Jean-Michel Basquiat: Now’s The Time

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava (except *)

Part 1 of a series.

It’s hard to believe that not even 40 years have passed since Jean-Michel Basquiat burst upon the Art scene, (after his career as part of the legendary graffiti duo SAMO©), when the month long The Times Square Show opened 39 years ago on June 1, 1980 at 201 West 41st Street. Just eight years, one month and eleven days later, on August 12, 1988, he would be found dead from a heroin overdose at the infamous age of 27 at his home and studio at 57 Great Jones Street.

What appears to be an anonymously applied silhouette of the late Artist looms large here at the one time stable at 57 Great Jones Street, NYC, seen in May, 2019. Back in the day, it was owned by Andy Warhol who rented it to Jean-Michel Basquiat, who lived here from 1983 until he died here on August 12, 1988. His studio was on the ground floor, his living quarters upstairs. By the way? In an interview with Becky Johnston and Tamra Davis, Jean-Michel Basquiat said, “I don’t really consider myself to be a graffiti artist, you know?1” That might surprise those attempting to cover every square inch of the building now.

He didn’t live to see the Art market crash (unrelatedly) the following year, from which it has since recovered and grown many, many fold larger than it was during the bubble of his day, nor did he live to see the end of the controversy around him and his Art. It’s never subsided-

He Was Crazy, 1979, Mixed media on canvas, all of 5 x 3 inches, the earliest and smallest work on view at Jean-Michel Basquiat / Xerox.

-Robert Hughes titled his obituary “Requiem for a Featherweight.”

-“He was essentially a talentless hustler…,” according to Hilton Kramer in a piece titled,  “He had everything but talent” in 1997.

-“Come on…Basquiat? Really? Sort of an art hoax. Just the incoherent rantings of a tortured soul obsessed with drugs and a deluded quest for acknowledgment, which he did achieve. Doesn’t make it good.” A direct quote from the comments more recently here.

Yes, there are still plenty of haters hating on the work on Jean-Michel Basquiat.

The now infamous cover of The New York Times Magazine from February 10, 1985 by Lizzie Himmel shows the Artist in his studio. The article, by Cathleen McGuigan, included a look at the Artist that seems surprisingly balanced today given all the controversy surrounding him at the time.”The extent of Basquiat’s success would no doubt be impossible for an artist of lesser gifts,” she wrote.

On the other hand, there are the countless other members of the Art viewing public for who Jean-Michel Basquiat’s work has continued to speak since he started making it, and Painting that speaks to people over time is what comes to be accepted as “Art” a few centuries on it seems to me. Yet, the Art viewing public is not the only group divided on the work of Mr. Basquiat. On page 44 of the book, The Art of Jean-Michel Basquiat. Fred Hoffman, one of the curators of the 2005 Brooklyn Museum Basquiat Retrospective and a man who produced prints with Jean-Michel Basquiat (J-MB henceforth) for 2 years, writes, “Herbert and Leonore Schorr offered the Museum of Modern Art the opportunity to choose a painting from their collection as a gift. The museum replied that having a painting by Jean-Michel Basquiat was not even worth the cost of the storage.” On May 26, 2017, this quote appears in the New York Times, “‘It’s an artist who we missed,’ said Ann Temkin, the chief curator of paintings and sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art, which does not own a single Basquiat work2. ‘We didn’t bring his paintings into the collection during his life or thereafter3.’”

6 year old Jean-Michel Basquiat’s membership card to the Brooklyn Museum. It’s not well known that J-MB was an avid museum goer, attending the Brooklyn Museum and later, frequenting The Met with his friend Fab5Freddy. Credit 2015 The Estate of Jean-Michel Basquiat/ADAGP, Paris, via ARS, New York; Hiroko Masuike, via The New York Times.

In fact, as I write this? Of NYC’s “Big five” museums, only the Whitney owns a Basquiat Painting- they own 3, according to their online collection catalogue (none are currently on view as of my last visit, this past month. Also, I should note that among the 5 Manhattan museums The New Museum has no permanent collection. By the way, The Brooklyn Museum owns one print, seen below, and a Drawing.)

None of those feelings were mine though I wasn’t a “fan” of the work of Jean-Michel Basquiat. Then, as now, I was focused on Artists I felt were overlooked. My feeling in the 1980s was that too much money was being spent on, and too much attention given to, Contemporary Artists with no track record. Artists whose work hadn’t stood the test of time, hadn’t stood up to critical, and historical, assessment, whose work wasn’t in major museums, and on and on. By default, though not in particular, that included the work of J-MB. Still, I’ve always kept an open mind. There are very very few Artists or Musicians who’s work I will never, ever love- no matter what. But, there are some. Hitler was a painter- lowercase “p” for once- remember?

May 12, 2005. The only picture I was able to get (quickly) just outside the Basquiat Retrospective at the Brooklyn Museum, since pictures were not permitted inside. Back of the Neck, 1983, Screenprint, right, seen in the lobby and the show’s poster to the left. Glare was a problem in 2005, too. You can see the show in official shots, here.

So, on May 12, 2005, I went to that Brooklyn Museum Basquiat Retrospective that Mr. Hoffman was a curator of. When I got home, I wrote, “His work still doesn’t speak to me, beyond the fact that I so admire his freedom. The show was very well done.” I also came away struck by his love of Jazz. Anyone who loves classic Jazz is OK with me. I also remember being surprised at how prolific he was in such a short time, which reminded me of Van Gogh, who’s Painting career lasted only about a year or so longer. Looking back on it now? My head was elsewhere. I was drawing on a daily basis in a representational style, and so I was lost studying Ingres, Hopper, Richard Estes and Rembrandt, who I had recently gone to Chicago to see a show of. But? Having bought one at the show, I began wearing T-shirts with Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Art on them. His work just fits walking around NYC.

Untitled, 1980, the white on yellow original of which is in the Whitney Museum’s collection, is a work that was shown at New York/New Wave in 1981 at MoMA PS1, now appears on a Uniqlo SPRZ NY Women’s T, seen in June, 2019.

Slight digression- I’m not for giving a free ad here, but I must give props to Uniqlo for putting the Art and cover Art of so many great Artists and Musicians4 on their SPRZ NY line of T shirts. Some of the Art line is co-sponsored by MoMA. In turn, Uniqlo pays for the free Friday nights at the MoMA, which countless thousands attend each week. Uniqlo has continually featured J-MB’s work on their clothes, in spite of the problematic history of Basquiat and MoMA. Fred Hoffman in The Art of J-MB (P.175, footnote 2) relates this story about Untitled, 1983, a limited edition print of 10 copies he did with J-MB- “Untitled was given to the Museum of Modern Art in 1984. After it was in the catalogue for the MoMA 1984 exhibition An International Survey of Painting and Sculpture, the work was completely overlooked by the museum, and excluded when the museum first put its collection online. It was not exhibited in the galleries until 2015. Only with the collaboration between MoMA and Uniqlo beginning in 2014, when a cropped image of Untitled was used as the signature image for the marketing of the ‘SPRZ’ collection of iconic artist images applied to clothes, did the museum finally recognize the work as part of its collection.” 2015! To this day? I still wear Uniqlo J-MB T’s, even though I wasn’t a “fan.” End digression.

Jean-Michel Basquiat appears to be admiring  Nick’s Basquiat tattoo in one of Alexis Adler’s Photos of him at Bishop Gallery. Nick is an Art Teacher.

Ok. So, who’s “right?” The haters, the non-believers, and the NYC museums, who, unanimously, minus one, passed on acquiring his Paintings? Or, the incalculable number of members of the Art loving public to who the Art of J-MB speaks, perhaps, like that of few other Artists today, judging by how often I see others wearing his Art and icons, along with the innumerable Artists who’ve been influenced by his work, and those few collectors who bought up the bulk of his best work shortly after he created it?

All I can show you- pictures were not allowed in the show.

Fast forward. On May 7th, 2019, I went to see Picasso’s Women at Gagosian on Madison. It’s one of those shows that, though small, reminds you, as if you need to be, why Picasso was one of the towering creative geniuses of 20th Century Art, in my view. Each and every work is in a different style, and most were masterpieces. Yet, it’s a show that will only live on in the memory of those who saw it as no photos were permitted. I walked out through the building’s lobby, my head spinning. Just before I exited, next to the front door, I spotted this-

Minutes after I saw this poster my mind began to change.

Jean-Michel Basquiat / Xerox. I asked the guard where it was. “On 3,” he replied. Still recovering from Picasso, I pondered if I could clear my head enough for about 5 seconds, then I went back in and went up to Nahmad Contemporary on 3.

3 hours later, I left, realizing I’d never really seen the work of Jean-Michel Basquiat before. I had missed it. In Xerox, the term “Painter,” all of a sudden feels too small, even for an Artist notorious for getting paint everywhere- including on his multi-thousand dollar Armani suits, as can be seen in the infamous cover of The New York Times Magazine shown earlier.

But, this is a show that features his under-known multimedia works that include photocopies- color Xeroxes being one of his favorite tools, one he loved so much, he bought his own color Xerox machine. (I’m sure there are many others, but right now? I can’t think of many Artists who made color Xeroxes as big a part of their work- particularly Painters.) As a result, here images recur- his own images, exclusively, which is down right refreshing in this age of copious “reappropriation.” Drawings or Paintings that the Artist has Xeroxed and pasted onto canvas which he then proceeded to add to and modify in any number of ways, including Paint on.

Installation view. I was completely unprepared for the depth and endless detail in this body of work I had previously not known.

As a result, in Jean-Michel Basquiat / Xerox, we see J-MB the collagist as much as we do the writer, or the Painter. Suddenly, his work looks different. The figures recede, words come to the fore. Many, many words.

Odours of Punt, 1983, Acrylic, oilstick and Xerox collage on canvas, 40 x 83 inches

Odours of Punt, 1983, was one of the first works in Xerox and it was one of the first works to get to me. A “non-fan” up to that moment, something clicked in me when I saw this. In it, J-MB borrows Painting techniques from all over Art History on his way to making something…else. The history of Painting from 1947, on, was staring me in the face, to the left, while something entirely new and different was vying for my attention on the right. On the left, I felt Clyfford Still being channeled underneath Cy Twombly and Jean Dubuffet yet what he created is something distinctly his own- a remarkable thing in itself. And extremely abstract, at least to my eyes. While its right side felt like it was coming from another world, made up of fragmentary images. Neither side would seem to “go” with the other at first glance, yet, somehow, as my eye and brain moved between the two “worlds” of the work, they manage to hold together almost miraculously well. This is something I’ve felt in the presence of the greatest works of Abstraction, including those by, say, Kandinsky, Jackson Pollock from 1947 to 52, Mark Rothko, Jack Whitten, and Mark Bradford today. It’s incredibly hard to do, which is evidenced by the fact that almost none of them (who’s careers have completed), except for Kandinsky, (who was 77 when he passed away, and Painting abstractly for about 35 years), were seemingly able to do it indefinitely. Jackson Pollock seemed “to lose his fastball” in his last few years and his style began to change, and Mark Rothko lost…his life (I’m not saying that’s related to his Art). Perhaps these are only coincidences. J-MB didn’t make it to 30 years of age.

Detail of the upper center.

On the right, equally abstract to me was what seemed to be a new creative language. “BIRD OF GOD,” “VENUS VII,” “COSTOXIPHOID,””BLUE RIBBON,” and on and on, accompanied by innumerable drawings and diagrams. Man, there’s A LOT to see in this! Even now, almost 4 months later? I feel like I’ve only begun to look at it. For only one example- Costoxiphoid is a ligament that connects the ribs. At age 6, J-MB was injured in a car accident. While he was hospitalized (his spleen, i.e. his “filter,” was removed), his mother brought him a copy of Gray’s Anatomy. It would be a sourcebook for his Art for the rest of his life, and possibly here for “1. Cranial Cavity, 2. Facial,…” to the left of center. The title (assuming this is the Artist’s title- many of his works were “named” by others) is also an enigma. “Odours” referring to “any property detected by the olfactory system,” per Merriam-Webster, and “punt” have multiple meanings, including “an open flat bottom boat with squared ends.”

Untitled, left, and Peter and the Wolf, both Acrylic, lipstick and Xerox collage on canvas, both 1985, both 110 x 114 inches, seen from about 15 feet away, the figures in these pieces are almost entirely swallowed up by everything else.

Walking through Xerox, it was impossible not to begin to understand that J-MB‘s work is deep. Deeper than just about anyone has even written about so far. These works contain a staggering, almost obsessive, amount of detail, and details that swallow up the figures, one of the things the Artist is most famous for. Figuring out what’s going on in all of this detail is going to take 2 things- #1, an expert, most likely one who knew the Artist, or #2- A long time.

Not having known Jean-Michel Basquiat, I, like those born after August 12, 1988, can only look at his work and see what it says to me. In a short time, my looking thus far has given rise to some threads that I am going to continue to study.

First among them is Jazz. Being a former Musician, who produced Jazz records and wrote for a national Jazz magazine for 4 years, perhaps I am pre-disposed to spotting them. Fair enough. While many people talk about J-MB and Hip-hop, looking at the work in this show, I failed to see even one reference to it. This struck me, particularly because one thing that stood out to me at Xerox to the point that I couldn’t overlook it was the CONTINUAL, and extraordinary number of, references to Jazz- be it Jazz Musicians, records or song titles. In fact, they were so prevailing, you’d have to look hard to find even one work here without a Jazz reference somewhere in it (which I may, or may not, have).

Untitled, 1985, Xerox collage mounted on panels, 48 x 85 inches.

In Untitled, 1985, a collection of color Xeroxes mounted on panels, the Jazz references are almost overflowing.

Almost right in the middle of Untitled is this portrait of Miles Davis, playing, or holding, his horn.

Fittingly, smack dab in the middle of it is this portrait of trumpeter and bandleader Miles Davis. Which reminds me of this still from a Miles Davis video from the late 1950s-

Miles Davis performing “So What” in a 1958 film called The Sound of Miles Davis in a group that also included the great John Coltrane.

And then there’s the work shown in the Xerox poster, King of the Zulus, 1984-5. “King of the Zulus” is, also, the name of a Louis Armstrong and his Hot Five record from 1926.

The work from the poster seen in the flesh. King of the Zulus, 1984-5, Acrylic, oilstick and xerox collage on paper mounted on canvas, 86 x 68 inches.

Detail of the lower left corner of King of the Zulus. This gives a little idea of the depth of what’s going on in this work.

The lower left corner of King of the Zulus includes a drawing of another Louis Armstrong record, “Potato Head Blues,” which some feel is at the top of the list of his finest recordings (those are some mighty brave folks. Miles Davis once said that Louis played everything you can possibly play on the trumpet. He would know. I’d never dare a guess at “greatest.” It doesn’t exist.). In his 1979 movie Manhattan, Woody Allen (who is also a Jazz Musician) has his character say that “Potato Head Blues” is “one of the reasons that life is worth living.”

Red Joy, 1984, Oilstick and Xerox collage on canvas, 86 x 68 inches.

Later, I came across the transcription of an interview with J-MB by Becky Johnston and Tamra Davis in which Becky Johnston asks him-

“BJ: What music do you like?

J-MB: Bebop’s I guess my favourite music. But I don’t listen to it all the time; I listen to everything. But I have to say bebop’s my favourite.”

Detail of the lower right corner of Red Joy. That’s a portrait of the great saxophonist and composer Charlie “Bird” Parker, with a musical quote from his composition “Red Cross” on the top.

“Bebop” was a revolutionary, new, style of Jazz that Bird, Dizzy Gillespie, Thelonious Monk and Charlie Christian developed in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Louis Armstrong predated and outlived Bebop (which peaked in the 1940s), so it’s obvious that J-MB listened to Jazz from other periods as well as Bebop. Regarding the work that might omit a Jazz reference? Interestingly, look as I might, I didn’t find any Jazz references in Odours of Punt, seen earlier, rare among the works in Xerox. Unless the repeated “BIRD OF GOD,” near the upper left is a reference to Charlie “Bird” Parker. What else could it mean? My guess is that it is- until an expert comes forward. When he died, it’s reported in Pheobe Hoban’s biography that crates of Jazz records belonging to the Artist were thrown out, along with a carton of copies of Ross Russell’s 1973 Parker bio, Bird Lives!5.

Jean-Michel Basquiat holding a copy of The Subterraneans by Jack Kerouac. He was reported seen carrying one around in Pheobe Hoban’s biography of the Artist. *Photographer unknown.

As for the second thread, the proliferation of words in the works included in Jean-Michel Basquiat / Xerox got me to look closer than I ever did before. Then, in my research, I discovered something interesting. Jean-Michel Basquiat had a love of the Beats. At various points he is reported to be continually reading William Burroughs Naked Lunch (a picture of him with a copy of it was taken by Alexis Adler was shown earlier- the picture with Nick’s tattoo, in which Naked Lunch is shown mounted on the wall behind J-MB) and Junky, as is reported in Pheobe Hoban’s Basquiat: A Quick Killing In Art, (eBook P.75). Later on, he is reported to be carrying around Jack Kerouac’s The Subterraneans, as is seen above. These struck me. Then, I discovered something more. J-MB knew both William Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg, and can be seen with both here! He was also Photographed by Allen Ginsberg, a terrific and still somewhat overlooked Photographer in his own right. While others make cases for J-MB being a member of this or that “group,” how crazy is it to make a case for J-MB as a descendant of the Beats? There’s more direct evidence for it than there is for some of the claims I’ve seen. Some have made the case for J-MB the Poet. From his SAMO© days to what we see in his Notebooks, he does have one of the most unique ways with the English language of any writer known to me.

Detail of the lower left section of Untitled, 1987, Acrylic, oil stick, and Xerox collage on canvas, 100 x 114 inches, reveals lists of song titles, under two semi-circular Drawings of record labels.

It’s become apparent to me that the cult of personality surrounding the Artist, and his fame (which, he longed for while he was homeless early on, and chased later, which makes him, at least partially responsible for) has, also, served to delay the serious critical assessment of his work. I’m not saying there isn’t any. There is. There are some very fine essays in the catalogues for the shows done so far, beginning with Richard Marshall’s excellent piece, “Repelling Ghosts,” in the catalogue for the very first J-MB Retrospective, at the Whitney Museum in 1992, and, as I said, Fred Hoffman has done a yeoman’s job of pointing the way to where Basquiat scholarship may be finally going, but the need for this is most urgent in my opinion, before the work is left to those who did not personally know the Artist. From what I’ve read thus far, Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Art was best “understood” by those who knew him. Some of them have already passed away, taking with them whatever they didn’t write down or share in interviews about the Artist and his work. Since the real critical assessment of his work has taken so long to get underway, there is, it seems to me, a real danger that if this continues to happen, J-MB‘s Art will remain an eternal mystery, like say, Vermeer’s, is to us today. Part of this is due to the fact that museums have been slow accepting J-MB‘s work, or even borrowing it to mount shows of it. Museum shows generally result in new scholarship published in the accompanying catalogs. The pace of museum shows has picked up over the past decade, both in the US and in Europe, but, in my opinion, when it comes to actually studying the work, the scholarship has been spotty so far. So? Anyone delving into the work of J-MB for the first time, as I am, is left with a lot of biography and a little Art criticism to fall back on- no matter how many books you see. As a result? I was largely left to make of it what I can- like viewers who weren’t alive in J-MB‘s time are.

Untitled, 1985-6, in front of Embittered, 1986, Graphite, paint and Xerox collage on wood.

Also apparent from some of the pieces written thus far that people fall all over themselves trying to “claim” J-MB for this school or that, from so-called “primitivism” to so-called “expressionism” to so-called “neo-expressionism,” to (more recently) so-called “conceptualism”- none of which J-MB, himself, used for his work, which is the only thing that matters, in my opinion, to hip-hop.

Jay Z, who did not know him, said this in his autobiography, Decoded, published in 2010, on page 95-“…People always wanted to stick B in some camp or another, to past on some label that would be stable and make it easy to treat him like a commodity. But he was elusive. His eye was always on a bigger picture, not on whatever corner people tried to frame him in. But mostly his was probably on himself, on using his art to get what he wanted, to say what he wanted, to communicate his truth. B shook any easy definition. He wasn’t afraid of wanting to succeed to get right, to be famous…”

The visual evidence in the work itself shows me, at least, something different from all the claims I mentioned before Jay Z. Jean-Michel Basquiat belongs in one “box,” and one “box” only- the “Jean-Michel Basquiat box.” Though he definitely belongs to the continuum of Art History, as Richard Marshall lays out in detail in his excellent essay in the Whitney Retrospective Catalogue, which probably surprises many, Jean-Michel Basquiat is unique unto himself. Period.

Kokosolo, 1983, Acrylic, oilstick, and Xerox on canvas, 43.3 x 82.6 inches.

Meanwhile, back at Xerox, I love the use of paint here. Jean-Michel Basquiat’s work is about layers and here it’s hard to know what’s on top and what’s on the bottom layer. J-MB spoke many times about his use of crowding out words and letters and said one of the reasons he did it was to make the viewer look closer. I can’t help wonder if he’s doing the same with the yellow here- making us look closer at what’s under the yellow. 

Galileo Galilei, 1983, Acrylic, oilstick, and Xerox on canvas, 78.75 x 51 inches.

In Galileo Galilei, 1983, I was struck by a number of things, first, from a distance, the circles, ostensibly the outline of the moon. But the circle is quartered, which is not like the moon. It’s something done in graphs and in Drawing. That reminded me- Drawing a circle is something that has a long and legendary history in Art. The great ancient Greek Painter, Apelles, and later the Renaissance master, Giotto, both used their ability to draw perfect circles freehand as calling cards.

Rembrandt, Self Portrait with Two Circles, c.1665, *Kenwood House, London.

I am one of those who believes Rembrandt followed suit, leaving his own “calling card” as their heir in his Self-Portrait with Two Circles.

Detail, or rather, Details. Note the multiple lines that make up the circles and the repeated list. I recognize these part words as being a list of songs from Charlie Parker’s Savoy recordings because I have these records. “Koko Take 1,” and so on. As for everything else going on in this work? I’m hoping someone who knew J-MB will come forward and discuss it.

Here, we happen to have two, or parts of three, drawn circles. Was J-MB aware of the Apelles/Rembrandt circles? 

This body of work is an example of one of the last vestiges of reproduction in Art before the digital age took hold. Seeing this now does really make it feel like more than 35 years have passed, yet, they don’t look dated. Nor do the beginnings of this work, the “(Anti) Product Postcards” he created, many with Jennifer Stein, who speaks about them here.

Early on, J-MB created Postcards, including these, many hand labelled “(Anti) Product” on the verso, which he sold for $1 each. Andy Warhol bought one when J-MB first met him while he was eating at a restaurant with Henry Geldzahler. They are among the earliest examples I’ve seen of J-MB’s collage. Some of these were collaborations with Jennifer Stein.

I returned to see Jean-Michel Basquiat / Xerox twice more since it proved to be a “personal rosetta stone” into the Art of J-MB. It was an extraordinary gallery show in many ways. The 33 works on view that ranged from He Was Crazy from 1979, shown earlier, through 1987, covering all but the final year of his Painting career and his life. Alas, even in three visits, I can only hope to scratch the surface layer of all that lies in these work by Jean-Michel Basquiat. But, there was something else. Alone with the security guard in the show for most of the 7 or 8 hours I spent there over 3 visits, I was struck by something else.

Silence.

A silence that was singing in a way that would bring a smile to John Cage’s face. If there’s been too much of any one thing around the work of Jean-Michel Basquiat to this point, it’s noise. A byproduct of his tragic death far too young is there are no more “Page 6” scandals, no more gossip, no more rumors. Only the work remains, hanging silently in these rooms. That silence said it’s time to let that Art speak for itself. And it’s time that those who knew and/or worked with the Artist to share what they know, and provide whatever insights they have before those, too, are lost forever.

Current and older books on Jean-Michel Basquiat and his work. Of these, the catalogs for the J-MB Retrospectives at the Brooklyn Museum (first, upper left) and the Whitney Museum, 2nd from left, front, were the two I referred to most often. The Unseen Notebooks (4th from the right, top) is also excellent. Fred Hoffman’s books are available for download from his website and are recommended. While it contains images of the most works available in print, I found the new Taschen XL, far right, problematic. A catalog for Alexis Adler’s traveling show, seen bottom left, of her collection is a revelation.

After I left Xerox for the last time, I, too felt the clock ticking. I immediately launched a deep dive into Basquiat monographs, in and out of print, and read everything I could get my hands on. As my research began, I quickly came upon a startling fact- Jean-Michel Basquiat: Xerox (which ran from March 12 through June 1st) is one of no less than SIX shows of Jean-Michel Basquiat’s work, or pertaining to the Artist, going on in the NYC vicinity in 2019!

The other five are-
Jean-Michel Basquiat at The Brant Foundation, March 6 – May 14th
The 12th Street Experiment: Photography of Jean-Michel Basquiat By Alexis Adler at Bishop on Bedford, Brooklyn, May 3 – June 13th
Lee Jaffe: Jean-Michel Basquiat at Eva Presenhuber, June 28th – July 28th
Basquiat x Warhol at The School/Jack Shainman Gallery, Kinderhook, NY, June 1 – September 7th
Basquiat’s Defacement: The Untold Story at the Guggenheim Museum, June 21st – November 6th
and…two Paintings from the collaboration of Jean-Michel Basquiat and Andy Warhol, along with ephemera from their collaboration, were on view in Andy Warhol at the Whitney Museum earlier this year, which I wrote about, here.

First? I wondered- Why six shows now?

Jean-Michel Basquiat was born on December 22, 1960 and died 31 years ago on August 12, 1988. 2020 will be a double anniversary for J-MB- 60 years since he was born, 40 years since The Times Square Show launched his career. 2019? No special significance, as far as I know, four months into my research. The Brant show shares the same curator (and many of the 120 works) with the Jean-Michel Basquiat show at the Foundation Louis Vuitton, Paris, which ended on January 14, 2019. The Brant’s opened on March 6th. So, beyond commemorating a “Basquiat anniversary,” the timing of that show may just have been fortuitous and practical, as in “we’ve got all these works together, why don’t we also show them in the new space in NYC?” As for the timing of the others? I have no idea.

Nola Darling lying on Jean-Michel Basquiat’s grave in She’s Gotta Have It.*

Between these six shows, the total number of works by Basquiat (counting those in collaboration with Andy Warhol) should total slightly more than the 120 shown in that Foundation Louis Vuitton, Paris, show, in addition to Photographs of J-MB by early roommate, Alexis Adler, and Musician and friend, Lee Jaffe. As such, these shows present the opportunity to see the most works by the Artist since the 160 pages from his Notebooks along with other works and some Paintings were shown in the Jean-Michel Basquiat: Unknown Notebooks show at the Brooklyn Museum in 2015, and the most Paintings by the Artist in NYC since that 2005 Basquiat Brooklyn Museum Retrospective. Unlike the “Summer of Rauschenberg,” which I covered extensively in 2017, where the satellite shows “revolved” around MoMA’s Robert Rauschenberg: Among Friends Retrospective, this time, the only museum show in the bunch, Basquiat’s Defacement at the Guggenheim, is a satellite show to the blockbuster Brant Foundation’s (a private organization) first public exhibition- Jean-Michel Basquiat, which included a whopping 70 Paintings and 1 Sculpture, the main act. Given that the vast majority of J-MB‘s best work resides in private collections, this brings home the fact that going forward, unlike with most Artists, the public is going to depend on the generosity of collectors displaying their work to see them, and researchers are going to depend on them to study it.

As a result, I quickly realized after that it might be now or never if I wanted to see a large body of Basquiat’s work and reassess it, and see WHO is “right”- the haters or the believers. With 39 years elapsing since J-MB‘s debut at the Times Square Show, enough time has elapsed to get a bit of perspective. So?

Detail of Now’s The Time, a Painting that looks like the classic 1945 Charlie Parker record of the same name, with “PRKR,” J-MB’s “shorthand” for Bird’s last name.

Now…is INDEED the time. It’s the time for the real assessment of Jean-Michel Basquiat’s Art to take over from the sensational biography. For me? Who knows when I’ll have the opportunity to see this much of his work in NYC again. It might be now, or never. NOW is my time, too.

My thoughts immediately turned to the Brant Foundation’s inaugural show in their new East Village location, Jean-Michel Basquiat, which was up and running and the clock was ticking on its run. NHNYC researcher Kitty, a Basquiat fan since she saw him in person back in the day at the Mudd Clubb, had seen it and gave a glowing report. I began scrambling to get a ticket. No luck online. The show had been completely sold out (though tickets were free) since it opened. Hmmm…HOW to see the most publicized and talked about show in NYC in early 2019? Or, would my glimpse at Xerox of what I had missed remain a lingering tease?

To be continued…

This piece is dedicated to my former friend, grae, who knew J-MB, and to Kitty, who was in the same room with him in the clubs back in the day, and who has patiently accepted his work not speaking to me all these years. My thanks to Nick. 

This is Part 1 of my series on the five Jean-Michel Basquiat shows going on in NYC this year. Part 2 may be found under this one, or here. Part 3 is here

*-Soundtrack for this Post is what else? “Xerox” by Julian Casablancas + The Voidz. If  you’re a Strokes fan, check this out, if you haven’t. Also, it doesn’t sound all that distant from J-MB‘s own band, Grey. Maybe they were an influence.?

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. If you’ve found it worthwhile, you can donate to keep it going & ad-free below. Thank you!

Written & photographed by Kenn Sava for nighthawknyc.com unless otherwise credited.
To send comments, thoughts, feedback or propositions click here.
Click the white box on the upper right for the archives or to search them.
For “short takes” and additional pictures, follow @nighthawk_nyc on Instagram.

Subscribe to be notified of new Posts below. Your information will be used for no other purpose.

 

  1. Here. He repeated this elsewhere as well.
  2. By “work,” I believe they mean a Painting. According to its site, MoMA owns 12 prints and Drawings by Jean-Michel Basquiat. No Paintings.
  3. //www.nytimes.com/1985/02/10/magazine/new-art-new-money.html?searchResultPosition=1
  4. They were the only company in the world to acknowledge the 100th Anniversary of the 1st Jazz record in 2017, though the record in question is not what I call “Jazz,” and featured an astounding array of classic under-known Blue Note Record covers on T shirts.
  5. Both, Pheobe Hoban’s Basquiat: A Quick Killing In Art, eBook P.19

On Painting & Photography

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava (except *)

Note- Robert Frank has been mentioned in many of my pieces over the past 3 years of my “deep-dive” into Modern & Contemporary Photography, a realm that he had a seminal role in creating with the publication of  The Americans. When the sad news came that he had passed away at 94 on September 9th, I was finishing yet another piece that he is a part of- one that summarizes some of my thoughts on Painting & Photography these past three years, and also marks the 60th anniversary of the American publication of The Americans. Too far along to change, I’ve left it as it was, and added this as my “R.I.P.”  That Robert Frank was, and remains, one of the most influential figures in Art of our time was already testified to within.

Subtitle- “On Rembrandt’s 350th, and Robert Frank’s 60th”

Rembrandt, Self-Portrait, 1660. The Artist is seen here in the last decade of his life. Seen on March 26, 2015 in The Met’s former European Paintings galleries.

When I look at Art, sooner or later, my thoughts involve Rembrandt for any one of a myriad of reasons. I do my best, however, to keep my thoughts about his death to a minimum, so this is going to be purposely short. Rembrandt was pretty poor the last decade of his life. His prior fame had deserted him as if he were a fad, or a “mania,” like tulips were in 1637 when he was 30, and combined with an extravagant lifestyle1 that he could no longer maintain, he lived in housing for the poor at the end2. When he died, at just 63, he was buried in an unmarked pauper’s grave. 20 years later, his bones were destroyed, as was the custom with the remains of such unfortunates. The church, where his unmarked grave was, finally got around to erecting a plaque, inside, in 1909. It redeemed itself some 30 years later when a young Jewish girl who was in hiding nearby from the Nazis took solace in the sound of the church’s bells. Today, there’s a statue of Anne Frank outside the church. His Art largely fell into eclipse, except for a few artists he influenced, for about 100 years, as hard as that is for us to imagine today. October 4, 2019, happens to be the 350th anniversary of his death.

Seen in situ. One of the glories of New York. Five of The Met’s Rembrandts seen in the European Paintings Galleries on June 10, 2017, before the current skylight renovations caused their relocation to the Robert Lehman Collection galleries. When I think of “home,” this gallery comes to mind.

I’ve remained passionate about the work of Rembrandt van Rijn since I was in my early teens and he is one of very very few Artists I can say that about. Almost no where else have I found the humanity, and the depth and range of humanity, I find in Rembrandt. Because of this, I find his Self-Portraits particularly fascinating. In the end, they show me that the Artist, himself, was every bit as human as anyone he ever depicted.

Rembrandt after Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, ca.1634-5, Red chalk, 14 x 18 inches, From The Met’s Lehman Collection. Seen in 2016.

Few other Artists I’ve seen have the power to say as much with just a few strokes as can be seen time and time again in his Drawings- like this one, in which Rembrandt manages to capture the entirety of Leonardo’s masterpiece (and add some additional elements that may have come from a print of the Painting he saw- Rembrandt never left Holland) in so few strokes, you can almost count them.

Self-Portrait in a Soft Hat, 1631, Etching completed with black chalk. The Artist was about 25 at this point at the beginning of his career. Seen at the Morgan Library in September, 2016.

Today, he’s honored as Holland’s favorite son. Public places have been renamed in his honor. (“Rembrandt Square,” etc., etc.). In 2015, the country paid a record price for 2 portraits by the Master, 180 million dollars, splitting the cost with France (for the Louvre and the Rijksmuseum), partially (largely?) because of their value to tourism, (i.e. so they can continue to cash in on him). Pretty ironic given how he was treated near and at the end of his life.

The most Rembrandt Self-Portraits in one place I’ve yet been in were these five etchings seen at Rembrandt’s First Masterpiece at the Morgan Library in September, 2016. I was shocked to see them when I walked in. I had no idea they were included.

So, to me, his end is one of the most unfortunate, and saddest, chapters in Art history. I’m not so sure it’s a cause for all that much celebrating. The world of Art seems to agree. There’s only one museum (as far as I know) anywhere in the world mounting a show of Rembrandt’s work that might be construed as honoring/memorializing it anytime close to that date, with that one actually opening on October 4th3.

Nonetheless, the chance to put a big round number on the front of a marketing campaign seems to be all that’s required for Taschen to leap into the breach with three new volumes in their XL (aka “HUGE!”) series of books. Well? In 87 years, for the 400th anniversary of his birth in 2106, actual physical paper books may be a thing of the past4 Whether they arrive as physical books, ebooks, or whatever form books will take in 87 years, I won’t be here to see them. As I write this, the first of Taschen’s “trilogy,” Rembrandt: The Self-Portraits (R:TSPs, henceforth) is out and in wide distribution. It’s a handsome volume, with a nifty cover image that displays one of 6 different Rembrandt Self-Portraits depending on the angle you look at it. I picked it up in a store and passed, even though nothing Rembrandt did has held me more spellbound for so long as his Self-Portraits have. So, why did I pass on this complete collection of them?  I was extremely disappointed that the great Rembrandt scholar Gary Schwartz wasn’t involved in it, and from what I understand isn’t involved in the other two volumes either. That statement will serve as my protest since I subsequently bought R:TSPs. With all due respect to the scholars chosen, no one will replace Gary Schwartz for me when it comes to Rembrandt- or any other Artist he turns his unique skillset to (Dear Mr. Schwartz, If you happen to see this? Jan van Eyck, Please?). Suffice it to say that the renowned Professor, Simon Schama, host of the PBS series, The Power of Art, dedicated his own Rembrandt biography, Rembrandt’s eyes, to Gary Schwartz.

“I regard Rembrandt’s self-portraits less as assertions of a strong personal identity than as a means to help the artist, like Saint Paul, become more like other people. Behind them lies a man who depended on his art to offset imbalances in his life and his relations with others.” Gary Schwartz.

Focusing on what we do get, the book itself is large, oversized as they say in the trade, a full 10 x 13.5 inches and weighs about 4 1/2 pounds, very light for a true Taschen XL which generally weigh in around 20 pounds. Its 176 pages contain a succinct essay and the rest of the book is Rembrandt, in my view, at his best. The reproductions are very good5, with many being reproduced in actual size.

A publicity shot by Taschen. Rest assured the copies sold in the USA are in English.*

Rembrandt was the first Artist to create a body of Self-Portraits. Yes, the cheap headline is “Rembrandt Invented The Selfie,” which, without looking, I’m sure has already been used to death. That’s not true. He was not the first to do a Self-Portrait, just to create a body of them among Artists known to us today. And what a body of work they are! We don’t have his diary, but, though it’s dangerous to read too much into the SPs (unless you want to), they are not really “pure” autobiography beyond the fact that yes, they do indeed depict the Artist, and we get to see his famous visage evolve as the years and decades go by. Exactly what is going on in each of them has been the subject of much conjecture, and I suspect will continue to be for as long as people look at them. He created them in oil, in ink, and with an etching needle (in Paintings, Drawings and Etchings). Though I love everything the man did, for me, they have been THE supreme body of Art since I saw my first one, shown up top, at The Met way back when. If I had to live the rest of my days only being allowed to look at one work of Art (oh jeez), it would be a Rembrandt Self-Portrait. But, please don’t ask me which one. Right now, I would select his Self-Portrait with Two Circles in England, but that choice is often a factor of which one I’ve looked at last. I’d take any of them- Painted, Drawn or Etched. And in R:TSPs, we get to see every one of them (they say).

Two pre-release copies of Rembrandt: The Complete Paintings, left, flank a copy of Rembrandt: The Complete Drawings & Etching, which complete Taschen’s “trilogy.” As close as I’ve gotten- so far.

While I am very much looking forward to seeing Rembrandt: The Complete Paintings (TCP, henceforth), it should be mentioned that though The Rembrandt Research Project issued its latest volume of what it calls the “Corpus” of the Master’s Paintings in 2016, the controversy around what that body “should” consist of shows no signs of ending, and so? Buyer beware! What’s agreed upon as his complete Paintings will, very possibly, change in the near future. So, even 350 years after his sad demise, this will most likely not be the “final word” on the subject.

Still, there’s so much of what RvR has accomplished in his other work that can be seen in his Self-Portraits. You can trace a good deal of his development as an Artist in this work. And then? There is the incredible Painting! No matter how much Painting I’ve seen in the 40 year (next year6 I’ve been going to shows, my mind always comes back, for a variety of reasons, to “how Rembrandt Painted it.”

Ok. So, you’re wondering- What does all of this have to do with Robert Frank?

Robert Frank: The Americans, my copy of Steidl’s 50th Anniversary edition, 2008.

Questionable timing aside, for me, the real value of RvR:TSPs coming out now has been the bath of the icy cold water of “reality” it’s thrown on my deep dive into Modern & Contemporary Photography, by which I mean post-Robert Frank’s The Americans, the most seminal PhotoBook of our time. 2019 marks the 60th Anniversary of American publication of The Americans (and there’s been almost no fanfare about that- as far as I’ve seen thus far)7. This fall/winter marks 3 years of my “deep dive” into this realm of M&C Photography that I consider The Americans the first bookmark in, a beginning of, in a sense. I started from the place of believing that Photography had not, as yet, earned its place with Painting, Drawing and Sculpture. Looking at R:TSPs? I realized that after everything I’ve seen, I can’t say my mind has been changed all that much. For one thing, though, it’s still a very young medium- particularly when compared to thousands of years of Painting. After all, they’re marketing the 350th anniversary of Rembrandt’s passing, and he’s thousands of years after Artists started Painting. Jan van Eyck was one of the first to use oil paint in the early 1400’s. Photography (with chemicals) has been around since Sir John F.W. Herschel coined the word in his paper “On the Art of Photography; or the Application of the Chemical Rays of Light to the Purpose of Pictorial Presentation,” on March 14, 18398– 180 years. But, the more I look at both, there’s one thing that strikes me as a major difference between Painting and Photographs-

Time.

It takes time to create a Painting. Even if the Artist does one quickly. In most Paintings, it takes longer to apply one brushstroke than it does to create most Photographs.

I think I can see that. And, I think it’s telling.

I’m not the only one.

David Hockney, Don & Christopher, Los Angeles, 1982, Polaroid collage “Joiner.” Seen at David Hockney, The Met, January, 2018.

Earlier this year, while I was formulating my thoughts on this subject, before I saw R:TSPs, I came across 2 books by David Hockney, Cameraworks, 1984, and Hockney on ‘Art,’ conversations with Paul Joyce, published in 1999. In both of them, Mr. Hockney 9, a man who has created both Paintings and Photographs (since 196710), and innovated in both realms, put into words much of what I was thinking- uncannily. “During the last several months I’ve come to realize that it has something to do with the amount of time that’s been put into the image. I mean, Rembrandt spent days, weeks, painting a portrait. You can go to a museum and look at a Rembrandt for hours and you’re not going to spend as much time looking as he spent panitng- observing, layering his observations, layering the time.” “My main argument was that a photograph could not be looked at for a long time. Have you noticed that?,” David Hockney, Cameraworks, P.9. There. He just said it for me.

Recently, in these very pages, without any question from me or the knowledge that I was working on this piece, the Photographer Fred Cray said– “One of the concerns I’ve always had with photography is the way it holds up on the wall with paintings and other media. Photography often seems thin and quick compared to painting.”

Anytime I see a Photographic portrait, my mind (at times, unconsciously) always turns to Rembrandt’s Self-Portraits (though, much of what I’m saying here could also be said for almost all of his portraits, as Mr. Hockney inferred). Not as a way of qualitatively comparing them. As a means of gauging the impact. They are the benchmark for me. Most of the time, the impact of the Photography in question isn’t the same. I wondered why for most of the first two years of this dive. Early in 2019, it hit me. Time. Time is a key element in Painting. In so many ways. From the time each stroke takes to apply, to how long it takes to complete the work to the rendering of time, itself, in the work. These are not questions most Photographers have to face. They deal with questions of light and setting before the fact, then they’re finished- unless they modify it later in printing, or digitally.

Unknown Artist seen Painting on 7th Avenue, NYC, September, 2019. Yes, he got a parking ticket. Many Street Photographers would have been done long before this gentleman got set up.

Of course, Painters have ways of dealing with this question to ensure whatever level of consistency in the lighting they want. They can work in their studio, or they can work from a live subject, a still life, a Photograph, a Drawing, or what have you. Even au plain air, as the Artist above, is doing. Time is effecting the result in other ways. My feeling is it’s this passing of time, in this multiplicity of ways, that it takes the Artist to create the work that is manifesting itself in the work in subtle ways, maybe some of them are so subtle as to be subconscious, but that are nonetheless part of what the viewer experiences. With each brush stroke, time is passing, and in a real way, time is being layered on to the canvas. Time is absolute in a Photograph- it’s the same time at the top as it is at the bottom, unless you’re shooting with a time lapse, like Stephen Wilkes.

All of this also serves to remind me, again, of possibly why great Contemporary Painters, like Richard Estes, John Salt, Rod Penner, and David Hockney as well, among many others, use their own Photographs as part of their working process, but the reason they are Painters and not Photographers is because of what they find lacking in Photography- what it can’t present of their vision that Painting can. They’re not alone. The list of great Painters who also took Photographs at some point is long- ranging from Thomas Eakins, Edgar Degas and Edvard Munch, through Ralston Crawford and Robert Rauschenberg, and even Picasso. I find it telling that not a single one of them identified himself as a “Photographer.” Only Charles Sheeler was dually identified and that might be because his Photography earned him money to support his Painting.

Then, in the midst of all of these thoughts, a terrific new book was released by Steidl, Dave Heath: Dialogues With Solitude, the catalog for a show at LE BAL, Paris in 2018. It gave me pause for thought.

My copy of Dave Heath: Dialogues With Solitude, Steidl, 2019.

WHO is Dave Heath?

From Dave Heath: Dialogues With Solitude, Steidl, 2019. *Photo courtesy of Steidl.

It turns out that Mr. Heath was, not is, unfortunately, but his work struck me every bit as hard as any I’ve seen in this 3 year deep dive. Particularly, his portraits, and specifically his portraits of one subject not looking at the camera.

Dave Heath’s earliest body of work are Photographs he took while serving in Korea in 1953-4, including this one. From Dave Heath: Dialogues With Solitude, Steidl, 2019. *Photo courtesy of Steidl.

It turns out that he was not only a master with a camera- a master of the Portrait, he was, also, a master printer. To the point that no less than the aforementioned, esteemed, Robert Frank paid Mr. Heath to print his work for what I believe was his first solo show at no less than the Art Institute of Chicago in April, 1961, a byproduct of The Americans’ release here two years earlier. That says it all.

My copy of Dave Heath’s A Dialogue With Solitude in the 2000 Lumiere Press edition. The books is on the right. The print is in the sleeve to the left.

Captivated by what I’d seen in the Steidl book, which is very well printed, in my opinion, though, unfortunately, Mr. Heath, who passed away in June, 2016, was not involved in it, I learned that Dave Heath’s “masterpiece” is the PhotoBook, A Dialogue With Solitude, 1965, a subject I am quite familiar with. I hunted down a “reasonably” priced copy of the 2000 Lumiere Press limited edition reprint with a signed & numbered print. The reprinted edition includes a letter from Robert Frank. The print in my set is “Washington Square, New York City, 1958.”

Washington Square, New York City, 1958. A Photograph that leaves me speechless, and turns my thoughts to Rembrandt.

It’s one of the very greatest accomplishments in PhotoBooks I’ve yet seen. Given what I said about his printing, the inclusion of a signed & numbered print in the Lumiere Press edition is a key. When I saw it for the first time I had a feeling that was closest of any Photograph I can think of to that I get while looking at a Rembrandt Portrait. Of course, as always, your results may differ.

For some reason that I can’t fathom, the word is that “Mr. Heath’s work went out of style.” Well? Rembrandt, too, “went out of style,” for well over a century, as hard as that might seem to believe to us now. Now, with Steidl’s Dave Heath: Dialogues With Solitude, it seems to me that a show or a book that returns a great, overlooked or forgotten Artist to the world has done that world a great cultural service. I can’t think of a higher purpose for either.

David Hockney, Perspective Is Tunnel Vision, Outside It Opens Up, 2017, Acrylic on two canvases. David Hockney shows how the camera sees in “tunnel vision,” single point perspective,” versus how humans see with what he calls “reverse perspective,” with infinite vanishing points, born of driving through a 10 mile long tunnel in Europe then suddenly coming into the great outdoors in 198511.

Reading David Hockney further, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in Photography, he speaks time and again that cameras, while being great at reproducing two dimensional objects12, do not see the way humans do. He has devoted much of his subsequent Painting career (as seen in his fascinating recent shows) to challenging traditional perspective and exploring the innovations of both Renaissance masters and the masters of Cubism.

David Hockney, Grand Canyon I, 2017, Acrylic on canvas, 48 x 96″ hexagonal, seen in April, 2018. Outside, it, indeeds, “opens up.” The Artist has also begun cutting the corners off his canvases to reinforce his ideas.

In 1999, Mr. Hockney asked, “How many truly memorable pictures are there? Considering the millions of photographs taken, there are few memorable images in this medium, which should tell us something. There have been far more images made this way than the sum of all previous images put together.” (Paul Joyce, Hockney on ‘Art’, P.43.) One thing that’s changed since Mr. Hockney said those words is that there are now more cameras in the world then there are people. It seems to me that that’s going to be a factor in this. The sheer number of Photographers versus Painters is, and is likely to remain indefinitely, skewed incredibly. Incalculably. It makes the odds of a “great” Photograph out of the billions being taken incrementally greater. “Quality only comes with quantity,” legendary Photographer Daido Moriyama said explaining why he takes so many Photos, in How I Take Photographs, page 7313.

I’ve noticed that the rise of Photography has coincided with a relatively ”quiet period” in Painting, in some ways. While this has lasted a few decades, more recently, I don’t have to look any further than my own 200+ piece Archive. I’ve said a number of times that one of the reasons I decided to focus on Photography the past three years was the lack of Painting shows that spoke to me sufficiently to undertake the work these pieces require. I wonder how much longer this will last- Is this an anomaly, or is this the beginning of the way things are going to be? Will we see the number of painters going forward that we’ve seen for the past 500 years? Of course, sheer numbers, or the lack of them, don’t guarantee masterpieces or geniuses. Greater numbers only serve to increase the odds.

At the three year mark, I’m still not convinced that Photography will come to be seen as Art in hundreds of years when that question is decided, IF anyone still cares about Art then. But? If they do, my bets are that Rembrandt’s will still be among the work most highly appreciated.

A work like Dave Heath’s Washington Square, New York City, 1958, gives me hope that Photography may still get there. Is it, as Mr. Hockney said, an image in a billion? Or is it an indication of what might be possible in the medium? I will continue to look…

Meanwhile, on October 4th? I’ll just light a candle. To go with the one in memory of Robert Frank. While I continue my dialogue with Davids Hockney and Heath…

*-Soundtrack for this Post is “Grace,” written by Jeff Buckley and Gary Lucas from Jeff’s immortal album, Grace. I worked with Mr. Lucas, and I booked Music into the now legendary NYC Music Club/Cafe, Sin-E in 1993, shortly after Jeff had played and recorded there. And then? He was suddenly…gone. I never met him or heard him perform in person. One of the great regrets of my life.

BookMarks

My copy of The Rembrandt Book, (THE Rembrandt Book, or TRB, as I call it), by Gary Schwartz. In my opinion, it’s a model of everything a truly great Art monograph should be.

In addition to the books I referred to above, if someone were to ask me to pick one book on Rembrandt? I would choose The Rembrandt Book, by the aforementioned Gary Schwartz. It’s a book designed for readers both new to Rembrandt or expert on the Dutch Master, and so, it’s a book for a lifetime of enjoyment and research. Published in 2006 by Harry N. Abrams, it’s the SECOND full length monograph on Rembrandt by Gary Schwartz, and they couldn’t be more different (In a world where ANYone else would be thrilled to write one magnificent book on Rembrandt? HOW incredible is that?) or compliment each other better. TRB is oversized at 10 x 13 and weighs 6 pounds, but it is my bible on Rembrandt, and if I can’t find what I’m looking for there? I go to his prior monograph, the equally highly regarded, Rembrandt: His Life, His Paintings, 380 pages and 3.6 pounds, published by Viking in 1985 (and I believe this book has been reissued at least once). Both books can be found very reasonably (for less than they were originally published for) in very good condition. Along with my Sister Wendy books, they are the foundations of my Art library.

Another book that’s very relevant to this discussion, and has been essential for me- one I don’t see recommended nearly often enough, is Believing Is Seeing (Observations on the Mysteries of Photography) by the renowned Errol Morris. 

My prior pieces on PhotoBooks are here

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. If you’ve found it worthwhile, you can donate to keep it going & ad-free below. Thank you!

Written & photographed by Kenn Sava for nighthawknyc.com unless otherwise credited.
To send comments, thoughts, feedback or propositions click here.
Click the white box on the upper right for the archives or to search them.
For “short takes” and additional pictures, follow @nighthawk_nyc on Instagram.

Subscribe to be notified of new Posts below. Your information will be used for no other purpose.

 

  1. You can still visit the beautiful, large, expensive house he bought at Jodenbreestraat 4, in Amsterdam.
  2. Excuse me for seeing a lesson for today’s Art world in this, but I do. If this could happen to one of the greatest Artists who ever lived? It can happen to anyone.
  3. The Wallfar-Richartz-Museum, Cologne, Germany is having a show of Rembrandt’s Graphic Work that opens on, yes, October 4, 2019. The Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, is hosting a Rembrandt-Velazquez show that opens a week later.
  4. Gary Schwartz says there are some documents that raise the possibility that Rembrandt may have actually been born in 1605 or 1607  (Gary Schwartz, The Rembrandt Book, P.15). I don’t think a year on either side of 2106 is going to make a difference regarding my being around to see it.
  5. My one caveat being that they chose to reproduce only the detail of the early works in which RvR Painted himself as an onlooker in a crowd, denying the viewer the full context and setting.
  6. I consider the incomparable 1980 Picasso Retrospective at MoMA the real beginning of my “looking career” at shows. Looking at Art books predates that by about a decade.
  7. The Americans was first published in 1958 in France by Robert Delpire, and in 1959 by Grove Press in the USA.
  8. //iphf.org/inductees/sir-john-frederick-william-herschel/
  9. Who, in addition to being a world-famous Painter, has also authored two important books on Art & Art History- Secret Knowledge and A History of Pictures
  10. David Hockney, Something New Exhibition Catalog, 2018, P.6
  11. David Hockney, Something New Exhibition Catalog, 2018, P.5
  12. Afterall, what we have in Rembrandt: The Self-Portraits, and every other mass produced book of Paintings, are Photographs of Paintings.
  13. For much more on how Daido Moriyama feels about whether Photography is Art, see P.205-6 in the chapter titled “The Real Daido Moriyama,” in this same book, How I Take Photographs.