Objecting to Things Megan R
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Objecting to Things Megan R. Luke In this study [fig. 1], both center colors are precisely the same color. However, being unable to actually see this, we demonstrate clearly, with colors, that we rarely see what we see. —Josef Albers, Search Versus Re-Search My painting is based on the fact that only what can be seen there is there.... What you see is what you see. —Frank Stella, in Bruce Glaser, “Questions to Stella and Judd” In 1958 Frank Stella made a crude object that was tucked within a rough strip frame, an assemblage of two scraps of cardboard conspicuously nailed to four wooden boards, two of which visibly protrude beneath the cardboard (fig. 2, plate 32). Slathered in pink, red, and orange paint, the thing bears what is arguably a pictorial composition, but like its support, it seems so casually put together that we wonder whether these areas of color have not been routinely assembled rather than artfully composed. We can clearly see a seam between the two individual pieces of cardboard and in the lower, larger section, notchlike cuts in what must have originally been an ordinary box, now folded flat. Two parallel vertical folds score the surface of both pieces of cardboard, fig 1. Josef Albers, Color Study for Simultaneous Contrast, Plate IV-3 from The Interaction of Color which are arranged to preserve the continuity of these lines across the gap between the (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963). pieces: this precision seems at odds with the otherwise coarse, somewhat provisional manufacture of the piece. The painted forms cover both folds and seam, uniting the surface in a makeshift, unstable manner and turning the internal edges into diMerent species of lines. The upper register of this assembly consists of several sketchily rendered alternating orange and pink stripes, a symmetrical arrangement that is bracketed at top and bottom by orange. Below this is a vertically oriented red rectangle that appears to rest on a pink field. Or perhaps the area is simply another flat stripe pattern, rotated ninety degrees and magnified to a larger scale: two squat, pink stripes buttressing a red one. Or does the red block carry an allusive charge, suggesting a kind of doorway that promises a space behind the pink bands that frame it? (opposite): fig 2. Frank Stella, Them Apples, plate 32. Objecting to Things Megan R. Luke At the base of this oM-center red rectangle the horizontal stripes resume, this time one of Cézanne’s signature still lifes of apples that it with alternating bands of red and orange. The spatial ambiguities of this set of stripes throws us into a kind of epistemological crisis: Is this echo those of the upper set. We might read the upper orange stripes as resting on top of thing a painting or a mere thing, a work of art or the pink field, yet the facture of the paint—its drips and brushwork—shows that the a useless object?2 pink is physically layered over the orange. Likewise, in the lower striped segment, the Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself. As we shall orange stripes appear to slip behind red stripes, which stand out because they are see the question of whether we should understand a contiguous with the large block of red. Yet these orange stripes also seem to come forward painting as a work of art or as an ordinary object became by virtue of having been painted over what were once light pink bands. (To complicate a central topic of art criticism in the 1960s, shortly after matters, the horizontal pink stripes at the top are painted over red bands, and the ver- Them Apples was painted. Certainly, Stella’s own most tical pink areas in the middle are painted over a white ground, hindering our ability to famous works—his Black paintings of 1958–60 and his recognize that they are the same pink and prompting us to imagine earlier but not various Metallic series (the Aluminum and Copper paint- fully obliterated color relationships.) Indeed, we begin to doubt whether the orange ings of 1960–61 and the Purple paintings of 1963)— sandwiched between the pink and red stripes is even the same color. The whole painted seemed to address this issue: the former with their aus- surface thus becomes a play of simultaneous contrast (showing the way one color will tere monochromaticity and the latter with their gaudy, change when it abuts diMerent colors), which works against color change caused by repellent sheen and shaped canvases (figs. 3, 4). fig 3. Frank Stella, Jill, 1959. Enamel on canvas, material overlayering—or, more simply, it is a study of the way colors interact across a Such works could be equally convincing as traditional 7 ft. 6 3/8 in. x 6 ft. 6 3/4 in. (229.6 x 200 cm). surface as opposed to the way they interact in physical depth. paintings that contained a measure of pictorial space M Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Bu alo, N.Y. Gift of The lower stripe pattern rests on a thick band of pink. This pink is richer and red- and as objects that obdurately existed within the Seymour H. Knox, Jr., 1962. der than that of the pink stripes above, so much so that using pink to describe these literal space of their beholders alongside other non- stripes could be called into question. This pink area can be read in two ways: as a lintel art objects. In his study of minimalism, James Meyer resting on two posts of the same color (the assembled nature of the support reinforces characterized Stella’s practice as “schizophrenic,” one this reading, with the “lintel” rendered in cardboard and the “posts” made of wood) that, for the period from his Black paintings from late or as a single inverted U-shape framing a small, boxlike compartment containing four 1958 to the Irregular Polygons of 1966–67 (his first series amorphous painted forms.1 These ill-defined forms are nestled on a plane that physi- to abandon the allover stripe pattern; see fig. 5), was cally exists behind the painted cardboard surface, on one of the wooden trusses holding able to straddle the increasingly opposed purposes of the construction together: no shifting play between figure and field is imaginable pictorial illusionism and sculptural literalism.3 These here. The forms consist of four smudgy circular patches of red, pink, and orange (with series were enlisted both by critics who preferred to see some daubs of blue), and they seem to illustrate the title Stella gave the object, Them such work as the apogee of a specific modernist tradi- Apples. This title raises the question as crudely put as these painted “apples” them- tion and by a new generation of artists who sought to fig 4. Frank Stella, Six Mile Bottom, 1960. selves: “How d’ya like them apples?” Both the implied query and the four dirty smears claim it for a burgeoning literalist practice that treated Metallic paint on canvas, 9 ft. 8 in. x 5 ft. 11 1/2 in. of paint challenge the viewer to make a judgment of taste about an object so unlike this tradition as exhausted. (300 x 180 cm). Tate Gallery, London. 2 3 Objecting to Things Megan R. Luke Michael Fried, one of Stella’s closest friends at Princeton and afterward, reflected in As for Stella’s thick stretchers, many have argued that this device makes his works 1987 on the diMerence between his own commitment to modernist painting as a young more objectlike. Stella claimed, however, that he appreciated the way oMsetting a critic and the materialist sensibility of Stella’s erstwhile studio partner, the sculptor Carl canvas from the wall emphasized its surface over its mass, making the painting flatter; Andre: “In a sense Carl Andre and I were fighting for [Stella’s] soul, and Andre and I rep- he even suggested an ideal viewing position to enable the beholder to better appreciate resented very diMerent things....We have to see it as a conflictual time...when diMerent the optical eMect: “When it’s set up on the wall, it seemed to us [Stella and Walter possibilities were entertained, when the same body of work was seen in diMerent ways.” Darby Bannard], rather than become an object...it actually emphasized more of the sur- Yet Fried himself has noted that his position and Andre’s minimalism have common roots face quality of it....When you look at the painting—and this is the only way I like my in the modernism of Clement Greenberg—suggesting that both sides were coming from paintings to be looked at, really dead-on, because they’re conventional works of art in the same place but going in diMerent directions, that this “fight” was not so clear-cut.4 that sense, dead-on (I don’t like the angled views, the wide-angle lens shot)—when Stella most famously expressed his literalist sensibility in a 1964 interview con- you see the painting the way you’re supposed to see it...that little bit of depth just gives ducted by Bruce Glaser that also included Dan Flavin and Donald Judd. There he said you almost a shadow or some kind of breathing around the edge that gives you all of that his ambition was to “keep the paint as good as it was in the can”—“to get the the surface. You don’t get so much of a sense of the thing hanging on the wall.”8 paint out of the can and onto the canvas” with as little intervention and inflection as Illusion surfaces even in the Black paintings, works that would seem to disavow it 5 fig 5.