Essay
Red Grooms’ Mango Mango (1973) is a vibrant silkscreen print, with its bright colors and lively motion. Grooms’ artwork is deeply rooted in American culture and expresses a sense of humor and appreciation of human nature that is widely understood. As in many of his art pieces, in Mango Mango Grooms creates both a realistic depiction and a social commentary on the urban world around him. This is evident in the print’s exaggerated, yet subtle, depiction of the high life. As G. R. Swenson states: Red Grooms was the type of artist who, "took the world too seriously not to be amused by it” (Stein 9). As art historian Judith Stein notes, "At times Grooms's humor has an absurdist streak, full of impetuous energy and preposterous puns” (Stein 32). Mango Mango demonstrates Grooms’ ability to create subversive illustrations of proletarian expression and his desire for people to recognize their own environment and social setting.
In 1973, the year Mango Mango was created, Grooms turned from cubist subjects and sculptures to portraits of both people he did and did not know. At this point Grooms had been living in New York for almost twenty years; the diversity and chaotic energy of modern metropolitan life had had a great influence on his work. As Ratcliff states “The modern, particularly urban energy that defines America’s big cities runs all through Groom’s work, as does the artist’s bold appreciation of the failings of the big-city America” (Ratcliff 73). Unlike Mango Mango, which consists of two figures illustrated using simple geometric and organic shapes, Grooms’ three-dimensional constructions often consisted of numerous figures and vivid detail. Both the previous themes of urban life, working people, etc. and the processes of exaggerating form and figure in his sculptures, had an influence on his prints. The physical dimensions of Mango Mango are 40 x 28 inches. Grooms used seven screens to create the seven different colors in the print. The patterns on this print are large and in vibrant colors. While the shapes and lines are mostly organic, there are some sharp lines contrasting with the curved ones.
The print represents two figures in physical contact with each other, who take up almost the entirety of the space of the print. The background on which the figures are displayed is mustard yellow. The figures are a female and a male, and appear to be in active motion. The couple seems to be in motion rather than in a static pose, due to the balance of colors, which could imply coordination and harmony. The male is supporting the leaning female with his right knee and his arms, which are around her waist and torso. The female is mostly placed across the page, thus leaning to the left, her torso facing towards the viewer. Grooms exposes most of the fingers on her hand; between her index and middle finger the woman holds a lit cigarette. The smoke coming out of the cigarette is blue, and is in the form of one thick line. The female is wearing a green dress that reaches her knees, with yellow floral design on it, and the bottom of the skirt is scalloped. The dress has only one strap on her left shoulder. While the body of the female is white, Grooms outlines her in a thick red outline. Her facial features are the same red outline as that of her body; her eyes and mouth are shut.
The male who supports the female wears a brown striped suit. Under the suit the male appears to be wearing a blue shirt with a white collar. He wears a yellow tie with red uneven diamond shaped spots. The male figure has outlines on the perimeter of his body as well. The outline is not all one color but blue along the right side of his left arm and the right side of his right leg. There is a black outline on the other parts of the body, except his head, which is outlined in brown. One can see only the left side of his face, which is bright pale orange, the same as the hands. His fingernails are white. On the male’s face there are patches of geometric blue shapes. The man has a lit cigarette in his mouth, from which the smoke is the same blue as the woman’s cigarette. His eye, which is almost hiding behind the rim of the hat, appears to be closed. Unlike the female figure, the male is wearing shoes, which are black, the same mustard yellow as the background, and have some white spotting as well as blue on the heels.
Grooms’ art has comic sense but also seriously portrays the mundane conventions of everyday life. Judd Tully describes Grooms as “an empiricist with a keen political sense and a retentive memory for visual facts” (Tully 17). Painting working people is one of his most prevalent themes--he refers to the subjects as “Pop-culture-folkorities”. This is seen in his other works such as Local (1971) and Nighthawks Revisited (1980) were he depicts workers, policemen, pedestrians, students, prostitutes, etc. His artwork thus tends to be populated with colorful, cartoon-like characters that vary in occupations, professions, and social class.
Like most three-dimensional pieces, his sculptures require physical interaction from the viewer, an aspect he wanted to retain when he turned to printmaking. In his prints, the figures’ postures and bodies are often depicted in large format as a means of exaggerating the subject and thus potentially overwhelming the audience with sheer size. In Mango Mango both of the figures take up almost the entirety of the space. Moreover, this exaggeration subtly criticizes the upper class. By exaggerating the figure he makes it stand out in an exhibition much like the people who use their affluence to dominate a social situation. As Martin Friedman states, “Grooms reorganizes reality, altering the size and elaboration of his figures according to their psychological and symbolic importance” (Friedman 9). Grooms does this in Mango Mango by using vibrancy of colors as a parallel for the gaudy wealth the couple are trying to imitate but don’t necessary have. The print acts as a commentary on how ridiculous the trappings of high culture are by reducing fine clothes to simple shapes and color.
There are various features that suggest Grooms’ criticism of the two figures in his print. Grooms mocks the figures who could be attempting to imitate the high class through his depiction of the clothes and movement. The male wears what appears to be a fancy suit and nice pair of shoes, but under the suit he wears a blue shirt, which symbolizes the working man. Grooms emphasizes his figures’ features and expressions, making them particularly vivid. The male and female in the print have their eyes and mouths closed. These closed facial expressions could suggest an air of indifference. Their closed eyes give the couple an air of indulgence and unawareness, and suggest that they are ignoring their surroundings. This can symbolize how the couple is ignoring their actual surroundings, which are that of the working class, and pretending to be better than they are, which Grooms finds comical.
Grooms’ critique of the upper class is that they disconnect themselves from the life around them. Given that Grooms often made work about working people, he might be criticizing those who try to copy the upper class in their dress and attitude. The people in Mango Mango do not necessarily have to be from the upper class, they could be putting on airs that Grooms finds amusing.
Grooms brings in humor by giving a cartoon-like quality to the image. The bold outline of the figures along with the bold colors of the piece unifies the artwork. The outlines make up much of the shapes and body parts of the print. The outlines not only bring the piece together but also emphasize the relationship between the couple. It is intriguing that Grooms uses a single color to outline the woman, but a series of colors to outline the man. The insistence of these outlines as well as the bright colors gives it a cartoonish feel. “Groom’s art is a strange fusion of fact, legend and nostalgia, but is often weighted with cynicism and aggression. His cartoon projects deceptive affability; the painting style is sometimes awkward and wooden, reminiscent of cheap display and the comics--things that appeal to him” (Friedman 9). Mango Mango’s cartoonish quality, created through the colors, multiple outlines, and the exaggeration of figures, makes it unavoidable to ignore and accessible for viewer. It is through these means that Grooms is able to both give the print a glamorized meaning and show a detached vision of urban life. In Mango Mango Grooms uses humor as a way to express and point out the absurdity of people exaggerating themselves in everyday life, in order to be something more then they truly are. The comic quality of the print can be taken as an invitation to acknowledge—perhaps even come to terms with--elements of our being that we might be more comfortable ignoring.
The title leads the viewer to question its relationship to the print. The 'dance' of the lines and the way one’s eye bops across the surface from color to color almost creates a rhythm of its own. Although the figures are evidently in dancing motion, “Mango Mango” is not an actual dance. One may ask: Is this Mr. and Mrs. Mango? Mango rhymes with tango? The fact that the meaning of the title is unclear and does not seem to have any direct meaning for the piece becomes comical in itself. As Ratcliff states, “Grooms specializes in raw humor, discarding the traditional seriousness which is too often thought as requirement for serious art” (Ratcliff 153). The fact that Grooms chose to use Mango Mango as a title only distances the people depicted from reality and the real world. Giving the print such a ridiculous title yet again shows exaggeration of the lower class imitating the higher ups. Although the print has a fun comical quality, it should not be simply taken as an artwork created only for entertainment and pleasure. In fact, Mango Mango not only depicts the exaggerated actions of the working class, but also questions our relationship to the world around us and how we chose to see ourselves in it.
-M.P.
Sources
Friedman, Martin. "Red Grooms." Figures/Environments. Minneapolis:
Walker Art Center, 1970. 9-11. Print.
Knestrick, Walter. Red Grooms: The Graphic Work. New York, NY: Harry N.
Abrams, 2001. Print.
Ratcliff, Carter. Red Grooms / Carter Ratcliff. New York: Abbeville, 1984.
Print.
Stein, Judith E., John Ashbery, Janet K. Cutler. Red Grooms: a
Retrospective, 1956-1984. Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, 1985. Print.
Tully, Judd. Red Grooms and Ruckus Manhattan. New York: George Braziller,
1977. Print.
Biography
Born during the Great Depression in 1937, in Nashville, Tennessee, Charles Rogers Grooms began to immerse himself in the arts at an early age. He started by taking private art classes as a child and, in his high school years, had his first exhibition of paintings in a gallery in Nashville. He went on to receive his art education at the Art Institute of Chicago and Nashville’s Peabody College. In 1957 Grooms attended a summer session in Provincetown under the supervision of Hans Hoffman. Grooms was a multimedia artist; rather than developing a singular art form, Grooms instead used various media throughout his artistic career. Although Grooms is mostly recognized for his prints, paintings, and sculpture, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, Grooms made a number of “Happenings” and later turned to film making.
-M.P.
Sources
Friedman, Martin. "Red Grooms." Figures/Environments. Minneapolis:
Walker Art Center, 1970. 9-11. Print.
Knestrick, Walter. Red Grooms: The Graphic Work. New York, NY: Harry N.
Abrams, 2001. Print.
Ratcliff, Carter. Red Grooms / Carter Ratcliff. New York: Abbeville, 1984.
Print.
Stein, Judith E., John Ashbery, Janet K. Cutler. Red Grooms: a
Retrospective, 1956-1984. Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, 1985. Print.
Tully, Judd. Red Grooms and Ruckus Manhattan. New York: George Braziller,
1977. Print.
