
Mel Bochner, Conceptual Artist Who Played With Language, Dies at 84
Mel Bochner, an artist who produced heady and often witty work in a multitude of mediums, exploring the boundaries of art — and the power of language — in drawing, painting, photography, sculpture, printmaking, books, installations and public art, died on Feb. 12 in Manhattan. He was 84.
His death, in a hospital, was from complications of a fall, Lizbeth Marano, his wife, said.
In 1966, Mr. Bochner (pronounced BOK-ner) was in his 20s, living in a cold-water flat in the East 70s in Manhattan, writing mini art reviews for $2.50 apiece, teaching art history at the School of Visual Arts and trying to figure out what it meant to be an artist. He was making what he thought was 'quite awful' work — triangles he cut out of Styrofoam, for example, and covered with fiberglass. The fumes from that process were awful, too, so he stopped.
When S.V.A. asked him to organize a Christmas show of drawings that year, he reached out to his friends Sol LeWitt, Eva Hesse and Robert Smithson as well as other artists he admired, like Carl Andre, and asked them for sketches of their works in progress.
S.V.A. didn't have the money to frame the drawings, so Mr. Bochner photocopied them — the school had a new Xerox machine — and collected them in four binders, along with copies of articles from Scientific American, mathematical calculations and other bits of information. He set the binders on plain white pedestals and titled the show 'Working Drawings and Other Visible Things on Paper Not Necessarily Meant to Be Viewed as Art.'
It was an early salvo in the flourishing movement of conceptual art: the idea that an artwork didn't need to be an object. Some say it may have been the first conceptual exhibition. Firsts are hard to prove, but it was a watershed moment nonetheless, and Mr. Bochner's photocopied books inspired generations of artists.
'It was a breakthrough,' said James Meyer, the curator of modern art at the National Gallery of Art in Washington. 'Mel was a trailblazer in conceptual art. But his work also complicated the simplistic notion that the idea alone was the art. For Mel, the idea had to take material form. 'No thought can exist without a sustaining support,' as he put it.'
Mr. Meyer added: 'He always said his work was experimental. It was an investigation. It was about asking questions: 'If I did this, what would happen?''
Mr. Bochner began playing with language, making word 'portraits' of his friends. He rendered Ms. Hesse as the word 'wrap,' which he wrote in the middle of a circular sheet of graph paper, with synonyms for the word swirling around it. He and Mr. Smithson wrote and illustrated an inscrutable article that they conceived as an art piece — and a bit of prank — inspired by the Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. They titled it 'The Domain of the Great Bear' and convinced Art Voices magazine to publish it. For Arts Magazine, Mr. Bochner wrote an article about the Beach Boys in which he listed personal details about the band members, including their heights and weights.
He was interested in philosophy and mathematics, space and repetition. In one early show, he outlined the walls of a Munich gallery in black tape, notching the tape at three-foot intervals. He once coated a gallery window with soap and then wrote the numbers 1 to 962 in the soap film. He arranged pebbles on gallery floors and wrote on gallery walls.
He crumpled up pieces of graph paper and took photos of them. He assembled toy blocks into curious arrangements and photographed them, too.
He deployed pennies, newsprint, chalk and masking tape — 'idiosyncratic, barely-there materials,' as the art critic Roberta Smith of The New York Times put it in a review of a retrospective of Mr. Bochner's early work at the Yale University Art Gallery in 1995.
'Coupled with his innately beautiful handwriting,' she wrote, those materials gave his spatial and philosophical explorations 'a wry and engaging visual life that undermined traditional notions of artistic permanence, craft and value.'
'For all its supposed cerebralness,' Ms. Smith concluded, 'Bochner's early work is adamantly resistant to linguistic parsing. He aimed his concepts almost exclusively at immediate perception, and his mind-twisting fusion of mental and physical space was, and still is, something new.'
Melvin Simon Bochner was born on Aug. 23, 1940, in Pittsburgh, one of three children of Meyer and Minnie (Horowitz) Bochner. His father was a sign painter.
Even as a child, Mel was a gifted artist, attending classes at the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh. He often assisted his father, from whom he learned to paint letters freehand. He received a scholarship to attend the Carnegie Institute of Technology, where he was classically trained.
After graduating in 1962, he roamed around a bit, traveling to California and Mexico, working odd jobs, struggling to reconcile being an artist with his working-class background. He spent a few months in Chicago, auditing philosophy courses, before realizing, he said, that he didn't want to study philosophy — he wanted to make things. In 1964, he headed to New York City.
His first job was as a guard at the Jewish Museum (Brice Marden had just quit, so there was an opening), but he was fired after a year when he was discovered napping behind a Louise Nevelson sculpture. (In those days, he would stay up all night making art and come to work exhausted.)
In 2012, Mr. Bochner returned to the museum with 'Strong Language,' a show that focused on his Thesaurus paintings, enormous pieces he began making after the turn of the millennium. These were riffs on existentially urgent words like 'Money' and 'Contempt' and 'Old,' which he rendered gorgeously in bright neon colors, painting synonyms and phrases for each title that marched across the canvas, careering from the conventional to the vulgar. ('Old' concludes with the words 'Can't Get It Up.') The works are at once comical and profound.
The show included a piece called 'The Joys of Yiddish,' a nod to Leo Rosten's classic book of the same name from which Mr. Bochner collected some of the most vivid and beloved slurs — 'nudnick,' 'schlemiel' and 'schmo' among them — and painted them in yellow on a black background. The colors reference not just classic street signage but, more darkly, the yellow armbands that Nazis forced Jewish people to wear. The words are separated by commas because, as Mr. Bochner explained, a comma indicates that a thought is ongoing. He was using punctuation to point out that antisemitism is never-ending.
'We're living through a comma right now,' he said at the time.
The next year, the Haus der Kunst in Munich, the neo-Classical museum built by the Nazis in 1933, invited Mr. Bochner to put on a show and to create a frieze of 'The Joys of Yiddish' for the building's front facade. 'Isn't this a kick in the pants?' he recalled thinking, delighted to fill what he described as a terrible hole in contemporary German culture.
In addition to Ms. Marano, he is survived by their daughters, Francesca and Piera Bochner; three grandchildren; his sister, Rita Wolfsohn; and his brother, Arthur.
'In 1970, I wrote on a gallery wall, 'Language Is Not Transparent,'' Mr. Bochner told curators at the Art Institute of Chicago in 2022, when the museum held a retrospective of his work. 'It was a statement that all language has hidden agendas and motives. The first thing that power corrupts is language.'
He continued: 'My work doesn't address political issues directly. In works like 'Exasperations'' — a series of etchings of phrases one might utter when exasperated, like 'So What' — 'I want the meaning to dawn on the viewer, not bludgeon them. But, at the same time, I do agree with Charlie Chaplin: 'If it isn't funny, it isn't art.''
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
5 days ago
- New York Times
Lorna Simpson: Painting as a Weapon of Freedom
Some of our most interesting artists have one thing in common. They do outstanding work early on, then, rather than coasting by recycling that success, they complicate it, even change artist Lorna Simpson is one these restless souls, and she has the technical and imaginative chops to make major changes work, as is evident in a corner-turning retrospective of paintings, 'Source Notes,' now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In the late 1980s and 1990s, Simpson gained a strong reputation as a standout among a new generation of conceptual photographers and artists who — following 'Pictures Generation' progenitors like Cindy Sherman a decade earlier — used photographic techniques somewhat the way painters used paint. Through a traditionally point-and-shoot, ostensibly reality-capturing medium, they created entirely fictional images. Simpson began as a straight-up picture-taker. A native New Yorker — born in Brooklyn in 1960, and raised in Queens — she studied photography at the School of Visual Arts and initially identified her work with the genre of 'street photography.' Graduate school at the University of California, San Diego, where Conceptualism was the reigning mode, added a new dimension to that early impulse. So was the perception that her career opportunities in the field were limited: 'Being a Black woman photographer was like being nobody,' as she has put it. So she saw no reason not to experiment both with her medium and with the subjects that interested her, namely the politics of gender and race. To that end she developed a studio-based style that combined staged images, notably shots of unnamed Black women posing in plain white shifts against a neutral backdrop, their faces turned away from the camera or out of its range, with results that evoke voyeuristic 19th-century ethnological documents, mug shots, and performance art stills. Most of these images have incorporated short texts that hint at explanatory narratives, some violent, without actually providing anything explicit. Creating on aura of mystery has been her generative M.O., one she has applied to film and installation work as well as to still photography. What has changed in the past decade is her primary medium. Around 2014, she began, for the first time since her pre-art-school years, to focus on painting, and the Met exhibition is a tight but monumental survey of this new work. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Scientific American
6 days ago
- Scientific American
Spellements: Wednesday, June 4, 2025
How to Play Click the timer at the top of the game page to pause and see a clue to the science-related word in this puzzle! The objective of the game is to find words that can be made with the given letters such that all the words include the letter in the center. You can enter letters by clicking on them or typing them in. Press Enter to submit a word. Letters can be used multiple times in a single word, and words must contain four letters or more for this size layout. Select the Play Together icon in the navigation bar to invite a friend to work together on this puzzle. Pangrams, words which incorporate all the letters available, appear in bold and receive bonus points. One such word is always drawn from a recent Scientific American article—look out for a popup when you find it! You can view hints for words in the puzzle by hitting the life preserver icon in the game display. The dictionary we use for this game misses a lot of science words, such as apatite and coati. Let us know at games@ any extra science terms you found, along with your name and place of residence,
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Yahoo
Public policy expert praises movie Jaws (even with flaws) on 50th anniversary for helping (after harming) sharks
When Steven Spielberg's smash hit film Jaws opened in theatres in June 1975, it kindled a worldwide panic about shark bites that led many sharks to die by human hands. But as the original summer blockbuster nears its 50th anniversary, an expert on the politics of shark attacks has said it also deserves qualified praise for getting more people involved with shark conservation. Jaws 'provided the justification for, and weakened push-back against, all the anti-shark public policies that followed," acknowledged Chris Pepin-Neff, a public policy lecturer at the University of Sydney, in an article for Scientific American on Monday. "Yet, at 50 years old, Jaws is also a celebration of sharks, creating a fascination that helped lead to more than two generations of new shark researchers,' he writes. For nearly 20 years, Pepin-Neff has been studying how politicians in Australia and beyond respond to shark attacks, including how they draw on filmic examples to justify their actions — a phenomenon Pepin-Neff calls the "Jaws Effect.' They argue that interventions such as shark hunts, anti-shark netting, and baited traps do little to keep swimmers safe and do great harm to marine wildlife, propping up a false belief that the ocean can be governed by human institutions. "Initially, the movie's biggest impact was to portray shark bites as intentional "attacks" on swimmers," Pepin-Neff wrote. "[This] fictional story of the human-shark relationship ... has been one of the most successful Hollywood narratives in motion picture history.' The public 'believed this story of intentionality so completely that every shark bite was essentially a murder, and every shark a potential murderer, and the beach was the scene of a crime by a deviant monster against innocent beachgoers,' he notes. Shark populations have dropped drastically over the past few decades, and the film reportedly inspired a short-term burst of trophy fishing off the coast of the US. However, it's not clear how much Jaws had to do with the overall decline, because sharks are hunted commercially to make shark fin soup in far greater numbers than are killed for sport – or 'retaliation' or fear. Either way, Pepin-Neff also notes how many people involved with the making of the film later became strong advocates of shark protection, such as diver and documentarian Valerie Taylor and scientific consultant Leonard Compagno. Peter Benchley, who wrote the original novel that Spielberg's film is adapted from, spoke out frequently in support of sharks and wrote a book arguing that humans caused them more trouble than the other way around. 'Please, in the name of nature, do not mount a mindless assault on an endangered animal for making an innocent — however tragic — mistake,' he wrote in an open letter in 2000, urging Australians not to kill a shark that had recently killed a human. 'This was not a rogue shark, tantalized by the taste of human flesh and bound now to kill and kill again. Such creatures do not exist, despite what you might have derived from Jaws.' Spielberg too has said he "truly regrets" the impact Jaws had on sharks, joking that they might be "somehow still mad at [him] for the feeding frenzy of crazy sport fishermen that happened after 1975.' "Today, humanity has grown to have a better appreciation for all sharks, even those that swim near the beach," concluded Pepin-Neff. "We owe some of the public sentiment that it's 'safe to go back in the water' to Jaws.