Saturday, June 9, 2012

Nixon In China - John Adams


Nixon in China

by Lloyd Knowles on Saturday, June 9, 2012 at 8:44pm ·From a newspaper interview with John Adams on his opera "Nixon in China". Great stuff:

John Adams on first -- and perhaps favorite -- opera, 'Nixon in China'

By Richard Scheinin
rscheinin@mercurynews.com
Posted:   06/07/2012 03:00:00 PM PDT
Updated:   06/08/2012 03:18:30 PM PDT








Nixon in China
U.S. President Richard Nixon (Brian Mulligan), left, meets Chinese Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Simon O'Neill) in a scene from the San Francisco Opera production of John Adams' "Nixon in China," Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at the War Memorial Opera House in San Francisco. (D. Ross Cameron/Staff)
It's been 25 years since John Adams' "Nixon in China" premiered at Houston Grand Opera, invigorating the operatic world. Inspired by President Richard M. Nixon's historic visit to Beijing in 1972, it was Adams' first opera, and it's one he still holds dear. In "Hallelujah Junction," his autobiography, Adams writes that "Nixon" contains "moments that are among my favorites of all the music I've ever composed."
Friday at War Memorial Opera House, "Nixon in China" opens in a production from San Francisco Opera, the company's first staging of what many consider to be an Adams masterwork. Last month, while the Berkeley-based composer spent some time at his cabin in the north woods of Sonoma, I phoned him to discuss the

opera. For the next hour, while watering his tomato patch and tossing a tennis ball to his dog, a pointer named Eloise, Adams waxed about "Nixon in China."
Q John, reams have been written about "Nixon in China" over the years. In your mind, what's it all about?
A I was drawn to it first of all because I think the presidency and politics is really very much at the core of American consciousness. It's certainly been brought home to us in a very rude and plain way that you can't miss during these recent GOP debates, and it will be more evident as this election year rolls around.
And I think there's drama and enormous potential for philosophical reflection, like Shakespeare found in
Advertisement

the stories of the English kings. Of course, you have to do it in this day and age with a certain amount of irony because presidential politics is itself an exercise in irony... what with all the flip-flopping and various candidates trying to conceal skeletons in their closets.
Q Is "Nixon in China" an exercise in irony?
A I didn't start out saying, "This happens to be ironic." He always was a complicated figure, and he never was a likeable figure; I don't think even the people who voted for him particularly liked him. But there was this strange brew of poignancy and sentimentality, and a capacity for truly malevolent behavior -- the enemies list and the horrible things that were on those tapes about blacks and Jews, pretty awful things.
He was a wonderful topic for a composer. We, as dramatic composers, want our characters to be complex, and we don't want them to be all good or all bad. We want them to have the capacity to be noble, as well as wicked and paranoid and ridiculous.
But the problem, in terms of production, is that "Nixon in China" is an incredibly difficult opera to stage, because it lives right on the cusp between satire and the maudlin on the one hand,

and something that's quite visionary and, I think, quite genuinely and uniquely American.
And I think the danger in staging it is to demean the characters; Nixon is so easily ridiculed. You're old enough to remember those late night comedians after Watergate. You remember Rich Little, holding out the peace sign. That's what everyone expected, that it would be more of a cartoon.
And a lot of the initial reviews had a certain puzzlement. I remember the Village Voice saying, "What's the big idea of treating Pat Nixon, the most vacuous person who ever inhabited the White House, as a serious person?"
Q After 25 years, do you think people's responses, generally, have changed?
A I think Nixon now has a better place in people's minds, given how politics has evolved in the 40 years since he visited China. Remember that Nixon used wage and price controls, and he created the National Endowment for the Arts. A lot of the things he did -- if Barack Obama tried to do them now, he would be called a Communist.
I wouldn't have been interested in writing this opera if I couldn't find Nixon's humanity. I just found a photo torn from a newspaper after the death of his wife Pat, and he's crying, and he has a handkerchief up to his nose, and it's an incredibly touching picture. You're just reminded that this was a man who did have a heart, and he was capable of vision and humanity at the same time that he had a really dark and manipulative side.
Q Let's get back to what the opera is about.
A Nixon meeting Mao represented a collision of the two competing visions of how one might live one's life in a societal framework: Nixon representing the market economy and capitalism, all the things that we hear about all the time now; unfettered, unregulated freedom to make one's fortune; and on the other hand, Mao representing communism and socialism, where in its best form, in its most idealistic form, no one goes hungry and everyone gets a chance in life -- and of course all the problems that come with that -- tyranny and control and violence.
Q Pat Nixon and Madam Mao are both terrific characters in the opera. Will you talk about them?
A Pat Nixon is the ideal stand-by-your-man Republican wife, the role of the woman as always standing in the background, but representing core values. Again we saw that very much on display in the recent (primary) campaign, whenever you saw Newt Gingrich or Romney with their spouses. And anyone who ever steps out of the background, as Hillary Clinton did, gets severely criticized.
Q But in a lot of ways, Pat Nixon is such a touching figure in the opera.
A When Pat has her moment, she thinks about homeland, American values and Norman Rockwell images. And the poetry that (librettist) Alice Goodman gave her in Act II is really wonderful poetry. Alice managed to summon up these images that are routinely abused by advertising and political slogans, images of sitting around the living room table. Alice did it in a way that's so absolutely sincere and from the heart; when Pat's singing, you're really able to appreciate those values.
Q What about Madame Mao?
A She was in her younger years a kind of frustrated artist -- in fact a movie actress -- but she gave that up in search of power, at which she became extremely adept. She was Machiavellian, a terrifying behind-the-throne power, a killer. It makes you almost think of the frustrated painter that the young Adolf Hitler was. At the same time, I felt there was always something very erotic about her.
Q The libretto works with that idea, too.
A You know, I conducted "Nixon" at the Met last year, and in many ways really became re-acquainted with it. And I just love the libretto. I love every moment in it. I can't believe there are still people who complain about it being arch or dense or incomprehensible. I think it's just fantastic. Alice caught the tone of the Chinese and the official Communist utterances. She caught the Middle-American tone of the U.S. politicians.
Q How did the music strike you, when you went back and conducted it?
A I was surprised by how minimalist the music is. When I started opening the score again, I hadn't really looked at it or conducted it in 10 or 15 years -- and compared to what I now do, I was shocked by all those bald arpeggios, bar after bar! It's a kind of writing I would never do now. It's not a pure stylistic trope the way early Philip Glass is -- or the way late Philip Glass continues to be, for that matter. (Just two months ago I conducted Philip's Ninth Symphony with the L.A. Philharmonic and was reminded how closely he has adhered to his minimalist technique.) But in 1985 I definitely was influenced and had a great debt to (Glass's opera) "Satyagraha," which I think is a masterpiece.
But I also mixed many other things in it: American swing-band music and Glenn Miller, and when the Air Force One lands on the runway, it does so to a kind of pompous newsreel music with brass fanfares and burbling woodwinds. When the Nixons are hosted by the Chinese at a performance of a Communist ballet in the second act, the music I composed was a sort of satire of the terrible scores these ballets are set to. Because the music to these Cultural Revolution ballets were often written by committees of composers, I wrote something that would sound equally stylistically confusing. So I had some fun with that, writing a ballet that, in the same confused manner as those ballets, sounds like everything and the kitchen sink-- from marching music, to tawdry Romantic swooning to graphic bump and grind.
Q You've written that "Nixon in China" contains some of your very favorite moments out of all the music you've composed. Will you name one favorite moment?
A I still love the "News" aria, the idea of this president coming off the plane, and while he's still shaking hands with all these dignitaries, he's looking straight in the camera and saying, "Look how great I am -- I'm like an Apollo astronaut, landing on the moon."
Q Are you surprised by the opera's lasting power?
A I never would have imagined it. I guess it's the most produced American opera, at least of its size. There's also Mark Adamo's "Little Women." And with "Nixon in China," at one point this spring, there was a production in Kansas City and one in Portland, Ore., and one in Paris. You can see the Paris production online, at the Châtelet, a very sparse stage set.
Q You also wrote in "Hallelujah Junction" that you faced a steep learning curve, while composing the opera.
A I didn't know what I was doing in a lot of ways. I knew (Wagner's) "Tristan..." and the Mozart operas and (Debussy's) "Pelleas...," but I'm not an opera-goer, in general. And Alice Goodman had never done anything of this size. But luckily we had (director) Peter Sellars, who was then maybe 30, and he was already very, very experienced and skilled in opera, because he'd done the three Mozart-Da Ponte operas. And he was famous for those; they were very provocative and deeply thought and felt works.
Peter had a kind of innate dramaturgical sense. You know, a lot of operas are created these days by people -- composers, librettists and directors -- none of whom have a refined sense of the theater. And if you look at a career like Verdis's or Puccini's, you can see how it takes a long time to gain that knowledge and experience; these guys wrote dozens of operas before they got it right.... So I was very very lucky to be able to work from the start with Peter, because I'm sure I couldn't otherwise have created something with the staying power of "Nixon in China" without his extraordinary theatrical genius to guide me.
Some recent productions I've seen of "Nixon" have borrowed Peter's overall design and action, but they make cartoons out of Nixon, Kissinger and Mao and miss completely not only the subtlety of the characterization implicit in Alice Goodman's libretto, but also fail to find the delicate balance between the work's humor and its historical and philosophical sweep.
And now we've done "The Gospel According to the Other Mary" (which opened last month in Los Angeles). It's my seventh collaboration with Peter, after 30 years. And all of them get (performed). "The Death of Klinghoffer" had two different productions this year. "A Flowering Tree" is getting done in Atlanta, and even "I Was Looking at the Ceiling," which was sort of moribund for a while, is starting to get performed.
Q You've told me in the past that you don't consider yourself an all-out opera guy.
A I will say this: The bar is so low on the theatrical aspect of opera that I just can't bear to go to the opera most of the time, because what happens on stage is so terrible. Opera companies hire people who specialize in coming into a city and slapping something together really quickly, and you have the big-name star who can only be there for a designated length of time, and the budget is this and that.... When you think of the astonishing productions and imaginative things happening in theater these days, and then you look at what passes for opera....
And when you look at the season of most of the opera houses, I would say that 50 percent of the operas don't interest me. I'm not particularly a fan of "Madama Butterfly." I kind of like "Traviata" once in a while. But they recycle these things over and over, because they're like "The Lion King"; they pay the bill.
I love Wagner. I'll even sit through a bad production of Wagner, because the music is so wonderful.
Q I'm guessing you're a history buff. Your operas have taken on these big historical themes.
A I'm drawn to opera, because it is such a large canvas, and I think that themes deep in the psyche of a nation can be addressed in a way that no other art form can quite do it. Maybe a really long novel can do it, or a film by a really great filmmaker, like Coppola was in his "Godfather" period.
The thing about opera is that the mixture of poetry and really good music and imaginative scenery -- you take those very potent art forms and you mix them together. And if it's done well, which is rarely, it has the potential of raising the imaginative realm to a very high level. And history has that in it; that was the point with "Doctor Atomic" (Adams' opera, which debuted at San Francisco Opera in 2005). Whether I got it right or not, that story was one of the great stories of 20th-century American history. You had this genius (J. Robert Oppenheimer), one of the great intellectuals of American history, making this death machine....
These are big topics. Who wouldn't be drawn to them?
Q What's next?
A My radar is out. I'm almost embarrassed to say how hard I'm looking. I feel it's what I do best.
Q You mean, writing operas?
A Yes. I enjoy writing symphonic works and string quartets, but I really do feel, if people are going to remember me for anything, it's likely to be for these works. And I really would like to continue this, but I'm just -- you'd be amazed how much I read, looking for the right subject. You know "Doctor Atomic" was suggested by (former San Francisco Opera general director) Pamela Rosenberg, and the moment I heard the idea, I knew it was right. And Peter (Sellars) suggested "Nixon in China."
Q So what have you been reading in your hunt for another opera subject?
A I read this 800- or 900-page book by Tony Judt, "Postwar," a pretty amazing book. And then the huge breakup between Sartre and Camus caught my attention for a while.... And I've been drawn to Arthur Koestler and more lately to Marcel Reich-Ranicki, a Holocaust survivor who became a hugely influential literary critic in Germany. And just the other day, I was listening to a New York Times podcast, and they were interviewing Robert Caro, who wrote his new volume of the Lyndon Johnson biography, and I went, "Hmmm."
I've been looking for about five years. Of course, "The Gospel According to the Other Mary" is virtually an opera, in that it mixes the Passion story with writings by Dorothy Day, the mid-20th-century Catholic socialist.
Q Let's circle back to Nixon. Was there an expectation that he might attend a performance of "Nixon in China" when it first opened?
A Well, here we were, with this opera about all these people who were still alive. And I remember the BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music) production in Brooklyn (in 1987). For all six or seven performances, Harvey Lichtenstein, BAM's director, had a special section in the balcony roped off, because he never gave up hope that Nixon would come -- which would've been a real publicity coup. I knew it never was going to happen.
Q Did Nixon watch it on PBS, at least?
A I remember once being on the radio with Nixon's White House attorney. What was his name? Leonard Garment. He was on the board of BAM, and he was a big music guy. I guess he'd been a jazz sax player, and somebody asked him, "Well, did Nixon at least watch it when it was on 'Great Performances'?" And he said, "Of course, he did! He watched and read everything that was written and performed about him." This was in the days before you Googled yourself.
Q In any event, you didn't particularly want Nixon and Kissinger in the balcony?
A I was relieved that they never came to a performance. Because my Nixon was a kind of presidential everyman. And I think it probably would've skewed the impression people had of the opera toward it being a personality thing; whereas I was really trying to create a mythic archetype -- which I hope I did.
I think it would have turned it into too much of a media event and taken away from the art.
Q What do you think "Nixon in China" set in motion? People cite it as among the first of the "CNN operas," driven by contemporary news events. There's been a wave of them, straight through to "Heart of a Soldier" last year at San Francisco Opera, about 9-11.
A If we set anything in motion, it was the idea that opera could be about our lives, and it could address very, very large issues of what one might call our collective experience, whether it's the atomic bomb or terrorism or the clash between political ideologies.
Q Any new projects on the horizon?
A First, I'm going to spend some time with "Absolute Jest" (his work for symphony orchestra and string quartet, inspired by motifs from Beethoven and recently premiered by the San Francisco Symphony). I'll work on it this summer, because the string quartet is such a kind of hyper-active and electric medium to work with, and then you add orchestra to it. I think some people might have been exhausted by it. Maybe it needs a little air. I'm going to think it out a bit.
Also, for years, I've loved some recordings from the '60s, for sax and orchestra, particularly this great album by Stan Getz called "Focus." And there's this terrific saxophonist, Tim McAllister, who had a big part in my piece "City Noir." I thought how cool it would be to give him a whole piece. So I'll work this summer on "Absolute Jest," and then I'll do that.
Q Your first saxophone concerto?

A Why not?

Friday, June 8, 2012

A letter to My Father


Dad: Wish you were here, you are missed. You left us far to young at 56; and that was 47 years ago. The things you missed. Mind you, I'm aware that you are in a far better place and haven't had to deal with many of life's hard turns. You had enough of them yourself.
You lost 2 sons to illness when they were small; you didn't get to meet eight of your12 grandchildren - and they would have been blessed by knowing you. So far you have 24 great grand children and your legacy has a way to grow yet. My older sister is watching over Mom. Mom is in her mid 90's and undoubtedly will be joining you before too long. She has many stories to tell.
As a music teacher you blessed the lives of hundreds! Your family legacy in music continues to grow. Most of your grandchildren have musical talent. One taught himself the piano and is now composing. Many others play at least one instrument, including your G. Grandchildren. My youngest son plays a multitude of instruments and teaching music is one of his choices for college. Other than music, the arts in general have flourished. Among your family are artists, actors, photographers as well as other arts. I'm sure you are proud!
As your only son, I had done my best (what I can) to maintain your legacy. I haven't gotten all things right. I've been blessed with nine amazing children. I still have a lot of memories of my youth; the things we've done together and the lessons I learned. The camping trips; Yellowstone and most of the West Coast. The fishing trips where you showed me that they can be caught - unfortunately, my sons haven't had the same experience as I would swear that fish can see me coming and stay away. You taught me the joy and power in the music of Beethoven, Rimsky-Korsakov, Holst and so many others. Today I can't create my art without the creative influence of music. I remember the great times in the pep band at the games - we thought we were the show!
Most important: you gave me the Priesthood of God; and it has been passed on as many my sons have served missions; became Eagle Scouts - and especially many are now great fathers in their own right. Your daughter and great granddaughters are strong and faithful as well. They are teaching their children much as they have been taught.
Not all men have influenced so many; and I'm not the only one who misses you.
Thank you, Dad!


Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Ignorance is not bliss..

"I never understood the concept of basically being ignored
when entering an art gallery. It serves absolutely no purpose.”
~ James Bacchi
 

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Friends in Overalls

"I have friends in overalls whose friendship I would not swap for the favor of the kings of the world." Thomas Alva Edison

This may seem odd for an artist to quote since the overalls typically don't have the ability to invest in art. That also seems to be odd as it might imply that I wouldn't want to be friends of my clients - not so. At least, depending on the client - not so. I would love to have friends who appreciate and collect art.

I believe this quote is meaningful due to my career as an architect. Not only were most of my clients not likely to be friends - some are - but, even though they were spending millions on a building they almost always wanted to cut corners on the design. The design, the one characteristic that gave their efforts greater long term value. Also a very small percentage of the budget. They were the ones most likely to also want to cut professional fees, even if it meant just disappearing when final payment was due. These are not they with whom you would seek friendship.

School of Business and
Economics. Weber State U

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Food for Thought - What is selling in art...

On the Linked In group Museums and Galleries the question was posted "Is anyone selling art out there". Great question as from most artist's point of view the answer would be no. At least at a price point that you could live on. I have to admit that I am working from the limited perspective of an artist working in central Utah, and haven't been seen outside of the state yet. 
One, actually in two parts, posting by an artist out of Phoenix, AZ by the name of Kevin Geary gave cause to pause and consider:

"Do the work you love. You'll go nuts trying to do work you hate doing, just to make money. 

Secondly, in this market, it's difficult to sell work to the middle (that's true almost anywhere). Today, works will sell under 500 (dollars, euros, pounds) but anything between 500 and 50,000 is a hard sell. And the 500-5,000 market is largely dead. It's actually just as easy to sell a work for $50,000+ as it is to sell one for $5,000. The people who can afford $50,000 will buy, because they perceive such a price as the bottom rung of "investment level art". in other words, the very rich are buying, but the middle classes are not. The trick is to find, cultivate and find the rich who are buying, and have the courage to ask a high price (when your rent's due and you can't put food on the table or pay your bills!) But the sad truth is that people with a lot of money understand a high price and prefer it. If you say to a very wealthy person, this is $5,000, he or she will either say "I can't afford it!" (they can, but they think it's not worth buying at such a low price) or else they'll ask you to lower the price, or offer you 50% of the asking price. Ask for 50,000 or 100,000 with a straight face and the rich person will feel that a) you value yourself and your art, and b) they consider that the price is worth it! Years ago, a friend who was very wealthy told me that it was easier to get people to write a check for $1,000,000 for a fundraiser for a museum than to ask for $100,000. She said that $1,000,000 seemed like a serious request, but at $100,000 all her rich friends would claim that they didn't have the money, because of the 'stock market' or the "economy". She was adamant that high prices are respected by the wealthy but low prices are considered unworthy. This is true in almost all luxury goods markets (art is a luxury, after all).No-one would buy a Rolls Royce for a Toyota price. They'd think something was wrong with it. That's what we, as artists, have to recognise in this economy (it was the same in the Great Depression) and during the First World War when prices were "depressed". Of course you have to be able to connect with very wealthy people, but that's a whole different story.... Sell really cheap, (like .99 cents downloadable images or songs or "apps" or sell for under 500, or sell for tens or hundreds of thousands. Ther'e no happy "middle ground" anymore in this world or economy.

However, having said that, the sad fact is that all the "middle" people (people who used to buy art for between $1,000-$10,000)have essentially disappeared from the market. I know, because I used to do portrait commissions for years (very successfully, too), but the people (doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc), who used to have no problem spending $5000 -10,000 for portrait commissions of their families simply no longer have the disposable income (or feel they don't). So, one can sell small works for small sums, either through galleries or yourself, but you won't make a great living. 

A long time ago I saw Aristotle Onassis being interviewed. He said there were three secrets to success. Follow them, and you'd be successful. Fail to follow them and you'd fail. The three secrets were these: 
ONE: When you move to a city, get yourself an address in the best part of town, even if it's the size of a "broom cupboard".So, when people ask where you live and you give them your address they immediately think you're successful because of "where you live" 
TWO: Find out where all the rich and powerful people go for lunch or dinner. There's always one place where the rich and powerful go. Go there every day and even if you sit at the bar and can only afford one glass of wine, do so. The rich and powerful will see you every day, and get curious or want to know you. Then they'll come up and start to say hello and you then make useful connections, That will be the kind you need when you want to sell, get support or borrow from to start your venture. 
THREE: When you borrow money (from a bank, or an investor) ALWAYS ask for THREE times more than you need! The reason is that nearly everyone underestimates what they need when starting a business, and no-one will give you all that you need, but they will offer you half or maybe two-thirds of what you ask for. That will ensure that you have enough to get through the inevitable problems of the first year of business. 

I would add one other thing. A great friend of mine (now deceased) who was a hugely successful artist in the UK but came over to the US, especially Texas, regularly and secured art commissions for insanely expensive prices back in the 1970s and early 80s, told me that "Americans will never buy from you if you're cheap, and they'll always rise to a challenge!" He used to tell curious rich people who asked him what he did, that he was far too busy to accept new work (even when he was broke). When they said that they were interested in commissioning a work regardless, he'd say "you can't afford it!" that made them so mad they'd say they could afford anything! He'd then hand them a folded paper with his prices and tell them that they should read it when they got back to the office and not to bother him unless they were serious and could call the number on the paper. Well, they always did. And he made so much money it was insane. But that takes a lot of guts to do. I cannot say I've done it, Although a couple of times when I have, it's been very successful. Strangely, this works with collectors who are billionaires and want to buy art from dealers like Gagosian. If you have millions you cannot just go in to Gagosian off the street and say you want to buy the Koons he has in the gallery. He will tell you it's not available! Then you have two alternatives; you either pay an art consulatnt who is known to Gagosian, who buys the work for you, and maybe after buying two or three, through the consulatant, you might be allowed to buy directly from the gallery; or, you go to Christie's or Sotheby's and bid on a work by Koons (along with all the other "refusnik" Russian billionaires at the auction) and drive up the price to crazy levels for the artist. Guess what? Gagosian is also at the sale, and maybe he approaches you afterwards and says, "Come round and see me. I may have something for you". It's all a big game!"

Wednesday, May 9, 2012


Of Other Artists

My intention is to not only showcase my own work, which I have so far neglected, but also that of other artists and composers.

This item is reblogged from Truffle Hunting - Fine Art Experiences of Quality and 

Resonance. 
By Mario M. Muller

Richard Diebenkorn, Iconoclast

May 4, 2012
Let’s cut to the chase. Richard Diebenkorn is an artist of supreme soulful significance. Any opportunity to submerge oneself in his luxuriating hues and intelligent compositions should be immediately embraced. 

Richard Diebenkorn Ocean Park #79, 1975 Oil on canvas 93 x 81 in. (236.2 x 205.7 cm) Philadelphia Museum of Art, Purchased with a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts and with funds contributed by private donors, 1977
©The Estate of Richard Diebenkorn Image courtesy the Philadelphia Museum of Art
My appreciation of Diebenkorn’s entire oeuvre is indisputable. Long before Gerhard Richter, he practiced a harmonious both/and paradigm between abstraction and interprative realism. He proved that geometric compositional distillation and expressive mark-making were symbiotic. This interdependence remains difficult for many to embrace. Briefly, and in non-sequential order, here are several musings on Diebenkorn.

Richard Diebenkorn Cigar Box Lid #4, 1976 Oil on wood 8 3/8 x 7 1/8 in. and Ocean Park #105, 1978 Oil and charcoal on canvas 100 1/8 x 93 1/8 in.
Scale. Diebenkorn is equally facile in small, medium and grand scale painting and drawing. The exhibit contains numerous examples of painted Cigar Box tops that carry the same heroic weight as their 100 by 93 inch counterparts. Gestures physically made with fingertips and wrist have the bravado as brushstrokes executed with elbow and shoulder. And conversely, large brushstrokes carry the same delicacy and nuance as their miniature cousins.
Intentionality. Diebenkorn exerts enormous control over every aesthetic decision. There are drips and stains and bleedthroughs but each seems intentional and executed to a greater purpose. This dialogue with accident and the painting’s trajectory of push and pull is inspiring to study in one painting let alone 75!

Richard Diebenkorn Ocean Park #43, 1971 Oil and charcoal on canvas 93 x 81 in. (236.2 x 205.7 cm) Collection of Gretchen and John Berggruen, San Francisco
©The Estate of Richard Diebenkorn Image courtesy the Estate of Richard Diebenkorn
Optical Pleasure. Dienbenkon’s color palette is unapologetically beautiful. Lush and vibrant, underpainting permeates every endeavor. This optical mixing of colors through layering and glazing techniques presents an art that is collaborative with every viewer’s optical capacity.
Light and Shadow. Figure and Ground. Line and Volume. These, and countless other polarities, are constantly dancing, switching and folding unto each other. Diebenkorn thusly acts as a choreographer and the picture plane is the proscenium stage on which this narrative boogie woogie reveals itself.