analysis of Frankenthaler's Untitled 1982 and O'Keefe's Red Hills 1927

An analysis of Helen Frankenthaler’s Untitled 1982 and Georgia O’Keefe’s Red Hills 1927.

Anne Welsh                                  Tutor: Andrew Vass                  Word Count: 584 words.

Helen Frankenthaler’s Untitled 1982 is an abstract painting consisting of an irregular blue shape resting on a larger almost-rectangular lighter-blue area. The upper irregular shape has areas of different tone which gives it a 3-D effect. This 3-D effect is further enhanced by a continuation of the darker shape into the lighter rectangle below suggesting colour seepage, reflection or shadow. Although acrylic on canvas, the paint has been applied as for a loose watercolour wash lending the larger rectangular area a fluid quality. Further runs of paint in the lower part of the painting might suggest ink-runs or waves breaking on a blue shoreline.

Frankenthaler does not afford us a single interpretation. If one were to interpret the top of the larger blue area as horizon then there is no sky above it – only white canvas which immediately negates the interpretation. The darker shape might suggest a stone or a rock but the dark blue colour may make us question this interpretation. Perhaps one may fancy that it resembles a roughly hewn bottle leaking ink into water. There are no doubt other interpretations should one care to make them but nothing is confirmed. There are no others objects as clues to context. There is no linear or aerial perspective to inform about distance. The painting is a beautiful abstract with dark blue bleeding into a lighter blue wash with all the beauty and light of a traditional watercolour. Light dances on the lower rectangular shape via areas of dilute wash. Irregular speckles of paint add further interest but do not detract from the painting’s essential untitled, undefined existence.

Georgia O’Keefe’s landscape Red Hills 1927 has an essential abstract quality. There is an enormous ringed sun dominating the sky above undulating dusky-reddish hills. There is a yellow glow in the valley areas between the hills providing a “path” through the hills to the sun and hence providing the 3-D effect. Like Frankenthaler’s painting, there are no other objects to provide context not any linear or aerial perspective to suggest distance. Indeed there is little variation in the colour of the hills which seems to bring them forward and it is only the path of light which suggests distance and horizon. Both paintings are all about colour - Frankenthaler’s using blue to suggest flow and dilution, O’Keefe using earthy warm colours to suggest the strong heat of a desert sunset and huge yellow sun radiating warmth. Both paintings use dark and light areas to suggest light playing on surface. O’Keefe does not give us any other context for her painting which could be a Mexican desert or a Martian landscape.

Both paintings use strong edges of contrasting tone to emphasize shape. In Frankenthaler’s painting the darker blue object is surrounded by white canvas. In O’Keefe’s painting the dark red horizon of the hills is set against the bright white and yellow of the sun or the dusky pinks and mauves of the surrounding rings.

O’Keefe’s painting suggests isolation and intense dusky, dusty warmth. One wonders what will be left when the sun goes down and the deep, dark brown outer edge of the sky closes in.

Frankenthaler’s painting is also of a lonely place. It is a beautiful image but could be disturbing too – there is no certainty or meaning.

Both paintings use powerful but minimal techniques to provide images with considerable impact.