Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism.
In the annals of modern art, not enough has been said about Loplop, Max Ernst’s avian alter ego. Yet “the Bird Superior,” beaked as Ernst himself, titters at the margins of the prints and dashes through the pages of the artist’s image-novels. Now you can see Loplop and other Ernst bird-things at the Museum of Modern Art, where the retrospective Max Ernst: Beyond Painting, casts light on the weirder works — the frottages, grottages, and collages — alongside the better-known paintings.
Ernst’s surrealist vision still feels fresh. A century ago, with postwar Europe in mustard-gas-steamed ruins, he joyously ridiculed contemporary notions of progress. His formal innovations were designed to upend Enlightenment ideals of reason and supplant them with a transcendent dream logic, what founding surrealist André Breton famously called “psychic automatism in its pure state.” You’ll find Loplop preening away in many of the prints on display at MoMA, presiding over a fractured world of unconscious symbols. His appearance is one of the things that makes this exhibition something more than just another Ernst retrospective. Not quite a god, Loplop is Ernst’s familiar spirit, and where he goes a kinetic energy follows.
Loplop arrives squarely in Ernst’s Surrealist period, though the artist is also associated with the earlier Dada and German Expressionist movements. The Bird Superior debuts among the misappropriated Victorian texts and illustrations of Ernst’s first collage novel, The Hundred Headless Woman (1929), transliterated from the French “La Femme 100 têtes.” A restless manipulator of language, Ernst in his title makes a double entendre of the homophones cent têtes (hundred-headed) and sans têtes (headless). It’s a move straight out of the modernist playbook. Words, Ernst reminds us, are shaky. They can assume contradictory meanings simultaneously, in this case both multiplicity and absence.
The page on display at MoMA draws out this theme of holding contradictions in equilibrium, challenging our expectations. It features what look to be a determined couple of Toucans, birds of a feather, perched in protective postures with their human charges. Set on floral etchings, the tropical scene plays at mythologies of “going native”: “The eye without eyes, the 100-headed woman and Loplop return to the wild state and cover the eyes of their faithful birds with fresh leaves,” reads its French caption. What the collage suggests most strongly is a different way of seeing: vision without sight. It juxtaposes, but recontextualizes, familiar images of man and woman in relation with the world. Its female figure and headless male, plucked from more traditional figurative roles, entangle themselves with their oversized avian guardians, but they don’t dominate them. The leaves and flowers, rather than signifying natural purity — the “wild state” the caption ironizes, or what John Berger has called the “sentimental view of nature” — indicate the natural world as a field of mystery and instability. Loplop’s faithful presence ushers us into one of what Ernst called his “voluntarily provoked hallucinations.” The image guides the viewer away from the rigid systems of knowledge that dominated the early 20th century — language, politics, science — and toward a mindset that can reconcile irrationality.
“Loplop Introduces Members of the Surrealist Group” (1931) addresses a similar set of concerns to the relationship between the artist and the world. Here our feathered friend occupies the margins, holding the focal collage like a sandwich board, his cartoonish beak peeking over the top and clumsy feet anchoring its bottom. The image itself presents disparate elements: scientific illustrations of sea life; a photo of a crowd; a diagram of some blades; various rubbings in the negative space; and, centrally, the disembodied busts of Salvador Dalí, Paul Éluard, Tristan Tzara sporting his monocle, Ernst himself, and a mute crowd of other surrealist practitioners.
Such group pictures were a convention of Surrealist visual art, a way of placing the knowing artist at the scene of the dream (see, for example, the fools peering through the window in Ernst’s painting “The Virgin Spanking the Christ Child before Three Witnesses: André Breton, Paul Éluard, and the Painter”). But here the Surrealists are subordinated, and far less knowing. Even Breton, the movement’s pouty pioneer, answers to Loplop’s supreme authority, subverting the Western reverence for the self-styled Great Man. One thing’s for sure: The Surrealists are not in control. Instead, Loplop is the watcher, a conduit between the hapless artists, placed in a disorienting and indifferent environment, and the Surreal world they seek to project.
Other birds flutter through Beyond Painting, echoing and expanding on the artist’s passionate pursuit of the unfamiliar, from the frantic feathered heads that top the bodies of male dandies in the later collage novel A Week of Kindness or the Seven Deadly Elements (1933) to the beaked bronze totem of “Bird-Head” (1934–35). Far from the phallic symbols of the Freudian dreamwork (which was indeed a great influence on Ernst), the birds appear in their classical role: as guides between the mundane world and a truer, more mysterious one. (Note, too, that the artist’s birds rarely demonstrate the gift of flight, their most coveted ability, and the one psychoanalysis claims to symbolize that most erotic defiance of gravity.) Beyond Painting also includes a selection of the artist’s more celebrated works — over-paintings like “The Hat Makes the Man” (1920), “Woman, Old Man, and Flower” (1923), and “Napoleon in the Wilderness” (1941) — but its most significant contribution is a new view on the supposedly minor ones, like the Loplop pictures, which crystallize Ernst’s dominant preoccupations.
A bird in the hand, the saying goes, is as good as two in the bush. Ernst, for his part, never even quite lets us get one in hand, but we’re better off for trying. For a modern viewer, these images can’t help but conjure the chaos our own era’s promises of progress have created. Amid cataclysmic climate change, perpetual drone war, and a consciousness divided by our technology addiction, any appeal to the rational mind rings hollow. And lately, of course, a whole different kind of “psychic automatism” has emerged — a constant noise of absurd populist rhetoric and relentless social chatter. It’s no accident that the word “surreal” has come to describe a range of trends and tactics in Western life. In this climate, Ernst’s works feel like a bastion of imagination against false forms of consciousness. With so much noise incoming today, we need Loplop in our lives more than ever, to help reveal a realer reality and translate disorder into a kind of beauty, however harsh.
“Black infants in America are now more than twice as likely to die as white infants—11.3 per 1,000 black babies, compared with 4.9 per 1,000 white babies, according to the most recent government data—a racial disparity that is actually wider than in 1850, 15 years before the end of slavery, when most black women were…
he ownership of images has a long and nuanced legal history, which has evolved dramatically in recent years as cultural standards and photographic technologies have rapidly advanced
The show, which honors the 50th anniversary of an exhibition history once ignored, continues a series of projects documenting Wilmington’s contemporary art scene.
Renty and his daughter Delia. Renty was an enslaved African, kidnapped from the Congo, sold and forced into slave labor on the South Carolina plantation of B.F. Taylor
What is the relation between possessing a person, possessing their image, and dispossessing their progeny
As a scholar of African American history and photography whose work has focused on the status of violent images in museums and archives, I fully support the validity of Ms. Tamara Lanier’s claim and the amicus brief.
Two K-12 art teachers will each receive a $1,000 cash gift and an additional $500 to put toward classroom art supplies. Nominations are due October 31.
The daguerreotypes of Renty Taylor, Delia, Drana, Alfred, Jack, George Fassena, and Jem remained in an unused storage cabinet until 1975, when it was discovered by an employee of the Peabody Museum.
I am writing in support of the amicus curiae brief submitted by Professor Ariella Aïsha Azoulay of Brown University for the full restitution of the daguerreotypes of Renty Taylor and his daughter Delia, currently held by Harvard University, to their familial descendant, Tamara Lanier.
We cannot be indifferent to the long-lasting effects of photography. The photographs at the center of Lanier v. Harvard are relentless in making Renty and Delia Taylor work and perform as slaves. The pain inflicted on them has not ceased. Photography has the capacity to propagate harm, and we have the moral obligation to interrupt…