May 2017 Archives

When you go to the Rauschenberg show at MoMA, take your opera glasses.

A question I was never able to figure out was when, exactly, Sturtevant's Johns Flag took the place of Johns' Johns Flag after it was stolen in 1965.

When they split, Johns & Rauschenberg made an agreement that Short Circuit, or perhaps Construction with J.J. Flag, as it had also been known, would not be exhibited. Presumably, with Johns' Flag gone, Rauschenberg felt free to include the work in a collage-themed group show at Finch College in 1967.

He posed with the work [above], holding the cabinet door ajar to obscure the space where Johns' Flag had been, and in his artist statement, he said, " Elaine Sturtevant is painting an original flag in the manner of Jasper Johns' to replace it." Is painting, present tense.

Did she finish in time? It's not clear. All published accounts of the exhibition mention the openable doors with paintings behind them-but also that they were nailed shut. So who knows? Sturtevant's Johns Flag is like Schrodinger's Cat, both alive and dead, both in there, and not.

detail of Elaine Sturtevant's Johns Flag in Rauschenberg's Short Circuit

But. If you take a close look at Short Circuit's Sturtevant Johns Flag at MoMA, you might be able to see a legible scrap of newspaper on its surface. Actually, you can see many, but one has a date: Sunday, January 15, 1967. And a typeface that looks like the Times.

image: nytimesmachine

And sure enough, it is. Page 69. The headline: "Powell Case, in 6 Years, Has Involved 80 Judges 10 Courts, 4 Juries, 15 Lawyers and congress." The story: a full-page recap of a convoluted lawsuit brought against Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., involving defamation and allegations of police corruption.

The Finch show opened on March 9th, so it is at least possible that Sturtevant finished her painting in time to put it in. I mean, it can't be ruled out [the way a scrap of newspaper visible in Johns' own MoMA Flag dating from after the 1955 exhibition of Short Circuit almost certainly means that the Short Circuit flag was the "first" flag.]

What's more interesting, though, is to the right. Doesn't that look like Johns? In a tuxedo? Perhaps attending an opening? I've only done the most cursory search so far, and I can't find a source for that image from 1965-67. Would Sturtevant have kept a party shot clipping from Johns' Jewish Museum show in 1964? Would Rauschenberg?

Previously, related: Art in Process: Reading Finch College Museum
Jasper Johns' first Flag

Untitled (Unpainted Wall), 2017, brick, concrete, 18 lag shields, exterior latex paint. Installation view, Chevy Chase, Maryland

In his 1977 Whitney catalogue, Michael Crichton wrote about the origin of Jasper Johns' 1967 painting Harlem Light:

It has a peculiar background. Johns was taking a taxi to the airport, traveling through Harlem, when he passed a small store which had a wall painted to resemble flagstones. He decided it would appear in his next painting. Some weeks later when he began the painting, he asked David Whitney to find the flagstone wall, and photograph it. Whitney returned to say he could not find the wall anywhere. Johns himself then looked for the wall, driving back and forth across Harlem, searching for what he had briefly seen. He never found it, and finally had to conclude that it had been painted over or demolished. Thus he was obliged to re-create the flagstone wall from emory. This distressed him, "What I had hoped to do was an exact copy of the wall. It was red, black, and gray, but I'm sure that it didn't look like what I did. But I did my best."

Explaining further, he said: "Whatever I do seems artificial and false, to me. They-whoever painted the wall-had an idea; I doubt that whatever they did had to conform to anything except their own pleasure. I wanted to use that design. The trouble is that when you start to work, you can't eliminate your own sophistication. If I could have traced it I would have felt secure that I had it right. Because what's interesting to me is the fact that it isn't designed, but taken. It's not mine." [p. 54-55]

Our Guernica Cycle - EB-5, 05.06.2017, in the style of George W. Bush, 2017, oil on canvas, 50x80cm (20x28 in.)

On May 6, 2017, The New York Times reported, Jared Kushner's sister met with potential investors in Beijing, trying to raise $150 million for the family's Jersey City real estate project. She was promoting the EB-5 visa program, which essentially sells US green cards for making a $500,000 investment. Her PowerPoint slide showed photos of "EB-5 Visa Key Decision Makers," including Senators Grassley and Leahy; DHS Secretaries Jeh Johnson (ex-, obv.) and Gen. John Kelly (now ex-, too, obv., and White House chief of staff); -and her brother's father-in-law (and boss) Donald Trump.

Jared Kushner still owned major stakes in his family's business at the time, having transferred only some of his holdings to his other family members when he became a White House employee. He would subsequently revise and refile his financial disclosure forms repeatedly to include previously undisclosed conflicts, contacts, and investments.

Kushner had tried mightily during the transition to secure Chinese investment in his company's overleveraged flagship property, 666 Fifth Avenue. His efforts failed, and his partner, Vornado, has since declared that their ambitious plan to redevelop the office building into a multi-use megatower-and refinance it at a much higher valuation-was no longer feasible. The property is on track to go bankrupt as early as 2018, putting the Kushner's equity at risk.

Our Guernica Cycle - EB-5, 05.06.2017 is the second painting in an ongoing series. I now see the Our Guernica Cycle as proceeding in roughly chronological order. It is November, and the outrageous Guernica moments since May are obviously piling up like leaves in the gutter. But the pace of disaster puts us all at risk of forgetting or acquiescing to the obvious wrongs of just a couple of months ago. If painting can do anything at all, it should be able to recalibrate our narrative clocks a bit.

So here is a painting, and a pyramid of prints, of the US president's family hyping his political power to sell visas in exchange for investing in their private real estate company.

While it is similarly painted in China, in the attempted style of our still-most-relevant painter,
George W. Bush, EB-5, 05.06.2017 obviously differs from the Ivanka / Merkel 03.17.2017 work in several ways. For one thing, it's done before you decide to buy it. I honestly cannot imagine how this helps. But then, given what we all knew going into it, I could not imagine why anyone, including me, would want to have an awful painting of Ivanka & Merkel in my life, either. Even more than before, this is a case of urgency, of feeling the need for an image of a moment of a crisis to be produced, disseminated, and preserved, even while the crisis continues. To bear witness, to #neverforget.

This work is further complicated by having the actual picture of Trump in it. Could it be any tougher of a sell? On the bright side [sic], the execution of the image is, I believe, more skillfully Bushian than ever. So at least it's a good bad painting of a corrupt cabal. Right? And anyway, the gradient is probably the best part.

The Modified Kinkade Pyramid is in effect, and all prints will be available in the identical sizes and editions as the first work. However, blighting the image by hand will only take place upon request. So please make a note if you want more blight. Original Kickstarter backers will have until Nov. 15 to order prints at a special 20% discount to the original price. This takes into account a better sense of actual production and shipping costs, and again, surplus will be turned back into the next images in the Cycle. Prints will probably be available to the general public after that at a higher price.

Thank you again for your engagement during this ongoing disaster.

Untitled (Delian Ode), 1960/61, pencil, ballpoint pen, and grease crayon on paper, image: peter freeman

I mean, can you even imagine doing it? I admit it, I can, and I just cannot. De Kooning said he wanted to give away one he'd miss. And one that'd be hard for Rauschenberg to erase. If there's any other kind of Twombly drawing, I haven't seen it.

We'll put this one in the "Think about it"/"Unrealized" category.

Previously, related, badly titled: Ghetto Erased de Kooning Drawing

After he was booted from his white-on-white-on-white loft when the Bozza Mansion was torn down, John Cage kind of drifted for a while. Apparently it was hard to find a good deal on a great space in Manhattan in 1954 [when you had no money.]

So for a while, Cage moved to The Land, one of the names for the pseudo-commune/art colony started by Paul & Vera Williams on 116 acres in Stony Point, Rockland County, NY. Paul was an architect friend of Cage's from Black Mountain College, and he'd purchased the property after inheriting some money.

I don't know why, but I'd always assumed Cage and the other The Land folks lived in little cottages. Not quite. It turns out Williams, a student of Breuer, created some classically modernist boxes.

The first pictures I've ever seen are in Brendan W. Joseph's 2016 book, Experimentations: John Cage in Music, Art, and Architecture, which goes into some detail on the development of The Land and its surprising impact on Cage and his work.

Cage shared a building, a duplex, with the Williamses. He lived in 1 or 2 rooms on the left in the image above, separated by a stone wall he and Vera built. It looks quite nice, if simple, a bit like the Black Mountain College buildings everyone built together. Indeed, from Joseph's account, it sounds like Williams was hoping to recapture some of that BMC mojo with his co-op experiment.