By 1981, the active filming phase of the series concluded, leaving behind a significant archive of footage. This material later became the subject of intense legal and ethical scrutiny involving the Larry Rivers Foundation and academic institutions.
In the mid-1970s, Rivers, a pioneer in the newly accessible medium of video, set out to create a documentary unlike any other. He began a project that would last for several years, from roughly 1976 to 1981. His subjects were his own two daughters, Gwynne and Emma Rivers. The premise was simple on its surface: to document the process of puberty, specifically the development of their bodies. At six-month intervals, Rivers would film his daughters, who were approximately 11 years old when the filming began. The girls were filmed either fully naked or topless, while their father made comments and asked them pointed questions about the changes happening to their bodies, particularly their breasts. The resulting footage was eventually edited and titled Growing , completed in 1981.
: The work remained largely unexhibited for decades but became the center of a major ethical and legal debate in 2010. Critics and family members have characterized the footage as exploitative, with some even calling it child pornography due to its intrusive nature. Legal and Ethical Resolution
" (1976–1981) is a controversial video series by American artist Larry Rivers growing 1981 larry rivers
: NYU stated that the specific nature of the footage had not been fully disclosed during initial negotiations. The university subsequently rejected the material and returned it to the Foundation.
The legacy of Growing serves as a focal point for discussions on the responsibilities artists have toward their subjects, especially when those subjects are family members or minors.
is one of the most controversial and fiercely debated video works in modern American art history. Created by the prominent Pop Art pioneer and Abstract Expressionist figure Larry Rivers, the 45-minute film chronicles the physical maturation of his two adolescent daughters, Emma and Gwynne, over a five-year period. Edited and completed in 1981, the project sat in obscurity for decades until a high-profile archival sale in 2010 thrust it into the center of a national discourse regarding artistic freedom, ethical boundaries, parental exploitation, and the definition of child pornography. The Origin and Production of Growing By 1981, the active filming phase of the
: While Larry Rivers is recognized as a major figure in the Pop Art movement, the controversy surrounding this film has led to a re-evaluation of his methods and the impact of his work on his family.
When works like Growing were first exhibited in the early 1980s—often through major galleries like the Marlborough Gallery in New York—they sparked intense debate. Critics were forced to reconcile the raw, historical Rivers with this new, slicker, media-savvy iteration. Over the decades, retrospective exhibitions have vindicated this period, framing it as a brave experimentation with postmodernism. Valuation and Market Desirability
While the project was framed as an artistic study of maturation, the lack of privacy and the nature of the parent-child dynamic in a professional filming context raised immediate ethical questions regarding consent and the boundaries of artistic license. 3. Storage and Institutional Response He began a project that would last for
However, the experience had a significant impact on the subjects involved:
What elevates Growing above a casual still life is Rivers’ handling of paint. He applies oil in thin, translucent layers alongside thick, almost sculptural impasto. Charcoal lines dance between representation and abstraction: some describe leaf veins with precise tenderness; others slash across the canvas, threatening to tear the image apart.
: Emma has described the film as "nothing less than child pornography". She reported that objecting to the filming resulted in being labeled "uptight" or a "bad daughter" by her father.
A nude male torso, likely a self-portrait of Rivers at age 58, though intentionally distorted. The skin is rendered in muddy pinks, ochres, and bruise-like purples. It is not a heroic, Michelangelo-esque body. Instead, it is a body in flux—sagging in some areas, unnaturally stretched in others. This is the "growing" body, but not outward; rather, it is growing heavier, older, and more complex.