I.
“No most gifted eye can exhaust the significance of any object.”
Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes
“Genius”.” Masterpiece”.
That’s my two-word review of Joseph Raffael’s latest exhibition of huge
watercolors based for the most part on photographs of the mostly
undomesticated out of doors.
What? You don’t like those words? Well, who does? They’re conversation
stopping at the very least. Uncomfortable-making. Off-putting.
Sorry.
The two offending words came to mind as I was rereading Carlyle, and
Joseph, unbidden, crossed my consciousness like a Perseid shower.
Joseph and Thomas C. would have lived in a perfect understanding.
Carlyle believed that History (we shall say History of Art) is created
by very special Men-Heroes he calls them. These “kingly” leaders or
(thinking of Raffael) artistic geniuses summon all before them and it
is for the rest of us to play catch-up. So it is not a Movement of some
kind, and it is not the Zeitgeist which moves things forward.
Historical change comes from individual gestures. Pollock.
Leaders who can put their stamp on things. Carlyle is in an opposite
camp from an empiricist historian, like Taine. For Carlyle,
as for J. R., the material world is saturated with religious
feeling. Life has a basically spiritual meaning, if only men
would heed it. The religious renewal he posits must come from
within; we must rid ourselves of the symbols we rest on throwing away
the husks the “adventitious wrappings”, the “hulls” and “earthly
garnitures” in order to arrive at the naked mystery of things. “All
deep things are song”, I read and “the poet has an infinitude in him”:
he “communicates an Unendlichkeit to what so ever he delineates”. This
comes pretty close to the spiritually saturated nature
evidenced by Passage Way or Friendship’s
Forest.
II.
Joseph’s paintings are Awesome.
What goes around, comes around. At least this is so in our
field. At length, at long length after growing up three decades out of
the limelight, Photorealism is about to be re-appreciated.
Well, a lot of us wouldn’t mind being 30 again. Excepting Raffael and
Chuck Close, the ones that head up my all-star cast depend on
neo-classical stratagems: the way Bob Bechtle plants a figure before a
car in front of a house; the way Dick McLean stations a horse and rider
in front of a shed-row building; the way Ralph Goings “captures” a
diner customer within interior geometries. Everything depends
on carefully articulated planar recession, clean transitions,
reciprocating part to whole composition. Meanwhile Close and Raffael
have their own dependencies, “Romantic” ones. Of major
significance here is the idea (it can most readily be extrapolated from
Chuck Close’s early portraits of Friends) that Friendship is a main
Content of Art. But the most important tactic these
“romantics” share is the use of greatly inflated single images in order
to stun the viewer into a temporary state of Awe. Brought up to your
eye-level, a l’Audobon, a humongous Frog, an immense Owl confront
you. The symbolic value of these messages
(Metamorphosis/Wisdom) isn’t negligible. Yet what’s
mainly at stake here is the proposition that Scale is Content. Can be
anyway. And it can be that technique is Content, too, as I
observed in my Laguna Beach catalog apropos of Joseph’s work back in
‘81. Beyond this there’s something special about Joseph’s paintings,
from the great Indian Heads of the late 60s all the way to his recent
watercolors like Friendship’s Forest (with its direct nod at our mutual
friend Steve Kaltenbach’s Stoned Maple, 1973). That specialness has to
do with the fact that any major Raffael will serve to vindicate Andre
Breton’s early Surrealist dictum that “Only the Marvelous is
Beautiful.” Which is not true of the paintings of Bechtle or Estes, or
any of the Photorealists whose work reworks Neo-classicism. In Raffael
we can see that only the Marvelous is Beautiful. And as you or I or we
and even “they” think through it, it becomes clear that Breton’s apercu
is anticipated in Burke. As the tinkle, tinkle Papa
Hayden Neoclassicism of his own era flagged, and Romanticism
geared up to roar by like Beethoven, Burke located the Sublime at the
crossroads of the Beautiful and the Awesome. Raffael takes
his stand at this intersection, and has stayed there from about the
time he traded Joe for Joseph.
III.
Wholeness Harmony Brightness
In recent writings I’ve suggested touchstones which may apply
to Raffael’s art: like the ones provided by Stephen Dedalus or rather
by Joyce or rather by Aquinas. “Tria
requiuntur” we read in Portrait of the Artist, “integritas,
consonantia, claritas”. A watercolor like May 2003,
characteristic Joseph painting of blossoms, must read as one thing ,
must read as a whole separate and distinct from all the rest
of the world. To this end (like Seurat, for instance),
Raffael has painted in an interior border, a border within
the border. He is making sure that we take in the piece as a
single thing , not to be confused or conflated with its
surroundings. Next (let’s take Passageway , 2003
this time) a painting must (despite its incredible daunting complexity)
demonstrate a harmony of all its parts, each part to each and each part
to the circumscribing whole. Raffael specializes in this
legerdemain; it can’t be easy but he makes it seem unforced and
natural. Finally, Aquinas says, a work like Spring 2003, must
be radiant. It must shine with a claritas that cannot be
told, as it does here: a full panoply of light, bright hues singing in
ensemble with an operatic intensity that once again, beggars
description. This flower is on consignment from
God. (Ouch! Did I just say that?) As I say in my
Laguna catalog “Raffael paints no flowers of evil.”
Right here at claritas, the touchstone of radiant spiritualized light
is where JR parts company with what we might call the artistic
proletariat. He can bring it off. The average artist can’t.
The familiar touchstones pink/blue = Flesh/Spirit are at work in
Raffael’s new paintings in much the way they operated in the Hydrangea
of 30 years prior. The fluid way JR handled oil as a
translucent film of ever so thin skeins, filament and washes put me in
mind somehow of Paganini. People thought he was
possessed. You can feel in a Raffael his obsessive pursuit of
every trick of light and leaf, every dancing reflection from a
constantly shifting surface. In the great Water paintings or
the marvelous (!) Koi Pond series he works in dilute washes of oil
paint with a virtuosity that one had to marvel (!) it could be done at
all. “Like Gold to airiee thinness beat”, the line is Donne’s and the
reference is to the exquisite long drawn-out thread of sexual sensation
between lovers lovemaking. In painting after painting Raffael
brings off this ultimate refinement. Let me say it again. You
just had to wonder how it could be done at all, much less taken further
(as JR does in Eternal Pond).
IV.
Never Tempted? Well, hardly ever.
Raffael pioneered the big watercolor. There was an old saw in
art schools. It can’t be managed. A large watercolor will
just fall apart. The medium won’t sustain the square
footage. Raffael went ahead and occupied the
territory. Now there are imitators galore, a whole
roll-call. They ought to try it the Joseph way; I mean his
bordering his large watercolors with strips of prismatic,
kaleidoscopic, never-never land color. This device isn’t
merely decorative; it binds the piece together. Raffael is
never tempted toward impasto; he avoids gouache or any opaque effects
whatever. Transcendent and translucent, brilliant as stained glass,
these watercolors sail you right out of your shoes. It’s hard
to believe, but it looks like JR is getting better.
The shift to watercolor portended major changes in the personal realm.
Joseph and his second wife, Lannis Wood left California for the French
Riviera and a series of paintings of Lannis in her garden followed hard
upon. The wives or girlfriends of artists have to put up with
a lot of modeling but one consolation is that when we ask the question,
what were women like in such and thus a country in thus and such a
period, the answer comes back, Well of course they were like Mrs. van
Rijn or Mrs. Bonnard or perhaps like Mrs. Raffael. This was
surely a fine honeymoon gesture. Fudging only a
little! JR conflates Lannis’s face with Botticelli’s
Primavera. Often in this series Lannis is virtually subsumed
by a shower of leaves and blossoms, and by decade’s end Lannis has
disappeared into her garden; only she is still there! Lannis
and her garden become one; there is also the consideration that Lannis’
last name is Wood. Joseph as we’ve seen, is not averse to
painting a Wood or two or three. Note as well Joseph’s epic
tribute to his late father-in-law, Cyril Wood, (The Open Window:Homage
to Cyril Wood 2001) a view from an interior into a garden outdoors
which seems continuous with it. Raffael may have, in a
neighborly way borrowed the composition from Bonnard. In any
case art history is replete with paintings which testify to the curious
proposition that we are, as human beings, both inside and outside at
every conscious moment. And it’s sometimes hard to tell where
our inside stops and our outside begins. In Cyril Wood, JR has raised
the question beautifully, if somewhat over determinedly. Over a long
career Joseph has shown a consistent concern (cf. Release, 1970) with
how the Soul lets go of the body it’s trapped in. The problem
much exercised Michelangelo. For Cyril Wood provides a Q.E.D.
resolution to the issue. The artist is quite comfortable with the term
“soul”. No one would question whether the large animals he painted in
his California period (the Lion, Seal, etc.) are endowed with
souls. Nor, that (from his earlier period), the poor monkey stuffed
into a space capsule and wired for scientific research, is about to
suffer the wrong kind of release to the heavens at the hands of his
human tormentors.
V.
Nature Natured
Among Photo-Realist painters Raffael is probably the least concerned
with the photo qua photograph. Since California days, when he
began to take his own slides, Raffael has mainly sought a suitable
gestalt through which he can freely pass his feelings, which are always
glamour-prone and often aim for the exquisite. His many
pictures of the natural world and its denizens read more in terms of
Natura-naturata (than of Natura naturans). In a way in works
like Mandala Bouquet we deal, in Joseph, with a high fashion
sensibility that nonetheless packs a stiff punch. We are not
required to reason why this should be so, but we think it has to do
with how incredibly crafted these paintings are.
VI.
Ommmm Ommmm Ommmm
That I know so little about the whole realm of Eastern piety is a mark
against me. I’ll take the word of friends who maintain that
staring at a Raffael, you can readily achieve a trance state. Others
speak of a painting as a kind of visual-mantra. I don’t doubt
this, I just can’t get behind it myself. I am a meditation
4-F. When, occasionally, Joseph would land on my shores the first thing
he’d do is go out on the lawn,sit crosslegged, and meditate for 75
minutes. Ssshhh. A rattlesnake tak-tik-tak-tik,
tak-tik, an art critic’s cane tok-tok-tok-tok, the pop of a champagne
cork are a few of the noises that wouldn’t disturb Joseph.
Well intentioned friends mindful of my Satori-less existence have
counseled me to breathe in, breathe out. “Sit in front of
this painting” (Water painting #3). “Now control your
breath”. Doesn’t work for me. I keep thinking stuff like what
a painting of paintings this is! How am I going to write about it
without going all tautological on the esteemed reader? I am just no
good at meditation. I know I’m going to miss something the
minute I shift into mental overdrive. I’ll come back to the other world
and find out Bush has invaded _______ a country where people hate us.
It’s no great puzzlement why JR should be drawn to Asian culture and
Asian art,where by and large beauty rules and the contemplative wins
out over action. There is an easy jump from pictures like
Mandala Bouquet to the “priceless” “precious”
quality in a Ming jar or a Sung porcelain, or a screen like Ogata
Korin’s Chrysanthemums Beside a Stream (Cleveland Museum).
VII.
That Fine Italianate Hand
Raffael works with small brushes and his stroke is under the control of
his hand and fingers the very ambassadors of his heart and intuition
and the very vehicles of his Ruskin-like belief in the spiritual nature
of Sight. There is such a thing in Sports as Natural
Ability-that is what Joseph has in his painting surpassing all
competition. The trickly runny quality evident even in his earliest
exhibited work brought to more than one mind the jewel-like encrusted
gobs of paint which over-determine the surfaces of Gustave
Moreau. By the mid 80’s J.R. had so to speak caught up to
himself in oil. He had no further to go. The change over to water based
paints opened it all up for him once more, and he is still going
strong. It still boggles my head-screwed-on-backwards-art- historian’s
mind how Joseph can operate the way he does in a medium so totally
intolerant of mistakes. Don’t try this one at home kids!
VIII.
I am Nature
In the oils Joseph used to start in the bottom left corner and just
work his way methodically across like a starving locust. With the
watercolors he takes an appropriately freer approach, letting his
intuition suggest a way “into” the painting and then starting and
stopping spontaneously, a spontaneity which somehow carries into the
finished painting. To the gallery goer who is stunned by the apparent
genius of these works, I can only repeat don’t lose sight of the
extraordinary CRAFT that lies behind every painting that leaves
Joseph’s hand. The patient tracing of the image,
the laying in of under-tints and colors-all this is done by the
reclusive artist himself sans studio assistants. A further
consideration obtains. Any painter is locked into a certain solipsism;
take Roses Reverie, 2000, a smallish work which perhaps owes its
“poetic” quality to a slender volume of Gaston Bachelard J. R. had in
hand that winter.To be sure, he is painting a few flesh
colored roses against a spiritualized blue velvet ground; at
the same time though he paints himself; there is ontologically speaking
a painting behind every painting; it’s a matter of identity.
There is a sense in which J.R. not only bypasses the photograph as
photograph but he also is dismissive of the image itself. You come to
realize he is painting himself; he is in a loop; here we go loop de
loo. My teachers Wellek and Wimsatt used to talk about an aesthetic of
organicity, like Ruskin’s, in terms that make Creation an internal act
of intuition and imagination. Thus Pollock’s famous “I AM” is a direct
descendant of Ruskin and Carlyle. And J.R. descends from Pollock.
In a Raffael, what you can find, independent of the imagery, are a
myriad of short darting unforeseeable strokes and stroke-clusters that
certify: This is a Raffael, accept no substitute. When, as in
the surprising Self-Portrait, 1985 he does not subordinate this
welter-thicket of “DNA”-like free marks to the image, but lets them
roam the picture plane, we begin to understand how complex Raffael’s
take on reality actually is, how un-PollyAnna-ish his dead serious
effort to find images that will heal and transcend. He is in fact more
Pollock than PollyAnn.
IX.
Let Magic Reign
Bruce Nauman is right: Remember? The true artist helps the world by
REVEALING MYSTIC TRUTHS. For the purposes of our argument
here the true artist is likely to be a Romantic like Raffael rather
than a geometer or a Neoclassicist. For Shelley, unheard sounds were
sweeter. In Coleridge’s theory, Truth was a “Divine
ventriloquist”, speaking thru whoever was handy, such as this boy from
Brooklyn. All theories of artistic Inspiration, of the artist
taken out of himself, made use of as a medium for Divine Wisdom, all
such theories (Plato’s Ion, for instance) would be a prete a porter fit
for Joseph Raffael.
“When I make a painting it is as tho I do a good deed”. I’m fond of
remembering that Gauguin, the great giver of color, taught this
extra-ordinary truth to Van Gogh whose self-portrait is quoted in
J.R.’s Biography just above J.R.’s portrait of their dog
‘Beauty’; symbol of ever-requited Love. As a do-er
of good deeds, pictorial or for real, J.R. stands high on the list of
anyone who has the pleasure of his friendship. When I think of him I
think of a man who honored his parents (Padre morto) in his
art. I think of a man who honored his children
(Matthew’sBranch ). Of a man who honored his father-in-law, (For
CyrilWood). Of a man who honored his painter friend Juan Gonzalez in
(Orchids for Juan G.) I think, good reader, of a man who represented
his wife as the Goddess of Springtime in the (Lannis in Sieste series),
a man for whom to have and to hold is no idle formula and omerta not a
corrupted ideal.
If my account of Joseph makes him out to be a paragon, so be it. One of
the things I admire most in J.R.’s work is the strong sense of caritas
that shines forth from Biography or “The Open Window: Homage to Cyril
Wood, 2001”. This charity of Joseph’s has nothing to do with handing
out $ to the needy, tho’ Joseph is not behind hand in that, It is
Charity in the sense, the testamentary sense, of an encompassing Love
for all creation
X.
” But grant for a moment, that there is a realm beyond the senses…” Rilke, Letters, 1915
By the way, good people, Raffael is in fact a reader like you
and me. He’s a pretty clear writer as well. Not all painters
are. Just the other month J.R. recommended the latest Philip
Sherrard book on the place of the Sacred in a world blasted from
within, our world. It’s a useful volume to have on call as
you approach Joseph territory. I always get around to saying this, here
it is: If there is no meta-realm; if the Supernatural does not exist;
if the Spiritual plane is a locus spurious; if the Divine itself is no
more than a wishfulfilling self deception; if all these Ifs,
then J.R.’s paintings (and everyone else’s) amount to no more than
quite expensive wall-coverings. But this is America, patriotic reader,
and-so they tell us- we are a religious nation and there is a whole
movement, the Hudson River boys, who see the hand of the Creator in
every leaf and waterfall and beehive. The first and probably the best
of this bunch is Thomas Cole, who peopled the upper reaches of his
enormous landscape-canvases with see-through-figures of God the Father
and his retinue. One of the last of ‘em George Inness, a Swedenborgian
transcendentalist, painted trees that seem unanchored to terra firma;
they yearn heavenward; like Cole a great colorist, Inness held
conferences with angelic presences. And a moralizing genre painter of
Cole’s vintage, Wm. Sidney Mount, went everyone one better by
conducting an epistolary correspondence with Rembrandt which we are
most thankful to have, given that there are barely a handful of van
Rijn letters, most of which deal with the rent-money, stuff like
that. In our own day and place, Steve Kaltenbach has usually
kept at least one foot in the metaphysical; the portrait of Steve’s
Father on his deathbed is a striking instance of how photo-realism can
be adapted to suggest an otherworldly Presence. But in the
long history of American art from Cole to Church and Bierstadt all the
way down to Ed Carrillo, Nathan Olivera, and Kaltenbach perhaps no
painter has staked so much on the Reality of the meta-world as Joseph
Raffael. As I write, there is an heroic stand-off in the Butler Museum
of American Art between the greatest, most spiritual painting I’ve ever
seen by Julian Stanczak and J.R.’s giant Papermill Creek. The two
painters were classmates under Albers. Julian Stanczak wasn’t then, and
isn’t now, any match for Joseph.The J.R., so to speak, simply
OVERWHELMS him. J.R., of course, wouldn’t see this confrontation in the
Museum in terms of a test.
In a general way, anyhow, Joseph thinks most student on student
influences are superficial. He does retain one friend from Albers-days,
Richard Ziemann who has been quietly making his art all these years in
back-state Connecticut; the two men are still in touch. There
was a student who influenced Joe Raffaele, reader; we know him now as
Joseph Raffael. From at least as early as his artist-statement for the
1967 Sao Paolo Biennale, J.R. has stressed the need to get inside
yourself; the artist should withdraw within. Essentially he would agree
with Pindar who in Edith Hamilton’s paraphrasing, feels that “The
educated man is a twilight man; true merit comes from in-born glory”.
Arthur Schopenhauer is on the same train of thought. Acquired
characteristics are dismissable. He praises the Brahmin philosophers
who “express the unalterable fixity of innate character in a mystical
fashion.” This opens the door not merely to Plato and the doctrine of
innate Ideas, but to Calvinism and to St. Paul; in other
words to predestination. Teddy Atlas, J.R’s homeboy sez: You
can teach a boxer fancy footwork and to stick a jab, but big punchers
are born not made. For Schopenhauer every real value is metaphysical, a
priori, and lies innate; and the source of real power is not a mere
phenomenon but is established once and for all as the very
thing-in-itself, das Ding an sich. Experience”, Schopenhauer adds,
“teaches the same lesson to all who can look below the surface.” And
should you look beneath the surface, dear reader, you are certainly
going to see those Raffael Koi.
Genius is such a hard word to feel comfortable using; so is
Masterpiece. But those are the very words one must fall back on when
dealing with J.R., or not deal with him at all. Nor is it at all
explicable how he can be getting better. I think metaphorically of J.R.
traveling pure North. (Not always, but) generally speaking,
the further North you get the higher quality the Indian basket, the
tighter the weave, the subtler the color. That is where Joseph is right
now. He’s tightening the weave and looking at his compass to
see when he will run out of North.
John Fitz Gibbon
Pilot Hill, 2003
©John Fitz Gibbon
Catalogue Joseph Raffael Exhibition, Nancy Hoffman Gallery, 2003
This essay is reprinted with permission of the author.