Drips

A couple of years ago, I had a painting exhibited in a regional show at the Memorial Art Gallery in Rochester, NY and had a few paintings for sale in the Gallery's bookstore. My mother was viewing the paintings and commented that there were paint drips on one of my abstract pieces. My response was that I worked hard to make those drips. What I saw and appreciated and what my mother saw were two very different things, stimulating distinctly opposite emotions and thoughts. My mother is now 91 years old and until a few months ago lived her whole life in the house that she was born in. From her perspective drips were the bane of painting, any kind of painting. Drips were a sign of careless, sloppy work, and should be eliminated. This cultural perspective is reflected in our slang. Calling someone a "drip" meant that they were an annoying person. We don't want to be a "drip!"

So when did drips become an positive aesthetic in painting? And, how was it possible to reorient the traditionally held views on paint drips? Who dripped first? Now, if you google search for drips in art, guess what, you get Jackson Pollack. He had an influence, but I can't count him. He didn't make real drips, he used an innovative drip technique to apply paint. The drips I am referring to are drips that run from applying liquid paint to a vertical surface. Real drips! Purposeful drips! Splatters don't count either, different category. Motherwell made splatter paintings - close but no cigar. We can find a few real drips in Franz Kline's work, even Rothko's. But they were minor, you have to look hard to find them. Hans Hofmann got into drips in the 60's, too late to be innovative, plus they were weird. Well, what about de Kooning? He had paint flying all over the place. Yes, bold brush work, not too many drips. The exception was work that relied on loose washes. Washes created drips, unavoidable. However, most of these pieces with drips seem to be more like sketches and not in the same class as his paintings, which contained hardly no real dripping (thick paint).

Who made the drip respectable and beautifully important? Was it Robert Rauschenberg? I vote yes. Take a look at "Yoicks" painted in 1953. I love this painting! Drips are a central elements of this work. This is an influential painting. I have a board on my Pinterest page called Strata, it's filled with contemporary artists that paint in horizontal stripes - 60 years later.

Robert Rauschenberg, "Yoicks"

1953, Oil and Collage on Canvas, 96 x 72"

Collection: The Whitney Museum of American Art, New York.

Rauschenberg worked with non-traditional or everyday materials, in "Yoicks" case, a patterned fabric. By the way, he used enamel paint that dripped without much effort. His paint seems to assume multiple realities - it acted as a connector between collage and objects but also made a statement. And, that statement was amplified by the emotional content of drips. Intentional and purposeful drips! Color with the energy of drips as message not mistake! I am wondering, could drips relate to Rauschenberg's feelings about art? Art that is not elitist, overly polished, or exclusive to the upper class. Does a brush stroke of color with inseparable drips have the potential to symbolize common everyday life and include everyone? I think it might.

Robert Rauschenberg, "Bed"

1955, Oil and Graphite on Fabric,

75.5 x 31.5 x 6.5"

Collection: The Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Close-up, Robert Rauschenberg, "Bed".

Did these drips gave birth to a new aesthetic?

It must have been shocking to see this work when it was first exhibited. Considering the cultural perception of drips in 1953. Today, with the passage of time, drips are cool. What an impossible transformation! We owe a lot to Robert Rauschenberg.

Well, it's difficult to isolate my comments about Rauschenberg to simply drips. I hope I didn't overlook another artist that contributed to making drips a positive aesthetic in painting. If so, please let me know.