(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Six painters and the object"





m 


n 


l^^^^l 




BBfc- 




LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM OF ART 



5 0715 01052772 1 



N 

SSI 



'o^ 



% 
'c/^^^ 






c.% 



t^ 






^ 



SIX PiUTERS 



m THE OBJECT 



5-: 




LI 


m 


/9e: 


: 


'no. 





TRUSTEES 



HARKY F. GUGGENHEIM. PRKlSinEN'T 



ALBERT K. THIELE. VICE PKESinEXT 



H. H. ARN'ASOX, VICE PRESIDENT. ART ADMINISTRATION 



THE COUNTESS CASTLE STEWART 



MRS. HARRY K. GUGGENHEIM 



A. CHAUNCEY NEWLIN 



MRS. HENRY OBRE 



MISS HILLA REBAY, DIRECTOR EJklERITUS 



DANIEL CATTON RICH 



MICHAEL F. WETTACH 



MEDLEY G. B. WHELPLEY 



CARL ZIGROSSER 



SIX POWERS m THE OBJECT 



LA^REXTE ALL01i%'AY 



© 1963, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, Neu' York 

Library of Congress Card Catalogue Number 63-15451 

Printed in the United States of America 



LIBRARY 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY MIISEQIVI OF ART 
LOS ANGELEB, CALIFORNIA 



The relationship between the good and the new in contemporary 
art is intriguing and baffling. The realization that art and in- 
vention are akin is balanced bv the suspicion of eccentricity. 

Out of this conflict arises the question: Is it art? And the 
answer: \es and no. Yes. // could he. since the expansion of 
artistic boundaries is inherent in the creative process. No. it 
need not be. for no mode in itself assures us of artistic validity. 

Lawrence Allowav. Curator of The Solomon R. Guggenheim 
Museum, has conceived and prepared this exhibition and the 
accompanying catalogue. Reflections about the new in art are 
implicit in the exhibition's subject matter; so is the intention 
to indicate an historical background to the profile of the new. 

Thomas M. Messer. Director 



Aehnowletltfvwti4>iils 

I (un grateful to Mr. Leo Costelli and Mr. Iran Karp uho have been 
indispensable uith advice and assistance: to Mr. Leon Mnuchin for 
suggesting the final title for this exhibition : to Mr. Richard Bellamy. 
Mr. Steve Joy, and Mr. John W eber for their advice: to Mr. Gene 
Suenson uho kindly alloned me to use his Robert Rauschenberg bib- 
liography, and for allouing me to see the manuscript of a forthcom- 
ing article on this artist. 

I nould like to thank the follouing members of the Museum's cura- 
torial department for their extensive involvement and their impor- 
tant contributions: Dr. Louise Averill Svendsen, Associate Curator: 
Research Fellous Carol Fuerstein and Maurice Tuchman : and 
David Hayes uho proposed an earlier form of this exhibition. 

L. A. 



SIX PALMERS AID THE OBJECT 



LAWHEXtE AM.OWAY^ CURATOR 



I 

The artists in this exhibition (all born between 1923 and 
1933 ) have been persistently aligned, in group exhibitions and sur- 
vey articles, with object-makers, and two of the artists, Robert Rau- 
schenberg and Jim Dine, are themselves object-makers. In the pres- 
ent exhibition, however, all six artists are presented as painters; 
some of their works include moderate collage elements, but no three- 
dimensional appendages. The association of paintings and objects 
has tended to blur both media differentiations and the individuality 
of the artists concerned. The unique qualities of the separate work 
of art and of the artist responsible for it have tended to sink into an 
environmental melange, which in practice favors the object-makers, 
but not the painters. Object-makers, like the producers of happen- 
ings (often they are the same person), work towards the dissolution 
of formal boundaries^ and sponsor paradoxical cross-overs between 
art and nature. However, the painter, committed to the surface of 
his canvas and to the process of translating objects into signs, does 
not have a wide-ranging freedom in which everything becomes art 
and art becomes anything. Because the painters have been identi- 
fied with the object-makers, under various slogans", the definition 
of painting qua painting has been attached recently, more than it 
need have been, to abstract art. It is hoped, therefore, that by pre- 
senting six painters in this exhibition, they can be detached from an 
amorphous setting and, also, that the definition of painting can be 
extended to cope with the problem that their work presents. 

What these six artists have in common is the use of objects 
drawn from the communications network and the physical environ- 
ment of the city. Some of these objects are: flags, magazines and 
newspaper photographs, mass-produced objects, comic strips, ad- 
vertisements. Each artist selects his subject matter from what is 
known not only to himself, but also to others, before he begins work. 
Subject matter provides a common ground, either for intimacy or 
for dissent, as it does not in abstract or realist painting. When the 
subject matter consists of pre-existing conventional signs and com- 
mon images, however, we can properly speak of a known, shared 



subject matter. This approach to the city is, of course, the common 
ground between the object-makers and the painters. However, the 
translation of the urban object into a painted sign involves the paint- 
ers in very different procedures from the object-makers. Let us con- 
sider some of the different ways in which six painters make signs of 
their chosen objects. 

Jasper Johns' images are complete and whole: his maps are 
co-extensive with a known geography; his flags unfurled. His art- 
historical importance rests particularly on his early work in which 
he found a way to reconcile the flatness required of painting by all 
esthetic theories of the 20th century, with figurative references which 
the demand for flatness had tended to subdue or expunge. What he 
did was to filter objects through the formal requirements of a flat 
painting style. It was, of course, the Dadaists who had released the 
potential of use and meaning for art in common objects and signs, 
but the assimilation of such objects to a rigorous and delicate paint- 
ing standard was a new development. (Johns accomplished this, it 
should be remembered, in the mid-50s, when New York painters 
were open to far fewer alternatives than is now the case.) 

The use of complete signs or objects involves the artists in a 
certain kind of spatial organization. Displays tend to be symmetri- 
cal, or, at least, orderly, with the area of the painting identified fully 
with the presented forms. Dine, like Johns in this respect, presents 
his signs and his objects, such as clothing or tools wholistically or 
sequentially (as in the series paintings in which color changes or 
other transformations take place). Warhol, as a rule, presents his 
monolithic bottles or cans intact; where his images are incomplete 
or hazy, they are repeated, and the repetition of the basic unit intro- 
duces a regular order which the single image may not possess. 
Rauschenberg, in his recent paintings with silk-screen images printed 
from photographs, uses incomplete but legible images. Order is 
established not by using forms but by the recurrence of evocative 
fragments. 

The element of time in the use of popular art sources by art- 
ists is important, in view of the criticism that their work is exclu- 
sively and blindingly topical. In fact, however, Johns" flags are pre- 
Alaskan and pre-Hawaiian, though still legible as the stars-and- 
stripes, a stable sign. Dine"s objects, painted or literally present, 
are not conspicuously new. but rather functional objects without 
a fast rate of style-change: they are timeless like a hardware store, 
or a Sears-Roebuck catalogue, rather than smart and up-to-date 
like a slick magazine or an LP rec(u-d-sleeve. Lichtenstein's refer- 
ences to comic strips have been accused, by those who only know 
art, of being too close to real comic strips. However, a group of 
professional comics artists (at National Periodical Publications), 
judged them as definitely not mirror images of current comics style. 
The professionals regarded Lichtenstein's paintings derived from 
comic strips as strongly 'decorative' and backward-looking. Robert 
Rauschenberg's images, the traces of original newsprint material of 



radar bowls and baseball players, etc., are so elaborately processed, 
by overlapping and corroding of contours and planes, that their topi- 
cality is opposed, though not cancelled, in a timeless blur. The gen- 
eral point to be drawn from these observations is that the presence 
of topical elements in a painting should not be supposed to consti- 
tute the total content of the work. In fact, the more sensitive one is 
to the original topical material, the more aware one becomes of the 
extent of its transformation by the artist, the spreading of the ephem- 
eral image in time. 

Rauschenbergs main work has been in what he calls the 
'combine-painting", a mixed media art including objects, but he has 
recently painted a series of black and white paintings containing 
silk-screen images. He explained to Gene Swenson: 'Could I deal 
with images in an oil painting as I had dealt with them in the trans- 
fer drawings and the lithographs? I had been working so extensively 
on sculpture: I was ready to try substituting the image, by means of 
the photographic silk-screen, for objects'". Here is a clear state- 
ment of the process of transformation that any object must undergo 
in order to function as a sign in a painting. Rauschenberg"s paintings 
are partly the reproduction of legible and learnable images and 
partly the traces of a physical process of work (the pressure and 
density of the ])aint, often modifying very strongly the constituent 
silk-screen image I . 

The custom of quotation is not a new one, though Lichten- 
stein's use of popular sources, and his preservation of the original's 
stylistic character, has disconcerted critics. Sir Joshua Reynolds ob- 
served: 'It is generally allowed, that no man need be ashamed of 
copying the ancients: their works are considered as a magazine of 
common property, always open to the public, whence every man has 
a right to take what material he pleases"^. Popular art has replaced 
classical art as 'common property", but the point of such borrowings 
has not changed much. There is still (1 ) a legible reference to some- 
body else's work and (2) the transformation of the quotation, before 
one's eyes, by a new. personal use. Lichtenstein fulfils both func- 
tions, frankly declaring his sources and. at the same moment, setting 
them in a new context. Not only does he make numerous formal ad- 
justments in his borrowings, there is, also, the spectacular increase 
in scale, whereby very small sources become monumental. Head— 
Yellow and Black, for example, was a thumbnail sketch from the yel- 
low pages of the Manhattan phone book: Flatten. Sand Fleas is iso- 
lated and blown up from one episode in a war comic (about the 
education of a rookie by a tough sergeant). Lichenstein"s images 
spring into largeness: part of their impact is the dilation of minute 
originals, their sequential flow dramatically arrested. Giantism, the 
enlargement of objects and images, characterises his work, as it does 
others". Rosenquist blows up fragmentary but solid forms to bill- 
board scale; Dine's clothing is often on the scale of a Times Square 
advertisement, or a Neanderthal wardrobe. 




obert Rauschenberg 



OVERCAST I. 1962. 
Lent by Leo Castelli Gallery, New York. 




A IQ35 PALETTE. 1960-6 
Collection Franklin Konigsberg. Neiu Yor. 



WORKS IN THE EXHIBITION 



I.ender8 



Mr. and Mrs. Armand P. Bartos, New York, Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. Buck 
waiter, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, Mr, and Mrs. Charles H. Carpenter, Jr. 
New Canaan, Connecticut, W. P. Cohen and Ben Heller, New York, Jim Dine, 
New York, James Holderbaum, Northampton, Massachusetts, Jasper Johns. 
New York, Franklin Konigsberg, New York, Mr. and Mrs. Leon A. Mnuchin 
New York, Walter A. Netsch, Jr., Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Morton G. New 
mann, Chicago, Myron Orlofsky, White Plains, New York, Robert 
Rauschenberg, New York, Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. Rowan, Pasadena. 
Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Scull, New York, Mrs. Frank Titelman, Altoona, 
Pennsylvania, Andy Warhol, New York, Hanford Yang, Brookline, Massa 
chusetts; Andrew Dickson White Museum, Ithaca, New York; Leo Cas 
telli Gallery, New York, Dwan Gallery, Los Angeles, The Pace Gallery, 
Boston, Stable Gallery, New York. 



JIM DINE 

A 1935 PALETTE. 1960-1961. Oil on plywood, 72 x 48". 
CoUection Franklin Konigsberg, New York. 

TATTOO. 1961. Oil on canvas, 60y8 x 48". 
Private CoUection, New York. 

THE RED BANDANA. 1961. Oil on canvas, 62y8 x 54". 
Private Collection, New York. 

THE WAVE. 1%1. Oil on canvas, 59%" diameter. 

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Charles H. Carpenter, Jr., New Canaan, Connecticut. 

THE PLANT BECOMES A FAN. 1961-1963. 
Charcoal on canvas, 60 x 144%" (4 sections) . 
Lent by the artist. 



JASPER JOHNS 

GRAY FLAG. 1957. Encaustic and collage on canvas, 26 x 38" 
Collection James Holderbaum, Northampton, Massachusetts. 

TARGET. 1958. Oil on canvas, 36 x 36". 
Lent by the artist. 

WHITE NUMBERS. 1959. Encaustic on canvas, 53 x 40y8". 
Collection W. P. Cohen and Ben Heller, New York. 

ZERO TO NINE. 1961. Oil on canvas, 54 x 45". 
Collection Mrs. Frank Titelman, Altoona, Pennsylvania. 



ROY LICHTENSTEIN 

BLACK FLOWERS. 1961. Oil on canvas, 70 x 48". 
Collection Walter A. Netsch, Jr., Chicago. 

FLATTEN, SAND FLEAS. 1962. Oil on canvas, 34 x 44" 
Collection Mr. and Mrs. Leon A. Mnuchin, New York. 

ICE CREAM SODA. 1962. Oil on canvas, 64 x 32 ¥4". 
Collection Myron Orlofsky, White Plains, New York. 

LIVE AMMO. 1962. Oil on canvas (group of 6 sections) . 

Section 1, 68 x 56" ; Section 2, 68 x 36". 

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Morton G. Neumann, Chicago. 

Section 5, 68 x 68". 

Lent by Dwan Gallery, Los Angeles. 

VAROOM. 1963. Oil on canvas, 56 x 56". 
Collection Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Scull, New York. 



ROBERT RAIJSCHENRERG 

WAGER. 1957-1959. Combine-painting on canvas, 81 x 149%" (4 sections) . 
Lent by the artist. 

MIGRATION. 1959. Combine-painting on canvas, 50 x 40%". 
Collection Andrew Dickson White Museum of Art, Ithaca, New York. 

CALENDAR. 1962. Oil on canvas, llVs. x 72V8". 
Lent by Leo Castelli GaUery, New York. 

OVERCAST 1. 1962. Oil and silk screen ink on canvas, 96% x 72". 
Lent by Leo Castelli GaUery, New York. 

JUNCTION. 1963. Oil, aluminum and silk screen ink on canvas, 45% x 61%' 
Lent by Leo Castelli Gallery, New York. 



JAMES ROSENQUIST 

IN THE RED. 1962. Oil on canvas, 66y4 x 78y4". 
Collection Hanford Yang, Brookline, Massachusetts. 

MAYFAIR. 1962. Oil on canvas, 42 x 70". 
Collection Mr. and Mrs. Leon A. Mnuchin, New York. 

UNTITLED. 1962. Oil on canvas, 84 x 72". 
Collection Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. Rowan, Pasadena. 

WOMAN 1. 1962. Oil on canvas, 72% x 84". 

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. Buckwalter, Shawnee Mission, Kansas. 

WOMAN II. 1963. Oil on canvas, 70 x 70". 

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Morton G. Neumann, Chicago. 



ANDY WARHOL 

DICK TRACY. 1960. Casein on canvas, 70% x 52%". 
Lent by the artist. 

BEFORE AND AFTER, 2. 1962. Liquitex on canvas, 54% x 70". 
Lent by Stable Gallery, New York. 

BEFORE AND AFTER, 3. 1962. Liquitex on canvas, 72% x 99%' 
Lent by Stable Gallery, New York. 

TROY. 1962. Liquitex and silk screen ink on canvas, 83 x 84". 
Lent by The Pace Gallery, Boston. 

200 SOUP CANS. 1962. Casein on canvas, 72 x 100%". 
Collection Mr. and Mrs. Armand P. Bartos, New York. 



:-^\^<%^:-:':S:\<*:w>>;'X'\'V\:V:'W**^;*x<w 




Roy Lirhtenstein ICE CREAM SODA. 1962. 

Collection Myron Orlofsky, White Plains, New York. 



II 

'There is some point to Shaftesbury's remark that the inven- 
tion of prints was to English culture during the 18th century what 
the invention of printing had been earlier to the entire Republic of 
letters', observed Jean H. Hagstrum.' Prints familiarized artists with 
a body of art works that could be assimilated into general experi- 
ence, in the absence of the originals. These repeatable images, which 
dispensed with the notion that uniqueness was essential to art, 
reached a large audience indiscriminately. Prints are the beginning 
of the mass media explosion. The use of prints accelerated until, by 
the late 19th century, mass-produced prints, sometimes by anony- 
mous artists, provided an alternate tradition to the arts of painting 
and sculpture. Anton Ridder van Rappard is remembered as the 
friend who told Van Gogh that The Potato Eaters was a terrible mis- 
take, but Van Gogh's letters to him, written in the early 1880s*', have 
a recurring theme of the greatest interest. There is constant discus- 
sion of popular graphic art as something equal to fine art. and pos- 
sibly better. Of a drawing in Punch magazine of the Tzar on his 
death bed. Van Gogh wrote: 'If such a thing is possible, it has even 
more sentiment than Holbein's Totentanz'. And in another letter he 
listed admired subjects in illustrated magazines: The Foundling, A 
Queue in Paris During the Seige, The Girl I Left Behind Me, Wan- 
ing of the Honeymoon, Labourer's Meeting, Lifeboat, Sunday Eve- 
ning at Sea, Mormon Tabernacle. Cabin of Emigrant's Ship. This 
list of subjects shows that popular art had characteristics of its own 
with sufficient vitality to form a tradition of its own, different from 
the main line in the fine arts. The late paintings of Georges Seurat, 
as Robert Herbert has pointed out. with their flat linearism and 
show business subjects (cabaret, circus) are influenced by the post- 
ers of Jules Cheret'. The artists* sensitivity to popular art was wide- 
spread in the 19th century, and one other example might be cited, 
the art critic Champfleury, who recorded: 'I published in 1850, in 
the National, a preliminary fragment on folk art. It was concerned 
with barroom decoration (imagerie de cabaret), faience, carica- 
ture'-. Here, as in the cases of Van Gogh and Seurat, popular art is 
assigned its own traditions, in the urban mass of the population, and 
linked to topical events. 

The use of popular art sources by artists has been wide- 
spread since the 18th century, though not much charted. Courbet, 
who seems to have used popular engravings in some of his paintings^, 
handled form with an abrupt, schematic quality which, to his con- 
temporaries" eyes, was polemically naive. In Courbet, popular art 
was equated with a pastoral society, with, that is to say, Folk Art 
traditions. This connection led logically to nostalgic and exotic 
primitivism, in Gauguin's work in both Brittany and Polynesia, for 
instance, and thence to numerous 20th century revival styles. How- 
ever, another current identified popular art neither with the products 
of unchanging peasants nor with unspoiled natives, but with the ver- 
nacular art of the city. 




James Rosenquist FOLK 1949 GUYS. 1962. 

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Scull. Neic York. 




Andy U arhol 



BEFORE AND AFTER, 3. 1962. 
Lent by Stable Gallery, New York. 



As in the cases of Van Gogh and Seurat, the use of popular 
art sources was linked with acceptance of the city as a subject for 
art. In the 20th century there is a consistent connection between 
the painting of specifically modern subjects and themes and an in- 
terest in mass-produced and popular art. Purism, for example, se- 
lected as objects for still-life 'those which are like extensions of 
man's limbs, and thus of an extreme intimacy, and banality that 
makes them barely exist as objects of interest in themselves'^°. Leger^ 
who was associated closely with the Purists, argued for the equality 
of mass-produced objects and nature: 'Every object, created or man- 
ufactured, may carry in itself an intrinsic beauty just like all phe- 
nomena of the natural order*". As a result of his conviction that 
'beauty is everywhere", Leger not only praised mass-produced objects 
but extended his esthetic to take in popular art as well. In a passage 
of praise for window-dressing, in the 20s still a fresh and expanding 
form of display, he declared: 'The street has become a permanent 
exhibition of ever-growing importance'^-. He criticised the Renais- 
sance for leaving us with 'its ecstasy for the fine subject' and its 
'hideous hyi)ertrophy of the individual'. These themes survive today 
in the use of Coca Cola bottles and Campbell soup cans by Warhol, 
or in Lichtenstein's detached depiction of common objects. Against 
the conspicuous assertion of individualism, by paint handling, for ex- 
ample, Warhol and Lichtenstein collaborate with (usually unknown) 
popular artists. Lichtenstein's collaborators are comic strip artists 
or commercial artists and Warhol collaborates with Campbell's 
packaging department or, in his portraits of Coca Cola bottles, with 
Raymond Loewy Associates. The artist deliberately confirms his in- 
dividualism to a pre-existing image (which he radically transforms 
behind a mask of subservience). 

Another aspect of popular imagery has to do not with ob- 
jects but with the folklore of heroes and heroines, that spectacular 
parade of slowly or quickly disappearing public figures. Surrealism, 
with its writers sensitive to the potential of fantasy in common events, 
explored this area. For instance, Robert Desnos wrote about French 
popular novels and singled out for comment Fantomas, 'an enor- 
mously important factor in Parisian mythology and oneirology. The 
hero's elegant appearance and the bloody dagger he holds in his 
hand upset the generally accepted idea, and puts an end to the no- 
tion of a lamentable, moth-eaten assassin, clothed in rags'^^. Re- 
cently there have been various paintings of Marilyn Monroe^^, which 
have been interpreted as elegies for somebody trapped in the mass 
media. In fact, pretentious explanations of this kind are part of the 
unfamiliarity writers feel at the presence of popular art sources or 
references in the context of fine art. The conjunction of the once- 
separated areas of high and popular culture has embarrassed writ- 
ers whose fortunes and status are identified with the care of high 



art^'. On the contrary, mass media figures are relished for their 
physical grandeur, for their pervasiveness (as in Warhol's diptych), 
and for the drama of common intimacy they offer their consumers. 
The attitude towards the stars is more like that expressed by Pierre 
de Massot, in an article on the French music hall, in which he listed, 
'The legs of Mistinguett. the breasts of Spinelly, the buttocks of 
Parisys, the little stomach of Pepee constitute, with Marcel Du- 
champ's Nude Descending the Staircase, the only "poetic" realm in 
which I can live"^^. 



1. Kaprow, Allan. " 'Happenings" in the New York Scene" Art News, New 
York, vol. 60, May, 1961, p. 36-39, 58-62. 

2. "Pop Art": term coined originally to refer to the mass media (for popular 
art), but loosely extended to apply to fine art with popular art references 
• see Lawrence Alloway. "Pop Art Since 1949". The Listener. London, vol. 
67, no. 1761, December 27, 1962. p. 1085) ; 

"New Realism": term coined originally for a European group of artists, but 
lately applied to American art ( see Bibliography no. 1 ) : 
"Sign Painters": (see Bibliography no. 8) : 

"American Dream Painting": (see Bibliography no. 18). However, the 
imagery is not dream-like, nor is it exclusively American. The imagery of 
these artists is a fact of global industrialism, a real part of life and, in no 
sense, a dream. 

"Neo Dada": The term over-emphasizes the connections with Dada that do 
exist, but the comparison is usually vitiated by inadequate definitions of 
what the original Europeans were in fact doing. 

3. Swenson, G. R. "Rauschenberg Paints a Picture", Art Neivs, 1963 (to be 
published) . 

4. Wark, Robert R., ed. Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses on Art, San Marino, 
California, Huntington Library, 1959, Discourse VI, p. 107. 

5. Hagstrum, Jean H. The Sister Arts. Chicago, 1958. 

Van Gogh, Vincent. Letters to Anton Ridder van Rappard, London, 1936. 

Herbert, Robert. "Seurat and Jules Cheret", Art Bulletin, New York, vol. 
40, no. 2, June, 1958, p. 156-158. 

8. Quoted by Stanley Meltzoff, "The Revival of the Le Nains". Art Bulletin, 
New York, vol. 24, no. 3. September. 1942. p. 278. 

9. Schapiro, Meyer. "Courbet and Popular Imagery". Journal of the Warburg 
and Courtauld Institutes, London, vol. 4. 1940-1941. 

Ozenfant, Amedee, and Le Corbusier. La Peinture Moderne, Paris, 1925. 

Leger, Fernand. "The Esthetics of the Machine: Manufactured Objects, 
Artisan, and Artist". The Little Review. New York. Paris, vol. 9, no. 3, 
1923, p. 45-49, vol. 9, no. 4. 1923-1924. p. 55-58. 

Ibid. 

L3. Desnos, Robert. "Imagerie Moderne". Documents, vol. 7. Paris, 1929, p. 377. 

"The Growing Cult of Marilvn". Life. vol. 54. no. 4, January 24, 1963. p. 
89-91. 

For the historical roots of the high art/popular art dialogue, debate, or 
quarrel, see Lowenthal. Leo, Literature. Popular Culture, and Society, 
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall. 1961, especially chapters 2 
and 3. 

De Massot. Pierre. "Theatre and Music-Hall: to Erik Satie". The Little 
Review, vol. 9, no. 4, Paris, 1923-1924, p. 6. 



SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRIPHV 



Not every review has been recorded. References to articles on areas reJat- 
able to the artists and paintings in this exhibition (happenings, junk cul- 
ture, assemblage, etc.) are given only when relevant to the theme of this 
exhibition. 



CE.XEKAl. 



Exliil»ili«ii ('atalo^iies aii«l R(>vi<''\v.s 



1. Ashbery, John; Restany, Pierre; Janis, Sidney, Aew Realists, New York, 
Sidney Janis Gallery. 1962. 

2. T. B. H. [Thomas B. Hess]. "New Realists at Janis Gallery'", Art News, 
New York, vol. 61, December. 1962, p. 12. 

3. S. T. [Sidney Tillim]. "The New Realists at Janis Gallery", Arts, New 
York. vol. 37, December, 1962, p. 43-44. 

4. Nordland, Gerald. My Country 'Tis of Thee, Los Angeles, Dwan Gallery, 
1962. 

Arti<'l«*<$ 

5. "Art: The Slice of Cake School", Time, New York, May 11, 1962. 

6. "Something New is Cooking", Life, New York, vol. 52, no. 24, June 15, 

1962. p. 115-120. 

7. Kozloff, Max. " 'Pop' Culture, Metaphysical Disgust and the New Vul- 
garians", Art International, Zurich, vol. 6, no. 2, February, 1962. 

8. Swenson, G. R. "The New American 'Sign' Painters", Art News, New York, 
vol. 61, September, 1%2, p. 44-47, 60-62. 

9. Seckler, Dorothy Gees. "Folklore of the Banal", Art in America, New 
York, vol. 50, no. 4, 1962, p. 57-61. 

10. Coplans, John. "The New Painting of Common Objects, and Chronology: 
The Common Object and Art", Artforum, San Francisco, vol. 1, no. 6, 1962, 
p. 26-29. 

11. A. [Bruno Alfieri]. "USA: Towards tlie End of "Abstract' Painting?" 
Metro, Milan, no. 4-5 [1962]. p. 4-13. 

Wescher, Herta. "Die 'Neuen Realisten' und Ihre Vorlaufer". W'erk, Win- 
terthur, vol. 49, no. 8, August, 1962, p. 291-300. 

Langsner, Jules. "Los Angeles Letter, September, 1962". Art International, 
Zurich, vol. 6, no. 9, November, 1962, p. 49. 

Rosenberg, Harold. "The Art Galleries: The Game of Illusion", New 
Yorker, New York, November 24, 1962, p. 161-167. 

Sorrentino. Gilbert. "Kitsch into 'Art': The New Realism". Kulcher, New 
York. vol. 2. no. 8. 1962. p. 10-23. 

Rose, Barbara. "Dada Then and Now", Art International, Ziirich, vol. 7, 
no. 1, January, 1963, p. 23-28. 

17. Restany. Pierre. "Le Nouveau Realisme a la Conquete de New York", Art 
International, Ziirich, vol. 7, no. 1, January. 1963. p. 29-36. 

18. Rudiknff. Sonya. '"New Realists in New York". Art International. Ziirich, 
vol. 7. no. 1. January, 1963, p. 39-41. 

19. Johnson. Ellen H. "The Living Object", Art International, Ziiricii, vol. 7, 
no. 1. January, 1963, p. 42-45. 



JIM ni.XE 



Statements 



20. Environments, Situations. Places. Ne^^ York. Martha Jackson Gallery, 1961 

21. Art 1963 -A New Vocabulary, Philadelphia. Arts Council of the YM^ 
Y\V HA, October 25-\ovember 7. 1962. 

Exhibition Catalogues and Reviews 



' 



22. A. V. [Anita ^'entura]. "Exhibition at Jndson Gallery", Arts, New York 
vol. 34, December. 1959, p. 59. 

23. A. V. [Anita Ventura]. "Exhibition at Reuben Gallery". Arts, New York 
vol. 34. April. 1960. p. 73. 

24. Johnston, Jill. "Car Crash". The Village Voice, New York, November 10 
1960. 

25. V. P. [Valerie Petersen]. "Exhibition at Reuben Gallery", Art News, Nev 
York, vol. 59, December, 1960, p. 16-17. 

26. J. J. "Exhibition at Judson Gallery", Art Neivs, New York. vol. 59, Febru 
ary, 1961, p. 15. 

27. V. P. [Valerie Petersen]. "\'arieties at Reuben". Art Neivs, New York, vol 
59. February, 1961. p. 16-17. 

28. AUoway, Lawrence. Jim Dine— New Paintings. New ^ork. Martha Jacksor 
Galler^^ 1962. 

29. "The Smiling Workman". Time. New ^ork. February 2. 1962. 

30. J. J. [Jill Johnston]. "Exhibition at Jackson Gallery". Art Neivs, New 
York. vol. 60, January, 1962. p. 12-13. 

31. Jouffroy, Alain. Jim Dine, Milan. Galleria delTAriete, 1962. 

32. Fahlstrom, Oyvind. Jim Dine, New York. Sidney Janis Gallery, 1963. 



JA.SPEK JOHN'S 

Statements 

33. 16 Americans, New \ork. The Museum of Modern Art. 1959. p. 22. 

34. Scrap. New York. December 23. 1960. no. 2. p. 4. 

Reviews 

35. F. P. [Fairfield Porter]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Art News, New 
York, vol. 56, January, 1958, p. 20. 

.36. R. R. "First one-man show at Castelli Gallery". Arts, New York, vol. 32, 
January, 1958, p. 54-55. 

37. Washburn. Gordon B. "Pittsburgh bicentennial international: the pria 
awards", Carnegie Magazine, Pittsburgh, vol. 32, December. 1958, p. 331 

38. "Jasper Johns and Leonor Fini at the Galerie Rive Droite". Apollo, Lon- 
don, vol. 69, March. 1959, p. 90. 

39. Schneider. Pierre. "Art News from Paris". Art News, New York. vol. 58, 
March, 1959. p. 48. 

40. I. H. S. [Irving H. Sandler]. "Exhibitiiui at Castelli Gallery", Art Neivs, 
New York, vol. 58. February. 1960. p. 15. 

41. D. J. [Donald Judd]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Arts. New York, 
vol. 34. March, 1960, p. 57-58. 

42. I. H. S. [Irving H. Sandler]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Art News, 
New York, vol.^60. March. 1961. p. 15. 

43. S. T. [Sidney Tillim]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Arts, New York, 
vol. 35. March. 1961. p. 51-52. 

44. I^andler. I. 11. "New ^ork Letter". Art International. Zurich, vol. 5. no. 3, 
April 5, 1961, p. 41. 



45. Ashbery, John. "Paris Summer Notes", Art International, Zurich, vol. 5, 
no. 8, October 20, 1%1, p. 91. 

46. Ashbery, John. "Paris Notes", Art International, Zurich, vol. 6, no. 10, 
December 20, 1962, p. 51. 

Articles 

47. Rosenblum, Robert. "Jasper Johns". Art International, Ziirich, vol. 4, no. 
7, September 25, 1960. p. 75-77. 

48. Restany, Pierre. "Jasper Johns and the metaphysic of the commonplace", 
Cimaise, Paris, no. 55, September-October, 1961, p. 90-97. 

49. Rosenblum, Robert. "Les oeuvres recentes de Jasper Johns", XX Siecle, 
Paris, no. 24, February, 1962, p. 19-20. 

50. Steinberg, Leo. "Contemporary Art and the Plight of its Public". Harpers, 
New York. vol. 224, no. 1342, March. 1962, p. 31-39. 

51. Steinberg. Leo. "Jasper Johns", Metro, Milan, no. 4-5, [1962] p. 80-109. 

52. Greenberg, Clement. "After Abstract Expressionism", Art International, 
Ziirich, vol. 6, no. 8. October 25, 1962, p. 25. 

ROY HfHTEXSTEI!V 

Review's 

53. J. F. [James Fitzsimmons]. "First New York Show, Heller Gallery", Art 
Digest, New York, vol. 26, January 1. 1952, p. 20. 

54. F. P. [Fairfield Porter]. "Exhibition at Heller's", Art News, New York, 
I vol. 50, January, 1952, p. 67. 

i55. S. G. "Exhibition at Heller Gallery". Art Digest, New York. vol. 27, Feb- 
ruary 1, 1953, p. 18. 

,56. F. P. [Fairfield Porter]. "Exhibition of oils and watercolors at Heller's", 
Art News, New York, vol. 51, February, 1953. p. 74. 

57. R. R. [Robert Rosenblum]. "Exhibition of paintings. Heller Gallery", Art 
Digest, New York, vol. 29, February 15, 1954, p. 22. 

58. F. P. [Fairfield Porter]. "Lichtenstein's adult primer; exhibition at Heller 
Gallery", Art News, New York, vol. 58, March, 19.54. p. 18, 63. 

59. M. S. [Martica Sawin]. "Exhibition at Heller Gallery", Arts, New York, 
vol. 31, January, 1957, p. 52. 

60. J. S. [James Schuyler]. "Exhibition of oils at Heller Gallery", Art News, 
New York, vol. 55, February, 1957, p. 12. 

61. H. D. M. [Helen De Mott]. "Exhibition at Riley", Arts. New Y.rk. vol. 33, 
June, 1959, p. 66. 

52. D. J. [Donald Judd]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Arts, New York, vol. 
36, April, 1%2, p. 52. 

63. N. E. [Natalie Edgar]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery", Art News, New 
York, vol. 61, March, 1962, p. 14. 

ROHERT RAI *>irHE>RER4; 

Statements 

64. "Is Today's Artist with or Against the Past?". Art News, New York. June, 
1958, p. 46. 

65. 16 Americans, New York, The Museum of Modern Art, 1959. p. 58, [ex- 
hibition catalogue]. 

66. "Un 'Misfit' de la Peinture New Yorkaise se Confesse", Arts, Paris, May 
1-16, 1961. 

67. Blesh. Rudi and Janis, Harriet. Collage, Philadelphia, Chilton. 1962, 
p. 265-267. 



Exhibition Cataios^iies aiiti Revi<>^v»« 

68. D. S. [Dorothy Seckler]. "Exhibition at Betty Parsons Gallery", Art News, . 
New York, vol. 50, May, 1951. p. 59. 

69. D. A. [Dore Ashton]. "Exhibition at Stable Gallery"', Art Digest, New. 
York, vol. 27, September. 1953. p. 21. 

70. F. O'H. [Frank O'Hara]. "Exhibition at Egan Gallery", Art Neivs, New 
York, vol. .53. Januan\ 1955. p. 47. 

71. Steinberg. Leo. "Month in Revie\v"". Arts. New York. vol. 30. January, 1956. 
p. 46. 

72. J. A. [John Ashbery]. "Five Shows out of the Ordinary". Art News, New 
York, vol. 57, March, 1958, p. 40. 

73. R. R. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Arts. New York. vol. 32, March, ^ 

1958, p. 61. 

74. Kramer. Hilton. "Month in Review". Arts, New York. vol. 33, February, , 

1959, p. 48. 

75. 1. H. S. [Irving H. Sandler]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Art News, 
New \ork. vol. 59. April. 1960. p. 14. 

76. S. T. [Sidney Tillim]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Arts, New York, 
vol. 34, May, 1960, p. 58. 

77. L. C. [Lawrence Campbell]. "Exhibition of Drawings at Castelli Gallery", 
Art News, New York, vol. 59, January, 1961, p. 3. 

78. ^L S. [Martica Sawin]. "Exhibition of Drawings at Castelli Gallery", Arts, 
New York, vol. 35, January, 1%1, p. 56. 

79. Hess, Thomas B. "Collage as an Historical Method". Art News, New York, 
vol. 60, November, 1961, p. 31. 

80. J. K. [Jack Kroll]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery", Art Neivs, New York, 
vol. 60. December, 1961. p. 12. 

81. Arnason, H. H. American Abstract Expressionists and Imagists, New \ork. 
The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. 1961. 

82. Dorfles, Gillo. Rauschenberg. Milan. Galleria dell'Ariete, October, 1961. 

83. Seitz. William C. Art of Assemblage. New York. The Museum of Modern 
Art, 1961. p. 23. 25, 72, 74. 89. 

84. D. J. [Donald Judd]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Arts, New York, vol. 
36, January, 1962, p. 39. 

85. Melville, Robert. "American \'anguard Exhibition". Architectural Review, 
Westminster, vol. 131, May, 1962. 

86. Nordland, Gerald. "Neo-Dada goes West". Arts, New York, May-June, 
1962, p. 102. 

87. Dylaby (Dynamic Laboratory), Amsterdam. Stedelijk Museum. August, 
1962. 

Arli«>le!« 

88. Hess. Thomas B. "U.S. Painting: Some Recent Directions", Art News 
Annual, New York, vol. 25, 1956, p. 76. 

89. Legrand. Francine Claire. "La Peinture et la Sculpture au defi". Quad- 
rum, Brussels, no. 7, 1959, p. 23. 

90. Myers. David. "Robert Rauschenberg" in B. H. Friedman, ed., School of 
New York: Some Younger Artists, New York. Grove, 1959, p. 54-59. 

91. Hamilton, George Heard. "Painting in Contemporary America", Burling- 
ton Magazine, London, vol. 102. no. 686. May. 1960, p. 192. 

92. Ashton. Dore. "Plus <;a change . . .". Cimaise, Paris, no. 52, March-April, 
1961, p. 50. 

93. Choay, Frangoise. "Dada. Neo-Dada et Rauschenberg". Art International, 
Ziirich, vol. 5, no. 8, October 20, 1961, p. 82. 



94. Ashton. Dore. "Raiischenberg"< 34 Illustrations for Dante's Inferno", 
Metro, Milan, no. 2. [1961] p. 52. 

95. Cage. John. "On Robert Ratischenberg. Artist and his \^ ork". Metro 
Milan, no. 2. [1961] p. 36. 

96. Dorfles. Gillo. "Rauschenberg. or Obsolescence Defeated". Metro. Milan, 
no. 2. [1961] p. 32. 

97. Seitz. \^ illiam C. "Assemblage: Problems and Issues', Art International, 
Ziirich, vol. 6, no. 1. February. 1962. 

98. Alloway, Lawrence. "Assembling a ^<irld between Art and Life". The 
Second Coming, New York, vol. 1. no. 4. June. 1962. 



JA^IES H05SE>«|I ItiiT 



Reviews 



99. G. R. S. [G. R. Swenson]. "Exhibitinn at Green Gallery". Art Netvs, New 
York, vol. 60, February, 1962, p. 20. 

100. L. C. [Lawrence Campbell]. "Exhibition at Roko Gallery". Art Neu's, 
New York. vol. 61. March. 1962. p. 54. 

101. .S. T. [Sidney Tillim]. "Exhibition at Green Gallery", Arts, New York. vul. 
36, March. 1962. p. 46. 

I 

I Articles 

102. "The Growing Cult of Marihn". Lite. New "inrk. vol. 54. no. 4. January 25, 
1963, p. 89-91. 

103. (Jhisker. Irwin. "\^ hat Next in Art". Horizon. New \nrk. vol. 5. no. 1. 1963. 



AXnY >VAKHOL 



Statements 



104. "New Talent USA: Prints and Drawings". Art in America. New York. vol. 
50. no. 1, 1962, p. 42. 

Exhibition Cataiognes anil Kevie^vs 

105. Stanton. Suzv. On W arhol's "CampbelTs Soup Can". New York. Stable 
Gallery, 1962. 

106. G. R. S. [G. R. Swenson]. "Exhibition at Stable Gallery". Art News, New 
York, vol. 61, November. 1962. p. 15. 

107. D. J. [Donald Judd]. "Exhibition at Stable Gallery". Arts, New York. vol. 
37, January, 1963. p. 49. 

108. Fried. Michael. "Ne\^ York Letter". Art International. Ziirich. vol. 6. no. 
10, December, 1962, p. 56-57. 

Articles 

109. Ferebee. Ann. "Packaging: Portrait of a Soup Can". Industrial Design. 
New York, vol. 9. no. 9. 1962. 



STAFF 



Director 
Secretary 

Curator 

Associate Curator 
Assistant Curator 

Public Affairs 

Membership 

Registrar 

Conservation 

Photography- 



Thomas M. Messer 
Cynthia Fay 

Lawrence Alloiiay 
Louise Averill Svendsen 
Daniel Robbins 

Evelyn von Ripper 

Sally Ale Lean 

Arlene B. Dellis 

Orrin Riley and Saul Fuerstein 

Robert E. Mates 



Business Administrator 
Administrative Assistant 
Office Manager 



Glenn H. Easton, Jr. 
f'iola H. Gleason 
Agnes R. Connollv 



Building Superintendent Peter G.Loggin 
Head Guard George J. Sauve 



Exhibition '63/2 March 14-June 12, 1963 

3,000 copies of this catalogue, 

designed by Herbert Matter, 

have been printed by Sterlip Press, Inc., New York, 

in March 1963 

for the Trustees of The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation 

on the occasion of the exhibition 

''Six Painters and the Object" 






THE SOLOMON R. GUGGEBTHEIM MUSEUM 




1071 FIFTH AVEXVE, NEW YORK 28, N.Y. 




t 
¥