By 1981, Rivers had mastered the use of plastic stencils and airbrushing, tools he adopted to mimic commercial art processes. In this piece, sharp, mechanically precise edges contrast sharply with loose, expressive oil smudges, creating a tension between the handmade and the manufactured. Color and Light
For decades, "Growing" was a dark rumor in the art world. But the controversy exploded into the mainstream in , when the New York University (NYU) was in the final stages of acquiring Larry Rivers' entire archive from the Larry Rivers Foundation. In the process of reviewing the materials, the university discovered the nature of the "Growing" tapes. The result was swift and decisive: NYU immediately informed the foundation that it would not accept the films and videotapes as part of the archive purchase.
In subsequent years, the daughters expressed that the filming process was a source of significant personal distress. Emma Tamburlini (née Rivers) has spoken publicly about the lasting negative psychological impact the project had on her life, advocating for the permanent removal of the footage from academic and public institutions. growing 1981 larry rivers
: The project has faced intense criticism regarding the ethics of using family members in such a vulnerable manner. His daughters have expressed significant distress over the project, leading to public discussions about the rights of subjects versus the freedom of the artist.
It is within this mature, reflective context that we encounter . 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. By 1981, Rivers had mastered the use of
The production of the film involved Rivers recording his daughters at regular intervals to document their transition into adulthood. During these sessions, the artist directed the subjects and asked questions intended to capture their thoughts on their physical and psychological development. Although the project was completed and edited into a 45-minute documentary in 1981, Rivers noted at the time that the project was met with significant concern from those close to the family, including the daughters themselves. The 1981 Exhibition and Suppression
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. But the controversy exploded into the mainstream in
The 1981 painting was inspired by a much more controversial project: a video series Rivers began in 1968. For over a decade, Rivers used a camera to document his two adolescent daughters, and Emma , as they grew. Every six months, he would film them nude, asking intimate questions about their developing bodies and their feelings on womanhood.
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ "GROWING" (1981) │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ • Artist: Larry Rivers (1923–2002) │ │ • Production Window: 1976 – 1981 │ │ • Subjects: Daughters Emma and Gwynne │ │ • Format: 45-minute edited video loop │ │ • Legal Status: Permanently restricted from public eye │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The Origins and Concept of "Growing"
In the end, 1981 stands as a stark mirror of Larry Rivers’s life. It was the year of the "Golden Era"—the retrospectives in Paris and Germany that hailed him as a genius. It was also the year of the "Dark Era"—the completion of a film that showed how far Rivers would go to break a taboo, even if it meant shattering the lives of his own daughters.