Cullinan Richards: A visit to the studio, 9 December 2022, Painting Fluid Thinking1 | Intellect Skip to content
1981
Helen Frankenthaler
  • ISSN: 2052-6695
  • E-ISSN: 2052-6709

Abstract

The long-term collaboration of Charlotte Cullinan and Jeanine Richards, originally predicated on painting, extends to its studio management; conceptions of work-sharing; design of formats of presentation and exhibition strategy. This raises a question of how far the conception of ‘a painting’ could hold in a context where paintings’ contiguity with boundaries and processes is already a debate arising from variables explored through shared production. The positioning of painting as ‘installation’ further destabilizes the discreet objecthood of a painting resolved within a solidifying frame. Taking up a conception of fluid materiality as a metaphor for this instability, reference is made to both painting and feminist philosophy: Helen Frankenthaler’s development of a painterly language of fluid applications and Luce Irigaray’s terminology of ‘fluidity’ as a physical and discursive interrelation, based in a double experience of feminine physiology. Frankenthaler’s fluid paint and Irigaray’s poetics of fluidity, devised to imagine a non-hierarchical discourse, are contemporaneous but may have no historic connection. The term ‘fluid’, drawn from both these sources, will be used to read an imaginative and purposeful resistance to idealizing the authority of formal explanations of painting present within Cullinan Richards’s practice.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jcp_00051_1
2023-11-10
2024-05-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ARCHIVE a Gathering (2022), St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex, September.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Belasco, Daniel ([2013] 2014), ‘See us now: The feminist positions of Helen Frankenthaler and Grace Hartigan, 1957–1962’, Konsthistorisk tidskrift (Journal of Art History), 83:2, pp. 6781, https://doi.org/10.1080/00233609.2013.860914.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brennan, Marcia (2004), ‘How formalism lost its body but kept its gender: Frankenthaler, Louis, and Noland in the sixities’, in Modernism’s Masculine Subjects: Matisse, the New York School and Post–Painterly Abstraction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 11651.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Elderfield, John (2013), ‘The pleasure of not knowing’, in Painted on 21st Street: Helen Frankenthaler from 1950 to 1959, New York: Gagosian Gallery and Abrams, pp. 910.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Faulkner, Joanne (2003), ‘Voices from the depths: Reading love in Luce Irigaray’s Marine Lover’, Diacritics, 33:1, Spring, pp. 8194.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gopnik, Adam (2021), ‘Helen Frankenthaler and the messy art of life’, The New Yorker, 5 April, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/helen-frankenthaler-and-the-messy-art-of-life. Accessed 2 October 2022.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Irigaray, Luce (1985a), ‘The mechanics of fluids’, in This Sex Which Is Not One (trans. C. Porter and C. Burke), New York: Cornell University Press, pp. 10618.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Irigaray, Luce (1985b), Speculum of the Other Woman (trans. G. C. Gill), New York: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Irigaray, Luce (1991a), ‘Veiled lips’, in Marine Lover of Friedrich Nietzsche (trans. G. C. Gill), New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 75120.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Irigaray, Luce (1991b), ‘Speaking of immemorial waters’, in Marine Lover of Friedrich Nietzsche (trans. G. C. Gill), New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 174.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Joselit, David (2009), ‘Painting beside itself’, October, 130, Fall, pp. 12534.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Key, Joan (2020), ‘Cullinan Richards: Painting, feminine, materiality’, https://cullinanrichards.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Cullinan-Richards_Being-Sassy_web.pdf. Accessed 27 January 2023.
  13. Lacan, Jacques (1977), ‘The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I’, in Écrits, A Selection (trans. A. Sheridan), London: Tavistock Publications, pp. 17.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lyotard, Jean-François (1994), ‘The sublime as a dynamical synthesis’, in W. Hamacher and D. E. Welbery (eds), Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime (trans. E. Rottenberg), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 12335.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Rosenberg, Harold (1986), ‘Kenneth Noland’, Art and Other Serious Matters, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Roth Pierpont, Claudia (2018), ‘How New York’s postwar female painters battled for recognition’, New Yorker, 1 October, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/08/how-new-yorks-postwar-female-painters-battled-for-recognition. Accessed 19 June 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Schumacher, Bett (2010), ‘The woman problem: Gender displacement in the art of Helen Frankenthaler’, Woman’s Art Journal, 31:2, pp. 1221, https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA271322242&sid=googleScholar&xid4f0d7217. Accessed 27 January 2023.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/jcp_00051_1
Loading
/content/journals/10.1386/jcp_00051_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): collaboration; fluidity; Frankenthaler; Irigaray; Marine Lover; Nietzsche; solidity
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error