HENRICKSON BEARS HIS CROSS being some personal reminiscences of DORIS CROSS by Paul Henrickson, Ph.D.

tm. © 2011

Paul Henrickson’s portrait of Doris

I first met Doris in, I think, Colorado Springs in the early summer of 1969. I was with Rolf
Koppel and outside some theatre we came across Doris and Geraldine Price. Until that time I
did not know either one of them, but was enchanted by Doris whose seductive personality
was as potent as the patchouli she wore, but then, there are times I am easily distracted. I
was also mystified as to why Geraldine, someone I had never met, seemed so rude. I learned
later it was because she blamed me for talking Rolf into breaking his contract with her to
teach at her summer art session in order to come with me to Guam and Micronesia. What
she didn’t know at the time was that he had not been invited.

Doris Cross, who later became an artist resident in Santa Fe was due, in the Fall of 1969, to
become the artist in residence at The University of Northern Iowa and this meeting was to
secure the arrangement that she rent my house in Cedar Falls for, I believe $100.per month.
It took her another two or three months before she found something suitable for herself
and in addition for that two or three month period of free rent she gave me an 8” square

woollen image of the Lion of Judah.

Doris never did, nor could she have done, whether technically nor conceptually follow the
still popular and rather stereotyped romantic attitude toward subject matter which has
brought a kind of fame to the south western artist, nor does involve herself with Indian
motives so attractive to a large segment of the public. In fact, it would be accurate to say
that even against the background of the rich and multi-faceted contemporary scene, Cross’
work does stand out in high relief.
Cross is an active, continually exploring artist and is non-fashionable. To grow and be non-
fashionable could have a relationship that could be described as cause and effect. If one
probes for knowledge and awareness, history has repeatedly taught us, we might expect
opposition or neglect. Either one of those social responses to innovation would not
encourage a climate of “fashionableness”.

Cross’s current work is a melding of word and image, dependent on no criteria other than
he own sense of appropriateness. While she is very knowledgeable about art, its history, its
processes, and its value as a tool to advance and to sensitize civilization, she has not felt
compelled to be constrained by the accomplishments of artists from the past, not even the
recent past.

Cross works with columns from the dictionary.

Of her own work she says: “By establishing a state of concentration, by ignoring definitions, I
look at my dictionary, some words in a particular chosen column associate to other words as
I look up and down the column. They connect to make new meanings. Words are like clues…
private secret clues.

“The discipline consists of leaving the words exactly where they are found in the column.
The visualization of form comes through a clear presentation of the results of the reductive
process by applying a deliberate system to a source.” Actually, as expressed, this theory is
procrustean.

For the mathematician the symbol of eternity is that symbol’s movement. Turning in upon
itself and returning to its source. Aikido experts to indicate the rhythmic reaction to action
have also used it. Whether or not she realizes it Doris Cross is a vehicle for man’s historic
systolic diastolic ambivalence concerning word symbolism pictures and meaning.

In recent history there have been several creative innovators who have made pictures out of
words, or used words, letters, or other symbols on the “body” of their works. Pablo Picasso,
Kurt Schwitters, Stuart Davis and George Braque, to mention a few. But with Cross the
results are different from all these, for the drawn pictures are not illustrations to
compliment a story line, nor is the text a caption for the picture. Cross is not defining words
nor is she intentionally making “poetry”.

She proceeds, largely, by means of an openness of concentration, a kind of creative

wonder and mental flexibility, and begins to make word patterns by crossing out
some of the words in a dictionary column, leaving others visible, and revealing a
meaning quite otherwise hidden within what everyone can recognize as the practical
intent of a dictionary column.

Similar but in reverse procedure to that of the ancient Essenes, whose sacred texts
were designed to conceal the intended meaning from the profane by submerging in
the body of a longer text, key words which only those initiated would know. Cross
has turned the one book available to everybody into a source of magical inventions
and provocative insight, revelations and visions, in its way apocalyptic.
Cross demonstrates once again that the sources of creative stimulation may be
found anywhere, and that an indispensable ingredient for their discovery is a certain
aesthetic acquiescence, an avoidance of an imposition of the ego on external
phenomena. As expressed, this is the opposite of procrustean.

I consider her approach to be mystical, which is suggested by the column “Absalom”

emphasizing the magical incantation or “nonsense” word “Abracadabra”, their
coincidental positions in the dictionary column allowing its transformation onto a
psalm of lament.

“Raw” is an even better illustration of the type of discovery, or meaning, emerging

from this unconventional approach. Here words have been reserved on the basis of
sound as well as symbol:

“…certain American have horny

lock…harsh ugh as a voice…devastate a country

…sack a town….”

and then a change of mood where “Ravelin” (a term designating a defensive military
device) is altered to form “ave”…an ancient greeting of honor, now, reserved for the
Virgin Mary.

Cross’s columns of “found words” alter conventional interpretations, and become

graphically transformed and conceptually enriched…whether the plastic means is a
photostat, a photograph, a lithograph or a painting.

a column by Doris Henrickson with Hopi elder Tarawangama Rolf Kopple, [hotographer and a mutual

with Doris’s “Weighing” – a wry comment aquaintance

Doris flirting with Norwegian Morten Haugan contempletive Doris Doris a la Nevelson

Carlo Coccioli in conversation with Doris who thouht him a fascist Doris being useful
 “COCK” the source of our only and final disagreement. We
had agreed that in lieu of a necessary rise in her rnt that amount would be applied to my purchase
of a work of hers of my choice. This the third of three choices. The first two arrangements went as
agreed. This one was still on exhibition at a Santa Fe gallery for sale at $1,000 and she asked me to
wait for three months while a potential buyer made up her mind. I waited longer and when I
expressed some impatience with this she relented but expected the full $1,000 rather than the
remitance to her of minus the gallery’s 40%. I was outraged and felt my friendship and other
kindnesses betrayed...but I did gain valuable insight into the persistences of cultural values...a
disheartening realization. I told her whatever the outcome I wanted nothing to do with her in the
future. I would not speak with her in the future and expected her never to speak to me again. We
both kept that agreement despite the difficulty for we were, quite fond of each other.

Doris Cross: “Dictionary Column Page”

Cross’s current work is a melding of word and image, depending on no criteria other than her own, or
appropriateness. While she is very knowledgably about art, its history, its processes, and its value as a tool to
advance and to sensitize a civilization, she has not felt herself to be constrained by the accomplishments of
artists from the past, not eve the recent past.
Cross works with columns, dictionary columns. Of her own work she says: “by establishing a state of
concentration, by ignoring definitions, I look at my dictionary, some words in a particular chosen column
associate with other words as I focus up and down a column. They connect to make new meanings. Words are
like clues, private, secret clues. The discipline consists of leaving the words exactly where they are found in the
column, the visualization of form comes through clear presentation of the result of the reductive process by
applying a deliberate system to a source [One might want to read this sentence again for it has the same
mystical character as do her art works.
 Doris seemed flattered, but bewildered,
when I compared her work to medieval manuscripts. It was after that she introduced more color into
her work.

For the mathematician, the symbol for eternity is that symbol’s movement, turning upon itself and returning
to its source, it has also been used by Aikido experts to indicate the rhythmic reaction to action. Whether or
not she realizes it, Doris Cross, is a vehicle for the demonstration of man’s historic, systolic/diastolic moving
ambivalence concerning word symbols, pictures, and meaning.

In recent history there have been several creative innovators who have made pictures out of words, letters or
other symbols in the bodies of their works: Pablo Picasso, Kurt Schwitters, Stuart Davis, and George Braque, to
mention a few. With cross the results are different from all these others, for the drawn pictures are not
illustrations to compliment For the mathematician, the symbol for eternity is that symbol’s movement. Turning
upon itself and a story line, nor is the text a caption for the picture. Cross is not defining words, nor is she
intentionally making poetry.

She proceeds largely by means of an openness of concentration, as she stated, a kind of creative wonder, and
mental flexibility, and begins to make word patterns by crossing out some of the words in the dictionary
column, leaving others visible, and revealing a meaning quite otherwise hidden within what everyone can
recognize as the practical intent of the dictionary column.

Similar, but in reverse procedure to that of the ancient Essenes, whose texts were designed to conceal the
intended meaning from the profane, but submerging it into the body of a larger text, key words which only the
initiated would know. Cross has turned the one book available to everybody into a source of magical
invention, producing meanings where no meanings were intended, provoking insights, revelations, and visions,
in its own way, apocalyptic, and very definitely occult.

Cross demonstrates, once again, that the sources of stimulation can be found anywhere, and that an
indispensable ingredient or their discovery is certain acquiescence, an avoidance of the imposition of the ego
upon phenomena.

I consider Doris’ approach to be mystical, which is suggested by the column “Absolom” emphasizing the
magical incantation “nonsense” word “ABRACADABRA” for their incidental positions in the dictionary column
allowing its transformation into a psalm of lament.

“Raw” is an even better illustration of the type of discovery, or meaning, emerging from this unconventional
approach to the dictionary. Here words have been selected on the basis of sound as well as symbol “…certain
American have horney lock…harsh ugh as a voice…devastate a country…and a town…” and then a change in
mood where “Ravelin”, a term designating a defensive military device is altered to form “ave” and ancient
greeting of concern and friendship, now reserved for the Virgin Mary.

Cross’ columns of “found words” alter conventional interpretations, and become graphically transformed and
conceptually enriched, whether the plastic means is a photostat, a photograph or a painting.

I have sometimes wondered whether Doris hasn’t formed her aesthetic vision simply out of what was not
possible for her, or of no interest to her. She is a sibyl, full of sounds, but nearly unintelligible, nearly
meaningful expressions, which seem to indicate a path or, a clouded vision, and dangerously ambivalent.

STABILITY AND REVOLUTION

When Michael Brenson mentions the term “deconstruction” I immediately felt the rush of memory, irritation
and a kind nervous excitement as when I first heard it when Doris Cross, at one time a Brooklyn housewife
turned artist whose husband left her for a belly dancer, explained to me that her aim as an artist was to
deconstruct the construct of cultural expectations, so she chose a 1913 dictionary to begin her work, (like a
termite in an ancient house), of dismantling (other people’s) cultural expectations.

I had no idea why she chose to invite me to dinner that evening in Cedar Falls, Iowa, and served up a small
plate of steamed green beans. Doris had some difficulty in using vocal language. It could have been a physical
abnormality, I supposed, or, I thought, from time to time, more likely some care in choosing the precise word
she needed in order to get the idea across, or, perhaps, a combination of the two of them. In any event, I ate
the beans and listened carefully and increasingly asked myself, what is it that this woman is talking about?.

Years later I told her what my reaction had been and she smiled appreciating its significance and the history
she and I had by then experienced. Well, Doris was certainly destructive in taking, what she probably
considered was a worthless and out of date dictionary at any event and proceeded somewhat at random to
select a heading from any of its pages and systematically, but flavored with insistent intuition, to cross out
those words she didn’t like.

About every two or three months after we both, separately, had moved from Cedar Falls to Santa Fe and she
and moved into an apartment attached to my house, she would show me her latest work and ask for my
reactions. Since she and I had,at the earlier Iowa time, been members of the same faculty at The University of
Northern Iowa I felt complimented that she thought I could help. Certainly my approach to the problem was
very much more academic than was hers. She had, after all, been a student of Hans Hoffman…now, she
seemed to have chosen me.
The more I saw of her work the more entranced I became, not so much at what she had chosen to destruct,
but what she was beginning to reconstruct, although she said that she had known nothing about those things I
saw in her work, and I often had the feeling she was ambivalent toward my conclusion that she was now re-
constructing and not destructing. The idea that she was destroying something, during a time when it was
fashionable to destroy, made her a heroine, a brave little charming Jewish woman.

What did I see? Well, to begin with, there were many rather subliminal references to classical Greek material,
and the association of meanings between words that usually only an etymologist would know. These
occurrences gave rise, in me, to a more serious reconsideration of how people know what they know, and to
allow the consideration to develop that, perhaps, what we today value as education is merely a decision to act
to overlay, cover-up, obscure, what the individual knows instinctively, as though, and I hesitate to say so, it
became dangerous if one remembered an earlier life. There is an advantage to politicians to being able to
control the memory of the masses.

Now, having said that, I hasten to add that out of the destruction of what was there may come a new
reconstruction that offers the opportunity to be richer, more satisfying and more equitable. Western
civilization did that in the millennium between 4thC ad and the 14 th C .ad. I would have little hesitation in
maintaining that the differences in aesthetic perception between then (the classic period) and now (after
1850) have been very rewarding. If the present fascination with the destruction of social values such as one
sees in the work of Jeff Koons and Borat ( Sacha Baron Cohen) ends up with an enriched reconstruction I can
only approve the process…at least from a distance. It will be the responsibility of the non-Koons and the non-
Borats to make a better arrangement of the material remaining.

These were the first works of Doris I

obtained from her and she told me they were the prototypes for her large group of dictionary column works.
However since in the back sides they were dated 1983 the dating must be in error. At one time Doris had a
young woman come in to help her get her work in order and she was still, at that time, living in my Santa Fe
house and I had nearly daily contact with her. Doris never indicated any dissatisfaction with the woman’s work,
but the dating simply doesn’t work out for it seems quite unlikely that more than a decade passed between
the time she had invited me for a plate of steamed green beans and the production of these works.

The point I wish to bring out, at this time, is that in the course of our frequent conversations I happened to
mention to her and, somewhere I also published, the comment that the illumination she was creating for these
columns was much like the decoration of Gothic Medieval manuscripts. She evidently took that to heart for as
one can see from the two examples above to the three below she has begun to reconstruct from the
destruction she had earlier imposed. Not at all unlike, it seems, the historical development of that pre-
renaissance period, first comes the destruction of the classical order and then comes the Romanesque and
Gothic reconstruction which responds to a greater variety of aesthetic demands.
Doris never talked to me about her responses to the teaching of Hans Hoffmann except, I believe I remember,
that she thought him a better teacher than a painter.

I do not believe that Doris Cross was any the less perplexed by her own difference from others, or the
destructive/creative processes she was subject to, than either Michelangelo when he worked on the Sistine
Chapel or Caravaggio when he moved, seemingly like a grass hopper, from the literary, symbolic rendering of
religious subject matter as it appears in “The Rest on the Flight Into Egypt” to the breathtakingly august
composition of “The Entombment”. One might try to forget the subject matters, if possible, and the weakly
intellectual enumeration of anecdotal detail and the carry over of Gothic symbolic usage generally associated
with “The Rest on the Flight Into Egypt”, and simply become aware of the ponderous significance of placing a
human body forever away into the grave and how the elbow of the man in red and the jutting corner of the
slab might be seen as proto-expressionistic. All that aside, it is the fact of change itself, how it is accomplished,
and why, that concerns us. And at times it seems to me that the function of an art critic may not be too
different from that of the phosphorescent or bioluminescent red microbial tide that lights up the dark sea.
Enough at least for some to see movement in the midst of obscurity.
 Conceptual
art requires quite a different mode of thinking . one better acquainted with the art of punning, a kind of secret,
obscure and scurrilous language, of great interest to the barely educated and one that is generally
unrewarding to those accustomed to a disciplined thought process. Yet, there is value in it, a value that is often
undetected by its practitioners or their admirers, but one that is there none the less and the mental exercise
that is required to unearth this material can be rewarding. Such a one is, I believe, Doris Cross.

Doris represents, at least from my point of view, a mind which, when left in a state of abeyance, remains open
to information not otherwise available. It is, perhaps, similar to that state which some refer to as “regression”.
I tend to think of it in that light. In any event. Doris has described her work process in that way and the results
often suggest that information, not otherwise directed comes through about which she claims to have known
nothing, such as Greek mythology and medieval defences. I believe she didn’t know anything about them. Why
such information appears to have emerged in her work through the technique of mind absenteeism I do not
know. Perhaps such interpretations are all merely a factor of the observer’s mental work, or, as some have
believed in the past, it is the way the Gods communicate with man.

In any event her efforts are not unlike those of the Essenes in her attempting to take an existing language and
employing it unconventionally (and destructive of the intent of the original language) to say something other
than what it had said before.

Redefining the uses to which material can be put seems to me to be very much a part of the creative artist’s
function. Doris may have fallen into such a course by accident through her having felt incapable of
achievement in the more traditionally defined ways and the fact that she generally had difficulty, both
mechanical (anatomical) and psychological, in communicating verbally her process of destroying the structure
of vocabulary and meaning may have been, for her, a therapeutic if not also a retributional action. Whatever
its origin we now have a new thought item…an item that does require us to think about its appearance in our
world.