Question:
Tell me about the first time you saw a Hofmann painting.

Frank Stella:
I guess it was the year I graduated from school, from high school, and in the summertime I remember I was walking around in Boston and there was an art show- not so different from the Washington Square art show- and there were paintings by Boston artists and New York artists. I saw maybe two Hofmann paintings. And seeing them there, out in the real world somehow made an impression on me. They were sort of… slightly better than anything else [LAUGHS]. And I didn’t know why and I actually- I didn’t even really care. But they always caught my eye. Some people make art that can survive that kind of exhibition.

I like real art. I’m sure that I must in some way have gotten that from Hofmann. It’s difficult to define “real;” it’s the best word for describing what I like to get out of art and what the best art has. It has the ability to convince you that it’s present- that it’s there. It takes you in. You could say it’s “authentic” or something like that, but real is actually a better word, broad as it may be.

Question:
Considering the fact that a lot of people say Hofmann didn’t speak English very well, he was able to communicate through his actions.

FS:
Yes, and he wrote as well. I suppose if you were as dogged and as academic as Hofmann was, that it’s not hard to communicate because it if your mind really works 1, 2, 3, A, B, C, it’s actually relatively easy to communicate.

Question:
Did you ever meet Hofmann in person?

FS:
I saw Hofmann but I never actually met him. He was around a little bit in New York in the galleries- I saw him once or twice.

Question:
Did you ever see the mosaic murals that he did?

FS:
I saw the one that’s on the west side. It’s amazing how it holds up. It’s amazing that it survived.

Question:
He did that when he was in his late 70s

FS:
Well, the shows that he had in the galleries towards the late 50s and 60s- each one was more spectacular than the last one. If you were to look at those paintings now, you wouldn’t be able to identify them as the paintings late in a career by an artist towards the end of his life. I mean, they are just slam, bang, go! They are as unforced and flowing as any painting can possibly be.

Question:
You said in your article that the painting was like a bomb.

FS:
I probably got that idea from Clement Greenberg. He wrote some of the best stuff he ever wrote about Hofmann. He wrote about the explosive but also the implosive quality of Hofmann’s color. They’re both there. That’s what’s really great about Hofmann is that things can move out and move in. They’re explosive and implosive. It’s that feeling of the paint and the manipulation of the pigment in such an easy way, such a natural way, that really makes it. I mean, Hofmann is special. That’s what painting is about. The ability to move pigment- Hofmann was really without peer there.

Question:
You say that he is the artist of the century.

FS:
He’s a wonderful artist and he’s an artist that wouldn’t be at the top of everybody’s list, but I think he’s deserving of consideration, yes. One can’t compete with Picasso and Matisse and Miro. But Hofmann, for whatever reason, didn’t flower in that generation, even though he absorbed it totally and was really a part of it. If you were to say, well, Picasso and Matisse and Mondrian or Kandinsky, they were all active and working, and what was Hofmann doing? He was just diddling around. And for whatever reason, Hofmann was more or less diddling around, but in some ways he was still a student. He was still absorbing things.

Hofmann’s is an interesting case. Because when you say someone diddles around compared to great masters, you’re implying that the great masters are really good at what they do and the guy who’s diddling around isn’t. But on the level of technique, Hofmann diddling around was as facile and as gifted and as talented as- I don’t hesitate to say, as Picasso or Matisse or Mondrian. Although Hofmann didn’t develop with his generation, when he developed, he was able to take advantage and make the leap that his generation couldn’t do. I mean, as prized as they are and as worthy as they are, the late Picassos don’t compare with the late Hofmanns. As a true creative expression, the late Hofmanns are the best paintings of their time.

It might have to do with being able to adapt to the American way. You know, after all, one thing about Picasso is in a way I suppose he loved the idea of America but he never really could come here. He never could come to grips with it.

Question:
You said that Hofmann fused the European- the French and the American art- and moved beyond Cubism.

FS:
I don’t know if it’s possible to get beyond Cubism, but he was certainly able to develop it to its highest level. To give us an idea of how it is possible to beyond without being absolutely subservient to the basic tenets and structure of Cubism.

I think Hofmann was an influence on all the best painting of America of his time in New York because he gave everyone the confidence that they measured up to the best of what happened in Europe.

Question:
How did Hofmann influence you?

FS:
I was a Hofmann student without knowing that I was one. I always loved his work and I was always impressed by it. But it didn’t engage me in any particular way about myself. I didn’t see the world the way Hofmann did. I love the way he saw it, and I love the way he was able to deal with it and handle it, but I was either more awkward or more rigid- I wasn’t going to be able to handle things in that kind of way. But I always wanted to have something that was not like Hofmann or Pollock or De Kooning or Kline, but something that was approaching that level of intensity and impact.

You know, people always ask me what kind of influence Hofmann was on me and I always say, oh, not really that much. But the truth is that in a certain way, I never was able to shake Hofmann. Hofmann was with me for the 2 or 3 years that I was painting at Andover, basically in the curriculum and his paintings were around and all the people who taught there revered him. It wasn’t any different when I got to Princeton, in fact. As it turned out, every art department in America had heard of Hofmann. When I was in school, he was always there and he was a big presence; but a presence as a given.

Question:
Did Hofmann’s being a teacher in any way make it less likely for him to be recognized as an artist?

FS:
Maybe. I was amazed that he could do what he did on both levels. That he could teach and be so generous and so involved and so right, actually, about teaching, and still be able to work on the level that he did.

I see all of the best American painting as spinning off from the core that Hofmann created both in his work and in his ideas. I thinks some artists reached more inspired levels- we’re all limited in a way by what our inherent imagery or style can be. You can’t be everything, and there are bound to be moments or flashes that come from other personalities that are different from yours. But the core seems to me what made American painting great and I think you can trace it all to Hofmann. For example, I think that one of the reasons Pollock is unassailable- that something like making a mess or throwing paint around- eventually you could say, well that was just a gimmick. That was an idea. It shouldn’t have held up. But I think it held up because in the end, it’s a little bit more than the idea and the idea of throwing pigment around was driven towards a pictorial goal and it was Hofmann who defined how important it was to have pictorial goals. It wasn’t about being famous or being on Time Magazine or being Jack the Dripper. It was about making the very best paintings that could be made and could compete with the tradition of the very best western painting that was known and understood at the time.

[<] back to top  |  close window [x]