noted that Shapiro made no comment on the worth of Doris Cross’s work alhough its importance was implied. It should also be noted that Doris chose to live in my house, under my roof in two widely separated places, Cedar Falls, Iowa and Santa Fe, New Mexico.It might be considered that beyond the space she rented there may have been other characteristics such as a tolerance for creative

exploration she rarely found elswhere, although, generally speaking, Doris made her own space.

DORIS CROSS

Five works by Doris Cross

Doris in conversation with a young Norwegian visitor.

Henrickson:

Portrait of Doris

At this point it is vital to recognize the role of environment in assisting the goals of the creative mind set which seeks an answer to a question. Also, it is important to recognize that there is a difference between the operations of the creative mind which seeks to find the yet unkown and the performance of a technically accomplished dentist. No one I know of questions Shapiro’s technical ability to do what he does. In fact, it seems he does a Marsden Hartley better than Hartley (this should indicate something) BUT, despite his having attended the School of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Massachusetts, can he draw? It should be noted that drawing well may not be an indication of being creative, for there is no indication I know of that Doris could draw at all. But then, she had Hans Hoffman as a teacher, however, what he taught her may have been attitude rather than how to translate three-dmensional structure onto a two-dimensional surface. In all fairness to Paul Shapiro it might be considered his basic fascination is precisely in determining how easily, or complexly the common man can be fooled. There must be something that stirred his mishievousness into calling the musical group he founded “The Hallucinations” .This attitude of using generally accepted cultural symbols in more flexible ways than those for which they had been intended is an attitude that is encouraged by the Talmud and in a mixed cultural society leaves the gentile at a disadvantage for he generally calls a spade a spade. No matter how remote it may appear, this attitude (that the public is ignorant) is fairly common among gallery directors, even in Santa Fe where at one time Forrest Fenn promoted an exhibit of the work of Elmyr De Hory, the well-known copyist. Forrest was honest enough (perhaps didn’t dare be otherwise) to advertse the exhibit as copies. Neverthless he seemed to believe that no-one, including myself, would be able to tell the difference between the real thing and a pastiche. So he tested me and I disappointed him. He was disillusioned and one could read on his face his amazement that anyone could recognize these differences, ergo, what some say is real MUST BE REAL! That which I do not recognize must, after all, be there.

It also follows that there are identifiable chacteristics that clue one into seeing that something is real. From that it follows as well, that if this information is transferable that something is amiss in our art education system since the majority of the people do not exhibit this talent. They miss out on an important part, an enjoyable part, of human awareness…something Bernard Berenson called “life enhancing”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxIvPJhzX2w magic revealed. This video seems to demonstrate some of the seductiveness of magic, the presentation of an alternaive reality, and, possibly how our analytical focus gets shifted in an effort to deceive us.

“Digging Those Wild and Crazy Abstractions at the Paul Shapiro Show” Even the accompanying text to this Paul Shapiro website seems to underscore some flippancy.

Five famous artists camping it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkY0bHeWmyY Mecouri impersonator Zaxaratos. What I find fascinating about this performance is that the fellow gives the illussion of his being Melina Mecouri from time to time so that, without the assist of costumes and makeup he really does look like her, sounds like her, moves like her. He produces an illusion.. This seems to me to be a rather special accomplishment. As for the approved portraits above I am frankly perplexed as to what they mean, that is, what is the origin of these extreme presentations of the self. I know that when such occassions occur with me the exaggeration, used as a red herring, is intended to keep my private requirements private. When I saw the work of Ann Craven there had been a quality about it that had reminded me of Paul Shapiro’s work. I was unable to explain it for there is little

obvious similarity about it until it finally dawned on me that what was lacking in both was that indispensble connection required between the creative urge, the material, and the vision, in short, what is it that breaths life into clay? It is, I think, focused intention.

By way of explanation this work by Ann Craven seems to offer more information about her and where possibly her mind is floating than Paul Shapiro’s offerings to the public which beg for their admiration and awe. I find in the Craven the same thoughtless obeisance paid to a current fad, a needless undersoring. through repetition, as I do in Shapiro where he seems to mark the passage of time in discrete periods of specialized involvment, e.g, Hartley landscape motivs (yesterday), floating maroon lozenges (today), gestural figuration (this afternoon), like the timed forty-five minutes study in math, writing, geography and music, with a break for P.E. which marks off the life of a middle school student. According to Charles Giuliano writing for a Boston publication Paul Shapiro compared the life of a true artist to the condemnation of Sisyphus who was compelled by the gods to roll a stone up hill and then to have it roll down again and he to repeat this effort for evermore. There are some interesting points to Shapiro having used this as a mythic analogy for the struggling of the “true artist”. The true artist often agonizes over how best to get a concept into form, that is, an idea into shaped material. That much is certainly true. But, it would be appropriate to be aware that Giulano is a reporter cum romantic novelist…not an art critic when he observes : Paul loves pushing buttons and pissing people off. In that sense Shapiro is a true artist. How I love him. What a mensch. The insertion of ethnic prasing should clue us in as to Giuliano’s understanding of his function as writer. Another side of this “pissing off” issue is effectively illustrated in this video clip : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybhS3G0ul3U In Shapro’s case he seems not to either suffer, struggle, lack success or be denied rewards, so on that measure Shapiro doesn’t satsify the requirement for being a true artist. However, if the theme of hallucinatory appearances continues it would

seem that Sisyphus’s condemnation as a result of his being hubristic and deceitful would certainly apply which reminds me of my opening statement that the criminal always lets you know what he has in mind. The myth also indicates that Sisyphus enjoyed deceiving people and it was for this reason we see him in Hell, but as cleverly deceitful as he was he even talked the Queen of that realm, Persephony, into letting him return to earth to scold his wife for not giving hm a proper burial…but he didn’t voluntarily return. I do not want to give the reader the impression that I am unappreciative of the talent to mimic. I am enchanted by the following video in part because the fellow produces the effect without the assist of costuming, makeup or props. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkY0bHeWmyY Mercouri impersoator Zaxaratos, but the difference is that he advertises himself as a mimic…of course, if he tried to pass himelf off as the real Melina Mercouri he might have some difficulty. Below are, on the left side some examples of Shapiro’s work. On the right are works by others which I find similar. There is nothing at all wrong in learning from what others have done and there is nothing “wrong” in having failed to successfully incorporate the learning into one’s own work…it is only a disappointment. …and Paul Shapiro is a disppointment.

.

The folowing are examples of where consistency of search and an aesthetc intelligence brings about creative results. The point being that Shapiro’s bouncing about from one adopted technical approach to another, more or less, in someone elce’s footsteps, has not yielded substantial aesthetic material, but in the following one does see evidence of form yielding to concept.

Edvard Munch: Munch’s whole life seemed characterized by loss either the loss of family members, or the loss of a secure national identity to say nothing of the searing pain of personal isolation.

Albert Pinkham Ryder: It occurs to me that, I brief, Ryder tried very successfully to bring together the darl theatrical emotional forces of human fate and that to the extent the strong dark and light conrasts, swirling or apprhensively expecting a sudden change in fortune he accomplshes the tak he set for himself.

Marsden Hartley giving ample evidence in the form of his works that regardless of the subject his concern is really for rough trade. Painting for Hartley seems to be a form of visual masturbation. This, for us, the observer should not be a matter of concern for our interest is in the objective view of the artist’s involvment not in the participation with him in the subject. And in Santa Fe itself there have been two who have shown this ability to join inspiration to substance. SAM SCOTT’s work lies till in the seminal stew of a potential becoming having a resistence to any one permanent formulation, rather a portrait of the forever energized and morphing nature of possibility….a chameleon.

STORM TOWNSEND’s work is mostly celebratory of the female principle and to have joy in one’s gender. I see in her a forming tenderness, more subjective Henry Moore.

.

. .