Hendra’s Woman: Reframing de Kooning

Asmudjo Jono Irianto

It is often mentioned that the era of contemporary art is an era that has been liberated from the burden of history—or that of the modern art of the West. One must admit, however, that the development of modern and contemporary art in the world is very much influenced by the development of modern and contemporary art of the West. The “liberation” of the contemporary art from the historical “burden” and determination of the modern art is nevertheless often considered as an advantage and freedom for the contemporary artists. That is why the history of modern art constitutes a forgotten realm, uninteresting for most young artists of today. For Mahendra Yasa (Hendra), however, the modern art—or at least the principles of modern art—amounts to an interesting and often intriguing matter. His paintings, which mostly appropriate the abstract paintings, have brought him to a deeper study on the concepts of abstract paintings of the West, especially those of the New York School artists. Naturally, Hendra does not wish to adapt and repeat those styles. Rather, he works using the realist approach, which actually is the antithesis of abstract paintings. Hendra’s works are realist works whose subject matter is the abstract painting. The saying of abstract paintings’ being “paintings about paintings” is perhaps more suitable for Hendra’s realist works that paint the abstract “paintings.” This is especially true for the paintings in the series of ‘woman’ that are displayed in this exhibition today.

It is undeniable that Hendra’s works in the series of ‘woman’—in terms of their appearance and title—constitute an appropriation of de Kooning’s ‘woman.’ The ‘woman’ series by Hendra might remind us to the work Erased de Kooning by Robert Rauschenberg. It is not the appearance of Erased de Kooning that can be immediately linked with Hendra’s works in the series of ‘woman,’ but rather Rauschenberg’s method and attitude toward de Kooning’s existence. With Erased de Kooning, “the act of creation-through-destruction can be seen as both a tribute and dismissal.”1 One can indeed views the ‘woman’ works by Hendra as homage or subversion of de Kooning’s woman. While Rauschenberg’s destruction is achieved by erasing a drawing by de Kooning, Hendra’s subversion is done by painting de Kooning’s woman using the realist method. One can say that to paint de Kooning’s woman—an icon of abstract expressionism—using the realist method amounts to the deconstruction par excellence of the gestural painting tendency. The artist’s gesture in applying the paints—using expressive drips or brush strokes—is the most important matter in abstract expressionism. Harold Rosenberg explained thus: 

“They had to go so that nothing would get in the way of the act of painting. In this gesturing with the materials the esthetic, too, has been subordinate. Form, color, composition, drawing, are auxiliaries, any one of which—or practically all, as has been attempted logically, with unpainted canvases—can be dispensed with.”2

Indeed, De Kooning’s woman series is not entirely abstract due to the presence of the female figure in the painting. One might even see de Kooning’s woman as an impediment in the abstract-expressionism tendency. The critic Greenberg also showed cynicism toward the woman series as he bemoaned de Kooning’s return to figures.3 All of these, however, precisely serve to affirm the prominence of de Kooning’s woman, making it a distinct problem of art. It is nevertheless undeniable that in terms of its gestural and brush stroke strength de Kooning’s woman showed an excellent quality. In the book titled de Kooning: An American Master, Mark Stevens and Annalyn Swan wrote about the “strength” of the painting, woman:

“The calligraphic line, as personal as any art, dance in furious attendance upon the figure. Yet she remains almost immovable, her outsized eyes and toothy leer seemingly fixed in place while everything around her erupts in mayhem.”4

Hendra’s choice to “rework” de Kooning’s woman is indeed a spot-on and smart choice. Woman I is de Kooning’s legendary and most difficult work within the history of modern art in the US after World War II. Many modernist works had in the beginning been difficult to understand, as in their time they constituted the artists’ breakthrough in seeking new possibilities. Later on, however, the works became accessible, recognizable, and even beautiful paintings, as Arthur Danto pointed out, quoting Roger Fry, “There was a standing argument, often enlisted in defense of Modernism, that the reason we were unable to see modern art as beautiful was because it was difficult. Roger Fry had written, early in the twentieth century, that ‘every new work of creative design is ugly until it becomes beautiful; that we usually apply the word beautiful to those work of art in which familiarity has enabled us to grasp the unity easily, and that we find ugly those works in which we still perceive only by an effort.’”5

Meanwhile, de Kooning’s works in Woman series has been around for more than half a century, but one still finds it difficult to understand them and determine their position within the map of modern painting. Mark Steven and Annalyn Swan have convincingly delineated this problem—I quote them in full:

“The Barbaric yawp of American painting is Woman I, the most unsettling painting of the postwar period and one that sometimes seems as difficult to look at as it was to make. Fifty years after they were completed, the drip paintings of Jackson Pollock fit comfortably into the museums, as do the black-and-whites of de Kooning. And curators can present without a second thought the most extreme statements of sexual anger or outrage. But Women I still appears eternally out of place—homeless among the masterpieces at the Museum of Modern Art. Woman I is personally, socially, culturally, and artistically fraught with uncertainty. Its anxiety is irreducible. It breaks all rules of safety, even those of the avant-garde.6

Hendra’s appropriation of de Kooning’s woman is interesting as his effort to re-present the works has brought him to the realm of problems that de Kooning had also encountered. Through the series of woman, Hendra seems to have re-entered the modernist era, an era in which the search for the essence of painting was all-important. Although what Hendra eventually present are realist paintings—which depict de Kooning’s woman—further observation will reveal that Hendra’s woman is not entirely similar to de Kooning’s woman. This shows that Hendra’s paintings, which have been created using the realist techniques, do not refer to the original de Kooning’s woman, but rather to the “other” de Kooning’s paintings. This “other” painting of woman is one that Hendra had made prior to embarking with his realist method, and he made it using real brush stroke techniques. Here Hendra underwent his own struggle. Hendra tried to create his own palette, different from the color nuances of de Kooning’s woman. Similarly, the female gesture and facial expression in Hendra’s paintings are not like those of de Kooning’s woman. Hendra is also aware that the beginning of de Kooning’s woman series, i.e. the painting Woman I, had been created in a long stretch of time (around one and a half year) and undergone many stages of change. In this case, one can actually view Hendra’s woman series, from step 1 of woman to step 6 of woman, as the sequence that Hendra had taken as he worked on the painting of woman. Seen from the angle of capturing the sequence of the process, Hendra’s realist paintings of woman can be considered as a “documentation” of the process or the stages. One must also keep in mind, however, that what eventually appears as Hendra’s paintings is a realist painting. Therefore, Hendra’s paintings in the series of woman, created using the realist method, can be considered as independent works.

It is not too much to say that Hendra’s woman series has a special place in the map of contemporary paintings. Aside from the matter of the method he has taken, one might also surmise that Hendra’s woman paintings are also reflective of personal matters similar to those of de Kooning’s—i.e. de Kooning’s perceptions regarding the women around him. It might very well be that Hendra’s woman also reflects the same problem: the sublimation of his experience and perceptions on the women around him. As a whole, Hendra’s realist woman paintings give rise to questions on the epistemology of paintings, regarding the boundaries of realist or abstract paintings, and the synthesis of the two. Similarly, the series of paintings is reflective of the personal problems that have been manifested sublimely instead of literally through the act of painting—as has been shown by the self-existence of the abstract-expressionism painters through the gestures in their acts of painting.

In terms of its painting method, what Hendra manages to present on his canvas is almost illogical—i.e. gestural “depiction” using realist techniques. The results of this are gestural brush strokes that seem to be present but in fact never are. It is akin to pseudo-brush strokes. What Hendra has done brings to mind what Mark Stevens wrote: “…in part because it seemed to bring together qualities that should still remain apart, or when brought together done with irony and tact.”7

Hendra’s method of “re-painting” de Kooning’s woman might remind us to Sherrie Levine’s method when she re-photographed Edward Weston’s works. Such appropriation, however, uses as its basis the attitude of questioning and deconstructing the idea of originality in modern art—and Hendra is not too concerned about such matters. In reality, Hendra is interested both in the abstract as well as the realist method. If to this day Hendra still sticks to the realist technique in executing his paintings, it might be because it is precisely by using this technique that he is able to investigate, recognize, analyze, and explore intensively the concepts of abstract paintings. This indicates that he in the future he might paint using true abstract methods.

In the context of realist paintings, what Hendra has done is actually something novel: presenting the concept of ‘flatness’ on the surface (the canvas) which in the present day (in the contemporary art era) presents itself again as an ‘illusory space.’ Interestingly, Hendra’s paintings can actually fulfill this principle of illusory quality, for example when we stand face to face with it and we seem to look at true brush strokes. This, however, can be seen as an effort to subvert the illusory character of the realist method. We can say that it is like taking a detour eventually to convey flatness over the flat. It is not like what the painters of abstract expressionism have done, but by “tricking” the realist method and “taking advantage” of the concepts of abstract paintings. In this sense, I have to admit that Hendra’s idea is quite original.