OF ART

LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUSEUM

N
SSI
5 0715 01052772 1

'o^

%
'c/^^^

t^
c.%

^
 Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive
in 2009 witii funding from
Los Angeles County Museum of Art

http://www.archive.org/details/sixpaintersobjecOOsolo
SIX PiUTERS

m THE OBJECT
5-:
 TRUSTEES

HARKY F. GUGGENHEIM. PRKlSinEN'T

ALBERT K. THIELE. VICE PKESinEXT

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

THE COUNTESS CASTLE STEWART

MRS. HARRY K. GUGGENHEIM

A. CHAUNCEY NEWLIN
MRS. HENRY OBRE
MISS HILLA REBAY, DIRECTOR EJklERITUS

DANIEL CATTON RICH

MICHAEL F. WETTACH
MEDLEY G. B. WHELPLEY
CARL ZIGROSSER
SIX POWERS m THE OBJECT

LA^REXTE ALL01i%'AY
© 1963, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, Neu' York

Library of Congress Card Catalogue Number 63-15451

Printed in the United States of America

LIBRARY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY MIISEQIVI OF ART
LOS ANGELEB, CALIFORNIA
The relationship between the good and the new in contemporary
art is intriguing and baffling. The realization that art and in-

vention are akin is balanced bv the suspicion of eccentricity.

Out of this conflict arises the question: Is it art? And the

answer: \es and no. Yes. // could he. since the expansion of
artistic boundaries is inherent in the creative process. No. it

need not be. for no mode in itself assures us of artistic validity.

Lawrence Allowav. Curator of The Solomon R. Guggenheim

Museum, has conceived and prepared this exhibition and the
accompanying catalogue. Reflections about the new in art are

implicit in the exhibition's subject matter; so is the intention

to indicate an historical background to the profile of the new.

Thomas M. Messer. Director

Aehnowletltfvwti4>iils

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

liography, and for allouing me to see the manuscript of a forthcom-

ing article on this artist.

I nould like to thank the follouing members of the Museum's cura-

torial department for their extensive involvement and their impor-
tant contributions: Dr. Louise Averill Svendsen, Associate Curator:

Research Fellous Carol Fuerstein and Maurice Tuchman : and

David Hayes uho proposed an earlier form of this exhibition.

L. A.
SIX PALMERS AID THE OBJECT

LAWHEXtE AM.OWAY^ CURATOR

The artists in this exhibition (all born between 1923 and

1933 ) have been persistently aligned, in group exhibitions and sur-
vey articles, with object-makers, and two of the artists, Robert Rau-
schenberg and Jim Dine, are themselves object-makers. In the pres-
ent exhibition, however, all six artists are presented as painters;

some of their works include moderate collage elements, but no three-

dimensional appendages. The association of paintings and objects
has tended to blur both media differentiations and the individuality
of the artists concerned. The unique qualities of the separate work
of art and of the artist responsible for it have tended to sink into an
environmental melange, which in practice favors the object-makers,
but not the painters. Object-makers, like the producers of happen-
ings (often they are the same person), work towards the dissolution
of formal boundaries^ and sponsor paradoxical cross-overs between
art and nature. However, the painter, committed to the surface of

his canvas and to the process of translating objects into signs, does

not have a wide-ranging freedom in which everything becomes art

and art becomes anything. Because the painters have been identi-

fied with the object-makers, under various slogans", the definition

of painting qua painting has been attached recently, more than it

need have been, to abstract art. It is hoped, therefore, that by pre-

senting six painters in this exhibition, they can be detached from an

amorphous setting and, also, that the definition of painting can be

extended to cope with the problem that their work presents.

What these six artists have in common is the use of objects

drawn from the communications network and the physical environ-

ment of the city. Some of these objects are: flags, magazines and
newspaper photographs, mass-produced objects, comic strips, ad-

vertisements. Each artist selects his subject matter from what is

known not only to himself, but also to others, before he begins work.

Subject matter provides a common ground, either for intimacy or

for dissent, as it does not in abstract or realist painting. When the

subject matter consists of pre-existing conventional signs and com-

mon images, however, we can properly speak of a known, shared

subject matter. This approach to the city is, of course, the common
ground between the object-makers and the painters. However, the
translation of the urban object into a painted sign involves the paint-

ers in very different procedures from the object-makers. Let us con-

sider some of the different ways in which six painters make signs of

their chosen objects.

Jasper Johns' images are complete and whole: his maps are
co-extensive with a known geography; his flags unfurled. His art-

historical importance rests particularly on his early work in which

he found a way to reconcile the flatness required of painting by all

esthetic theories of the 20th century, with figurative references which

the demand for flatness had tended to subdue or expunge. What he

did was to filter objects through the formal requirements of a flat

painting style. It was, of course, the Dadaists who had released the

potential of use and meaning for art in common objects and signs,

but the assimilation of such objects to a rigorous and delicate paint-

ing standard was a new development. (Johns accomplished this, it

should be remembered, in the mid-50s, when New York painters

were open to far fewer alternatives than is now the case.)

The use of complete signs or objects involves the artists in a

certain kind of spatial organization. Displays tend to be symmetri-

cal, or, at least, orderly, with the area of the painting identified fully

with the presented forms. Dine, like Johns in this respect, presents

his signs and his objects, such as clothing or tools wholistically or

sequentially (as in the series paintings in which color changes or

other transformations take place). Warhol, as a rule, presents his

monolithic bottles or cans intact; where his images are incomplete
or hazy, they are repeated, and the repetition of the basic unit intro-

duces a regular order which the single image may not possess.

Rauschenberg, in his recent paintings with silk-screen images printed

from photographs, uses incomplete but legible images. Order is

established not by using forms but by the recurrence of evocative

fragments.
The element of time in the use of popular art sources by art-

ists is important, in view of the criticism that their work is exclu-

sively and blindingly topical. In fact, however, Johns" flags are pre-

Alaskan and pre-Hawaiian, though still legible as the stars-and-

stripes, a stable sign. Dine"s objects, painted or literally present,

are not conspicuously new. but rather functional objects without

a fast rate of style-change: they are timeless like a hardware store,

or a Sears-Roebuck catalogue, rather than smart and up-to-date

like a slick magazine or an LP rec(u-d-sleeve. Lichtenstein's refer-

ences to comic strips have been accused, by those who only know
art, of being too close to real comic strips. However, a group of
professional comics artists (at National Periodical Publications),

judged them as definitely not mirror images of current comics style.

The professionals regarded Lichtenstein's paintings derived from

comic strips as strongly 'decorative' and backward-looking. Robert

Rauschenberg's images, the traces of original newsprint material of
 .

radar bowls and baseball players, etc., are so elaborately processed,

by overlapping and corroding of contours and planes, that their topi-

cality is opposed, though not cancelled, in a timeless blur. The gen-

eral point to be drawn from these observations is that the presence

of topical elements in a painting should not be supposed to consti-

tute the total content of the work. In fact, the more sensitive one is

to the original topical material, the more aware one becomes of the

extent of its transformation by the artist, the spreading of the ephem-

eral image in time.

Rauschenbergs main work has been in what he calls the

'combine-painting", a mixed media art including objects, but he has

recently painted a series of black and white paintings containing

silk-screen images. He explained to Gene Swenson: 'Could I deal

with images in an oil painting as I had dealt with them in the trans-

fer drawings and the lithographs? I had been working so extensively

on sculpture: I was ready to try substituting the image, by means of

the photographic silk-screen, for objects'". Here is a clear state-

ment of the process of transformation that any object must undergo

in order to function as a sign in a painting. Rauschenberg"s paintings
are partly the reproduction of legible and learnable images and

partly the traces of a physical process of work (the pressure and

density of the ])aint, often modifying very strongly the constituent

silk-screen image I

The custom of quotation is not a new one, though Lichten-

stein's use of popular sources, and his preservation of the original's

stylistic character, has disconcerted critics. Sir Joshua Reynolds ob-
served: 'It is generally allowed, that no man need be ashamed of
copying the ancients: their works are considered as a magazine of
common property, always open to the public, whence every man has
a right to take what material he pleases"^. Popular art has replaced
classical art as 'common property", but the point of such borrowings

has not changed much. There is still (1 ) a legible reference to some-

body else's work and (2) the transformation of the quotation, before

one's eyes, by a new. personal use. Lichtenstein fulfils both func-

tions, frankly declaring his sources and. at the same moment, setting

them in a new context. Not only does he make numerous formal ad-
justments in his borrowings, there is, also, the spectacular increase

in scale, whereby very small sources become monumental. Head—

Yellow and Black, for example, was a thumbnail sketch from the yel-

low pages of the Manhattan phone book: Flatten. Sand Fleas is iso-

lated and blown up from one episode in a war comic (about the
education of a rookie by a tough sergeant). Lichenstein"s images
spring into largeness: part of their impact is the dilation of minute

originals, their sequential flow dramatically arrested. Giantism, the

enlargement of objects and images, characterises his work, as it does

others". Rosenquist blows up fragmentary but solid forms to bill-

board scale; Dine's clothing is often on the scale of a Times Square

advertisement, or a Neanderthal wardrobe.
obert Rauschenberg OVERCAST I. 1962.

Lent by Leo Castelli Gallery, New York.

 A IQ35 PALETTE. 1960-6

Collection Franklin Konigsberg. Neiu Yor.

WORKS IN THE EXHIBITION

I.ender8

Mr. and Mrs. Armand P. Bartos, New York, Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. Buck
waiter, Shawnee Mission, Kansas, Mr, and Mrs. Charles H. Carpenter, Jr.

New Canaan, Connecticut, W. P. Cohen and Ben Heller, New York, Jim Dine,
New York, James Holderbaum, Northampton, Massachusetts, Jasper Johns.
New York, Franklin Konigsberg, New York, Mr. and Mrs. Leon A. Mnuchin
New York, Walter A. Netsch, Jr., Chicago, Mr. and Mrs. Morton G. New
mann, Chicago, Myron Orlofsky, White Plains, New York, Robert
Rauschenberg, New York, Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. Rowan, Pasadena.
Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. New York, Mrs. Frank Titelman, Altoona,
Scull,

Pennsylvania, Andy New York, Hanford Yang, Brookline, Massa

Warhol,
chusetts; Andrew Dickson White Museum, Ithaca, New York; Leo Cas

telli Gallery, New York, Dwan Gallery, Los Angeles, The Pace Gallery,

Boston, Stable Gallery, New York.

 . .

JIM DINE

A 1935 PALETTE. 1960-1961. Oil on plywood, 72 x 48".

CoUection Franklin Konigsberg, New York.

TATTOO. 1961. Oil on canvas, 60y8 x 48".

Private CoUection, New York.

THE RED BANDANA. 1961. Oil on canvas, 62y8 x 54".

Private Collection, New York.

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

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

THE PLANT BECOMES A FAN. 1961-1963.

Charcoal on canvas, 60 x 144%" (4 sections)
Lent by the artist.

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

TARGET. 1958. Oil on canvas, 36 x 36".

Lent by the artist.

WHITE NUMBERS. 1959. Encaustic on canvas, 53 x 40y8".

Collection W. P. Cohen and Ben Heller, New York.

ZERO TO NINE. 1961. Oil on canvas, 54 x 45".

Collection Mrs. Frank Titelman, Altoona, Pennsylvania.

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

FLATTEN, SAND FLEAS. 1962. Oil on canvas, 34 x 44"

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Leon A. Mnuchin, New York.

ICE CREAM SODA. 1962. Oil on canvas, 64 x 32 ¥4".

Collection Myron Orlofsky, White Plains, New York.

LIVE AMMO. on canvas (group of 6 sections)

1962. Oil
Section 1, 68 x 56" ;2, 68 x 36".
Section
Collection Mr. and Mrs. Morton G. Neumann, Chicago.
Section 5, 68 x 68".
Lent by Dwan Gallery, Los Angeles.

VAROOM. 1963. Oil on canvas, 56 x 56".

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Robert C. Scull, New York.
 .

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

MIGRATION. 1959. Combine-painting on canvas, 50 x 40%".

Collection Andrew Dickson White Museum of Art, Ithaca, New York.

CALENDAR. 1962. Oil on canvas, llVs. x 72V8".

Lent by Leo Castelli GaUery, New York.

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

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

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

MAYFAIR. 1962. Oil on canvas, 42 x 70".

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Leon A. Mnuchin, New York.

UNTITLED. 1962. Oil on canvas, 84 x 72".

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. Rowan, Pasadena.

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

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

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

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

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

BEFORE AND AFTER, 2. 1962. Liquitex on canvas, 54% x 70".

Lent by Stable Gallery, New York.

BEFORE AND AFTER, 3. 1962. Liquitex on canvas, 72% x 99%'

Lent by Stable Gallery, New York.

TROY. 1962. Liquitex and silk screen ink on canvas, 83 x 84".

Lent by The Pace Gallery, Boston.

200 SOUP CANS. 1962. Casein on canvas, 72 x 100%".

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Armand P. Bartos, New York.
:-^\^<%^:-:':S:\<*:w>>;'X'\'V\:V:'W**^;*x<w

Roy Lirhtenstein ICE CREAM SODA. 1962.

Collection Myron Orlofsky, White Plains, New York.
 II

'There is some point to Shaftesbury's remark that the inven-

tion of prints was to English culture during the 18th century what
the invention of printing had been earlier to the entire Republic of
letters', observed Jean H. Hagstrum.' Prints familiarized artists with
a body of art works that could be assimilated into general experi-

ence, in the absence of the originals. These repeatable images, which

dispensed with the notion that uniqueness was essential to art,

reached a large audience indiscriminately. Prints are the beginning

of the mass media explosion. The use of prints accelerated until, by

the late 19th century, mass-produced prints, sometimes by anony-

mous artists, provided an alternate tradition to the arts of painting

and sculpture. Anton Ridder van Rappard is remembered as the

friend who told Van Gogh that The Potato Eaters was a terrible mis-

take, but Van Gogh's letters to him, written in the early 1880s*', have
a recurring theme of the greatest interest. There is constant discus-

sion of popular graphic art as something equal to fine art. and pos-
sibly better. Of a drawing in Punch magazine of the Tzar on his

death bed. Van Gogh wrote: 'If such a thing is possible, it has even
more sentiment than Holbein's Totentanz'. And in another letter he
listed admired subjects in illustrated magazines: The Foundling, A
Queue in Paris During the Seige, The Girl I Left Behind Me, Wan-
ing of the Honeymoon, Labourer's Meeting, Lifeboat, Sunday Eve-
ning at Sea, Mormon Tabernacle. Cabin of Emigrant's Ship. This

list of subjects shows that popular art had characteristics of its own
with sufficient vitality to form a tradition of its own, different from
the main line in the fine arts. The late paintings of Georges Seurat,
as Robert Herbert has pointed out. with their flat linearism and

show business subjects (cabaret, circus) are influenced by the post-

ers of Jules Cheret'. The artists* sensitivity to popular art was wide-
spread in the 19th century, and one other example might be cited,
the art critic Champfleury, who recorded: 'I published in 1850, in
the National, a preliminary fragment on folk art. It was concerned
with barroom decoration (imagerie de cabaret), faience, carica-

ture'-. Here, as in the cases of Van Gogh and Seurat, popular art is

assigned its own traditions, in the urban mass of the population, and
linked to topical events.
The use of popular art sources by artists has been wide-

spread since the 18th century, though not much charted. Courbet,

who seems to have used popular engravings in some of his paintings^,

handled form with an abrupt, schematic quality which, to his con-

temporaries" eyes, was polemically naive. In Courbet, popular art

was equated with a pastoral society, with, that is to say, Folk Art
traditions. This connection led logically to nostalgic and exotic

primitivism, in Gauguin's work in both Brittany and Polynesia, for

instance, and thence to numerous 20th century revival styles. How-

ever, another current identified popular art neither with the products
of unchanging peasants nor with unspoiled natives, but with the ver-

nacular art of the city.

James Rosenquist FOLK 1949 GUYS. 1962.

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

Andy U arhol BEFORE AND AFTER, 3. 1962.

Lent by Stable Gallery, New York.

 As in the cases of Van Gogh and Seurat, the use of popular

art sources was linked with acceptance of the city as a subject for

art. In the 20th century there is a consistent connection between

the painting of specifically modern subjects and themes and an in-

terest in mass-produced and popular art. Purism, for example, se-

lected as objects for still-life 'those which are like extensions of

man's limbs, and thus of an extreme intimacy, and banality that
makes them barely exist as objects of interest in themselves'^°. Leger^
who was associated closely with the Purists, argued for the equality

of mass-produced objects and nature: 'Every object, created or man-

ufactured, may carry in itself an intrinsic beauty just like all phe-
nomena of the natural order*". As a result of his conviction that

'beauty is everywhere", Leger not only praised mass-produced objects

but extended his esthetic to take in popular art as well. In a passage
of praise for window-dressing, in the 20s still a fresh and expanding
form of display, he declared: 'The street has become a permanent
exhibition of ever-growing importance'^-. He criticised the Renais-

sance for leaving us with 'its ecstasy for the fine subject' and its

'hideous hyi)ertrophy of the individual'. These themes survive today

in the use of Coca Cola bottles and Campbell soup cans by Warhol,
or in Lichtenstein's detached depiction of common objects. Against

the conspicuous assertion of individualism, by paint handling, for ex-

ample, Warhol and Lichtenstein collaborate with (usually unknown)

popular artists. Lichtenstein's collaborators are comic strip artists

or commercial artists and Warhol collaborates with Campbell's

packaging department or, in his portraits of Coca Cola bottles, with

Raymond Loewy Associates. The artist deliberately confirms his in-

dividualism to a pre-existing image (which he radically transforms

behind a mask of subservience).
Another aspect of popular imagery has to do not with ob-
jects but with the folklore of heroes and heroines, that spectacular
parade of slowly or quickly disappearing public figures. Surrealism,

with its writers sensitive to the potential of fantasy in common events,

explored this area. For instance, Robert Desnos wrote about French
popular novels and singled out for comment Fantomas, 'an enor-
mously important factor in Parisian mythology and oneirology. The
hero's elegant appearance and the bloody dagger he holds in his

hand upset the generally accepted idea, and puts an end to the no-

tion of a lamentable, moth-eaten assassin, clothed in rags'^^. Re-

cently there have been various paintings of Marilyn Monroe^^, which

have been interpreted as elegies for somebody trapped in the mass

media. In fact, pretentious explanations of this kind are part of the

unfamiliarity writers feel at the presence of popular art sources or

references in the context of fine art. The conjunction of the once-

separated areas of high and popular culture has embarrassed writ-

ers whose fortunes and status are identified with the care of high
 .

art^'. On the contrary, mass media figures are relished for their

physical grandeur, for their pervasiveness (as in Warhol's diptych),

and for the drama of common intimacy they offer their consumers.
The attitude towards the stars is more like that expressed by Pierre
de Massot, in an article on the French music hall, in which he listed,

'The legs of Mistinguett. the breasts of Spinelly, the buttocks of

Parisys, the little stomach of Pepee constitute, with Marcel Du-

champ's Nude Descending the Staircase, the only "poetic" realm in

which I can live"^^.

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

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

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

"Sign Painters": (see Bibliography no. 8) :

"American Dream Painting": (see Bibliography no. 18). However, the

imagery is not dream-like, nor is it exclusively American. The imagery of
these artists is a fact of global industrialism, a real part of life and, in no
sense, a dream.
"Neo Dada": The term over-emphasizes the connections with Dada that do
exist, but the comparison is usually vitiated by inadequate definitions of
what the original Europeans were in fact doing.
3. Swenson, G. R. "Rauschenberg Paints a Picture", Art Neivs, 1963 (to be
published)

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

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

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

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

8. Quoted by Stanley Meltzoff, "The Revival of the Le Nains". Art Bulletin,

New York, vol. 24, no. 3. September. 1942. p. 278.

9. Schapiro, Meyer. "Courbet and Popular Imagery". Journal of the Warburg

and Courtauld Institutes, London, vol. 4. 1940-1941.

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

Leger, Fernand. "The Esthetics of the Machine: Manufactured Objects,

Artisan, and Artist". The Little Review. New York. Paris, vol. 9, no. 3,
1923, p. 45-49, vol. 9, no. 4. 1923-1924. p. 55-58.

Ibid.

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

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

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

De Massot. Pierre. "Theatre and Music-Hall: to Erik Satie". The Little

Review, vol. 9, no. 4, Paris, 1923-1924, p. 6.
 SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRIPHV

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

CE.XEKAl.

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

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

2. T. B. H. [Thomas B. Hess]. "New Realists at Janis Gallery'", Art News,

New York, vol. 61, December. 1962, p. 12.

3. S. T. [Sidney Tillim]. "The New Realists at Janis Gallery", Arts, New

York. vol. 37, December, 1962, p. 43-44.

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

1962.

Arti<'l«*<$

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

6. "Something New is Cooking", Life, New York, vol. 52, no. 24, June 15,
1962. p. 115-120.

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

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

9. Seckler, Dorothy Gees. "Folklore of the Banal", Art in America, New

York, vol. 50, no. 4, 1962, p. 57-61.

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

11. A. [Bruno Alfieri]. "USA: Towards tlie End of "Abstract' Painting?"

Metro, Milan, no. 4-5 [1962]. p. 4-13.

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

Langsner, Jules. "Los Angeles Letter, September, 1962". Art International,

Zurich, vol. 6, no. 9, November, 1962, p. 49.

Rosenberg, Harold. "The Art Galleries: The Game of Illusion", New

Yorker, New York, November 24, 1962, p. 161-167.

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

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

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

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

19. Johnson. Ellen H. "The Living Object", Art International, Ziiricii, vol. 7,

no. 1. January, 1963, p. 42-45.

 JIM ni.XE

Statements

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

21. Art 1963 -A

New Vocabulary, Philadelphia. Arts Council of the YM^ '

Y\V HA, October 25-\ovember 7. 1962.

Exhibition Catalogues and Reviews

22. A. V. [Anita ^'entura]. "Exhibition at Jndson Gallery", Arts, New York

vol. 34, December. 1959, p. 59.

23. A. V. [Anita Ventura]. "Exhibition at Reuben Gallery". Arts, New York

vol. 34. April. 1960. p. 73.

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

25. V. P. [Valerie Petersen]. "Exhibition at Reuben Gallery", Art News, Nev

York, vol. 59, December, 1960, p. 16-17.

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

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

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

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

30. J. J. [Jill Johnston]. "Exhibition at Jackson Gallery". Art Neivs, New

York. vol. 60, January, 1962. p. 12-13.

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

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

JA.SPEK JOHN'S

Statements

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

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

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

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

37. Washburn. Gordon B. "Pittsburgh bicentennial international: the pria

awards", Carnegie Magazine, Pittsburgh, vol. 32, December. 1958, p. 331

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

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

40. I. H. S. [Irving H. Sandler]. "Exhibitiiui at Castelli Gallery", Art Neivs,

New York, vol. 58. February. 1960. p. 15.

41. D. J. [Donald Judd]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Arts. New York,

vol. 34. March, 1960, p. 57-58.

42. I. H. S. [Irving H. Sandler]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Art News,

New York, vol.^60. March. 1961. p. 15.

43. S. T. [Sidney Tillim]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Arts, New York,

vol. 35. March. 1961. p. 51-52.

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

April 5, 1961, p. 41.

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

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

Articles

47. Rosenblum, Robert. "Jasper Johns". Art International, Ziirich, vol. 4, no.

7, September 25, 1960. p. 75-77.

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

49. Rosenblum, Robert. "Les oeuvres recentes de Jasper Johns", XX Siecle,

Paris, no. 24, February, 1962, p. 19-20.

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

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

52. Greenberg, Clement. "After Abstract Expressionism", Art International,

Ziirich, vol. 6, no. 8. October 25, 1962, p. 25.

ROY HfHTEXSTEI!V
Review's

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

54. F. P. [Fairfield Porter]. "Exhibition at Heller's", Art News, New York,

vol. 50, January, 1952, p. 67.
I

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

,56. F. P. [Fairfield Porter]. "Exhibition of oils and watercolors at Heller's",

Art News, New York, vol. 51, February, 1953. p. 74.

57. R. R. [Robert Rosenblum]. "Exhibition of paintings. Heller Gallery", Art

Digest, New York, vol. 29, February 15, 1954, p. 22.

58. F. P. [Fairfield Porter]. "Lichtenstein's adult primer; exhibition at Heller

Gallery", Art News, New York, vol. 58, March, 19.54. p. 18, 63.

59. M. S. [Martica Sawin]. "Exhibition at Heller Gallery", Arts, New York,

vol. 31, January, 1957, p. 52.

60. J. S. [James Schuyler]. "Exhibition of oils at Heller Gallery", Art News,

New York, vol. 55, February, 1957, p. 12.

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

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

63. N. E. [Natalie Edgar]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery", Art News, New

York, vol. 61, March, 1962, p. 14.

ROHERT RAI *>irHE>RER4;

Statements

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

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

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

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

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

68. D. S. [Dorothy Seckler]. "Exhibition at Betty Parsons Gallery", Art News,

New York, vol. 50, May, 1951. p. 59.

69. D. A. [Dore Ashton]. "Exhibition at Stable Gallery"', Art Digest, New.

York, vol. 27, September. 1953. p. 21.

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

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

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

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

1958, p. 61.

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

1959, p. 48.

75. 1. H. S. [Irving H. Sandler]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Art News,

New \ork. vol. 59. April. 1960. p. 14.

76. S. T. [Sidney Tillim]. "Exhibition at Castelli Gallery". Arts, New York,

vol. 34, May, 1960, p. 58.

77. L. C. [Lawrence Campbell]. "Exhibition of Drawings at Castelli Gallery",

Art News, New York, vol. 59, January, 1961, p. 3.

78. ^L S. [Martica Sawin]. "Exhibition of Drawings at Castelli Gallery", Arts,

New York, vol. 35, January, 1%1, p. 56.

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

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

81. Arnason, H. H. American Abstract Expressionists and Imagists, New \ork.

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. 1961.

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

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

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

85. Melville, Robert. "American \'anguard Exhibition". Architectural Review,

Westminster, vol. 131, May, 1962.

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

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

1962.

Arli«>le!«

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

89. Legrand. Francine Claire. "La Peinture et la Sculpture au defi". Quad-

rum, Brussels, no. 7, 1959, p. 23.

90. Myers. David. "Robert Rauschenberg" in B. H. Friedman, ed., School of

New York: Some Younger Artists, New York. Grove, 1959, p. 54-59.
91. Hamilton, George Heard. "Painting in Contemporary America", Burling-
ton Magazine, London, vol. 102. no. 686. May. 1960, p. 192.

92. Ashton. Dore. "Plus <;a change . .

.". Cimaise, Paris, no. 52, March-April,
1961, p. 50.

93. Choay, Frangoise. "Dada. Neo-Dada et Rauschenberg". Art International,

Ziirich, vol. 5, no. 8, October 20, 1961, p. 82.
 94. Ashton. Dore. "Raiischenberg"< 34 Illustrations for Dante's Inferno",
Metro, Milan, no. 2. [1961] p. 52.

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

96. Dorfles. Gillo. "Rauschenberg. or Obsolescence Defeated". Metro. Milan,

no. 2. [1961] p. 32.

97. Seitz. \^ illiam C. "Assemblage: Problems and Issues', Art International,

Ziirich, vol. 6, no. 1. February. 1962.

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

JA^IES H05SE>«|I ItiiT

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

100. L. C. [Lawrence Campbell]. "Exhibition at Roko Gallery". Art Neu's,

New York.vol. 61. March. 1962. p. 54.

101. .S. T. [Sidney Tillim]. "Exhibition at Green Gallery", Arts, New York. vul.

36, March. 1962. p. 46.

I Articles

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

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

AXnY >VAKHOL
Statements

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

Exhibition Cataiognes anil Kevie^vs

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

106. G. R. S. [G. R. Swenson]. "Exhibition at Stable Gallery". Art News, New

York, vol. 61, November. 1962. p. 15.

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

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

Articles

109. Ferebee. Ann. "Packaging: Portrait of a Soup Can". Industrial Design.

New York, vol. 9. no. 9. 1962.
STAFF Director Thomas M. Messer
Secretary Cynthia Fay

Curator Lawrence Alloiiay

Associate Curator Louise Averill Svendsen

Assistant Curator Daniel Robbins

Public Affairs Evelyn von Ripper

Membership Sally Ale Lean

Registrar Arlene B. Dellis

Conservation Orrin Riley and Saul Fuerstein

Photography- Robert E. Mates

Business Administrator Glenn H. Easton, Jr.

Administrative Assistant f'iola H. Gleason

Office Manager Agnes R. Connollv

Building Superintendent Peter G.Loggin

Head Guard George J. Sauve

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

3,000 copies of this catalogue,

designed by Herbert Matter,

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

in March 1963

for the Trustees of The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation

on the occasion of the exhibition

''Six Painters and the Object"

THE SOLOMON R. GUGGEBTHEIM MUSEUM

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