HUDSON RIVER MUSEUM
This catalogue is being published in conjunction with the exhibition I WANT Candy: The Sweet Stuff in American Art, organized by the Hudson River Museum, Yonkers, June 16 to September 2, 2007. The exhibition and catalogue has been made possible by a gift from
ISBN: 0-943651-34-4 Copyright 2007 Hudson River Museum 511 Warburton Avenue Yonkers, NY 10701-1899 914.963.4550 www.hrm.org Catalogue Design by James Monroe www.jameshmonroe.com
Director’s Forward
It is particularly appropriate that I WANT Candy:
No exhibition of this kind would be possible
The Sweet Stuff in American Art should be
without the cooperation of a large group
presented at the Hudson River Museum. Although
of lenders who have our grateful thanks.
the current exhibition focuses on sweets as
Erica Blumenfeld, the museum’s Registrar,
reflected through the eyes of 42 contemporary
effectively organized the loan paperwork and
artists from around the nation, the City of
shipping arrangements. James Cullinane,
Yonkers, where the museum is located, has long
Chief Preparator, worked to design an elegant
had an association with sugar. Daniel Putnam
and attractive show. Jean-Paul Maitinsky,
Brinley’s Hudson River View (Sugar Factory
Assistant Director, Programs and Exhibitions,
at Yonkers) c. 1915, provides a window onto what
oversaw the development of the exhibition in
was historically, along with elevators and
addition to his duties as head of the museum’s
carpets, one of the leading industries in Yonkers.
programmatic and educational activities.
Today, the sugar industry remains in Yonkers,
But credit for the exhibitions existence is wholly
a reminder of the past and also a harbinger of
due to the efforts and insights of Bartholomew
the city’s vibrant future. It is fascinating to think
Bland, Curator of Exhibitions. He brought together
that sugar, so uniform in its production, could
the research and the artwork and wrote the
be the basis for such a varied artistic response in
publication. We hope you enjoy I WANT Candy as
the group of excellent artists assembled here.
much as all of us have enjoyed working on it. Michael Botwinick
2
Daniel Putnam Brinley (1879-1963) Hudson River View (Sugar Factory at Yonkers),c. 1915 Oil on canvas 31 7/8 x 30 1/8 in. Collection of the Hudson River Museum, Yonkers, NY Museum Purchase, 95.3.1
3
Candy: A Consideration
Bartholomew F. Bland Curator of Exhibitions
Candy is endlessly enticing. The multitude and
There are scattered examples of sweets in
variety of different artistic works incorporating
American nineteenth-century painting, but they
candy parallels the profusion of commercial
are rare. One of the reasons for this paucity is
sweets available in an unending array of different
that the bright coloring of artificial dyes and the
shapes, sizes, and colors. In the years since the
geometric uniformity of factory production were
advent of Pop Art in the late 1950s, contemporary
not readily available in the pre-Civil War era.
artists have embraced confections as one of their
But the lack of candy subject matter also
most popular subjects, and those sweets serve
suggests Americans were uncomfortable with
as metaphors for everything from the innocence
overtly sensuous visual displays of sugar.
of childhood to the promise of debauchery.
A few early artists such as Raphaelle Peale
Although images of candy are now frequently
(1774-1825) incorporated sweets into their works
invoked in video art and installation works as
but usually in keeping with their restrained
metaphors ranging from decadent consumerism
aesthetic styles, which did not signal careless
to childhood innocence, one of the pillars
abundance to a still somewhat puritanical
of candy art remains the traditional still life.
American audience suspicious of art.
Successful still life has often been judged by
Raphaelle Peale is generally considered the first
its degree of verisimilitude, and artists have
professional still life painter in America.
long recognized the relationship between the
His work’s great merit is its deceptive simplicity,
tongue and the eye. Seventeenth century Dutch
which evoked the “plain living” of America
still life painting, which presented silver ewers,
when contrasted with more elaborate Dutch and
lobsters, and lemons, strove to make the viewer
Flemish models. In this respect his work echoes
desire the good things in life, and the desire to
that of the restrained style of eighteenth-century
present foods tempting to the taste buds remains
French still life painter Jean-Baptiste-Simeon
in contemporary still life. The sweet taste that
Chardin (1699-1779). Still life was a genre of
makes people yearn for candy is symbolized in
painting extremely rare in the United States in
the bright colors, geometric forms, and strong
the first decades of the nineteenth century,
patterning that make candy the perfect subject
when portraits were the most popular style of
for still life painting.
painting. The genre was widely considered to be inferior “not just because of the low objects that
4
The candy still life is a contemporary variant on
it depicted but because of the kind and degree
the traditional still life featuring fruit or flowers.
of imitation, of deceptive illusion, implicit in their
depiction.”1 Raphaelle Peale’s fifty or so
Thiebaud was equally influenced by the plain,
surviving works typically show modestly scaled
simple works of Raphaelle Peale. Thiebaud’s
objects in austere settings.
career of creating distinctive still life was often
2
associated with the American Pop Movement, Peale’s fruit was often bruised or dimpled, with
but, in fact, he reached his stylistic maturation
brown specks suggesting the passage of time.
just prior to the Pop Movement and influenced it.
Occasionally, he would paint a small, modest frosted cake with distinctive red and green sugar
Wayne Thiebaud
crystals baked into a shape that suggests his cakes may all have emanated from the same
Thiebaud’s use of repetition and reduction allies
simple tin. Raphaelle Peale’s inability to find
him with the Pop artists but his work stands
commercial success painting still life probably
apart from that movement. Whereas Pop Art
dissuaded many young American artists from
is ironical, Thiebaud’s carefully ranked rows of
following in his footsteps; but after the
cakes, pies, and candies laid out like modernist
Civil War, artists such as John Peto (1854-1907)
grids, are taken seriously by the artist and
and Joseph Decker (1853-1924) began to feature
presented at face value. It is hardly possible for
brightly colored hard candy in the their canvases.
someone to contemplate one of his pastry-case
Contemporary artists such as Neil Christensen
paintings and not subsequently view the bakery
keep Peto’s and Decker’s style of painting
display at the local deli as a series of abstracted
alive today.
shapes and colors. The influence of Pop artists such as James Rosenquist, whose work contains
It was not until the second half of the twentieth
not-so-veiled criticism of consumer society,
century, when the wide availability and mass
is not to be found in Thiebaud’s paintings,
marketing of sweets made them ubiquitous,
which celebrate the abundance of American life
that candy became a major subject for American
in the postwar years.
artists. Traditional still life has not been readily associated with modern art, but Wayne Thiebaud
Thiebaud’s still life work, with its vacuum-
was largely responsible for reinvigorating still
like silence, draws not only on Peale, but also
life painting and bringing it back into the artistic
on the stillness and long shadows of Edward
mainstream. Despite the impact of a large, loud,
Hopper. Italian Desserts, 1986 (fig. 54) is a classic
and intensely colorful consumerist culture,
Thiebaud image. Completed in pastels, a medium
which had such an important impact on Pop Art,
in which the artist is a master, the image has
5
his typical hallmarks in the cropping that cuts
work. The idea of want, of desire anticipated
the pastries at the edges of the frame and in the
but unfulfilled, runs through the work of most
raked lighting that suggests a theatrical spotlight
of the artists in the exhibition. As Thiebaud said
or the clear, high noon sun of Thiebaud’s native
of his luscious desserts locked behind glass
California. Like a Hitchcock blonde, the desserts
window cases, “it’s the exclusionary aspect that
entice the viewer but remain serenely perfect,
gets me—there’s a lot of yearning there.”4
sealed and set apart behind the invisible glass Contemporary Variations on Still Life
wall of the pastry-case, to be looked at, not touched. Italian Desserts is an image Thiebaud first created as an etching in 1979 and then
Sharon Core’s inventive appropriation is the
returned to at a later date, adding the delicately
most obvious homage to Thiebaud’s painting.
hued colors in pastel, which, like candy, are
Her photographs, each of which is a simulation of
solid, yet ephemeral. Pastels were the perfect
one of his canvases, reverse the typical process
medium for Thiebaud to “depict dust in the air,
of a photograph used as the basis for a painting.
the bloom of a peach, or powder on a donut.”
Instead, Core’s Thiebauds series (figs. 13 and 14)
3
uses his paintings, (themselves often painted Despite Thiebaud’s accomplishments, it is
from memory rather than from life) to construct
tempting to ask, “Is still life relevant today?”
original photographs. “Through a mixture
Still life can easily be seen as outmoded—visions
of frosting, sculpture, tromp-l’oeil painting
of sensual perfection in a chaotic and combative
and manipulated lighting and camera
world. They are perhaps too easy to love in a
angles, she faithfully reproduces Thiebaud’s
contemporary art scene that for three decades
originals, capturing their colors, textures,
has eschewed beauty. However, the universal
shadows, and perspective.”5 Her photographs
appeal of Thiebaud’s work reinvigorated still
leave the viewer questioning the relationships
life with pictures of mass manufactured sweets,
between reality and illusion, perception
the product of modern society. It was this new
and innovation.
subject matter, rather than the classic bowls
6
of fruit, which has continued to energize the
Neil Christensen’s Strawberries, Cupcake,
medium, allowing contemporary artists to use the
Coke, and Cherries, 2002 (fig. 10) is a formal
style to comment on the changing world around
contemporary composition harkening back to
them. Thiebaud spawned two generations of
the 1800s. Unlike the heightened flash-and-
artists who have been deeply influenced by his
bang drama in works by the Pop Artists or
Photorealists, his ordered placement of objects
creating a hyper-lusciousness that is a contrast
suggests Thiebaud; but Christensen embraces
with Thiebaud’s more austere presentation.
the simple, dark backgrounds of the nineteenth-
Flack’s lush colors are bold and unsentimental,
century American still life. Christensen’s work
her works do not succumb to “sweetness” [an
usually combines elements of contemporary life,
ironic danger for any artist depicting candy] but
here depicting the varying degrees of sweetness
shimmer with vibrancy. In contrast to the ordered
from the “natural” strawberries to the classic,
rows of Thiebaud’s cakes, Flack’s “placement is
mass-produced “artificial” can of soda.
haphazard. The clarity and harmony of a classical
Cara Wood Ginder’s small-scale paintings (fig. 28
composition is absent,” and the isolated calm
and 29) utilize a similar dark background but her
instilled in individual sweets in Thiebaud’s work
works are miniaturized, contemporary versions
is subverted for a richer but more chaotic effect.7
of trompe l’oeil. In the center of each panel is
Hershey’s “Kisses” have proven to be a favorite
a small, exquisitely painted object from everyday
subject for artists depicting candy, since the
life. The brilliantly colored popsicle and ice cream
silver-wrapped sweets make explicit the links
cone project vividly from the dark surfaces, which
between richness, romance, and chocolate.
appear as small blackboards with tiny, strange
Second generation photorealists, such as
“chalk” drawings in the corners. As the artist
James Del Grosso, have continued to explore this
notes, “I try to infuse my still-life’s with optimism,
interest in the allure of packaging in works like
irony, spiritualism, even sarcasm, but cloaked
Big Kiss, 2007 (fig. 18). Here the wrapped candy
in artistic realism.” 6
is such a sensual sight that it renders the actual chocolate below something of a disappointment.
Despite Thiebaud’s perceived link to the Pop Movement, his work probably had the most
Kim Mendenhall’s Six Desserts for Wayne, 2004
pronounced influence on the 1970s Photorealist
(fig. 42) is a second generation photorealist’s
Movement, not only as a model but also as
straightforward tribute to the master and makes
a point of departure. Photorealism, a term first
an interesting contrast with Italian Desserts.
coined by the dealer Louis Meisel in 1969, was,
Whereas Thiebaud crops his image and moves
as its name indicated, indebted to photography.
his plates ever so slightly out of alignment subtly
Hers (Hershey Kisses), 1977 (fig. 27), painted
subverting the balance of the picture, Mendenhall
by Audrey Flack at the height of the first wave
maintains a rigorous overall geometry, filling her
of interest in Photorealism, is a fine example
canvas with a pyramidal shape that grounds the
of the field. Her painting “amps up” reality,
composition and gives her desserts a feeling of
7
solidity. However, her palate is more subdued
Dan Douke explores the visual intrigue of candy
than Thiebaud’s, and unlike those in Italian
packaging and its relationship between the
Deserts, her shapes are not simple or uniform
mundane and the marvelous. He examines the
but rather a series of complex geometric forms,
“strangely stunted effect of Pop Art as it freezes
softened by runny syrups. Beverly Shipko is
in time the look and appeal of graphics and
another artist whose work has been strongly
product design.” 9 Douke’s Friends, 2000 (fig.
influenced by Thiebaud, although her paintings,
21) shows the artist’s fascination with the way
such as the devoured Bonnie’s Carrot Cake,
Japanese culture has assimilated the cheerfulness
2006 (fig. 51) evince a great degree of humor
and artifice of classic American Pop, then
and a suggestion that the invisible “glass wall”
transformed and reintroduced it back to America.
of desire can be breached. Still, she recognizes
Swear in Pink, 2004 (fig. 20), with its vibrant
the basic tension inherent in her subject matter,
background and cellophane wrap, showcases
noting, “... it is particularly ironic that I’m
“the luminosity and isolated perfection of these
obsessed with painting tempting desserts.
perfect objects” and gives the painting a lurid
I have a constant battle with hunger, a history
reality that evokes the work of James Rosenquist
of diabetes while I was pregnant, and a father
or Tom Wesselmann.
10
who is a dentist.”8 Some critics have described Emily Eveleth’s
8
Ralph Goings’ delicate watercolors (figs. 30, 31,
paintings of sugar-coated jelly doughnuts, such
and 32) also reflect Thiebaud’s influence
as Veil, 2002 (fig. 24) or Inverse, 2006 (fig. 23),
in their deadpan presentation, heavy shadows,
as also being contemporary takes on classic Pop
and simplicity of form, but Goings creates moody
Art reminiscent “... of James Rosenquist’s glossy
backgrounds that integrate his pastries more
consumerist paintings from the 1970s.”11 However,
casually into their surroundings, suggesting
Eveleth’s works are both more restrained and
the “every day-ness” of a casual diner setting,
more sinister than Pop Art. Her canvases shun
rather than the perfect, clinically scrutinized
“the brassiness of Pop icons, their idealized
specimens of Thiebaud’s work. Tjalf Sparnaay’s
presence and meticulous compositions recall
Apple Pie, 2005 (fig. 53) is more dramatically
instead Renaissance and Baroque painting.”
depicted on its lace doily. The artist takes the
Her palate is subdued, even “noir-ish” as if a
most pedestrian of pies and transforms it with
crime had just been committed. Her pastries are
lush colors and dramatic light into the most
wounded, oozing victims rendered blob-like and
sophisticated of desserts.
inert in the face of imminent consumption.
12
No artist has ever paid homage to the mundane
Humor and Childhood
beauty of cellophane as eloquently as Janet Fish. In her work she “captured the way highlights
Much candy art is funny, though it is often
and reflections played over the plastic, intruding
presented with a touch of cruelty. In the eyes
on and complicating the simple forms inside the
of some, desire can seem faintly ridiculous, and
tight skin.”
gluttony is always an easy subject to skewer.
13
Fish’s paintings are about quiet
moments filled with promise. There is nothing
The consumption of large quantities of sugar also
sinister lurking in the corners near her beautifully
carries significant class overtones, suggesting
wrapped lollipops—there is no rotting fruit or
a lack of rigorous dietary concern or self control,
skull’s head to temper the viewer’s unalloyed joy
a willingness to subvert the Duchess of Windsor’s
in beauty. Her ice cream sundae does not become
aristocratic edict that “You can never be too rich
a melting contemplation on the temporary nature
or too thin.” Will Cotton’s Trailer, 1998 (fig. 16),
of life but rather stands a source of
a humorous riff on the traditional gingerbread
ever renewing visual pleasure. Her work, like
house, is both funny and unnerving. Conjuring
that of many still life painters working today,
the alluring but dangerous witch’s cottage from
presents food in way that has been influenced
the childhood tale of Hansel and Gretel, it plays
by advertising, yet not confined by it.14
upon the suspect nature of sugar, in which allure
Like Fish, Don Nice has made a career of finding
may lead to gluttony and disaster. The piece
the beauty in representational art, although
also references the class indicators associated
he prefers to monumentalize and make epic
with trailers, in which sugar acts as a lowest
individual objects. Depicting two well-known
common denominator of people not attuned to
candy brands in Tootsie Pops, 1973 (fig. 43)
more sophisticated tastes. The placement of the
and Caramel, 1992 (fig. 44), Nice eschews
trailer as a singular, rather lonely object isolated
Thiebaud’s long shadows or Fish’s vignette-like
from its surroundings also suggests Thiebaud’s
surroundings to present a straightforward
influence on Cotton’s development as an artist.
view of sweets. His work invites the viewer to
The trailer seems strangely uninhabited, waiting
consider small variations in commercial packaging
for its family of decorated gingerbread men to
color and form and to consider what makes
return home.
an object tempting to the eye. Red Grooms’ Bubble Gum, 2001 (fig. 34) is a funny grotesque. In this wall sculpture, the little girl’s cheeks bulge out enormously, and she
9
cradles the huge bubble she is blowing, which
or ectoplasm, growing sloppily, unnervingly
threatens to consume her. The position and
primordial.
color of her chewing gum suggest an enormous distended stomach. This image is particularly
Zane Lewis’ Wonka’s Chocolate Waterfall, 2006
unsettling, as Americans have grown increasingly
(fig. 39) is one of a series that explores the
fretful about poor nutrition and childhood
artist’s fascination with childhood, fountains,
obesity. Grooms has stated that his work is
and the nature of water, particularly the eternal
“playing at the edges of the tasteful and the not
search for the Fountain of Youth. The title of
tasteful, the sophisticated and the raw, craft and
the piece references the candymaking genius
crudeness.”15 Tellingly, the little girl’s eyes do not
in Roald Dahl’s novel for children Charlie and
meet the viewer’s, but roll back in her head as
the Chocolate Factory and its two popular film
if she were engaged in her own private, sugar-
adaptations. Lewis’ work suggests the chocolate
induced ecstasy.
cravings of childhood parallel adult “cravings” for youth. To create his work, Lewis digitally converts
In a more adult but equally surreal take on
images of fountains into paint-by-number
the allure of blowing bubbles, Mary Magsamen
canvases, which reinforce the idea of childhood.
and Stephan Hillerbrand engage in a strange
Like Richard Hickam’s use of viscous paint to
competition of “anything you can do, I can do
mimic the rich thickness of his Blueberry Royal
better.” Their video air-hunger (bathroom) 2003
(fig. 37), Lewis’ runny acrylics are the perfect
(fig. 40) shows the artists repeatedly outdoing
medium to suggest melting chocolate.
each other blowing massive bubbles out of wads of pink chewing gum. In their work, “the bubble
Cindy Best’s Dentyn-ism #95 (fig. 8) is part of the
gum blowing activity . . . serves as a physical
artist’s series exploring cinnamon-flavored foods.
manifestation of breath or a metaphor for the
Unlike the sloppy chomping and chewing of
act of creation not from a romantic point of view
air-hunger, Best presents the viewer with pristine
but rather from a difficult, competitive, childlike
gum—cool, dry raw material, untouched by teeth
behavior with its associations of crudeness and
or tongue. Her work is elegantly minimalist,
While Groom’s work is a figurative
and her softly focused glamour lighting and
baseness.”
10
16
caricature, the overall effect of air-hunger
restricted palate give the piece a restraint that
(bathroom) is more organic. Unlike the glossy,
is not common in much candy-inspired art.
enameled, hard-edged quality of Groom’s work,
Her gum is abstracted— so solid and monumental
air-hunger’s bubbles suggest quivering bio-mass
that it could be construction material—a pink
girder waiting to be heaved into place. Best’s
Modern candy is a triumph of the artificial and
subtitle for the piece Picking a scab may leave
as such is often presented as a metaphorical
a scar, but it sure is fun, is taken directly
contrast to the virtuous: natural, wholesome, or
from the inside of a real Dentyne wrapper. The
nutritious. This is not surprising. It is rare to find
grossness of the title, conjuring an unpleasant
much colorful delight created from unprocessed
childhood compulsion, is seemingly at odds with
sugar cane. In Travis Conrad Erion’s Rock Candy
the refinement of the image. Marylyn Dintenfass’
(fig. 22), the tiny, brilliantly colored artificial
Good & Plenty: Ultra Blue, 2005 (fig. 19) also
peppermint acts as a kind of visual rebuke to
takes a well-known candy brand and emphasizes
the ponderous gray “natural” dullness of stone.
its elemental, abstract forms. Dintenfass’ candies
Many of Erion’s titles are plays or puns on the
could as easily be blood platelets or bacteria—or
situations they present. Erion often uses his
perhaps sugar induced morphing of human DNA.
titles to tell a story. He tries to find a larger meaning in modest inanimate objects, believing
Like Dentyn-ism #95, Ralph Salvest’s Red
that they open a window on life in contemporary
Stalactite (fig. 47) gives gum an elegance of
America. His work seeks to find larger meaning
form. But his work, which owes a debt to Marcel
in small, humorous truths. Like Rock Candy,
Duchamp, is a meditation on disposable culture.
Stephanie Jaffe Werner’s Mary Jane (fig. 55) is a
Red Stalactite recalls another piggish childhood
play on words. Her candy-encased dolls, often
trick involving gum—the tendency to stick it
with slyly suggestive titles, embrace the popular
under furniture or in other inappropriate places,
candy brand’s iconic stature, “unwrapping and
and the preserved gum cone, glowing with
rewrapping them to reveal their subliminal
artificial dyes, conjures up aching childhood
messages and double entendres.” 18 Her vision of
jaws. The perfect geometry of the cone, an
childhood has been literally wrapped in sweets.
upside-down dunce cap, gives the work its formal sophistication. But the geometry is undercut by a
Becca Albee’s site-specific installation
compulsion “to imagine a seated body with which
incorporates a large hidden ball, “stuck” under
this red, masticated mass is somehow associated,
the museum’s staircase, 2007 (fig. 1) references
flowing like menstrual blood or attached as a
childhood toys cast away or lost, like a balloon
large scaly tail or weird phallus.”17 The piece also
caught in a tree. The ball is covered with bright
presents the vivid contrast between the forms of
frostings, derived from popular designs for
salty “natural” stalactites and sweet, artificially
children’s birthday cakes, which streak across the
created ones.
gallery floor. Sprinkles, candy toppings,
11
and childhood characters in frosting litter
Masaaki Sato’s Sato Newstand No. 93 (Snickers),
the trail, suggesting disappointment in the
2005-2006 (fig. 48) presents candy as a distinctly
ephemeral nature of childhood celebrations.19
urban accessory, although Sato has cropped out
Similarly, Julie Allen’s Raspberry Cake, 2003
the surrounding cityscape in order to focus the
(fig. 2), while beautiful in its abstraction, also
viewer’s attention. His large-scale canvases are
exudes discontent. Created with empty balloons,
true contemporary still life. People are absent,
it connotes the “deflating” disappointment
“relegated to the covers of magazines, where
that accompanies celebrations that don’t meet
they usually appear in half-length.”
anticipated expectations.
Ironically, the shapely, beautiful people on the
21
fashion covers featured in the top half of the Consumption, Women, and Society
canvas act as a visual rebuke to the desire to consume the caloric candy featured below.
The Pop Art Movement’s critique of American
Still, Sato’s candy is a beacon of colorful
consumerism has been a subject that
consumer comfort in a drab city. A Snickers
contemporary artists have embraced and candy
bar becomes an international symbol for
provides a perfect medium for the dissection of
understanding. In Gum, 2005 (fig. 17),
consumerist culture. Self-taught artist Brendan
Cindy Craig uses multiple layers of watercolor
O’Connell’s Foraging, Aisle 13, 2007 (fig. 46)
to recreate the vibrant Technicolor of the candy
questions the splendor of quantity in modern
aisle. Her interest in consumer culture and the
“big box” suburban retailing, and the negative
role women play in consumption is central to her
effects of the overwhelming choice available to
selection of images. Craig’s paintings engage
the American consumer that can lead to feelings
in a beautiful realism that subtly comments on
of alienation. His “interiors and various products
the mechanisms of consumerism.
22
have a wonderfully rancid cheeriness about them that Edvard Munch might have understood. 20
Ruth Grace Jervis’ Wedding Cake Two, 2004
John Baeder’s Sanchez Ice Cream, 2002 (fig.
(fig. 38) is an example of the artist’s embrace
5) is one of the artist’s series of watercolors
of traditional realism but her cakes function as
that depict a local, neighborhood-based
metaphor. Lavishly frosted, the Jervis wedding
commercialism. The scale of selling is reversed.
cakes relate to a generalized idea of marriage,
Rather than alienation, the artist conjures the
rather than to any one specific event in time. 23
memory of childhood anticipation.
The stark black velvety backgrounds and curled ribbons Jervis tucks into the corners of her
12
canvases historicize her confections and underline
sweets and consumerism. His alluring chocolates
their value, as those confections are presented
are actually created from global currency.
on the same background used for precious jewels.
But the work is ironic—“the candy cannot be
The deeply solemn, unsmiling oval portrait of
eaten, and the viewer is left to ponder tiny
a lone woman adds a mysterious but distinctly
mummy like mysteries.”
downbeat element to the canvas, suggesting that
2001 (fig. 7) links illness and the costs of
a woman’s wedding day may also represent
consumerism. As societal battles over the cost
the death of individuality, a sacrificial offering up
and availability of AIDS medications continue
of self—the bride may be literally consumed.
to escalate, Benes presents an array of the
24
Benes’ Petits Fours,
most tempting medical treats—they are literally Kirsten Hassenfeld’s Sweet Nothing, 2005 (fig.
lifesaving. In contrast to Benes’ pretty but
35) offers a seemingly more hopeful view of
chilling petit fours, Bruce Helander’s Dandy
marriage. Her confection literally glows from
Candy-Cane Man, 2007 (fig. 36) is a charming
within, although the title of the piece suggests
and affectionate homage to late nineteenth-
that love may be illusory. Her fanciful designs,
century consumerism. The collage, made from
influenced by traditional Victorian craftwork, are
vintage candy advertisements, includes a dapper
created out of paper, which gives them an added
gentleman, chocolates bursting from frock coat,
delicacy. Like cakes and love, their presence
who could easily be a Victorian prototype for
may be temporary—easily destroyed by rough
Dahl’s iconic Willie Wonka. One advertisement
handling. Orly Cogan’s art utilizes needlework,
proudly declares, “We Are Rapidly Coming Into an
traditionally done by women, to explore
Era of Finest Quality Candy,” a perfect description
the dichotomy of women’s roles in society.
of Gilded Age industrial growth and its sparkling
In Cupcake Girl, 2005 (fig. 12), Cogan combines
promise of seemingly unlimited consumer choice.
vintage fabric with hand stitching to create a startling image of a young woman devouring
On a more downbeat note, Jessica Schwind’s
“Hostess” cupcakes. The piece challenges
Melt series (fig. 49 and 50) is part of her ongoing
traditional iconography and draws the viewer to
exploration of holiday-themed objects that have
consider ideas of domesticity, hospitality,
outlived their moments. Schwind’s chocolate
and what is polite or “refined” presentation.
bunnies, in varying stages of disintegration, mutely appeal to the viewer for empathy and
Barton Lidice Benes’ Sampler , 2002 (fig. 6)
become a form of contemporary memento
makes ominously explicit the link between
mori. Similar to the themes in Becca Albee’s
13
and Julie Allen’s work, Schwind finds that
to the peasants, “Let them eat candy!”
these holiday objects often convey a false
Cotton’s work is deeply influenced by the work
hope of a season that can be filled with stress
of the nineteenth-century French painter William-
and disappointment. 25 Her bunnies are more
Adolphe Bouguereau and Cotton’s “infatuation
sad than funny. Unconsumed, they are also
with the seductive lure of candy provides a
unconsummated, having failed to fulfill their
perfect complement to his obsession with the
purpose as they deteriorate uneaten.
legacy of academic nudes.”
26
Cotton is a polished
painter, giving his work a commercial glossy While Schwind’s work presumes the inevitable
sheen that stylistically has much in common
decay of all foodstuffs, Melissa Martens’
with early twentieth-century illustrators.
Marshmallows in their Natural Habitat, 2007
As in Jervis’ Wedding Cake Two, Cotton gives
(fig. 41) challenges that idea. Her diorama
his work a neutral dark background intended
incorporates the multicolor marshmallow chicks
to historicize and monumentalize his work.
much celebrated on numerous websites for their
But for all the suggestiveness of the painting
long shelf life. Marshmallows in their Natural
and the artist’s bravura technique, the girl’s
Habitat simultaneously questions and celebrates
wild candy headdress makes her a slightly comic
archetypal museum displays. Her work references
figure, easily mocking desire.
Dime Museums, the late nineteenth-century institutions for the working classes that combined
Peter Anton takes the same regal sensuality
entertainment and education, and salutes the
presented by Candy Curls and imbues it in
natural history diorama tradition in American
enormous and glossy mouthwatering candies
natural history museums. The artist comments
(fig. 4). These are candies literally fit for a king.
on the Victorian impulse to catalogue and collect
Forrest Gump may have said, “Life is like a box of
everyday objects as well as the attempts by
chocolates, you never know what you are going to
museums to represent different perspectives on
get,” but Anton’s wall sculptures do not offer any
different cultures.
doubt. His work promises ultimate fulfillment and the temptation to grab all that life has to offer.
Sweet Decadence
“While most [of his] candies are left pristine, others are ravaged, showing evidence of being
14
In Candy Curls, 2005 (fig. 15) Will Cotton has
bitten or pinched to reveal tantalizing centers,”
created a sensual Marie-Antoinette figure who
which makes them all the more alluring. 27
looks as though she may well have declared
Anton’s candy boxes live in a world of fantasy in
which the viewers are rendered Lilliputian. In his
our expectations of a gun’s black, heavy metal
work desire outstrips the capability to consume.
qualities and its male associations.”
Candy appreciated for its formal properties,
of her “Approximations” Graham has ironically
is a frequent subject for still life and it is also
painted the case surrounding her guns a pale
frequently used as an artistic metaphor for
pink, emphasizing the feminine, confection-like
consumption, childhood or decadence. Some
softness of her material—easily damaged by
artists have used candy to explore far-flung ideas,
a drop of water. Morgan Bulkeley’s Woodcock
from religion to violence. Peter Anton’s work is
and Juicy Fruit, 2003 (fig. 9) presents a surreal
an affirmation and an embrace of worldly desires
image of violent battle as a brand of popular
but Patricia Nix’s Joystick, 2007 (fig. 45) serves
chewing gum seemingly becomes a source
as both an antidote and a reaffirmation of candy
for contention between huge, fierce birds and
as a symbol of decadence. Her long and narrow
a primitive people wielding bow-and-arrows.
29
In several
wall constructions that she calls “icons,” are made on a human scale that combines the sacred
Most of the art in I WANT Candy is beautifully
and the profane. The entire surface of Joystick
“sugar coated” to the eye, although other
is encrusted in tiny silver nonpareils studded
works are more confrontational, even actively
with peppermints and found jewel-like objects.
unpleasant. When candy is depicted in art, the
The combination of materials and the title of
art is usually about longing need. Often this
the piece make implicit the connection between
yearning is thwarted or unfulfilled in some subtle
sweets and the sublime. Nix’s assemblages are
way. It is this longing—the Proustian tinge
influenced by the work of Joseph Cornell and her
of nostalgic regret—which gives much of the art
borrowing of religious iconography underscores “a
in the exhibition its impact. French author
kind of childish mysticism” that Nix has morphed
Simone de Beauvoir once described this craving
into the joie de vivre found in her sculptures. 28
for sweets, reflecting on her childhood:
Susan Graham’s Sugar Approximation—Beretta
I would stand transfixed before the windows
92S Pistol, 2007 (fig. 33) presents the viewer
of the confectioners’ shops, fascinated by the
with another startling juxtaposition of form and
luminous sparkle of candied fruits, the cloudy
content. Graham’s delicate but dangerous spun-
lustre of jellies, the kaleidoscope inflorescence
sugar guns have a sweetness that “effectively
of acidulated fruitdrops—red, green, orange,
offsets the potential of such killing machines. In
violet: I coveted the colors themselves
this context the substitution of spun sugar upsets
as much as the pleasure they promised me.
15
Candy allures, but it also represents a danger when transformed into rampant consumerism,
1. Nicolai Cikovsky, Raphaelle Peale Still Lifes (National Gallery of Art, 1988), 34.
gluttony, or violence. Throughout history, sugar—
2. Ibid., 33.
white and glistening—has been both coveted and
3. Paul LeBaron Thiebaud, Wayne Thiebaud Pastels: 1960-2000 (Campbell-Thiebaud Gallery, 2000),3.
reviled, the source of wealth and wars. Surely, the source of temptation in a parable of a modern day Adam and Eve would be now a candied apple—the original deemed too nutritious and too virtuous. Fulfilling the “sweet tooth yearning of the younger set without the tummy ache after effects” was the original marketing description for the popular board game Candyland, and it may also be the best way to describe the continued visual consumption of the sweet stuff in American art. 30
4. Stephen A. Nash and Adam Gopnik, Wayne Thiebaud: A Paintings Retrospective (Thames & Hudson, 2000), 55. 5. Ted Mann, “Guggenheim Magazine—Recent Acquisitions,” Guggenheim Museum, http://www.guggenheimcollection. org/site/artist_work_md_200602_ 01.html. 6. Cara Wood Ginder, “Statement,” Artist’s Website, http://www.carawoodginder.com/ statement.htmlAritst’s statement. 7. Bruce Glaser. Audrey Flack: The Gray Border Series (Louis Meisel Gallery, 1976), 2. 8. Beverly Shipko, e-mail message to the author, March 21, 2007. 9. Michael Duncan, “Daniel Douke: Surface Tension,” in Daniel Douke: Endless Instant, ed. Julie Joyce. (Luck Man Gallery, California State University, 2006), 34. 10. Ibid, 37.
16. Moukhtar Kocache, “Give and Take Your Breath Away” in Mary Magsamen & Stephan Hillerbrand, (Contemporary Art Center of Virginia, 2006), 5. 17. Michaël Amy, “John Salvest at Morgan Lehman,” Art in America, January 2007, 140. 18. Stephanie Jaffe Werner, email message to the author, December 26, 2006. 19. Becca Albee, email message to the author, March 27, 2007. 20. Joe Fyfe, “ Brendan O’Connell at Morgan Lehman,” Art in America, October 2006, 199. 21. Michael Amy, Masaaki Sato: An Introduction,” 123soho, http://www.123soho.com/artists/ featured/f_artist_index_artist. phtml?artnum =artidv00554. 22. Leslie Jones, Liquid Los Angeles: Currents of Contemporary Watercolor Painting (Pasadena Museum of California, 2005). 23. Peter Frank, Ruth Grace Jervis New Paintings 2001-2005 (Hunsaker/Schlesinger Fine Art, 2005), 9. 24. Tanguy, Sweet Tooth, 43. 25. Jessica Schwind, email message to the author, March 12, 2007.
11. Benjamin Genocchio, “Fattening Goodies in All Their Sugary Glory,” New York Times, April 8, 2007, Westchester Section.
26. Robert Rosenblum, Will Cotton (Michael Kohn Gallery, 2005), 9.
12. Sarah Tanguy, Sweet Tooth (COPIA: The American Center for Wine, Food & the Arts, 2002), 18.
28. Carol Diehl. Patricia Nix: Alters and Icons (Dillon Gallery, 1997), 2.
13. Trevor Fairbrother, Janet Fish (DC Moore Gallery, 2007), 8.
29. Tanguy, Sweet Tooth, 95.
27. Tanguy, Sweet Tooth, 12.
30. Rosenblum, Will Cotton, 8. 14. Robert G. Edelman. The Food Show - The Hungry Eye: Is it Insatiable? (Chelsea Art Museum, 2006). 15. Brooks Barrie, Red Grooms (Grounds for Sculpture, 2000), 12.
16
Exhibition Images
BECCA ALBEE Untitled (frosting installation), 2007 Mixed media dimensions variable Collection of the artist
JULIE ALLEN Raspberry Cake, 2003 Balloons and thread 9 ∞ x 5 x 9 ∞ in. Courtesy of McKenzie Fine Art, Inc.
18
Figures 1, 2
JULIE ALLEN Black Forest Cake, 2005 Silk, thread, vinyl, marbles, liquid vinyl 2 ∞ x 10 x 10 in. Courtesy of McKenzie Fine Art, Inc.
PETER ANTON Grand Sweetheart Assortment, 2007 Mixed media 57 x 56 x 6 in. Collection of the artist
Figures 3, 4
19
JOHN BAEDER Sanchez Ice Cream, 2002 Watercolor on paper 13 x 19 in. Courtesy of OK Harris Works of Art
BARTON LIDICE BENES Sampler, 2002 Shredded money 11 x 13 ∞ x 1 ∞ in. Loan courtesy Lennon, Weinberg, Inc., New York, NY
20
Figures 5, 6
BARTON LIDICE BENES Petits Fours, 2002 Glass cake stand, doily, and AIDS medication Edition of 3, 11 x 13 x 13 in. Loan courtesy Lennon, Weinberg, Inc., New York, NY
MINDY BEST Dentyne-ism #95: “Picking a scab may leave a scar, but it sure is fun”, 2006 Metallic C-print edition of 3 20 x 30 in. Collection of the artist
Figures 7, 8
21
Morgan Bulkeley Woodcock and Juicy Fruit, 2003 Oil on carved sugar maple 12 x 15 ∞ in. Courtesy of the Howard Yezerski Gallery
Neil Christensen Strawberries, Cupcake, Coke, and Cherries, 2002 Oil on panel 16 x 20 in. Collection of Dan and Lindsay Augustyn, Lincoln, Nebraska.
22
Figures 9, 10
Orly Cogan Confections, 2006-2007 Mixed media needlework dimensions variable Courtesy of the artist
Orly Cogan Cupcake Girl, 2005 Hand stitched embroidery and paint on vintage fabric 27 x 14 in. Courtesy of the artist (detail) Orly Cogan Confections, 2006-2007
Figures 11, detail, 12
23
Sharon Core Candy Counter “1969”, 2004 Digital C-Print 47 x 36 in. Courtesy of the artist
Sharon Core Various Cakes, 2004 Digital C-Print 25 x 23 in. Courtesy of the artist
24
Figures 13, 14
Will Cotton Candy Curls, 2005 Oil on linen 34 x 24 in. Collection of Danny First, Courtesy of the Michael Kohn Gallery
Will Cotton Trailer,1998 Oil on linen 59 x 116 in. Courtesy of the artist and Mary Boone Gallery
Figures 15, 16
25
Cindy Craig Gum, 2005 Watercolor on paper 22 x 60 in. Courtesy of Hunsaker/ Schlesinger Fine Art
James Del Grosso Big Kiss, 2007 Oil on canvas 32 x 32 in. Courtesy of OK Harris Works of Art
26
Figures 17, 18
Marylyn Dintenfass Good & Plenty: Ultra Blue, 2005 Oil on panel 48 x 48 in. Courtesy of Babcock Galleries
Dan Douke Swear in Pink, 2004 Acrylic on canvas 24 x 24 in. Courtesy of the artist
Figures 19, 20
27
Dan Douke Friends, 2000 Acrylic on canvas 15 x 8 3/4 x 3 1/2 in. Courtesy of the artist
Travis Conrad Erion Rock Candy, 2006 Oil on canvas 16 x 8 in. Courtesy of the artist
28
Figures 21, 22
Emily Eveleth Inverse, 2006 Oil on paper 20 1/2 x 17 1/4 in. Courtesy of the Howard Yezerski Gallery
Emily Eveleth Veil, 2002 Oil on canvas 22 x 20 in. Courtesy of the Howard Yezerski Gallery
Figures 23, 24
29
Janet Fish Ice Cream Sundae, 2004 Oil on canvas 50 x 60 in. Courtesy DC Moore Gallery, New York Art © Janet Fish/ Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY
Janet Fish Lollipops, 1996 Watercolor on paper 30 x 23 in. Courtesy DC Moore Gallery, New York Art © Janet Fish/ Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY
30
Figures 25, 26
Audrey Flack Hers (Hershey Kisses), 1977 Acrylic on board 16 x 23 in. Courtesy of Louis K. Meisel Gallery
Figure 27
31
Cara Wood Ginder Triple Decker Ice Cream Cone, 2006 Oil and acrylic on wood 10 x 8 in. Courtesy of OK Harris Works of Art
Cara Wood Ginder Popsicle, 2006 Oil and acrylic on wood 10 x 8 in. Courtesy of OK Harris Works of Art
32
Figures 28, 29
Ralph Goings Chocolate Pie, n.d.
Ralph Goings Yellow Pie, n.d.
Watercolor and gouache on board 3 x 5 in. Courtesy of OK Harris Works of Art
Watercolor and gouache on board 3 x 5 in. Courtesy of OK Harris Works of Art
Ralph Goings Napkins Donut, n.d. Watercolor and gouache on board 4 1/2 x 5 in. Courtesy of OK Harris Works of Art
Figures 30, 31, 32
33
Susan Graham Sugar Approximation— Beretta 92S Pistol, 2007 Sugar, egg whites, resin, wire, vitrine 6 x 12 x 8 in. Courtesy the artist and Schroeder Romero, New York
Red Grooms Bubble Gum, 2001 Enamel on epoxy 37 x 47 x 8 in. Courtesy of Marlborough Gallery © Red Grooms/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York
34
Figures 33, 34
Kirsten Hassenfeld Sweet Nothing, 2005 Paper with Mixed Media Collection of Heather and Tony Podesta
Figure 35
35
Bruce Helander Dandy Candy-Cane Man, 2007 Paper collage and found material on museum board with gouache 9 x 12 in. Courtesy of the artist
36
Figure 36
Richard Hickam Blueberry Royal, 2000 Oil on canvas 11 ∞ x 12 ∞ in. Courtesy of the Allan Stone Gallery
Figure 37
37
Zane Lewis Wonka’s Chocolate Waterfall, 2006 Mixed Media 16 x 18 ∞ x 2 ∞ in. Courtesy of Claudia and Ari Kandel
Ruth Grace JErvis Wedding Cake Two, 2004 Oil on Canvas 54 x 42 in. Courtesy of Hunsaker/ Schlesinger Fine Art
Mary Magsamen and Stephan Hillerbrand air-hunger (bathroom), 2003 Video Courtesy of the artists
38
Figures 38, 39, 40
Melissa Martens, Multicultural Marshmallow Museum Marshmallows in Their Natural Habitat, 2007 Marshmallows, foam, found objects 17 x 5 1/4 x 20 1/2 in. Collection of the artist
Kim Mendenhall 6 Desserts for Wayne, 2004 Oil on linen 36 1/8 x 53 5/8 in. Courtesy of the Louis K. Meisel Gallery
Figures 41, 42
39
Don Nice Tootsie Pops, 1973 Watercolor on paper 24 x 36 1/4 in. Courtesy of Babcock Galleries
Don Nice Caramel, 1992 Watercolor on paper 15 x 22 in. Courtesy of Babcock Galleries
40
Figures 43, 44
Patricia Nix Joystick, 2007 Mixed media 102 x 5 in. Courtesy of the artist
(detail) Patricia Nix Joystick, 2007
Figure 45, detail
41
Brendan O’Connell Foraging, Aisle 13, 2007 Acrylic on panel 60 x 40 in. Courtesy of the artist and Morgan Lehman Gallery
42
Figure 46
John Salvest Red Stalactite, 2006 Wood, steel, chewed gum 30 x 14 x 14 in. Courtesy of the artist and Morgan Lehman Gallery
Masaaki Sato Sato Newsstand No. 93 (Snickers), 2005 - 2006 Oil on canvas 40 x 48 in. Courtesy of OK Harris Works of Art
Figures 47, 48
43
Jessica Schwind Melt, IV, 2005 C-Print 20 x 26 in. Collection of the artist
Jessica Schwind Melt, VI, 2005 C-Print 20 x 26 in. Collection of the artist
44
Figure 49, 50
Beverly Shipko Bonnie’s Carrot Cake, 2006 Oil on canvas, 4 panels 33 x 41 in. Courtesy of OK Harris Works of Art
Figure 51
45
Beverly Shipko Heart Shaped Box of Chocolates, 2007 Oil on canvas 8 x 10 in. Courtesy of the artist and OK Harris Works of Art
Tjalf Sparnaay Apple Pie, 2005 Oil on canvas 11 3/4 x 15 3/4 in. Courtesy of OK Harris Works of Art
46
Figures 52, 53
Wayne Thiebaud Italian Desserts, 1986 Pastel over soft-ground etching Image: 16 x 20 in. Sheet: 22 1/4 x 24 1/4 in. Courtesy Allan Stone Gallery Art Š Wayne Thiebaud/ Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY
Figure 54
47
Stephanie Jaffe Werner Mary Jane, 2006 Mixed media 27 ∞ x 17 x 3 ∞ in. Courtesy of the artist
48
Figure 55
Lenders to the Exhibition
Allan Stone Gallery, New York, NY
Louis K. Meisel Gallery, New York, NY
Becca Albee
Mary Magsamen and Stephan Hillerbrand
Peter Anton
Marlborough Gallery, New York, NY
Dan and Lindsay Augustyn
Melissa Martens
Babcock Galleries, New York, NY
Mary Boone Gallery, New York, NY
Mindy Best
McKenzie Fine Art, Inc., New York, NY
Orly Cogan
Michael Kohn Gallery, Los Angles, CA
Sharon Core
Morgan Lehman Gallery, New York, NY
Will Cotton
Patricia Nix
DC Moore Gallery, New York, NY
Private Collections
Dan Douke
Brendan O’Connell
Travis Conrad Erion
OK Harris Works of Art, New York, NY
Danny First
Heather and Tony Podesta
Susan Graham
John Salvest
Bruce Helander
Schroeder Romero, New York, NY
Howard Yezerski Gallery, Boston, MA
Jessica Schwind
Hunsaker/Schlesinger Fine Art, Santa Monica, CA
Beverly Shipko
Claudia and Ari Kandel
Stephanie Jaffe Werner
Lennon, Weinberg, Inc., New York, NY
49
Acknowledgements
I WANT Candy: The Sweet Stuff in American Art would not have become a reality without the help of a great many people. I would like to express my gratitude for their support and for their assistance in developing the exhibition framework, securing loans, and providing images. At the Hudson River Museum, Michael Botwinick, Director, has provided encouragement since I initially proposed the exhibition two years ago. In addition to suggesting several artists, I am grateful to Jean-Paul Maitinsky, Assistant Director, Exhibitions and Programs, for his advice and infectious enthusiasm, which have helped make the most of this project. Laura L. Vookles, Chief Curator of Collections, was also generous with her time and offered a number of valuable editorial insights. I would particularly like to thank Linda Locke, Director of Public Relations, for carefully overseeing the production of the catalogue and for her close attention to the details of the editing process. Erica Blumenfeld, Registrar has been my partner in this undertaking. Using her considerable organizational skills, she thoughtfully handled the many details and unexpected challenges associated with an exhibition of this scope. James Monroe has continued his fruitful relationship with the museum, creating a charming graphic design for the catalogue. Bo Joseph, Ethan Karp, Ivan Karp, Vivian Kiechel, Heidi Lange, and Sally Morgan Oberbeck were kind in providing helpful expertise. Alexis Dunfee, Gloria Garrett, Lyle Gray, Valerie McKenzie, Louis Meisel, Amanda Moon, Tara Reddi, Lora Schlesinger, Lisa Schroeder, Claudia Stone, and Amy Yee all worked with the museum staff to secure loans for the project. I owe them my gratitude. Finally, I would like to thank A.J. Minogue and Penelope Fritzer for their unstinting love and advice while I was developing this exhibition.
Bartholomew F. Bland
Melissa Martens, Multicultural Marshmallow Museum Marshmallows in Their Natural Habitat (Proposal Rendering), 2006
50
FRONT COVER Will Cotton Candy Curls, 2005 Oil on linen 34 x 24 in. Collection of Danny First, Courtesy of the Michael Kohn Gallery BACK COVER MINDY BEST Dentyne-ism #95: “Picking a scab may leave a scar, but it sure is fun”, 2006 Metallic C-print edition of 3 20 x 30 in. Collection of the artist