only.

distribution.

purposeswide or review for

PDF publication for Not only.

distribution.

purposeswide or review for

PDF publication for Not “Having a bit of information, or a “This kind of art has to be worked name, may stop our curiosity about out at the beginning; it has to start what we are looking at.” from the molding power of the thought as a sculptural means.”

“I’d prefer to remain a mystery; “They are recorded patterns of only. I never like to give my background thought. Duplication is impossible and, anyway, I make it all different withoutdistribution. a camera. Repetition, all the time I’m asked.” purposeswidewithout a camera (or machine) or is not repetition.” review for

PDF publication for “I wanted to put painting onceNot “Repeat the same thing long enough again at the service of the mind.” and it becomes taste.” STURTEVANT only. DOUBLE distribution.

purposeswide TROUBLE or review for

PDF publication for Not

Peter Eleey MoMA CONTENTS

Foreword ...... 11 Checklist of the Glenn D. Lowry Exhibition ...... 161

Acknowledgments ...... 13 Selected Exhibition History ...... 165

Reproductions ...... 15 1–15 Selected Bibliography ...... 172

Dangerous Concealment:only. Index of The Art of Reproductions Sturtevant ...... 47 and Figures ...... 182 Peterdistribution. Eleey

purposeswide Lenders to the or Reproductions ...... 80 Exhibition ...... 186 16–30 review

for Trustees of Sturtevant The Museum of in Conversation with PDF publication Modern Art ...... 187 Bruce Hainley and for Michael Lobel ...... 115 Not

Reproductions ...... 128 31–46 only.

distribution.

purposeswide or review for

PDF publication for Not

1. Ethelred II. 1961 1 1 Oil on canvas with paint tube, 20 ⁄8 × 39 ⁄8" (51.1 × 99.4 cm) 17 only.

distribution.

purposeswide or review for

PDF publication for Not

2. Warhol Flowers. 1964 – 65 1 1 Synthetic polymer screenprint on canvas, 22 ⁄16 × 22 ⁄16" (56 × 56 cm) 19 only.

distribution.

purposeswide or review for

PDF publication for Not

5. Study for Muybridge, Plate #97: Woman Walking. 1966 3 1 Photograph, 7 ⁄4 × 8 ⁄4" (19.6 × 21 cm) 25 only.

distribution.

purposeswide or review for

PDF publication for Not

7. Working Drawing Wesselmann Great American Nude Lichtenstein Hot Dog. 1966 7 Pencil, felt pen, and collage on paper, 23 ⁄8 × 18" (60.6 × 45.7 cm) 29 only.

distribution.

purposeswide or review for

PDF publication for Not

10. Duchamp Relâche. 1967 11 7 Photograph, 8 ⁄16 × 8 ⁄8" (22 × 22.5 cm) 35 DANGEROUS CONCEALMENT The Art of Sturtevant Peter Eleey

This clever thing has avoided society’s mold. things that one writer termed “Ready-to-wear Art”— She’s cast herself in her very own. hanged men, as it were, on wheels.4 Other look-alikes share with her the anti-sea. Reviews summarized the other works and art- She’s perfect. ists referenced in the show: “first-rate” Robert —Marcel Broodthaers, “The Mussel,” 1963–64 Rauschenberg drawings and “stuffed birds”; Niki de Saint Phalle; Robert Morris; a wall of “good” “I feel all right,” President Lyndon Johnson said from Lichtensteins; and a Jim Dine “necktie.” 5 Some of his hospital bed on October 8, 1965, after surgeons these works are visible in a photograph of an open, had removed his gall bladder. “I feel some discomfort, standing Plexiglas box, the compartments of which but I think I’m in good shape.” On that fall day, as the additionally appear to contain a small machine president recuperated from the same procedure that suggestive of a construction by Jean Tinguely in the would kill two decades later, the U.S. top right section, beside which hang more racked stockonly. market surged to a record high. The success of paintings, including another Johns Flag (fig. 2).6 the president’s operation spurred trading, the New Beneath the probable Tinguely are suspended many York Herald Tribune reported the following day, super- small elements that look like doll clothing. Sturtevant charging an economic outlook already aroused by likely derived these from Swedish artist Öyvind “imprdistribution.oved earnings, the Viet Nam war escalation, and Fahlström’s The Planetarium (1963), a two-panel work improved merger prospects.” 1 that features a group of small silhouetted figures in The artist Elaine Sturtevant clipped and saved various poses; the viewer can ostensibly “dress them purposesthe financial page from that Herald Tribune. The year up” with moveable magnetic clothes that Fahlström widebefore, she had begun doing versions of other artists’ cut to approximate the positions of the corresponding art, and some of them required newsprint. One of the figures beneath. (Notably, a small rack with hangers or first was a sculp-metal and collage Flag is drawn along the bottom of Fahlström’s work, on on canvas, twelve by nineteen inches, that probably which the clothes can be lined up when not in use.) In review looked a lot like one that Johns himself had made in the vitrine at Bianchini, Sturtevant recuperated only 1960 and given to .2 And with a the garments, which also feature in the drawing that twenty-two-inch silkscreen that Warhol had allowed she made for the exhibition’s announcement (fig. 3).7 for her to have, she had also made versions of his The “Fahlström” clothes and the vitrine, along Flowers paintings.3 with 7th Avenue Garment Rack with Warhol Flowers The previous Saturday, October 2, Sturtevant’s (1965), together establish many of the central themes PDF publication first solo show had opened, and there she had put and mechanisms that persist throughout Sturtevant’s Warhol’s screen to good use. At Bianchini Gallery, on œuvre. Appearing in the same gallery where The for 57th Street in New York, she lined the walls with her American Supermarket exhibition of Pop foodstuffs Warhol Flowers from floor to ceiling (fig. 1). In front of and consumer goods had taken place a year earlier, that décor, she installed a white sculpture of a man, Sturtevant’s vitrine has a clear relationship to com- Not much resembling a work by George Segal. The figure mercial presentation.8 Deploying retail-display tech- was pulling a garment rack laden with the season’s niques familiar from supermarkets and department fashions, some already slightly out of style: suspended stores, she re-grounds Pop in the commercial world from the rack were what looked like works by Johns, from which it derives. She does this by applying Pop’s Arman, , and , along with appropriative image methodology to her repetitions what appear in a photograph to be at least one James of individual works—what Lil Picard, in a review of Rosenquist and perhaps also a . the show, calls “Pop à la Pop”—and also by arrang- Except that these were all works made by Sturtevant, ing them together in her installations of the Garment

47 PETER ELEEY

Rack and the vitrine.9 Importantly, the Garment Rack saw the Bianchini show as “pure fun,” and took her is in action, en route to or from the factory or the work to be “imitations” or literal copies, “parod[ies . . .] showroom. And the man pulling it along? The figure in which the Pop school is copied exactly.” 15 But the is a cast Sturtevant made from the body of dancer New York Times critic jabbed that Sturtevant “must Steve Paxton, following the method used by Segal be the first artist in history to have held a one-man with his figures—draping the living model in plaster- show that included everybody but herself.” 16 A similar soaked gauze—but without reference to any specific theme of self-abnegation appeared in other critical Segal sculpture. Her version of the Fahlström clothes assessments of the exhibition, perhaps most notably derives from a particular painting, but in the vitrine in critic Max Kozloff’s insistence that Sturtevant had Sturtevant has omitted the drawn figures to which provided “the most pathetic advertisement of an art- each garment corresponds. ist’s apartness from herself that I have seen.” 17 With Sturtevant’s Segal—in the words of one With the benefit fo perspective, after half a critic, “white and ghostly looking”—as well as her century’s worth of Sturtevant’s subsequent work, Fahlström clothes, we are offered shrouds of absent we can see that Kozloff was overstating his case. bodies.10 The fact that Sturtevant’s Warhol Flowers But we can reasonably assume that her chameleon- were the backdrop for these corporeal ghosts rein- like embrace of other artists’ art is also part of what forces the elegiac and necrophilic undercurrents has led her to be largely overlooked in the history that run beneath her art. Warhol had first shown his of postwar American art. As a woman making ver- Flowers paintings the year before, and Sturtevant sions of the work of better-known artists—for the started making hers with his screens soon thereaf- most part men—she has passed almost unnoticed ter. Coming on the heels of his 1962–63 Death and through the hierarchies of midcentury modernism and Disaster series, her Flowers, like Warhol’s, remained postmodernism, virtually absent from those histo- inflected by death—like decorations for a wake—and ries while nevertheless articulating their structures. sex, haunted by a hollowness that Warhol embraced. Accordingly, what might be called the garment-district “If you want to know all about Andy Warhol,” he thematic of her first show can be read not simply as a explained,only. “just look at the surface of my paintings and reference to Sturtevant’s self-costuming, or a critical films and me, and there I am.” He was, in other words, a equation of the art of her successful peers with the 11 1 Installation view of Sturtevant, Bianchini Gallery, New York, 1965, with 7th Avenue Garment Rack with Warhol Flowers (1965) shroud for himself. “There is nothing behind it.” quick-turning tastes of fashion, but as premonitions At least one thing was behind his Flowers, of a career that would be marked by conflicted dis- though,distribution. and that was Patricia Caulfield, whose guises and contradictory forms of visibility. photograph of hibiscus blooms, published in the The works in that 1965 show served additionally June 1964 issue of Modern Photography, was the as evocations of missing persons—including, but purposessource for Warhol’s screenprint. In Sturtevant’s not limited to, Sturtevant’s own. Behind the head- widehands, Warhol’s image draws greater attention to lines of the newspapers that the artist was clipping the limits, edges, and qualities of his authorship, was a steady drumbeat of bodies falling on the other or already stressed by the appropriated and delegated side of the world, which did not pass unnoticed in aspects of his screenprint paintings’ manufacture. her studio. Instead of ripping up that October 9, 1965, review Oddly, Sturtevant’s screen-play exposes essential newspaper for use as collage material, Sturtevant aspects of Warhol’s craft and insistent vacancy, even made a work directly on top of it.18 The headline of the while pointing back further to the woman whose Herald Tribune’s Business and Finance section reads: for image had passed from her own camera, through “Confident Market Bulls Way to New High.” Sturtevant Kodak’s advertising agency, to a magazine, and got out her ruler and gridded that page of the news- then to a high-contrast crop at Warhol’s Factory, paper into five columns beneath the headline, roughly PDF publication before moving to his screen maker, and finally on to measured at the width of the text columns them- Sturtevant. In her telling, Warhol once responded selves, and divided those five columns with a horizon- for to questions about his artistic method by saying: “I tal line into two rows. In the resulting boxes, she drew don’t know. Ask Elaine.” 12 Starting in the same year the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 across the top rank, and then that Susan Sontag wrote of seeing “everything in 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 below, all in stencil-like numerals. Then (as Not quotation marks” and of “Being-as-Playing-a-Role,” Johns had done), she mixed up some white encaus- 3 Sturtevant. Announcement poster for Sturtevant Sturtevant’s Warhol Flowers beg a question that is tic and filled in and around the numbers, making at Bianchini Gallery, New York. 1965 13 Offset printing on paper, 15 ¼ × 19 ¼" (38.5 × 49 cm) central to all her work: where is she in all this? them just as “white and ghostly” as her Paxton-figure Questions around Sturtevant’s visibility troubled “Segal.” She took care to leave the headline visible, her debut. She recalled that the initial reaction to her lest anyone mistake her Johns 0 through 9 (plate 3) for work “wasn’t generally hostile, but that’s because it some mere copy of the commercial stencil-numerals 2 Installation view of Sturtevant, Bianchini Gallery, was not taken seriously. People thought I was joshing, that Johns had dispassionately insisted he chose New York, 1965 (work since destroyed) or saying that anyone could do it.” 14 Some reviewers because he liked “that they come that way.” 19

49 DANGEROUS CONCEALMENT PETER ELEEY

In a radio interview broadcast the day after in a 1965 photograph (fig. 4); certainly the largest Sturtevant read about the “confident market,” work on the wall in that image is hers.24 Johns said that for the purposes of his own art he These works, which may have been studies for was drawn to the way the numbers seemed, to him, larger pieces, also recall ’s transi- “preformed, conventional, depersonalized, factual, tion from making paintings to designating his ready- exterior elements.” He initially rendered them as mades, which involved his realization that the colors single forms, alone, to avoid “putting the numbers to he was painting with had been pre-chosen and pre- any use.” Importantly, he explained, he didn’t do every packaged for him by industry.25 Like Duchamp’s final number at the beginning, and took pains not to do painting, Tu m’ (1918), Sturtevant’s paint-tube series them in any order “so that there wouldn’t be implied was a rehearsal for the abandonment of painting (at that relationship of moving through things.” 20 least in the declarative expressionist form then prac- Sturtevant’s numbers, however, are most defi- ticed), which surely accounts in part for the paintings’ nitely “moving through things,” literally underlining implicit violence.26 The series provides the earliest news of a stock-market record. As in the case of her and most literal demonstrations of her often-stated Warhol Flowers, her versions of Johns’s numbers interest in what she termed “the silent interior of art” use Johns whole, deploying his highly recognizable and its “understructure,” but also connects that silent style to subtly turn the vernacular pedestrianism interior with violence, a loose equation that would he claimed of his sources against themselves, and recur throughout the next five decades of her career. hinting that unruly assumptions about progress This link is made most explicit in Ethelred II (1961; sit beneath the quiet surfaces of his progressive plate 1), a work composed of patches of three differ- sequence of digits. Internalizing his “exterior,” “fac- ent bloody reds, the most gruesome of which writer tual,” and “depersonalized” elements, she treats and Sturtevant scholar Bruce Hainley memorably his numbers as facts, personalizing them both for describes as a “road-killed tube of paint.” 27 herself and, in a sense, for him, too. She flays the With this prehistory in mind, we can more eas- “exterior” facets of his numbers and leaves them to ily see Sturtevant’s renditions of the work of her soak into the news of the day before, during which a peers for what they are not. From the moment of her only. flurry of money had changed hands, driven by opti- appearance at Bianchini, Sturtevant troubled the 4 Robert Rauschenberg in his Broadway studio, New York, 1965. Photograph by Alexander Liberman mism about a coming war, and the president had double. By faking faking, she showed that she was Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles been cut open and successfully sewn back up. “War not a copyist, plagiarist, parodist, forger, or imita- is not about dead bodies,” she exclaimed in 2006, tor, but was rather a kind of actionist, who adopted distribution. “but about money.” 21 style as her medium in order to investigate aspects applied with gray and white paint and scribbled with development, “and the Pop artists all surface. That That desire to use her subjects whole, to con- of art’s making, circulation, consumption, and canon- charcoal. Beneath this expressionist calligraphy, she got me into thinking. What’s underneath?”34 Given sume them completely and turn them into tools of ization. In so doing, she manifested two of Warhol’s purposeshad scrawled the word PONTIFICATE in capital letters Sturtevant’s shifting conception of what her work their own self-depiction, was evident even before expressed desires. “I think that would be so great, to wide(Pontificate , 1962; fig. 5).30 It is tempting to think that could be, it is hard to guess what role might have Sturtevant started making literal references to other be able to change styles,” he remarked in 1963, add- she had Cy Twombly in her sights here, if not her fellow been played by Pop’s critical reception, which was artists. Beginning sometime in the late 1950s, she ing, “I think it would be so great if more people took or Ohioan Jim Dine, whose Car Crash series (1959–60; already starting to sour by late 1963.35 Or the effect began slicing open her tubes of paint, turning them up silk screens so that no one would know whether figs. 6 and 7) includes a number of works that combine that encountering Pop packaged together into group inside-out, cutting them into flattened rough shapes, my picture was mine or somebody else’s.” 28 Althoughreview a similar application of paint and style of handwriting shows and reproduced in magazines might have had. and in some cases julienning them into thin strips questions of authorship surround Sturtevant’s work, with a cruciform shape (meant to signify the red cross Or what she might have gleaned from her experience, of metal.22 Judging from the few of these works that she was more essentially concerned with the power of an ambulance). Dine’s Car Crash works culminated some years earlier, serving as a prop stylist for a com- are known to survive, it seems that she then collaged of authority, enacting style to connect art’s economyfor in a performance at the Reuben Gallery in New York mercial photography studio.36 Or whether her friend one or more of these elements onto canvas, often and its avant-garde mechanics to the broader politi- in the fall of 1960, the set of which critic Jill Johnston Rauschenberg’s erasure, in 1953, of a drawing that exterior-side-down, sometimes seemingly after the cal, financial, labor, and intellectual economies of described (in a remarkable premonition of Warhol’s Willem de Kooning had given him had sown some- exposed paint had dried, but probably most often which it is a part.29 PDF publication Death and Disaster paintings) as “the scene of the thing in her mind about “taking,” “reusing,” and the while wet. Occasionally these bits of paint-crusted crash, its aftermath, and its eternal persistence.” 31 way invisibility can assume a paradoxical visibility. metal are accompanied by small daubs of paint that • • for Asked about her inscription, Sturtevant recalled And whether Rauschenberg’s subsequent demonstra- appear to come straight from the tube, and addi- simply that she felt certain people were doing a lot tion of replication in his painting-after-itself study tional lines, scribbles, or smudged marks in pencil. How did Sturtevant move from eviscerating paint of pontificating at the time; it is easy to imagine that Factum I and Factum II (1957; figs. 8 and 9) codified Anticipating Paul Thek’s gory “meat” pieces, made tubes to painting flags and printingNot flowers in the span Dine was on her list.32 something else for her. (By the time Rauschenberg between 1963 and 1966, these paintings use not of a few short years? A peculiar work that stands alone It is impossible, however, to know whether explained, in 1968, that he had painted that pair of just the fleshy gunk of paint, but also its industri- in her œuvre offers hints of her thinking during this Pontificate was an effort to engage directly with one canvases because he “wanted to see how different, ally produced container.23 Johns himself owns two transition. Sometime during or following her slicing (and maybe two) peers, who were themselves mak- and in what way, would be two different paintings Sturtevant paintings from this period that she gave and dicing, she made a painting that she divided into ing the transition out of Abstract Expressionism and that looked that much alike,” Sturtevant had already him: one from 1959 and the other from 1961. Similar uneven quadrants, like a skewed rifle scope. Clustered treating aspects of the gestural mark in quotes.33 taken his experiment to its logical conclusion.) 37 works—at least two, and likely a third—appear on around the intersection of axes near the middle of the “The Abstract Expressionists were all about emotion,” One can wonder if she knew that the term ready- the wall of Robert Rauschenberg’s Broadway studio canvas is an accumulation of gestural marks, actively she remarked in 2005 about that earlier period in her made had originated in the garment industry; or if she

50 51 PHOTOGRAPHY CREDITS

Individual works of art appearing photograph by Alex Jamison: Art, Los Angeles: p. 53, fig. 8. Published in conjunction with Produced by the Department Front and back covers: in this publication may be p. 25. Photograph by Matthew Art © Robert Rauschenberg the exhibition Sturtevant: of Publications Sturtevant. Warhol Flowers. protected by copyright in the Grover: p. 48, fig. 3. Courtesy Foundation/Licensed by VAGA, Double Trouble at The Museum The , 1990 United States of America, or Galerie Hans Mayer: p. 66, New York, NY; photograph of Modern Art, New York, New York Screenprint and acrylic on 5 5 1 elsewhere, and may not be figs. 25–29. Courtesy Galerie courtesy The Museum of Modern November 9, 2014–February 22, canvas, 9' 7 ⁄8" × 9' 7 ⁄8" × 1 ⁄2" reproduced in any form without Mezzanin, Vienna, © Pez Hejduk: Art, Department of Imaging and 2015. Organized by Peter Eleey, Edited by Diana C. Stoll (293.8 × 293.8 × 4 cm) the permission of the rights installation view of Warhol Cow Visual Resources; photograph Curator and Associate Designed by Courtesy Galerie Thaddaeus holders. In reproducing the Paper/Mezzanin Installation by John Wronn: p. 53, fig. 9. Director of Exhibitions and Kloepfer-Ramsey-Kwon Ropac, –Salzburg images contained herein, the (2003), p. 137. Photograph Photographs by Adam Reich: Programs, MoMA PS1, with Production by Matthew Pimm Museum obtained the permission © 2013 Jerry Hardman-Jones: pp. 23, 29; 52, fig. 5. Courtesy Ingrid Langston, Curatorial Printed and bound by OGI/1010 Frontispiece: of the rights holders whenever installation view, Serpentine Anthony Reynolds Gallery, Assistant, Department of Printing Group Ltd., China Plate 136, After Muybridge— possible. Should the Museum Gallery, London, 2013: p. 147. London: p. 117, fig. 3; p. 145. Drawings and Prints, The Woman with Hands on Her Hips. have been unable to locate a © Roy Lichtenstein Foundation; Courtesy Galerie Thaddaeus Museum of Modern Art, New York This book is typeset in Bodoni 1966 rights holder, notwithstanding photographs by Shunk-Kender: Ropac, Paris–Salzburg: pp. 31, MT, Ultra Bold; and Akkurat Gelatin silver prints collaged on 1 5 good-faith efforts, it requests p. 56, figs. 10, 11; p. 118, fig. 113; p. 116, figs. 1, 2; p. 124, fig. The exhibition will travel to the Regular. The paper is 157gsm paper, 10 ⁄4 × 12 ⁄8" (26 × 32 cm) that any contact information 4. Courtesy ; 9; photograph by Arpad Dobrian: Museum of Contemporary Art, Hi-Q Matt Art paper. Estate Sturtevant, Paris concerning such rights holders photograph by Prallen Allsten: p. 103; photographs by Charles Los Angeles, March–July 2015. Courtesy Galerie Thaddaeus be forwarded so that they may be p. 93. Courtesy Moderna Museet; Duprat: p. 1, frontispiece; pp. Published by The Museum of Ropac, Paris–Salzburg contacted for future editions. photographs by Åsa Lundén, 2, 33, 107, 111; p. 119, fig. 6. The exhibition is made possible Modern Art, New York 2012: pp. 101, 153; installation Photographs by Axel Schneider, by The Andy Warhol Foundation 11 West 53 Street, New York, Page 192: Unless otherwise noted, all works views of Sturtevant: Image Frankfurt am Main: pp. 91, 129; for theonly. Visual Arts and by New York 10019 Sturtevant. Krazy Kat (detail). of art by Sturtevant are © Estate over Image, Moderna Museet, installation view of The Brutal MoMA’s Wallis Annenberg Fund www.moma.org 1986 Sturtevant, Paris. Stockholm, 2012: pp. 151, 155. Truth, Museum für Moderne for Innovation in Contemporary Ink on paper Photographs by Peter Moore, Kunst, Frankfurt am Main, 2004– Art through the Annenberg © The Museum of Modern Art, 14 x 11" (35.4 x 28 cm) Photographs by Pierre Antoine: © Barbara Moore/Licensed by 5: p. 118, fig. 5; p. 121, fig 8; p. 143. Foundation.distribution. New York Courtesy Galerie Thaddaeus p. 72, figs. 31, 32. © Marianne VAGA, NY: p. 57, fig. 13 (detail); Courtesy Semiotext(e): Ropac, Paris–Salzburg Barcellona, all rights reserved: p. p. 59, figs. 17, 18. Courtesy p. 48, fig. 2; p. 126, fig. 10. Major support is provided by All works by Sturtevant © Estate 60, figs. 19, 20; p. 65, figs. 23, 24; The Museum of Modern Art, Courtesy Semiotext(e) and purposesThe Modern Women’s Fund, Sturtevant, Paris. Copyright Quotations: p. 78, fig. 34. Courtesy Collection Department of Imaging and Bijutsu Shuppan-Sha, Co., Ltd.: wideLonti Ebers, Dorothy Lichtenstein, credits for certain illustrations Page 2 (top to bottom): de Bruin-Heijn; photograph by Visual Resources: p. 59, fig. 16; p. 57, fig. 12. Courtesy Estate and Virginia Dwan. appear on page 184. Jasper Johns, Andy Warhol, Peter Cox: p. 21. Photographs by photographs by Peter Butler: Sturtevant, Paris: pp. 41, 131, or Marcel Duchamp Camerarts: pp. 81, 83, 85, 139. pp. 37, 43, 45; The Museum 133, 135; p. 48, fig. 1; p. 68, fig. 30; Additional funding is provided by All rights reserved. Page 3 (top to bottom): © Christie’s Images Limited 2014: of Modern Art Archives, New photograph by Charles Dupratreview The Contemporary Arts Council , Keith Haring, pp. 27, 39. Photograph by Laura York; Department of Circulating (from an earlier version by David of The Museum of Modern Art, Distributed in the United States Marcel Duchamp Cohen: p. 99. © Deichtorhallen/ Exhibitions Album, Art in the Hayes): p. 35. Courtesy Estate The Junior Associates of The and Canada by ARTBOOK|D.A.P Page 4 (top to bottom): Maike Klein, August 1992: Mirror exhibition, circulated Sturtevant, Paris, and Gavinfor Museum of Modern Art, and the 155 Sixth Avenue, 2nd floor, New Andy Warhol, Jasper Johns, p. 73, fig. 33. © 2014 Jim Dine/ 1966–68; Department of Brown’s enterprise; photograph MoMA Annual Exhibition Fund. York, New York 10013 Joseph Beuys Artists Rights Society (ARS), Circulating Exhibition Records, by Jason Mandella: p. 17; www.artbook.com Page 5 (top to bottom): New York; courtesy Craig F. Starr IV.66-9 (condition photograph photograph byPDF Thomas Mueller:publication Joseph Beuys, Roy Gallery; photographs by Light of Sturtevant’s Study of Warhol p. 149. Photographs by Simon Distributed outside the United Lichtenstein, Felix Blue Studio: p. 52, figs. 6, 7. Flowers with Rauschenberg Vogel: installation views,for Julia States and Canada by Thames & Gonzalez-Torres Photographs by Virginia Dwan: Drawing [1965], January 27, 1967; Stoschek Collection, Düsseldorf, Hudson Ltd. Pages 188–91: All Sturtevant p. 58, figs. 14, 15; p. 120, fig. 7. gelatin silver print, 10 x 8 1/8” 2014: pp. 141, 159. Photographs 181A High Holborn, London, © J. Paul Getty Trust; Alexander [25.4 x 20.6 cm]): p. 64, fig. 22. by DorothyNot Zeidman: pp. 87, 105. WC1V 7QX Pages 115–27: Liberman Photography Archive, Photograph by Fredrik Nilsen www.thamesandhudson.com From an oral history interview The Getty Research Institute, Studio: p. 95. © 1987 Douglas M. with Sturtevant, July 25–26, Los Angeles (gelatin silver print, Parker Studio: p. 97. Art © Robert Library of Congress Control 2007, Archives of American Art, approx. 11 x 14” [27.9 x 35.6 cm]): Rauschenberg Foundation/ Number: 2014946055 Smithsonian Institution. p. 51, fig. 4. Image of owl Licensed by VAGA, New York, ISBN: 978-0-87070-949-4 © iStock.com/webclipmaker: NY; photograph courtesy The p. 157. Courtesy Glenstone; Museum of Contemporary Printed in China

184 185 Thank you for downloading this preview of Sturtevant: Double Trouble. To continue reading, purchase the book by clicking here.

MoMA publications are available to individual customers in several ways.

MoMA Online www.MoMAStore.org

MoMA Mail Order Tel. (toll-free): 800 447 6662 Fax: 212 333 1127

MoMA Stores The MoMA Design and Book Store 11 West 53 Street, New York, NY 10019 Tel.: 212 708 9400 The MoMA Design Store, SoHo 81 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012 Tel.: 646 613 1367 MoMA Books The Museum of Modern Art, 2nd Floor only. Independent, chain, and online bookstores offer MoMA titles worldwide. Contact your favorite bookstore to inquire aboutdistribution. new and recent MoMA titles. If the title you are seeking is unavailable, please inform your bookstore that MoMA titles can be ordered frompurposes our widetrade distributors. or Trade Orders review Most MoMA publications arefor distributed to the trade in the United States and Canada by ARTBOOK | D.A.P. and outside the United States and Canada by Thames & Hudson,PDF Ltd. publication Bookstores, book distributors,for and libraries should direct all orders, invoice questions, and title, price, and availability inquiries to: Not ARTBOOK | D.A.P. 155 Sixth Avenue, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10013-1507 Tel.: 800 338 2665 www.artbook.com Thames & Hudson Distributors, Ltd. Littlehampton Book Services Faraday Close, Durnington, Worthing West Sussex, BN13 2RB Tel.: +44 (0) 1903 828501 www.thamesandhudson.co.uk