Mary Heilmann: "The Painter's Painter"

Yellow wave, 2007
Armoy show 2008 (right)
surfing on acid, 2005
"To Be Someone" retrospective (left)


There are several suspicious ways to understand the reason for Mary Heilmann's sudden presence on white walls. In 2007, she had her 1st retrospective starting at the Orange Country Museum of Art, and in November of 2007 she was simultaneously featured on the cover of both Artforum and in Art in America, now she is one of the only painters present in both the Armory Show and the Whitney Biennial.

The articles in both Artforum and Art in America, are unapologetically pandering to this idea of Heilmann as some survivor in the wake of Abstract Expressionism, or a platform to infer that painting as an archaic medium. To effect that the collective tone is: "Look at this nice womens paintings! they are so pretty, and playful!" It's almost like they are talking about a forgotten grandmother's "Sunday" painting.

Unfortunately, the atmosphere is far more elevated: this is a blatant example of white liberal guilt: a women who was working in a male dominated tradition was ignored by the art society. She is an educated women (MFA from Berkeley), who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. After her MFA in 1969, she moved to New York, after Rothko's suicide, after Agnes martin left for New Mexico, and when the AbEx was beginning to lose its cool. Too late. Missed the boat. Or, no. Wait a second... she must have be overlooked becasue she was a women, not because she makes decorative saccharine, and unoriginal work. That isn't fair, let's look at this through a larger lens. She has consistently been making saccharine, rip-offs for some some thirty odd years.

What I am trying to get at is the proverbial elephant in the room, her work is Rothko surfing on acid! I don't know if there is a reason why Artforum's contributor was a Berkeley Professor, but honestly, my guess is that they did the drug together in the sixties. These paintings serve a a nice reminder of the days when you "fighting the good fight", right Anne?

I was angry went back in November about the shameless promotion of this women, and I have a suspicion its not in her best interest. I have read interviews with Mary, and she appears to be down to earth and completely pleasant. Why are they exploiting this person? Is it because they need to put a women of the same (basic) generation as the dominant males in this aesthetic? I couldn't responsibly assert this beyond an assumption.
*417