The Question Of Space

[Christopher Raven]

A joy to see these images 555. My question would not be 'when or where', but 'why', and how does it make the viewer feel.
  I agree, and it's been mentioned before, all of Robert's work can be seen as one project - one sociological enquiry. In art, as in life there are no rigid sectional boundaries.

[marlowe]

I'm pretty sure that Self-Portrait at the foot of the stairs isn't Project 10 (Self Portrait) by the way. I think it may be Jealousy.

Jealousy Project list: no 56 "Staircase"?

[member555]

.... the sitter was not recognizable to me as Monica (Monca?) Quirk. Who was Jane? 

Very true, the dissimilarity to Monica. Although to my eye it is often quite difficult to recognize Robert's models. Monica, of course, changed her appearance dramatically over the 30 odd years that the paintings of her span, but never does she look much like the woman in the "Death with Jane and the Black Coat".  The only other painting featuring "Jane" is #52, Jane and Maggie, with Death", which I have not seen. The closest to "Jane" I know from the 70's is Janet Tregale (there's a pencil drawing of her in the gallery). Robert liked to give his ladies nicknames: Celia became Mouse, Iverine became Faggot, Monica became Monca, and perhaps Janet became Jane (admittedly very speculative and may be way up the creek).

In case anyone wonders, the lady at the base of the second image I posted is, of course, Monica, easy to recognize in this one. Still many years from the Monica of  Project 20 - "Monica With Grey Scarf" - a painting that Jack described most appropriately:

"This picture of Monica Quirk is Lenkiewicz's unflinching gaze at its most searing. To paint such a picture of a friend of thirty years, mother of his children, ravaged by illness, gives Robert a claim on our respect that, in my opinion, transcends that of 'Anna in the Shawl'

I subscribe to every letter of that, Jack.

[Francis]

In my view, if Robert included a work in a Project, then we can gain nothing by excluding it from that Project. If a painting was used to illustrate his ideas behind several Projects, the painting beongs to all those Projects. So the self portrait at the foot of the stairs belongs to Project 10, whether painted at that time or not. So many paintings were used in Projects years, even many years, after they were painted, that the Project number is no indication of when a work was produced. I know that you are fully aware of this, of course. My point is that paintings can belong to one, two, three or more Projects, that this is meaningful, and I see no problem with it.

A classic case is the painting known as "Study of Chairs" from "Still-Lifes". This is actually a "Painter with Mary" work but doubles up perfectly. What interests me though is the dating of paintings and the only way to do this in the end is stylistically.

[member555]

What interests me though is the dating of paintings and the only way to do this in the end is stylistically.

I'm happy that there are two of us interested in dating the paintings. But I disagree that style is the only means for this, on the contrary, style offers no clues for example in parts of the 70's when Robert worked on several Projects simultaneously or within a very short timespan. Besides, to date a painting on style one needs to know what the painter's "style" was at the time, i.e. you need a body of dated paintings. So it's a circular reasoning.

One way through this is to tie paintings into the Project they were painted for. Sounds self-evident, perhaps even easy, but the number of mis-assigned paintings is high (just look at the assignments in the Gallery here) and the number of unassigned Project ones is staggering. That sure confuses the picture of "style" of any given period.

You have better data than most of us for Robert's paintings, but I trust it was a bit hasty to say that the paintings can only be dated on style. There are, of course, many ways to date paintings accurately. Just to mention a few, dated photographs, identifiable datable subjects, paintings related to travels abroad, and so on. And again, identification in Project lists. But the main body of information probably lies in the Project notebooks. To give one of your own, excellent example, Man Killing Himself (R.L. P&P Pl. 40) illustrates this perfectly. We (or I) unfortunately don't have access to the notebooks. So I do it my way.

The goal remains the same for all of us, to keep Robert's work alive.

[Francis]

But I disagree that style is the only means for this, on the contrary, style offers no clues for example in parts of the 70's when Robert worked on several Projects simultaneously or within a very short timespan. Besides, to date a painting on style one needs to know what the painter's "style" was at the time, i.e. you need a body of dated paintings.

I should have myself clearer. I thought we were talking about paintings for which the obvious documentary evidence isn't there and you're merely left with the painting itself.

Besides, to date a painting on style one needs to know what the painter's "style" was at the time, i.e. you need a body of dated paintings. So it's a circular reasoning.

Except that we have a vast body of paintings whose date is known (if not dated). An artist's style develops rather than changes and is not really a conscious thing. That's why for instance Robert was never able to convincingly claim that the paintings of Les Ryder were painted in 1972. Stylistically, they're Project 20.

[Jack Sparrow]

I think the exhibition lists are paramount. The inclusion of a picture on the exhibition list gives a definitive upper bound for the date — it was physically exhibited on a certain date and must be at least as old as that date.

That is why I would be cautious of trying to fit pictures painted after known exhibition dates into Projects they seem to derive from retrospectively. At the very least, it always needs to be pointed out that the picture post-dates the exhibition.

The New Vagrancy pictures (circa 1996) are the best example of this. I also think it would have been absurd to put pictures like Les Ryder Just Out of Prison next to John Kynance (1973). It's a picture of a vagrant but it isn't a 'Vagrancy painting'.

Another case is Andy Lynch with Oak Leaves. It gets an outing in the Death Project 1982, the first time it seems to crop up on a list. However, in style it is closer to Diogenes at Night in Studio Window 1977. I'd reserve judgement until the Old Age Project list turns up.

The Painter With Women Project is rife with difficulties for dates. Any picture of a solitary woman is thrown into that gallery on this site even though there is no provenance whatsoever that the Theme of the Double inspired the work. I've seen Belle in there!

The burden of proof for inclusion has to be, at a bare minimum, either inclusion on the exhibition lists (which start in '88/'89) or an inscription verso saying Project 18. But how should one catalogue the preliminary studies for Project 18 that were shown in the early nineties? Presumably, they are Project pieces and studies?

There will, however, always be interesting disputes over later paintings ascribed to that Project. Robert had fallen into the habit of painting himself with new models in his red scarf, the signature motif of Project 18, not because the painting 'belonged' to the Project but because it allowed him to claim that the model belonged to a previous period of his life. Much of this will be cleared up by careful examination of Robert's appointment books in the 'secret studios'.

This kind of archaeology will allow us to create a much better chronology for Robert's work, especially the 90s period. Once that basic chronology has been established, we need a definitive database, preferably online, maintained by the TLF to establish the canonical works. I envisage this rather like cladistics in evolutionary theory: a sort of family tree relating non-Project pieces and aesthetic notes to the core Project material based on dates.

So perhaps there could be a new convention. If it was exhibited under a Project heading the picture is 'Project something', e.g Jealousy Project. If it was painted after the exhibition it could be called Jealousy Theme.

[gbl]

 I envisage this rather like cladistics in evolutionary theory: a sort of family tree relating non-Project pieces and aesthetic notes to the core Project material based on dates.

I think a 'family tree' format is the only  way to classify works really. As this kind of 'visual' dating/referencing enables you to see what painting might fit where, at certain times, and that it fits elsewhere too at other times etc.. Something that I don't think will be possible if documented simply in 'list' format! So the family tree format could become an invaluable continually-refered-to point of reference needed with RL's work. 

[gbl]

Ps; Also my opinion is that I think TLF might not bother doing this! So I think it would be an idea to have it on this site - either a button for 'info' on works, or linked to a sister site perhaps - which had all the relevant RL info; chronology/projects etc..

[Dave Elliott]

 Much of this will be cleared up by careful examination of Robert's appointment books in the 'secret studios'.

The thing is Jack you will firstly have to work out the code names for some of the people within the books.
 
This is your starter of 10 and no conferring

Dave Elliott aka CAUTIOUS.