Readings for David Getsy Seminar: “Beyond Visibility: Transgender Methods, Queer Methods, and the Case of Abstraction in Art History" Required Readings 1. EXCERPTS: Preface and “Introduction: „New‟ Genders and Sculpture in the 1960s,” in Abstract Bodies: Sixties Sculpture in the Expanded Field of Gender (Yale University Press, 2015). PAGES xi-xvii, 1-5, 26-41. 2. “Queer Relations,” ASAP/Journal 2.2 (May 2017): 254-57 3. “Refusing Ambiguity,” in Carlos Motta, John Arthur Peetz, and Carlos Maria Romero, eds., The SPIT! Manifesto Reader (London: Frieze Projects, 2017), 61-62. 4. “Seeing Commitments: Jonah Groeneboer‟s Ethics of Discernment,” Temporary Art Review (8 March 2016), n.p. 5. “A Sight to Withhold: David J. Getsy on Cassils,” Artforum (February 2018), 57-60 Further reference (not required): a. “Abstract Bodies and Otherwise: Amelia Jones and David Getsy on Gender and Sexuality in the Writing of Art History,” caa.reviews (posted 16 February 2018) b. “Appearing Differently: Abstraction‟s Transgender and Queer Capacities,” interview by W. Simmons, in C. Erharter, et al., Pink Labour on Golden Streets: Queer Art Practices (Berlin: Sternberg Press, 2015), 38-55. c. “Queer Formalisms: Jennifer Doyle and David Getsy in Conversation,” Art Journal 72.4 (Winter 2013): 58-71. d. “Conclusion: Abstraction and the Unforeclosed,” in Abstract Bodies: Sixties Sculpture in the Expanded Field of Gender (Yale University Press, 2015), 266-80. Scott Burton, The Last Tableau, 1989. Installed at the Whitney Museum of American Art, 1991. ABSTRACT BODIES SIXTIES SCULPTURE IN THE EXPANDED FIELD OF GENDER DAVID J . GETSY YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW HAVEN AND LONDON CONTENTS Acknowledgments vii Preface v11 Copyright © 2015 by David Getsy. All rights reserved. Introduction: 1 “New” Genders and Sculpture This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that copying permitted in the 1960s by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. 1 On Not Making Boys: 43 David Smith, Frank O’Hara, and Gender Designed by Charlotte Grievson. Assignment Printed in China. 2 Immoderate Couplings: 97 Transformations and Genders in John Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Chamberlain’s Work Getsy, David. 3 Second Skins: 147 Abstract bodies : sixties sculpture in the expanded field of gender/David J. Getsy. The Unbound Genders of Nancy Grossman’s pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. Sculpture ISBN 978-0-300-19675-7 (hardback) 4 Dan Flavin’s Dedications 209 1. Sculpture, Abstract--United States--Themes, motives. 2. Sex role in art. 3. Flavin, Dan, 1933-1996-- Criticism and interpretation. 4. Grossman, Nancy--Criticism and interpretation. 5. Chamberlain, John, 1927-2011--Criticism and interpretation. 6. Smith, David, 1906-1965--Criticism and interpretation. I. Title. Conclusion: 267 NB212.5.A2G48 2015 Abstraction and the Unforeclosed 730.973--dc23 2015019376 Notes 281 Bibliography 329 Frontispiece: Dan Flavin, red out of a corner (to Annina), 1963/70 (detail of fig.116 ). Index 356 Page vi: Detail of Nancy Grossman, For David Smith, 1965 (fig. 82). Illustration Credits 372 x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS nifer Doyle, Gregg Bordowitz, Whitney Davis, Frédéric Moffet, Barbara DeGenevieve, Lisa Wainwright, James Elkins, James Rondeau, Kate Nesin, PREFACE Mary Jane Jacob, Susan Stryker, Michael Golec, Jonathan D. Katz, Tirza Latimer, James Meyer, Alex Potts, Harry Cooper, Jo Applin, Gavin Butt, Dieter Schwarz, Hollis Clayson, Anne Collins Goodyear, Christopher Bedford, Elise Archias, Elliot King, Amy Sillman, Ernesto Pujol, and Doug Ischar. And finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for listening to endless variations on this book. Without them, nothing would be possible. In a sense, what is most important is what an artist does, rather My parents, David and Donna Getsy, are a constant source of strength. than what he is, what the object does – in terms of Many friends have encouraged and assisted me throughout, and I am espe- response – rather than what it is. cially thankful for Matthew Harvat, Warren Davis, Paul Moffat, Sean Fader, Adam Colangelo, Hugo Eyre-Varnier, Corin Baird, Rob Bondgren, Andrew Gregory Battcock, 19681 Kain Miller, Tom Glassic, Dennis Mendoza, Murtaza Nemat Ali, Ron Wittman, Jeanette Hanna-Ruiz, Kate Zeller, Emi Winter, Pierre Scott, and Dwight McBride. Throughout this exploration of abstraction, Jude Hansen Transformation was the norm in American sculpture of the 1960s. The has kept me grounded, and this book owes much to his love and support. decade saw thoroughgoing attacks on sculptural representation and on the very idea of the statue. In the wake of sculpture’s reconfiguration, modes such as assemblage, the reductive object, and earthworks proliferated. Rosalind Krauss famously dubbed the new conditions of sculpture that emerged in the 1960s as entering an “expanded field” and wrote of the medium’s diffusion and dispersal.2 Even though sculpture (as well as the format of the statue) did not end as widely foretold, in this contentious decade it was inexorably altered and multiplied. The 1960s in America also saw a fundamental shift in the ways that persons were understood. This was the decade in which gender identities and their distinction from biological sex began to be more publically con- tested.3 A key development driving these debates was the realization that sex could be changed, and 1960s America witnessed the emergence of public and institutional acknowledgments of transsexuality. In popular culture, evidence had already been mounting since the 1950s about the lived diversity of transformable and multiple genders. The media discourse around transsexuality had begun in 1952 when Christine Jorgensen made international headlines for being the first publicly disclosed case of sex reassignment surgery.4 In 1954, the American magazine People Today would report, “Next to the recurrent hydrogen bomb headlines, reports of sex changes are becoming the most persistently startling world news.”5 By the 1960s, gender research clinics began to be founded across the country, start- ing with the University of California Los Angeles in 1962 and growing to include such institutions as Johns Hopkins University, Northwestern Uni- xii PREFACE PREFACE xiii versity, the University of Washington, and Stanford University. In 1966, the degrees of abstraction and non-reference. At the same time, this embrace groundbreaking book by Harry Benjamin, The Transsexual Phenomenon, was of total abstraction fueled the long-running anxiety about the differences published.6 That same year, the New York Times ran a front-page story about between sculptures, everyday objects, and furniture. Caught between their sex-change operations, soon followed by articles in Esquire, Time, Newsweek, flight from the conventional statue and their fear of having abstract sculp- and U.S. News & World Report.7 In 1968, the Olympic Games held in tures dissolve into the world of everyday functional things, sculptors in the Mexico City were the first formally to introduce gender confirmation 1960s developed a mode between these two options of the statue and the testing, Jorgensen went on a twenty-city book tour to publicize her just- object. By the end of the decade, modes such as conceptual art, earthworks, released autobiography, and Gore Vidal published his bestselling novel fea- and the like would overcome this issue by moving out of the gallery and turing its eponymous transsexual heroine, Myra Breckinridge. In 1969, the away from the discrete object, but the first half of the1960 s was caught Stonewall Riots that launched Gay Liberation were sparked by the resist- up with making what one could call non-statues on a human scale. ance of transwomen and drag queens to police harassment. In the 1960s, Artists as different as Smith, Chamberlain, Grossman, and Flavin all wres- definitions of gender, sex, and the human body also moved into an expanded tled with how to make abstract works. They did so through relying on field. metaphors of the human body and of personhood. That is, even though This book questions what these two concurrent histories might have their works did not image the human, they invoked it. Smith’s welded steel to say to each other. How, in other words, does the emerging public constructions, Chamberlain’s dense but delicate compositions made from recognition of the presence of transformable genders and bodies in the crushed automobile parts, Grossman’s de-constructed leather garments 1960s correlate with sculpture’s contentious relationship to figuration and remade into writhing abstract reliefs, or Flavin’s cool electrified light tubes the body in that decade? Questions of gender often accompanied sculp- all aimed to confront viewers with new entities, new bodies. In their work, ture’s struggle to dispense with recognizable figures while maintaining the non-correlation between these objects and the metaphors the artists’ abstract and non-referential objects’ relationships to human bodies and applied to them produced questions – for viewers, for critics, and for the human lives. Whether it was the metaphors of bodily couplings in the artists themselves – about how and where gender could be mapped onto work of John Chamberlain, the transformed skins and garments of Nancy the works and, more broadly, what gender’s relationships to embodiment Grossman’s assemblages, or Dan Flavin’s affectionate dedications of literalist could be. What happens, in other words, when artists such as these refuse objects to friends and mentors, even the most abstract and non- to present the human form but demand that their sculptures be seen as representational sculpture nevertheless kept allusions to persons and bodies related to human bodies and persons? near. An attention to transformable genders, mutable morphologies, and This book begins to answer that question by drawing on the interdisci- successive states of personhood illuminates these positions in sculpture, plinary field of transgender studies. Its methods and priorities inform the showing how abstraction produced less determined and more open ways questions I ask of Sixties sculpture.