Recreating Paradise: Gauguin’s Noa Noa Prints

In late August 1893, painter Paul Gauguin returned to Paris after spending the previous few years in Tahiti, the Polynesian paradise that propelled his art to a whole new level. Hoping to sell his “uncivilized” works to a “civilized” audience, Gauguin realized that he had to first explain the allure and power of that paradise to prospective purchasers. Thus, the idea for Noa Noa (“fragrant scent” in Tahitian), Gauguin’s book of those experiences, was born, along with a series of woodblock prints he designed to illustrate it. Alas, Gauguin never got to see his work published, but the prints themselves took on a whole new life, which continues today in the Princeton University Art Museum’s exhibition, Gauguin's Paradise Remembered: The Noa Noa Prints. In this startling exhibition, we see that Gauguin’s prints portray a paradise more of the mind than of his actual experience. The island eden Gauguin hoped to enter, in fact, may never have existed—an idea that his prints, reproductions of a reality that was never truly real, emphasize through their very nature.


In the catalogue to the exhibition, co-curator Alastair Wright, lecturer in art history at the University of Oxford, contrasts these prints to the vibrancy of the paintings Gauguin created of the same subjects. These prints “were dark, a somber foil to the iridescent paintings they accompanied” in early exhibitions staged by Gauguin, Wright writes, “[a]nd most seemed to speak of deeper truths hidden under the superficial appearance of things.” Part of those “deeper truths” rested in the very reproductive nature of the prints. “[N]o matter how fervent [Gauguin’s] desire to penetrate Tahitian culture,” Wright explains, “no matter how sincere his wish to transform himself—as he so often claimed—into a ‘savage,’ he would never be able to achieve those goals.” Gauguin’s “savagery” would always remain a pale copy of the “real” thing, just as his woodblock prints would always be only an imitation of the original carving of the woodblock itself. Thus, “[r]eproduction ceases to be mere technique—a convenience in the making of images” for Gauguin, according to Wright, “and begins to operate as content.” The same fixation with reproduction that more modern artists such as Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol would capitalize upon on Pop Art comes into play for Gauguin, an early modern who had only begun to play (as the curators explain) with the newfangled technology of photography and all the philosophical questions that medium raised.

Calvin Brown, Associate Curator of Prints and Drawings at the Princeton University Art Museum and also co-curator of the exhibition, traces the connections between the unpublished text of Noa Noa and the prints meant to accompany it. Brown sees the Noa Noa prints as “not literal illustrations of the story but rather a suite of prints that paraphrase key elements of his favored Tahitian paintings—evidently chosen to underscore essential themes in the narrative.” Thus, these reproduced prints are meant to reproduce paintings that reproduced a life experience Gauguin hoped to reproduce in words. The dizzying nature of this fun house of mirrors infinitely reproducing an elusive reality that itself may not be real gives a whole new perspective on Gauguin the artist and elevates him from the status of an unthinking primitive painter who reacted purely with his senses and not also his mind. For example, the print titled L’Univers est créé (“The Universe Is Created”; one version shown above), accompanies a section in Gauguin’s text in which “the narrator learns of the stars’ origins from his adolescent mistress, Tehura, as they lie together gazing up at the night sky,” Brown relates. Yet, as Brown explains, Gauguin borrowed that tale from an ethnographer who studied the Oceanic gods of the Tahitians. In fact, “[t]he narrative content of” L’Univers est créé “is loosely based on the universe that Gauguin copied directly from” a book by the same ethnographer. Thus, Gauguin’s “authentic” tale of island life (and love) comes from a source outside his own experiences. The romantic universe of Gauguin’s island idyll becomes a work of art itself—a child of his imagination more than of real life.

“By embracing a multiplicity of reproduced images and reproductive processes in these works,” Brown summarizes in the preface, “Gauguin allowed his expectations of attaining an authentic Tahitian experience to fall away, reflecting instead on this poignant impossibility as preserved in his indelible impressions of a paradise remembered.” Fans of Gauguin may come away from Gauguin's Paradise Remembered: The Noa Noa Prints disappointed in the relative colorlessness of the works, so far departed from our conventional idea of the artist. Those who allow the repetition of prints to work on their minds, however, as Gauguin (according to Brown and Wright) intended, will get a more diverse, more accurate view of the artist. Freed of the bombast of his own color palette and the one-of-a-kind nature of painting on canvas, Gauguin could see the reality (or unreality) of his pursuit of paradise more clearly. This exhibition flips the conventional wisdom of Gauguin as the primitive painter amongst the savages on its head to give us a new view of the artist and one that tears away the romantic trappings of the tale to give us a startlingly more complex and modern visionary.

[Many thanks to the Princeton University Art Museum for providing me with a review copy of Gauguin's Paradise Remembered: The Noa Noa Prints (published by Yale University Press), the catalogue to the exhibition running through January 2, 2011.]

Ideology drives us apart. Neuroscience can bring us back together.

A guide to making difficult conversations possible—and peaceful—in an increasingly polarized nation.

Sponsored
  • How can we reach out to people on the other side of the divide? Get to know the other person as a human being before you get to know them as a set of tribal political beliefs, says Sarah Ruger. Don't launch straight into the difficult topics—connect on a more basic level first.
  • To bond, use icebreakers backed by neuroscience and psychology: Share a meal, watch some comedy, see awe-inspiring art, go on a tough hike together—sharing tribulation helps break down some of the mental barriers we have between us. Then, get down to talking, putting your humanity before your ideology.
  • The Charles Koch Foundation is committed to understanding what drives intolerance and the best ways to cure it. The foundation supports interdisciplinary research to overcome intolerance, new models for peaceful interactions, and experiments that can heal fractured communities. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org/courageous-collaborations.

How to split the USA into two countries: Red and Blue

Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.

Image: Dicken Schrader
Strange Maps
  • America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
  • Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
  • Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Keep reading Show less

Why a federal judge ordered White House to restore Jim Acosta's press badge

A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration likely violated the reporter's Fifth Amendment rights when it stripped his press credentials earlier this month.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 16: CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta (R) returns to the White House with CNN Washington bureau chief Sam Feist after Federal judge Timothy J. Kelly ordered the White House to reinstate his press pass November 16, 2018 in Washington, DC. CNN has filed a lawsuit against the White House after Acosta's press pass was revoked after a dispute involving a news conference last week. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Acosta will be allowed to return to the White House on Friday.
  • The judge described the ruling as narrow, and didn't rule one way or the other on violations of the First Amendment.
  • The case is still open, and the administration may choose to appeal the ruling.
Keep reading Show less