The viewer has a basic forest-or-trees choice, a decision between the nose-to-the-image pleasure of studying Raftery’s technique, or the more distant and more humane view of his domestic scenes possible only from a few feet away. Houses are like that: Never look too closely at the paint, the molding, the floorboards. Home sweet home is a sour business if you’re a perfectionist.
This basic tension isn’t an invention of the 20th century. In older print series, such as William Hogarth’s “A Harlot’s Progress” (from 1733, these printed in 1744), you see public moralizing (about prostitution and dissipation) confined within images that reward only the long immersion of private viewing. Detail is the pleasure. Finding the data in Hogarth’s series — the cracked plaster, the hat box on the bed, the myriad small signs of decay and shabbiness — is part of the moral process of taking to heart the fate of a young woman trapped into the downward spiral of the sex trade. It compels you to spend time with the images, and with the narrative the images present, it also makes you part of the exploitation that the artist seems to decry.
These six salacious and possibly sermonizing glimpses into the world of harlotry yield a revelation: The young woman seen fresh from the country in the first plate, and hidden in a coffin in the sixth plate, is constantly on display, with no “room of her own.” She is a public conveyance for desire, with men and other manipulators constantly crowding her. The moral is once again about the tension between public and private realms of life.
The exhibition is organized thematically, with one room exploring series that are devoted simply to questions of design and another devoted to series based on war, including Picasso’s 1937 “The Dream and Lie of Franco,” a stark anti-Fascist series haunted by the same demons as his contemporaneous “Guernica”). The thematic organization doesn’t yield much fruit. More interesting, and less salient given the organization, are questions of seriality, the different ways in which a group of images relate to each other. In some cases, as with the Hogarth, a narrative imposes the order. In others, such as Johann Theodor de Bry’s 1595 “New Artistic Alphabet,” or in a set of historic playing cards with color stencil, the order is created by an external, systematic structure.
Often, the most exciting visual results come from series that seem to have no outside system, or responsibility, such as 20 etchings by Ludovic Napoleon Lepic, a French artist of the mid-19th century, who used a single copper plate to produce unique variations on a basic river scene, exploring clouds, fog, snow and other atmospheric scene changes. Here, as much as in the Monet paintings that Lichtenstein appropriates, the thing represented — a view from the banks of the Scheldt River — disappears into the background of visual play, a deliquescence of the real into the evanescent vapors of a more metaphysical river. Lepic’s series may have had as many as 85 iterations, yet it could sustain even more than that.
But the best thing about the exhibition is that it is all prints and nothing but prints. There’s no lack of variety, or color, or extremes of representational style. By focusing on the print in series, the curators have created parameters of viewing that favor the unique power of the print. The series approach helps the individual prints establish a contained, local language, within which they speak more eloquently than they ever do when seen out of context surrounded by more hectoring forms of art.
Print by Print: Series From Durer to Lichtenstein
is on view at the Baltimore Museum of Art through March 25, 2012. For more information visit www.artbma.org.