22nd May 2015, David Cook and I visited the Richard Diebenkorn exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts in London. Afterwards, as has become customary, we discussed the show by email. The following is the result of several weeks’ electronic toing and froing. Apologies, yet again, we’re urging you to go and see an exhibition that’s no longer on.

Richard Diebenkorn
Albuquerque #4, 1951
Oil on canvas, 128.9 x 116.2 cm
Saint Louis Art Museum. Gift of Joseph Pulitzer Jr.
© The Richard Diebenkorn Foundation
Richard: We went through this exhibition backwards. (Is there a natural logic to room sequence do you think, which we followed instinctively because we were so wrapped up in talking about the work?)It’s interesting because seeing the work in non-chronological order raised questions about Diebenkorn’s transitions from abstract to figurative painting (and back again). And a more general one about the idea of progression in an artist’s work.
Room one contained this painting, Albuquerque #4, 1951, which for me contains the basic DNA of all of Diebenkorn’s future work. He was working in what has been described as an abstract expressionist style at this point, but it doesn’t quite fit with that description…
David: I think I naturally tend to go clockwise when I have the chance…and ignore the writing on the wall. One thing I liked about this show was that there was no preamble; every work felt mature and fully realised. It did not follow the predictable trajectory of immaturity /plateau/decline like so many shows. But maybe that was because we went through it backwards.
This was my first exposure to a large show of Diebenkorn’s work and it has caused me to rethink my views on Abstract Expressionism. It can be subtle, gently sensual and joyous and not just bombastic, angsty and oppressive. This was a great revelation – maybe he does not fit with my emotional expectations of Abstract Expressionism, but from a painterly point of view Diebenkorn is one of the very best. Albuquerque #4 is a fine example: he has a highly original use of colour and the paint surface is very rich and subtle.
Richard: I agree with you about the trajectory – and we did start in room one, at least.
Abstract Expressionism is often presented as a very male, aggressive, searching, straightforward, soul-baring, “loud” way of painting. Diebenkorn’s works are quieter, more reflective, as if he is reporting on a feeling rather than acting it out in paint. There’s an objectivity present in these early abstracts; (we’re not just looking at a paint event). And maybe this comes from using landscape as a motif. It’s not an absence of feeling, but a sense of distance – which creates a space for contemplation. Diebenkorn’s work doesn’t appear to be trying to sell anything outside the frame of the picture (spirituality, his artistic persona etc), which, for me, places him outside my idea of the Abstract Expressionists. Do you think we’re looking at an aerial view in Albuquerque #4 ?
David: I think it might very well be an aerial view and I think what you say about a reported feeling is spot on. The emotional content is not derived from the interior as with Expressionism generally. What is the opposite of Expressionism? Is this Abstract Impressionism? Because in many ways it seems to derive from sensory impressions and lets you approach the work from there rather than thrusting raw, bloody emotion in your face.
In a way an aerial view would be the perfect subject. It is detached and abstract –although the landscape is flattened into a two dimensional shape, there is the visceral (and very spatial) thrill of looking down which is something I for one never tire of.
I re-watched the first episode of Shock of the New the other night and Robert Hughes made much of the coming of the machine age and how that effectively kick-started modernism in painting – Cubists, Dadaists, Futurists – all with their own response to the coming of mechanisation. Does this have anything to do with that European stuff, or is it much more American in origin?
Richard: In this first room, I’d say there was a heavy European influence (as with all the Abstract Expressionists) – the flat areas of colour, Diebenkorn’s playing with space and light and his palette are reminiscent of Matisse and Dufy in particular, but also of de Kooning’s paintings of women. And the look of Albuquerque #4 suggests landscape, heat and flight – a bigger view perhaps that is suggestive of the American landscape. Do you think the European influence is a reason for the sense of distance in the work? I always feel with Pollock, for instance, that although he reveres Picasso, he also wants to destroy him (for American art). Whereas, with Diebenkorn, I sense a deeper respect, a desire to develop European ideas.
David: Looking again at the images I was struck by the lack of sharp focus and the exceptional freedom of Diebenkorn’s paint handling. These two things are related of course, and probably feed into the detachment and slightly unresolved qualities of the paintings – two of their most attractive attributes.
The comparison with Pollock is revealing. Pollock was staking everything on a single roll of the dice, Diebenkorn is more of a builder, who is shaping his work without necessarily erasing what went before, without needing to stand on virgin ground. While Pollock may have won big, Diebenkorn’s strategy also paid off – his work is more approachable and doesn’t have that ‘take it or leave it’ quality. What surprises me slightly is that I am in Diebenkorn’s case happier to look at paintings which have more modest ambition, that don’t necessarily want to be The Greatest Paintings Ever Painted.
To be continued…
* * *
Ashley Lily Scarlett and I have started a new blog together. It’s a conversation in pictures and it’s called Between Scarlett and Guest
* * *
Hey, I enjoyed this review. I really like the idea of respecting the European traditions versus destroying them. Expanding on them. Also it was mentioned that Diebenkorn was not pushing some sort of agenda, psychological or otherwise in the work. I have fluctuated from figurative to abstract and back again. Lovely piece to read! 🙂
Really glad you liked it, Ted. I think RD is a very interesting artist for all sorts of reasons…more to come.
Looking forward to it! Also thank you for the attention to my “work”.
I love his work, it is so amazing, I’m so jealous, would love to see an exhibition of his work.
Yes, it’s great isn’t it? I think the show’s touring, but not sure where.
In the US?
I don’t know – I’ll see if I can find out…
A fascinating dialogue thank you Richard, looking forward to part 2!
Thanks very much, Patti!
It just seems just like you to start at its finish and go to its beginning
Ha, ha, thanks Sheldon!
A fascinating discussion thank you!
Thanks for saying so, Emily. Glad you like it.
Love the comparison with Pollock-enlightening.
Thanks very much, Elena. I heart history of art. 🙂
This is interesting and I’m looking forward to reading the second installment. I see Albuquerque #4 a little differently, though I agree about the de Kooning palette in this piece, such as in the yellows/blacks/whites. However, it’s impossible to look at this now and not see smack dab in the center the bold red outline of a computer mouse. Obviously unintended, but I recall seeing this painting before and finding that shape, perhaps the demarcation of a court for some sport, very awkward, mostly because of it’s placement in the center of the image. Overall I find it the painting a bit drab and plebian.
I have to admit that I’m not one for subtly bland art, and I find Matisse, who I think Diebenkorn is most art-historically indebted to, crushingly frivolous. But I also would just love to see Diebenkorn paintings on the walls of recreation centers, golf, tennis, and ping pong clubs. I can get into his art on a purely formal level, but the associations it conjures stop at the plebian and recreation, and my orientation may be at the other end of the spectrum. I tend to like the outrageous, so I’m on the complete other end of the spectrum, and my idea of a good painting is a human fly vomiting on pizza and donuts while desperately conducting experiments in his lab (I live in a universe under the shadow of Hiroshima).
I’d love to see the bombastic, aggressive, oppressive, “angsty”, and bloody-emotion in-the-face sort of Abstract Expressionism spoken of. Hot damn! Serve me up some of that!
Just throwing in another perspective.
Hi Eric, sorry for the delay in replying – I’ve been on holiday. Thanks for such a considered response (although in the painting’s defence I would have to say the digital image somehow flattens the image – the painting itself has far more physical presence). I now can’t look at this painting without seeing that mouse. I love the idea of subtly bland art – that would be such an interesting discipline. I dig your other perspective and I was travelling when you had your recent sale/ offer and I’m gutted about that.
Right. It’s really unfailr to judge are on jpegs online alone. No worries about my art. Nobody every buys any of it. I’ve sold nothing so far, and don’t expect to any time soon.
Hi Eric (& Richard)
And sorry about my even longer delay in replying, have been away.
I know what you mean about the mouse – someone pointed out to me that Mary Magdelene is texting in Michaelangelo’s Entombment in the National Gallery. Hard to unsee all this stuff…but we have to try I think!
I overdosed on the bombastic stuff quite a while ago …really overdid it. Nowadays I try for a more balanced artistic diet with some meaty stuff and some lighter stuff to balance it out. Diebenkorn’s work falls into this category for me. If it was a person it would have very good manners!
Reblogged this on London Eyeball and commented:
A late reblog of my discussion of Richard Diebenkorn’s RA show with Richard Guest –
I enjoyed this exchange very much.
Really glad you like it. It’s great fun putting these together.