
Condoms, cows and contortions: Peter Hujar's astonishing vision
Hujar was a central figure in the downtown scene of 1970s and early 1980s New York, but at his death in 1987 from Aids-related pneumonia his work was largely unknown to a broader art world. Now it is widely admired for its austere elegance and emotional charge. The exhibition also reveals the darkening tone of Hujar's photography in the early 1980s, as the Aids crisis devastated his community, and his work entered into dialogue with the younger artist David Wojnarowicz
John Douglas Miller writes: 'This is such a Romantic image and one of only two early works in the Raven Row exhibition. Peter Hujar made a trip to Florida with the painter Joe Raffaele, to visit Paul Thek and his then lover, the set designer and painter Peter Harvey who introduced them to artists and writers in Key West including Tennessee Williams. Back in New York, Hujar and Thek would become lovers in the early 1960s, just as Thek began to gain serious attention from the art world'
John Douglas Miller: 'Hujar was interested in the motif of the veil throughout his work, whether the veil was literal, as is the case here, or achieved through tonal work in the darkroom. This was taken backstage at Robert Wilson's The Life and Times of Joseph Stalin. It's a remarkably elegant image, suitably operatic given the context'
John Douglas Miller: 'Richie was a performance artist and actor, often found performing outside the luxury stores on 5th Avenue or hanging out at Max Kansas City with Andy Warhol's crowd. This is the first image in the exhibition, and it shows Gallo backstage at the Brooklyn Academy of Music where he was performing in experimental theatre director Robert Wilson's opera, The Life and Times of Joseph Stalin. The text on the door reads 'Open Slowly'. Gallo looks as though he's going to do anything but'
Writer Fernanda Eberstadt: '[Stephen] flounced into a branch of Chemical Bank wearing a gown made of dollar bills, with breasts formed by condoms filled with fake blood. Shrieking that someone had forged a million-dollar check in his name and he wanted the money back 'Now!', Stephen exploded his condom-breasts like a gender jihadi and began writing cheques with the blood. He was forgotten, because his art was so militantly ephemeral, and because most of the photographers who documented his performances also died of Aids and were forgotten'
Eyes Open in the Dark concentrates on Hujar's later work, when his emergence from a debilitating depression in 1976 brought about a new expansiveness. John Douglas Miller writes: 'Hujar was often interested in contorted poses. I think it has to do with where the mind has to go in order to perform them – the sitter must fully inhabit their body and let go of their day-to-day defences'
John Douglas Miller: 'Ethyl Eichelberger was, by all accounts, a remarkable performer in off-off Broadway productions. She had the opportunity and talent to be a successful conventional stage actor, but was determined to plough her own furrow, a wilfulness that Hujar always respected. They were extremely close and Ethyl was one of four people at Hujar's bedside when he died'
John Douglas Miller: 'Hujar's animal portraits are rightly admired for the way he seems to be able to capture the specific nature of the animal he is photographing without anthropomorphising them, or at least by raising the question of what is at stake in our desire to do so. He maintains something of the uncanny in our encounters with animals. Sometimes his animal portraits feel tragic and deep, but here a lighter comic element is provided by the apparent relationship between the two cows and their questioning regard of the camera'
John Douglas Miller: 'I love this image of a turkey. It's so wonderfully other, the strange prehistoric feel of it, the wonderful contrast of textures. The bird's seeming self-regard, and ancient, alien gaze. The neck is so sculptural, as though it were cast in metal, or beads of mercury. When we began hanging the show on the day of Trump's inauguration, I kept looking at this image and the associations were difficult to avoid: the destruction of nature, turkeys voting for Christmas, preening self-importance'
Gary Schneider: 'Peter made many self-portraits. This one in his jock strap is particularly proud and defies the audience, even though he looks world-weary. Showing off his always-impressive physique. At this moment he was in his late 40s. There are two other self-portraits from the same session in the Raven Row exhibition. In each he examines himself in very different attitudes'
Gary Schneider: 'John Flowers's character was known as Devil with a Blue Dress. There were two Palm Casino Revues: 1972 and 1974. These revues were a series of many short performances produced by Sheyla Baykal, a close friend of Peter's. A portrait of her is also in the exhibition and has not been exhibited previously'
John Douglas Miller: 'This is another image that hasn't been shown before. It's extraordinarily intimate and the tonalities are quite beautiful. We tried hard to identify the sitter but without success so far. Hujar often photographed people he met on the street who he invited up to his loft and she may have been one of them, her name, for now, lost to time'
John Douglas Miller: 'This is a ruined staircase in one of the abandoned piers on the west side of Manhattan. In the 1970s and 80s the piers became vagabond art spaces and cruising zones and Hujar often photographed them. This image is a particularly foreboding one, and as with so much of Hujar's work, it is about the possibility of encounter. There might be a trick up those steps, or there might be a knife. But at the same time the staircase and the darkness become something more abstract, resonant and existential'
Hashtags

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

ITV News
38 minutes ago
- ITV News
Noel Clarke set to learn outcome of libel claim against Guardian publisher
Actor Noel Clarke is set to discover whether he has been successful in his High Court libel claim against the publisher of the Guardian on Friday. Clarke, 49, is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) over seven articles and a podcast, including an article in April 2021 that said 20 women who knew him professionally had come forward with allegations of misconduct. Clarke denies the allegations, while GNM is defending its reporting as being both true and in the public interest. A trial earlier this year heard from multiple witnesses who made accusations against Clarke, including that he had allegedly shared nude photographs of them without their consent, groped them, and asked them to look at him when he was exposed. Barristers for Clarke told the court that there is a conspiracy of people with financial and personal grudges against him who engineered his downfall because they could not bear to see him receive a Bafta award. Mrs Justice Steyn is set to hand down her ruling at 10.30am on Friday. The trial of the libel claim was held from early March to early April at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Clarke, who has previously appeared in TV shows including Doctor Who, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet and Bulletproof, gave evidence over several days. At one stage, he appeared visibly emotional as he claimed the publisher had 'smashed my life'. He said: 'They have smashed my life for four years with this rubbish, this nonsense. Four years.' He continued: 'I did not do this, I would not do this. I have got children. This is not true.' He later said that while he was 'a flawed guy', he added: 'The reason I stand here four years later is I am not what they have branded me.' Philip Williams, representing the actor, said that his client was a 'casualty' of a media 'purge' following the emergence of the MeToo movement. He continued that Clarke was made a 'scapegoat' and was an 'easy target' because he was at the height of his success when the media industry 'zealously sought to correct itself'. This was a careful and thorough investigation conducted conscientiously by Guardian journalists who were aware of the potential pitfalls. Gavin Millar KC The barrister also criticised the Guardian's investigation, saying the newspaper 'manifestly failed to do its job properly'.Mr Williams asked the court to find the claim successful, saying the Guardian's reporting has caused serious harm to Clarke's career, with 'continuing hostile reactions online and in public discourse'. Gavin Millar KC, for GNM, said there is 'not a shred of evidence' to support Clarke's claim of a conspiracy, describing it as 'nonsensical and rather desperate speculation'. He said Clarke has a 'very clear motive to lie' because he 'stands to lose a great deal'. In written submissions, Mr Millar said Clarke 'used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues' over a period of 15 years. He said: 'This was a careful and thorough investigation conducted conscientiously by Guardian journalists who were aware of the potential pitfalls. 'They received information from a wide range of sources with direct evidence of misconduct and in each case carefully considered and tested the information they were given, electing to publish only such information as they believed was credible.'


The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Date set for Noel Clarke libel claim outcome against Guardian publisher
Actor Noel Clarke is set to discover whether he has been successful in his High Court libel claim against the publisher of the Guardian on Friday. Clarke, 49, is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) over seven articles and a podcast, including an article in April 2021 that said 20 women who knew him professionally had come forward with allegations of misconduct. Clarke denies the allegations, while GNM is defending its reporting as being both true and in the public interest. A trial earlier this year heard from multiple witnesses who made accusations against Clarke, including that he had allegedly shared nude photographs of them without their consent, groped them, and asked them to look at him when he was exposed. Barristers for Clarke told the court that there is a conspiracy of people with financial and personal grudges against him who engineered his downfall because they could not bear to see him receive a Bafta award. Mrs Justice Steyn is set to hand down her ruling at 10.30am on Friday. The trial of the libel claim was held from early March to early April at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Clarke, who has previously appeared in TV shows including Doctor Who, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet and Bulletproof, gave evidence over several days. At one stage, he appeared visibly emotional as he claimed the publisher had 'smashed my life'. He said: 'They have smashed my life for four years with this rubbish, this nonsense. Four years.' He continued: 'I did not do this, I would not do this. I have got children. This is not true.' He later said that while he was 'a flawed guy', he added: 'The reason I stand here four years later is I am not what they have branded me.' Philip Williams, representing the actor, said that his client was a 'casualty' of a media 'purge' following the emergence of the MeToo movement. He continued that Clarke was made a 'scapegoat' and was an 'easy target' because he was at the height of his success when the media industry 'zealously sought to correct itself'. The barrister also criticised the Guardian's investigation, saying the newspaper 'manifestly failed to do its job properly'.Mr Williams asked the court to find the claim successful, saying the Guardian's reporting has caused serious harm to Clarke's career, with 'continuing hostile reactions online and in public discourse'. Gavin Millar KC, for GNM, said there is 'not a shred of evidence' to support Clarke's claim of a conspiracy, describing it as 'nonsensical and rather desperate speculation'. He said Clarke has a 'very clear motive to lie' because he 'stands to lose a great deal'. In written submissions, Mr Millar said Clarke 'used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues' over a period of 15 years. He said: 'This was a careful and thorough investigation conducted conscientiously by Guardian journalists who were aware of the potential pitfalls. 'They received information from a wide range of sources with direct evidence of misconduct and in each case carefully considered and tested the information they were given, electing to publish only such information as they believed was credible.'


The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Actor Noel Clarke set to learn outcome of libel claim
Actor Noel Clarke is set to discover whether he has been successful in his High Court libel claim against the publisher of the Guardian on Friday. Clarke, 49, is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) over seven articles and a podcast, including an article in April 2021 that said 20 women who knew him professionally had come forward with allegations of misconduct. Clarke denies the allegations, while GNM is defending its reporting as being both true and in the public interest. A trial earlier this year heard from multiple witnesses who made accusations against Clarke, including that he had allegedly shared nude photographs of them without their consent, groped them, and asked them to look at him when he was exposed. Barristers for Clarke told the court that there is a conspiracy of people with financial and personal grudges against him who engineered his downfall because they could not bear to see him receive a Bafta award. Mrs Justice Steyn is set to hand down her ruling at 10.30am on Friday. The trial of the libel claim was held from early March to early April at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Clarke, who has previously appeared in TV shows including Doctor Who, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet and Bulletproof, gave evidence over several days. At one stage, he appeared visibly emotional as he claimed the publisher had 'smashed my life'. He said: 'They have smashed my life for four years with this rubbish, this nonsense. Four years.' He continued: 'I did not do this, I would not do this. I have got children. This is not true.' He later said that while he was 'a flawed guy', he added: 'The reason I stand here four years later is I am not what they have branded me.' Philip Williams, representing the actor, said that his client was a 'casualty' of a media 'purge' following the emergence of the MeToo movement. He continued that Clarke was made a 'scapegoat' and was an 'easy target' because he was at the height of his success when the media industry 'zealously sought to correct itself'. The barrister also criticised the Guardian's investigation, saying the newspaper 'manifestly failed to do its job properly'.Mr Williams asked the court to find the claim successful, saying the Guardian's reporting has caused serious harm to Clarke's career, with 'continuing hostile reactions online and in public discourse'. Gavin Millar KC, for GNM, said there is 'not a shred of evidence' to support Clarke's claim of a conspiracy, describing it as 'nonsensical and rather desperate speculation'. He said Clarke has a 'very clear motive to lie' because he 'stands to lose a great deal'. In written submissions, Mr Millar said Clarke 'used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues' over a period of 15 years. He said: 'This was a careful and thorough investigation conducted conscientiously by Guardian journalists who were aware of the potential pitfalls. 'They received information from a wide range of sources with direct evidence of misconduct and in each case carefully considered and tested the information they were given, electing to publish only such information as they believed was credible.'