The documentary's director, Peter Rosen, along with co-producers, sought to present "an unvarnished look at a complex character," showing both his pivotal role in art history and the deeply troubling choices he made. It asks whether the contributions of such a "godfather of Pop Art" should be denied because of his actions as a father, a question that remains deeply divisive among critics and viewers alike.
In 2010, the Growing series became a focal point of conflict during New York University’s (NYU) acquisition of the artist's archives. The daughters represented in the films sought to have the footage removed or restricted, arguing that their private lives should not be treated as public artifacts. This dispute highlighted the ongoing tension between preserving an artist's legacy and protecting the privacy of the individuals depicted.
Large-scale works by Rivers are highly sought after for corporate collections and spacious private residences. growing 1981 larry rivers
Growing was not a painting or a sculpture, but a series of filming sessions that began in 1976 and concluded around 1981. The premise was deceptively simple: documenting the physical transformation of his daughters, Emma and Gwynne, as they progressed from childhood into adolescence. The film was, in part, an examination of the human form, a recurring theme in Rivers's work. 2. The Nature of the Project
In this piece, notice the hands. The hands in Growing are enormous, disproportionate, and rendered almost entirely in charcoal pencil over a thin wash of oil. They hover near the groin and the heart—two centers of biological growth. The fingers look like roots digging into the soil of the torso. It is gross, tender, and utterly profound. The daughters represented in the films sought to
This is Rivers at his most fluent. The influence of Willem de Kooning and the New York School is unmistakable—the push-and-pull of figure and ground, the aggressive yet lyrical mark-making. Yet Rivers adds a Pop-era coolness: the plant is treated almost like a commercial illustration that has been deliberately roughened and rethought. The tension between graphic clarity and painterly chaos gives Growing its unsettled, compelling energy.
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. Growing was not a painting or a sculpture,
Rivers did not merely take still photographs; he used film to capture the movement, voice, and presence of his daughters. He asked questions and made comments about their changing bodies, particularly focusing on the onset of puberty, with a specific interest in the growth of their breasts.
This article explores the context, content, and immense controversy surrounding "Growing" (1981), a series of films and videos in which Larry Rivers documented the physical maturation of his young daughters, Emma and Gwynne. 1. The Context: A "Bad Boy" Chronicling Change