Thank You, Sheena Wagstaff

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava.

I was saddened to hear that Sheena Wagstaff stepped down as Leonard A. Lauder Chair of Modern & Contemporary Art at The Met (TM) last week. At least it was, apparently, by her choice, after a battle with long covid1.

Among many highlights I list below, perhaps this was THE highlight of Sheena Wagstaff’s tenure at The Met- The Met Breuer’s lobby seen on the day it opened, Met Member’s Preview, March 8, 2016, 10 days before it opened to the public, with banners for the now legendary shows it opened with.

There is no other person I have singled out for praise in the NYC Art world over the 7 years of NHNYC.com more than I have Sheena Wagstaff. Appointed January 10, 2012, in 2016, I called her the “Person of the Year” in NYC Art. Over her decade at the helm of M & C, she mounted quite a few memorable shows, a number of important shows, and some that are now legendary, at The Met Breuer, and at the 1000 Fifth Avenue Mothership. 

As it turns out, I was there on The Met Breuer’s Opening Day in March, 2016 and it’s closing day in March, 2020, and wrote about both.

The Met Breuer was established to be The Met’s “Modern &. Contemporary outpost” while the M & C wing at 1000 Fifth Avenue was undergoing renovations. Due to the economic situation the renovation was cancelled. The Met Breuer went on for 4 years, about half the originally announced duration, until The Met made a deal with The Frick to take over their Breuer Building lease. After TMB, Sheena Wagstaff continued mounting shows at 1000 Fifth Avenue, including more major & memorable shows. As I write this, two of her shows are up, and maybe there will be more that have already been in the works to come.

In her honor, I revisit some of the memorable shows I’ve seen with links to those I’ve written about, mounted during Sheena Wagstaff’s tenure at The Met-

Opening The Met Breuer

The Artist seen on an iPad at the show.

Nasreen Mohamedand here. To this day, the only show I’ve written about twice.

“Welcome to the future,” I captioned this Photo in the piece. Unfinished on Opening Day of The Met Breuer. Member’s Preview, March 8, 2016

Unfinished: Thoughts Left Visible – Along with Nasreen Mohamedi, the two shows that opened The Met Breuer, March, 2016.

diane arbus in the beginning, 2016 – A brilliant installation of Ms. Arbus’s little known early work, included a Portrait of my late friend, Storme DeLaverie, that she told me Ms. Arbus took, but I’d never seen.

Lygia Pape, Tetia 1, C, 1976-2004, Golden thread, nails, wood, lighting, a work that wonderfully characterized the ephemeral nature of Ms. Pape’s work in a show remembered for its endless variety and surprise. Seen at Lygia Pape: A Multitude of Forms, her first major show in a US museum in June, 2017.

Lygia Pape: A Multitude of Forms, 2017

Having one of the biggest jobs in the entire Art world, I can’t begin to imagine how busy Sheena Wagstaff was. But, here she is looking at a very large work by Ursula von Rydingsvard at Galerie Lelong & Co., April, 2018. She still took the time to make the rounds of the galleries and see shows, as I came across her doing, as I was, here.

NYC Art Shows, 2016: Sheena Wagstaff Rules The Waves – My look at Art in NYC in 2016.

The opening galley of Mastry.

Kerry James Marshall: Mastry , 2017- Perhaps the most important show mounted during the run of the The Met Breuer.

Marsden Hartley, Smelt Brook Falls, 1937

Marsden Hartley”s Maine, 2017– A somewhat mythical Artist got an overdue close look.

Installation view of the first gallery.

Jack Whitten: Odyssey, 2018 – Jack Whitten lived, worked and died without anyone knowing he had ALSO created a large body of Sculpture. And, it was every bit as compelling as his wonderful Painting.

Delirious: Art At The Limit Of Reason, 2017

Edvard Munch: Between the Clock & the Bed 2017 – In my view, though not large, a brilliant show.

Everything is Connected: Art and Conspiracy, 2018

The crowd in the packed first galley struggling to see the blockbuster David Hockney show 2 days before it closed, February 23, 2018.

David Hockney, 2018. Back over at 1000 Fifth Avenue, it still boggles my mind that it was only one of FIVE major shows up at The Met at the same time. Four of them within feet of each other with the once-in-a-lifetime Michelangelo: Divine Designer & Draftsman right behind that rear wall seen above.

The under-known Thornton Dial, 1928-2016, had a few pieces in it, including History Refused to Die, 2004, center.

History Refused to Die: Hightlights from the Souls Grown Deep Foundation Gift, 2018, at 1000 Fifth Avenue. What a great, small, show this was!

Very, very few got to see this. Seen here on its very last day, March 12, 2020. Installation view of the lobby on the 4th floor.

Gerhard Richter: Painting After All, 2020- A brilliantly selected, concise, overview of his long and productive career, which I saw on its last day, the final day The Met Breuer was open.

Home is a Foreign Place, one of the 3 shows that closed TMB, drawn from recent additions to the Permanent Collection showed how far The Met’s collection of M&C has come. Seen on its final day- March 12, 2020.

Home Is A Foreign Place, 2020. The last show I saw at The Met Breuer, which I saw after seeing the Richter show.

The Met Breuer closed, permanently as it turned out, right after I left the Richter show. My look back at it is here and here.

Standing in the covid line, keeping my distance, waiting to be allowed in. Still, it was just so great to be back home again, and it was well worth the inconveniences.

Alice Neel: People Come First, 2021- The first Met blockbuster after it reopened, I saw it as The Met’s love letter to the people of NYC.Epic Abstraction, 2018- Date – A show that’s been up for quite a while and has evolved over its run. Still as compelling in 2022 as it was when it opened.

Louise Bourgeois: Paintings, 2022 – Absolutely terrific. Nothing short of a revelation.

And there were the Roof Garden Commissions by-

Alex Da Corte 2021

Hector Zamora 2020

Alicja Kwade 2019

Huma Bhabha 2018

Adrian Villar Rojas 2017

Cornelia Parker 2016

Pierre Huyghe 2015

Imran Qureshi 2013

Dan Graham 2014

And the Facade Commissions-

Carol Bove 2021

Wangechi Mutu 2020

Before she came to The Met, Sheena Wagstaff was chief curator of the Tate, London. During her time there she mounted a wonderful Edward Hopper show that’s only known to us on this side of the pond through the fine catalog she edited for the show. I hoped she would give us a Hopper show, which didn’t happen. But, when she reinstalled The Met’s M&C galleries she gave Hopper’s The Lighthouse at Two Lights, 1929, pride of place. This was a marvelous choice, in my view, serving as a reminder of a work that has been a bit forgotten after becoming iconic and appearing on a US Postage Stamp in 1970,  Seen in 2018. The galleries have been rehung since.

Along with ALL of this, Sheena Wagstaff oversaw the reinstallation of the M & C galleries at 1000 Fifth Avenue, next to the installation of two galleries devoted to Thomas Hart Benton’s America Today murals and associated works (to the right of the Hopper in the Photo above) which The Met received as a gift shortly after Sheena came on board.

The late Sam Giliiam, 1933-2022, gifted this work, Carousel State, 1968, to The Met in 2018. He was honored by The Museum in 2017. Seen in Epic Abstraction in its current inkcaratnion, July, 2, 2022.

Currently, there are  two shows up as I write this Ms. Wagstaff was involved with- Epic Abstraction and Louise Bourgeois: Paintings. Both are excellent, the Bourgeois, a revelation. There may be more coming along that she was involved with, in addition to the Hew Locke: Gilt Facade Commission scheduled to open in September. 

Sheena Wagstaff before she spoke at the Nasreen Mohamedi Symposium at The Met in 2016. Right after she did, she happened to sit next to me.

I met Ms. Wagstaff, once, when she happened to sit down next to me at the Nasreen Mohamedi Symposium at The Met in 2016. Such was her passion for Nasreen, I learned in the show, that she traveled to India and visited places where Nasreen lived and sought out the site of her unmarked grave. After the symposium ended, I introduced myself to her and thanked her for the Nasreen Mohamedi show. I told her what a powerful impact discovering Nasreen in her show had on me (to this day, the only show I’ve devoted two pieces to). She responded asking me about one word I had chosen in expressing that, and immediately suggested a clarification. I came away feeling I had just spoken to one of the smartest people I’d ever met.

Sheena Wagstaff breaks through. Chelsea, April, 2018.

In 2018, I accidentally ran across her when we were both out seeing shows in Chelsea. The Whitestone Gallery had installed a piece over the entrance to their Gutai Art Association show that appeared as it it had been broken through, requiring visitors to walk through it to enter. I stood in the lobby watching visitors navigating this and snapping photos as they tried to “break through to the other side.” When I got home, I realized that one of those visitors was Sheena Wagstaff! I didn’t recognize her from the back. Now, this Photo speaks to me of her breaking through barriers while she was at The Met. Her shows were about inclusion, and breaking barriers, if nothing else.

Thank you, Sheena, so very much- for all of it.

Julie Mehretu, Conversion (S.M. del Popolo/After C.), 2019-20, just one of the countless pieces to enter The Met’s permanent collection of M & C Art during Sheena Wagstaff’s tenure, one of the last pieces in the most recent incarnation of her Epic Abstraction show, seen on July 2, 2022, the week before she left.

Her Met legacy will live on both in the shows she’s facilitated and the Art she has helped bring into the collection. In my opinion, her’s will be a tough act to follow at The Met. The Museum has been compared to an aircraft carrier. Given its four-city-block size, it’s bigger than one. Turning this ship is a MASSIVE undertaking, which is why I used the sea-faring analogy in my 2016 Sheena Wagstaff “Rules The Waves” piece. She has managed to turn the Met’s M & C exhibitions, and more importantly, its permanent collection, in the direction of inclusion. Whoever comes next is a very critical choice given that AND that the M & C wing is about to undertake is long-awaited remodeling. 

Though The Met is probably casting a very wide net for that person, here in NYC, it seems to me that now might be the time to see if Massimilliano Gioni might be interested in the position. He’s done a terrific job as Artistic Director at the New Museum. I’m saying nothing against them in suggesting him. 

*-Soundtrack for this Post is “Thank U” by Alanis Morissette from Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie, 1998, about which Alanis said, “Basically, I had never stopped in my whole life, hadn’t taken a long breath, and I took a year and a half off and basically learned how to do that…” I hope Ms. Wagstaff is now able to take a long breath. Somehow, I doubt she will.

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 7 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. As I face high expenses to keep it going, if you’ve found it worthwhile, please donate to keep it up & 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.

Learning To Think Like David Byrne

Show Seen: David Byrne: How I Learned About Non-Rational Logic at Pace Gallery

David Byrne has never been bashful about stepping out. First, as the the very strange, gangly, guy you couldn’t take your eyes off of with the legendary band Talking Heads, then by himself as a solo, or in collaborations with Brian Eno, Twyla Tharp, and St. Vincent, among others; in Films along the way (as an actor, director, or Oscar-winning composer), as a Photographer in his overlooked PhotoBook, Strange Ritual, and most recently in an acclaimed & successful one-man Broadway show, American Utopia.

Phew!

Me too. I spent a decade drawing every day and going to The Met to draw 3 times a week, even though I had a full-time job nowhere close to The Museum. It’s solitary, but rewarding in more ways than one.

As if that’s not enough, while American Utopia was still running on Broadway, came something else- a “mini retrospective” of his Drawings titled David Byrne: How I Learned About Non-Rational Logic, that ran from Feb 2 through March 19th, already his 8th show at Pace. The show included a selection of work dating back about 20 years, including a group of his Tree Drawings from the early 2000s, as seen in his book Arboretum, a group of Chair Drawings from 2004-7, and a group of Dingbat Drawings Mr. Byrne did during the pandemic. Some of his Dingbats were shown in a 2020 online show of that title. Always interested in what Mr. Byrne is doing, and what I can learn from it, and an eternal lover of the Art & essential skill that is Drawing, I took the elevator to the top floor of Pace’s new mega gallery on West 25th to take a look.

The show coincided with the release of his latest book, the astonishingly popular A History of the World (In Dingbats); a collection of 100 Drawings. Not to be confused stylistically with his earlier Drawings, the Dingbats are more “traditional” Drawings that range across a wide variety of subjects, IF you can call ANYTHING David Byrne does “traditional.”

Swim Inside My Head, 2020, Ink on paper.

The show’s title, How I Learned About Non-Rational Logic, sounds like an open invitation to learn how to think like Mr. Byrne. The range of styles on view gave the viewer the chance to approach that from a few directions that ranged from the apparently quite accessible to obtuse. I guess that’s saying there was something for everyone. On a wall near the entrance was something of an Artist’s Statement, quoted in part-

Installation view.

Cloud Chair, 2006, Ink on paper.

Installation view of 3/4 of the show.

I Dreamed of the Art Trap, 2007, Ink on paper.

A series of “Chair” Drawings from 2006, Ink on paper. The piece on the far right, Cloud Chair, is shown earlier.

A fascinating way to think. If you’re intrigued by it, check out Arboretum.

“I’m an ordinary guy
Burning down the house1

After all he’s done to this point, it appears that David Byrne is David Byrne’s greatest creation. So, how to think like he does? I think you start by taking the essence of yourself, then throw out everything that’s too derivative of what someone else has done (“Stop Making Sense?”), and then emphasize what makes you unique. Along the way you can put down in Music, Film, on stage or on paper, things you see that no one else does. At least not in your own unique way!

Like these-

The Evolution of Eating Utensils, 2003, Pencil on paper.

Consensual Absurdities, 2003, Pencil on paper

Between his Music, his Films, his Photography, his stage work, and now his Art, as time has gone on, we’re continuing to see there is more…much more, to David Byrne than anyone could ever imagine when that very strange, gangly guy walked on stage with Talking Heads at CBGB in 1977. I hope he continues to amaze and puzzle us for decades to come.

BookMarks-

The most succinct thing to say about David Byrne is that I can think of nothing he has done to not recommend. Some may not be as big fans of The Catherine Wheel, or his album The Forest, but that’s splitting hairs. As the late, great Jaco Pastorius once told me when I told him I liked his work with Joni Mitchell “better” than her earlier work- “Hey man. You either like an Artist or you don’t.” The man has had an important career and written innumerable great songs. Since the surprise hit show American Utopia is introducing him to many new fans, I’ll just give a quick rundown here-

The 8 Talking Heads studio albums chronologically.

Starting from the beginning, ALL the Talking Heads albums are classics in my book. I gave it some thought and really couldn’t pick one to start with. Remain in Light? Fear of Music? The Dual Disc reissues with added tracks are particularly recommended, if you can find them reasonably priced. The complete Dual Brick of all 8 studio Lps on CD/DVD Dual Disc currently goes for $200 to $250 being out of print. Though you’ll gain more Music, the sanctity of the original album should be kept firmly in mind (which is included on the DVD in 5.1 Surround Sound, overseen by Jerry Harrison), though it’s hard to replicate the impact it had when each were released, now. In the midst of punk, Talking Heads seamlessly walked the line between punk and New Wave, if they did not singlehandedly define the latter. I remember it well. I wound up in a New Wave band the year after Talking Heads ’77 came out!

Stop Making Sense is a must-see concert Film. True Stories…I haven’t seen in a while, but it’s on my list to see again.

His work with Brian Eno has many fans.

I thought his collaboration with St. Vincent, Love This Giant. was wonderful. After they got it out on the road with punchy arrangements (I started out as a horn player, and there’s still nothing like the sound of live horns for me!), it sounds even better-

And then there are his countless solo albums. I’m still working my way through them. One thing I can say is those I’ve heard don’t sound dated.

Personally, I really like his PhotoBook Strange Ritual, though I advise you to take a look through it before deciding to buy. It’s not for everyone.

Arboretum is Artistic while showing a different way of thinking. I think the concept, a sample shown above and in other works in the show, works very well throughout. I think it’s a book that’s going to remain sought after.

How Music Works is a uniquely down to earth look at Music & the business of. As much a “field guide” for the working Musician as it is a book for listeners and his fans. Most books like it are written by Music business people or lawyers. Uggh. This one is written from the REAL inside by someone who counts- a Musician who’s done it all AND succeeded at all of it!

It includes sketches of CBGB’s, a club that Mr. Byrne helped make immortal, seen here before, left, & after its remodeling, right. I spent many, many a night on the right, a few on the left..In the mid-1990s, I booked Music into CB’s Gallery, another Music club CBGB later opened in the space to the right where the Drawing is labelled “CBGB” and “CBGB “Remodeled'”

A History of the World (In Dingbats) is one of those Art Books that may seem easy to write off at first, but then keeps surprising & intriguing you. I’ve been amazed watching it sell out everywhere. Say what you will about it- it’s speaking to a wide range of folks. Almost ANY book of Drawings that reaches people these days is probably going to be a book I am fond on. This one counts.

*-Soundtrack for this Post is “Born Under Punches” by David Byrne & Talking Heads from their album Remain in Light, 1980.

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. As I face high expenses to keep it going, if you’ve found it worthwhile, please donate to keep it up & 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. “Burning Down The House,” Speaking in Tongues, 1983

Richard Estes: Painter. With No Prefixes.

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava (*unless otherwise credited)

Part 1 of a series looking at the work of Richard Estes in honor of his 90th Birthday, May 14, 2022. The next two parts are below this one.

Kenn Sava, Untitled, NYC, May 27, 2020 (Homage to Richard Estes). One example of how Richard Estes has effected how I see the world every day, taken a few days after his 88th Birthday. Click any image for full size.

I fell under the spell of Richard Estes’s Paintings of New York City around 1985. In 1989, I bought his Cafeteria, Vatican screenprint from the publisher, Robert Feldman of Parasol Press downtown.

Richard Estes, Cafeteria, Vatican (from Urban Landscapes III), 1981, Screenprint, 14 1/8 x 20 1/8 inches. Over 30 years later, it speaks to me every bit as much as the first moment I saw it. Everyone is free to have their own opinion. Mine is this does not look like a Photograph. In fact, the differences between it and a Photograph are why I like it.

37 years on his work has lost none its hold on me. More importantly, I credit Richard Estes with teaching me how to really see the world around me through his Art. In honor of his 90th Birthday, May 14, 2022, I decided to take a closer look at his entire body of work to date, and, as importantly, the issues surrounding it that have held back its wider appreciation in a 3-Part series, this being Part 1. In this Part, I’ll address some of the issues surrounding his Art that have held back the wider appreciation of it.

The Master in his workshop. Richard Estes seen at work in his apartment overlooking Central Park. It looks to me like he is working on a Painting with waterfalls, though it’s not one I recognize. Date and *Photographer unknown.

During these 37 years that I’ve been looking at the work of Richard Estes, the incessant hype about him is that he is supposed to be “the leader of the photorealists,” “the standard bearer of photorealism,” or words to that effect culminating with a form of the term, “photorealism.” Increasingly, I’ve been left to wonder…

Did anyone ever bother to ASK Richard Estes if he wants to be the “standard bearer of photorealism?1” Or, even if he even considers himself to be a “photorealist?”

In the book Richard Estes’ Realism, I found this answer-

“Estes dislikes all the titles given the artists working from photographs and thinks of himself strictly as a painter, with no prefixes2.”

“BINGO! Game Over. Please pass your scorecards to the front, and make sure your names are on them…” For what it’s worth, I do, too.

Victoria Falls II, 2015, Oil on panel, 16 x 20 inches. Show me one inch of this that looks like a Photograph. In this piece, I’m featuring examples of his work in “other” styles. Click for a closer look.

It galls me to no end that the Art press continues to ignore the words of Artists about their own Art!

They act like they know better than the Artist! Chuck Close was repeatedly on record stating in no uncertain terms that he did not want his work to be considered “photorealism.” He and I spoke about this twice and I was taken by the passion in his words rejecting it. It was obvious to me that this was something he had fought long and hard about. Yet, when he died last year, almost every obituary I saw, including that in The New York Times itself, where he had previously spoken against it in an interview, used this term in describing his work! Where is the respect? The same fate has befallen Richard Estes, and I believe a good deal of his work doesn’t come anywhere close to fitting into that box! I am featuring some of these Paintings (there are innumerable others) in this piece so you can see for yourself. It begs the question- Are the people who use these terms even looking at the Art?

Ngorongoro Crater II, 2015, Oil on panel, 12 x 22 inches. Is ANYthing in this work sharply detailed?

Why does this matter? It matters for a few reasons. First, I believe Richard Estes mis-association as a so-called photorealist has held back the full appreciation of his Art. That full appreciation reveals he is MUCH more talented than a mere mechanical Photo replicating machine, and he is much more diverse a Painter stylistically than has generally been acknowledged, or appreciated.

That would be the Museum of Art & Design show, 2015, where I met Mr. Estes at the opening. The show was a “retrospective” of his Paintings with NYC as their subject, only! It would be six years before his next NYC show, at a gallery in 2021. *Still from the Documentary Richard Estes: Actually Iconic.

Second, so-called “photorealism” has been dead for decades, at least to the powers that be in U.S. Art museums. Don’t think so? Ask yourself this- How many shows of Artists so boxed have been mounted in major U.S. museums in the past decade? Richard Estes got two, his first museum shows in multiple decades! (The “big 6” NYC major museums3 have never had an Estes show.) Not many others got any4. It seems to me that most people have stopped looking beyond the technique when they hear or read this term used about the Art they’re looking at. The “content” is something never discussed. Wait! Isn’t THAT what Art is supposed o be “about?” (However you want to define “about.”) Beyond this, putting any Artist, or person, in a box is limiting and just plain wrong, particularly creative people. Do you want to be in a box? I don’t. Putting Artists in boxes without their consent is to possibly damage their careers, and their livelihoods, as Artists have told me. Some are reluctant to speak out about it for fear of “making trouble” or being ostracized. If the public has been led to expect, say, “Cubo-rectilinear-obtustroism” from one Artist and he or she becomes a “Progo-constro-pressionist” the public is suddenly “disappointed!” Yes, I just invented “Cubo-rectilinear-obtustroism,” and “Progo-constro-pressionist” and why not? Non-artists were the first to apply many of these “ism” boxes to Artists. Yes, there are Artists who use terms like photorealism to describe their Art, and that’s perfectly fine, of course. I’m saying it’s wrong to lump Artists into boxes without their consent. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if an Artist sues someone who boxed them without their permission one of these days. That’s what the stakes are.

Ngorongoro Crater I, 2015, Oil on panel, 13. 3/4 x 11 7/8 inches.

“…but his (Richard Estes’s) work has never been strictly about the duplication of a photograph or about total adherence to his photographic sources,” Richard Estes’ Realism5.

A keyword for me in that statement is “NEVER.” For those of you not up on your meaningless/pointless Art terms (good for you!), a “photorealist” is, supposedly, an Artist who perfectly renders a Photograph, usually in paint. It seems to me that if Richard Estes wanted to perfectly render a Photograph, or if a Photograph perfectly captured a scene the way he sees it in his mind’s eye, he’d be a Photographer, and not a Painter! Like many of these terms, there is supposed to be a “movement” around it. Yet, I can find no evidence of any of the Artists so branded ever getting together around shared ideals and goals and deciding to begin such a movement! Regarding Richard Estes’s involvement in this imaginary “movement,” Richard Estes’ Realism says,“Before his affiliation with the Allan Stone Gallery in 1968, Estes knew no successful contemporary artists, and until mid-1969 he was unaware of the other contemporary US painters working from photographs who were then independently emerging on both coasts,[2 ibid].” The words “independently emerging” show the lie in the use of the word “movement” in this case. I believe the term “movement” is used by those coining the phrase preceding it to make others feel they’re “not in the know.” In 9 of 10 cases where this word is invoked in Art it has absolutely no other meaning. That’s right. In almost the case of every so-called Art “movement,” there was no group who got together about anything! Don’t believe the hype! Ignore it. Look at the work for yourself. I hope and believe these terms will eventually fade into antiquation and make every book that used them seem out of date, and “not in the know.” “Great grandpa, I’ve never heard this term before. What was a “photo realist?”

Bus With Reflection of the Flatiron Building, 1966-67, seen at Richard Estes: Painting New York City, in September, 2015. Richard Estes’s “mature” work begins here.

“I think I started using reflections to give more of an abstract quality to the paintings, to make them look less like a photo,” he said.6

Wait! That’s sheer photorealism blasphemy! The “movement” better have a meeting (their first) and pick a new “standard bearer!” Yes, Richard Estes begins with a reference Photograph or Photographs he took, but so what? Painters have been doing that for well over 100 years. That’s NOT the point!

137 years in this case. Unknown Photographer, Untitled, Portrait of the Model apparently used by Cézanne for his Painting, The Bather, 1885(!), now in MoMA’s permanent collection. Seen in my piece on Cézanne Drawing.

Most of them, including Cézanne, Edgar Degas, Thomas Eakins, Charles Sheeler, Ralston Crawford, Francis Bacon, Rod Penner or Jordan Casteel, haven’t been stuck in this box. Richard Estes uses his Photographs as references but always at the service of what he sees in his mind’s eye and what he feels looks “right” on the canvas for his conception of a given scene. As a result, in Tower Bridge, London, 1989, he includes St. Paul’s Cathedral in a scene where it wouldn’t be seen in real life, in Brooklyn Bridge, 1991, Mr. Estes had to enlarge the background skyline from the Empire State Building south to Wall Street to make sure it was even seen, and in Hiroshima he literally moved mountains- those that are right of the city to the background. Once I knew that, I didn’t take anything I saw in his work literally. I threw the “photo baby” out with the bath water.

Rhianna, 2012, Oil on panel, 12 x 24 inches. While most of his Urban Landscapes are sharply detailed, this one isn’t. Almost nothing here, save for the lettering on the sign, is in sharp focus.

That helped open my mind, and my eyes, to seeing “more,” to begin to look deeper than his unsurpassed technical mastery. That led me to the unasked question when it comes to any so-called photorealist Art, and to Richard Estes’s Art- What is his Art about? I’ll get to my take on it in Part 2.

View in Nepal, 2010 Oil on canvas, 32 x 43 inches. This doesn’t look like this in “real life.” In this work, only the snow-capped peak might be in sharp detail. Given this work’s size, I think it was designed to be seen from a distance, assuming the viewer’s attention would be on that central peak. Therefore, it seems to me it’s Painted the way the eye would see the peak, with everything else out of focus. Richard Estes has Painted in this style frequently, ever since he began spending his summers in Maine. It’s completely different from his Urban Landscapes of NYC and elsewhere where everything is in sharp focus. Would anyone call this “photorealist?”

Now, I see an Artist who Paints in a number of different styles- some sharp edged and apparently representational, with everything in focus from the foreground to the very back, other pieces “soft” and down right impressionistic (used as an adjective, not as a form of the word often used to connote a group of French Artists in the 19th century that I’m still not convinced were an actual “movement.” They were grouped together by a writer because they had to sell their work outside of the official Salon which rejected it). And, in a good many of his Paintings there are passages of abstraction- some quite large. What this tells me is that Richard Estes in an extremely talented Painter who maintains the freedom to go stylistically where his muse and the subject at hand takes him, and NOT a mere replication machine who’s a slave to a Photograph. In Part 3, I look at two works that define this, for me.

Late Afternoon Tide, Provincetown II, 2006, Oil on panel, 13 1/2 x 20 1/8 inches. When I look at this, I see an Artist under no pressure to create what’s “expected” of him. That’s just me.

Richard Estes gives us work based on Photographs that are translated through something no camera has- his human brain, with his unique intellect, to show what he wants us to see, as rendered through his remarkable hands and unique skill. This is what makes him that most human of terms- an Artist- something no device or machine is, at least to me. In his case, an Artist deserving more serious attention than he has received in his first 90 years. Of course, both his initial Photographs and the end Painting are the product of his eyes, and it is through these that he matches his original intention in taking his source Photographs with the resulting Painting, adding in, or changing, what was not present in the real world to match what he sees and feels inside. This is what differentiates him from a mere replicating machine.

Viva la différence!

-My observations based on 35 years of looking at Richard Estes’s body of work to date as a whole are in Part 2 of this series, below, or here
-The final Part 3 looks at two more recent Self-Portraits, which I feel stand apart from the rest of his work, here.
-My piece on Richard Estes’s Corner Cafe, 2013, may be seen here. 
My look at the 2015 Richard Estes: Painting New York City show at the Museum of Art & Design may be seen here.
-My piece “Death to Boxes!” is here.

*-Soundtrack for this Post is “Don’t Believe the Hype” by Chuck D & Public Enemy from It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back, 1988.

“Don’t believe the hype
Don’t—
Don’t—
Don’t—
Don’t believe the hype*”

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. As I face high expenses to keep it going, if you’ve found it worthwhile, please 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. https://msfineart.com/viewing-room/33-richard-estes-voyages/
  2. Patterson Sims, Richard Estes’ Realism, P.10. Mr. Sims was apparently there when Mr. Estes said this. Yet, he calls his work “Richard Estes’ Realism,” substituting one box for another.
  3. The Met, MoMA, Guggenheim Museum, the Whitney, the New Museum and the Brooklyn Museum.
  4. I’m not counting Chuck Close for the reasons just stated.
  5. ibid, p.10
  6.  New York Times, March 8, 2015 

Richard Estes Art: What I See

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava

This is Part 2 of my look at the work of Richard Estes on his 90th Birthday, May 14, 2022. Part 1 is above, or here. The final Part 3 is below, or here

Over most of my 35+ years of looking at the work of Richard Estes, I’ve simply enjoyed looking at it, and it certainly lends itself to that. As I’ve already said in Part 1, one result of all that looking is that his Art has come to shape the way I see the world around me. As he turns 90, his Painting career has now spanned more than 55 years1! Recently, I began asking myself “What does it all mean?” This Part looks at what I see.

Richard Estes, Antarctica II, 2013, Oil on panel, 16 3/4 x 22 3/4, seen at the show’s entrance. Click for full size.

In Antarctica II from 2013, we see an iceberg floating in a large body of water with a smaller piece of ice, possibly broken off of it, floating on its own. To the left is the hull of the ship apparently containing the Artist on one of his many voyages to a far away land, with the side of a lifeboat visible above. The boat’s wake radiates out towards the berg as the boat moves towards it. One reading of this piece would be man’s impact on Antarctica, which has left it in a precarious state, represented by his alien vessel encroaching on the iceberg’s realm, its wake about to make contact with it.

Not so fast…

“Richard Estes avows that his realism has no hidden meanings, special messages, or stories to tell. Political positions and posturing about the human condition are alien to his art,” in a conversation with Patterson Sims per Patterson Sims, Richard Estes’ Realism2.

Given what I wrote in Part 1 about people disrespecting the Artist’s word on his own Art, though this is not a direct quote (something I address further on), I’m not going back on that now. It is impossible, however, for me not to see the effects of global warming in Antarctica II. How to reconcile this?

Unlike the blockbuster Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror, which was originally scheduled to coincide with Mr. Johns’s 90th Birthday in 2020, before the virus closed everything, as far as I know at the moment (in early May, 2022), nothing is planned in the Art world to celebrate Richard Estes’s 90th Birthday. My series might be it! Seriously?

Richard Estes: Voyages installation view of View in Nepal, 2010, Oil on canvas, 32 by 43 inches. Part of the show was very nicely installed in the large office space. In Part 1, I wrote about how I believe this work is conceived. Installed like this makes standing close to it difficult, and so the eye is almost forced to the central, white, peak, causing everything in front of it to be out of focus. It’s really a marvelous and somewhat daring composition for this reason, and a stunning contrast to Richard Estes’s Urban Landscapes, like the one to follow…

The closest NYC Art event that might qualify was Richard Estes: Voyages at Menconi & Schoelkopf in July, 2021, the first show of his work here since the Museum of Art & Design’s Richard Estes: Painting New York City in 2015, which I looked at here. Containing about 30 pieces covering the range of his subjects, Voyages featured more recent work. The theme of the show was ostensibly the annual trips and voyages Mr. Estes has taken over many years and the Paintings that have resulted from them, though these were juxtaposed with some of his iconic NYC Urban Landscapes3. An experienced world traveler at this point, his journeys have taken him to the far corners of the globe. At first, being completely taken by his views of NYC, I didn’t know what to make of the resulting views of forests, bodies of water, mountains and deserts that began emanating from his hand after his travels, first to Maine, then ever further afield. All the while, he still continued to give us his iconic Paintings of New York City, and other cities. When I walked into Voyages and saw the Urban Landscapes alongside African landscapes, Antarctic vistas, and deserts, I finally decided to sit down and do a reconciliation of his entire career and try and finally understand what, if anything, his whole body of work is saying to me.

First, Voyages reveals Richard Estes has been as busy Painting as ever. In 2021, at age 89(!), he Painted this-

Brooklyn Diner, 2021(!), Oil on canvas, 37 x 55 1/4 inches. I was dumbstruck when I first saw this. I just hope I can still out of bed if/when I’m 89.

It’s a statement in more ways than one. First, it’s apparent even at a glance that he has lost none of his world-class technique! When I finally finished marveling at that, I began to ponder the unusual composition. I decided to take a look-see for myself. I jumped on the A Train and made a trip to the real Brooklyn Diner, which turned out to be a bit of an outlier on West 57th Street, to see what I could learn from the actual site.

Brooklyn Diner seen from just behind the spot Richard Estes depicts. July 1, 2021. Notice how the “real” view lines up, or doesn’t line up, with the Painting. If I were standing closer, nearer that railing, as in the Painting, I wouldn’t be able to get the same view of the door, without a wider angle lens. The very wide 23mm lens I’m using here barely holds it, and I had to step back to get this! Suffice it to say I wasn’t able to take a Photo that exactly matches the Painting! Therefore, my Photo is not so-called “Paintingrealism,” to coin a box I hope no one uses. See important footnote-4.

Seeing it in person raised all sorts of questions about the Painting. Diner manager Guy told me the scaffolding, not to be seen now, was up from July to around Christmas, 2019, for HVAC work on the roof. Even though the scaffolding is gone, the building is exactly the same as it was. As you can see, I was unable to duplicate the view of the building in Mr. Estes’s Painting in a Photo in spite of using a wide-angle 23mm lens! Being the most colorful place in the area, and that area being Richard Estes’ extended neighborhood, I then wondered why he didn’t render it before or after the repairs. Then, I quickly remembered that over the last decade or so, Mr. Estes has Painted quite a few buildings fronted with scaffolding (another is shown further below).

Booklyn Diner, July 1, 2021. The trees in front of it make its signage a bit less commanding, partially hiding it, like the scaffolding in the Painting does. The trees are our of the frame to the left in the Painting.

Scaffolding adds yet another layer to the countless layers many of his street scenes already had- exterior, reflections, interior, rear exterior, which often adds another level of complexity to the geometry of the whole thing, not to mention another layer of technical difficulty. It also adds mystery. It’s interesting to me that here, the top of the building is cut off. On the main sign to the left, you cannot read “Brooklyn,” and “Diner” is hard to see fully. Neither is legible on the sign to the right. In fact, if he didn’t name the Painting Brooklyn Diner, you wouldn’t know what this place was! This “selective editing” makes me feel that the facade, with its candy color, distantly Art Deco echo, is not the point of the piece, though it’s what catches the eye when you see either the Painting or the actual Diner on the street. The ways he has changed the scene are fascinating. Again, I wonder “Why?” The only conclusion I can make from this is that Mr. Estes is making the scene into what he wants to express.

The Diner sits, incongruously, a half a block, but worlds away from, the glitz, glamour and Artistry of, Carnegie Hall, and directly across the street from the legendary & historic Art Students League. This location is not far from Mr. Estes’s NYC apartment, and that fact has led him to render innumerable sites in this neighborhood in Paint over his long career.

West 57th Street between 7th & 8th Avenues looking east. That’s Carnegie Hall, lit up left, Brooklyn Diner, behind the trees, right. My back is to the Art Students League. July, 2021.

In pondering why he chooses his subjects (which I still often do), I find something quite interesting about this location, and it’s shown in this photo- Richard Estes is a known lover of  Classical Music. Yet, he has never Painted Carnegie Hall, the most famous Classical Music concert hall in the country and one of the most famous in the world! In Brooklyn Diner, a glow of a light may be seen at the far left nearer the top. That may be from Carnegie’s lights as shown here. That’s as close as he’s gotten! It begs the question “With all the buildings he’s depicted in the area, why hasn’t he Painted Carnegie Hall?” As for this subject, he has given un an unorthodox view of Brooklyn Diner, putting the focus of this work in an odd place. I imagine that if 100 other Painters chose to paint the Booklyn Diner, this is not the view we would get. From the street, the neon sign is the most striking thing about the Diner. In Mr. Estes’s Painting, the sign is cut and is far away from the center/focal point of the work. Instead, front and center are details of the scaffolding. What to make of this?

Wholesome Foods, #2, 2018, Oil on panel, 16 x 22 1/4 inches. Another of Richard Estes’s scaffolding Paintings, and another in which the scaffolding is font and center. The woman sitting behind it in the window is engulfed by the detritus of the modern world- glass, steel, wood, paper, cars, buildings, trees, and the materials she’s wearing. In this wonderful composition, which harkens back to, and updates, Edward Hopper’s similar scenes, and a store window reflection Photograph by Eugene Atget, which Mr. Estes has in his collection, she becomes just another element, or someone seen behind glass. I see this as a reminder of how the modern urban world forces its inhabitants to live, a scene that might look as odd to viewers in 300 years as Canaletto’s scenes of Venice look to us today. The geometry and depth of this piece is extraordinarily multi-dimensional, beautiful and ugly at the same time.

 “I don’t enjoy looking at the things I paint, so why should you enjoy it?…I’m not trying to make propaganda for New York, or anything. I think I would tear down most of the places I paint.’” 5.

Those are not idle words. Richard Estes started out to be an Architect before he became an illustrator, and finally a Painter. When I looked at Corner Cafe, 2014-15, from the Painting New York City show, his most recent work at that time, I found that Mr. Estes had not eaten there. I don’t know, but I would imagine the same might be the case for the Brooklyn Diner. So much for a Painting of a place from a personal experience. If we remove personal experience from his choice of subject here (hypothetically) we’re left with something about this site inspiring the Artist creatively. It’s hard for me to look at Wholesome Foods, #2, or Brooklyn Diner, or any of the scaffolding Estes and not think he’s (symbolically) “X”ing out what we’re looking at, given what he said. In the case of Wholesome Foods, #2, possibly with multiple large, literal “Xs.” “… I would tear down most of the places I paint,” leaves it up to the viewer to decide which places he means. Maybe that’s why he hasn’t Painted Carnegie Hall?

Times Square, 2004, Oil on canvas, 64 1/8 x 37 inches. Click on it to be fully engulfed. Seen at his 2015 Museum of Art & Design show, this may be the most technically astounding Painting I’ve ever seen, along with any Painting by Jan van Eyck. Having stood on this spot before, during and after 2004, I can certainly verify the overwhelming visual noise that still is Times Square, something that has never been more faithfully realized than it is here. Like most New Yorkers, including this one, maybe Richard Estes would like to see it torn down? Still, the Painting would live on as a reminder of how we actually lived here in 2004. “Progress” since the time of Canaletto (1697-1768)? It could also be read as a comment along those lines.

Overall, I see Richard Estes as a direct successor to the Artists he has named as influences- Canaletto, his nephew Bellotto, Thomas Cole, Frederic Church and Thomas Eakins. All of these Artists depicted the world around them without an ostensible “message,” though Thomas Cole also created the series The Course of Empire, in 1833-6, which I looked at here, that do appear to have a message. After the fact, Conservation has come to be seen as one interpretation of Cole, Church and their contemporaries, who were lumped in the Hudson River School box by someone else. That aside, I look at Richard Estes’s work the same way I look at any of theirs.

Richard Estes, Corner Cafe, 2014-15, the newest work shown in his Museum of Art & Design Painting New York City show, and seen there in 2015. Oil on Canvas. The Artist was only 83 when he Painted this. I visited the actual Corner Cafe shortly after seeing it. Interestingly, due to a large phone booth in the way, I again had great difficulty trying to duplicate the view seen in the Painting in a Photo!

I get similar feelings looking at some of Mr. Estes’s Urban Landscapes, like Wholesome Foods, #2, Corner Cafe and Horn & Hardart, 1967 that I get looking at Edward Hopper’s urban scenes, including Nighthawks, as I said in my 2016 look at Mr. Estes’s Corner Cafe. This is incredibly rare. Though countless other Artists have tried to emulate Hopper, (which I am not saying Mr. Estes is) I can’t say I’ve felt that from any of them. Seven years after I first saw it, I still get that feeling when I look at Corner Cafe, which I now feel is a masterpiece.

When taken as a whole, the 55 year & counting body of Paintings & Prints he’s created, some interesting things become apparent. Looking back over more than a half century, Richard Estes’s Paintings show us two worlds.

Antarctica II, 2007. Oil on panel, 26 3/8 x 57 inches. Canaletto (1697-1768) lived 300 years ago. In 300 years, will people look at this as something they can relate to in their world, or something from the lost past?

First, the world he lives in and around in NYC, and to a lesser extent, the other cities he has visited & Painted around the world- i.e. his so-called Urban Landscapes6. The second is the world he lives in and around his second home in Maine, and the natural world he has visited on his many trips to other lands. Both groups can be summarized thus- 1) Works depicting the world built by man on the one hand, and, 2) Works depicting the unbuilt, natural world on the other. There is obvious intention in this. Mr. Estes has chosen each and every subject he has Painted. Outside of a handful of Portraits (some commissions, some gifts), I’m leaving nothing out of his oeuvre in saying this. It’s incredibly rare in Art history to find ANY Artist who’s entire body of work fits so neatly into two categories!

Voyages, installation view of the second gallery. NYC Urban Landscapes on the left wall, Antarctica Paintings on the right, one of each to the far left and far fright is cut off.

Seeing some of each of the categories on view face to face in Voyages brought this duality home for me in a convincing fashion. On one wall in the second gallery, left above, a rotating selection of Paintings of Manhattan faced a selection of Paintings of Antarctica on the opposite wall, right. For me, this summed up his career to date in a nutshell. The city scapes show the city (NYC, London, Paris, Madrid, Tokyo, etc) on typical days, much like the Venice Canaletto and Bellotto show us. Mr. Estes’s Paintings of the natural world seem to follow in the long tradition of landscapes by American Artists, including Thomas Cole, Church, et al, as well as Edward Hopper’s views of Maine (among many other Artists who have preceded Mr. Estes and lived & worked in Maine. Thomas Cole also Painted Mount Desert, Maine, the subject of a number of Mr. Estes’s Paintings).

ATM, 2018, Oil on panel, 16 x 20 inches. In this marvelous Urban Landscape, it seems to me that only the three empty chairs in the mid foreground are in sharp focus, doing something Mr. Estes does in many of his pieces- de-emphasizing human subjects to avoid the narrative as I’ve heard him say- even when there are people present in the Painting. No Painter known to me Paints the modern city like Richard Estes. This Painting is hanging to the far left, just out of the frame in the prior picture.

His Paintings of the man-made world (i.e. his Urban Landscapes) might well be called New Topographic if they were Photographs because it seems to me  they see the world through the same lens as the legendary New Topographics Photography show at the Kodak Museum in Rochester in 1975, which focused on the “Man-Altered Landscape,” the show’s subtitle. Mr. Estes’s NYC Paintings predate this show by 7 or 8 years, though the Photographers included in it were working at the same time he was. I have no information that either Mr. Estes knew these Photographers or their work, then or now.

Antarctica I, 2013, Oil on panel, 14 3/4 x 20 inches. Another Antarctica Painting brings me back to what I said I saw in Antarctica II up top.

“Richard Estes avows that his realism has no hidden meanings, special messages, or stories to tell. Political positions and posturing about the human condition are alien to his art,7.”

So, how to reconcile what I said about in the beginning of this piece about Antarctica II with this? Mr. Sims’s words are not an actual quote, and so are less than ideal. As I said, Richard Estes has chosen to show us each and every one of these sites, so there is obvious intention in that. The two facing walls I showed in Voyages were in his show, so there is intention in that, too. Beyond this, he is directly quoted (shown earlier) saying that he would like to see many of the sites he has Painted torn down. Is he fearful of the loss of much of the natural world during his lifetime? He is known to be actively involved in conservation efforts, particularly in Maine. Is he recording both the man-made and the state of the natural world for future generations? Given the time he has spent studying Canaletto and Thomas Cole, even visiting sites they Painted, I would say it is possible. Yet, it must be admitted that Mr. Estes may simply be an observant onlooker at the ever-changing world he’s seen first hand near and far, then creating Paintings that express what he’s experienced. As I’ve demonstrated, these are NOT verbatim depictions. He’s an Artist, not a replicating machine, as I showed in Part 1. Regardless of the nebulous statement from Mr. Sims above, Mr. Estes intends exactly what he shows us, aided by a technique that is the equal of that only a very few Artists in Art history have had to render his intentions as clearly as is humanly possible. He also is well aware that every viewer will see in his work what they will, as he sees, has seen, and is himself influenced by, those he admires who have come before him.

What will our world look like to people 300 years from now? A viewer looks at Canalellto’s Piazza San Marco, 1720s, in 2019, almost exactly 300 years after it was Painted, at The Met. While I have no doubt that Richard Estes, himself, has stood in this spot any number of times, this isn’t just any viewer. This is Lana Hattan, who pushed me to start NighthawkNYC in 2015. Seen here on one of the last times I’ve seen her, December 14, 2019. If you find this site worthwhile, you owe her your thanks. Without her push, it wouldn’t be here.

Richard Estes’s Paintings speak for themselves, and they should be allowed to- beyond boxes or other limitations.  The Artist doesn’t need to stand up and say, “This Painting is about _____.” They are what they are. Look for yourself at them and see what they say to you. 

“I see what I see,” as Frank Stella says. For me, Richard Estes has Painted the most compelling record of the New York City of my lifetime in it. He has also created a beautiful record of much of what’s left of the natural world. It’s a record of the world in his time- what’s been built by man, and and what’s left of the natural world, rendered through the hands and mind of an Artist. I see a “dialogue” going on when I look at both bodies of his work. In the end, intentionally or not, his work shows the condition of the world in his (and our) time. Including (again, intentionally or not), depictions of a number of key issues modern man faces and has created.

I can only wonder what viewers in hundreds of years will make of what he shows us. I have a sneaking feeling that Richard Estes has thought a lot about this, too.

-The 3rd, and final, Part of this series, “Richard Estes: Two Manifestos” is below this one, or here.
-Part 1 is here.
-My piece on Richard Estes’s Corner Cafe, 2013, may be seen here. 
My look at the 2015 Richard Estes: Painting New York City show at the Museum of Art & Design may be seen here.
-My piece “Death to Boxes!” is here.

*-Soundtrack for this Post is “Once in a Lifetime,” by David Byrne & Talking Heads, from Remain in Light, 1980, and performed here In Los Angeles in 1983, extracted from the Film Stop Making Sense

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. As I face high expenses to keep it going, if you’ve found it worthwhile, please donate to keep it up & 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. From Bus with Reflection of the Flatiron Building, 1967,  shown in Part 1
  2.  P.1. Wait. Shouldn’t it read “Richard Estes avows that his Art has no…?” Substituting the “realism” box for the “photorealism” box isn’t any better, in my view. Richard Estes is a Painter- with no prefixes, in my book, the point of Part 1 of this series. Death to boxes!
  3. Urban Landscapes is the title of 3 series of Screenprints the Artist has created. I showed one from my collection in Part 1. It was also the title of a show of Mr. Estes’s work in 1978 at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
  4. After I finished this Part, I saw the book Richard Estes: Voyages. In it, Mr. Estes says that he now destroys his source Photographs because he doesn’t want them compared to the Painting. I understand and respect his decision. I saw a few of his source Photos in the 2015 M.A.D. Museum show and showed a few in my piece on Corner Cafe. To honor his feelings, I have revised that piece and removed them. I am publishing these because- a) they are not his source Photos, and b) because I feel they highlight the differences between actual locations and his Paintings, showing the lie to some of the hype around Richard Estes’s work, as I outlined in Part 1. It must be noted, and I think it is very interesting, that I was unable to replicate the view seen in both Brooklyn Diner, 2021, and Corner Cafe, 2014-15 when I visited both
  5. ibid, p.1
  6. I’m including his so-called “Still Life” Paintings in this since they depict objects seen in windows or on shelves and are not studio setups.
  7. In a conversation with Patterson Sims per Patterson Sims, Richard Estes’ Realism, P.1

Richard Estes: Two “Manifestos”

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava (*unless otherwise credited)

This is Part 3, the final part, of my look at the work of Richard Estes on his 90th Birthday, May 23, 2022. Part 1. Part 2.

As I look through the work of Richard Estes, two Paintings stand apart for me. Both are “Self-Portraits.” Though those words are in their titles, I put it in quotes though because you can’t really see the Artist in either one, only his shadow or ghost, and so they’re not typical Self-Portraits. Yet, that’s what the Artist has titled each. First, some context-

This ISN’T one of them. Double Self-Portrait, 1967, Oil on canvas, 24 x 36 inches. When I think of how Richard Estes taught me how to see, this is a prime example of it.  *Smithsonian Photo

Richard Estes has been given us a few Self-Portraits and de facto Self-Portraits dating back to 1967’s Double Self-Portrait, which is now in MoMA. In other Paintings, we see his shadow on the landscape, though these are not titled “Self-Portraits.” In 2015, at the Museum of Art & Designs, Richard Estes: Painting New York City show, which I wrote about here, I was taken by a Self-Portrait, dated 2013, one of the most recent Paintings in the show, hung near the end of it. I can’t say I’d seen anything like it in Richard Estes’s oeuvre to that point.

Self-Portrait, 2013, Oil.on board, 15 x 13 inches. The Artist “seen” on the Staten Island Ferry. Another work that further effected how I see the world. Seen in Richard Estes: Painting New York City at the Museum of Art & Design in 2015.

I put a picture of it up and I’ve looked at it often these past 7 years since I first saw it. In it, the body of the ferry is rendered in crystal clear and vibrantly colored detail. You can clearly see the texture of the paint on the ship, a Painting of paint by the Artist! The eye makes out the shape of a torso and we are to assume that this is the titular “Self-Portrait.” Apparently, the Artist is holding a camera, though the center of Mr. Estes’s head and upper chest, where the camera would be, is missing or hidden by reflections.

Detail of the “Painting inside the Painting.” The “abstract” Richard Estes in full effect- in the real world!

The window acts as a sort of frame for the main part of the composition. Inside that “frame” things are completely different. Nothing is in sharp detail, though everything is sublimely Painted. Silvery lines lead the eye further and further back to the NYC skyline lining what may be the “background,” though it’s hard to tell. It, too, is out of focus and indistinguishable to the point that I can’t identify any of the buildings. Richard Estes: Abstractionist? His work DOESN’T need another box!

What to make of this?

My personal view is that this may be something of a “manifesto.” In it, Mr. Estes shows that he is perfectly capable of Painting wonderfully in multiple styles, and he, represented by the mysterious partial shadow, won’t be “defined” by one, i.e. a sharply detailed Portrait, like we see in Double Self-Portrait up top. HOW can this be called so-called photorealism when you can’t even clearly see the “Self-Portrait” in a work titled just that? Yes, he can paint crystal clearly- when it suits him and his purpose, but he’s perfectly able, and apt, to Paint however he needs to to achieve his purpose.

Thinking about this further, Painting up until the beginning of the 20th century was strictly “representational.” Around the turn of the century, Artist like Hilma af Klint, Kandinsky, Monet and others, began exploring abstraction. Abstraction became the 2nd great type of Art in Art history. In Self-Portrait, 2013, I see both, side by side, as they appear in the real world.

In summing up the Art of Richard Estes, in my opinion, Richard Estes’s represents nothing less than a kind of culmination of the history of Painting in a way. He is among the first to combine representational and abstraction in his Art, even if he has done it unintentionally. This is what I see it when I look at his Art. In my view, THIS is something that should be receiving a lot more attention than it has gotten (i.e. almost none). It hasn’t because people are too busy being limited by what his work is “supposed” to be, as decreed by the box makers. They think that is all his Art is, as I said in Part 1! That’s because they’ve stopped looking at it. To wit-

In July, 2021, at Richard Estes: Voyages, I was stopped by another recent Self-Portrait, this one strategically installed half way through the show.

Self-Portrait in Copenhagen, 2019, Oil on panel, 16 x 20 inches. The Artist seen 52 years after Double Self-Portrait!

Again, this piece has been on my mind from the moment I first saw it. It shares some elements with the Ferry Self-Portrait, like the row of lines leading the eye further and further in, and the central titular dark shape with the “head” missing. This time, the “frame” of the outside world, that served to “ground” the Ferry Self-Portrait, to prepare the viewer (in a way) for the abstraction, has been removed. That means NOTHING in this piece is sharply rendered! EVERYTHING in it is nebulous. In that regard, it strikes as an “evolution” from the 2013 Ferry Self-Portrait- now, the whole Painting is that “Painting in a Painting” I showed earlier inside the Ferry Self-Portait(!). It is, perhaps, its logical culmination.

Detail of the center.

NOTHING in focus is downright shocking to see in a finished Painting by Richard Estes (which I assume it is since it was in his shows in NYC, London and Florida). To top it off, parts of it appear to be unfinished! Obviously, given its exhibition history, this is intentional. As a result, it’s hard for me to not see it as an extension of the “manifesto” of the 2013 Ferry Self-Portrait. Mr. Estes is showing us he will Paint as he pleases- without the expectations of anyone.

Detail of the right section. Note the figure exiting to the right. This section looks to me more like something by Neo Rauch than Richard Estes.

Look! That figure on the far right is only half Painted! His or her torso is only outlined! There is nothing like this in Richard Estes’s oeuvre since 1967!

A Self-Portrait is a Portrait created by an Artist of his or herself. If I read these last two Self-Portraits literally, they are how the Artist sees himself, and in my view, how he sees his Painting. In the 2013 Ferry Self-Portrait, he shows us his mastery of multiple styles and uses them to present representation and abstraction in the same piece (as I see it). In his 2019 Self-Portrait in Copenhagen we see the Artist completely comfortable in showing us only a “looser,” FREER (a keyword about this piece for me), uninhibited, and perhaps MORE PAINTERLY style than we have seen in an entire Painting since 1967.

This says to me “THIS is how I see myself, and my Painting.”

Many more, Mr. Estes!

*-Soundtrack for this Post is a wonderful, surprise, blending of Beethoven’s Eroica with Happy Birthday for Sir Roger Norrington on his 84th as performed by the SWR Symphonieorchester borrowed for the 90th of this fan of Classical Music-

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 6 years, during which over 250 full length pieces have been published. As I face high expenses to keep it going, if you’ve found it worthwhile, please donate to keep it up & 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.

 

Caslon Bevington’s Counterfeit Weather

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava (*unless otherwise credited)

Caslon Bevington, Sunstorm II, 2022, Acrylic on canvas, 16 by 20 inches.

“I can hear the nation cry
You will set the world babe
You will set the world on fire
You will set it on fire”*

The late David Bowie was, along with everything else he was, a passionate Art collector. As far as I know, he never got to see the work of Caslon Bevington, so I am willfully borrowing his words in speaking about her Art, and her stunning new show, Duping False Landscapes, at both of Ki Smith Gallery’s new East Village locations. In it, she has set the world on fire. More about that in a bit. 

Flashback: Installation view of Caslon’s 2017 show at Mana Contemporary. *Photo by Roman Dean.

I, however, am not a stranger to Caslon’s work. On September 20th, 2017, I actually left Manhattan(!) to see her show at Mana Contemporary in Jersey City. I wrote about what I saw here. Her show has stayed with me. In these intervening five years, my appreciation of it has continued to grow. At that point in early Fall, 2017, eternally & forever a “Painting guy,” I was 2 months away from being completely consumed by Modern & Contemporary Photography (i.e. from the 1958-59 publication of Robert Frank’s The Americans, to the present) for the next 5+ years to the present moment. When I saw what Caslon was doing with her Photo-based pieces, I was coming at it from Painting and Print making. Now, I also see it through the lens of the past 5 years, the x-thousand PhotoBooks and hundreds of Photo shows that have passed in front of my eyes, and what those Photographers have been doing these past 60+ years. Of course, there is some overlap: many Painters are, also, Photographers, and vice versa. As I wrote, she was on the edge of what Artists were doing with Photography. Five years later, I can’t say I’ve seen anyone else doing quite what she was doing then. Caslon was making what strikes me as ground-breaking work. It turns out I missed her 2019 show, her first for Ki Smith Gallery, and my vague impressions of it comes from a few installation shots. 

Duping False Landscapes, Ki Smith Gallery, East 4th Street, Installation view.

Fast forward to April Fool’s Day, 2022. I had a deja vu experience all over again when I walked in to see Duping False Landscapes at Ki Smith Gallery, stopping in to their East 4th Street location first. The wall facing the front door was lined with 8 striking image or Photo-based prints, seen to the right above. Robert Rauschenberg, Wade Guyton, Jeff Elrod, Nico Crijno, Chris Dorland, and others crossed my mind, but I immediately stopped myself when I realized these were an evolution from what I saw in her own work in 2017. I stopped caring how the images were manipulated or printed and just enjoyed looking at them. These were new, fresh, exciting pieces, and most of all, they are just beautiful- a word seldomly, if ever, applied to such work. Some are vibrantly colored & printed. Some look like snap shots in a family album that has been thumbed through so often the prints have faded from light and time. But, it all just works and holds together as a group (though they are separate works). For me, at least, these new prints provided a bit of  continuity with what I had seen before, and they set the stage for the rest of the show.

Sunset from Moving Cars (Revisited), n.d., Acrylic on canvas, 70 by 53 inches.

On the left wall of the gallery was the show stopper of both shows. “Sunset from Moving Cars (Revisited),” 70 by 53 inches, Acrylic on canvas, with about another 6 inches of Painted canvas exposed on the sides(!). It turned out to be a bit of a harbinger of what I would see in Part 2 of the show on East 3rd Street. The Artist seems to be drawn to fleeting images taken on the fly, like from a moving car, here. It was also the first “weather-related” piece in the show. Ki Smith mentioned to me that Caslon was a Painter when he met her circa 2015. Then, she moved away from Painting to explore other mediums. I didn’t realize her history and experience with Painting from seeing her 2017 show and images from her 2019 show. Between the two new shows I counted 15 Paintings ranging in size from 4 by 6 inches, to 70 by 53 inches that mark her return to Painting in a big way. There are about a dozen prints and 2 works on Terracotta also on view.

Counterfeit Weather, 2022, Acrylic on canvas, 29.5 inches square, left, and Untitled, 2022, Inkjet on archival vellum, 8.5 by 11 inches, right.

Moving over to the East 3rd Street space, there were more Prints on view, with the same effect. However, at the far end of south wall was something else. On the corner wall was a large Painting, Counterfeit Weather, 2022, that was seemingly influenced by the print, Untitled, 2022, Inkjet on archival vellum, hanging just to its right. Paintings have been translated into Prints going back to the invention of printing in an effort to get them more widely seen. It’s rarer to see a Print translated into a Painting. In fact, I can’t recall seeing anyone do something like this. It’s utterly fascinating to contemplate one and then the other. Here was the largest Painting in the show that is a translation into a Painting of a work in another medium. In all of them, the Artist depicts source images that are distorted, (intentionally or not), or so small as to make detail almost impossible to make out, allowing for “Artistic license” in their translation.

Three Untitled pieces, each from 2022, each Acrylic on canvas, seen in the windows of Ki Smith Gallery’s East 3rd Street location.

Three prime examples of this are featured hanging in the East 3rd Street Gallery’s windows. In them, the Artist has taken Photos that most of us would throw out or erase. Pictures where either the camera’s technology had its own mind, or the Photographer moved while the shutter was open, blurring the resulting Photo beyond recognition of its subject. The Artist has decided to render these images, as they are, in paint! Thinking back through the history of Painting, Kerry James Marshall’s 7am Sunday Morning, 2003, came to mind. In it, Mr. Marshall has devoted almost half the 120 by 216 inch canvas to depicting the lens flare from his camera pointed at the morning sun. I can’t really think of another instance where an Artist has done this, and certainly not one where the Artist has made it the subject of an entire piece, in this case at least 3 pieces.

Sunstorm II, 2022, Acrylic on panel, Frictions (Variation B), 2022, Acrylic on Panel and Frictions (Variation A), 2022, Acrylic on panel, left to right, seen during a tea party held at the gallery on April 9th.

Back inside, on the far walls, the Artist proceeds to set the world on fire. A series of four Sunstorm Paintings, each dated 2022, and two that appear to be somewhat related, titled Frictions, literally burn up their panels and canvasses. Apparently, they are based on an old, small Photo, which doesn’t lend itself to enlargement, and hence allows the imagination to complete their details.

Sunstorm (Expanded), 2022, Acrylic on canvas, 39 x 49 inches, the largest of the series.

Frankly, I don’t want to know much more about them lest the mystery evaporate. Anchored by the ground, we see the outline of what might be a part of a fence in a few along the bottom, but almost all of the rest of each work consists of a huge ball of flame, ostensibly, given the titles, from a sun looming all too large in the sky.

Sunstorm, 2022, Acrylic on canvas. 11 by 14.5 inches.

This series adds an ominous atmosphere for the first time (that I’ve seen) in her work. Exactly what is going on in these works is a mystery. In the two Sunstorms above the storms appear to be tornadic. What really stands out for me are the multiple layers each Painting features. Multiple Paintings, or part-Paintings, superimposed on the one picture plane. This is a continuation and expansion of the idea the work in her 2019 show presented, and at least one earlier Painting, and again (stop me if you’ve heard this one before) is something I can’t recall seeing in Paintings before. It’s also remarkable that these and so many other pieces on view date from 2022, a year that was exactly 3 months old when they were hung here.

Frictions (Variations A), 2022, Acrylic on panel, 16 x 20 inches.

Having created further innovations that blur the lines between, and show new possibilities of, the image and the Photograph, Painting, and the relationship between Photography & Painting, I’m left to wonder where Caslon is going to take her work next. It’s still very early in the Artist’s career as she embarks on her 3rd decade of life. Yet, she’s already broken quite a bit of new ground in her work- something very few Artists, of any age, can say.

In 2017, I left her show believing that she was on to something. In 2022, it’s apparent to me that Caslon is now on her way to establishing herself as one of the more interesting Artists working today.

*-Soundtrack for this Post is “(You Will) Set the World on Fire,” by David Bowie, from his 2015 album The Next Day.

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded & ad-free for over 8 years, during which 300 full-length pieces have been published! If you’ve found it worthwhile, PLEASE donate to allow me to continue below. Thank you, Kenn.

You can also support it by buying Art, Art & Photography books, and Music from my collection! Art & Books may be found here. Music here and here.

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

Highlights of the 2022 Whitney Biennial: Matt Connors

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava

There I was, wandering the 5th Floor of the Whitney Museum on my first visit to the 2022 Biennial edition, filled with my usual trepidation, when about 10 minutes in I discovered Matt Connors. I was immediately captivated.

Ahhh…That rarest of rare things: Great Painting on view in the Whitney Biennial. Six works by the amazing Matt Connors line one of two walls given to him on the 5th floor of the Whitney Biennial. After Scriabin (Red), 2020, Untitled, 2021, Body Forth, 2021, I / Fell / Off (After M.S.), 2021, Number Covered, 2021, Fourth Body Study, 2021, left to right.

He was generously given parts of 2 walls and I came away feeling that every one of his works displayed was strong. A feeling I only had one other time on the floor- that for the Paintings on view by Jane Dickson. Ms. Dickson has been working somewhat under the radar of many documenting a time and place in Paintings & Photographs, that no one else has- the Times Square area, before its Disneyfication (which makes it as loathed by locals today as the area was before. No small feat!). When I left, I stopped into the bookstore, as I usually do on my way out, and discovered this huge Matt Connors monograph with the cryptic title, GUI(L)D E. (Hmmmm…If the means the “L” is silent, it becomes GUID E.?) I looked through it to see if my intrigue would grow into more, and I couldn’t put it down. But I had to when they closed.

Body Forth, 2021, Oil and acrylic on canvas

That night, I did some research and discovered that Mr. Connors is not new by any means, but he’s not even in mid-career yet. In fact, his most recent show just closed days before the Biennial opened. Drat! I would have loved to have seen it.
Not only is he not new, he is, apparently, exceptionally prolific. GUI(L)D E is, apparently, part 2 of a retrospective of his work to date, following 2012’s A Bell Is Not A Cup, reprinted in 2016. GUI(L)D E covers his work since in almost 500 pages! His auction prices put him in the “established” category. 30 to 50 grand, or more, for his Paintings were the prices I saw. Even considering what I’m about to say next, my feeling is those prices are likely to hold for the time being. Being so prolific might work against him in this regard. Fewer, of anything, equals more expensive.

Though his work to date is abstract, these two works only hint at Matt Connors’s range. First Fixed, 2021, and How I Made Certain of My Paintings, 2021, left to right. I stood in front of How I Made for quite a while, getting increasingly drawn in to the composition’s unique geometry…

I have seen enough to call Matt Connors one of the “stars” of this Biennial. 

Let’s get lost. About to dig into my copy of Matt Connors GUI(L)D E, published by Karma in 2019, for the first time…

Not being able to get it, or his work off my mind, I went back to the Whitney just to buy GUI(L)D E the following night. After its 464 pages, plus the dozen works I saw the day before, my intrigue solidified into love, as in: “I love his work!” What? So fast? Why? First, I am extremely impressed with his color sense. In my view, Matt Connors is a true master of color. His choices are just gorgeous, rich, ripe, and work together brilliantly (not meant as a pun, but I’ll take it). Proof of this can be found in the Special Edition of GUI(L)D E, which comes with a Limited Edition print that seems to be based on his 2019 Painting Bird Through a Tunnel, or After Scriabin (Red), 2020 (seen in the first image in this piece) in any one of TWENTY-FOUR color ways! I’ve spent hours arguing with myself over which one I like best! Then, his compositions are unique and run the gamut from, apparently, completely free, perhaps improvised, to based on more representational scenarios. Then, there’s the way he manages, and reimagines, shapes. Fond of basic shapes, and multiples of them, “perfect” geometry is not always what he aims for, and that helps to leave his pieces fresh, in my view. His work continually surprises. At times I think he’s another Mondrian, on the next page another Matisse. All the while, he is as prolific as Jasper Johns, and as creative with paint as Paul Klee, as his work shape shifts from one to the next. Though some, many, all, or none, may be influences, he resolutely follows his own sense. In the end, that’s what I admire most, along with there being real variety in his strokes and mark making that is stunning.

Good luck(!) to those “isms” lovers trying to “box” Matt Connors! His work proves the folly in that. Why bother? Just sit back and enjoy looking for a change.

I / Fell / Off (after M.S.), 2021

Though he works in what most would call “abstraction,” his work strikes me as being accessible to virtually anyone. Accessible, perhaps. Understandable is another matter. His work is (almost) fiendishly inventive, leaving the viewer to ponder “what it all means,” while his color sense, which can be breathtaking, is going to seduce many an eye and surprise even those who think they’ve seen every palette an Artist ever invented.

One Wants to Insist Very Strongly, 2020

It’s nice to see Matt Connors, and Jane Dickson (along with what may still lie ahead on the 4th floor, yet unseen), like Jennifer Packer in the 2019 Biennial, holding the Painting flag high in these two Biennials, which have far too much video and installation work for my taste (not meant to disrespect these mediums or the Artists who work in them- I’m forever a Painting guy, who also has a passion for Modern & Contemporary Photography), and way too little Painting and Photography. Painting (especially Painting by Americans) has made a grand resurgence this century, but you wouldn’t know it from looking at the past few Biennials. You’d have to go up to the 8th floor to see the landmark Jennifer Packer: The Eye Isn’t Satisfied With Seeing (until April 17th) for living proof of that. And, hey wait- Isn’t Photography now the most popular medium in the world? WHY are there so few Photographers represented, again, at a time when virtually EVERYone is a Photographer? A good number of those I see are doing excellent, even ground-breaking, work.

First Fixed, 2021

A terrific, and large, Biennial could be mounted just from these overlooked American Painters and Photographers. Someone should do one! Message me if you want my suggestions.

As with Jennifer Packer, I’m sorry I missed the boat on Matt Connors’s work when I may have been able to afford it. Those days are likely gone forever. So, I will continue to explore & enjoy his work on the printed page, and just be happy I got a copy of GUI(L)D E before it went out of print and sells for $500.00 per, like the 2012 edition of A Bell Is Not A Cup does.

*-Soundtrack for this post is “Sister I’m a Poet,” by Morrissey from Beethoven Was Deaf and My Early Burglary Years.

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.

The Sculptural Photography of Vik Muniz

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava

Detail of Gente Indo, 2021, seen in full further below, just to the right of the middle.

Brazilian Artist Vik Muniz is like the weather. The next time you look, his work will be completely different. A seemingly endless font of creativity, he continually invents new techniques with which to create, and has since he began creating Art in 1987. This fact alone is enough to put him on the list of important Contemporary Artists. His massive 16 1/2 pound, two-volume Catalogue Raisonne shows the Artist creating entire bodies of work in materials as diverse, and as far from the Art-world norm, as chocolate sauce, or ketchup, or jelly, in true Duchampian fashion. However, Mr. Muniz is so prolific his C.R. is already 6 years out of date! A look through it does reveal that the Artist’s process is to invent a technique, create an entire body of work with it, then invent another completely different technique, most likely in completely different materials, and create another body of Art using it. Rinse and repeat, over and over and over, for 35 yers now. Through it all, Photography remains central to his oeuvre. Originally a Sculptor, Mr. Muniz Photographs most of his works, those which are too delicate or ephemeral for display. Along with the extreme creativity in their creation, the other remarkable common thread that runs though his oeuvre is his work is often visually stunning and as a whole, in spite of the variety 0f techniques used, somehow manages to coalesce into one of the most unique bodies of work created since the mid-1980s.

Gente Indo, 2021, Dyptich, Archival inkjet print, 158 1/2 by 57 1/2 inches, One of a kind. Click any Photo for full size.

Needless to say, I had no idea what I was in for this time when I ventured through the doors of Sikkema Jenkins on February 17th, as Mr. Muniz returned with his latest work in a show titled Scraps, that runs through April 9th. His last show, Museum of Ashes, in late 2019, which I wrote about here, included two themes and two equally stunning bodies of work, including one made of its own ashes.

Oklahoma, 2020, Archival inkjet print, 50 1/2 by 71 inches, One of a kind. Good luck trying to count how many pieces make up this amazing recreation, from a media image, of this horrific event.

Detail of the right side seen from an angle.

This time, there is one theme and one body of work on view all sharing a complex process of creation. I’ll let the press release explain- “Muniz’s newest body of work, entitled Scraps, developed from the use of textures in his previous Surfaces series and his interest in mosaic compositions. He begins his collage process by sourcing painted elements from his studio and assembling them into an abstracted mosaic, which is then photographed, printed, and cut up; the cut pieces are arranged and layered to form the new, final photographic image. The physical element of painting is thus subtracted from resulting art object but is evoked visually through the cut prints. These multiple levels of dimensionality effect a dynamic sense of composition, and a sublime tension between part and whole.” I was told that the end piece of Art replicates an original Photo that either he had taken himself, or sourced from the media.

Jakarta, 2021, Archival inkjet print, One of a kind. In this Photo, it looks like a Photo. Standing in front of it, due to all the layers and pieces it’s made up of, it has a depth no 2D Photo can capture, a bit like Sculpture, that comes closer than a Photo does of what it must have felt like to stand there.

In Scraps, his subjects range from the mundane (Gas Station Sink, New Jersey, 2021, below) to the monumental (Oklahoma, 2020, recreating the aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing), a number of cityscapes and large crowd scenes, and a stunning over-life sized portrait. I can’t begin to imagine how many individual pieces are in each work, or how long it took to make one. Unlike some of his pieces, the work in Scraps, though infinitely complex and one-of-a-kind, are Photo based and so are stable enough to display. They are mounted in case-like frames that allow three dimensional space for the multiple layers attached to the paper. Each one may be pondered from a distance, or studied in detail as close as one would care to for a different experience, like the work of Chuck Close.

Gas Station Sink, New Jersey, 2021

Scraps also wonderfully combines Painting and Photography in a new way. As seen in the detail from Gas Station Sink, New Jersey, the cut up pieces of Photos that went into this are of Paintings from Mr. Muniz’s studio.

“He begins his collage process by sourcing painted elements from his studio and assembling them into an abstracted mosaic, which is then photographed, printed, and cut up; the cut pieces are arranged and layered to form the new, final photographic image. The physical element of painting is thus subtracted from resulting art object but is evoked visually through the cut prints. These multiple levels of dimensionality effect a dynamic sense of composition, and a sublime tension between part and whole1.”

Detail.

The remarkable thing for me about this technique, and many of his prior inventions, is their way of reinventing the world- everything looks new again, and in Scraps he proceeds to walk us around that world through these new eyes.

Gavea (for Jorge Hue), 2021, Archival inkjet print, One of a kind.

Detail. Here, as in every part of every piece, if you stand to the side, you can see the layering, with, apparently, the same image in each layer. The effect is different from the Cubism of Picasso & Braque, but is still multi-dimensional.

I met Vik Muniz at his 2019 show and spoke with him again at the opening of Scraps. I commented that there was a new kind of cubism going on in this work and he replied that people had been talking about cubism in his work in another recent show.

Vik Muniz discusses Nameless (Woman with Turban) after Alberto Henschel, 2020, Archival inkjet print, 90 by 59 inches, One of a kind. Mr. Muniz was saying how this woman is ubiquitous in Brazil.

What I was referring to was the intriguing layering that is seen in every work on display. Not apparent in pictures of them, which flatten the third dimension, as you stand in front of them, the multi-dimensionality is immediately apparent. It draws you closer and almost forces you to look again from an angle. As for a “new type of cubism,” unlike most work that hangs on a wall, every piece in Scraps has layers that protrude from the surface, or are layered on top of each other giving each part of the piece more or less depth. Moving slightly to the side, back and forth, allows the viewer to look behind the upper most layer(s). There he or she will find something fascinating. Each layer is identical. The effect, up close or at a distance, is sculptural, something I also mentioned to Mr. Muniz. “Sculptural” work that is labelled “Archival inkjet prrints,” that are “One of a kind.” Seeing them for first time I thought their effect akin to a kind of “static cubism,” since there is no sense of movement as there is in Picasso’s cubism, because each underlying piece being identical to the one above, shares the same perspective.

Boy, 2021, Archival inkjet print, 37 by 31 inches. One of a kind. I was told this piece is based oa Photo of Mr. Muniz at age 4.

Vik Muniz has had a long and successful and accomplished career, and is quite well-known, though he is only in mid-career. Still, it seems to me that his is the kind of work that almost any Art lover could take a shine to. I could see Via Muniz becoming an “Art superstar” very easily. Perhaps the only thing holding his work back from a very large level of popularity is that it really needs to be seen in person to appreciate. A large traveling U.S. mid-career retrospective might do the trick. It’s time. 

*-Soundtrack for this Post is “The Secret Life of Plants” by Stevie Wonder from Stevie Wonder’s Journey Through The Secret Life of Plants, 1979.

BookMarks-
If you choose to buy from a link below, I will receive a small commission, with my thanks. There are no such links in the body of the piece, above.

Gramacho, 2021, 50 1/2 by 70 1/2 inches, One of a kind. A work based on the Documentary, Waste Land, 2010, which Vik Muniz starred in.

Perhaps the best introduction to Vik Muniz is in the award winning documentary Documentary, Waste Land, 2010, which he starred in. It’s a look at the garbage sifters outside of Rio de Janeiro as Mr. Muniz creates portraits of them and learns about their lives. It’s available to stream or on DVD.

Vik Muniz: Reflex: A Vik Muniz Primer, Aperture-The best overview I’ve seen on Mr. Muniz and his Art to 2005. Numerous illustrations, though not many full page images. Still, you get a lot of fascinating information about the creation of the Artist’s amazingly innovative techniques that other books don’t have. Copies of this out of print book trade for very reasonable prices (around $10).

Vik Muniz has released at two Catalogue Raisonnes that I know of, and a third book that calls itself “Incomplete.” Box Vik Muniz: Catalogue Raisonne 1985-2015  is the most current, complete, look at his output. It’s a beautifully produced, huge 16 1/2 pound, two-volumes in a slipcase, set, with countless large Photos of all his work to 2015. It’s a constant treat for the eye. I asked Vik about the fact that it is now 6 years old (published in 2016) and if he planned another one. He said that he was considering doing a Catalogue Raisonne online. So, this may be the last CR in book form. Note- It’s listed as being in Portuguese. The English set is titled Vik Muniz Catalogue Raisonne 1987-2015: Everything So Far (ISBN 978-8589063579). I’d recommend checking with the seller on the language before buying.

The earlier Catalogue Raisonne, Vik Muniz: Obra Complete 1987-2009, is beautiful and only one, large volume, but it only goes to 2009 and is in Portuguese only. Then there is Vik Muniz: Obra Incompleta/Incomplete Works, published in 2004, which is in both English & Portuguese and was published to accompany a retrospective, is also very well done and contains a very well chosen selection of his early work.

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. Scraps, Press release.

Jennifer Packer Arrives

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava

Art in NYC, 2021, Part 2-

David Hammons, Day’s End, 2021, a permanent installation, which opened in May, 2021 on the Hudson River on the former site of Pier 52, which the great de-constructivist Artist Gordon Matta-Clark once “modified” into a work also called Days End in 1975. Appropriately seen here at day’s end, December 23, 2021.

In spite of everything that happened in 2021, particularly the “return to normal” that wasn’t, there were some extremely good shows up here last year. I’ve written about a number of them- Alice Neel: People Come First, Goya’s Graphic Imagination, Cezanne Drawing, and shows of Tyler Mitchell, John Chamberlain, and some others. Having just featured the monumental NYC half of Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror in Part 1 of this look at Art in NYC, 2021, there was another NoteWorthy show of 2021 going on at the Whitney at the same time.

Of all the shows I saw last year, Jennifer Packer: The Eye Is Not Satisfied With Seeing, was the biggest revelation.

Jennifer Packer gets top billing. That might be reflective of the fact her show is on 8 while Jasper Johns is on the 5th floor?, or her name is longer? 7 years later, I still haven’t warmed up to the architecture of the new Whitney, the east end of it seen here from the High Line. But the shows have dramatically improved, in my opinion. That’s the High Line Admin building to the lower foreground, also designed by Renzo Piano, who designed the Whitney.

The Johns and Jennifer Packer shows are a fitting cap to 2021 for the Whitney Museum, which has had a steady string of excellent shows beginning with Vida Americana in 2020 (which I wrote about here) that continued throughout 2021. The stellar Julie Mehretru and overdue Dawoud Bey shows up from spring through the summer, 2021, continued Vida’s momentum, with Jasper Johns and Jennifer Packer now setting the stage for the next Whitney Biennial in the spring. The Whitney also collaborated with Hudson River Park (which lies across the West Side Highway to its west) on legendary Artist David Hammon’s Day’s End, which opened in May, 2021 directly opposite the Museum. A permanent installation right next to the site of a large public park (to the right in the picture up top) currently under construction (where the Department of Sanitation complex was when I looked at the “new” Whitney Museum Building, here, in 2016). It’s something of a major coup in my view, that with the new park when it opens and the Little Island a few blocks away should bring more people to the area and the Whitney. As hard as I was on them during their early years on Gansevoort Street, in spite of everything, the Whitney had a great year in 2021, and they deserve a lot of credit for it.

Flashback- May 25, 2019. Two of the four works by Jennifer Packer in the 2019 Whitney Biennial, each in a different size that ranged from letter size (right), to small mural size.

On October 29th, after my 4th visit to Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror at the Whitney, I headed up to the 8th floor to see the member’s preview of Jennifer Packer: The Eye Is Not Satisfied With Seeing. I had seen 4 of Ms. Packer’s Paintings in the 2019 Whitney Biennial, where they gave me pause. Painting has increasingly become a minor medium in each succeeding Biennial, much to my dismay, and this was true, again, in 2019, so I opted not to write about it, after having written about the 2017 edition. Whereas 2017’s installment was memorable for the marvelous “dialogue” between Henry Taylor, who was already quite established, and Deana Lawson, who was just making her name, it was hard to get a full sense of what Jennifer Packer was about from this selection. I filed her name and the impression. Before that, she had been Artist-in-Residence at the Studio Museum from 2012-13, with a show there, her work was then shown at Sikkema Jenkins in Breathing Room in 2015 and Quality of Life, 2018, the Renaissance Society in Chicago in 2017 in a show titled Tenderheaded. But, it was the debut of Jennifer Packer: The Eye Is Not Satisfied With Seeing at its first stop at the Serpentine Gallery, London, in May through August, 2021, that began the buzz that’s now taking on a life of its own at the Whitney. Simultaneously, there is Jennifer Packer: Every Shut Eye Ain’t Sleep at MOCA, L.A., her first West Coast show. 

The opening gallery during the early days of the show’s run. Blessed Are Those Who Mourn (Breonna! Breonna!), 2020, Oil on canvas, 118 by 172 inches, her largest Painting to date.

Still, it turns out I had no idea what I was in for when I stepped off that elevator in late October. An hour and a half later, I left awestruck.

Mourning is a central theme of this stunning, meditative, work, and others in the show. Here, in a work that also includes 3 fans, the 2020 violent death of Breonna Taylor is echoed in this reminder that the mourning continues as does the search for justice. I don’t know if Ms. Packer knew Ms. Taylor or not, but the sense of loss here fits right in with the intimacy of her Portraits of her friends and those she does know.

I can’t remember the last time I was in a show of work by an Artist largely unknown to me that left me with the undeniable feeling that I was in the presence of true greatness.

Fire Next Time, 2012, Oil on canvas, 72 x 156 inches. The presence of fans (2), a recurring motif, doesn’t keep this  remarkable large work from literally burning off the canvas. The stairs offering the only way out for the figure slumped to the left.

I did not writing that last sentence lightly. I’ve spent two months thinking about it and letting the dust begin to settle before writing this piece. I started going to Art shows in 1980. The very first show I saw was the 1980 Picasso Retrospective at MoMA. I was on the road with a band and flew back to NYC, twice, just to see it. I could have stopped looking at Art right then. I’ve never seen anything like it- still. In the intervening 41 years I’ve seen thousands of shows, hundreds each year, and I count 1,700+ visits to The Metropolitan Museum among them. I’ve been thinking back trying to recall having had this feeling before… When I first saw a Sarah Sze show in the 1990s that had a similar effect, though, given the large size of the work, there were only a few pieces in the show. Most of the great shows I’ve seen have been of work by Artists very well known to me. It takes years, decades, for an Artist to create a body of truly great work. Jennifer Packer has managed to put together an extremely impressive, even revolutionary, body of work at at the ripe old age of about 37. It’s even more remarkable to consider that some of the major pieces in this show are 10 years old (Fire Next Time, 2012 or Lost In Translation, 2013), or close to it!

Lost In Translation, 2013, Oil on canvas. One of the most remarkable Paintings I’ve seen in years. One of Ms. Packer’s “trademarks” is the there/not-thereness of her Portrait subjects. Here, in this double Portrait, things get taken to an entirely different level. I under exposed this shot to try to show the gorgeous, subtle, range of tones that are easily lost under bright light.

Revolutionary? How?

In the space of 35 works, Ms. Packer manages to “reinvent,” in a sense, both the Portrait and the Still Life. Portraits have been around for thousands of years, going at least as far back as the Ancient Egyptians. Yet, I can’t recall ever seeing anything like Lost In Translation before. The figures melt into each other in a way that Abstraction overplays and Representational Painting doesn’t attempt. Here, we have something “in between,” leaving it up to the viewers to try and decipher. Well, yes, Picasso managed to reinvent the Portrait any number of times (no comparison of the two Artists is intended). He was about 26 when he Painted Les Demoiselles d’Avignon in 1907, perhaps the beginning of his continual reinvention of the Portrait (though in a group ). Jennifer Packer was about 27 when she Painted Lost In Translation.

The renowned Painter Jordan Casteel sits in her studio at Yale where Jennifer Painted her in 2014. Jordan, 2014, Oil on canvas, 36 by 48 inches.

More Art in NYC, in 2021. The same Jordan Casteel was commissioned to Paint this Mural, The Baayfalls,  on the High Line. It should be up until March.

She favors friends, loved ones and those in her circle as subjects, so this there/not-thereness of her subjects in her Paintings is partially a way of “protecting” them she has said. This is achieved through a very wide range of mark-making that magically coalesce into images that are remarkable for both their “thereness” and their nebulosity.

Her use of color is another bombshell. When was the last time you saw a Portrait done in red as she does here (in the face not the hoodie)? The Body Has Memory, 2018, Oil on canvas, 60 x 48 inches, a Portrait of the Artist’s friend Eric N. Mack, a fellow-2019 Whitney Biennal Artist.

The power in her work, for me, lies in her uncanny way of combining opposites- intimacy and nebulosity, presence and absence, color and emptiness, created and enhanced with that extremely wide range of mark making techniques I mentioned that all flow together magically. I haven’t seen anything like her intimacy and nebulosity since Francis Bacon, while other elements, like her settings, echo Kerry James Marshall for me. Jennifer Packer seems to prefer to place her subjects in their surroundings, reminiscent of Mr. Marshall’s marvelous, and intimate, home settings. Her poses have an amazing “comfortable in their own skin”-ness that are a hallmark of Alice Neel’s Portraits. In the end, all of this leaves much for the viewer to ponder for his or herself, and, at least in my case, brings me back again and again to look further.

A wall of her Still Lifes in the third gallery.

How has she revolutionized the Still Life?

Say Her Name, 2017, Oil on canvas. Ms. Packer memorialized Sandra Bland, two years after her death in police custody at age 28.

Those on view at the Whitney are freed from their usual setting in a vase or a bowl on a table. In Jennifer Packer’s, the plants seem to float in thin air. Have you ever seen any like them1? Doing this allows her to control the context. All of a sudden, these pieces are not “about” place. They are about something else. They are about what the Artist has on her mind while she’s Painting them, and that’s what the viewer is left to ponder.

Oh, and to those obsessed with putting Artists in boxes, for reasons that continue to escape me (besides laziness), Good Luck boxing Jennifer Packer in anything besides the Jennifer Packer “box!”

In case you’re wondering, she Draws as uniquely as she Paints.

The Mind Is Its Own Place, 2020, Charcoal and pastel on paper.

The Mind Is Its Own Place strikes me as something of a counterpart to Lost In Translation from seven years before, retaining much of the power of the earlier Painting. Her lines carry much of the weight of the color in her Paintings. The Drawings on view here are every bit as mysterious and nebulous as her Paintings, though in different ways, particularly without the colors. And every bit as stunning, which is no mean feat.

The word is out. The crowds are beginning to show up, the catalog is sold out. December 28, 2021. By the time this show ends in April, I expect there to be a line to see it. And not only because of the virus.

After six visits, two and a half months in as I write this, it astounds me to write that I’m left with the inexorable feeling that we are watching the arrival of an important, major Artist. That’s “major” as in the major Artists who line the galleries of our greatest museums.

Important how?

First, reinventing the Portrait and the Still Life puts her in that discussion. That’s more than a lot of all Painters living or dead have done. Second, as she’s said, “My inclination to paint, especially from life, is a completely political one. We belong here. We deserve to be seen and acknowledged in real time. We deserve to be heard and to be imaged with shameless generosity and accuracy.” Looking at her work, though, one thing that strikes me hard is that in her efforts to imagine “with shameless generosity and accuracy,” many, if not most, of her Portraits have an other world quality that is fresh and haunting. She brings “negative space” into the physical body! Parts of her subject’s bodies are left blank in a different way they are in Egon Schiele’s work, or anyone else’s. It’s almost like she doesn’t want to reveal, or share, too much of the sitter, who are often those close to her. For me, at least, that feels endearing and heightens their intimacy. Those are the qualities I respond to. She accomplishes this using an extremely wide range of mark making. Not since so-called Abstract Expressionism have I seen a Painter who is so free in her technique, but it always just works. It always looks “right.” When I look at her Portraits, they  look to me exactly like what it really is- A sitter who might have been there (i.e. sitting in front of Ms. Packer) once. A temporary state. “It’s not figures, not bodies, but humans I am painting,” she said.

Equally astounding for me is to say that, all of one show in, Jennifer Packer’s name is at the top of my list of important Painters to arrive in the 21st century. Yes, I know. I’m the guy who doesn’t believe “best” exists in the Arts. It doesn’t. Let’s just say that if the conversation turned to “Who are the important Painters to arrive in the 21st century?” She’d be the first one I’d name. It’s a symptom of how much her work is on my mind.

Besides, someone has to be first. ; )

BookMarks-

Going…going…gone….

The catalog accompanying the London & Whitney installations of Jennifer Packer: The Eye Is Not Satisfied with Seeing: Serpentine Gallery, London is exceptionally well-done. One of the most beautiful Painting books I’ve seen, it carries over Ms. Packer’s unique color sense to varying colored paper for the text sections. It was easily one of my NoteWorthy Art Books of 2021 among most highly recommended Art Books I saw last year. If you buy it from the link in the book title in this paragraph (only), NHNYC will receive a small commission, with my thanks. 

*Soundtrack for this Post is “Hidden Place” by Björk, the first track on her album Verpertine, 2001, performed here (at 23:04) in 2001 in her extraordinary concert at Riverside Church.

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded & ad-free for over 7 years, during which over 275 full length pieces have been published! If you’ve found it worthwhile, PLEASE donate to allow me to continue below. Thank you, Kenn.

You can also support it by buying Art, Art & Photography books, and Music from my collection! Books may be found here. Music here and here

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

  1. There have been isolated instances, like Fantin-Latour’s White Lilies, 1877, but I have not seen a body of them, and certainly not with Mr. Packer’s intent.

Jasper Johns: Contemporary Art Begins Here

Written & Photographed by Kenn Sava (except *)

Art in NYC, 2021, Part 1-

Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns. Or is it Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg? Who came first? Mr. Johns said, Mr. Rauschenberg “was the first person I knew who was a real artist (i.e. a working artist)1.” At the time, Jasper Johns was working at the Marlboro Bookstore.

Contemporary Art starts here. Jasper Johns seen in his Pearl Street studio in 1955, with two of the most important early works in Contemporary Art- the first Flag Painting, 1954-55, and Target with Four Faces, 1955. At the time, Robert Rauschenberg had an apartment/studio upstairs. *Photo by George Moffet from the MoMA Jasper Johns: A Retrospective catalog, p.125.

Still, it was Jasper Johns who came to acclaim first when in 1957, Leo Castelli visited his Pearl Street studio, seen above, saw his work and offered him a solo show the following January. The rest is history. In 1959, Time Magazine said-

“Jasper Johns, 29, is the brand-new darling of the art world’s bright, brittle avant-garde. A year ago he was practically unknown; since then he has had a sellout show in Manhattan, has exhibited in Paris and Milan, was the only American to win a painting prize at the Carnegie International, and has seen three of his paintings brought for Manhattan’s Museum of Modern Art.” 2.

For my part, I was so taken with Robert Rauschenberg’s work that I was slow in getting to Jasper Johns. Over the years, his work has spoken to me more and more, to the point of shouting to me now. Messers Johns & Rauschenberg eventually became romantically involved only to have it end in 1961. At this point, almost 70 years since the Photo above was taken, all that really matters for the rest of us is that both have created two of the most important bodies of work of our time.

Happy Birthday, Jasper Johns! The Artist cutting an Ale Can Birthday Cake on his 90th birthday, May 15, 2020. *Unknown Photographer.

Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror is an early candidate for the show of the decade. With around 500 pieces, it’s so vast it’s split between two major museums simultaneously- the Whitney Museum of American Art, and the Philadelphia Museum. Scheduled to coincide with the Artist’s 90th birthday on May 15, 2020, its opening was unfortunately delayed due to covid until September 29, 2021. Still, it’s a stellar 90th Birthday present. Having visited the Whitney half about 10 times, in my opinion, it ranks with the finest shows yet mounted in their new building- Frank Stella, Vida Americana, and Julie Mehretu. It’s brilliantly conceived & laid out and very thoughtfully & intelligently installed.

Roll up! It just so happens this bus, the M14, will take you to the show, among other places…

There have been some important, major, Jasper Johns shows to this point including the 1996 Jasper Johns: A Retrospective at MoMA, Jasper Johns: Something Resembling Truth, at the Royal Academy, London in 2017, and previous large shows at the Whitney & Philadelphia Museums. Yet, given the long-standing relationships Mr. Johns has had with both of those institutions, and the large holdings of his work they each have, I wonder if there will EVER be a more comprehensive look at the work & career of this now legendary Artist, especially with his involvement. As a result, Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror is something of a perfect storm in an imperfect time of a show. Though I have only seen the Whitney half (and the rest in the fine Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror catalog, the only place where you can see the entire show) , it still ranks among the great shows I’ve seen in the past decade including Michelangelo: Divine Draftsman & Designer and Kerry James Marshall: Mastry. Also, consider this- Imagine being the curator of the largest Jasper Johns show ever, then being told you only get to mount half of it in your institution! HOW do you divide an Artist’s career in half, and make it cohesive particularly to a discerning Art audience like NYC, while not shorting the equally discerning Philadelphia Art audience?– or vice versa?

Off and running. The exhibition’s lobby contains 39 Paintings, Drawings & Prints that range over his entire career arranged chronologically, and includes a number of very well-known works.

From the evidence I have right now, having seen the NYC half and the Mind/Mirror catalog , they’ve done an extraordinary job. Both halves are full of important pieces and rarely seen supporting works. The show is broken down into themes, which follow the chronological arc of the Artist’s career, which are then divided in half between the two locations and arranged into rooms by theme. Somehow, a visit to one doesn’t leave you with an overriding feeling of missing too much. Yes, if you have followed Mr. Johns career and you go to the Whitney you’ll find yourself looking for his first Flag, 1954-5, or Untitled, 1972, both of which are on view in Philly, but what IS here more than makes up for it. Time and again I found myself surprised that such and such a work WAS here. Not only that, more often than not, it is so thoughtfully displayed that there’s very likely supporting pieces nearby which shed completely new light on it. A good example of this is the wonderful gallery devoted to one of his most fascinating pieces, According to What?, 1964, which was surrounded with three walls of related work that reveal how much each detail in According to What? means to the Artist and how much thought and planning went into it. 

According to What?, 1964, Oil and objects on canvas. This is one of his works that can be seen as a “summing” up of where he was at that point, coming on the heels of Retrospectives at the Jewish Museum, NYC, and the Whitechapel Gallery, London (which would happen, again, after his MoMA Retrospective in 1996. It’s full of objects that he would reference in other works, which surround it in this gallery. It’s also a “tribute” to Marcel Duchamp, with a copy of his Self-Portrait hanging down on the left on the panel that is usually closed when this piece is seen.

Having said all of that, there is a somewhat basic conundrum to consider. Seeing ONE work by Jasper Johns leaves the exact same feeling as seeing, approximately, 250 in each half of this show, or all 500 for that matter: What’s going on? What is it “about?”

Installation view of parts of two of the surrounding and supporting walls. The series of Prints on the left isolate elements of the Painting, which brings the viewer back to study each in the larger work. There is another half of this gallery behind me.

Looking at a few or a few hundred begins to shed light. At the age of 24, in the fall 1954, Jasper Johns destroyed all of his work in his possession 3. He wiped the slate clean (something he would do again, non-destructively, after the MoMA Retrospective in 1996). Right from the earliest work he then created using “things the mind already knows,” he said of the flags, targets, numbers, etc. he featured resulted in pieces the viewing public immediately had a way “in to” at a time of densely personal Abstraction that often lacked one. He created multiple pieces with each object around the same time, then suddenly, one would return years, even decades, later. They became parts of his own language. Symbols. Stand ins. Of what? That’s up to Mr. Johns and each viewer to decide. Thus far, that’s kept viewers and the Art world busy for over 6 decades.

Three Flags, 1958, Encaustic on canvas.

“Jasper Johns is an American painter, sculptor and printmaker whose work is associated with abstract expressionism, Neo-Dada and pop art.” Wikipedia.

There, in one sentence spotted on a search result page is why I avoid Wikipedia. Mr. Johns’s early work is the antithesis of Abstract Expressionism! He and Robert Rauschenberg set out to do their own thing in the face of the all-encompassing tide of AbEx that was at its zenith when they began. To this end, Mr. Rauschenberg even famously erased a Drawing by Willem de Kooning, one of the most prominent of the first wave of AbEx Painters. Jasper Johns’s stated creed was “When I could observe what others did, I tried to remove that from my work. My work became a constant negation of impulses.4” “I was anxious to clarify for myself and others what I was5.” As for “Neo-Dada,” he, like countless others, was influenced by Marcel Duchamp AFTER he saw his work in 1957 and then met him circa 1958-9. But, people “associated” his work with Duchamp’s beginning in 1957, when he had never seen it!

White Flag, 1955, Encaustic, oil, newsprint, and charcoal on canvas. His second and largest flag, on loan from The Met.

Yes, his post-1954 early work center around familiar objects that he has turned into Paintings or Sculpture, his “vocabulary” of elements “the mind already knows” famously include the American Flag, targets, numerals, words, ale cans, Savorin cans and string. yet I don’t see them as “pop,” and I don’t consider Mr. Johns (or Robert Rauschenberg or James Rosenquist for the matter), “pop” Artists, though I know some do. Flags, targets and numbers are not soup cans or Brillo boxes. (His Ale Can Sculpture resulted from a dare, so I read it somewhat tongue in cheek.) His Savorin can Sculpture and Prints are based on the can and brushes in his studio. The wall card makes the case that the Savorin can and paint brushes are “stand-ins” for the Artist. Again, not “pop.” This is interesting because his “object” based work of the 1950s allowed him to remain detached. “I don’t want my work to be an exposure of my feelings,” he said around 1977 6. Over time that has seemed to change, but looking for specifics gets tricky.

A gallery full of his Savorin can Sculpture, 1960, and Monotypes from the 1970s and 80s he made of the object on the 4 surrounding walls. He used a Savorin can as a paint brush holder in his studio. Not sure that makes it “pop.”

As you walk through the show you’ll see expressive passages in Paintings that are a hallmark of AbEx (as in According to What?), but rarely entire Paintings (there are a few), and these were done after the heyday of the first wave Abstract Expressionist Painters. These passages don’t define him or any of his work, in my view, especially given his early work stood diametrically opposed to theirs. It’s really one technique among the very many Mr. Johns uses. As time has gone on, Jasper Johns has shown more interest in Art history, and numerous Artists, like Picasso, Leonardo, Duchamp and Edvard Munch, have “appeared” in his work. As I mentioned in my piece on MoMA’s Cézanne Drawing show, which included a dozen works from Mr. Johns’s collection, he has amassed a world-class Art collection, demonstrating impeccable taste in his acquisitions, that is fascinating in its breadth. Whatever his initial influences were, from the beginning with Flag, 1954-55, Jasper Johns’s work has looked like no one else’s. In my view, that Wikipedia page should read- Jasper Johns’s work is associated with Japer Johns.

One of the most extraordinary works of the 1950s. Target with Four Faces, 1955, Encaustic on newspaper and cloth over canvas surrounded by four tinted-plaster faces in wood box with hinged front.

Another fascinating early work is Target with Four Faces, 1955, which contains 4 heads cut off at just below the eye. They all appear to be male. The piece has a door that can be lowered blocking the faces from view. And, there it was, on loan from MoMA, appropriately on the first wall in the first gallery. A shot over the bow of the Art world in 1955, and today. I came away believing that if Jasper Johns had never made another work after it, Target with Four Faces was enough to seal his stature.

Detail. I was told by a Whitney staffer that the heads were cast from four people in his studio. Note the hinged door above them, which when closed, gives the work an entirely different effect. Also notice the amount of work that went into placing the heads just so. Standing to the side reveals that the tip of the noses must be right up against that door when it’s closed.

Either way, they can’t see what is going on in front of them. Are they present while someone is being targeted, but unseeing? Or, are they the ones with the target on them? It’s easy to read things into them, including Mr. Johns’s fellow gay men being targets, or the public being blind to the “targeting” of others. What about the prominence of their noses, or their closed mouths? Or…..? It’ll say something else the next time I look at it.

One of my favorite elements of Jasper Johns’s early collages are when the underlying material, often newspapers, comes through- either intentionally or through age. In this marvelous very small Flag from 1965, Encaustic and collage on canvas, 7 3/4 by 11 1/4 inches, it’s hard to tell which is the case, particularly with the row of faces to the right. Included in a stunning gallery at the heart of the show of small works from throughout his career.

But, fortunately for the world, he has continued to create. For 68 more years, so far! His Flags raise similar wonder. Does that they were Painted by a gay man in the 1950s living in a country with harsh stereotypes against him and his kind enter into it? A yearning for a Flag that stood for all? For me, anyway, it’s hard to see either of these pieces and not wonder about these things. Of course, as you move through the show one thing becomes quickly apparent. In the Art of Jasper Johns virtually nothing is THAT simple. 

Untitled, 1992-5, Oil on canvas, 78 by 118 inches.

After these early “objects” and object based works, in the early 1960s, Mr. Johns’s work becomes something of a “non abstract form of abstraction,” as the late Kirk Varnedoe, curator of the MoMA Johns Retrospective called it7, where objects and symbols become elements and not the sole subject. Was this done to subvert attempts at “reading” his Art?

The Seasons, 1989-90, Acrylic over intaglio on paper. That figure is reputed to be the Artist’s. On the terrific installation of this show- While this might seem a small detail, I can’t recall ever being in a show where virtually NONE of the pieces suffered terribly from glare. Here, I’m standing directly in front of  The Seasons and there is no reflection. Oh, if only other museums (and galleries) would see what a huge difference it makes it might help persuade them to pay the considerable current cost for glare-free acrylic glazing on pieces with glazing.

In the 1960s his work turned to more private imagery and symbols as opposed to the well-known objects, like Flags and targets. In works like According to What? his use of them reaches a crescendo, and these continued for some years until he wiped the slate clean, again, and began his Cross-hatched period. Things seem to build to another crescendo, like The Seasons, above or Untitled, 1992-94, which led up to his MoMA Retrospective, which would change everything.

Catenary (I Call to the Grave), 1998, Encaustic on canvas with wood and string. After the MoMA Retrospective, Mr. Johns stripped his canvases bare and began to address aging and death in the Catenary series, which numbers 19 Paintings, of which this one never fails to stir me, 55 Drawings and 6 Prints.

The MoMA Retrospective in 1996 caused the Artist to take stock of where he was and led to him drastically changing course. He wiped the slate clean, again. By that time, his work had grown very complex, but now his work emptied. His focus turned to the eventuality of death. This resulted in his extraordinary Catenary series, 1998, and has continued to be (one of) the overriding themes of his work to this day. 

The remarkable Farley Breaks Down 2014, Ink and water-soluble encaustic on plastic. I was stunned when I first saw this in 2019. A work without precedent in Jasper Johns’ enormous output created at 84. The Whitney wisely acquired it.

In 2019 I happened in to Jasper Johns: Recent Paintings & Works on Paper at Matthew Marks Gallery and was frankly overwhelmed when I saw a series of works titled Farley Breaks Down. I’d never seen anything like them, typical of Jasper Johns, yes, but even in his long and productive career they stand alone. I wrote about the show here. Just prior to these there are works in ink and water-soluble encaustic on plastic, but with this subject, Mr. Johns has reached an entirely new level. In 1965, LIFE Magazine Photographer Larry Burrows created a series of Photographs following a helicopter crew, Yankee Papa 13, on a mission in the Vietnam War. During it, one crew member was killed and another wounded. The last Photograph in the series shows Cpl. Farley back at the base breaking down. A few years later Larry Burrows was killed in another of these helicopter missions. It is this image that Jasper Johns chose to interpret. Jasper Johns did 2 years in the Army during the Korean War based in South Carolina and Japan. Still, exactly why he chose to create this series of works in his 80s is up for conjecture.

Detail of “Farley.”

Is it coincidence that over the years, Mr. Johns has lost his entire circle of fellow Artists- Robert Rauschenberg, Merce Cunningham, Morton Feldman and John Cage among them? The series is remarkable both for its incredible power and melancholy (which is not new to his work), as well as it’s stunningly beautiful flowing technique. It’s almost like these pieces are created with colored tears. Yet here, loss is the subject, and for the first time in his work, it’s presented almost nakedly.

A half gallery of dark works created after the breakup with Rauschenberg in 1961 (except for the work on the far left and the sculpture in the middle, including Liar, in the facing left corner.

There is also the pain of another kind of loss. The loss of romantic love. While I have no idea what Jasper Johns’s romantic life has been like, the second part of the first gallery is devoted to the searing works Mr. Johns created after his relationship with Robert Rauschenberg ended in 1961. The visual evidence is overwhelming that it had a devastating effect on him. After these, there is silence in his work where romance might be concerned. He shows deep affection for friends and those he admires, but there is never an expression of romantic love. This, also, is rare in Art8.

Recent Jasper Johns. Untitled, 2020, Intaglio on Magnani Insisioni paper. This piece was on view in both the Matthew Marks & Whitney shows.

As if the Whitney & Philadelphia Museums shows weren’t enough Jasper Johns there was also a remarkable show of his most recent work coinciding with the opening of JJ:M/M, Jasper Johns: New Works on Paper at Matthew Marks Gallery!

Untitled, 2021, Acrylic and graphic over etching on paper. Different, as ever, these works emphasized the cosmology theme which has appeared in some earlier works. The detail in these is both subtle and remarkable. The show consisted of a wall of these, facing a wall of Drawing based works like Untitled, 2020, above with stick figures.

Having seen upwards of 300 of his pieces between the two NYC shows two things stand out for me are- first, Mr. Johns incredible intellect. As you walk through the show you begin to notice that Jasper Johns does nothing- including speak, without very carefully considering what’s going to come out. At first glance some of his pieces look improvised, until you see a carefully crafted Drawing or other supporting pieces in which every detail has been carefully rendered, belying the careful consideration and the large amount of work that went into them. And this is continued over a seemingly endless body of work over 65 years of continually doing something different.

Diver, 1962-3, Charcoal, pastel and paint on two sheets of paper mounted on two adjoining canvas supports, 7 FEET 2 1/2 by 71 3/4 inches!

Second, I haven’t realized how much the anguish of loss is a central theme of his work. This includes the thought of facing one’s own aging and death. For such a private man who’s work is often so dense as to defy understanding, he has repeatedly found his own unique ways of expressing it powerfully. Though each section (of both the NYC & Philly halves ) of Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror is titled, loss and death are not among them. They are the unstated central themes of a good deal of his work, which continues through his latest work shown at Matthew Marks this past fall.

In the final gallery, along side 4 pieces from the remarkable Farley Breaks Down series, is this Painting, similar to the pieces lining the west wall of the Matthew Marks show, like Untitled, 2021, shown above.

Slice, 2020, Oil on canvas. A close look at this large piece reveals amazing detail and depth, the background reminiscent of End Paper, 1976 and Céline, 1978.

As the wall card says, “…ungraspable…”

Picasso outlived, and outworked, all of the boxes his work was put in- the so-called “Blue Period,” the “Rose Period,” Cubism, etc., etc. He did this by simply being himself. His Art changed as he changed. Jasper Johns, who has outlived all his contemporaries, was, perhaps, the first Artist to be lumped into the “Contemporary Art” box in 1958. Still going strong at 91 in 2022 as the Art world is morphs into whatever is coming next, Mr. Johns career has been one long continuous model for Artists- “When I could observe what others did, I tried to remove that from my work,” which has led to 68+ years of fresh ideas that point the way to the future.

Flag Above White With Collage, 1955, Encaustic and collage on canvas. Mr. Johns has used encaustic (a mixture of hot wax and paint) continuously throughout his career, one of the very few to use it so frequently, if not the only one, among major Artists. It is used in most of the works in the show.

It turns out that Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror is not the only great and important show currently up in the Whitney this fall/winter! Since I sub-titled this piece “Art in NYC, 2021, Part 1,” Part 2 will look at it.

*-Soundtrack for this Post is “I Don’t Want to Be Your Shadow,” by the Psychedelic Furs, from Forever Now, 1982, or “My Life is a Succession of People Saying Goodbye,” by Morrissey from You Are The Quarry, Extended Edition.

BookMarks-

With a career spanning a whopping 68 years(!), and counting, among the longest in Art history, you’d expect there have been a LOT of books published on Jasper Johns, and you’re right. There are. I see books I”ve never seen before each time I look. The latest being a catalog for a show on Jasper Johns and Edvard Munch (the book with the orange spine, above)! Among them, a few that I’ve seen are particularly recommended-

Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror, Philadelphia Museum/Whitney Museum/Yale-  Though it’s close to 4 pounds, it’s wonderfully succinct and the best place to get an overview of Jasper Johns’s work over his amazingly long career up to 2020. The text accompanying each chronological section is also concise, remarkably distilling voluminous information down to a few pages, though I found the essays hit or miss. The book is the only way to see the whole show besides traveling to both museums (where it is only up until February 13, 2022). Highest recommendation for those seeking one Jasper Johns book with the most and broadest range of his Art in color.

Jasper Johns: A Retrospective, Museum of Modern Art- The catalog for the landmark Johns show in late, 1996 to early 1997 with a fine essay by curator Kirk Varnedoe, is a thorough look at his work up to 1996. In my opinion, it remains the finest reference on Jasper Johns due to its comprehensive 250 page Chronology and Plates section which goes up to the end of 1995. It’s also of ongoing importance in the history of the Artist when you consider that having this Retrospective had such an impact on the Artist that it caused his work to drastically change after and since. The immediate result was the extraordinary Catenary series, though all of his work since bear the hallmarks of that change. Here is a terrific record of his work up to that point that includes many illustrations. A model exhibition catalog that Mr. Johns designed the endpapers for. Essential for the Jasper Johns fan.

Jasper Johns: Redo an Eye, Wildenstein- A 300+ page look at the work of Jasper Johns that provides a comprehensive look at the Artist’s Art over his entire career up to about 2018, and one of the few to cover his later work. Author Roberta Bernstein says she has spent much time with Mr. Johns over the past 50 years, in addition to focusing on studying his Art. As a result, the book provides numerous insights. The most comprehensive overview currently available, it’s also available as Volume 1 of the Jasper Johns: Catalogue Raisonné of Painting and Sculpture, listed further below. Includes many illustrations, though in smaller sizes then the MoMA Retrospective, above, or the Whitney book, which are meant to illuminate the text since it originally served as the introduction to the Catalogue Raisonné, which has the large size reproductions. Recommended for those who want to dive deeper into Jasper Johns.

Jasper Johns: Catenary, Matthew Marks Gallery- (The book with the blue spine in the bookshelf pic with the string appropriately hanging down from it.) Matthew Marks Gallery has shown the Artist for many years, and has often published very well done and beautiful catalogs for their shows. Each is worth seeking out. Among them, I’ll highlight two here. Published to accompany the show of the same name in 2005, this was the only opportunity to date to survey this exceptional body of 80 later works which was the result of the Artist’s reaction to the aforementioned MoMA Jasper Johns: A Retrospective. They center around aging and death, each of which is illustrated in color here. It includes a fine essay by Scott Rothkopf, the co-curator of Jasper Johns: Mind/Mirror. It’s also beautifully published by Steidl. Out of print but not expensive.

Jasper Johns: Recent Paintings and Works on Paper, Matthew Marks Gallery- Published to accompany the unforgettable show of the same name in 2019, a NoteWorthy Show, which shows yet another new side of the Artist’s work. Featuring the extraordinary Farley Breaks Down series along with a number of other compelling recent works, with over 60 illustrated here. I was stunned when I saw the Farley pieces. They seemed to be without precedent- both in Johns’s work or that of any other. Both books are highly recommended to those interested in John later & current work.

For serious study & research, there is the Jasper Johns: Catalogue Raisonné of Painting and Sculpture, a 5 volume set that currently trade at big discounts from its $1,500.00 list price. I can’t help but wonder if this is because they are already out of date since Mr. Johns has continued to create prolifically since it was published. It only goes to 2014. Then there is the Jasper Johns Catalogue Raisonné of Drawing set published in 2018 and the Jasper Johns: Catalogue Raisonné of Monotypes, collecting his unique prints to about 2018 (like the Savorin can Prints seen above).

NighthawkNYC.com has been entirely self-funded and ad-free for over 7 years, during which over 275 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. Jasper Johns: A Retrospective MoMA Catalog, p.124
  2.  “His Heart Belongs to Dada,” Time, May 4, 1959
  3. Jasper Johns, Mind/Matter, p.29
  4. Quoted in Michael Crichton, Jasper Johns, 1977 Whitney Catalog, p.27. Roberta Bernstein, Jasper Johns: Redo An Eye, p.20, says “While Johns respected many of the Abstract Expressionists, he was committed to establishing a new direction that embraced a more literal subject matter and engaged viewers in a way that was independent of the artist’s personality.
  5. Roberta Bernstein, Jasper Johns: Redo An Eye, p.20
  6. Michael Crichton, Jasper Johns Whitney 1977 exhibition catalog,  p.20
  7. MoMA Retrospective Catalog, p.15
  8. Robert Rauschenberg is, coincidentally or not, another Artist who’s work appears not to reference his romantic life.