Censored Gauguin May Get Makeover
 |
| Paul Gauguin, Te Fare Amu, 1895 or 1897. Henry and Rose Pearlman Foundation, promised gift to Brooklyn Museum of Art |
Martin Bailey, writing in The Art Newspaper, reports on the history and possible future of Henry Pearlman's Gauguin relief Te Fare Amu (now on view at LACMA). It appears that Pearlman himself was the one who "censored" the female nude's genitals, in order to get the painted wood carving past U.S. Customs.
The left side of the panel shows a crouching nude woman with pale green skin, red lips, a red nipple, and a line of unexplained red "buttons" along her spine. Originally her vulva was painted a bright red as well. X-rays show this was painted over with green to be less noticeable. The relief had been shown without controversy in its original state in France, but at the time of Pearlman's purchase, about 1955, U.S. Customs were known to be prudish. They had after all banned Joyce's Ulysses.
According to best practices, overpainting should be separated by a layer of varnish for reversibility. That seems not to have been done. Daniel Edelman, Pearlman's grandson and president of the Pearlman Foundation, said that a 2017 examination at the Art Institute of Chicago showed that "the original red paint had adhered to the added layer and removal wasn't possible with currently available techniques. I am sure that this will be re-examined in the near future."
Te Fare Amu is promised to the Brooklyn Museum, where it travels this fall. A Brooklyn spokesperson says they "will be looking into this with our conservation team."
 |
| Installation view of "Village Square: Gifts of Modern Art from the Pearlman Collection to the Brooklyn Museum, LACMA, and MoMA" |
Gauguin's erotic subjects are still viewed with ambivalence, though the conversation centers more on colonialism and white privilege than indecency and red vaginas. At LACMA the Gauguin's lighting and placement high above a doorway make it difficult to see. The same room has two of Wilhelm Lehmbruck's idealized nudes at eye level.
Comments
> Gauguin's lighting
> and placement high
> above a doorway
> make it difficult
> to see.
In the Resnick, the floor is concrete, the walls are painted plasterboard. Now imagine galleries where the walls and ceiling are also gray concrete too. Although the concrete floor in the Geffen may be at least a slightly darker color than in the Resnick.
I don't know why Zumthor wanted all the interior walls of the Geffen to be concrete too. If they're not load-bearing, it might be better to rip them out and replace them with the format used in the Resnick. Or BCAM too.
The next question is what the Geffen's draperies look like. Just as the openings of the Ahmanson's atrium were eventually sealed off, at least a few of the windows in Zumthor's building in the future will probably (or should) see the same thing.
And just because the artist shot a photo of it in history placing it above a doorway doesn't necessitate doing that in perpituity...unless there's something in the literature that mandates his choice.
The intended audience of Gauguin’s game wasn’t Tahitians but French colonials. By the time he was in the Marquesas, Gauguin was basically in open conflict with the colonial authorities. The house itself, along with its decorations, functioned as a kind of provocation directed at them, prostitution being something they clearly engaged with but preferred to keep under the rug. And if that’s the case, one can start to read the grotesque caricature in the work not as directed at Polynesians, or as Gauguin’s misguided or cruel eye toward them, but as a mirror held up to the French of his time, reflecting back at them their own depravity, much as he did in the Getty painting, serving up/presenting us the head of the last Tahitian king, presumably our prize.
Otherwise fine frames can make or break a picture. In this case, I advise LACMA swap it out.
--- J. Garcin
https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/69a84cf92f69787b2c4bc3cd/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/0426_LACMA_embed_04_b.jpg
Not thrilled with the spindly-leg display stands, however. Another photo shows one of them holding a variety of smaller sculptures on them, and the setup looks way too much like a discount store. But raw-concrete gallery walls and Ikea-style display mounts can be remedied in the future.
The Geffen will require modification in upcoming years, but it probably will have more versatility than Pereira-1965. So Zumthor 2026 is admittedly better than over 50 years ago.
I admit, since I don't subscribe, that only 1 photo appears when I call up today's VF article. But that 1 photo shows Diego Rivera’s "Flower Day (DÃa de flores)" being transported at LACMA, as Mr. Govan looks on. The walls appear in the photo, and are horridly speckled-black against a barely cured wettish concrete.
Altogether cringe inducing, not appropriate for fine art display. Fungi display, perhaps. Not fine art.
I would be very interested to know your proposed solutions.
It is boggling to me that the unesthetic environment is not self-evident.
David "Geffen was unfazed. “I have spent most my life working with artists and never cared about criticism of their work. Michael had an idea that I believed in, Zumthor’s design was magnificent, and LA is better because of them both. That simple.”
I agree. Somehow the execution as to the concrete walls went so very wrong.
https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/69a84cfda2f193355c444073/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/0426_LACMA_embed_08_a.jpg
The mosiac-like floor is wonderfully intricate - a totally Zumthorian trait - and I wish the surface of the gallery floor had been done like that too. What's the pegboard bench thing against the wall. It gives a nice organic contrast to the concrete.
> that the unesthetic
> environment is not
> self-evident.
It's the trend of hip-cool-funky, which also covers for a low budget, a lack of technical skills or mainly flaky judgment.
Of the 3 issues, a lack of enough money is often an excuse. Or a lack of ability, which may include missing the right tools or equipment, is another one. That's sometimes paired with the excuse of not enough time.
But the third one, flaky judgment (some label that "bad taste"), is way more inexcusable.
In 1965, for some reason William Pereira thought that 4 floors of narrow galleries and 3 separate buildings was okay.
In 2026, there are still way too many separate buildings (originally there were 3, in 2026 there are 4---and they're also even farther apart). But the square footage at least is more substantial.
However, instead of 4 levels around an open atrium there are now way too many gray concrete surfaces, too many windows, flimsy-looking display units and Ikea-budget-type light fixtures.
Not getting the physical nature of a museum down just right is regrettably in LACMA's DNA. Still, 2026 is better than 1965. Although Pereira's moat and fountains were better than mainly hardscape or narrow, dead-end sculpture gardens. However, I also originally didn't think that artist Chris Burden's "Urban Light" would become an Instagram-able moment either.
If colored wash can be used as successfully throughout the complex, I withdraw my virulent opposition to the concrete walls.
Could saffron, purple, midnight blue be as successful?
Still, I wish LACMA had just opted for the concrete esthetic that Zumthor had achieved so perfectly at his Kolumba Museum in Cologne, and left the concrete alone. Wasted chance.
*
Are the washes reversible?
I find it funny how some people here hold concrete to a different standard than they would the other stones. Concrete is as "natural" a material as travertine, limestone, marble, or granite. It's a product of chance, hence the irregularity, mottling, veining, or pitting.
Yes, you can make architectural concrete that has a more even appearance. But why should you? There's an artificiality in that.
It would be comparable to choosing a manufactured stone or porcelain paver with a stone pattern for a landscaping project. It may work in a suburban backyard project, but it's not the stuff of great architecture.
--- J. Garcin
Nope, it's very intentional. It also has little to nothing to do with a tight budget.
However, the squared-off corners of the windows under the concrete roof are due to cost factors. Zumthor originally designed them as curved, which would have given the building a sleeker look. But LACMA has stretched its budget more than advisable.
The roof with its large overhang in aerial images also makes the floor space under it seem larger than it really is. So whether the museum's collection is large or small, a lot more of it will be sitting in storage.
However, more of it will be supposedly shown at the new museum rising in Las Vegas (gamblers, rejoice), and in the satellite locations that Govan still loves to talk about. Given the reportedly over $120 million that LA County government has given to fund the new building, I'm not sure if a collection MIA is sort of a kick in the face.
> used as successfully
> throughout the complex...
> Still, I wish LACMA had just
> opted for the concrete
> esthetic that Zumthor had
> achieved so perfectly...
LOL. That made me think of this:
Sally Field in Sybil (1976)
TV Mini Series
A young woman whose childhood was so harrowing to her that she developed sixteen different personalities is treated by a doctor.
"> Still, I wish LACMA had just
> opted for the concrete
> esthetic that Zumthor had
> achieved so perfectly...
LOL. That made me think":
Perhaps you don't know: The cements in Cologne and L.A. are as different as one and a trillion. In that comparison, L.A. lost.
> and L.A. are as different
> as one and a trillion.
I admit I haven't been in Zumthor's building in Germany, but based on videos, concrete in Europe still looks like concrete in America/LA. Or Public Storage version A versus Public Storage version B.
I saw an image of a portion of the Geffen Galleries that contained older art (I think it was American) displayed on plain gray concrete, near a row of windows no less too. The wall looked like it needed to be tinted.
However, some folks may like the look and vibes of a parking garage.
The Salk Institute is a considered an architectural masterpiece.
... Shows what some of you know.