Oral History — October 19, 2017, 1:40 pm

Moral Turpitude

The many transgressions of Carolee Schneemann

Photograph by Cassidy Ellis

From a conversation between Carolee Schneemann and Stephanie LaCava that took place in March at Schneemann’s home in New Paltz, New York. Carolee Schneemann is a multimedia artist. Her performance piece “Meat Joy” was first presented in 1964. Earlier this year, Schneemann received the Golden Lion Lifetime Achievement Award at the Venice Biennale. Kinetic Painting, a retrospective of Schneemann’s work, is on view this month at MoMA PS1. LaCava is a writer based in New York City.

I grew up in a Pennsylvania village. My father was a physician whose medical practice exposed me to bodies, their invisible processes, illnesses, and viscera. Injured people came to the back door as if dad was the hospital, presenting him with bloody arms or injured body parts.

One of my favorite Dad stories: I was learning to sew, and I was upstairs in the house making a cotton square-dance skirt. The needle slipped and went through my finger. I ran downstairs with my bloody finger still stitched into the fabric. I alerted Dad, “Look, look, I really hurt myself.” He studied the finger and said, “Not bad for an amateur.”

He was warm, delightful, charming. He was never defensive or mean. He was great except for being part of the patriarchy. He wouldn’t send me to college. He wanted to send me to typing school. He yelled at me that I was using big words that my brother didn’t understand. And he would talk about my growing up to be a proper mother.

I had a boyfriend in grade school, a farm kid, I think his name was Burt. We were eight or nine and he always sat next to me on the bus. I loved the school bus. It smelled of fuel, old leather, woolly clothing. He’d sit next to me and he liked to touch my skirt. One morning he said, “When we grow up, will you breed my babies?”

I had a keen instinct that I was not going to become a cow. I would observe men pat their pregnant wives’ stomachs as if the stomachs were theirs. I hated that. Even though I was little I would think, “That’s not his stomach.”

I started going from Pennsylvania to New York when I was thirteen or fourteen. We could hitchhike then; it wasn’t dangerous. Everything became dangerous by the mid-Sixties, but at the end of the Fifties twelve-year-old girls could put their thumbs up and somebody would give them a ride. Once when I was sixteen we got all the way to Maine and lived in a fishing cottage in South Harpswell. I was painting ocean vistas, reading Goethe’s color theory, as well as D’Arcy Thompson’s On Growth and Form. I was with a girlfriend who was a poet, and I had a boyfriend, a painter, who would turn up every now and then. We had so very little money that a cigarette had to last forever. We ate what fell off the fishing boats and washed up in our inlet, and I gathered wild greens for salad.

Unexpectedly I received a scholarship from Bard—that was wonderful! I had gone to a little country high school because my parents were convinced that I was withering away in public school. At this magical country day school the teacher taught English four hours a day. Everything else was squeezed around it. We read all kinds of poetry and we had to write—if you didn’t write you were sent out into a pasture to play by yourself. The class could write about anything, a Coke bottle, a pet dog, but we had to present writing. I flourished there. My teacher wrote a note and told me, “Keep this with you forever. Your parents won’t want you to go to college, but you have to go.” And she wrote down three names: Antioch, Goddard, Bard.

I applied to Bard against my parent’s wishes. The provost, who gave students scholarships, appeared one day in the infirmary at my high school. His name was Buzz Gummere and he wanted to know why my dad wouldn’t fill out a financial statement. They offered me a full room-board-tuition scholarship.

Bard was revelatory. I loved having my own little room to work in, which I painted black and red. The dormitory housed other young woman who were very caring. One day, I came back to my room and found on my bed a red flannel duffle coat with big pockets and toggles. It was a perfect coat. In one of the pockets I found a container that held a mystifying rubber circle. This was a loan of the secret shared dormitory contraceptive. (The tragedy was that I had to give the coat back so that it would be passed on.)

At Bard my favorite painting teacher told me, “Don’t set your heart on art. You’re only a girl.” All the male English teachers there were famous writers. They would look at your behind and make unpleasant comments about your shape, would they like to fuck you or not. I went to meet with my poetry teacher in his apartment. He was lying under a red blanket with candles around him and a bottle of wine and two glasses. And there was something sticking up under the covers between his legs. I told him, “I forgot to bring my footnotes. I have to go.”

My professors at Bard rejected my proposals to write about Virginia Woolf. Then they refused my intention to write about Simone de Beauvoir. My philosophy professor told me, “Honey, why do you want to write about the mistress when you can write about the master?”

Junior year I was forced to leave Bard for “moral turpitude.” I always hoped that this was a typographical mistake and that I was to be punished for “immoral turpentine.” I realized only recently that my transgression must have been the sequence of anatomically explicit nude self-portraits I was painting in my room. Bard had no life drawing at the time and I was anxious to study a human form.

For some legal reason Bard extended my scholarship to the Columbia School of Painting and Sculpture and to the New School. This was actually beneficial. I moved in with a Bard graduate to her apartment in New York City, utterly thrilling. The building is still there, at 15th Street and 8th Avenue.

The way I met Jim Tenney was mystical. While at Columbia I would stop at a little café at 116th and Morningside Heights, somewhere around there. You could get a big soup with bread for a dollar.

In the café I saw this guy at a back table with sort of wonderful hair, eating like a tiger. He was bent over his plate and he was handsome and thin and had a strange energy. He wasn’t like anyone I had ever seen before. The second time I saw him there I was about to throw up because I lived only on cigarettes and I was carrying a huge portfolio. He was looking at me. I had to leave.

Some months later I put my hair up in braids to go to a Bach and Charles Ives concert that was free for students—New York was so amazing in the middle of May. The pianist was just coming out, and then this skinny guy appeared, late, after everybody else was seated. He came around to the aisle next to me and sat down. We were staring at each other: “What are you doing here?” I wondered. At intermission I looked for him. He was behind a pillar. I didn’t know how to approach him. I went down to the bathroom. When I got back, he’d left the pillar. I hurried downstairs, then back upstairs to look behind the pillar, and finally I came up to him. We said to each other, “I have seen you at the café.” He said he was a composer and pianist studying at Juilliard. I said I was a painter. And he said, “Oh, painting. Well, I’m working with sound as if it’s space.” And I said, “I’m working with space as if it’s movement.” Then we went out for coffee. We only had enough money to share one cup.

Jim was born in New Mexico, he grew up in Colorado, he had that energy, something Western. It’s not like East Coast energy. He slapped his thigh as if the cattle were grazing. We became lovers in his terrible little room with no windows at Juilliard. Unbeknownst to me there was a student from the Philippines next door who would hear us making love. I know that because he turned out to be an artist, and we met in London later. He told me, “I recognize your voice.”

I’m fortunate to have the voice that I do. I’m so upset with young women’s voices. I’m really distressed. There’s the new slur speech where whatever you’re saying you blur it at the end. I was very influenced by old New England artists who have such beautiful, firm, defined language. It was articulated, musical.

In May, Jim had his graduate piano concert. We were asleep in his little horrible room and he got up and put on his only jacket and I said, “Good luck. I hope it goes beautifully. I hope it’s perfect.” He’d been practicing like a mad person: Ives, Werbern. I fell back asleep, and it seemed like barely any time passed before he was back. I said, “How was it?”

“It was yesterday.” He had slept through it because we’d been making love. It was a fucking disaster. His professor never forgave him. His scholarship was taken away. We were completely at a loss, didn’t know what to do. I met a dreadful greasy grocer who owned apartments on York Avenue and I flirted enough so that I got an apartment and then Jim and I had to hide from the grocer and from my parents.

What I’m telling you about the history at Bard is the basis for what I call “Double Knowledge.” There was the knowledge I knew I had to live by and there was the knowledge that the wall of male culture insisted was appropriate, but that was not true to my experience. I carried that sense, very clearly, always.

I inherited a completely male cultural tradition. I had never had a woman teacher for art. I had never found a precedent of woman artists in the art history books available to me. I would discover them later while researching in foreign history books. I felt that I was an outlaw, intruding in a masculine realm.

In the Sixties, as a proto-feminist, my work was deeply misunderstood whenever I used the body, because it was assumed that it was an appeal to male culture. But I was trying to subvert it. I took my films to curators and they said, “This is shit. If you want to paint, put your clothes back on and go paint.” I was rejected by every interesting gallery in New York City.

My sexuality was distracting and confusing to the galleries, though I didn’t understand it at the time. In 1963, when I enacted my Eye Body: 36 Transformative Actions for the camera, my intention was to be both image and image maker. The traditions of the female nude had always been the central obsession of the male artists I studied, from the French surrealists to the Pop artists. None of these depictions related to my experience. It was my wish to transform and vitalize an actual artist’s female body as part of her materials.

I was one of the first female artists to integrate my own nude body into action photographs. I felt I was physicalizing the kinetic implications of abstract expressionism.

Only an ideal physical body could manage to subvert the traditional expectations of pleasing the male gaze. If our bodies didn’t look appealing we couldn’t have gotten subversive messages through them. We would’ve been laughed away or dismissed as feeble pornographers. There is now marked appreciation for all the pussies I have fought to celebrate. Meow.

Share
Single Page

More from Stephanie LaCava:

Oral History July 25, 2018, 2:37 pm

A Conversation With Anne Waldman

“Perhaps we are finally facing our karma of genocide and slavery and oppression of women.”

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

October 2018

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Printed Word in Peril·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February, at an event at the 92nd Street Y’s Unterberg Poetry Center in New York, while sharing the stage with my fellow British writer Martin Amis and discussing the impact of screen-based reading and bidirectional digital media on the Republic of Letters, I threw this query out to an audience that I estimate was about three hundred strong: “Have any of you been reading anything by Norman Mailer in the past year?” After a while, one hand went up, then another tentatively semi-elevated. Frankly I was surprised it was that many. Of course, there are good reasons why Mailer in particular should suffer posthumous obscurity with such alacrity: his brand of male essentialist braggadocio is arguably extraneous in the age of Trump, Weinstein, and fourth-wave feminism. Moreover, Mailer’s brilliance, such as it was, seemed, even at the time he wrote, to be sparks struck by a steely intellect against the tortuous rocks of a particular age, even though he labored tirelessly to the very end, principally as the booster of his own reputation.

It’s also true that, as J. G. Ballard sagely remarked, for a writer, death is always a career move, and for most of us the move is a demotion, as we’re simultaneously lowered into the grave and our works into the dustbin. But having noted all of the above, it remains the case that Mailer’s death coincided with another far greater extinction: that of the literary milieu in which he’d come to prominence and been sustained for decades. It’s a milieu that I hesitate to identify entirely with what’s understood by the ringing phrase “the Republic of Letters,” even though the overlap between the two was once great indeed; and I cannot be alone in wondering what will remain of the latter once the former, which not long ago seemed so very solid, has melted into air.

What I do feel isolated in—if not entirely alone in—is my determination, as a novelist, essayist, and journalist, not to rage against the dying of literature’s light, although it’s surprising how little of this there is, but merely to examine the great technological discontinuity of our era, as we pivot from the wave to the particle, the fractal to the fungible, and the mechanical to the computable. I first began consciously responding, as a literary practitioner, to the manifold impacts of ­BDDM in the early 2000s—although, being the age I am, I have been feeling its effects throughout my working life—and I first started to write and speak publicly about it around a decade ago. Initially I had the impression I was being heard out, if reluctantly, but as the years have passed, my attempts to limn the shape of this epochal transformation have been met increasingly with outrage, and even abuse, in particular from my fellow writers.

As for my attempts to express the impact of the screen on the page, on the actual pages of literary novels, I now understand that these were altogether irrelevant to the requirement of the age that everything be easier, faster, and slicker in order to compel the attention of screen viewers. It strikes me that we’re now suffering collectively from a “tyranny of the virtual,” since we find ourselves unable to look away from the screens that mediate not just print but, increasingly, reality itself.

Photograph (detail) by Ellen Cantor from her Prior Pleasures series © The artist. Courtesy dnj Gallery, Santa Monica, California
Article
Among Britain’s Anti-Semites·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

This is the story of how the institutions of British Jewry went to war with Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. Corbyn is another feather in the wind of populism and a fragmentation of the old consensus and politesse. He was elected to the leadership by the party membership in 2015, and no one was more surprised than he. Between 1997 and 2010, Corbyn voted against his own party 428 times. He existed as an ideal, a rebuke to the Blairite leadership, and the only wise man on a ship of fools. His schtick is that of a weary, kindly, socialist Father Christmas, dragged from his vegetable patch to create a utopia almost against his will. But in 2015 the ideal became, reluctantly, flesh. Satirists mock him as Jesus Christ, and this is apt. But only just. He courts sainthood, and if you are very cynical you might say that, like Christ, he shows Jews what they should be. He once sat on the floor of a crowded train, though he was offered a first-class seat, possibly as a private act of penance to those who had, at one time or another, had no seat on a train.

When Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party, the British media, who are used to punching socialists, crawled over his record and found much to alarm the tiny Jewish community of 260,000. Corbyn called Hez­bollah “friends” and said Hamas, also his “friends,” were devoted “to long-term peace and social justice.” (He later said he regretted using that language.) He invited the Islamist leader Raed Salah, who has accused Jews of killing Christian children to drink their blood, to Parliament, and opposed his extradition. Corbyn is also a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and a former chair of Stop the War, at whose rallies they chant, “From the river to the sea / Palestine will be free.” (There is no rhyme for what will happen to the Jewish population in this paradise.) He was an early supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its global campaign to delegitimize Israel and, through the right of return for Palestinians, end its existence as a Jewish state. (His office now maintains that he does not support BDS. The official Labour Party position is for a two-state solution.) In the most recent general election, only 13 percent of British Jews intended to vote Labour.

Corbyn freed something. The scandals bloomed, swiftly. In 2016 Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, was suspended from the party for sharing a Facebook post that suggested Israel be relocated to the United States. She apologized publicly, was reinstated, and is now a shadow women and equalities minister. Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and a political supporter of Corbyn, appeared on the radio to defend Shah and said, “When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.” For this comment, Livingstone was suspended from the party.

A protest against anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in Parliament Square, London, March 26, 2018 (detail) © Yui Mok/PA Images/Getty Images
Article
Nothing but Gifts·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

If necessity is the stern but respectable mother of invention, then perhaps desperation is the derelict father of subterfuge. That was certainly the case when I moved to Seattle in 1979.

Though I’d lived there twice during the previous five years, I wasn’t prepared for the economic boom I found upon this latest arrival. Not only had rent increased sharply in all but the most destitute neighborhoods, landlords now routinely demanded first, last, and a hefty security deposit, which meant I was short by about fifty percent. Over the first week or so, I watched with mounting anxiety as food, gas, and lodging expenses reduced the meager half I did have to a severely deficient third. To make matters even more nerve-racking, I was relocating with my nine-year-old son, Ezra. More than my well-being was at stake.

A veteran of cold, solitary starts in strange cities, I knew our best hope wasn’t the classifieds, and certainly not an agency, but the serendipity of the streets—handmade for rent signs, crowded bulletin boards in laundromats and corner grocery stores, passersby on the sidewalk; I had to exploit every opportunity that might present itself, no matter how oblique or improbable. In Eastlake, at the edge of Lake Union between downtown Seattle and the University District, I spied a shabby but vacant one-story house on the corner of a block that was obviously undergoing transition—overgrown lots and foundation remnants where other houses once stood—and that had at least one permanent feature most right-minded people would find forbidding: an elevated section of Interstate 5 just across the street, attended by the incessant roar of cars and trucks. The house needed a new roof, a couple of coats of paint, and, judging by what Ezra and I could detect during a furtive inspection, major repair work inside, including replacing damaged plaster-and-lath walls with sheetrock. All of this, from my standpoint, meant that I might have found a solution to my dilemma.

The next step was locating the owner, a roundabout process that eventually required a trip to the tax assessor’s office. I called the person listed on the rolls and made an appointment. Then came the moment of truth, or, more precisely, untruth, when dire circumstance begot strategic deception. I’d never renovated so much as a closet, but that didn’t stop me from declaring confidently that I possessed both the skills and the willingness to restore the entire place to a presentable—and, therefore, rentable—state in exchange for being able to live there for free, with the length of stay to be determined as work progressed. To my immense relief, the pretense was well received. Indeed, the owner also seemed relieved, if a bit surprised, that he’d have seemingly trustworthy tenants; homeless people who camped beneath the freeway, he explained, had repeatedly broken into the house and used it for all manner of depravity. Telling myself that inspired charlatanry is superior to mundane trespassing—especially this instance of charlatanry, which would yield some actual good—I accepted the keys from my new landlord.

Photograph (detail) © Larry Towell/Magnum Photos
Article
Checkpoint Nation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Laura Sandoval threaded her way through idling taxis and men selling bottles of water toward the entrance of the Cordova International Bridge, which links Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas. Earlier that day, a bright Saturday in December 2012, Sandoval had crossed over to Juárez to console a friend whose wife had recently died. She had brought him a few items he had requested—eye drops, the chimichangas from Allsup’s he liked—and now that her care package had been delivered, she was in a hurry to get back to the Texas side, where she’d left her car. She had a …
Checkpoint on I-35 near Encinal, Texas (detail) © Gabriella Demczuk

Amount a 2006 defense bill authorized for a daylong “celebration‚” of “success‚” in Iraq and Afghanistan:

$20,000,000

Male orangutans announce their travel plans in advance.

Paul Manafort accepts a plea deal; Brett Kavanaugh accused of sexual assault; Jeff Bezos gets into the kindergarten racketon the clock

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today