理查德·哈密尔顿全部影视作品
首发于 qinglite.cn，统计截止日：2025-02-17
 我的玛丽莲 | - |
| 所罗门·R·古根海姆（那不勒斯） | Frank Lloyd Wright’s striking spiral design for the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York was completed in 1959, and soon became a controversial icon of contemporary architecture. Hamilton came across some coloured postcards of the building which seemed to alter its character significantly, and embarked on his own series of variations on the theme. This work belongs to a sequence of six large reliefs, each using different colours. Its title refers to the use of pink, cream and green, associated by the artist with Neapolitan ice cream. |
| $he | $he explores the imagery of consumerism and female identity, bringing together advertisements for household appliances alongside fragmentary images of a model taken from Esquire magazine. ‘Sex is everywhere, symbolised in the glamour of mass-produced luxury – the interplay of fleshy plastic and smooth, fleshier metal’, Hamilton wrote. ‘This relationship of woman and appliance is a fundamental theme of our culture; as obsessive and archetypal as the Western movie gun duel.’ The mechanisation of desire is alsoa key concern of the Large Glass , whose notes Hamilton was translating at this time. |
| 收割机(h) | Six etchings from a series of 16, printed by the artist at the Slade School of Art in small editions of varying trial proofs. Purchased from the artist (Grant-in-Aid) 1982 Lit: Richard Hamilton Richard Hamilton Prints 1939–1983 1984, nos.23, 24 and 26 to 29 respectively, all repr. pp.25–8 Hamilton had already made nearly 20 etchings when he began to experiment with the mechanical imagery provided by a reaping machine in order to test the depictive possibilities of the medium and the individual characters of the marks it would produce in a far more conscious way. ‘The “Reaper” series was inspired by Giedeon's Mechanization Takes Command. Repetition of the simple contrasting forms of the agricultural machine provided material for investigating the technical resources at the Slade School. The “variations” were shown at Gimpels a year after their execution’ (Hamilton, p.23). For that exhibition Hamilton marked edition numbers on his proofs assuming an edition size of 20 or 25 for the benefit of possible customers: in fact he printed very few of each and probably not more than half the number marked in each case. |
| 结婚 | The Marriage and A Mirrorical Return (displayed nearby) are the latest additions to the Tate's considerable collection of Richard Hamilton's work. In the 1950s, Hamilton emerged as a key figure in what became known as Pop art , and he has remained an influential artist. Principally a painter, from the beginning of his career he has been an innovative printmaker , exploring a range of techniques, from etching to computer-manipulated imagery. These prints represent a breakthrough for him because they use a new technique that allows for both high quality digital printing and a lasting image. The Marriage developed from a faded print of a Japanese couple found by the artist. The image has been altered using a computerised paint-box which creates the effect of loose brushwork. |
| 增加风格 | - |
| 收割机 (d) | Six etchings from a series of 16, printed by the artist at the Slade School of Art in small editions of varying trial proofs. Purchased from the artist (Grant-in-Aid) 1982 Lit: Richard Hamilton Richard Hamilton Prints 1939–1983 1984, nos.23, 24 and 26 to 29 respectively, all repr. pp.25–8 P07648 Reaper d Drypoint and roulette 6 3/4×10 5/8 (173 × 270) on paper 11 × 15 1/8 (280 × 385) Inscribed ‘4/20’ and on the back ‘Reaper (d)’ Hamilton had already made nearly 20 etchings when he began to experiment with the mechanical imagery provided by a reaping machine in order to test the depictive possibilities of the medium and the individual characters of the marks it would produce in a far more conscious way. ‘The “Reaper” series was inspired by Giedeon's Mechanization Takes Command. Repetition of the simple contrasting forms of the agricultural machine provided material for investigating the technical resources at the Slade School. The “variations” were shown at Gimpels a year after their execution’ (Hamilton, p.23). For that exhibition Hamilton marked edition numbers on his proofs assuming an edition size of 20 or 25 for the benefit of possible customers: in fact he printed very few of each and probably not more than half the number marked in each case. This and the following entries have been approved by the artist. |
| 小插图 | - |
| 时尚-底片 | Hamilton was born and bred in London, attending the Slade School of Art from 1948-51. In 1952 he co-founded the Independent Group , a subsidiary of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, with fellow artist Eduardo Paolozzi (born 1924). An association of artists, architects, critics and academics, the Group focused their discussions on technology and contemporary culture. In 1956 Hamilton created some of his most famous images for This is Tomorrow , an exhibition at the Whitechapel Gallery. Just what is it that makes today’s homes so different, so appealing? 1956 (Kunsthalle Tübingen, Zundel Collection) is a collage which was reproduced as a poster for the exhibition. Hamilton subsequently remade the image as a print in two versions, one in the original 1950s style (1991) and the other, Just what is it that makes today’s homes so different? (1993, Tate P11358 ), updated to reflect 1990s culture. In the original image, a semi-naked body builder holds a large red lollipop bearing the word ‘pop’ at the level of his genitals, signalling the arrival in Britain of ‘ Pop’ art . Hamilton ironically defined this in 1957 as ‘Popular (designed for a mass audience), Transient (short term solution), Expendable (easily forgotten), Low cost, Mass produced, Young (aimed at youth), Witty, Sexy, Gimmicky, Glamorous, Big business’. (Quoted in Richard Hamilton , p.24.) He subsequently referred to pop culture as inducing a ‘peculiar mixture of reverence and cynicism ... in me’ (quoted in Richard Hamilton, p.84). Hamilton’s practice draws on and comments upon a wide range of popular culture media and current events. Imagery found in newspapers, magazines, television, film and advertising is subjected to collage and painting techniques. Photographs are painted over and paintings are made from photographs. The techniques of screenprinting and lithography provide further versions of an image. More recently Hamilton has worked with a Quantel Paintbox graphic imager which has allowed him to collage on computer and produce inkjet prints. Images often reappear in successive states of a large series. Swingeing London , for example, is the title of seven paintings and many more prints based on a 1967 press photograph of rock star Mick Jagger and Robert Fraser (Hamilton’s gallerist at the time) handcuffed together inside a police van. Hamilton’s treatment of the image in some of its states pushes at the limits of representation. Photographs of seductive women, still lives , landscapes , interiors and buildings are all treated with a nod to art history and a questioning of the relationship between painting and photography, representation and reality. At the same time Hamilton’s use of the language of popular culture reflects on the nature of the imagery we all find so appealing today. |
| 甲壳虫乐队 | Richard Hamilton explored the relationships and distinctions between fine art, product design and popular culture. In 1968 the artist was invited by Paul McCartney to design the sleeve and poster collage pull-out for The Beatles’ ninth album, The Beatles (more commonly known as the ‘White Album’ due to Hamilton’s plain white sleeve design). The resulting poster, originally included with the album, is a printed collage of photographs of John, Paul, George and Ringo, with an initial print run exceeding five million. Hamilton not only uses popular culture as source for the work but he also directly participates with the machinery of production. |
| 柔和的粉红色风景 | The print Soft pink landscape is based on a painting of the same title that Hamilton made in 1971-2 (Hungarian National Gallery, Ludwig Collection, Budapest). The painting, and its companion Soft blue landscape , 1976-80 (private collection) were produced in response to a group of advertisements for a new coloured line of Andrex toilet papers that became visible in the early 1960s. The adverts humourously introduced a giant roll of toilet paper, luxuriously packaged in floral-print paper, into a romantic woodland glade in which a misty-eyed feminine presence reclined seductively or hovered between leaves. Hamilton appropriated the imagery but reduced the scale of the toilet roll so that it is a more natural size. In both paintings, the landscape and its subjects are rendered loosely in an almost impressionistic style, while the roll of toilet paper – the colour scheme of its packaging identified in the painting’s title – is rendered more realistically so that it stands out from the soft, fluid imagery of the background. In the print it appears more homogenised. Hamilton commented: Nature is beautiful. Pink from a morning sun filters through a tissue of autumn leaves. Golden shafts gleam through the perforated vaulting of the forest to illuminate a stage set-up for the Sunday supplement voyeur. Andrex discreetly presents a new colour magazine range. A pink as suggestively soft as last week’s blue – soft as pink flesh under an Empire negligée. The woodland equipped with every convenience. A veil of soft focus vegetation screens the peeper from the sentinel. Poussin? Claude? No, more like Watteau in its magical ambiguity. Sometimes advertisements make me wax quite poetical. None more so than the series by Andrex showing two young ladies in the woods. I have, on occasions, tried to put into words that peculiar mixture of reverence and cynicism that ‘Pop’ culture induces in me and that I try to paint. I suppose that a balancing of these reactions is what I used to call non-Aristotelian or, alternatively, cool. (Quoted in Collected Words , p.78.) Concurrent with creating the first Soft pink landscape imagery, Hamilton had begun work on his Flower-piece paintings. The pink toilet roll that features in the foreground of Soft pink landscape features similarly in the foreground of the painting Flower-piece I , 1971-4 and the related prints Flower-piece B , Flower-piece B – crayon study and Flower-piece B – cyan separation (all 1975, Tate P12106 , P12107 and P12105 ). At the same time Hamilton was combining poses of models squatting, taken from fashion magazines, with the motif of rural defecation which he derived from a French postcard showing young people squatting in a forest as a result of drinking laxative waters in a small spa in the Lot. For the artist, the juxtaposition of ‘girls and toilet paper – glamour and shit’ (Hamilton, Collected Words , p.100) is related to the memento mori traditionally included in the still life painting from the renaissance onwards. Nine years after making the first Soft pink landscape study, Hamilton discovered that the image that had inspired his painting had been conceived by the Op-art painter Bridget Riley (born 1931) when she was working at the J Walter Thompson advertising agency in London. In his usual way, Hamilton took the print through several stages before it reached its final state. He made four studies in 1972 experimenting with dye transfer and oil ( Soft pink landscape – study I – IV , Ludwig Museum, Cologne) before putting the image on one side for several years. When he returned to it in 1980, he started with the painting, photographing it and making a collotype proof. He worked on this print with coloured crayons, gouache and a spray gun before taking it to Heinz Häfner in Stuttgart, where a collotype using seven colours was eventually finalised. Hamilton then took the print to Frank Kircherer, also based in Stuttgart, to screenprint marks that look like daubs and dribbles of paint and scribblings with coloured pencils all over the print, both on the image and in its white borders. Marks in white and pastel colours predominate on the upper half of the image; scribbles in red, purple, green, yellow and black in the lower margin give a sense of spontaneity, as though the artist is still working on the image. Hamilton’s addition of painterly marks to Soft pink landscape recalls the small abstract areas he painted onto the photographic surface of People , 1968 ( P01019 ) as well as the geometric areas of monotone colour he added to the photographic collages in Interior II , 1964 ( T00912 ), Interior 1964-5 ( P04250 ) and more recently, Interior with monochromes , 1979 ( P07446 ). Soft pink landscape was produced in an edition of 136 plus fourteen artist’s proofs. Tate’s copy is number forty-six in the edition which was distributed by Waddington Graphics, London. The artist inscribed the title, his signature and the edition number in pencil on the print. |
| 档案馆 I | - |
| 异象 | These prints , with their tentative shapes resembling amoebae, anemones and other forms of microscopic life, were made in response to D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson's book on morphology On Growth and Form (1917). The book was a scientific study of the forms in nature, which argued that recognisable mathematical structures can be found in all organisms. The print titled Heteromorphism was used as the cover of a catalogue for Growth and Form, an exhibition inspired by Thompson's theories, which Hamilton and Nigel Henderson organised in 1951, when they were both studying at the Slade School of Art. (See display cases). |
| 休·盖兹克尔饰演电影界里的一个著名怪物(1963) | Hugh Gaitskell as a Famous Monster of Filmland (1963) is a print based on a coloured pencil sketch that Hamilton made in the process of working out how to compose the painting Hugh Gaitskell as a Famous Monster of Filmland , 1964 (Arts Council Collection, London). The subject of the work was the leader of the Labour Party, then in opposition, who had supported the government’s retention of a nuclear deterrent, despite his own party’s lack of support. Hamilton, an anti-nuclear campaigner and supporter of the Labour Party, saw this as a betrayal and decided to use Gaitskell in order to make a satirical painting. In the early 1960s Hamilton and his wife Terry O’Reilly, a CND activist, collected press photographs, headlines and newspaper cartoonists’ caricatures. When she died tragically in a car crash in 1962, a few months before the death of Gaitskell, Hamilton shelved the project for a year, before taking it up again in homage to her. The title of the work refers to a magazine called Famous Monsters of Filmland , a publication set up in Los Angeles in 1958. One of the images the Hamiltons had put aside for the project was the front cover of issue number 10, January 1961, showing the film star Claude Raines (1889-1967) in mask and make-up for The Phantom of the Opera . Hamilton used the similarity between the line of the lower edge of the mask, just above the actor’s mouth, with a line created by Gaitskell’s pursed lips and fleshy cheeks in a press photograph. In the print, an area of white under Gaitskell’s left eye echoes a semi-circle of white paint on the actor’s mask on the magazine cover. Hamilton emphasised this with a red line, illuminating the left side of Gaitskell’s face with a broad vertical strip of intense red in the background that dominates the image and emphasises its sinister tone. Hamilton commented: In the search for archetypes the monster emerges inevitably along with those other primal figures: the hero of the western, the pin-up girl, the spaceman. Hollywood and Hammer Films gave renewed life to the monster myth … identification of Gaitskell as the political monster was natural … A satirical painting should be topical and passionate; I imagined the picture as one to be violently executed, it should be big, the paint aggressive, the meaning awfully clear. (Quoted in Collected Words , p.58.) In the end, Hamilton used a combination of photographic enlargement and oil paints to make the painting of his monster, which recalls the eviscerated heads painted by Francis Bacon (1909-92). In contrast with the painting’s large scale and rich, vibrant colour, the drawing and resulting print appear delicate and minimal, the monster behind the man’s features suggested by colour and expression rather than overtly depicted. In 1982 Hamilton decided to create a portfolio of prints to accompany the de luxe edition of his collected writings, using a combination of collotype and screenprint. He selected nine drawings he had made between 1957 and 1964 from which to make prints. Seven of these, like Hugh Gaitskell as a Famous Monster of Filmland , were studies made in the process of developing a painting. While it is customary for artists to include a single print or drawing in a luxury edition of a publication, it is more unusual for an artist to create a group of prints all produced by the old fashioned, time consuming and expensive method of collotype. This methodology recalls the use of collotype by Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) who created several luxury publications including reproductions of notes, sketches, drawings, paintings and sculptures during the course of his artistic career, including the Green Box , 1934 (Tate T07744 ) and the Box in a Valise , circa 1943 (L02092). Hamilton’s encounter with the Green Box in the late 1940s began a long relationship with Duchamp’s processes and concepts, including the typographic translation of the Green Box notes (published in 1960) and the reconstruction of Duchamp’s major work, the Large Glass (Tate T02011 ), according to these notes for Duchamp’s retrospective at Tate in 1966. The Collected Words de luxe portfolio was created in an edition of one hundred plus ten artist’s proofs. The first sixty plus six artist’s proofs are boxed as a set; the remaining forty plus four artist’s proofs were released individually. Tate’s copy of Hugh Gaitskell as a Famous Monster of Filmland (1963) is the one hundredth in the edition, which was printed by the artist and Heinz Häfner in Stuttgart. The collotype stage was printed at Eberhard Schreiber on Deutsch-Japan paper; the pages were then screenprinted at Frank Kicherer. The prints were mounted at the artist’s home in Oxfordshire and boxed by Pella Erskine-Tulloch, London. The edition was distributed by Waddington Graphics, London. |
| 自画像 (1965) | - |
| 舞台证明 4 | Each proof represents the successive addition of a screen, made from a hand-cut stencil, used to apply a particular colour. The completed print Release combines the seventeen colour screens, each used once, and the photographic black screen which has the texture of an imprint on canvas as well as the photographic halftone, used twice. The print Release derives its title from the name of an organisation set up to provide legal aid and social support to people who have fallen foul of the law, often as a result of drug abuse. In 1972, Diana Melly (married to the jazz musician, writer and critic George Melly and working for Release) asked Hamilton if he would make a print to help raise funds for the organisation which was in financial difficulties. The artists Jim Dine (born 1935) and David Hockney (born 1937) also contributed, deciding to divide the profits between Release and the National Council for Civil Liberties. Because of the focus of Release on those suffering from drug abuse, Hamilton decided to use one of the images he had created in his Swingeing London group of works. These were generated by the arrest and imprisonment of Hamilton’s art dealer Robert Fraser (1937-86) in 1967 for the possession of heroin. The artist had created a poster from a collage of press cuttings from the event entitled Swingeing London 67 – poster , 1967-8 ( P01855 ), before embarking on a group of seven paintings entitled Swingeing London 67 1968 (private collection) and Swingeing London 67 (a) – (f) , 1968-9 ( Swingeing London 67 (f) is T01144 ). The Swingeing London paintings are all based on the same image – a photograph of Robert Fraser and the rock star Mick Jagger in a police van being taken from jail to court. The photograph, taken by John Twine, was published in the Daily Sketch newspaper on 29 June 1967 and shows the two men, handcuffed together, trying to shield their faces from the press photographers. Hamilton had come across the image in the collection of press cuttings Fraser’s secretary had given to him when he was creating the print Swinging London 67 – poster and he placed it at the top left corner of the composition. In order to use the image to make an etching ( Swingeing London 67 – etching , 1968) Hamilton purchased a ten by eight inch print of the whole of Twine’s photograph from the Fleet Street offices of the Daily Sketch . He extended the picture on all four sides, revealing a police guard on the left and second van window on the right. The image was also enlarged up and down, showing the curve of the roof inside the van and more of the prisoners’ chests than had been previously visible. He retouched the photograph to remove the outside of the van and the overlapping glass of the sliding window that cut vertically through the centre of the image. After making these alterations, Hamilton planned to silkscreen the resulting photographic image in black over a coloured, conventional oil painting. As this involved extensive experimentation, Hamilton created seven paintings, making line drawings to define the various colour fields for each version. When he set out to make the print Release , he discovered that he had by chance kept the drawing defining the colour fields in the (e) painting and was able to use this as the basis for producing seventeen hand-cut stencils for building up the colours on the screenprint. For the final definition of the image in black, Hamilton created a photographic stencil from another accident: a photographic stencil created to use on the Swingeing London canvases had been cleaned of residual black ink between each use on a painting by pressing it on white paper, effectively creating a print. As the stencil had been used first on canvas, the texture of the fabric had been pressed into the black ink, with the result that the accidental proof had both the photographic image and the canvas texture. This was used for the final printing screen and its effects are visible in the transition between Proofs 18 and 19 . The artist’s inscriptions in pencil on each proof indicate the progression of colour, with details of the two missing proofs – stages 14 and 15 – inscribed on proof 13. These are: Stage Proof 1 – grey ( P02416 ); Stage Proof 2 – warm grey ( P02417 ); Stage Proof 3 – green ( P02418 ); Stage Proof 4 – pink ( P02419 ); Stage Proof 5 – grey ( P02420 ); Stage Proof 6 – pink ( P02421 ); Stage Proof 7 – flesh ( P02422 ); Stage Proof 8 – Naples yellow ( P02423 ); Stage Proof 9 – orange ( P02424 ); Stage Proof 10 – blue ( P02425 ); Stage Proof 11 – red ( P02426 ); Stage Proof 12 – dark grey ( P02427 ); Stage Proof 13 – warm grey ( P02428 ); Stage Proof 14 – red (missing); Stage Proof 15 – transparent white (missing); Stage Proof 16 – darkest grey ( P02429 ); Stage Proof 17 – applied die-cut silver ( P02430 ); Stage Proof 18 – transparent black ( P02431 ); Stage Proof 19 – second layer transparent black ( P02432 ). Like Release , the Stage Proofs were printed by the artist and Chris Prater at Kelpra Studio, London on Hodgkinson mould-made paper. It is not known whether they are unique. Swingeing London III , 1972 ( P04255 ) is another print generated from the screenprinting process of applying successive layers of colour using the same image. |
| 毕加索的宫女 | Picasso’s meninas is an etching that plays an art-historical game by combining the composition of the celebrated painting by Diego Velázquez, Las Meniñas , 1656 (Museo del Prado, Madrid), with the graphic styles of Pablo Picasso (1881-1973). The print came about as a result of a commission: Hamilton was invited by the Propylaen Press, Berlin to contribute to their portfolio Hommage à Pablo Picasso , celebrating Picasso’s ninetieth birthday in 1971. Feeling that any homage to Picasso would have to involve ‘displaying respect for the masterly craftsmanship and love of the medium that Picasso demonstrated in his own etchings’ (Hamilton in Collected Words , p.106), the artist made his contribution conditional on Picasso’s etcher, Aldo Crommelynck, agreeing to work with him. This was his first consideration before any thought of a subject for his print. Hamilton wrote: I saw Velásquez’ Las Meniñas at the Prado for the first time in 1972 – its reputation as being among the greatest paintings that exist is well founded. The temptation to paraphrase Velásquez in Picasso’s styles proved irresistible ... Las Meniñas provided an opportunity to run the gamut of Picasso’s ‘periods’ in one plate – from ‘Rose’ through ‘Analytical Cubism’ to ‘Primitive’ to ‘Neo-Classical’ and so on. The stage of Velásquez’ Meniñas could carry a lot of action, and the mysterious ambiguities (it seems to contain an infinity of cross reflections with the space the picture confronts), allowed some narrative interplay with substitutions of personalities as well as styles. (Quoted in Collected Words , p.106.) Picasso had himself created forty-four analyses of Velásquez’s painting between August and December 1957, now hanging in the Museo Picasso, Barcelona. His versions of Las Meniñas , which include single characters from the original, are stylistically homogenous in the artist’s signature modernist style based on simplified geometric forms and dark line. By contrast, Hamilton’s homage inserts representational styles spanning the first half of the twentieth century into the seventeenth century composition. As his title suggests, Hamilton made the image of Picasso the most significant face in the group portrait. The subjects of the original painting – the centrally placed Infanta and her entourage or ‘ meniñas’ (the Portuguese word for girls, which came to mean maid of honour in the Spanish court) – have been transformed into the entourage of Picasso, the most realistically rendered character in the print. His portrait replaces the self-portrait of Velásquez, who painted himself standing next to the easel on which he is apparently working. In Hamilton’s print Picasso is ornamented with a hammer and sickle (referring to his communist sympathies) to replace the red cross of Santiago (the cross of St James) on Velásquez’s chest. Hamilton drew the Infanta (the Spanish princess) in the style of Picasso’s Analytical Cubism of 1912. The lady-in-waiting standing on her left is depicted in the flat graphic language Picasso developed in the 1930s. Behind her, another female attendant is depicted in Picasso’s neo-classical style of the early 1920s and a male figure is drawn using spare lines and the vocabulary of African forms that Picasso was using around 1907. The female dwarf of the seventeenth century original has become a version of Picasso’s Seated Woman , 1927 (Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto). Hamilton copied a harlequin from Picasso’s ‘pink’ period to replace the page in Velásquez’s painting, and a bull, closely resembling a painting of a dying bull that Picasso made in 1934 ( Dying Bull , private collection, Switzerland) to replace the mastiff on which the seventeenth century page places his foot. He drew representations of Picasso’s paintings, L’Aubade , 1942 (Musée d’art moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris) and Three Musicians , 1921 (Museum of Modern Art, New York), on the wall behind the group of figures. Finally, in the mirror – the conceptual focal point of Velásquez’s painting, where King Philip IV of Spain and his consort Mariana, parents of the Infanta, appear as shadowy onlookers of the painting’s scene – Hamilton inserted himself and his girlfriend (later wife), the artist Rita Donagh (born 1939). According to Lullin: ‘They are rendered with a particular etching technique “invented” by Picasso. A mark drawn on an aquatint ground with a greasy crayon, such as lithographic chalk, will act as a resist to the acid and produce a white mark when printed.’ (Lullin, p.124.) Because of this technique, the two figures appear painted in the print. A total of sixty-nine artists contributed to the Hommage à Picasso edition, which was split into six portfolios. Some of these are reproduced in the catalogue of the exhibition of the same title that was held in the Nationalgalerie, Berlin in 1973. Hamilton created three studies for Picasso’s meninas ( study I , II and II , 1973, collection Rita Donagh, Northend) before he created the etching plate in Paris. He later developed the imitation and mixture of historical styles in a single image in the print In Horne’s house , 1981-2 ( P77483 ), where Cubism again features centrally, this time in the depiction of a spread of sardines and beer. Picasso’s meninas was printed by Pierro and Aldo Crommelynck at Atelier Crommelynck, Paris using hard-, soft-ground and stipple etching, open-bite and lift-ground aquatint, engraving, drypoint and burnishing on Rives paper. The process involved two sets of six stage proofs. It was produced in an edition of ninety with Arabic numerals and thirty with Roman numerals, plus fifteen artist’s proofs, fifteen épreuves d’artistes , fifteen publisher’s proofs, fifteen hors commerce proofs, one BAT and two printer’s proofs. It was published by Propyläen Verlag, Berlin and Pantheon Press, Rome in Portfolio Two of the Hommage à Picasso . Tate’s copy is the third of the épreuves d’artistes . It is signed and titled by the artist under the image. |
| 在霍恩的家里 | James Joyce has been a strong influence on Hamilton's approach to image-making. During the Second World War Hamilton organised readings from 'Ulysses' at his workplace, EMI factory in Hayes. In 1947 he began illustrating the book. These drawings formed the basis for the, as yet, incomplete series of prints which he began to make in 1981. Hamilton has translated Joyce's varied and complex use of language and style into a collage of visual styles, nowhere more so than in 'In Horne's House'. His intention is to make eighteen etchings corresponding to the number of chapters in the book. As with many of his works, some of the 'Ulysses' prints, such as 'Finn MacCool', are derived from newspaper and television images. |
| 他预见到自己苍白的身体 | He foresaw his pale body is the seventh in Hamilton’s ongoing set of illustrations to James Joyce’s novel Ulysses (first published in Paris, 1922). The project was begun in the late 1940s and to date comprises seven etchings created during the 1980s (Tate P77473 , P77483 , P77484 , P77491 , P77492 , P77493 , P77494 ), and a digital print, The heaventree of stars ( P78316 ). Hamilton was first inspired by the idea of illustrating Joyce’s complex, experimental novel in 1947 while he was doing army service and began making sketches the following year, only to put the project to one side in 1950. It was not until 1981 that he made the decision to create one illustration for each of the novel’s eighteen chapters, and a nineteenth image – a portrait of one of the novel’s main protagonists, Leopold Bloom – destined as a frontispiece. He conceived these images as large intaglio prints. However in 1990 the artist became tired of commuting to Paris, where he had been working with the master printmaker Aldo Crommelynck for twenty years, and abandoned etching and other traditional forms of fine art printing. He spent much of the 1990s developing his skill in creating images destined for printing on a computer. Hamilton’s initial sketch to illustrate the fifth, ‘Lotus Eaters’, episode in Ulysses was executed in ink in 1948. The image of Bloom’s anticipation of a warm bath in which he ‘foresaw his pale body’ is, in this first attempt, a side view of the character naked in the bath surrounded by studies of feet, faces and penises. (Hamilton later used this ink sketch as the basis for his aquatint etching, A languid floating flower , 1983.) In the same year, feeling that the side-view was inadequate to describe Bloom’s mental picture evoked in the words: ‘He foresaw his pale body reclined in it at full, naked, in a womb of warmth, oiled by scented melting soap, softly laved’ (Joyce, Ulysses , Oxford 1993, p.83), Hamilton created a second study using pencil and watercolour. In this version, which was to form the basis for the final heliogravure print owned by Tate, the artist inverted and foreshortened Bloom’s body in a pose reminiscent of Mantegna’s famous image of the Dead Christ (Andrea Mantegna: The Lamentation over the Dead Christ , c.1480, Pinacoteca di Brera, Milan). As Hamilton explained: ‘The key word “foresaw” demands an interior perspective, foreshortened as though seen from an inner eye’ (quoted in Lullin, p.218). The image shows a bath viewed from above and behind, so that the taps are at the top of the page, partially cropped out of the image. Bloom lies in the bath, his naked body extending down the page from his feet, just below the taps, to his upper body and shoulders filling the bath at the bottom of the picture, crowned by an aerial view of his bald head. The area around the bath is dark and empty; the colour is all in the flesh tones of Bloom’s body and the brass yellow of the taps. A round yellow object, half concealed under Bloom’s right knee, recalls the yellow flower with no scent that Bloom receives in the letter from his erotic correspondent Martha Clifford, as described in the ‘Lotus Eaters’ episode of Joyce’s novel. Hamilton abandoned the 1948 watercolour until 1989, when he began working on mylar sheets preparatory to creating the four plates for the execution of his final print using heliogravure, burin etching and roulette in twenty-three colours. In this process, the pale washes of the watercolour were translated into deeper tones and a few adjustments were made to the earlier composition: a greater part of Bloom’s right hand was raised out of the water; the alignment of the bath taps was reversed and the chain of the bathplug was lengthened so that a section appears to sit on the floor of the bath. By cropping the top of the taps, Hamilton creates a sense of the intimacy of internal contemplation; at the same time the viewer looks down at Bloom’s body from an external position, evoking an out-of-body experience. He foresaw his pale body was produced in an edition of 120 plus twelve artist’s proofs. Tate’s copy is number thirty-one. It was printed by the artist and Kurt Zein, Vienna, on Zerkall paper and distributed by Waddington Graphics, London. |
| 阿多尼斯在Y线上 | The print Adonis in Y fronts is a based on a painting of the same title that is one of a group of four works made in 1962-3 under the umbrella title Towards a definitive statement on the coming trends in men’s wear and accessories . The Adonis in Y-fronts painting, made in 1962 (Art Institute of Chicago), is the third in the series. The print is distinguished from the painting by the removal of the hyphen in its title. Hamilton derived the group title for these works from a headline of a men’s fashion article he found in Playboy magazine. He added the word ‘towards’ to make it sound less ‘definitive’, explaining: ‘fashion depends on an occasion, season, time of day and, most importantly, the area of activity in which the wearer is involved. A definitive statement seemed hardly possible without some preliminary investigation into specific concepts of masculinity.’ (Quoted in Richard Hamilton , p.154.) The image on which Adonis in Y fronts is based comes from an advertisement for Potenza expanders that Hamilton found in an issue of the body-building magazine, Mr Universo , from 1960. Hamilton’s painting and the subsequent print show the torso and lower face of a muscular man, holding a chest-expander to his body. The advert shows a full frontal view of the model’s chest to his waist; Hamilton elongated it to include his hips, twisting the body gently into a contra-posto pose. The man’s face, neck, shoulders and arms are reproduced as an enlarged version of the advertisement printed in halftone – black and white. The external contour of the athlete’s chest on his right side and the two alternative lines inside the external contour on his left side were drawn from a photograph of the sculpture Hermes with the infant Dionysus (Olympia Archaeological Museum) attributed to the Greek sculptor Praxiteles (fourth century BC) that the artist found in Life Magazine . Five horizontal bands in ochre and brown tones crossing the model’s upper chest were copied from a sweater shirt in an advertisement for Lucky Strike cigarettes. His lower chest, stomach and hips are bare paper, on which a stylized outline of the athlete’s underpants is printed. These ‘Y fronts’ are described by a narrow white seams in an ‘X’-formation joined to another white band at waist level under a red dotted line. The author of Hamilton’s catalogue raisonné, Etienne Lullin, has commented: ‘according to the advertising text, this “Y cut” would guarantee an especially comfortable fit’ (Lullin, p.58). In the painting Adonis in Y-fronts , Hamilton coloured the ‘U’-form of the chest expander with gold metallic paint, fixing silver rivets into the canvas at the points where the expander hinges. In the print, the diagrammatic treatment of the spring between the two arms of the ‘U’ is extended to the ‘U’ itself. To the right of the figure, the background is covered with broad, silvery brushstrokes, emulating the original canvas. To the figure’s left, above a narrow band of dark textured paint, a monotone area of light grey extends into the figure in one of his broad chest stripes, emphasizing the illusionistic nature of artistic representation. The title Adonis in Y-fronts is a pun on the title of a 1962 pop song by the American singer Jimmy Clanton, Venus in blue jeans . For the artist, the y-fronts are the male counterpart to the Exquisite Form bra that features in his 1957 painting, Hommage à Chrysler Corp. ( T06950 ). Adonis in Y fronts is Hamilton’s first venture with a screenprint. The image recalls the muscle-bound body-builder who features, standing in a domestic interior, in the artist’s most famous work, the collage Just what is it that makes today’s homes so different, so appealing? ( P20271 is a recent print version of this) that he created for the exhibition This is Tomorrow at the Whitechapel Art Gallery, London in 1956. As the title indicates, the four paintings in the suite Towards a definitive statement on the coming trends in men’s wear and accessories deal with the trappings of masculinity in the contemporary (1960s) world. The imagery is derived from current events and popular culture, as is usual in Hamilton’s work. Featuring an astronaut with the face of US President John F. Kennedy, a transistor radio-printed circuit and a fruitmachine dial, the first painting deals with man’s endeavours to conquer space and is subtitled with Kennedy’s famous words: Together let us explore the stars . The second painting combines car racing with American football and the New York stock exchange, and the fourth mixes attributes of each. Like the Adonis in Y fronts holding his chest-expander, all the heroes in these compositions are dependent on their accessories, machines and protective clothing for their achievements. The theme of men defined by their clothing and (mechanical) accessories recalls the bachelors in the lower panel of Marcel Duchamp’s Large Glass ( T02011 ), the subject of intensive study by Hamilton during the 1950s and 1960s. Making the print Adonis in Y fronts brought about Hamilton’s first working relationship with a master craftsman. The printer Chris Prater of Kelpra Studio, London was able to resolve several technical challenges presented by Hamilton’s ambition to reproduce the detailed brushstrokes on the painting’s right side in his print. The spring on the chest expander also required extra stages in the printing process. Adonis in Y fronts was screenprinted using twelve stencils on TH Saunders paper by the artist and Chris Prater at Kelpra Studio, London. It was produced in an edition of forty plus an unknown number of printer’s proofs, of which Tate’s copy is one. It is signed and inscribed by the artist in pencil ‘with thanks’. The edition was published by the artist. |
评论