|Anybody want to help further my education?
When I was in Paris I saw the Rauschenberg Combines show. These are some weird pieces, made out of unusual materials (like, say, a goat,) and my understanding was that this was seen as a pretty radical departure at the time (late 50's.)
Last Saturday night I went to MOMA, and was struck by some Miro work from the 1930's. (Would be good if I could remember the name's of some of the pieces, but alas....) To my admittedly untrained eye they seemed at least as weird and sculptural and unpainterly as the later Rauschenberg's. Ropes and parrots and hats and all sort of objects.
So I'm guessing my understanding of why Rauschenberg was so radical needs some deepening. It's not just that he used found objects in his work. But what more?
Hopefully this doesn't seem too stupid or too impossibly broad.
my 2 cents. miro is a european surrealist painter. he mostly fits into a 1st 1/4 20c european evolution of modernism. cubiism>>dada>>surrealism / rauschnberg is coming into the tail end of american abstract painting that was peak exploding with the greatness of pollack and all the others like rothko while he was in school. what to do with all that energy around? compete with it agressivly. there were notions of (post wwII) pop in the air germinating too. bring some of those americana pop objects to the painting. keep upping the dynamics ante for expressionist abstract painting. rauschenberg was my first big influence but i saw his weakness (too many elements to the collage) so i went to warhol for a more refined appropriation approach . warhol quit the dynamic expressionism painting contest and brought back thinness of surface and allowed more idea to manifest conversely. rauschemberg is still stradeling expressionism and pop. andy and everyone else moved on. way too nut shell. sorry. ask alex or tom.
Very helpful Bill (of course.) Thanks.
What Bill said.