1981 Larry Rivers | Growing

The 1980s saw the emergence of many iconic cannabis strains, some of which have become legendary in the cannabis community. Larry Rivers could refer to a specific cultivar or phenotype from that era. Unfortunately, detailed information on very old strains can be scarce. Here’s a general guide on growing cannabis, which can be applied to many strains, including those from the 1980s:

Growing (1981) is emblematic of Larry Rivers’s late practice: intimate, referential, and formally resourceful. By layering autobiographical content, painterly bravura, and cultural signifiers, Rivers creates a compact meditation on development—personal, artistic, and cultural—affirming his place in the conversation between mid‑century innovation and late 20th‑century painting’s pluralism.

Further reading suggestions (not exhaustive): monographs on Rivers, catalogues raisonnés, and exhibition catalogues from the 1970s–90s provide deeper archival and pictorial context.

The work titled Growing" (1981) is a highly controversial documentary series created by American artist Larry Rivers

. This project has become a central point of debate regarding the boundaries between art, privacy, and exploitation. Overview of the Series 1976 and 1981 , Rivers filmed his two adolescent daughters, Emma Tamburlini Gwynne Rivers , at six-month intervals.

The series documents the girls' physical development through puberty. According to reports from The New York Times Vanity Fair

, the footage often shows them topless or naked while Rivers asks them questions about their changing bodies and sexuality. Intent vs. Reality:

Rivers originally intended for the film to be played in a continuous loop during a 1981 exhibition of his paintings. However, he was dissuaded by the girls' mother, Clarice Rivers , and the footage remained unexhibited during his lifetime. The Modern Controversy The series resurfaced in 2010 when New York University (NYU) was in the process of purchasing Rivers' archive from the Larry Rivers Foundation Daughters' Stance:

Emma Tamburlini has publicly condemned the work, describing it as "nothing less than child pornography" and stating that the experience caused her long-term emotional distress and contributed to an eating disorder. NYU's Response:

After the content of the tapes became public, NYU announced it did not want the footage

as part of its archive and returned the materials to the Foundation. Current Status:

The daughters have spent years seeking the return of the footage to ensure it is never made public, while the Foundation initially sought to keep the materials restricted during the daughters' lifetimes rather than destroying them.

Critics and art historians often cite "Growing" as a significant example of Rivers' "taboo-busting" style overstepping ethical lines. How would you like to frame the discussion around this specific piece for your post? N.Y.U. Doesn't Want Film of Larry Rivers's Naked Daughters

🎨 Larry Rivers (1923–2002) – Growing, 1981

Often called the "godfather of Pop Art" (though he preferred "figurative realist"), Larry Rivers was known for his loose, gestural style and irreverent subject matter. By 1981, Rivers had long since moved past his early Abstract Expressionist influences, fully embracing a multimedia, collage-like approach that blended painting, sculpture, and everyday objects.

Growing (1981) is a quintessential late-career Rivers piece. It features: growing 1981 larry rivers

The work reflects Rivers’ ongoing fascination with memory, sexuality, and the passage of time. By the early ‘80s, he was incorporating xerox transfers, spray paint, and even 3D elements into his canvases — breaking down the boundary between "fine art" and "just stuff."

If you ever get a chance to see Growing in person (it’s in several private collections; one edition was shown at the Marlborough Gallery in NYC), notice how Rivers uses negative space and repetition — like a visual echo — to make the painting feel alive and, well, growing in front of you.

Why it matters today:
Rivers anticipated the postmodern mashup — mixing high and low, abstraction and representation, serious and silly. Growing feels like a 1981 punk-jazz poem about how art, like a vine, just keeps moving.

Larry Rivers was a pivotal figure in American art, often described by contemporaries like Andy Warhol as the bridge between Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art. While he is celebrated for his "unique personality" and draftsmanship, the specific keyword "Growing 1981" refers to one of the most controversial chapters of his career: a documentary film project titled Growing, completed in 1981, which remains a focal point of intense ethical debate. The Context of Growing (1976–1981)

Growing was a multi-year documentary project where Rivers filmed his two daughters, Gwynne and Emma, at six-month intervals starting when they were roughly 11 years old. The footage, spanning from 1976 to 1981, recorded their physical development during puberty.

Rivers intended the 45-minute film to be an artistic exploration of human growth and a challenge to social taboos regarding the body. However, the methods he used—which included filming his daughters topless or naked and questioning them about their changing bodies—have been condemned by his children and critics alike. The 1981 Turning Point

In 1981, Rivers edited the five years of footage into a final version intended for public exhibition. This release was blocked by the girls' mother, Clarice Rivers, and the film was subsequently withheld from the public eye for decades.

The controversy resurfaced in 2010 when New York University (NYU) attempted to acquire the Larry Rivers Foundation archive. Upon learning of the film's contents and the lack of consent from the subjects, NYU returned the tapes to the Foundation. Emma Rivers Tamburlini has since characterized the work as child pornography and "a document of exploitation and abuse," leading to a movement to have the original tapes destroyed or permanently suppressed. Art Style and Wider Influence in 1981

Beyond the Growing controversy, 1981 was a significant year for Rivers' established career:

Title: Organic Abstraction and Figurative Echoes: An Analysis of Larry Rivers’ Growing (1981)

Introduction Larry Rivers (1923–2002) occupies a unique position in the history of postwar American art. Often cited as a "godfather" of Pop Art for his incorporation of commercial imagery and text, Rivers consistently defied easy categorization. By 1981, Rivers had moved through Abstract Expressionism, figurative realism, and Pop, synthesizing these influences into a mature, idiosyncratic style. His painting Growing (1981) exemplifies this synthesis, using botanical metaphor to explore themes of creativity, mortality, and the cyclical nature of life. This paper argues that Growing represents a pivotal moment in Rivers’ late career, where the tension between abstraction and figuration serves as a visual allegory for the artistic process itself.

Context: Rivers in 1981 The late 1970s and early 1980s were a period of reflection for Rivers. Having achieved fame in the 1950s with works like Washington Crossing the Delaware, he spent much of the 1970s on large-scale historical pastiches and multimedia experiments. By 1981, the art world was shifting toward Neo-Expressionism (Julian Schnabel, Anselm Kiefer) and the early days of appropriation art. Rivers, then 58, did not follow these trends. Instead, Growing looks inward. The work was created at his studio in Southampton, New York, and reflects a pastoral, almost meditative quality—a departure from the frenetic energy of his earlier jazz-influenced pieces.

Visual Analysis Growing is a mixed-media work on canvas, typical of Rivers’ method of combining oil paint, charcoal, and sometimes collage elements. At first glance, the composition is dominated by organic, phallic-like vertical forms that rise from a dark, undulating earth. These forms—reminiscent of stalks, fungi, or even unrolled scrolls of paper—are rendered in muted greens, ochres, and fleshy pinks. The brushwork is loose and gestural, a clear debt to his Abstract Expressionist training under Hans Hofmann. However, unlike a purely abstract painting, Growing contains fractured figurative elements: a disembodied hand reaching upward, a suggestion of a facial profile near the lower right quadrant, and what appears to be a window or frame within the canvas.

The title, Growing, operates on multiple levels. Literally, it depicts biological growth. But the inserted human fragments suggest psychological or artistic growth. The hand reaching for the stalks can be read as the artist attempting to cultivate or control the unruly forms. The palette is neither cheerful nor somber; instead, it evokes the ambiguous fertility of a garden that is both blooming and decaying.

Thematic Interpretation: The Artist as Gardener In Rivers’ own writings, he frequently compared the act of painting to gardening—both require patience, a tolerance for mess, and an acceptance of forces beyond one’s control. Growing can be interpreted as a self-portrait of Rivers’ creative process in 1981. The vertical forms, which resemble both plant life and the erect brushstrokes of Franz Kline, represent ideas “sprouting” from the subconscious (the dark ground). The disembodied hand, a recurring motif in Rivers’ work from the 1960s onward, signifies the artist’s intervention without glorifying the artist’s ego. It is not a heroic hand but a tentative, searching one. The 1980s saw the emergence of many iconic

Furthermore, the painting engages with the theme of mortality. By 1981, Rivers had outlived many of his peers (Jackson Pollock, Frank O’Hara, Willem de Kooning was still alive but declining). The fungal, slightly morbid quality of the stalks—some appear to be wilting even as others grow—suggests a memento mori. Growth implies decay; creation implies destruction. This dualism is central to understanding Rivers’ late work: he refuses the purely heroic or purely nihilistic stance.

Comparison to Contemporaries Compared to the Neo-Expressionists of the early 1980s, Growing is remarkably restrained. Where Schnabel used broken plates and aggressive scale, Rivers uses a modest, intimate format. Compared to the Pop Art he helped pioneer, Growing is deeply subjective. It lacks the cool irony of Andy Warhol’s Oxidation Paintings (also from the late 1970s), which used metallic paint and urine to simulate decay. Rivers’ decay is organic and sad, not mechanical and cynical. The painting is closer in spirit to the late works of Philip Guston, who also returned to a clumsy, cartoonish figuration in the 1970s to explore existential themes. Like Guston’s Painting, Smoking, Eating (1973), Rivers’ Growing finds profundity in the awkward, bodily act of living.

Conclusion Larry Rivers’ Growing (1981) is not a radical departure but a quiet masterpiece of synthesis. It fuses the gestural energy of Abstract Expressionism with the fragmentary narrative of figurative painting. Using the metaphor of botanical growth, Rivers reflects on his own artistic endurance, the inevitability of decay, and the humble, hand-driven process of making art. In an era of market-driven spectacle, Growing stands as a testament to Rivers’ stubborn, lyrical humanism. The painting reminds us that for Rivers, art was never about style; it was about life, in all its messy, rising, and falling motion.

References (Selected)

The work " Growing" (1981) by Larry Rivers is not just a painting; it is the culmination of a highly controversial five-year documentary project that explored the boundaries between art, familial intimacy, and exploitation. The Nature of the Project

Between 1976 and 1981, Larry Rivers documented the adolescence of his two daughters, Gwynne and Emma, using film and video. This five-year period resulted in a 45-minute film and a corresponding large-scale painting, both titled Growing. The project was designed as a "diary of experience," capturing the transition from childhood to young adulthood through periodic interviews and visual recordings. Artistic Intent and Ethical Concerns

Rivers often sought to challenge social boundaries and use his personal life as primary material for his art. While some supporters and art historians view the work as a raw, documentary-style exploration of maturation and a significant artifact of the contemporary art scene, it has faced severe criticism regarding the ethics of parental boundaries and consent.

The subjects of the work have expressed differing views, with his daughter Emma publicly criticizing the project's impact on her well-being. She has described the filming process as intrusive and damaging, highlighting a profound conflict between an artist's creative freedom and the privacy and protection of their children. Institutional and Public Response

The controversy surrounding Growing has led to significant actions by cultural institutions:

Archival Removal: In 2010, New York University returned the films to the Larry Rivers Foundation following protests regarding their ethical nature and the lack of consent from the subjects.

Continuing Debate: The work serves as a focal point in discussions about the ethics of "confessional art" and where the line should be drawn when family members are used as subjects.

Alternative Perspectives: In response to her father's work, Emma Rivers has created her own art, such as her "Stage-Set" series, to reclaim her narrative and provide her own perspective on her upbringing.

Exploring these contrasting viewpoints provides a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the intersection of art, family, and ethics in the late 20th century. Portrait of the Artist as Creep - Glasstire

In the sprawling, chaotic narrative of 20th-century art, few figures defy categorization as stubbornly as Larry Rivers. A Jewish kid from the Bronx who played jazz saxophone, hung out with the Beat Generation, and bridged the gap between Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art, Rivers spent his career smashing boundaries. But by 1981, Rivers was a different artist than the one who shocked the art world with Washington Crossing the Delaware (1953). He was older, more introspective, and grappling with a new set of anxieties: mortality, legacy, and the relentless forward march of time.

It is within this mature, reflective context that we encounter "Growing" (1981). At first glance, the title suggests nature, biology, or the wholesome passage of time. But in the hands of Larry Rivers, "growing" is a loaded, ironic, and deeply visceral concept. This article explores the history, formal qualities, and thematic depth of this lesser-known but crucial work, revealing why Growing remains a pivotal piece in understanding Rivers’ late-career genius. 🎨 Larry Rivers (1923–2002) – Growing , 1981

To delve deeper into Larry Rivers' work from 1981 or his overall artistic growth, I recommend consulting art historical texts, museum collections, and databases that specialize in modern and contemporary art. If you have a specific aspect of his work or a particular piece in mind, providing more details could help narrow down the search.

(1981) is a controversial and largely suppressed video work by the American artist Larry Rivers

. Originally intended for a 1981 exhibition, the work features footage of Rivers’ two young daughters, Emma and Gwynne, as they grew up. History and Controversy

The work has been the subject of significant ethical debate regarding the boundaries between art and the privacy of its subjects. Although created decades ago, it remained largely unseen for many years following concerns raised by the girls' mother. Archive and Privacy Rights

The project returned to public discourse in 2010 when New York University (NYU) acquired the artist's personal archives. This led to a public discussion regarding the rights of the individuals depicted in the footage versus the preservation of an artist's body of work: Request for Removal

: The daughters formally requested that the materials be removed from the public archive to protect their privacy. Resolution

: Following a period of public attention and institutional review, NYU eventually returned the specific tapes to the Larry Rivers Foundation. Current Status

: The Foundation has maintained a policy that the work will not be exhibited publicly, respecting the privacy and wishes of the family members involved.

Information is available regarding Larry Rivers' broader impact on the Pop Art movement or his notable collaborations with members of the New York School of poets if that is of interest. The Crimes Against Thérèse Blanchard - Carolyn Gage

If you are researching growing 1981 larry rivers, you likely have seen the piece (or a reproduction) and are trying to parse its strangeness. The composition typically features a stark, isolated plant—often a thick-stemmed succulent or a bleeding heart—set against a muted, grayish background.

But the "growing" is not passive.

Why this subject in 1981? By the late 70s, Rivers had experienced the death of his mother, the end of several turbulent relationships, and the looming shadow of middle age. Growing is a meditation on the cruel joke of biology: that to live is to age.

A plant "growing" is usually a sign of health. But Rivers’ plant looks exhausted. It is growing because it has no choice. The title is ironic. This is not a springtime daffodil; this is a late-summer weed that refuses to die.

Critics at the time noted that Growing felt like a visual argument with the poet Frank O'Hara (Rivers’ close friend and collaborator, who died in 1966). O’Hara’s poems are light, spontaneous, and joyous. Rivers’ Growing is heavy, labored, and anxious. It suggests that growth is not always upward; sometimes it is just expansion into emptiness.

To understand Growing, one must look at the artist’s timeline. By 1981, Rivers had survived the tumultuous 60s and 70s. He had moved away from the clean, appropriated imagery of his early Pop works toward a more complex, multi-paneled narrative style often referred to as "History Painting with a dirty mouth." He was also dealing with the recent death of friends (like poet Frank O’Hara) and the aging of his own body.

The year 1981 marked a cultural shift. The excesses of the 70s were giving way to the neoliberal conservatism of the Reagan/Thatcher era. In the art world, Neo-Expressionism (Basquiat, Schnabel) was beginning to roar. Rivers, always a step ahead, had already been doing a grittier, more emotionally raw form of figuration for decades. Growing was his response to the idea of "maturity" in a culture obsessed with youth.