 |
| (c) The Indianapolis News, appearing Jan 19, 1979 |
By the time my eyes were opened to the Indianapolis art scene, the name 'Steve Mannheimer' or simply 'Mannheimer' had attained a unique gravitas, a status apart from all other persons' names. It possessed a certain public and powerful heft. The oft-mentioned persona was an end all and be all of names, at least among the veteran or aspiring artists I knew. Also true for the local galleries and visual arts readers that I had become aware of or associated among in those days. Love it or hate it, 'Steve Mannheimer' was not just a name, it was the name. And it was there every Sunday Star, in black turtleneck and white pages.
This was the state of being and nature of things in the Indy art world of the mid1990s. There were other names moving and shaking for sure, such as IMA's 'Holliday T. Day', Art Indiana's 'Ann Stack', Ruschman Gallery's 'Mark Ruschman', and Christel DeHaan's 'Christel DeHaan'. But if those four names were Presidents in stone on Mt. Rushmore, then 'Mannheimer' was the mountain itself.
I realize Indianapolis is incredibly flat and entirely devoid of hills, let alone mountains, but everything is relative, and every creative scene, however large or small, has its peaks and its valleys. The '90s scene was our scene, we were myopic in that way. For us KenGen tweeners, coming of art age at the tail end of Boomer and the early Gen X, 'Mannheimer' was the man.
It wasn't always so, though. No reputation or mountain or Rushmore is carved in a day. Steve Mannheimer became 'Steve Mannheimer' with hammer and chisel, perseverance and perspiration.
Throw in sedimentation and erosion. Evolution, and time.
In an Art Scene Long, Long Ago.
It's incredible to realize that Steve Mannheimer, the artist, first hit our scene at the time of the Bicentennial, 1976. And like Star Wars whose debut was about the same time, his force is still with us.
He was a young artist and a painting instructor at John Herron Art School. The school by then was part of IUPUI although it was still located at the original 16th and Pennsylvania campus.
Mannheimer was thrust almost immediately into the thick of the overall art scene in the city and the state when he participated in the panel discussion “Art in the Indiana Image” on December 1, 1976 at the then Indianapolis Museum of Art (IMA). The cerebral-sounding focus of the talk was on the role of artist, teacher, critic, collector, historian and museum in the development of Indiana art. There was a participant of each type person represented in the panel, including Robert A. Yassin, director of IMA, and Gayle Thornbrough as historian. Steve Mannheimer played a lone twofer role as artist/teacher.
In May 1977, Mannheimer exhibited drawings in a two-person show with printmaker Margaret 'Peg' D. Fierke at the Kit Basquin's Washington Gallery in Frankfort, Indiana. Fierke will be re-introduced in more detail to follow.
In an very unique art happening the following year, Mannheimer participated in the Indianapolis Art League's 'Billboard Art Project.'
The Indianapolis News art writer Marion Garmel described the sprawling outdoor exhibit as the placement of 42 artwork billboards (by that many artists) around the 402 square miles of Marion County, Indiana. The humongous 25 x 12 foot pieces were unfortunately exhibited for only one month, mid January through mid February, 1978. A timing that fatefully coincided with the Great Blizzard of Indianapolis, its whiteout and drifting snow conditions severely limiting any potential for viewing by the public.
Garmel's article mentions the exact street location of all the billboards so any art enthusiast with a good set of snow tires and a street map might still grab a look out the windshield. Mannheimer's was at 5242 Crawfordsville Road, facing east.
She does not comment on Mannheimer's piece in her article, but writes “without explanation or text, many of the billboards don't look like anything at all. Some are so complex they can't be deciphered.” She cites as perhaps the most successful attention grabber in the bunch as James Faust's giant eye on 16th Street. She sums up the audacious, if not entirely successful, exhibit with “billboards were made for cartoons, not for Rembrandt.”
Valentine's Day Misapprehension.
Whether or not, or how little of how much, an artist thinks about art varies from artist to artist. From 'action' to 'conceptual', the entire gamut from cave painter to Marcel Duchamp has been recorded in art history books, documentaries and interviews. It's not just a matter of history though, just eavesdrop the enthusiastic and drunken conversations in whatever Cedar Tavern your local artists shoot the shit. (Or maybe your local non-profit gallery opening is the current watering hole.)
That Steve Mannheimer was a thinker even as a young artist and teacher is not really up for discussion. His selection for the IMA panel indicated he was. Over a one year period from about Valentine's Day 1980 to Valentine's Day 1981, Mannheimer's deepest thoughts on art would be expressed, in a tit for tat public spat, played out for all to see in pages of The News. During this inaugural phase, it is still his own art that Steve Mannheimer talks about.
On February 6, 1980, Marion Garmel penned her Brush Strokes column in the News titled “Nose Knows About This Art”. It covered the Herron faculty show for 1980 but showcased one instructor's work predominantly.
Margaret (Peg) Fierke presented a work “Waitin' On Summer” that defied easy understanding, but sure stank up the place. It assaulted the nose, not the eyes. The organic installation was composed of soil and plant matter, in a state of drying decomposition that thankfully was losing the brunt of its stank over time. But oh my, the smell on first day, whewee! The rustic assemblage contained other elements such as cattle fencing, string and wooden boxes which were utilized is a more sculptural way. From Garmel's vivid description, the piece would seem more nasal art than visual art, a realistic punch in the nose presentation of a wafting and rural idyll. A post-modern barn painting.
At least fifty percent of Garmel's coverage is devoted to Fierke's literally 'sensational' work. As a result, with a total of 23 faculty exhibiting, her column attempted to cover a few of the other twenty-two with one-liners, arguably throwaway, necessitated by her limited column space. She may have been better off just covering Fierke one hundred percent (especially if that artist stood out the most). As a critic, and what with artists' egos, Garmel was bound to lose either way.
One of her Don Rickles lines (to belabor the metaphor) was barbed toward a massive, unstretched acrylic by Steve Mannheimer.
“...Steve Mannheimer plays with the black and white design of a 500-mile Race flag.” she wrote.
That's it... but that was enough to get Mannheimer's attention.
In a Letter to the Editor appearing in Indy's afternoon daily, February 15, 1980, he thanks The News for its faculty show review, but calls out Marion Garmel for her 'misapprehension'. He writes in a hilarious legalese, reminiscent of the Red Scare hearings, “My paintings are not now nor have they ever been comments, plays upon or take-offs of the Indy 500 Race checkered flag.”
Was Mannheimer's temerity sincere, or just a comical cold open, a witty play on the Watergate zeitgeist of public denial? His reply went on:
“The checkerboard pattern has existed for centuries and still continues to afford the artist with formal and intellectual challenge. Likewise the reduction of design elements to simple black and white is a recurrent theme in art history but still fertile ground for new interpretation.
My work is not without its influences and derivations but the 500 Race is not one of them.”
No one knew it at the time, but this wonderful repartee was between the once and the future Indianapolis art critics. And in the microcosm of Mannheimer's letter, his first penned art thoughts in Indianapolis, his future writing style is voiced. A slightly sardonic humor, a deep analytic nature, and a thoughtful attentiveness to the art world are revealed.
The entire first episode comes off as a bit of a one-sided affair. Mannheimer's imploringly earnest 'be mine' on the heels of Garmel's innocent brush-off. My guess, Garmel's sleight was all about the word count, nothing personal. Her column's emphasis affected not only Mannheimer, but all of the other Herron faculty save for Fierke.
Maybe Mannheimer was just working the ref, because a year later, he would receive a sweeter box of chocolates (call them Garmels) in her column February 14, 1981.
In Garmel's article “Not for Sale – So It's Art for Art's Sake” she covers Mannheimer's recent batch of paintings that were currently on display at Herron. On the walls of the art school gallery, it was the 29-year-old artist's paintings, but in the news column, the 29-year-old thinker is on view.
About the artworks, Garmel writes, “He takes large, unstretched canvases, covers them with paint that drips and splashes, cuts crosses in the middle, creates squares out of masking tape, paints bright stripes on them and calls them paintings.”
She continues about the work, “As a group, Mannheimer's paintings are a striking lot, some vibrant with color, others subdued, almost mystic with their buried suggestions of broken crosses and jagged wounds...to describe these paintings is almost impossible. They are paintings about painting, and as such they are thoroughly in the modern mode.”
Garmel asks a question as she concludes her observation, “In one (painting), a bright orange stripe zips down the center of the canvas that looks like it is simply painted blue. But don't be misled. In the deep blue field are stripes of a fainter, more subdued blue. Why?”
It's interesting that Mannheimer answers Garmel's question about a subdued blue stripe in his painting with remarks about the mechanics of a visual phenomenon. “You always get a blue afterimage from an orange stripe. There is nothing new in that. It's just a physical fact about color. But in this painting, there also is a blue stripe. The orange is so definitely different that it destroys that blue, yet when you turn away, the afterimage recreates it. These paintings are about the process off seeing...”
With this Mannheimer painting you get an actual painting, blue, with an orange stripe. But the moment you look away, when you glance upon a bare spot on the wall, you get its afterimage for free, orange, with blue stripe, and thrown in as a bonus, a subdued blue stripe almost hidden in the actual work, but revealed as what, a paler orange?
To think of an artwork's afterimage and incorporate that knowledge into the creative process, and paint a work that is not only the painting but the fading glow of its negative doppelganger when one looks away. That is heady stuff.
And it's just one aspect of one painting. From his explanations, you get the feeling that Mannheimer's show was jam-packed, overstuffed, with wall-to-wall ideas.
More generally, he says, “Step 1 of painting is illusion. But what is illusion, and what is real? And can you tell the difference?” Tromp e-l'oell is not what Mannheimer is talking around or painting. His paintings are not just exercises in visual sleight of hand, but mental as well. This concept of illusion seems an overall theme. Case in point, about the painting 'Switzer Blue', Mannheimer explains in a jujitsu of lavender mist, “ All of this is fantasy...a Rorschach test...an illusion...not real, a trick...”
Is Mannheimer talking about the painting, himself, or the universe?
Is he stuck in a cave daubing shadows with charcoal or blood, or in a New Wave simulation, some Tron etching away at the Matrix with Luke's lightsaber?
On the spectrum from Neanderthal to Duchamp, my money's on Marcel.
To Read or Not to Read a Painting.
Around the same time in early 1981, the 'Art World' columnist for The Indianapolis Star had a take on Mannheimer's painting quite apart from the remarks expressed earlier by Garmel or the painter himself.
Donn Fry's March 29, 1981 article, “Dolls and politics enliven exhibit,” covered a small show at the Jewish Community Center in Indianapolis consisting of three paintings by Mannheimer and six multi-media 'doll' sculptures by Joni Heide, a 1980 graduate of Herron.
In what Fry calls a departure, Mannheimer's painting 'Annunciation' is a large stretched canvas containing figures and a suggested space. As such, Fry contrasts this painting with the other two in Mannheimer's more usual non-objective style, on large unstretched canvases and pinned directly to the wall.
Fry's favorite in the show, 'Bruckner's Ninth: IPND,' is singled out. And his thorough remarks on this painting suggest either an intuitive premonition or an astute observation, perhaps both, as we shall see.
“Like a book or poem charged with symbolism, the work invites a 'reading.'..the artist has sprayed on a slogan in brilliant day-glo orange; it is political graffiti actually. 'Imagine a Painting Now Destroyed' it seems to say, although it only suggests the phrase since most of the vowels are missing.”
Fry continues his impressions, “There is one other key element in the 'language' of this painting – smack in the center of the composition, Mannheimer has cut a cross from the canvas.” Continuing in an inspired literary vein, Fry posits, “For this viewer, at least, Mannheimer's work reads from right to left, which may be a political statement in itself.”
The art writer provides a convincing argument for the power of the painting to move his eyes across the symbols and letters on its page. But it may be, that as a writer, he was bringing his own talent stack to the party, so to speak. Revealing a literary predilection as an arranger of words.
But especially in retrospect, Donn Fry's words ring true. Steve would soon show another side of Mannheimer in the pages of the Indianapolis papers.
Given Fry's 'reading' and description, taken at the face value of the painting's name and day-glo slogan, it does seem to shout out a message. Short and sweet and loud like a picket sign:
Imagine Painting Now Destroyed.
That's seems a simple read. But what is the meaning between the lines? (and the crosses, and the slashes and the stripes) What are we to make of Mannheimer's means of destruction. His vandalism. His propaganda. His division. His negation. His war-torn canvas, a battlefield of ideas both sacred and sick. His painting missing something at its center.
Next Man Up.
Within two weeks, Mannheimer, now an associate professor at Herron, would find himself no longer just painting his story, or teaching a story, but rather writing the story. On April 12, 1981, his first 'Art World' review appeared in The Indianapolis Star, when, as guest columnist, he filled in for the vacationing Donn Fry.
His column concerned his own holiday, when he'd recently jumped in, both feet, eyes wide-open to the New York art scene. It was not local review, but big picture, Big Apple, overall Art World stuff.
'Anything goes in the art of the '80s' begins with, well not a bang, but a bit of a strawman. Mannheimer's first statement is to all Indianapolis readers in need of some art brains, “Few of you, probably, have lost sleep lately wondering whether you comprehend the current varieties of artistic style and all their socio/political/economic/aesthetic significances.” Maybe not to the level of losing sleep, but those bothering to read an art column, perhaps many of them, are the exact types who worry about such things. It's not the actual Art World readers who eyes glaze over at the sight of the right side of Donn Fry's or Mannheimer's brain. It's the other 99.99% of Indianapolis readers who will never read the article to begin with, and turn the page like it's a Chop Suey ad for a southside restaurant, and they don't like Asian food.
But the opening aside, it's quick to the nitty gritty, and Mannheimer names a few of the current isms of '81 for those who slept through the credits. The mangy sounding bunch of black sheep movements including 'punk,' 'dumb painting' and just plain 'bad painting.' But also the more respectable sounding 'energism,' 'new wave' and 'new image' arts.
He describes the new wave and image movements as explicit or raw in subject matter and/or execution. But perceptively, Mannheimer further notes, “Most (new wave/new image art) is concerned with what in art history is called 'expression' rather than with formal qualities, that is, the image is generally more important than the niceties of picture-making.” And as time would tell, Mannheimer was on the ball with this observation, as a large swath of '80s art would be called neo-expressionism.
Mannheimer contrasts the new raucous pictures with the prior generation's abstract and minimal art which in comparison seem “...mute and elegant, even stiff.” Those works required a contemplative attention span, whereas, Mannheimer presciently asks, “ ...who in the 1980s has time for all that...?” And in a set of wonderful, if pithy, observations, “Now we experience art almost at a glance. We hear rather than listen, we identify rather than distinguish.” He speaks of some details of particular artworks, the 'Hey you' sex energy subject matter, the ability to elicit a 'knee-jerk' reaction devoid of thought process. Mannheimer returns to his general theme. “(The forthrightness of a 'new image' artwork) is an unabashed as a neon sign, about as subtle as a Pepsi commercial. There is instant sensation...immediate experience...it is a type of artist sensationalism.”
Again, note that Mannheimer seems to see things coming. By the '90s, the Young British Artists movement (YBAs), would have a pivotal exhibit at Charles Saatchi's Sensation show.
On the same page of the paper as Mannheimer's review is an article by Franz Schulze, a freelance art writer for the Chicago Sun-Times with a piece that appeared in that paper as well. Over the years Schulze was to specialize in commentary and writing on post-war Chicago imagist art, and the architecture of Miles van der Rohe and Philip Johnson. Schulze's review that day was also on the NYC scene, laser focused on the Whitney Biennial '81. His observations on the 'New' arguably more seasoned and reasoned than Mannheiner's, as Schulze had been appearing in the Chicago papers since the 1960s, but both men come to similar conclusions.
Mannheimer notes, “In New Wave / New Image the moment of understanding is simultaneous with identification, which is to say that it is a kind of ersatz enlightenment, it's a 30-second orgasm, delicious in its abandon, but a bit juvenile as love-making.”
Schulze's take on the same, “ Quality is not excluded from this new universe. Individual artists may be identified as promising, exciting, even memorable. Standards do exist, and some bits of the exploding matter burn brighter and longer than others. But as an asteroid is not a star, talent is not genius, an exciting artist is not a great one, and the differences are worth noting.” He elaborates further, “The best of the experiments like...the racy video exercises of Nam June Paik, drew attention to themselves as 'creative,' though more for their catchiness than for their urgency.”
Both men observe the creative catchiness of the 'New Image' versus the urgent engagement of the awesome, and note that exploding matter can be good or can be grand.
A Beautiful Case of Curious Mind.
In late 1981, Donn Fry takes a final 'read' of upstart critic and artist Steve Mannheimer. The following year would prove pivotal and intertwined for both men. Fry would move to Seattle and somewhat change the focus of his writing career, and Mannheimer would ascend the Art World throne as critic for The Indianapolis Star after Fry's abdication and flight. So as time would tell, something restless was afoot in both men, in the waning days of 1981, even if they did not know it yet.
In the November 22 article “Herron faculty exhibit disappoints,” Fry bemoans the “...disturbing moribund quality” of the show. The lackluster tone caused him to wax nostalgic about the vibrant, albeit, unfocused energy of Herron senior students' shows. In comparison, the kids, he said, “...aimed, at least, at testing and finding new personal limits, at establishing more distant goals.” He contrasts the faculty show which to him “...seems comfortably contented.”
Fry discusses a few of the underwhelming examples before leveling the ire of his sights squarely at two artists in particular. “What this exhibit begs for, really, are some top notch paintings, paintings that grip the imagination and haunt the eye. In this regard, the principal disappointments are the works by Robert Berkshire and Steve Mannheimer.”
His 'read' on Mannheimer 's wall-size creation sounds rough, but with a saving grace. “After producing in recent years a series of unstretched canvases that were visually and intellectually challenging, (Mannheimer) seems to have reached a stage where he is not sure of himself or of where to go next.”
Fry piles on the point, discussing the work called 'Love's Labor Lost (Breakage for Brakke)' writing, “the artist appears to have settled for trying to go everywhere at once.”
After detailing the various appearances and methods of the artwork, Fry conclude, “ Unfortunately, there is neither edification or visual delight in all this. There are nods to funk and conceptual art, color-field abstraction, pattern painting and temporary, throw-away art. But above all, it says, 'I am floundering.'”
He concludes about the Mannheimer work, “What may be most significant, however, is that with the exception of sculptor Freeman, no other artist here, is pushing himself to those limits, is daring to flounder in a search for new goals.”
Perhaps Mannheimer's 'Love's Labor Lost' was a mirror into the floundering souls of both men, indeed of all men and women suffering a curious case of unrequited new goals.
Regardless, the die was cast. Within months Donn Fry would be in the land of greenest hills and bluest skies, and artist/teacher/thinker/writer Steve Mannheimer would become visual arts critic for The Indianapolis Star. The Sunday column was still called 'Art World' when Mannheimer took over. Lucille E. Moorehouse had built that brand locally through her tireless and dedicated writing for more than three decades beginning in 1913.
Mannheimer's debut article surveyed not New York or some overall art world, but the lay of the land in the environs of Indy. It's an exhaustive and well written time capsule of the ways things were, good and bad, in our state of the arts. The column displayed a scope and breadth of energetic engagement that would become and remain Mannheimer's signature achievement.
It's like as a result of his first good, long look, he noticed no mountain on the horizon. Not yet.
So he grabbed a pickaxe and heavy gloves. He grabbed a shovel and wheelbarrow and got to work.
Mark Diekhoff June 2025
See also :
