Art view
by Paulette Thenhaus
Dorothea TanningÕs little women: Innocent or
erotic?
Where did it come from? The imagery artist Dorothea Tanning
uses from the 1940's till today?
An excellent research paper could explore this avenue. It would
chronicle the artist's journey from the early days of Modern Art in the
twentieth century into the twenty-first century ... a female artist who is now
ninety-seven years old and still growing. That she hails from the small
midwestern town of Galesburg, Illinois and has spent much of her adult life in
France married to one of the founders of Surrealism, Max Ernest, makes the
research even more valuable art historically.
But this is merely a newspaper column, which has its Iimits. I
briefly covered Tanning's life in an article ("Dorothea Tanning:
undeniably original," 11/05/98) and Lynn McKeown more recently summarized
her life in an article, "Dorothea Tanning: artist from Galesburg" in
an article dated 3/13/08. Both of us relied on three books, two autobiographical,
for her story. We presented a simple review style with minimum interpretation.
Neither of us dug deep into Tanning's imagery ... The Zephyr isn't an art
publication, you know.
Yet during a public discussion on Dorothea Tanning as one of
"our" outstanding natives, a small bomb went off (figuratively).
Tanning's imagery was seen as depicting abuse and there was the question of
whether or not her imagery stemmed from childhood abuse (in Galesburg no less). The topic got heated
on both sides (and yes, there was no middle ground on this topic). Finally,
something made locals look at images
of her work.
On April 3, 2008, diana Mackin's article "Dorothea
Tanning: How much more than meets the eye?" appeared in the Zephyr,
supporting an abuse theory. Lynn McKeown fired back a denial stance in an April
10, 2008 letter to the editor. I wrote a column, "Ask big questions"
(April 17, Ô08) supporting the right of anyone to say what they see in art but
to substantiate where and why they see it. In the same issue a letter to the
editor by Susie Richardson appeared with the title "Art and abuse."
I will take one painting mentioned as hinting at male abuse by
diana Mackin and "walk through itÓ the way an art history professor might.
I used the picture of the painting "Death and the Maiden" in my prior
column, "Ask big questions." It appeared without a date, which should
have been 1953. diana Mackin also referred to it in her column. So, let's ask big questions of it.
Tanning did not coin the title "Death and the Maiden."
Its provenance goes beyond the Renaissance. It refers to a young woman/girl
before she has experienced life (sex) ... she is a virgin. Always death is
assumed to be a male figure, often a skeleton, wrapping itself possessively
around the recoiling female. A contemporary of Tanning, Kathe Kollwitz drew
"Death Seizing a Woman" in 1934. She was a German Jew. A bald
skeletal man grabs a horrified woman from behind as she clutches a small girl
whose mouth she covers with her hand. The faces of the women are of shock and
pure terror.
Tanning's ÒDeath and the Maiden" was painted nineteen
years later. She was forty-three years old, a mature adult. In 1953 the
American art world was experiencing Abstract Expressionism via Jackson Pollock.
Tanning continued to work in a realistic style of Surrealism. After all, she
had been one of the Surrealist group in France. Let's try to decipher the
imagery.
At the center of the picture is a fully clothed bald man
hoisting up a fully clothed young woman. A white cloth or creased paper floats
partially across the young woman's face. There's a slightly opened door. The
colors within the room are muted and soft. There is no sign of discord or
upset. The balding man appears short and dumpy. His eyes are closed as if in
sleep and, yes, his head rests near the woman's pubic area, but he looks more
like he is holding a pillow than a human figure. He definitely looks more like
a father figure than "Death." This is not his only appearance ... he
reappears in "The Family Portrait" done a year later. (No, he doesn't
resemble photographs of Tanning's own father.)
The young woman is almost as large as the man. Tanning paints
many self-portraits; this may be one. She is wearing a simple pink dress which
she has outgrown. Note: the sleeves are too short and the bodice (which reveals
nothing) is open to the waist. In the fashion of a young woman, she wears short
white socks and low-heeled pumps, not children's flat -soled shoes. She appears
to be twelve or thirteen (puberty). She doesn't sport little girl long hair,
rather a bob of the day. To me she looks as though she might fly right through
the door (note the loose arms) as if in a dream. Floating just like the mystery
sheet. The expressions of both faces suggest dream states.
With these observations in mind, I make the following
subjective interpretation: I think the Maiden wants to get pubescence over with
and leave home. To just fly away like a bird. Death or the clutching little man
represent family and society holding her back. To linger too long in a
comfortable place can be "death" to an artist of any age. Perhaps
Tanning desired both artistic and sexual freedom sooner than most. It's already
documented that she read x-rated books, smoked and left home at eighteen.
This not because she hated her family, but because she had to grow.
Other imagery that some find disturbing or abusive I have no
time or space to delve into. I know the half-dressed girls and torn sunflowers
can be read as abuse, especially these days, but she titles one sunflower
painting "Rapture." There are no men in the sunflower series to cause
the "abuse." Could Tanning be presenting us with a picture of
pubescent concupiscence ... the power of libido before a man ever enters the scene?
Contact: plette14310@yahoo.com
4/17/08