DOCSLIB.ORG

Kristine Stiles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kristine Stiles Concerning Consequences STUDIES IN ART, DESTRUCTION, AND TRAUMA Kristine Stiles The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London KRISTINE STILES is the France Family Professor of Art, Art Flistory, and Visual Studies at Duke University. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2016 by Kristine Stiles All rights reserved. Published 2016. Printed in the United States of America 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 12345 ISBN­13: 978­0­226­77451­0 (cloth) ISBN­13: 978­0­226­77453­4 (paper) ISBN­13: 978­0­226­30440­3 (e­book) DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226304403.001.0001 Library of Congress Cataloguing­in­Publication Data Stiles, Kristine, author. Concerning consequences : studies in art, destruction, and trauma / Kristine Stiles, pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978­0­226­77451­0 (cloth : alkaline paper) — ISBN 978­0­226­77453­4 (paperback : alkaline paper) — ISBN 978­0­226­30440­3 (e­book) 1. Art, Modern — 20th century. 2. Psychic trauma in art. 3. Violence in art. I. Title. N6490.S767 2016 709.04'075 —dc23 2015025618 © This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO z39.48­1992 (Permanence of Paper). In conversation with Susan Swenson, Kim Jones explained that the drawing on the cover of this book depicts directional forces in "an X­man, dot­man war game." The rectangles represent tanks and fortresses, and the lines are for tank movement, combat, and containment: "They're symbols. They're erased to show movement. 111 draw a tank, or I'll draw an X, and erase it, then re­draw it in a different posmon.... But when they're killed they're erased and fl A gh0St image­ 80 the erasing is 3 vefy 'mPortant elemen of the war drawings.... The important thing is that it's always 2005^ (SUSan Swenson' conversation with Kim Jones: April 25 0 1 4 W"°rkC'ty; WarP™<*™^ NY: Pierogi 2005], 4). Two years earl.er, Jones described his "war drawings" as mages 0 , hat ^ ends„ ^ q ^ ^ ^ A Studio Vuit wuh Km Jones, a fifteen­minute video codirected bv ' David Schmidlapp and Steve Staso (2003). Rauschenberg's "Gap" (2014)' During an interview with Robert Rauschenberg and his dealer, Leo Castelli, in 1977, the writer and impresario Barbaralee Diamonstein slowly read aloud Rauschenberg's famous 1959 statement from the Museum of Modern Art's ex­ hibition catalogue for Sixteen Americans: "Painting relates to both art and life. Neither can be made. (I try to act in that gap between the two.)"2 Diamonstein's dramatic reading perhaps reflected her respect for the definitive role that the twenty­one­word statement had on art and its histories. By 1977, Rauschen­ berg's "act in the gap" had become a maxim for experimental art—from assem­ blage, happenings, Fluxus, body art, and process art to art and technology in the 1960s, and from performance and installation to pluralism in the 1970s. Rauschenberg's appropriated imagery, combined with photography and paint­ ing, would soon also be recognized as the antecedent for visual aspects of post­ modernism, especially neo­expressionist painting, in the 1980s;1 and his world­ wide travel and insistence on collaboration and interactivity would inform "relational aesthetics" in the 1990s and collectivity in the 2000s2 But after recit­ ing Rauschenberg's words, Diamonstein just looked at him. Rauschenberg picked up the conversation in his careful manner, speaking with determined forethought: 1 don't think that any honest artist [pause] sets out to make art. You love art. You live art. You are art. You do art. But you're just doing something, [pause] You're doing what no one can stop you from doing. And so, it doesn t have to be art. And that is your life, [pause] But you also can t make life. And so there s something in between there that, because you, you flirt with the idea of that, that it is art.5 Diamonstein interrupted him to ask, "Are you saying that art, painting, rests more in ideas than the painting itself?" Rauschenberg answered: No. I think the definition of art would have to be more simple minded tha that, and it's about how much use you can make of it. Because if you trv to sepa rate the two, art can be very self­conscious and a blinding fact. But life doesn't really need it. So it's also another blinding fact.6 After his introspective analysis, which was full of many thoughtful pauses, Rauschenberg stopped talking. Diamonstein avoided, or did not grasp, the sweeping implications of his arresting commentary and, failing to explore its philosophical depth, ironically followed up with a question about his approach to "surface." Diamonstein was not the only critic, just the first, to miss the broader im­ plications of Rauschenberg's thought. Curiously, it appears that no scholar has remarked on his 1977 comments. Despite its omission in the abundant litera­ ture on the artist, Rauschenberg's 1977 amplification of his 1959 statement pro­ vides his most expansive explanation of his process in the interstice where he "just" did "something" that "no one could stop [him] from doing." Rauschen­ berg's 1977 commentary is also his most incisive remark on artistic integrity in the act of making,7 the clearest identification of his emotional states in the gap, and the most commanding example of his conviction that the significance of art resides in its "use" value. This essay explores these lines in Rauschenberg's thought, attending closely to the meaning implied by his process in the gap, the site of his sense of immediacy between the incommensurability of one blinding fact (art) and another (life). In 1949, a full decade before Rauschenberg articulated the gap as the space within which he did "something," the artist Susan Weil introduced him to the process of creating monoprints on blueprint paper.8 Exposing the paper to the ultraviolet light of a sunlamp turned it a rich ultramarine blue, leaving the covered areas of underexposed paper in the varied tones of pale blue to white. Using this paper, Rauschenberg made striking blueprint images of his friend Patricia Pearman, who posed nude in various positions, one picture ofwhichD/e magazine published in its April 9, 1951, issue, along with images of Rauschen­ berg and Weil making other types of blueprint images.9 The famous photographs that Hans Namuth took in 1950 of Jackson Pollock standing over and on his canvas while painting on the floor appeared for the first time a month later in Portfolio magazine, as well as in the May 1951 issue of Art News. Harold Rosenberg's theory of action painting followed in the December 1952 issue of Art News.10 That same year, Georges Mathieu began having him self photographed while painting, and he would soon begin to perform action paintings publicly. In October 1955, the Gutai artist Kazua Shiraga would per­ form Challenging Mud in Osaka, Japan, wrestling on the ground in viscous pig ment mixed with mud; and on June 5, 1958, Yves Klein would begin experi­ ments using a female nude model who, after immersing herself in his patented International Klein Blue paint, made prints of her body on canvas placed on the floor of his friend Robert Godet's Paris apartment.11 As Life was distributed worldwide, it is certain that Mathieu knew the images of Rauschenberg working with the nude model, and it is highly possible —even probable —that Klein and 288 I RAUSCHENBERG'S "GAP" Shiraga had also seen the images at some point. In this regard, an historical re­ lationship exists between Rauschenberg's concept of using a live nude to create images, and artworks that followed throughout the world. While describing his artistic process in 1959 as an effort to "act" in the gap, Rauschenberg did not align his approach with the history and theory of action painting,12 or with the events just cited. He rejected the notion of art and life col­ lapsed into an undifferentiated unity, and instead marked out a place that dis­ tinguished the two even as it imperceptibly interconnected them. In the 1949 blueprint works, Rauschenberg remained the maker, not the work itself, even as he posed in several of the monoprints.13 His conceptually nuanced position vis­a­vis the fusion of art and life would earn him the sharp criticism of John Cage. I think there s a slight difference between Rauschenberg and me," Cage explained in 1968. "And we've become less friendly, although we're still friendly. We don't see each other as much as we did."14 Cage explained the breach this way: "I have the desire to just erase the difference between art and life, whereas Rauschenberg made that famous statement about working in the gap between the two. Which is a little Roman Catholic, from my point of view."15 When the interviewer, Martin Duberman, an authority on Black Mountain College, asked (.age what he meant, Cage responded, "Well, he makes a mystery out of being an artist."16 ( ages comments reflect his own unease about how Rauschenberg had, in only a few words, unsettled the idea of either the unity or the dualism of art and life, fundamentally exposing the claim for unity as Utopian, and for dualism as falsely oppositional and potentially hierarchical.17 Instead, Rauschenberg would try, as he wrote, to establish his own position, one of presence between the blinding facticity of art and life.18 "I am in the present," Rauschenberg stated in a 1961 interview, "with all my limitations but by using all my resources."19 In Autobiography (1968), his more than sixteen­foot­tall, three­panel lithograph, Rauschenberg ends the spiral text in the middle panel, which also resembles a thumbprint, by stating that he is "creating a responsible man working in the present."20 Read in this context, the blueprint works anticipated Rauschen­ berg s identification of the gap, which both constituted the site of presence and provided the resource of an open space where he was neither completely in art nor in life.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Press Release for Immediate Release Berry Campbell Presents Raymond Hendler: Raymond by Raymond (Paintings 1957-1967)
    PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BERRY CAMPBELL PRESENTS RAYMOND HENDLER: RAYMOND BY RAYMOND (PAINTINGS 1957-1967) NEW YORK, NEW YORK, June 29, 2021—Berry Campbell is pleased to announce its fourth exhibition of paintings by Raymond Hendler (1923-1998). Raymond Hendler: Raymond by Raymond (Paintings 1957-1967) features paintings created between 1957 and 1967, a transitional period for Hendler in which the artist moved away from an Abstract Expressionist mode and employed a more stylized line, producing distinct shapes and symbols. The exhibition is accompanied by a 16-page catalogue with an essay written by Phyllis Braff. Raymond Hendler: Raymond by Raymond (Paintings 1957-1967) opens July 8, 2021 and continues through August 20, 2021. Gallery summer hours are Monday - Friday, 10 am - 6 pm. ABOUT THE ARTIST A first-generation action painter, Raymond Hendler started his career as an Abstract Expressionist in Paris as early as 1949. In the years that followed, he played a significant role in the movement, both in New York, where he was the youngest voting member of the New York Artist’s Club. Hendler became a friend of Franz Kline, Willem de Kooning, Jackson Pollock, and Harold Rosenberg in Philadelphia, where he ran an avant-garde gallery between 1952 and 1954. Raymond Hendler was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1923 and studied in his native Philadelphia, at the Graphic Sketch Club, the Philadelphia College of Art, the Pennsylvania Academy of Art, and the Tyler School of Art (Temple University). In 1949, he continued his art training in Paris at the Académie de la Grande Chaumière on the G.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Irving Sandler
    FROM THE ARCHIVES: HANS HOFMANN: THE PEDAGOGICAL MASTER By Irving Sandler May 30, 1973 Irving Sandler died on June 2, 2018 at the age of 92. A frequent contributor to A.i.A., Sandler was best known for chronicling the rise and the aftermath of Abstract Expressionism. One of his most significant articles for A.i.A., the impact of Hans Hofmann, who taught such artists as Helen Frankenthaler and Allan Kaprow, thereby influencing not only second- and third-generation Ab Ex painters but other developments in American art after 1945. Sandler highlights Hofmann’s interest in the deep traditions of European art, and his belief that the best abstract painting continues its manner of modeling the world. “It was in this cubic quality, this illusion of mass and space, that the man-centered humanist tradition—or what could be saved of it—was perpetuated,” Sandler wrote, summarizing a central tenet of Hofmann’s teachings. The full essay, from our May/June 1973 issue, is presented below. In June we re-published Sandler’s essay “The New Cool-Art,” on the rise of Minimalism. —Eds. As both a painter and a teacher Hans Hofmann played a germinal part in the development of advanced American art for more than thirty years. This article will deal only with his pedagogical role—a topic chosen with some trepidation, for to treat an artist as a teacher is often thought to demean his stature as an artist. The repute of Hofmann’s painting has suffered in the past because of this bias, but no longer, since he is now firmly and deservedly established as a pathfinding master of Abstract Expressionism.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release Frank Gehry First Major European
    1st August 2014 PRESS RELEASE communications and partnerships department 75191 Paris cedex 04 FRANK GEHRY director Benoît Parayre telephone FIRST MAJOR EUROPEAN 00 33 (0)1 44 78 12 87 e-mail [email protected] RETROSPECTIVE press officer 8 OCTOBER 2014 - 26 JANUARY 2015 Anne-Marie Pereira telephone GALERIE SUD, LEVEL 1 00 33 (0)1 44 78 40 69 e-mail [email protected] www.centrepompidou.fr For the first time in Europe, the Centre Pompidou is to present a comprehensive retrospective of the work of Frank Gehry, one of the great figures of contemporary architecture. Known all over the world for his buildings, many of which have attained iconic status, Frank Gehry has revolutionised architecture’s aesthetics, its social and cultural role, and its relationship to the city. It was in Los Angeles, in the early 1960s, that Gehry opened his own office as an architect. There he engaged with the California art scene, becoming friends with artists such as Ed Ruscha, Richard Serra, Claes Oldenburg, Larry Bell, and Ron Davis. His encounter with the works of Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns would open the way to a transformation of his practice as an architect, for which his own, now world-famous, house at Santa Monica would serve as a manifesto. Frank Gehry’s work has since then been based on the interrogation of architecture’s means of expression, a process that has brought with it new methods of design and a new approach to materials, with for example the use of such “poor” materials as cardboard, sheet steel and industrial wire mesh.
    [Show full text]
  • Andy Warhol Who Later Became the Most
    Jill Crotty FSEM Warhol: The Businessman and the Artist At the start of the 1960s Roy Lichtenstein, Claes Oldenburg and Robert Rauschenberg were the kings of the emerging Pop Art era. These artists transformed ordinary items of American culture into famous pieces of art. Despite their significant contributions to this time period, it was Andy Warhol who later became the most recognizable icon of the Pop Art Era. By the mid sixties Lichtenstein, Oldenburg and Rauschenberg each had their own niche in the Pop Art market, unlike Warhol who was still struggling to make sales. At one point it was up to Ivan Karp, his dealer, to “keep moving things moving forward until the artist found representation whether with Castelli or another gallery.” 1Meanwhile Lichtenstein became known for his painted comics, Oldenburg made sculptures of mass produced food and Rauschenberg did combines (mixtures of everyday three dimensional objects) and gestural paintings. 2 These pieces were marketable because of consumer desire, public recognition and aesthetic value. In later years Warhol’s most well known works such as Turquoise Marilyn (1964) contained all of these aspects. Some marketable factors were his silk screening technique, his choice of known subjects, his willingness to adapt his work, his self promotion, and his connection to art dealers. However, which factor of Warhol’s was the most marketable is heavily debated. I believe Warhol’s use of silk screening, well known subjects, and self 1 Polsky, R. (2011). The Art Prophets. (p. 15). New York: Other Press New York. 2 Schwendener, Martha. (2012) "Reinventing Venus And a Lying Puppet." New York Times, April 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of Staff Secretary; Series: Presidential Files; Folder: 6/14/77 [2]; Container 25
    6/14/77 [2] Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: Presidential Files; Folder: 6/14/77 [2]; Container 25 To See Complete Finding Aid: http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf THE PRESIDENT'S SCHEDULE Tuesday - June 14, 1977 8:15 Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski - The Oval Office. 8:45 Mr. Frank Moore The Oval Office. 9:30 Mr. Jody Powell The Oval Office. .i:45 Drop-By Meeting of Leaders of Veteran/ (10 min.) Military Groups. (Ms. Midge Costanza). The Roosevelt Room. 10:00 Budget Revie\'1 Meeting. (Mr. Bert Lance) . (2 hrs.) The Cabinet Room. 1:30 Budget Review Meeting. (Mr. Bert Lance). (90 min.) The Cabinet Room. 3:15 Secretary Harold Brown ....... ,The· Office. :oval. (15 min.) ~ :00 Meeting with Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (15 min.) and the Delaware Delegation. (Mr. Frank Moore) - The Cabinet Room. 4:20 Drop-By White House Conference on HIRE. (15 min.) . .. ~he East Room. Lo Reception for the Inaugural Portfolio (10 min.) Artists The Rose Garden. .l' THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON June 14, 1977 < / Gretchen Poston The attached was returned in the President's outbox. It is forwarded to you for appropriate handling. Rick Hutcheson cc: Z. Brzezinski Frank Moore THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON z 0 H 8 H C) :>I ,::C Iii MONDALE COSTANZA EIZENSTAT JORDAN EXECUTIVE ORDER LIPSHUTZ Comments due to I")( MOORE Carp/Euron within POWELL 48 hours; due to WATSON Staff Secretary next day FOR STAFFING FOR INFORMATION ~ FROM PRESIDENT'S OUTBOX LOG IN/TO PRESIDENT TODAY IMMEDIATE TURNAROUND ARAGON BOURNE HOYT HUTCHESON JAGODA WEL S KING VOORDE < • MEMORAND UM THE WHITE HO U SE W AS HIN G T O N June 13, 1977 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE PRESIDENT FROM: GRETCHEN POSTON RE: GUEST LIST FOR PM FRASER LUNCHEON 12:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Murray Ave School Art Appreciation Presentation: Robert Rauschenberg
    Murray Ave School Art Appreciation Presentation: Robert Rauschenberg Lesson Plan Biography: (show picture 1, photo of him in his studio) Considered by many to be one of the most influential American artists due to his radical blending of materials and methods, Robert Rauschenberg was one of the key Neo-Dada movement artists in the 1950s and 60s. He would pick up trash he found on the street, use pages ripped from the phone book, photographs, and even 3 dimensional objects like spoons. He would then affix these objects to his canvas, and paint over them to create a layered effect. He was quoted as saying "I really feel sorry for people who think things like soap dishes or mirrors or Coke bottles are ugly because they're surrounded by things like that all day long, and it must make them miserable.” Robert Rauschenberg was born in the small town of Port Arthur, Texas. His father, was a strict and serious man and his mother was a very frugal woman. She made the family's clothes from scraps. That embarrassed little Robert, but possibly influenced his artwork later in life with his collages. He asked for a store-bought shirt for his high school graduation present, the very first in his young life!! During WWII, Robert was drafted into the Navy. While stationed in San Diego, he was assigned the job as a medical technician to care for wounded soldiers. On a break one day, he walked into an art gallery and saw oil paintings in person for the first time, and became instantly fascinated by art.
    [Show full text]
  • Rose Art Museum's Sam Hunter Emerging Artists Fund Committee
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Nina J. Berger, [email protected] 617.543.1595 High-resolution images available on request ROSE ART MUSEUM’S SAM HUNTER EMERGING ARTISTS FUND COMMITTEE SELECTS TWO WORKS BY B. INGRID OLSON TO ENTER THE COLLECTION (Waltham, MA) –The Rose Art Museum has announced that work by B. Ingrid Olson has been selected for acquisition by the Sam Hunter Emerging Artists Acquisition Fund Committee. Inspired by the legacy of the Rose’s founding director, Sam Hunter, the fund is generated annually and administered by a committee that aims to collect the work of promising artists on the cusp of recognition. Two works by Chicago-based Olson–Arched fold, bent of another movement, 2017 and Firing distance, scission, 2017–have been acquired for the Rose Art Museum’s collection. Straddling sculpture and photography, Olson’s work plays fascinating games with perception and vision. Olson was recently featured in a two-person exhibition at The Renaissance Society in Chicago, and her first solo museum show will open at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in March 2018. Her work will also be included in Being: New Photography 2018, at the Museum of Modern Art, New York (March 2018) and in a group show at the MCA Chicago, Picture Fiction: Kenneth Josephson and Contemporary Photography (April 28– December 30, 2018). “Ingrid is an extraordinary photographer, pushing the bounds of the medium while engaging with pressing issues of gender identity and representation,” say Leslie Aronzon, a member of this year’s committee. “Her work fits in well with the Rose collection, and we are so excited to add her impressive and fresh works to our permanent collection.” Joining Aronzon on this year’s committee are Kim Allen-Niesen, Steven Bunson, Tory Fair, Betsy Pfau, and Lisa Wyett.
    [Show full text]
  • View Map of Healing Garden Artwork
    Mark Ackerman • Nicolas Africano • Yaacov Agam • Jonathan Agger • Anni Albers • Josef Albers • Lita Albuquerque • Pierre Alechinsky • Peter Alexander • Elray Alkristy • Otmar Alt • John Altoon • Amos Amit • Othello Anderson • Michael Ansell • Karel Appel • Shusaku Arakawa • Cynthia Archer • Ardison Phillips • Jim Arkatov • Arman • Robert Arneson • Charles Arnoldi • Lisa Aronzon • Fred Arundel • Tadashi Asoma • Chet Atkins • Mario Avanti • Judith Azur • Olle Baertling • Claude Baillargeon • Richard Baker • Micha Bar-Am • Lynda Barckert • Lionel Barrymore • Frank Barsotti • Frank Beatty • David Marc Belkin • Gerald Belkin • Larry Bell • Mark Bellog • Lynda Benglis • Billy Al Bengston • Fletcher Benton • Dimitrie Berea • Don Berger • Joseph Bergler, The Younger • Elizabeth V. Blackadder • Lucienne Bloch • Karl Blossfeldt • Howard Bond • John Robert Borgstahl • Jonathan Borofsky • Richard Bosman • Paul Brach • Matthew Brady • Charles Bragg • Warren Brandt • Bettina Brendel • Ernest Briggs • Charlie Brown • Christopher Brown • James Paul Brown • Jerry Burchman • Hans Burkhardt • Bob Burley • Sakti Burman • Jerry Byrd • Alexander Calder • Jo Ann Callis • Tom Carr • Stuart Caswell • Marc Chagall • Judy Chicago • Christo • Clutie • Jodi Cobb • Jean Cocteau • Bruce Cohen • Larry Cohen • Chuck Connelly ARTIST • Greg / WORKConstantine • Ron Cooper • Greg Copeland • Amy Cordova • Sam Coronado • Steven Cortright • Robert Cottingham • Arnold Crane • Barbara Crane • Jeff Crisman • Chris Cross • Yvonne Cross • Ford Crull • Woody Crumbo • William Crutchfield
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series the Rise and (Partial)
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE RISE AND (PARTIAL) FALL OF ABSTRACT PAINTING IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY David Galenson Working Paper 13744 http://www.nber.org/papers/w13744 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 January 2008 The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2008 by David Galenson. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. The Rise and (Partial) Fall of Abstract Painting in the Twentieth Century David Galenson NBER Working Paper No. 13744 January 2008 JEL No. J01 ABSTRACT Non-representational painting was one of the most radical artistic innovations of the twentieth century. Abstract painting was created independently by three great pioneers - the experimental innovators Kandinsky and Mondrian, and the conceptual Malevich - virtually simultaneously, in the years immediately before and after the outbreak of World War I. It became the dominant form of advanced art in the decade after the end of World War II, as Pollock, de Kooning, Rothko, and their colleagues developed the experimental forms of Abstract Expressionism. But in the late 1950s and early ‘60s, Johns, Rauschenberg, Warhol, and a host of other young artists abruptly made a conceptual revolution in advanced art, and in the process reduced abstract painting to a minor role.
    [Show full text]
  • 191 Figure 1. Elaine De Kooning, Black Mountain #16, 1948. Private Collection
    Figure 1. Elaine de Kooning, Black Mountain #16, 1948. Private Collection. 191 Figure 2. Elaine de Kooning, Untitled, #15, 1948. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 192 Figure 3. Willem de Kooning, Judgment Day, 1946. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 193 Figure 4. Elaine de Kooning, Detail, Untitled #15, 1948. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 194 Figure 5. Hans Hofmann, Ecstasy, 1947. University of California, Berkeley Art Museum. 195 Figure 6. Elaine de Kooning, Untitled 11, 1948. Salander O’Reilly Galleries, New York. 196 Figure 7. Elaine de Kooning, Self Portrait #3, 1946. National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 197 Figure 8. Elaine de Kooning, Detail, Self Portrait #3, 1946. National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 198 Figure 9. Elaine de Kooning, Detail, Self Portrait #3, 1946. National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 199 Figure 10. Elaine de Kooning, Untitled 12, 1948. Salander O’Reilly Galleries, New York. 200 Figure 11. Elaine de Kooning, Black Mountain #6, 1948. Salander O’Reilly Galleries, New York. 201 Figure 12. Grace Hartigan, Frank O’Hara, 1966. National Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 202 Figure 13. Elaine de Kooning, Kaldis #12, 1978. Private Collection. 203 Figure 14. Elaine de Kooning, Frank O’Hara, 1956. Private Collection. 204 Figure 15. Arshile Gorky, The Artist and His Mother, 1926-36. Whitney Museum of Art, New York. 205 Figure 16. Elaine de Kooning, Al Lazar #2, 1954. Private Collection. 206 Figure 17. Elaine de Kooning, Conrad #2, 1950. Private Collection. 207 Figure 18. Elaine de Kooning, JFK, 1963.
    [Show full text]
  • National Gallery of Art News Release
    * ** ** National Gallery of Art News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Tina Coplan July 8, 1991 Liz Kimball (202) 842-6353 INNOVATIVE ART FROM GRAPHICSTUDIO AT NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART. SEPTEMBER 15 WASHINGTON, D.C. A survey of more than ninety prints and edition sculptures produced during the last two decades at Graphicstudio by some of America's foremost contemporary artists will be presented September 15, 1991, through January 5, 1992, in the West Building of the National Gallery of Art. Graphicstudio, founded in 1968 by artist Donald Saff at the University of South Florida, Tampa, has become one of the leading workshops in the United States engaged in unique research in the production of fine art editions. Graphicstudio; Contemporary Art from the Collaborative Workshop at the University of South Florida will feature a diverse selection of subjects, styles, and media, produced by twenty-four artists working with Graphicstudio's versatile staff. In addition to the completed works, the show will include a selection of working drawings and other preparatory materials never before exhibited. "This exhibition, drawn from the Graphicstudio Archive which was established at the National Gallery in 1986, includes extraordinary prints and edition sculptures produced with a great deal of imagination, innovation, and technical complexity by some of America's most talented artists," said J. Carter Brown, director of the National Gallery of Art. -more- fourth Street in Constitution Avenue NW Washington DC 20565 (202) 842 6353 Facsimile (202) 289 5446 graphicstudio . page 2 "The Graphicstudio exhibition at the National Gallery is the ultimate recognition of our mission at the University of South Florida, which is to create new knowledge through art," said Alan Eaker, director of Graphicstudio.
    [Show full text]
  • Harold Rosenberg's Critique of Artforum
    Moonie S. Historians of the Future: Harold Rosenberg's Critique of Artforum. Visual Resources 2015, 31(1-2), 103-115. Copyright: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Visual Resources on 08/04/2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/01973762.2015.1004784 DOI link to article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2015.1004784 Date deposited: 06/05/2016 Embargo release date: 08 October 2016 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence Newcastle University ePrints - eprint.ncl.ac.uk 1 Historians of the Future: Harold Rosenberg’s critique of Artforum Stephen Moonie This paper discusses Harold Rosenberg (1906-1978) and his critique of Artforum. It focuses particularly on the journal’s landmark issue on the New York School in September 1965. Rosenberg criticized Artforum for blurring the boundaries between art history and art criticism: an entwinement which is now widely accepted by many commentators, not least because some of Artforum’s major critics went on to pursue academic careers, shaping the discipline of contemporary art history. However, this acceptance has resulted in some confusion with regard to the current role of art criticism. In this regard, Rosenberg’s opposition to Artforum merits consideration. Although Rosenberg was not disinterested, this paper claims that his remarks open up the historical roots of our current confusion. What was at stake in the debates amongst Artforum’s major figures was nothing less than the “history of the future.” Keywords: modernism; art criticism; Harold Rosenberg (1906-1978); Clement Greenberg (1909-1994); Michael Fried (b.1939); Frank Stella (b.1936).
    [Show full text]