David Hockney’s Rapunzel
Rapunzel, Rapunzel
Let down your hair!
I distinctly remember that it was raining. Hard. During this so-called-summer. Was I going to an exhibition? I can’t remember but I was doing something that day, evidently it wasn’t that important or else I wouldn’t have walked into a bookstore on Piccadilly to burn some time. Not that any of this matters really, not to the book we’ll be talking about or its contents. But for some reason whilst writing this, it's important. Im not sure why, maybe because on cold wet days I did nothing but escape into a good book, maybe some music, art? Not sure. But rainy days meant something creative was happening. Nowadays its Netflix.
However, on this innocuous rainy day I picked up a book of fairytales, a book of six fairytales to be exact illustrated by the celebrated artist David Hockney. And the fairytale we shall talk about today is Rapunzel. The eponymous ‘Rapunzel, Rapunzel let down your hair!’ Is a pretty perfect statement for Hockney. It’s pretty meta, the perfect meta I hasten to add for a man as ‘let-down-your-hair’ as David Hockney.
I mean, do I have to spell out such a beautiful tale for you? We all know it. Or at least people known the Disney version. The Grimm version is a little more detailed and less, ‘pretty-lanterns-in-the-sky-complete-with-song-and-dance-routine-to-match’ its darker. Sleeker. And dare I say, sexier? Rapunzel’s, according to our Grimm tale is a plant, a man cannot deny his wife some rapunzels, especially when she’s pregnant. And especially when she says ‘or else I’ll die’. Bit dramatic but okay. But then something happens somewhere down the line and the baby Rapunzel gets taken by a mad witch (or maybe she was just the little loopy lady who lived outside town that everyone called a witch because? sexism) either way, nominee should take a baby and lock it in a tower for all eternity and never give the child a haircut. Its kind of a Samson-ish undoing for the old witch because, when the witch finds out that Rapunzel has fallen in love with a young man, she cuts off all of Rapunzel’s hair and banishes her to live in a desert. To the young man she thrown him into a bush of thorns and thus becomes blind. It’s not all bad though, the young man (turns out he is a prince) wanders the world and discovers Rapunzel where he miraculously regains his sight. Also it turns out Rapunzel has had twins. AND THEY ALL LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER. Etc etc.
But the fairytale isn’t what I truly want to review, if I'm honest. Because we all know these stories so well. They have been given a Disney makeover and have been told to us as children at bedtime. The true review is of Hockney’s art work here. How can someone as sneaky as hockey, as diverse, and interesting a man as Hockey illustrate fairytales? These are worlds written and imagined in a different time, why Hockney? He is so utterly modern and these tales so utterly timeless, its a metatextual paradox we have here. Some of these drawing are as they are. They literally describe what is written. But then you have the ones of the witch, and the young Rapunzel herself. The witch is supposed to be gaunt and unappealing to look at. Its effectively a man with a large head, long nose, stubble, saggy boobs, a short body and weird spikes hands, legs and feet. Yet when you turn the page, the lady you see is stunning in contrast. But you only see her profile. And it feels like you only see her beauty for a moment before she is locked away in her tower; all that is left is her long hair billowing from the tower windows. It is the same with our Price, we do not see his face, just his horse and armour (if it is even a ‘he’) we do not see their happy ending either. Their happiness is fleeting and entirely their own. It is private and should not be disturbed. Their adventure is public for all to see as illustrated, quite literally in Hockey’s drawings. But leave the characters in this charming fairytale, to their lives, their futures and mist importantly that ever elusive happy ending.