PAUL SHAPIRO……………..

the real one

THE καιρός for the LEGEND OF PAUL SHAPIRO

BEING AN AUTHORITY) tm. © 2009

…..being the difference between magic and reality

…..EXPOSITIONS AND REVELATIONS

by Paul Henrickson. Ph.D.

One of the things I have noticed about people obsessed by some matter or other is
that when triggered they amost inevitably put into words the real meaning of which
cannot be mistakened by the clear-minded, objective and perceptive observer. The
criminal lets you know…he speaks his posession.Thus, Paul Shapiro annouced his
challenge to me.

Why Paul Shapiro had preceeded me to my appontment with Arlene Lewallen I do

not know, but he had, and firmly seated at the table with Arlene made no sign to
move when I, by prearrangement , sat in the third of four chairs around the table in
the gallery of the Lewallen Contemporary. Arlene recognized my arrival, of course,
but said absolutely nothing when Shapiro made the following anouncement and
directed it to me. ” I (referring to himself) am gong to be Santa Fe’s best known
painter, while you (that is, me) will be known only as Doris Cross’s landlord.” I
will admit to some surprise and bewilderment at hearing this proclamation and
wondered about its origin.

I was, to be truthful, somewhat perplexed for, to begin with, I wasn’t absolutely

sure, when I had walked into the room, that this was Paul Shapiro and when the
statement’s probable meaning dawned on me I became thoroughly stunned by this
undilutedly impolite behavior…rude without reservation. Arlene appeared disturbed
and unable to say a word, which, I think, characteristic of some innate modesty; she
was unable to take command. I, unwilling to assume the responsibilities of ruling in
someon else’s domain, looked with disdain upon Shapiro and left without a
word……..expecting a call from Arlene at some later time which never came.

My only other and rather remote contact with Shapiro had been throuh the
purchased office of Doris Cross who had suggested, in her quiet way, that I go see
the exhibition of Shapiro then at Lewallens Contemporary before she had moved
into Elain’e Horwitch’’s space. Doris had thought I might learn something. She did
not tell me what and I had, I believe, mistakenly thought Doris thought his work
might have some thing to teach me about mine. Now, in retrospect, it seems she
had been operating as his agent for, at this time, I had been writing art critcisms.
Doris also did this for Harold Joe Waldrum, so again, in retrospect it seems a few
artists sought my approval through Doris Cross….in some round about way. And it
was this, which reminded me of Simon the magician’s approach to Peter, the
fisherman. These seakers did not know that the only secrets they needed for a
viable success lay within themselves. Yet, it seems, the greater part of professional
success throughout the world is purchased, not won.

The one answer I had for Paul at that time but did not say, and now, some thirty
years later, will say, was that he might well become Santa Fe’s best known painter,
but it would not be for the exellent genuiness of his work which, today, does
exemplify the naked –emperor authority of a pasticher, that is, pasticcio one who, in

theatre, is a burlesque comedian, in the early American West, a snake oil

salesman, in the early years of this Christian epoch, a Simon Magus, a magician able to fool
the hoy polloi who, understandably do not see the evidence very clearly which made it
possible for some to believe Magus was god and, in our day, that the work of Emile de Hory
was a genuine Modigliani. Such is, regretably, despite the current popularity of being
democratic, the nature of the”common” man. He is common.

In Paul Shapiro’s case he does not present work that he says is someone elce’s he presents
work that is basiclly fraudulent as it claims, which it does at least by implication, to be a
work of creative genius where, in point of fact, it is merely a truly clever manipulation of
pigment that resembles something genuine accomplished by another.

On the matter of being genuine…regretably, at this point in time I have only the internet
pages to provide me with the information I need, but, because it is the imagry, as opposed
to textural claims, this may not really be a problem for if one analyzes the sequential
development of the Shapiro approach one comes up with the notion that while he is truly
effective with whatever he decides to do one can only lament that he hasn’t yet decided to
be Paul Shapiro. On the other hand perhaps he is being the real, and the only, Paul
Shapiro possible for him which is testing his technical abilities to mimic against the sense of
realityof others. He may, in truth, exhibit himself in the only way he can as a mirror-like
image of any one of a select group of others who are not the Paul Shapiro walking around
Santa Fe. It is in this way Paul is Simon Magus who was stoned to death by the common
man for being shown up as a fraud…one doesn’t fool Mother Nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp1mk9bdsdM Messalina & whore. The

reader is free to make whatever association seems proper.
Now, a clarification as to the rich association with Doris Cross is required. It began when I
and Rolf Koppel were both faculty at The University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls and he
and I shared a large residence near the University.Some of the faculty at that tme were
expressing disatisfaction with the then Head of the Department, Harry Guillaume. I had my
own and separate dissatisfactions with Harry to which I had not given expression…preferring
to work around them if possible.

Ultimately, three new faculty members came into the scene Ken Lash fom the San Fancisco
Art Institute who was unsympathetic to statistial evaluations of behavior and a fellow by the
name of Ausprich who came in as Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts and Doris Cross who
came as an “artist in residence”.

Of the three it was only Doris, who actually had no academic qualifications whatever, who
was the most successful as an educator.

With Koppel’s encouragement she invited me to comment on her proposed new approach to
image making. It was what turned into her dictionary column work. While I had been away
for the summer she rented my then five bedroom victorian house on Seerley Blvd. for the
summer and stayed there an extra two months after my return while she searched for
another place to live. In return for my hospitality for providing board and room for those
two months she gave me an 8”x8“ woolen weaving picturing the Lion of Judah.

Within two weeks after moving to her new quarters she invited me for dinner. The dinner
was a serving of steamed stringed beans and through her natural-to-her difficulty in
expressing herself in a logical sequence of words tried to explain to me what it was she had
in mind to do. I listened attentively but still left for home very perplexed. “What was that
woman talking about?”

It may briefly have occurred to me the rational for hiring anyone as a teacher so incapable
of stringing together a meaningful phrase might properly be questioned, but I soon
dismissed the thought accepting, instead, the obligation of an educator to listen, to carefully
listen, to someone elce’s efforts…and to respect those efforts. The evening ended and I
arrived the two blocks distance to my home much more at a loss than when I had left it a
couple of hours earlier. But eventually, it all started to fall into place when Doris called
herelf a “destructivist”.

What Doris proposed was to recreate out of the destroyed dictionary column, any dictionary
column, a new thing, a different kind of thing with a different kind of meaning. While, at the
outset, this was certainly a revolutionary approach and I still did not understand why she
was making it and I certainly had arrived at no conclusions as to how she had reached the
decision to be a “destructivist”…she had not seemed to me to be a Rosa Luxemburg.

There is yet another aspect of Paul Shapiro’s critical comment regarding his prohesized
importance and my relationsip to Doris Cross. It must be noted that Shapiro made no
comment on the worth of Doris Cross’s work alhough its importance was implied. It should
also be noted that Doris chose to live in my house, under my roof in two widely separated
places, Cedar Falls, Iowa and Santa Fe, New Mexico.It might be considered that beyond the
space she rented there may have been other characteristics such as a tolerance for creative
exploration she rarely found elswhere, although, generally speaking, Doris made her own
space.

DORIS CROSS

Five works by Doris Cross

Doris in conversation with a young Norwegian visitor.

 Henrickson: Portrait of Doris

At this point it is vital to recognize the role of environment in assisting the goals of the
creative mind set which seeks an answer to a question. Also, it is important to recognize
that there is a difference between the operations of the creative mind which seeks to find
the yet unkown and the performance of a technically accomplished dentist.

No one I know of questions Shapiro’s technical ability to do what he does. In fact, it seems
he does a Marsden Hartley better than Hartley (this should indicate something) BUT, despite his
having attended the School of the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Massachusetts, can he draw? It
should be noted that drawing well may not be an indication of being creative, for there is no indication
I know of that Doris could draw at all. But then, she had Hans Hoffman as a teacher, however, what
he taught her may have been attitude rather than how to translate three-dmensional structure onto a
two-dimensional surface.

In all fairness to Paul Shapiro it might be considered his basic fascination is precisely in determining
how easily, or complexly the common man can be fooled. There must be something that stirred his
mishievousness into calling the musical group he founded “The Hallucinations” .This attitude of using
generally accepted cultural symbols in more flexible ways than those for which they had been
intended is an attitude that is encouraged by the Talmud and in a mixed cultural society leaves the
gentile at a disadvantage for he generally calls a spade a spade.

No matter how remote it may appear, this attitude (that the public is ignorant) is fairly common among
gallery directors, even in Santa Fe where at one time Forrest Fenn promoted an exhibit of the work of
Elmyr De Hory, the well-known copyist. Forrest was honest enough (perhaps didn’t dare be otherwise) to
advertse the exhibit as copies. Neverthless he seemed to believe that no-one, including myself, would
be able to tell the difference between the real thing and a pastiche. So he tested me and I
disappointed him. He was disillusioned and one could read on his face his amazement that anyone
could recognize these differences, ergo, what some say is real MUST BE REAL! That which I do not
recognize must, after all, be there.
It also follows that there are identifiable chacteristics that clue one into seeing that something is real.
From that it follows as well, that if this information is transferable that something is amiss in our art
education system since the majority of the people do not exhibit this talent. They miss out on an
important part, an enjoyable part, of human awareness…something Bernard Berenson called “life
enhancing”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxIvPJhzX2w magic revealed. This video seems

to demonstrate some of the seductiveness of magic, the presentation of an
alternaive reality, and, possibly how our analytical focus gets shifted in an effort to
deceive us.
“Digging Those Wild and Crazy Abstractions at the Paul Shapiro Show” Even the accompanying
text to this Paul Shapiro website seems to underscore some flippancy.

Five famous artists camping it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkY0bHeWmyY Mecouri impersonator

Zaxaratos. What I find fascinating about this performance is that the fellow gives
the illussion of his being Melina Mecouri from time to time so that, without the assist
of costumes and makeup he really does look like her, sounds like her, moves like
her. He produces an illusion.. This seems to me to be a rather special
accomplishment.

As for the approved portraits above I am frankly perplexed as to what they mean,
that is, what is the origin of these extreme presentations of the self. I know that
when such occassions occur with me the exaggeration, used as a red herring, is
intended to keep my private requirements private.

When I saw the work of Ann Craven there had been a quality about it that had
reminded me of Paul Shapiro’s work. I was unable to explain it for there is little
obvious similarity about it until it finally dawned on me that what was lacking in
both was that indispensble connection required between the creative urge, the
material, and the vision, in short, what is it that breaths life into clay? It is, I think,
focused intention.

By way of explanation this work by Ann

Craven seems to offer more information about her and where possibly her mind is
floating than Paul Shapiro’s offerings to the public which beg for their admiration
and awe.

I find in the Craven the same thoughtless obeisance paid to a current fad, a
needless undersoring. through repetition, as I do in Shapiro where he seems to
mark the passage of time in discrete periods of specialized involvment, e.g, Hartley
landscape motivs (yesterday), floating maroon lozenges (today), gestural figuration (this
afternoon), like the timed forty-five minutes study in math, writing, geography and
music, with a break for P.E. which marks off the life of a middle school student.

According to Charles Giuliano writing for a Boston publication Paul Shapiro

compared the life of a true artist to the condemnation of Sisyphus who was
compelled by the gods to roll a stone up hill and then to have it roll down again and
he to repeat this effort for evermore. There are some interesting points to Shapiro
having used this as a mythic analogy for the struggling of the “true artist”. The true
artist often agonizes over how best to get a concept into form, that is, an idea into
shaped material. That much is certainly true. But, it would be appropriate to be
aware that Giulano is a reporter cum romantic novelist…not an art critic when he
observes : Paul loves pushing buttons and pissing people off.
In that sense Shapiro is a true artist. How I love him. What a mensch. The insertion of ethnic
prasing should clue us in as to Giuliano’s understanding of his function as writer.
Another side of this “pissing off” issue is effectively illustrated in this video clip :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybhS3G0ul3U

In Shapro’s case he seems not to either suffer, struggle, lack success or be denied
rewards, so on that measure Shapiro doesn’t satsify the requirement for being a
true artist. However, if the theme of hallucinatory appearances continues it would
seem that Sisyphus’s condemnation as a result of his being hubristic and deceitful
would certainly apply which reminds me of my opening statement that the criminal
always lets you know what he has in mind.

The myth also indicates that Sisyphus enjoyed deceiving people and it was for this
reason we see him in Hell, but as cleverly deceitful as he was he even talked the
Queen of that realm, Persephony, into letting him return to earth to scold his wife
for not giving hm a proper burial…but he didn’t voluntarily return.

I do not want to give the reader the impression that I am unappreciative of the
talent to mimic. I am enchanted by the following video in part because the fellow
produces the effect without the assist of costuming, makeup or props.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkY0bHeWmyY Mercouri impersoator Zaxaratos,
but the difference is that he advertises himself as a mimic…of course, if he tried to
pass himelf off as the real Melina Mercouri he might have some difficulty.

Below are, on the left side some examples of Shapiro’s work. On the right are works
by others which I find similar. There is nothing at all wrong in learning from what
others have done and there is nothing “wrong” in having failed to successfully
incorporate the learning into one’s own work…it is only a disappointment. …and
Paul Shapiro is a disppointment.
.
The folowing are examples of where consistency of search and an aesthetc
intelligence brings about creative results. The point being that Shapiro’s bouncing
about from one adopted technical approach to another, more or less, in someone
elce’s footsteps, has not yielded substantial aesthetic material, but in the following
one does see evidence of form yielding to concept.

Edvard Munch: Munch’s whole life seemed characterized by loss either the loss of family members, or
the loss of a secure national identity to say nothing of the searing pain of personal isolation.

Albert Pinkham Ryder: It occurs to me that, I brief, Ryder tried very successfully to bring together the
darl theatrical emotional forces of human fate and that to the extent the strong dark and light
conrasts, swirling or apprhensively expecting a sudden change in fortune he accomplshes the tak he
set for himself.
Marsden Hartley giving ample evidence in the form of his works that regardless of the subject his
concern is really for rough trade. Painting for Hartley seems to be a form of visual masturbation. This,
for us, the observer should not be a matter of concern for our interest is in the objective view of the
artist’s involvment not in the participation with him in the subject.

And in Santa Fe itself there have been two who have shown this ability to join inspiration to substance.

SAM SCOTT’s work lies till in the seminal stew of a potential becoming having a resistence to any one
permanent formulation, rather a portrait of the forever energized and morphing nature of
possibility….a chameleon.

STORM TOWNSEND’s work is mostly celebratory of the female principle and to have joy in one’s
gender. I see in her a forming tenderness, more subjective Henry Moore.

.
.