UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Jasper Johns and the influence of Ludwig Wittgenstein Higginson, Peter 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 H53_9.pdf [ 14.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093801.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093801-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093801-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093801-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093801-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093801-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093801-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093801-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093801.ris

Full Text

JASPER JOHNS AND THE INFLUENCE OF LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN  by PETER HIGGINSON B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in the Department of Fine Arts  We accept t h i s . t h e s i s as conforming to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July, 1974  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s  in p a r t i a l  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements  an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t  freely available  for  I agree  for  that  r e f e r e n c e and study.  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s  thesis  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my Department o r by h i s  representatives.  It  of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l written  i s understood that copying o r  g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Vancouver 8, Canada  publication  Columbia  ABSTRACT The  i n f l u e n c e s upon Johns' work stem from v a r i e d f i e l d s of i n t e r e s t s , r a n g i n g  from Leonardo to John Cage, Hart Crane to Duchamp, M a r s h a l l McLuhan to Wittgenstein.  The  appreciated.  r o l e that W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s  What d i s c u s s i o n has  occurred  philosophy, p l a y s has - namely Max  never been  K o z l o f f ' s and  fully  Rosalind  Krauss' - shows an inadequacy e i t h e r through a l a c k of u n d e r s t a n d i n g or a superficiality  towards the p h i l o s o p h i c a l views.  is invaluable 60's.  The  a s s e s s how  An  in-depth  a n a l y s i s on this,,  subject  i n f u l l y comprehending the r a m i f i c a t i o n s of Johns' p a i n t i n g of  i n t e n t i o n o f t h i s paper i s to examine W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s h i s method of s e e k i n g  influence  out meaning i n language i s used by  the  and  Johns i n h i s  p a i n t i n g s to e x p l o r e meaning i n a r t . Johns' e a r l y work c o u l d perhaps be n u t s h e l l e d as a r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t egocentricism and  of A b s t r a c t - E x p r e s s i o n i s m .  Numeral p i e c e s he has  early f i f t i e s f a c i l e and l a y not  suspended the f o r m a l  i n an attempt to p r o v i d e  i n wrong answers but  to p r e s e n t  t h a t meaning l i e s .  ask, what i s p a i n t i n g ?  and  r e l e v a n t without b e i n g  conclusive.  o f any  In 1959  Johns saw  another.  than some  that the problems i n p a i n t i n g  the a r t i s t ' s s e l f s i n c e the  The  object-paintings  'success' i t is  of t h i s e a r l y phase  pose d i f f e r e n t s u g g e s t i o n s w i t h each b e i n g  f e a s i b l e and  Johns i n s i s t s on keeping the s i t u a t i o n  final resolution.  Johns d i s c o v e r e d  Duchamp and  h i s broader i d e a o f a r t t h a t moved away  from r e t i n a l b o u n d a r i e s i n t o a f i e l d where language, thought and one  i n the  i n v o l v e s an e q u a l l y important member, the audience, and  this dialogue  incapable  i s s u e s t h a t were p r e v a l e n t  i n the l a c k of u n d e r s t a n d i n g the n a t u r e of v i s u a l  It i s impossible  of the a r t o b j e c t  Alphabets  a l l s i d e s of the argument r a t h e r  unsatisfactory reconciliation.  communication.  within  Through the F l a g s , T a r g e t s ,  the  F a l s e S t a r t , 1959,  r e f l e c t s t h i s i n t e r e s t and  r a d i c a l change from former work, as Barbara Rose and  v i s i o n acted  can be  Sidney T i l l i m  seen not  upon  as  suggest, but  any as  iii a development o f p r e v i o u s  i d e a s , now  t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the r o l e language  p l a y s i n the r e c e p t i o n o f a p a i n t i n g . W i t t g e n s t e i n began to i n t e r e s t  Johns i n 1961.  H i s a n a l y s i s of meaning i n  language s e t down i n the P h i l o s o p h i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s not o n l y shared affinity  to the  ' a r t i s l i f e ' maxim of Johns, Rauschenberg and  importantly presented  a close  Cage but more  Johns w i t h a methodology to c l a r i f y the d e f i n i t i o n of a r t .  L i k e Duchamp, W i t t g e n s t e i n saw b l e m a t i c - t h e r e i s no  the e s t a b l i s h i n g of meaning l y i n g o u t s i d e the  s o l u t i o n s i n c e t h e r e i s no problem.  The  pro-  Investigations -  a complete r e v e r s a l of the e a r l i e r T r a c t a t u s L o g i c o P h i l o s o p h i c u s which  claimed  t h a t language i s a l o g i c a l p i c t u r i n g of f a c t s - e s s e n t i a l l y poses that the meaning of language l i e s  i n i t s usage, that t h e r e i s no one  a u t h o r i t a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n of a  word but as many as t h e r e a r e uses f o r i t . W i t t g e n s t e i n saw p h i l o s o p h e r not as one  of p r o v i d i n g new  t i o n s through r e v i e w i n g what we  i n f o r m a t i o n but  have a l r e a d y known.  the r o l e of  the  of c l e a r i n g up misconcep-  Philosophy  i s 'a b a t t l e a g a i n s t  the bewitchment of our i n t e l l i g e n c e by means of language'. Johns' p a i n t i n g s from 1961  on become such where he sees the r o l e of the  as a b a t t l e a g a i n s t the bewitchment of our s i g h t by not specifically, criticism.  The  motives are v e r y d i f f e r e n t  Critic  Sees, 1961  from e x t e n d i n g  a c o l l e c t i o n of p a i n t i n g s t h a t q u e s t i o n s  language but more  i t s a t t a c k on w r i t e r s whose  any v i s u a l awareness s e t s the stage f o r the whole aspect  w i t h t h e i r p o l e m i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s as to how w i t h a b i a s towards New  and  simply  we  should  see.  York c r i t i c i s m i s understandable  of s c h o o l s of  p a i n t i n g at a p e r i o d when the a r t i s t ' s aim was  p r e s c r i b e d by what the c r i t i c  s i n c e i t was  i n meaning  from here  i n a d d i t i o n , he  becoming more and more  proposed.  Johns' l a r g e s t canvas to d a t e , A c c o r d i n g n o t i o n of p e r c e p t i o n t h a t he  criticism  This i n t e r e s t  t h a t the most i n t r i g u i n g and muddled i d e a s of Johns' work came and was  artist  to What, 1964,  i s an a p o l o g i a o f  the  shares w i t h W i t t g e n s t e i n r a t h e r than a grand hommage  iv to Duchamp. A Wittgenstinian  analysis of Johns' post-1961 paintings not only gives an  explanation of the imagery employed but reveals to us two fundamental issues inherent i n them: looking i s r e l a t i v e with the only common denominator being l i f e , which i n turn shows c r i t i c i s m , i n the controversial from Johns was used to experiencing i t , as more concerned with reinforcing i n d i v i d u a l claims rather than any desire to evolve a t o t a l awareness. anthropocentrism,  As with Wittgenstein's philosophy of  Johns does not advance any one theory.  He does not, unlike the  formalist interest, regard the problems of contemporary painting as empirical but as a blindness to the numerous inherent and unavoidable work.  v i s u a l aspects i n any one  v TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  LIST OF PLATES  vi  INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I  :  1 1955 t o 1961  4  CHAPTER I I :  Wittgenstein's  Philosophy:  CHAPTER I I I :  Johns and W i t t g e n s t e i n : The S t a t e o f C r i t i c i s m so F a r  A Synopsis  24  36  CHAPTER IV :  Johns and W i t t g e n s t e i n  45  CHAPTER V  Conclusion  70  :  FOOTNOTES PLATES BIBLIOGRAPHY  74 90 116  vi LIST OF PLATES PLATE I  Flag, 1954  PLATE II  Target With Plaster Casts, 1955  PLATE III  Target with Four Faces, 1955  PLATE IV  Construction with Toy Piano, 1954  PLATE V  Untitled, 1954  PLATE VI  Large Green Target, 1955  PLATE VII  White Target, 1957  PLATE VIII  Figure 5, 1955  PLATE IX  Charles Demuth.  PLATE X  Gray Alphabets, 1956  PLATE XI  Gray Numbers, 1958  PLATE XII  Gray Alphabets, 1956  PLATE XIII  U n t i t l e d , c.1954  PLATE XIV  Tango, 1955  PLATE XV  Andy Warhol Dance Diagram - Tango, 1962  PLATE XVI  Canvas, 1956  PLATE XVII  Drawer, 1957  PLATE XVIII  Gray Rectangles, 1957  PLATE XIX  Painting With a B a l l , 1958  PLATE XX  Tennyson, 1958  PLATE XXI  The, 1957  PLATE XXII  Shade, 1959  PLATE XXIII  Magritte, Human Condition I, 1933  PLATE XXIV  Delaunay, Windows on the City, 1912  PLATE XXV  False Start, 1959  PLATE XXVI  Magritte, The Use of Words, 1928-29  PLATE XXVII  Jubilee, 1959  I Saw The Figure 5 i n Gold,  vii 1959  PLATE X X V I I I  Out  PLATE XXIX  Thermometer,  1959  P L A T E XXX  Painting with  Two B a l l s ,  PLATE XXXI  Device  PLATE XXXII  Painting with  PLATE X X X I I I  Leonardo da V i n c i ,  PLATE XXXIV  Device,  P L A T E XXXV  By t h e S e a ,  P L A T E XXXVI  Passage,  PLATE XXXVII  F o o l ' s House,  1962  PLATE XXXVIII  Out  II,  PLATE XXXIX  Field  PLATE  xxxx  t h e Window,  Ruler  and "Gray", V i t r u v i a n Man  1960 , c . 1485-90  1961-62 1961  1962  t h e Window  The C r i t i c  1962  1963-64  Painting,  1961  Sees,  1961  No,  PLATE XXXXII  Periscope  PLATE XXXXIII  Land's  End,  P L A T E XXXXIV  Diver,  1962  xxxxv  1959  Circle,  PLATE XXXXI  PLATE  1960  Watchman,  P L A T E XXXXVI  According  PLATE XXXXVII  Duchamp  PLATE X X X X V I I I '  Fragments  P L A T E XXXXIX  Cup  (Hart  Crane)  1963  1964 t o What,  T u m'.  1964  1918  - According  4 Picasso,  1972  t o What - H i n g e d  Canvas,  1971  1  INTRODUCTION  i  2 In a f o o t n o t e to her a r t i c l e on Johns, R o s a l i n d Krauss t a l k s of h i s t i o n into Wittgenstein's philosophy.* him  Johns r e c o u n t s  t h a t i n 1961  the s t o r y Norman Malcolm w r i t e s of i n h i s r e m i n i s c e n c e s  initia-  someone t o l d  of W i t t g e n s t e i n .  'Once a f t e r supper, W i t t g e n s t e i n , my w i f e and I went f o r a walk on Midsummer Common [Cambridge, E n g l a n d ] . We t a l k e d about the movements of the b o d i e s of the s o l a r system. I t occured to W i t t g e n s t e i n t h a t the t h r e e of us should r e p r e s e n t the movement of the sun, moon and e a r t h r e l a t i v e to one another. My w i f e was the sun and maintained a steady pace a c r o s s the meadow; I was the e a r t h and c i r c l e d her at a trot. W i t t g e n s t e i n took the most strenuous p a r t of a l l , the moon and r a n around me w h i l e I c i r c l e d my w i f e . W i t t g e n s t e i n e n t e r e d i n t o t h i s game w i t h g r e a t enthusiasm and s e r i o u s n e s s , s h o u t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s at us as he r a n . ' 2  On h e a r i n g t h i s s t o r y Johns d e c i d e d to read a l l the W i t t g e n s t e i n he c o u l d . appeal the t a l e had  f o r him was  one  that s t i l l  remains i n t r i n s i c to h i s work;  the i d e a of game p l a y i n g , but l i k e the p h i l o s o p h e r , games to be p l a y e d not l i g h t l y .  As language was  Johns - i n f a c t he has The  far,  f o r W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s l a t e r p h i l o s o p h y so i s a r t f o r  o f t e n expressed  t h a t p a i n t i n g i s a language.  h i s method of s e e k i n g out meaning i n language i s used by Johns to  e x p l o r e meaning i n a r t . 1964  seriously  i n t e n t i o n of t h i s paper i s to examine W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s i n f l u e n c e and  d i s c u s s how  to  The  For reasons  which marks the completion  A c c o r d i n g t o What.  whole, t o g r a p h i c s and  of space,  I have kept to the p a i n t i n g up  o f perhaps h i s most important  canvas so  S i n c e t h a t time Johns has r e s t r i c t e d h i m s e l f , on  the  o n l y i n the l a s t year or so has begun a r e t u r n to the  p a i n t medium. I will first  g i v e an o v e r a l l view of h i s work from 1955-1961 as a  n e c e s s a r y background t o what f o l l o w s .  B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g the l a t e r p a i n t i n g  from a W i t t g e n s t i n i a n viewpoint, i n Chapter  4, Chapter  2 w i l l be devoted  to  p r e s e n t i n g as b r i e f l y as p o s s i b l e a s y n o p s i s of W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s p h i l o s o p h y Chapter  3 t o a d i s c u s s i o n of the p r e s e n t  r o l e i n Johns' work.  s t a t e of c r i t i c i s m on  and  Wittgenstein's  What must be the s t r i c t concern  s t r e s s e d at t h i s stage i s t h a t Johns i s not a p h i l o s o p h e r i n  sense and h i s p r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o W i t t g e n s t e i n does not stem from a  f o r the philosopher;!;s p l a c e i n any  p h i c a l i n q u i r y i n t o the would be p o i n t l e s s . i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and probably itself  Few  'accuracy'  linguistic tradition.  A philoso-  of Johns' comprehension of W i t t g e n s t e i n  p h i l o s o p h e r s themselves are i n agreement i n t h e i r  i t must be remembered t h a t Johns' a p p l i c a t i o n was  c o l o u r e d by John Cage's i n f l u e n c e .  i n h i s a b i l i t y to l e t h i s i d e a s  Cage's e c l e c t i s i s m has  ' s l i d e without  more than  shown  self-conscious effort  into  3 areas f a r beyond c o n v e n t i o n a l thought'  - a f a s c i n a t i n g p r a c t i c e but  to e v a l u a t e s u c c e s s f u l l y from a p u r e l y p h i l o s o p h i c a l s t a n d p o i n t .  impossible  4 CHAPTER ONE: 1955 t o 1961  "Most o f my thoughts I n v o l v e i m p u r i t i e s .... I t h i n k i t i s a form o f p l a y , or form o f e x e r c i s e , and i t ' s i n p a r t mental and i n p a r t v i s u a l (and God knows what t h a t i s ) . But t h a t ' s one of the t h i n g s we l i k e about the visual arts. The terms i n which we're accustomed t o t h i n k i n g a r e a d u l t e r a t e d o r abused. Or a term t h a t we're not used t o u s i n g o r which we have n o t used i n our e x p e r i e n c e becomes v e r y c l e a r . Or what i s e x p l i c i t suddenly i s n ' t . We l i k e t h e n o v e l t y of g i v i n g up what we know, and we l i k e t h e n o v e l t y o f coming t o know something we d i d not know. Otherwise, we would j u s t h o l d on t o what we have, and t h a t ' s not v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g . " x  5 J a s p e r Johns, l i k e Robert Rauschenberg, began p a i n t i n g i n a p e r i o d was By  becoming steeped i n the s u c c e s s e s and the e a r l y f i f t i e s  of p a i n t i n g .  i t had  In 1965,  f a i l u r e s of A b s t r a c t  Expressionism.  a l r e a d y begun to take on the v i s a g e  Barbara Rose wrote her a r t i c l e ,  'The  that  of an academy  Second G e n e r a t i o n :  2 Academy and  Breakthrough'  s t y l e to Rosenberg's  'The  Rosenberg's a r t i c l e had Metzinger's surrogate Du  , and  a t t r i b u t e d the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g of  American A c t i o n P a i n t e r s ' of December,  a s i m i l a r e f f e c t on New  manifesto,. Du  Cubisme o f f e r e d an e x p l a n a t i o n  w i t h the r e s u l t i n g a b s u r d i t y got by-passed.  this  1952.  York p a i n t e r s as G l e i z e ' s  Gubisme had on the P a r i s a r t i s t s of  1912.  t  of Cubist  and  aims as understood by i t s a u t h o r s  t h a t Bna^ue and  Picasso's  v i s i o n of a C u b i s t  reality  Rosenberg's a r t i c l e , which l i k e w i s e set down the common a s p i r a -  t i o n s of a number of a r t i s t s , a l s o had  novel  results.  Unwittingly  he  evoked  a f o c a l i s i n g f o r c e t h a t appealed on a n a t i o n a l i s t i c as w e l l as an i n d i v i d u a l level: " T h i s new p a i n t i n g does not c o n s t i t u t e a s c h o o l . To form a s c h o o l i n modern times not o n l y i s a new p a i n t i n g c o n s c i o u s n e s s needed but a c o n s c i o u s n e s s of t h a t c o n s c i o u s n e s s and even an i n s i s t e n c e on c e r t a i n f o r m u l a s . A s c h o o l i s the r e s u l t of the l i n k a g e of p r a c t i c e w i t h t e r m i n o l o g y - d i f f e r e n t p a i n t i n g s are a f f e c t e d by the same words. In the American Vanguard the words, as we s h a l l see, b e l o n g not t o the a r t but to the i n d i v i d u a l a r t i s t s . What they t h i n k i n common i s r e p r e s e n t e d o n l y by what they do s e p a r a t e l y - ^ 1  Rosenberg p r o v i d e d and  the  'consciousness of t h a t c o n s c i o u s n e s s ' , a t e r m i n o l o g y  u l t i m a t e l y a movement t h a t any  American a r t i s t  could j o i n while  being  a s s u r e d of r e t a i n i n g his. s e p a r a t e n e s s . Even today, Johns i s perhaps best the c o l l a p s e and,  known, w i t h Rauschenberg,for  as some w r i t e r s are want to view i t , c a s t r a t i o n of  n a r c i s s i s m - i n P a i n t i n g w i t h Two  B a i l s , 1960  t h e i r g e n i t a l s between a parody of an A b s t r a c t these two  managed t h i s , I t h i n k , l i e s  ( p l a t e XXX)  initiating this  Johns even suspends  Expressionist painting.  i n their exceptional  intuition.  How Both  .  6 were s o u t h e r n e r s ,  both had  background or l i v e d a naivete  i n any  done time i n the f o r c e s , n e i t h e r had a r t i s t i c environment.  that a l l o w e d them to ask  c l e a r sightedness  t h a t perhaps no  any  artistic  They approached p a i n t i n g w i t h  fundamental q u e s t i o n s artist  had  and  answer them w i t h a  i n the t h i c k of an A b s t r a c t  n i s t m i l i e u c o u l d ; as M a r s h a l l McLuhan, another i n f l u e n c e on Johns,  Expressio-  says:  ' P r o f e s s i o n a l i s m i s e n v i r o n m e n t a l . Amateurism i s a n t i - e n v i r o n m e n t a l . P r o f e s s i o n a l i s m merges the i n d i v i d u a l i n t o p a t t e r n s of t o t a l environment. Amateurism seeks the development of the t o t a l awareness of the i n d i v i d u a l and the c r i t i c a l awareness of the ground r u l e s o f s o c i e t y . The amateur can a f f o r d to l o s e ... The 'expert' i s the man who s t a y s put.'4 A marvellous manifestation c o l o u r and of c o l o u r  of t h i s :  Albers  Rauschenberg the amateur who i n t e r a c t i o n theory  the p r o f e s s i o n a l , the expert  on  f a i l e d to understand the s i g n i f i c a n c e  at the B l a c k Mountain School and  ended up  doing  an a l l - w h i t e p a i n t i n g . ^ ' a  J o h n s ' i n t u i t i o n and  'amateurism' l e d i n 1954  to p a i n t h i s f i r s t  ( P l a t e 1) which set the p a t t e r n f o r the next f i v e y e a r s of an the r e c o n c i l i n g o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  - a p l a y between  representation  replication. De  Kooning had  s e t the stage w i t h h i s Woman p a i n t i n g s of the e a r l y  where he b a t t l e d w i t h the s p a t i a l dilemma of f i g u r e and o f the anatomy are opened to a l l o w sought to escape from a C u b i s t  t e n s i o n was  i l l u s i o n and  one  of p l u s and  ground.  r e t u r n to a  can  contours  c o n f l i c t w i t h the f l a t minus, l i g h t s and  He  representational s u r f a c e of the  d a r k s , p l a n e and  canvas.  contour,  fact.  Johns' F l a g i s remarkable i n t h a t r a t h e r than f i n d a formal which we  The  fifties  the environment to f u s e w i t h the o b j e c t .  r e a l i t y and  d e p i c t i o n , t h a t would somehow not The  inquiry into  w i t h the p i c t u r e p l a n e as w e l l as the whole  n a t u r e of what c o n s t i t u t e s the=art o b j e c t and  Flag  a t t a c h one  synthesis  meaning.he s u c c e s s f u l l y suspends the i s s u e s w i t h o u t  in  7 t h e i r denying  each o t h e r and  final resolution.  i n s i s t s on keeping  the s i t u a t i o n i n c a p a b l e of  Is i t a p a i n t i n g or a r e p l i c a of a f;lag?  s t r u c t u r i n g of the f l a g image, r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l l y f l a t ,  The  any  'a p r i o r i '  i n a b s t r a c t terms  aread t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l l y w i t h bands of r e d on a w h i t e background.  may  A l l these  f a c t o r s are immersed as i t were i n a n e u t r a l p a i n t e r l i n e s s which seems to p r o v i d e a u n i f o r m i t y of s p a t i a l i l l u s i o n u n t i l we i s s u b j e c t e d to the p a t t e r n o f the f l a g .  We  r e a l i z e that t h i s i n turn  end up mutely dumbfounded by  i m p o s s i b i l i t y of r e a c h i n g any d e f i n i t e e x p l a n a t i o n and  i t becomes an  the  existential  experience. Greenberg can p l a c e Johns o n l y i n some ' v o i d ' between a b s t r a c t i o n and representation.  He  r e c o g n i z e s the v a r i o u s c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , but  insoluble quality f i n a l l y  f o r c e s him  a  Johns r e f u s e s to p r o v i d e any  ' c e r t a i n narrowness'.  Stella,  6  f o r example, Johns has  the nagging  to d i s m i s s the whole t h i n g as arrival.  indicating  U n l i k e , Frank  gone too f a r f o r Greenberg.  'The o r i g i n a l f l a t n e s s of the p i c t u r e s u r f a c e , w i t h a few o u t l i n e s s t e n c i l l e d on i t , i s shown as s u f f i c i n g to r e p r e s e n t a l l t h a t a p i c t u r e by Johns r e a l l y does r e p r e s e n t . The c o v e r i n g of p a i n t i t s e l f , w i t h i t s de Kooningesque p l a y of l i g h t s and darks i s shown as b e i n g c o m p l e t e l y s u p e r f l u o u s to t h i s end.'7 In the same w a y , S t e l l a has  sought to c r i t i c i z e Johns' c u l t i v a t i o n of  e:.g. J a s p e r ' s Dilemma 1962-63. Johns to c r e a t i n g them.  disagreement appears t o be emphasize the p r o c e s s  S t e l l a g i v e s h i s e n e r g i e s to s o l v i n g r i d d l e s ,  Without the  i n Johns' F l a g i t would indeed  'problems',  ' s u p e r f l u o u s ' q u a l i t y of the  painterly  take on the f u n c t i o n of S t e l l a ' s work.  i n the case t h a t f o r f o r m a l i s m  The  i t i s anathema to  of p a i n t i n g i n o r d e r to d i s s o c i a t e the image from  the  emblem. ^ For the next  t h r e e y e a r s Johns was  i r o n i e s inherent i n the F l a g p a i n t i n g .  to c o n t i n u e In 1955  experimenting  with  he produced h i s Target  These make even more demands on the o b s e r v e r because of t h e i r  the pieces.  centrality.  8 P r i m a r i l y the f o c u s of Target w i t h P l a s t e r Casts and ( P l a t e s I I and  Target w i t h Four  Faces  I I I ) i s n e u t r a l i s e d by the deep b l u e of the o u t e r c i r c l e  the b r i l l i a n c e of the r e d surround.  We  are unable  to c o n f i d e n t l y  and  determine  background and f o r e g r o u n d , but at t h i s stage Johns does not appear too sure of c o l o u r t o l e a v e i t a t t h a t and out the f o c u s of the image.  i n t r o d u c e s v a r i o u s modulating  elements to c a n c e l  In Target w i t h P l a s t e r Casts the canvas i s topped  by a s e r i e s of boxes w i t h l i d s c o n t a i n i n g p l a s t e r c a s t s of v a r i o u s a n a t o m i c a l 9 fragments.  Both K o z l o f f and  Solomon see the p r o t o t y p e f o r t h i s work coming  from a p i e c e done e a r l i e r i n 1954 Toy Piano box.  ( P l a t e Iv)  b e f o r e the F l a g , t i t l e d  Construction with  where numbered keys of the toy piano l i n e the top of a  For Target w i t h Four Faces K o z l o f f f i n d s the source i n an U n t i t l e d p i e c e  from 1954  where a box  c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t a i n i n g c o l l a g e elements and a p l a s t e r  c a s t of a head i s not u n l i k e C o r n e l l ' s work ( P l a t e The  t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l elements of these two works de-emphasize the  t r a l i s i n g form i n such a way eye we  V)  t h a t i f we  cen-  are t o l o o k a t them w i t h a marksman's  are put i n a quandary whether to aim at the c e n t r e of the t a r g e t or the  objects.  A further subtlety  i s t h a t the s p e c t a t o r i s g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o  shut o f f the s i g h t of these c a s t s by c l o s i n g the a t t a c h e d l i d s . i s i n f e r r i n g t h a t t h e s e canvases  Perhaps Johns  do have l i t e r a l space - i n s i d e as i t were.  However, s i n c e the r e p r o d u c t i o n s do not show what i s on the b a c k s i d e of the lids  t h i s should not be taken f u r t h e r .  S t e i n b e r g ' s attempt  the c o l l e c t i o n of u n r e l a t e d elements i s adventurous  to comprehend  while s t i l l being v i a b l e :  'In Target w i t h Four Faces .... the t a r g e t o f J a s p e r Johns i s always " r i g h t h e r e " i t i s a l l the f i e l d there i s . I t has l o s t i t s d e f i n i t e " t h e r e n e s s " . I went on t o wonder about the human f a c e and came t o the o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n . A f a c e makes no sense u n l e s s i t i s "here"... as soon as you r e c o g n i z e a t h i n g as a f a c e , i t i s an o b j e c t no l o n g e r but one p o l e i n a s i t u a t i o n of r e c i p r o c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s ... I f e l t t h a t the l e v e l i n g of those c a t e g o r i e s which a r e the s u b j e c t i v e markers of space i m p l i e d a t o t a l l y non-human p o i n t of view. I t was as i f the s u b j e c t i v e c o n s c i o u s n e s s , which a l o n e can g i v e meaning t o the words "here and t h e r e " , had ceased t o e x i s t . ' H  9 The analysis i s warranted since at no time does Steinberg impose i t upon the a r t i s t ' s intentions.  Johns, i n s t r i v i n g to escape the onlooker's  grasp by sett-*-  ing up ambiguities of meaning, allows d i f f e r e n t interpretations but never a 12 conclusion.  Narrative content  i s consciously played down to ensure t h i s .  In the above work the fourth cast has been swapped with the t h i r d to prevent any theme of progression i n the woman's growing smile. 'Kozloff sums up the differences between various c r i t i c i s m s of Johns thus: 'The formalists, while perhaps admiring the ambition with which formal q u a l i t i e s were meshed together, judge the f i n a l e f f o r t to be an i n t e r e s t i n g f a i l u r e . The l a t t e r two [Steinberg and Sylvester 3 ] i n i t i a l l y despairing of finding human and metaphorical expression of f e e l i n g i n Johns, become aware of a philosophical play upon the i d e n t i t y and usage of images that transcends the merely p e r s o n a l ' ^ x  Eventually Johns becomes more relaxed with the target image and i s able to use i t alone i n paintings.  Large Green Target 1955  (Plate VI) could possibly be  regarded as less i n t e r e s t i n g i n that the playing with colour and i l l u s i o n i s dropped, but on the other hand there i s a new the materials.  spatial  confidence  Through a r i c h e r use of encaustic and scrap paper  with  Johns,builds  up a texture that eradicates the s p a t i a l caused by the focalising image. Target, 1957  (Place VII) i s even more charged with d i s s o c i a t i o n . The  l i k e pattern of the encaustic dipped pieces of collage are now more expressionistic application with the brush.  White  grid-  subdued by a  The result i s an even tighter  conjoining of structure and freedom to the point of almost imminent explosion. We could ask at this point why I think there are two reasons.  Johns did not simply paint a round canvas.  Shaped canvases at this time would have missed  the point and impact that Johns was  interested i n , that i s i t would have taken  the subject away from the idea of easel painting.  Also, whilst there i s an  element of s p a t i a l recession within the image the placing of i t on a f l a t ground heightens the irony.  The as the  number and  f l a g and  alphabet s e r i e s were o r i g i n a l l y used i n much the same  t a r g e t images - f o r example F i g u r e  g e n e r a l l y accepted t h a t Johns took t h i s m o t i f Figure  F i v e i n G o l d , 1928  Williams'  poem The  I t does not  becomes a c e l e b r a t i o n .  quantify anything,  from C h a r l e s  1  Johns' use has  i t attaches  difference.  The  d i g i t s , as w e l l as the a l p h a b e t s ^ a r e  the p r e v i o u s  two.  q u a l i t y t h a t l e d Johns to l o o k at the q u e s t i o n  denying the p r e s e n t n e s s of  no  Demuth's  r e l a t e d mea-  an everyday symbol. ' But there i s a much r i c h e r forms than  F i g u r e 5 i s f a r l e s s s t a t i c and  seems to have asked h i m s e l f , how  The  no anecdote, i t i s j u s t a  number as the f l a g was  He  It i s  Demuth's, I Saw  years previously. "'  common e v e r y day  The  (Plate V I I I ) .  i n t u r n took i n s p i r a t i o n from C a r l o s  Great F i g u r e w r i t t e n a few  image i s f u t u r i s t and ning.  ( P l a t e IX) who  5, 1955  way  do we  p o s s i b l y i t was  this  of n a r r a t i v e i n a b s t r a c t a r t .  i n c l u d e a sense o f time w i t h o u t  painting?  '... The f i r s t number p a i n t i n g s were j u s t s i n g l e f i g u r e s . . . . then I saw a c h a r t . You know the gray alphabet p a i n t i n g ? I saw a c h a r t i n a book t h a t had t h a t arrangement o f the a l p h a b e t . Then I, o f c o u r s e , r e a l i z e d I c o u l d do the numbers t h a t way t o o . But e a r l i e r than t h a t w i t h the f i r s t numbers I d i d n ' t do every num ber and I d i d n ' t work on them i n any o r d e r and I d e l i b e r a t e l y d i d n ' t do them a l l , so t h a t t h e r e wouldn't be i m p l i e d t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p of moving through things.' 1 6  Johns t h e n , growing t i r e d of s e e k i n g means of how  he  flat  image a f t e r f l a t  c o u l d b r i n g i n the element of time and  deny i t through the use ( P l a t e X)  out  of the c h a r t arrangement.  or Gray Numbers, 1958  image, saw  l e t the same s i t u a t i o n  With Gray A l p h a b e t s ,  1956  ( P l a t e XI).no l i n e of d i g i t s or l e t t e r s i s  the same whether read h o r i z o n t a l l y or v e r t i c a l l y s i n c e i n Gray A l p h a b e t s chart  grid  i s made up  w i t h the top  left  of twenty-seven r e c t a n g l e s by  rectangle  r e c t a n g l e s h i g h and  eleven  left  a  b l a n k and  twenty-seven  the  rectangles  l i k e w i s e Gray Numbers i s  eleven  wide.  At the same time t h a t Johns i s c a r e f u l not s i m i l a r arrangement of images, t h e r e  still  to d u p l i c a t e a l i n e with a  remains from one  aspect,  a  constant  11 p a t t e r n of p r o g r e s s i o n which becomes b o r i n g to the extreme.  However t h i s  a l p h a b e t i c a l and n u m e r i c a l  painterly  treatment  r i g i d i t y i s countered  of each r e c t a n g l e so t h a t no  Plate XII).  On  the one hand we  extreme v a r i e t y .  by the r i c h  l e t t e r or d i g i t  l o o k s the same (see  a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h monotony on the o t h e r  with  In a statement t o Hopps, Johns s a i d :  'I'm c e r t a i n l y not p u t t i n g numbers to any use, numbers a r e used a l l the time, and What's b e i n g done i s making something to be l o o k e d at.'17 There i s another  f a c t o r i n these two works t h a t  has- not  occurred  before  e a r l y U n t i t l e d p i e c e done i n 1954  (Plate  w i t h the important  exception;, of one  XIII).  of t h i s work - apart from the b l a c k and w h i t e r e p r o d u c t i o n  The  effect  l o o k i n g v e r y l i k e a Z o l t a n Kemeny r e l i e f - i s one imposing  l e t t e r s or d i g i t s .  . The  Gray Numerals.. and  i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n w i t h the contours t h e r e i s a f u s i o n o f f i g u r e and tence.  But  t h i s i s absurd  and  ground share the same space. back very c l o s e l y t o  o f h a l f embedded, h a l f Gray Alphabets  r a t h e r than mutual e x i s -  t r a d i t i o n a l l y unnecessary s i n c e number Such a phenomemon i n a d v e r t e n t l y b r i n g s h i s opening o f p l a n e s  background e n t r y , w i t h the p a r a d o x i c a l i n v e r s i o n of now if  i t were t h r e e  dimensional.  are t r e a t e d  of the images b e i n g opened up so t h a t  ground i n p r o g r e s s  de Kooning and  super-  to a l l o w  and  everything the  a t t a c k i n g s u r f a c e as  18  D e s p i t e a l l t h i s , l o o k i n g e s p e c i a l l y at Gray Numerals, t h e r e i s a nagging 19 d e s i r e to f i n d some k i n d of meaning behind T h i s i s not so e n t i r e l y p o i n t l e s s as i t may  the  permutations  sound even i f we  of may  figures. never a r r i v e  at any s a t i s f a c t o r y answer. K o z l o f f ' s quote from M a r s h a l l McLuhan affords us insight into this persistency: 'In i s o l a t i o n , number i s as mysterious as w r i t i n g . Seen as an e x t e n s i o n of our p h y s i c a l b o d i e s , i t becomes q u i t e i n t e l l i g i b l e . J u s t as w r i t i n g i s an e x t e n s i o n and s e p a r a t i o n of our most n e u t r a l and o b j e c t i v e sense, the sense o f s i g h t , number i s an e x t e n s i o n and s e p a r a t i o n of our most i n t i m a t e and i n t e r e s t i n g a c t i v i t y , our sense of t o u c h . . . . i t may w e l l be t h a t i n our c o n s c i o u s i n n e r l i v e s the i n t e r p l a y among our senses i s what c o n s t i t u t e s the sense of touch.  an  12 Perhaps touch i s not j u s t s k i n c o n t a c t w i t h of t h i n g s i n the mind.'20 Johns l o v e s p a i n t i n g . i n the  sensual  t h i n g s , but  There i s i n h i s use of e n c a u s t i c  and  the v e r y  life  o i l a deep  pleasure  a c t i v i t y of the a p p l i c a t i o n , which at the same time he  l e t s impose upon the work to any  e g o t i s t i c a l and  hence  never  c o n f i n i n g degree.  ' by d r e s s i n g and d r a p i n g numbers, c a r e s s i n g i n a hundred ways these u n i t s , of.measurement, Johns' b r u s h c o n f e r s the homage of h i s own s e n s i b i l i t y upon the human mind. Not as symbols of c a l c u l a t i o n , but a s ' s i g n s of i n t e r a c t i n g human f a c u l t i e s , the numbers are presented i n t h e i r deepest f u n c t i o n . ' 1 2  * ft * The  paintings discussed  common theme of f l a t coming to r e s t and unable to accept that us  symbol.  so f a r , d e s p i t e t h e i r o r i g i n a l i t y , do have T h e i r indeterminacy  the q u e s t i o n we  p r e v e n t s the s p e c t a t o r  e v e n t u a l l y ask o u r s e l v e s  i s why  a s t a t e of ambiguity or u n s p e c i f i e d meaning.  we  t h a t w i l l come of o u r s e l v e s  and  not  from  are  It i s a state  i s f a r more profound than the s u r r e a l i s t s ' . With Johns he wants to  free f o r experiences  the  leave  from any p a r t i c u l a r  22 polemical m i l i e u .  The  p o s s i b l e exceptions  are M a g r i t t e , and  Breton's  Nadja where t h e r e i s l e s s of t h a t i n t e n t i o n t h a t most of the other are anxious to remind us  of.  23  At the same time t h a t Johns was that contained  surrealists  doing  the above, he was  o b j e c t s t h a t were themselves  p a i n t i n g works .  painted.  'I t h i n k i f t h e r e was any t h i n k i n g at a l l , or i f I have any now i t would be t h a t i f the p a i n t i n g i s an o b j e c t , then the o b j e c t can be a p a i n t i n g . . . and I t h i n k t h a t ' s what happened. That i f on t h i s a r e a you can make something, then on t h i s a r e a you can make s o m e t h i n g . ' ^ 2  Tango 1955  ( P l a t e XIV),  a l t h o u g h i t does not  account of Johns, c o u l d be Johns i n t r o d u c e s  s t r i c t l y apply  to the above  seen as some s o r t of l i n k between the  o v e r l a y i n g of d i f f e r e n t  two  tones o f b l u e i n the form o f  of c o l l a g e s e t down i n a g r i d - l i k e p a t t e r n w i t h  superimposed and  groups. pieces  diverse brush  13 strokes.  In a d d i t i o n the bottom edge i s l e f t unworked,serving the same purpose  as P o l l o c k ' s u n t r e a t e d  canvas t h a t a i d s i n acknowledging the p i c t u r e p l a n e .  f a c t , Tango seems to be can  f l i n g himself  dance on  it?  an e x p l i c i t  commentary on P o l l o c k ' s s t y l e .  around on a canvas and  Again we  v e r y non-banal ends.  are given Steinberg  the use  i n t o i t s v e r y mesh, why  In  If Pollock  cannot Johns  of the b a n a l - the dance h a l l - f o r  c l a r i f i e s t h i s when he asks h i m s e l f , what i s  painting? ' I t i s p a r t o f the f a s c i n a t i o n of Johns' work t h a t many of h i s i n v e n t i o n s are i n t e r p r e t a b l e as m e d i t a t i o n s on the n a t u r e of p a i n t i n g , pursued as i f i n a d i a l o g u e w i t h a q u e s t i o n e r of i d e a l innocence and c o n g e n i t a l blindness. —"A  p i c t u r e , you  see,  i s a p i e c e o f canvas n a i l e d to a s t r e t c h e r . "  — " L i k e t h i s " says the blindman, h o l d i n g i t up w i t h i t s f a c e to the w a l l . Then Johns makes.a p i c t u r e of t h a t k i n d of p i c t u r e to see whether i t w i l l make a p i c t u r e . Or: "A p i c t u r e i s what a p a i n t e r p u t s whatever he has "You  mean l i k e a drawer?"  "Not  q u i t e ; remember i t ' s f l a t . "  into."  " L i k e the f r o n t of a drawer?" The thought takes form as a p i c t u r e - and don't l e t ' s ask whether t h i s i s what the a r t i s t had thought w h i l e he made i t . lEiis what the p i c t u r e g i v e s you to t h i n k t h a t c o u n t s . " I f p i c t u r e s a r e f l a t " , s a i d the blindman, why of t h i n g s IN p i c t u r e s ? " "Why,  do they always speak  what's wrong w i t h i t ? "  "Things ON  p i c t u r e s , i t should  be;  l i k e t h i n g s on t r a y s or on  walls."  "That's right." "Well then, when something i s IN a p i c t u r e , where i s i t ? canvas, l i k e a c o n c e a l e d music box?" (Johns' Tango 1955) Tango l o o k s f o r w a r d . t o Warhol's s i m i l a r parody of A b s t r a c t Dance Diagram - Tango, 1 9 6 2 . ( P l a t e XV) that  and  Behind ' ^  the  2  Expressionism i n  f u r t h e r to M o r r i s '  survey the phenomenon of i n t e g r a t i o n between a r t o b j e c t  'gestalts'' and  artist/  14 audience. Steinberg's Drawer, 1957  and  dialogue encapsulesother Gray R e c t a n g l e s ,  s t r e t c h e d canvas s t u c k  abstract brush strokes s a y i n g t h a t i f one  Canvas ( P l a t e XVI)  Canvas,  e n c a u s t i c and  The  whole  c o l l a g e , hence the p i e c e i s one  on both the f r o n t and accepts  1956,  c o n s i s t s of a  f a c e down onto the s u r f a c e o f a l a r g e r canvas.  t h i n g i s then covered w i t h  be  1957.  works of t h i s n a t u r e :  r e a r of a canvas.  of  Johns seems to  the space setup by p a i n t i n g on and  i n the  canvas,  then i n a c t u a l f a c t a s c u l p t u r e i s b e i n g made - what does a P o l l o c k or a L o u i s l o o k l i k e from behind?  T h i s makes Duchamp's use  superficial.  the same time Canvas i s a p a i n t i n g and  Nevertheless,at  as a p a i n t i n g - Johns, remember, would never say Both Drawer ( P l a t e XVII) and questions. t e d by canvas. here we  i n s e r t e d i n t o cut out p o r t i o n s of the main  have the i n t r u s i o n of t h r e e compartments.  beyond c o l l a g e - whose s u r f a c e has Now,  r o u s l y ; the r e c t a n g l e s are not time the canvas and  not  perhaps we  L i k e c o l l a g e i t i s rendered u s e l e s s it still  step  as compatible to  in.  T h i s i s the  s a i d to be made up of Now  the  first  objects.  the o b j e c t i s r e c o g n i s a b l e .  i n i t s conventional  context  by  remains i r o n i c a l l y i n i t s common context  s u r f a c e w i t h knobs on,  as  have to ask o u r s e l v e s more r i g o -  s t u c k on they are s t u c k  i t s s u r f a c e can be  studies  They appear to go one  always been accepted  Drawer t a k e s t h i s i d e a even f u r t h e r .  sense of a f l a t  s u r f a c e t h a t has been d i s r u p -  to i n c l u d e t h i s p i e c e i n t o the group of o b j e c t  p i c t u r e plane p r e v i o u s l y .  i s hung  Gray R e c t a n g l e s ( P l a t e XVIII) ask s i m i l a r  t h r e e s m a l l e r canvases b e i n g  a e s t h e t i s e d , but  of g l a s s seem almost  i t i s a sculpture.  Gray R e c t a n g l e s shows a gray e n c a u s t i c  It f i t s  Morris  f l u s h to the  being i n the  facade t h a t r e t a i n s i t .  L i k e S t e i n b e r g , K o z l o f f t r e a t s i t as Johns l o o k i n g at the p i c t u r e s u r f a c e  as  merely s u r f a c e and  do.  hence any  s u r f a c e - be  In P a i n t i n g With a B a l l , 1958  i t f u r n i t u r e or whatever - w i l l  ( P l a t e XIX)  the t e n s i o n of o b j e c t s  within  26  the canvas i s i n c r e a s e d  t o where a b a l l i s l i t e r a l l y  s e c t i o n s o f canvas so t h a t  f o r c e d between the  i t d i s p l a c e s the s t r e t c h e r s and l e a v e s  through which t h e w a l l shows.  a gap  The i n t r u s i o n here i s t o the p o i n t where the  i l l u s i o n o f brush strokes versus f l a t  s u r f a c e reaches b r e a k i n g  ched' o b j e c t s attempt t o take over once and f o r a l l .  p o i n t and ' a t t a -  The t e n s i o n i s extreme.  We a r e a l l o w e d t o see t h e q u i e t space beyond the p i c t u r e p l a n e i f we  concentrate  to take our eyes o f f the s u r r o u n d i n g canvas, but i t does not r e a l l y h e l p . area o f e x p r e s s i v e  paintwork and i t s i n t r u d e r s t i l l  more c o n s c i o u s o f t h e a b u s i v e way e v e r y t h i n g nature.  The  remains and we a r e o n l y  has been asked t o change i t s  Canvas v e r s u s space w i t h n e i t h e r g i v i n g an i n c h .  Tennyson, 1959, ( P l a t e XX) which S t e i n b e r g  r e g a r d s as one o f Johns' most  b e a u t i f u l works, a l t h o u g h he does n o t e x p l a i n t o us q u i t e why, i s u n l i k e Tango due t o t h e t i t l e becoming more the s u b j e c t case of The 1957 ( P l a t e XXI). previous  I t seems t o be a l i t t l e  from  The word evokes our l i t e r a r y n o s t a l g i a but Johns  d i s s o c i a t e d from any r e f e r e n c e  i s apart  different  anything  and p o s s i b l y a n t i c i p a t e s h i s i n t e r e s t i n language t h a t b e g i n s w i t h  F a l s e S t a r t , 1959. it  o f t h e p a i n t i n g - as i s t h e  except t h a t o f i t s p r e s e n t  from any i n t e n t i o n s toward past  of v a r i o u s  or future.  portrays  c o n d i t i o n which  The p a i n t i n g i s made up  tones o f grey that,do not o b l i t e r a t e the presence o r f u n c t i o n o f  the word, they r a t h e r n e u t r a l i z e a l l the p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e s , p r e c o n c e p t i o n s we had over t h e name.  Johns a g a i n  l o o k a t a p a i n t i n g not i n terms o f t h e a n e c d o t a l selves questions.  emotions,  r e q u i r e s t h a t the audience but t o cause us t o ask o u r -  The whole work c o n s i s t s of two u p r i g h t  p a n e l s on  s e p a r a t e s t r e t c h e r s w i t h a p i e c e o f canvas l a i d over the top o f them l e a v i n g the top and bottom p o r t i o n s v i s i b l e . vealing a scarlet under-painting  K o z l o f f mentions the r i g h t hand edge r e -  - 'enough s u g g e s t i o n  of a double l i f e t o 27  d i s t u r b any viewer who t h i n k s p a i n t i n g s should  at l e a s t be n o m i n a l l y  We can a l s o see t h e canvas f o l d e d underneath and ask o u r s e l v e s  visible'  what Johns has  ,  16 been d o i n g under there? •' The p a i n t e r ' s w o r l d i s p r i v a t e and s e c r e t i v e no matter how much and what he shows us and Johns i n v i t e s the o n l o o k e r t o share i n t h i s p r i v a c y by c o n s t r u c t i n g h i s own  secretive  conclusions.  R o s a l i n d Krauss d e s c r i b e s Shade, 1959  ( P l a t e XXII) a s :  'A p a i n t i n g whose f i e l d i s dominated by a p u l l e d down window b l i n d , becomes a r e f e r e n c e to the t r a d i t i o n a l analogy between the p i c t u r e frame and a window frame opening up t o a view of i l l u s i o n i s t i c space. Johns' shade c l o s e d a g a i n s t the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of t h r e e ..Idimensional space, i s i r o n i c a l l y covered over w i t h a p a i n t e r l y e v o c a t i o n of the v e r y space the work i s at p a i n s t o deny.'28 The work i s owned by Mrs. Leo S t e i n b e r g and Mr. S t e i n b e r g o d d l y enough t a k e s delight  i n comparing the shade on the canvas t o the c o s t of shades i n d e p a r t -  ment s t o r e s , d i s c o u n t houses and second-hand  shops.  He a l s o  states:  s!On a shade o f f l a t canvas drawn a g a i n s t the o u t s i d e he shows outdoor darkness; l i k e the dark space known to c l o s e d eyes. How a r e e y e l i d s lowered l i k e window-shades a g a i n s t o u t e r l i g h t comparable to p i c t u r e planes? A l b e r t i compared the open p a i n t i n g s he knew to windows.' Shade has an a f f i n i t y to M a g r i t t e ' s The Human C o n d i t i o n , 1955 XXIII).  (Plate  M a g r i t t e , l i k e Johns, has brought the ambiguity of two and t h r e e  d i m e n s i o n a l space t o a p o i n t of f r u s t r a t i o n i n showing t h a t s u r f a c e i s as much a r e a l i t y as t h e space i t d e p i c t s .  There i s a l s o a l i t t l e known work  by Delaunay e n t i t l e d Window on the C i t y , 1912 interestingly.  ( P l a t e XXIV) Which  compares  A view of a church and some houses, has been p a i n t e d on what  c o u l d be taken f o r e i t h e r the f r o n t or the r e v e r s e of a canvas i n a p i c t u r e frame.  As w i t h Shade i t q u e s t i o n s the whole p r a c t i c e of a t t e m p t i n g to r e c o n -  c i l e r e a l space w i t h s p a t i a l i l l u s i o n , and i n both we a r e not so much shown a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n as an emphasising of the predicament.  * * * With the p a i n t i n g of F a l s e S t a r t i n 1959 of a new  development.  ( P l a t e XXV) we  see b e g i n n i n g s  Not o n l y does Johns g i v e up h i s use of f l a t  images,  he a l s o changes h i s medium from e n c a u s t i c t o o i l and a p p l i e s i t i n a c o l l e c t i o n  17 of e x p l o s i v e b r u s h s t r o k e s . Both B a r b a r a Rose and  Sidney T i l l i m have regarded  t h i s l a t e r p e r i o d as some s o r t o f major c r i s i s ; Rose as one a f r a n t i c r e s u l t o f an e x h a u s t i o n v i v e d o n l y through the  of the s e l e c t category  30  of images which he  sur-  3 1 a  n  Tillim.  d  as tantamount to the end  In the l i g h t of p r e v i o u s work the t r a n s i t i o n r a t h e r than c o n v e y i n g a c r i s i s ,  i s indeed  t i a t i o n into Wittgenstein's  thought i n 1961.  at p r e s e n t  I will  major p i e c e s t h a t l e a d up t o  1961.  About F a l s e S t a r t Johns  says:  of a  career.  q u i t e overwhelming,  the development makes much more sense i n  the l i g h t of Johns' c o n t a c t w i t h Duchamp's work i n 1959  i n Chapter 4 w h i l e  primarily  i n t r o d u c t i o n to l i t h o g r a p h y v i a Tatyana Grosman's Rhode  I s l a n d workshop i n 1960,  but  t h a t was  and  the  important  T h i s w i l l be d e a l t w i t h at  l i m i t myself to d e s c r i b i n g some of  inilength  the  ' I t got r a t h e r monotonous making f l a g s on a p i e c e of canvas, and I wanted to add something... the e a r l y t h i n g s to me were v e r y s t r o n g l y o b j e c t s . . . . I thought then how t o make an o b j e c t which i s not so e a s i l y d e f i n e d as an o b j e c t , and how to add space and s t i l l keep i t an o b j e c t p a i n t i n g . And then I t h i n k i n say, F a l s e S t a r t and those p a i n t i n g s , the o b j e c t i s put i n t o even g r e a t e r doubt and I t h i n k you q u e s t i o n whether i t ' s an o b j e c t or n o t . ' 3 2  F a l s e S t a r t i s b a s i c a l l y a deeper, i n q u i r y i n t o n e u t r a l i t y . n e u t r a l d e s p i t e the e x p l o s i o n s space?  of c o l o u r .  Is t h e r e deep space or  Each e x p l o s i o n has. a m o r e o r l e s s u n i f o r m  ' c o r r e c t ' and  The mood of i t i s  area.  The  ' i n c o r r e c t ' to the c o l o u r s they are a s s i g n e d  shallow  l a b e l s are and  equally  even the  colours  of the l e t t e r i n g themselves are e i t h e r apropos or c o n t r a d i c t o r y i n a b a l a n c e d distribution.  The  longer  one  l o o k s at i t the more u n i v e r s a l i t becomes.  l a b e l s are e q u a l l y imposed upon as they themselves impose. hierarchy.  I t i s as i f we  n a t u r e of c o l o u r and and we  i f we  w i l l have formed our  as a dilemma but 33 Quartets.  were b e i n g handed e v e r y t h i n g  There i s no  t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s the  l o o k at i t a l l l o n g enough something w i l l own  masterpiece.  The  'click'  K o z l o f f r e f e r s t o the s i t u a t i o n  i t c o n s t i t u t e s more the t i m e l e s s n e s s  of E l i o t ' s  Four  Another way the p r o c e s s i s seen.  of v i e w i n g  t h i s i s an attempt on Johns' p a r t to awaken us  of the v i s u a l and  to  the i n t e l l e c t u a l - between what i s read and what  P u r i t y of c o l o u r i s a f a l l a c y , simply  an i n t e l l e c t u a l c a t e g o r i s i n g  of s e n s a t i o n f o r m a t t e r s of convenience s i n c e t h e r e i s no  such t h i n g as pure  34 sensation. F a l s e S t a r t may to  have been the work Greenberg was  'de Kooningesque p l a y o f l i g h t s and  f a r c l o s e r to him  than the p r e v i o u s  darks'  l o o k i n g at when he r e f e r s  i n that i t s brush strokes  are  Gustoncome-mmpressionist-like g r i d s .  R o s a l i n d Krauss i n t e r e s t i n g l y suggests t h a t the work: ' a l s o h e i g h t e n s the sense of v i o l a t i o n of pure c o l o u r brought about by the p a i n t h a n d l i n g o f , f o r example, de Kooning....'35 It would be standpoint  a m i s t a k e to see the s t e n c i l l e d  of emphasising the two  dimensional.  s i s e s p a t i a l i l l u s i o n with t h e i r disappearing surface.  The  l e t t e r i n g p u r e l y from a C u b i s t The  l a b e l s i f anything,  through and behind  s u r r e a l i s t would c i t e M a g r i t t e ' s The Use  ( P l a t e XXVI), as the p r o t o t y p e  to t h i s work, but  the  painted  Of Words, 1928-1929.  there i s a d i f f e r e n c e .  W h i l s t M a g r i t t e ' s work i s a d i r e c t r e f u t a t i o n Johns l e a v e s the q u e s t i o n C a l a s sees i t t h a t M a g r i t t e and  empha-  open.  l i m i t s h i m s e l f to a d i s s o c i a t i o n between image  l a b e l whereas Johns i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the  'continuous  s h i f t i n g between  36 s i g n s and  images.'  Johns e x p l a i n e d  The  title  itself  i s ironic for a t r a n s i t i o n a l piece.  to Hopps:  'I d i d n ' t know what to c a l l i t and i t wasn't l i k e my o t h e r p a i n t i n g s and one day I was s i t t i n g i n the Cedar Row and looked up at a p o i n t of a horse r a c e which was c a l l e d "The F a l s e S t a r t " and I s a i d t h a t was going to be the t i t l e of my p a i n t i n g ' 3 7 Jubilee  ( P l a t e XXVII) o f the same y e a r i s the s e q u e l and  ultimate  r e s u l t of what Krauss suggests i s happening i n F a l s e S t a r t . 'By means of the c o l o u r names and t h e i r s h i f t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p to the pure c o l o u r s they i d e n t i f y Johns p o i n t s up the i r o n i c d i s s i p i c a t i o n of c o l o u r put to the s e r v i c e of m o d e l l i n g i l l u s i o n i s t i c space.'38 Colour  d i s s i p a t e d , p o i n t s to o n l y one  t h i n g i t would seem:  a l l colour i s  u s e f u l f o r i t i s the e s t a b l i s h i n g of i l l u s i o n through darks and i s how  de Kooning uses i t and  made a movement. why  a b e l i e f out of which Greenberg has  Johns appears to be  being  virtually  the tones i n between.  i n d i c a t e s t h i s n o t i o n to be even more s h o r t - s i g h t e d s i n c e our  c o l o u r s e n s i t i v e , we  h i n t s o f b l u e s and Out  This  s a y i n g t h a t i f t h i s i s the case then  not redo F a l s e S t a r t u s i n g j u s t b l a c k and w h i t e and  However, he  lights.  even see b l a c k and w h i t e i n c o l o u r - w i t n e s s  the  reds.  The Window, 1959  F a l s e S t a r t by r e d u c i n g  ( P l a t e XXVIII) shows a s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of the i d e a of  the p a i n t i n g to t h r e e a r e a s , RED,  YELLOW and  p o i n t s up the a b s u r d i t y of c a t e g o r i s a t i o n f u r t h e r by r e d u c i n g p r i m a r y c o l o u r s and Johns to f i l l  vision,  i n a d d i t i o n the l e t t e r s , not b e i n g  BLUE.  the l a b e l s to  stencilled,  also their l a b e l l i n g implications.  only The  i r o n i e s are enhanced by the s t o r y Solomon t e l l s when Johns' s i s t e r v i s i t e d s t u d i o and u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y gave the canvas i t s name. the  the  allow  them i n w i t h a v a r i e t y o f c o l o u r s to the extent where not  t h e i r form becomes d i s p e r s e d , but  It  the  F i n d i n g no meaning i n  'emptiness' of the p i c t u r e , '.... she looked at 'the vacant p a r k i n g l o t a c r o s s the s t r e e t and remarked t h a t he seemed to p a i n t what he saw out h i s window.'29 Thermometer, 1959  equating  ( P l a t e XXIX) c o u l d be a comment on the concept of  c o l o u r to degrees of temperature.  to be c a l l i b r a t e d  callibrated,  But  degrees what?  collec-  There i s c a l l i b r a t i o n  R o s a l i n d Krauss f i n d s i r o n y i n t h a t the p a i n t i n g h a v i n g the a c t i o n ends up  i n the Ciermometer.  a c t i o n i s w i t h i n the a r e a of the s p e c t a t o r . the s p e c t a t o r comes a l o n g to set i t o f f . Steinberg's  the thermometer appears  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y w i t h the temperature of the c o l o u r s  t i v e l y measuring about 85 degrees. but no s c a l e .  At f i r s t  r e f e r e n c e to e y e l i d s .  The  Nevertheless,  maybe the  The p i c t u r e remains s t a t i c  T h i s would t i e i n n i c e l y  image w i l l o n l y appear i f we  to become p a r t o f o u r s e l v e s . . ' T r a n s f o r m a t i o n  been  until  with allow i t  i s i n the head' says Johns.  40  P a i n t i n g With Two e a r l i e r one  B a l l s , 1960  ( P l a t e XXX)  w i t h a s i n g l e b a l l had.  has  I t c o u l d be  a l l the  implications  regarded as a parody on  w i t h the attempt to render a t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l o b j e c t w i t h i n a field  - f o r Johns the  s t r e s s i s enough to s p l i t  objects only  i n abstract expressionists. have so f a r p l a y e d  seducer.  Now  objects  the  With the e x c e p t i o n  a . r e l a t i v e l y passive  There i s  indulgent  'machismo'  of i t s p r o t o t y p e ,  r o l e with paint being  a s s e r t themselves and  Cubism  pictorial  the p i c t u r e a p a r t .  a l s o the g e n i t a l s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , seen as a comment on interest  the  the  Johns' p i c t u r e s become 41  'readable as p o l a r i t i e s of d o i n g and Device C i r c l e , 1959 upon' and  'acted  upon'.  suffering.'  ( P l a t e XXXI) shows a s i m i l a r p l a y between A l e n g t h of wood n a i l e d to the c e n t r e  determines the r a d i u s of a c i r c l e . - perhaps a f u t u r e t a r g e t . q u i t e sure what came f i r s t , white b r u s h s t r o k e s covered w i t h p a i n t first,  a l s o the  and  was  end  c o l l a g e or the s t i c k d e v i c e . i t has  been acted  One  are s u g g e s t i o n s t h a t the  of the  canvas  i s never  s t i c k has  s t i c k and  c i r c l e but  and  been  consequently came  c i r c l e at times determines the p l a c i n g of c o l o u r  the c o n f i n e s  o f the  The  upon and  • subsequent i n i t s a c t i o n ' upon areas of p a i n t  regard  of the  the canvas covered w i t h r e d , y e l l o w , b l u e  intimating  the o t h e r hand t h e r e  'action  areas.  On  i t s drawing a c t i o n  t h a t not  have been s c r a t c h e d  only by  totally, dis-  the n a i l at  the  stick.  P a i n t i n g w i t h R u l e r and the above i n i t s use  "Gray", 1960  ( P l a t e XXXII), which i s r e l a t e d to  of a r o t a t i n g s t i c k , p r e s e n t s the j u x t a p o s i t i o n of  e x p r e s s i o n w i t h i n the c o n f i n e s i n 'American A c t i o n Painter^?:  of a measured space.  H a r o l d Rosenberg  'At a c e r t a i n moment the canvas began to appear to one American p a i n t e r a f t e r another as an arena i n which to act r a t h e r than as a space i n which t o reproduce, r e d e s i g n , a n a l y s e or " e x p r e s s " an o b j e c t , a c t u a l or imagined. What was to go on the canvas was not a p i c t u r e but an e v e n t . ' ^ 2  free  states  On  one  l e v e l Johns i s f o r c i n g t h i s arena to be  confines  of the t h i r t y - t w o  t h a t b i s e c t s the canvas.  fetched,  However, perhaps measurement: and seem h e r e .  the measured  freedom are  I do not  i s that  'Man  not  t h i n k i t too  even i f round about, to approach t h i s p a i n t i n g from the  of Leonardo's drawing of the V i t r u v i a n Man point  by  i n c h l o n g r u l e r which r o t a t e s from a p i e c e of wood  such c o n t r a d i c t o r y i s s u e s as they f i r s t far  constrained  aspect  ( P l a t e X X X I I I ) , where the e s s e n t i a l  i s the measure of a l l t h i n g s ' and  'master of the square  and  43 c i r c l e which he  seems to have conjured  P a i n t i n g With Ruler has  always had  and  a great  up around him.'  "Gray" i n c o r p o r a t e admiration  the c i r c l e and  f o r Leonardo's work and  Not  only  does  square but  Johns  thought.  Even i f a l l  i s unacceptable, the f a c t remains t h a t the moment P o l l o c k steps on to h i s canvas his  arena i s determined by h i s own  s c a l e and  i n t h i s sense can be measured.  Rosenberg, goes on to h i n t at something l i k e t h i s , a l b e i t  unthinkingly:  '...what g i v e s the canvas i t s meaning i s not p s y c h o l o g i c a l d a t a but ' r o l e ' . The way the a r t i s t o r g a n i s e s h i s e m o t i o n a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l energy as i f he were i n a l i v i n g s i t u a t i o n . The i n t e r e s t l i e s on the k i n d o f a c t t a k i n g p l a c e i n the f o u r - s i d e d - a dramatic i n t e r e s t . ' ^ 4 The  c e n t r a l p i e c e of wood has  the word  'gray' l i g h t l y  Even more than J u b i l e e t h i s shows the a b s u r d i t y of r e a d i n g terms of l i g h t s and  the t i t l e  insinuates  stamped on i t . c o l o u r simply  darks s i n c e i t would n e c e s s i t a t e the l a b e l l i n g of  n a t u r a l toned wood, 'gray'.  The  use  of q u o t a t i o n  arena  in  the  marks around the word i n  f u r t h e r the a r b i t r a r i n e s s of such a r e d u c t i o n  of  phenomena to a s i n g l e term. D e v i c e , 1961-62 ( P l a t e XXXIV) q u e s t i o n s , title  among other  i n f e r s , that the n a t u r e of the p a i n t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n  the hand but  the c h o i c e  s e m i c i r c l e s of p a i n t as  of t o o l .  depends not  the scraped and  only  on  squeegeed  ' c l e a r l y meant as a m e c h a n i c a l i r o n i c paradigm of 45  de Kooning's d r a g g i n g b r u s h and t r u e , but  F r i e d describes  t h i n g s , what i t s  smeared p a i n t t e c t u r e . '  T h i s may  the areas of p a i n t are more than j u s t a paradigm of an  well  earlier  be  22 a r t i s t ' s work. F u t u r i s t but  Ambiguities  of time appear.  The  c i r c l e s of p a i n t are  almost  they c o u l d w e l l have been scraped at a slower r a t e than the more  s t a t i c - l o o k i n g b r u s h s t r o k e s were a p p l i e d .  'There are no  objective  46 c o r r e l a t i o n s between g e s t u r e and Nevertheless, once a g a i n  effect.'  the c h i e f motive of the work i s one  of anonymity.  a d e s i r e t o cease to impose on the s p e c t a t o r  t a k i n g away the a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l should  e x t r i c a t e himself  itself  and  not  simply  from g e s t u r e .  from the work i n order  I t shows  a p a r t i c u l a r view by  Johns sees i t t h a t the  artist  t h a t what i s on the canvas i s  a r e a s s u r a n c e of the a r t i s t ' s own  identity.  'I have attempted t o develop my t h i n k i n g i n such a way t h a t the work I've done i s not me - not to confuse any f e e l i n g s w i t h what I produced. I d i d n ' t want my work to be an exposure of my f e e l i n g s . A b s t r a c t E x p r e s s i o n i s m was so l i v e l y - p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y and p a i n t i n g were more o r l e s s the same, and I t r i e d to operate i n the same way. But I found I c o u l d n ' t do anything, t h a t would be i d e n t i c a l w i t h my f e e l i n g s . So I worked i n such a way t h a t I c o u l d say t h a t i t ' s not me. That accounts f o r the separation.'47 B e f o r e g o i n g on to d i s c u s s to W i t t g e n s t e i n philosopher's  i t i s , o f c o u r s e , n e c e s s a r y to g a i n some f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h  thought.  E s s e n t i a l l y i t can be broken u p . i n t o  Tractatus Logico - Philosophicus Investigations i s relevant  the subsequent work from 1961-1964 i n r e l a t i o n  and  two  the P h i l o s o p h i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s .  i s b a s i c a l l y a c o n t r a d i c t i o n of the former and  to Johns' p a i n t i n g .  such as B a r b a r a Rose's who  has  Not  books,  his  the The  i s the work t h a t  o n l y i s t h i s confirmed by v a r i o u s  d i s c l o s e d t h a t i t was  the  'bed-time'  reports  reading  48 during  the s i x t i e s ,  proceeding chapters. Johns' r e a d i n g break and particular  but  I hope i t w i l l become more than e v i d e n t  There i s no  i n the  d e f i n i t e p a i n t i n g t h a t marks a b e g i n n i n g of  s i n c e i t caused a f u r t h e r i n g of i n q u i r y r a t h e r than any  f o r t h i s r e a s o n I w i l l commence w i t h the p a i n t i n g s i n t i m a t i o n of W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s  concepts.  i n 1961  radical  t h a t show  In a d d i t i o n to t h i s , I w i l l  a n a l y s e the n a t u r e of what has  been w r i t t e n on W i t t g e n s t e i n  Johns to t h i s d a t e .  been much m i s c o n c e p t i o n as to what e x a c t l y  There has  as an  influence  on  Wittgenstein's role i s and I f e e l i t i s necessary to clear up these mistake; - which are primarily due to a misunderstanding of the philosopher - before go any  further.  CHAPTER TWO:  WITTGENSTEIN'S PHILOSOPHY: A SYNOPSIS  "Meaning implies that something i s happening; you can say meaning i s determined by the use of the thing, the way an audience uses a painting once i t i s put i n p u b l i c . " [Jasper J o h n s ]  x  Ludwig Johann W i t t g e n s t e i n was born i n Vienna i n 1889, the youngest of eight c h i l d r e n a l l generously  endowed w i t h  i n t e l l e c t u a l and a r t i s t i c  talent.  H i s mother was devoted t o music and t h e i r home became a c e n t r e o f m u s i c a l  life.  Brahms was a f r e q u e n t v i s i t o r and one o f W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s b r o t h e r s , P a u l , became a distinguished pianist. To b e g i n w i t h W i t t g e n s t e i n s t u d i e d e n g i n e e r i n g 1908,  i n B e r l i n and then,  from  a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f Manchester where he became p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d  i n aeroplane  engines  and p r o p e l l o r s .  W i t t g e n s t e i n t o develop  an i n t e r e s t  p h i l o s o p h i c a l foundations. b e i n g g r e a t l y impressed  The mathematical aspect o f t h i s work l e d  i n pure mathematics and e v e n t u a l l y i t s  A f t e r r e a d i n g R u s s e l l ' s P r i n c i p i a Mathematica and  by i t he d e c i d e d  t o move t o Cambridge where he  the g r e a t e r p a r t o f 1912-13 working w i t h R u s s e l l - f i r s t  spent  as a p u p i l and l a t e r  as a p a r t n e r . During  t h e War he served  same time c o n t i n u e d  i n the A u s t r i a n Army as a v o l u n t e e r and a t the  t o work at h i s book, T r a c t a t u s L o g i c o - P h i l o s o p h i c u s , which  he completed a t around t h e same time he was c a p t u r e d manuscript  i n I t a l y i n 1918.  was d e l i v e r e d to R u s s e l l v i a d i p l o m a t i c c o u r i e r .  used i n the p r e p a r a t i o n o f the T r a c t a t u s were d e s t r o y e d request.  The  The notebooks  on W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s  Three o f them c o v e r i n g the p e r i o d 1914-16 a c c i d e n t a l l y s u r v i v e d and  were p u b l i s h e d i n 1961. A f t e r the War, W i t t g e n s t e i n d e c i d e d he taught  n i n e and t e n year o l d s i n v a r i o u s A u s t r i a n v i l l a g e . s c h o o l s .  t h i s time he compiled schools.  t o become a t e a c h e r and from 1920-26  and p u b l i s h e d a d i c t i o n a r y f o r s t u d e n t s  During  i n elementary  In 1926 he r e s i g n e d as a s c h o o l t e a c h e r and i n q u i r e d a t a monastery  about t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f e n t e r i n g a c o n t e m p l a t i v e f i n a l l y discouraged For t h e next  way o f l i f e .  He was  by t h e f a t h e r s u p e r i o r .  two or so y e a r s he l i v e d w i t h h i s f a m i l y i n Vienna and  devoted t h e m a j o r i t y o f h i s time d e s i g n i n g and o r g a n i s i n g the b u i l d i n g o f a  mansion for h i s sister.' ' 1  It was during t h i s period that he met and was  visited  by various members of the Vienna c i r c l e - most notably the l o g i c a l - p o s i t i v i s t s , Moritz Schluck and F r i e d e r i c h Wausmann.  The Tractatus supplied the background  3 to many of t h e i r discussions. In January, 1929 Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge to devote himself again to philosophy and for the next three or four years he gradually developed, l a r g e l y through s e l f c r i t i c i s m , h i s new  position i n philosophy.  The  e a r l i e r version of these views are to be found i n the Blue and Brown Books which date from 1933-35.  The l a t e r version Philosophical Investigations con-  tain his thoughts from the t h i r t i e s u n t i l h i s death. posthumously published i n 1953  The Investigations were  together with a translation by G.E.M. Anscombe.  In 1939 Wittgenstein became Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge i n succession to George Moore.  With the development of World War  I I , Wittgenstein  found i t impossible to remain a spectator and i n 1941 l e f t Cambridge to work as a porter at Guy's Hospital i n London.  He was  transferred i n 1943  Royal Infirmary i n Newcastle where he worked as a 'lab' boy.  In 1944  to the he  resumed lectures at Cambridge but became increasingly d i s s a t i s f i e d with h i s role as a teacher.  He f e l t a need to l i v e alone and devote h i s energies to  f i n i s h i n g the Investigations. Consequently i n 1947 he resigned h i s chair. For the next couple of years he l i v e d i n Ireland and spent a few months with Norman Malcolm i n the States. cancer.  In the summer of 1949 he learnt he had  He v i s i t e d his family i n Vienna and i n 1951 moved to the home of his  physician i n Cambridge. Wittgenstein was  He died on A p r i l 29th,  a very unusual man;  1951.  as a lecturer he invariably wore  an open neck s h i r t - unheard of for the time.  His room i n T r i n i t y College,  was furnished with l i t t l e more than a few deck-chairs. lead a f r u g a l , ascetic existence.  He seemed to want to  When h i s father died i n 1912,  Wittgenstein  inherited a large fortune and proceeded to donate a big sum of i t to be  d i s t r i b u t e d among needy A u s t r i n poets and w r i t e r s . t h i s a c t i o n was g r e a t extent  the f e a r o f h a v i n g  i t was  due  where he i n t e n d e d  f r i e n d s f o r the sake of money, but  t o , not  but a l s o b u i l d a hut near Skj-olden, Norway i n  to l i v e a l i f e  of s e c l u s i o n .  the e a s t e r n f r o n t d u r i n g the F i r s t War,  When he was  s e r v i n g on  he came a c r o s s a copy of T o l s t o y ' s  r e l i g i o u s w r i t i n g which a p p a r e n t l y had He was  to a  to the same s e a r c h f o r a u s t e r i t y t h a t l e d him  o n l y c o n s i d e r monastic l i f e , 1913  P a r t of the reason f o r  a great a f f e c t on  him.  s u b j e c t to f i t s of d e p r e s s i o n , o f t e n b o r d e r i n g on the  suicidal  and h i s c l o s e f r i e n d s were s u b j e c t e d to unaccountable moody r e a c t i o n s . the o t h e r hand, he had  a n a i v e charm.  d i s h e s i n the bath and  g i v i n g Malcolm's w i f e a d i s h mop  On  Malcolm t e l l s of him washing h i s h o s t ' s i n r e f e r e n c e t o her  4 'unhygenic' c l o t h .  He  r e a l l y enjoyed  r e a d i n g American d e t e c t i v e magazines,  s i t t i n g i n the f r o n t row  of the cinema d u r i n g matinee performances and  pennies  Human kindness  at f a i r g r o u n d s .  important taste.  qualities  There was  i n a person  a profound  and  concern were f o r him  rolling  f a r more  than i n t e l l e c t u a l prowess or s o p h i s t i c a t e d  sense of honesty t h a t l e d him to e n t e r  p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems p a s s i o n a t e l y .  He had  into  a s t r o n g d e s i r e to c l e a r problems  up and be r i d of them. The  Tractatus  Logico-Philosophicus  I w i l l d e a l w i t h the T r a c t a t u s i n as s i n c e , i n t h i s paper, i t i s o n l y n e c e s s a r y  s h o r t a manner as i s n p o s s i b l e to be acquainted w i t h  i t to  the  p o i n t of u n d e r s t a n d i n g  the r a d i c a l i s m of the l a t e r I n v e s t i g a t i o n s as w e l l as  a s s e s s i n g the v a l i d i t y  of w r i t i n g s on Johns and W i t t g e n s t e i n i n Chapter  It  i s the p h i l o s o p h y  3.  s e t down i n the I n v e s t i g a t i o n s t h a t i n f l u e n c e d Johns  as w i l l be made c l e a r f u r t h e r on. In the T r a c t a t u s W i t t g e n s t e i n puts a p i c t u r e of r e a l i t y .  The w o r l d  forward  the argument t h a t language i s  ( r e a l i t y ) c o n s i s t s e n t i r e l y of simple  or atomic f a c t s , none of which are i n any way  dependent on one  another.  facts This  does not mean t h a t atomic f a c t s cannot be a n a l y s e d analysed  i n t o o t h e r atomic  but o n l y t h a t they cannot be  facts:  'Each i t e m ( f a c t ) can be t h e case o r n o t t h e case w h i l e e l s e remains t h e same.'5 What W i t t g e n s t e i n  everything  i s t r y i n g t o say then i s t h a t r e a l i t y i s made o f f a c t s t h a t  are e n t i t i e s , t h a t i s they  cannot be reduced t o other f a c t s .  Each f a c t has a  l o g i c a l form - they a r e made up o f t h i n g s o r o b j e c t s whose i n d i v i d u a l form i s u n a t t e r a b l e , atomic. 'In a manner o f speaking,  objects are c o l o u r l e s s . ' ^  ' E i t h e r a t h i n g has p r o p e r t i e s t h a t n o t h i n g e l s e has, i n which case we can immediately use a d e s c r i p t i o n t o d i s t i n g u i s h i t from t h e o t h e r s and r e f e r t o i t , o r on t h e other hand, t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l t h i n g s t h a t have t h e whole s e t o f t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s i n common i n which case i t i s q u i t e i m p o s s i b l e t o i n d i c a t e one o f them.' 7  A fact  ( a t o t h e r times termed  ' s t a t e o f a f f a i r s ' ) i s made up o f o b j e c t s  t h a t l i n k i n t o one another i n a l o g i c a l p a t t e r n and W i t t g e n s t e i n as t h e p i c t u r i n g o f these  facts.  He r e p u t e d l y got h o l d o f t h i s i d e a i n 1914  from an a r t i c l e i n a magazine about a l a w s u i t i n P a r i s c o n c e r n i n g accident.  During  Wittgenstein, and  an automobile  t h e h e a r i n g , a model o f t h e a c c i d e n t was produced.  t h e model served  i t occurred  saw language  For  as a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a p o s s i b l e s t a t e of a f f a i r s  t o him t h a t he c o u l d r e v e r s e t h e analogy and say language,  i n t h e form o f s e r i e s o f atomic f a c t s , s e r v e s as a model or p i c t u r e o f 8 reality. I t i s Important t o r e a l i s e t h a t W i t t g e n s t e i n p i c t u r e o f r e a l i t y and n o t merely l i k e a p i c t u r e . he posed, share  v a l u e l e s s but r a t h e r  it  Both language and r e a l i t y ,  t h e same l o g i c a l form and t h a t a n y t h i n g  to one correspondence i s ' n o n s e n s i c a l ' .  way  saw language as l i t e r a l l y a  s a i d o u t s i d e t h i s one  By n o n s e n s i c a l he d i d not mean  ' u n r e a l ' , t h a t i s w i t h no d e f i n i t e meaning.  The o n l y  we can a s s i g n meaning t o something s a i d i s i f by comparing i t t o what p i c t u r e s , through s e e k i n g  a l o g i c a l correspondence, we can say t h a t i t i s  29 e i t h e r t r u e or f a l s e . depicts nothing  In other words, i f a statement i s not  d e f i n i t e hence says n o t h i n g  d e f i n i t e and  s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g be judged as a r e a l i t y . when he  a picture, i t  therefore  cannot  T h i s i s what W i t t g e n s t e i n  means  says:  'The whole sense of the book might be summed up i n the f o l l o w i n g words: what can be s a i d at a l l can be s a i d c l e a r l y , and what we cannot t a l k about we must pass over i n s i l e n c e . ' 9  The out  Tractatus  i s a guide to the use  the b o u n d a r i e s of d i s c u s s i o n .  then the p h i l o s o p h e r  may  Once these l i m i t s have.been  proceed i n a l u c i d and  such as at-soul, beauty, God,  e t c . , can  in pointing  recognized  l o g i c a l fashion.  Matters,  o n l y be t a l k e d about  'nonsensically'  to determine whether a p i c t u r e or p r o p o s i t i o n  ( i . e . , a spoken  hence are o u t s i d e In order  of language i n p h i l o s o p h y  the w o r l d of  f a c t ) i s t r u e o r f a l s e we  reality.  have to compare i t w i t h r e a l i t y .  T h i s suggests t h a t  the t r u t h v a l u e o f elementary p r o p o s i t i o n s have to be a s c e r t a i n e d But  there  are p r o p o s i t i o n s whose t r u t h v a l u e  The  s e n t e n c e : " E i t h e r i t i s r a i n i n g or i t x i s not  elementary p r o p o s i t i o n s and the weather i s d o i n g . empirical necessity  the  by  t r u t h value  s i n c e i t does not and  empirically.  cannot be determined e m p i r i c a l l y . r a i n i n g " i s made up  of i t i s t r u e r e g a r d l e s s  Such a p r o p o s i t i o n i s t r u e by  such an o c c u r r e n c e a t a u t o l o g y  and  of  of what  l o g i c a l necessity  d e a l w i t h -reality... W i t t g e n s t e i n  a p r o p o s i t i o n whose t r u t h v a l u e  l o g i c a l n e c e s s i t y - " I t i s r a i n i n g and  i t i s not  two  not called  is false  raining" - a contradiction.  ' T a u t o l o g i e s and c o n t r a d i c t i o n s are not p i c t u r e s of r e a l i t y . They do not r e p r e s e n t any p o s s i b l e s i t u a t i o n s . For the former admit a l l p o s s i b l e s i t u a t i o n s and the l a t t e r n o n e ' ^ 1  Hence language can  o n l y be  a p i c t u r e of r e a l i t y  i f i t s l o g i c a l form i s t h a t  of r e a l i t y .  Without e x p r e s s i n g  t h i s form n o t h i n g  i t c c a n n o t be  s a i d , i t cannot be  thought s i n c e thought i s a l s o a  p i c t u r e of f a c t s . but,  Wittgenstein  i n the l i n g u i s t i c  means by a  sense, an u n s a i d  can be  'thought' not  proposition.  said.  the  Not  only  logical  psychological  When t h e Positivists But  Tractatus  i n Vienna  Wittgenstein's  rejecting  the  Wittgenstein beyond realm  the  method  f o r what  point  of  i t was  they  i s not  possibility  eagerly  saw  one  as  of  stating  taken  rejecting  the  up  by  the  Logical-  i t s anti-metaphysical the  language,  a world  t h a t must  cannot be  discussed  within philosophy  but  Through t h i s  i n t h a t he  of  outlook.  metaphysical  metaphysical.  becomes p a r a d o x i c a l l y m y s t i c a l  limits  that  came o u t  establishes a  remain  in silence.  s i n c e we  cannot  rather rejection, world It i s a  impose  a  upon i t .  'The s e n s e o f t h e w o r l d m u s t b e o u t s i d e t h e w o r l d . In the w o r l d e v e r y t h i n g i s a s i t i s , and e v e r y t h i n g h a p p e n s a s i t h a p p e n s : i n i t no v a l u e e x i s t s - and i f i t d i d , i t w o u l d h a v e no v a l u e . If  there  the whole that In  i s any  value  sphere  happens and  the  final  i s the  case  is  i n being  able  to  d i s c u s s what  in  i n t r o d u c t i o n says  for  i t must be  i s the  case.  outside  For a l l  accidental.'H  a n a l y s i s i t c o u l d be  itself his  t h a t does have v a l u e ,  o f what h a p p e n s and  argued  that  the  Tractatus  i t a f f i r m s c a n n o t be  contradicts i  discussed.  Russell  example:  'The w h o l e s u b j e c t o f e t h i c s .... i s p l a c e d b y Mr. Wittgenstein i n the m y s t i c a l i n e x p r e s s i b l e r e g i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s he i s capable of expressing h i s e t h i c a l o p i n i o n s . ' ^ Wittgenstein  i n the  end  seemed  to agree but  sees  i t as  having  a  purpose. .  'My p r o p o s i t i o n s s e r v e a s e l u c i d a t i o n s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g way: a n y o n e who u n d e r s t a n d s me e v e n t u a l l y r e c o g n i s e s them a s n o n s e n s i c a l , when he h a s u s e d them - a s s t e p s ; : - t o c l i m b up b e y o n d t h e m . (He m u s t , s o t o s p e a k , t h r o w away t h e l a d d e r a f t e r h e h a s c l i m b e d up i t . ) . ' 1 3 The  Philosophical Investigations What p r e c i p i t a t e d  by  both  view of  M a l c o l m and the  form w i t h  the  von  Wright.  p r o p o s i t i o n and  a colleague  made a g e s t u r e  used by  complete  of  At  r e p u d i a t i o n of one  that which  h i s , the  Neapolitans  Tractatus  point Wittgenstein i t describes  Italian to  the  economist,  express  as  having  Piero  contempt  was  or  is  recounted  defending the  same  his logical  Straffa.  Straffa  d i s g u s t and  asked  14 Wittgenstein'what  the  logical  form of  t h a t was'.  According  to  Wittgenstein  t h i s was  the q u e s t i o n  t h a t made him  r e a l i s e the a b s u r d i t y  of h i s former  position. Wittgenstein  opens the P h i l o s o p h i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n of  St. Augustine's conception claimed  he  of the b a s i s of language.  l e a r n t to understand the  speech of h i s e l d e r s by  d e f i n i t i o n . - i . e . , by p o i n t i n g to an o b j e c t he b e l i e v e d out to.  In h i s C o n f e s s i o n s  and  at the  the^'word's meaning would become c l e a r .  But  only creates  ostensive  same time naming i t , Wittgenstein  t h a t such a system c o n s i s t s o n l y of l e a r n i n g names and Such a c o n c e p t i o n  he  points  what they r e f e r  an o v e r - s i m p l i f i e d language or as  he  c a l l s i t , 'language game', ' I t i s as i f someone were to say: "A game c o n s i s t s about on a s u r f a c e a c c o r d i n g to c e r t a i n r u l e s . . . " You seem to be t h i n k i n g of board games, but t h e r e You can make your d e f i n i t i o n c o r r e c t by e x p r e s s l y to those games.' ^  i n moving o b j e c t s - and we r e p l i e d : are o t h e r s . restricting i t  x  The  i d e a of g i v i n g meaning to a word by p o i n t i n g to the o b j e c t  does not  f u l l y e x p l a i n i t s meaning.  merely one  I t i s not  it  represents  the whole e x p l a n a t i o n ,  but  specific training.  'With d i f f e r e n t t r a i n i n g the same o s t e n s i v e t e a c h i n g of these words would have e f f e c t e d a q u i t e d i f f e r e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g . ' Wittgenstein speak by  simply  f e e l s t h a t S t . A u g u s t i n e ' s b e l i e f t h a t a person l e a r n s  memorizing names i s i l l o g i c a l  knowledge of language. "This i s red", unless  s i n c e i t presupposes a c e r t a i n  I f someone were to p o i n t the  or m a t e r i a l of the o b j e c t .  to a red o b j e c t and  'student' understands what the word  the statement w i l l be meaningless.'Red' may Therefore  to  say,  ' c o l o u r ' means  e q u a l l y r e f e r to the s i z e ,  ostensive  d e f i n i t i o n or naming of  j e c t s does not n e c e s s a r i l y g i v e meaning. 'And now, I t h i n k , we can say: A u g u s t i n e d e s c r i b e s the l e a r n i n g of human language as i f the c h i l d came i n t o a s t r a n g e c o u n t r y and d i d not understand the language of the c o u n t r y ; t h a t i s , as i f i t a l r e a d y had a language o n l y not t h i s one. Or a g a i n : as i f the c h i l d c o u l d a l r e a d y t h i n k , o n l y not yet speak. And " t h i n k " would here mean something l i k e " t a l k to i t s e l f " .  shape ob-  In other words ostensive d e f i n i t i o n s only work with people who some knowledge of the language.  already have  In order to point to things by : naming them  we have to know f i r s t the nature of what i t i s we are pointing to, that i s the meaning of the name.  Wittgenstein believes the meaning of the word i s  found i n discovering i t s use.  If the use of the word i s learned then i t s  meaning i s also. 'For a large class of cases - though not for a l l - -in which we employ the word "meaning" i t can be defined thus: the meaning of a word i s i t s use i n the language.'18 We could think of words as tools - things that we understand  only i n  association with t h e i r function. A l l t h i s i s a long way Tractatus.  from Wittgenstein's previous views i n the  Picturing or naming the world i s meaningless since there are many  ways of seeing language.  Wittgenstein asks:  'But how many kinds of sentences are there? Say assertion question and command? - There are countless kinds: countless d i f f e r e n t kinds of use of what we c a l l "symbols", "words", ."sentences". And this m u t i p l i e i t y i s not something fixed:, given once and for a l l ; but new types of language, new language games, as we may say, come into existence, and others become obsolete and forgotten.' There i s no common basis for language; i t has no one d i s t i n c t i v e property and likewise language games have no property i n common. language games with games i n general. to a l l games. to each other.  Wittgenstein compares  There i s no simple property common  Chess and ring-a-ring-o-roses have a very different make up However, there may be s i m i l a r i t i e s between games, and i n turn  between language games - i . e . , d i f f e r e n t usages - which Wittgenstein c a l l s 'family resemblances'.  33 'I can t h i n k o f no b e t t e r e x p r e s s i o n t o c h a r a c t e r i z e these s i m i l a r i t i e s than " f a m i l y resemblances"; f o r t h e v a r i o u s resemblances between members o f a f a m i l y : b u i l d , f e a t u r e s , c o l o u r of eyes, g a i t , temperament, e t c . , e t c . , o v e r l a p and c r i s s - c r o s s i n the same way - And I s h a l l say: 'games' form a f a m i l y . ' 2 0  In the T r a c t a t u s  each s t a t e o f a f f a i r s was unique and from a l o g i c a l  point  of view t h e r e c o u l d o n l y be one p r o p o s i t i o n f o r i t and the task o f the p h i l o s o pher was t o r e v e a l the l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e p r o p o s i t i o n . Investigations, Wittgenstein  not only r e j e c t s the notion  In the  t h a t f a c t s have a  l o g i c a l form but a l s o t h a t s t a t e s o f a f f a i r s c o n s i s t of o b j e c t s whose form i s unatterable,  s i n c e whether  upon, not an a b o s l u t e ,  an o b j e c t  i s composite o r  non-composite,depends  but on the p a r t i c u l a r language game used.  imagine a chessboard and attempt t o determine whether I f t h e i d e a o f an ' a b s o l u t e '  non-composite  object  of simple s t a t e s o f a f f a i r s has t o be abandoned.  He asks us t o  i t i s composite or n o t .  i s r e j e c t e d then the n o t i o n Language i s no l o n g e r a  p i c t u r e o f r e a l i t y but a t o o l w i t h a r i c h v a r i e t y of uses - each a t t r i b u t i n g a d i f f e r e n t meaning t o i t . 21 i n order  There i s no one c o r r e c t form, every sentence ' i s  as i t i s . '  Now we d i s c e r n a d i f f e r e n t r o l e f o r the p h i l o s o p h e r .  I t i s not t o ensure  the c o r r e c t form o f t h e sentence but t o understand i t , and the remainder of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n s c o u l d be summarised  as a t t e m p t i n g t o do j u s t t h i s - t o seek out  the reasons f o r t h e m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f language.  When one language game i s  wrongly assumed t o be analogous t o a n o t h e r , p h i l o s o p h i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s needed  t o see the e r r o r .  The d i f f e r e n c e s a r e hidden not because they a r e  u n f a m i l i a r but because i n o r d i n a r y l i g h t philosophy  i s not a s c i e n c e  t h i n k i n g they a r e too f a m i l i a r .  t h a t p o i n t s out something new but r a t h e r 22  something which p o i n t s out .truisms. philosopher's  aim should  In t h i s  Wittgenstein  b e l i e v e s t h a t the  be t o e s t a b l i s h complete c l a r i t y which would not so  much l e a d t o a s o l u t i o n - something new - but a d i s a p p e a r a n c e of the problem.  He does not pose a c o r r e c t model f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g but simply r e v e a l s the b l i n d spots. 'What i s your aim i n p h i l o s o p h y ? - To show the f l y the way the f l y - b o t t l e . '  out of  2 3  I f we  see how  the f i r s t  t o get out of the muddle we  place.  can a l s o see how  W i t t g e n s t e i n c o n c e i v e s o f p h i l o s o p h y as  we  got t h e r e i n  'a . b a t t l e a g a i n s t  2A the bewitchment of i n t e l l i g e n c e by means of One  language.'  o f the p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems W i t t g e n s t e i n d i s c u s s e s are those  statements t h a t speak o f a b s t r a c t i o n s r a t h e r than b o d i l y e x i s t e n c e s . tements about  s e e i n g are a n a l y s e d , but I w i l l d e a l w i t h t h i s a r e a i n Chapter  4 i n s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n t o Johns' works. to do w i t h comprehension m i s t a k i n g how  Sta-  Another  which a r e o f t e n misunderstood  the s p e c i f i c words are used.  understand", we does i t r e p o r t ?  a r e a a r e those  statements  i n what they mean by  For example, when we  say, "Now  I  u s u a l l y t r e a t i t as a r e p o r t a n d the q u e s t i o n a r i s e s : what I t i s not the o c c a s i o n o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g s i n c e i f i t were  so i t would imply an o b s e r v a t i o n of a mental a c t and we would have t o ask ours e l v e s whether  'understanding' i s a s i n g l e mental a c t t h a t can be  observed.  'We are t r y i n g to get h o l d of the mental p r o c e s s of u n d e r s t a n d i n g which seems t o be hidden behind those cases and t h e r e f o r e more r e a d i l y v i s i b l e accompaniments. But we do not succeed; or r a t h e r , i t does not get as f a r as a r e a l attempt. For even supposing I had found something t h a t happened i n a l l those cases of unders t a n d i n g - why s h o u l d it_ be the understanding? And how can the p r o c e s s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g have been hidden, when I s a i d "Now I u n d e r s t a n d " because I understood?! And i f I say i t i s hidden then how do I know what I have to l o o k f o r ? I am i n a muddle.' ^ 2  There are d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s of u n d e r s t a n d i n g and i f the statement I u n d e r s t a n d " i s t r e a t e d as a r e p o r t i t becomes meaningless report of anything i n p a r t i c u l a r . have a c t u a l l y u n d e r s t o o d . absurb as making the r e p o r t  A l s o we  To t r e a t "Now  "Now  cannot  say we  "Now  as i t i s not a  understand u n t i l  we  I understand" as an o b s e r v a t i o n i s  I have begun".  Rather the statement  be m e a n i n g f u l as an e x c l a m a t i o n , l i k e "Ah!" which i s a l o n g way  can o n l y  from r e p o r t or  description.  Looked at i n t h i s way,  even i f they can be j u s t i f i e d  such statements cannot be true of f a l s e  later.  'We could also imagine a case i n which l i g h t was always seeming to dawn on someone - he exclaims. "Now I have i t ! " and then can never j u s t i f y himself i n practice - It might seem to him as i f i n the twinkling of an eye he forgot again the meaning of the picture that occurred to him.' *' 2  The exclamation may be u n j u s t i f i a b l e but the joy or r e l i e f at having thought one saw the answer to a problem was c e r t a i n l y present.  The statement was not  a description of a mental state but more what Wittgenstein c a l l s a " s i g n a l " which we judge whether i t was r i g h t l y employed by what the person goes on to A  2  7  do. Wittgenstein examines numerous philosophical problems from a l l d i f f e r e n t angles - statements of intention, action, pain, states of mind, seeing, recognition, etc.. K. T. Fann describes the Investigations as a book of case h i s t o r i e s of philosophic cures.  There i s nothing i n the book that we would 2  o r d i n a r i l y c a l l a reasoning or argument - ' i t i s more a book of rem inders.' In t h i s sense, the work takes on the aspect of some sort of anthropolog i c a l search where Wittgenstein,repudiating the idea of atomism, seeks the e s s e n t i a l connection between th ings i n the same way the anthropologist may look toward the sense of the t o t a l i t y through the study of anthropocentrism rather than ethnoeentrism.  Both involve the understanding of humanity as a  whole. 'What we are supplying are r e a l l y remarks on the natural history of human beings; we are not contributing c u r i o s i t i e s however, but observations which no one has doubted, but which have ^ escaped remark only because they are always before our eyes.'  CHAPTER THREE:,  JOHNS AND WITTGENSTEIN: THE STATE OF CRITICISM SO FAR  "You have i n t h e p a s t shown some impatience w i t h Would you c a r e t o r e v e a l your p r e s e n t f e e l i n g ? "  critics.  A f t e r an e s p e c i a l l y l o n g pause, he answered i n a v e r y v o i c e , "I'm v e r y t o l e r a n t , " and laughed.' 1  small  37 To date o n l y t h r e e work to W i t t g e n s t e i n  c r i t i c s have d i s c u s s e d  and  one  o f these,  the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f J a s p e r Johns'  N i c o l a s C a l a s , devotes o n l y a couple of  2 sentences to the s u b j e c t .  Max  K o z l o f f ' s comments are more l e n g t h y  the whole no more s a t i s f a c t o r y - i n f a c t maybe l e s s so.  Although  Krauss'  too p r e s e n t s  of  d i s c u s s i o n i s l e s s erroneous than K o z l o f f ' s she  'misunderstandings' t h a t need to be In K o z l o f f ' s d i s c u s s i o n he  to the p o i n t t h a t we  on  Rosalind a number  up.  i s g u i l t y of a s e r i e s of q u i t e gross mistakes  have to throw out most of h i s a p p l i c a t i o n of  w r i t i n g to Johns' work. the two  cleared  but  Wittgenstein's  I t w i l l be e a s i e r to s o r t some of t h i s out by  most r e l e v a n t passages i n f u l l .  He  says of the  quoting  Tractatus  '... i t (the World) comprises s t a t e s of a f f a i r s , or f a c t s , r e g a r d i n g the complex r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h i n g s . Our way of comprehending t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s by p i c t u r i n g ( r a t h e r than simply naming) i t by language. And t h i s p i c t u r i n g i s o r g a n i z e d by combinations o f words, as i n the s t r u c t u r e o f a sentence, which must i d e n t i c a l l y r e f l e c t the manner i n which . " s t a t e s of a f f a i r s " i t s e l f i s o r d e r e d . "The f a c t t h a t the e l e ments of the p i c t u r e , " says W i t t g e n s t e i n , "are r e l a t e d to one another i n a d e t e r m i n a t e way r e p r e s e n t s t h a t t h i n g s are r e l a t e d to one another i n the same way".' So f a r so good - but he  goes  on:  'Hypotheses about r e a l i t y , t h e r e f o r e , take the shape of models or language games, designed to show not what i s t r u e , f o r what one h o l d s to be t r u e can be v e r i f i e d o n l y e m p i r i c a l l y , but what i s p o s s i b l e . ' 3  What K o z l o f f has  done i s make the s e r i o u s mistake of b l i n d l y jumping from  the stance taken i n the T r a c t a t u s t h a t he has  to t h a t of the I n v e s t i g a t i o n s .  understood such passages i n the T r a c t a t u s  He  shows  as:  'A p i c t u r e r e p r e s e n t s a p o s s i b l e s i t u a t i o n i n l o g i c a l space. A p i c t u r e c o n t a i n s the p o s s i b i l i t y of the s i t u a t i o n t h a t i t represents. A p i c t u r e a g r e e s w i t h r e a l i t y or f a i l s to agree; i t i s c o r r e c t or i n c o r r e c t t r u e or f a l s e . ' 4 but  i n the second paragraph 'reality,  says,  t h e r e f o r e , takes the shape of language games.'  This i s i n reference  to the  Investigations^which  i s a d i r e c t r e f u t a l of  the  38 Tractatus.  So what we  are presented with,  then, i s K o z l o f f s a y i n g  ments of a p i c t u r e are r e l a t e d i n a l o g i c a l way one  another i n a d e t e r m i n a t e f a s h i o n , and  given  form by  arbitrary.  language games and  The  since  that e l e -  ' t h i n g s ' are r e l a t e d to  i n conclusion,  that r e a l i t y i s  hence meaning w i l l always be no more than  c o n t r a d i c t i o n i s such t h a t i t c r e a t e s fundamental problems  f o r K o z l o f f ' s subsequent a n a l y s i s of Johns' work. Passing  beyond t h i s , K o z l o f f d i s c u s s e s  c o n t r a d i c t i o n which he "false truth value". context can  the q u e s t i o n  of t a u t o l o g y  says - a p p e a r i n g to quote W i t t g e n s t e i n Nowhere does W i t t g e n s t e i n  i t is difficult  use  - express a  t h i s phrase and  to know what e x a c t l y K o z l o f f means.  and  The  in i t s  o n l y way  I  e x p l a i n i t i s t h a t i t r e f e r s to statements t h a t are not models of r e a l i t y  as indeed T a u t o l o g i e s are n o t .  But  and  c o n t r a d i c t i o n s , from W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s  e a r l i e r view,  then to use  such a term i s to m i s c o n s t r u e what  Wittgenstein  says of these types o f p r o p o s i t i o n s . do have a t r u t h v a l u e .  The  diction's essentially false. determine t h e i r t r u t h v a l u e empirical  Wittgenstein  tautology's  explains  t h a t they both  i s e s s e n t i a l l y t r u e and  the  contra-  They a r e not p i c t u r e s of r e a l i t y s i n c e we from l o g i c a l n e c e s s i t y and  do not  require  can any  verification.  Given t h i s m i s c o n c e p t i o n K o z l o f f goes on to e x p l a i n t h a t what Johns does i s p r e s e n t they are  us w i t h v a r i o u s p i c t o r i a l elements a n d ' d i s p l a y  them as i f  s y n t a c t i c a l e n t i t i e s formed to i l l u s t r a t e some p r o p o s i t i o n ,  than c r y s t a l i z e them i n t o p r o d u c t s of f u s i o n and presumably  feeling.'^  does the l i n k i n g up of these elements and we  the r e s u l t s as t a u t o l o g i o u s  and  The  rather  audience  are f o r c e d t o  see  contradictory:  ' I t i s o n l y when they are s c r u t i n i z e d and v e r i f i e d to be r i p e w i t h t a u t o l o g i e s and c o n t r a d i c t i o n s t h a t they come f u l l y a l i v e as the c r e a t i o n s they a r e . In other words, t h e i r d i s t i n c t i o n i s to have addressed themselves to the f a c t that what has a " f a l s e t r u t h v a l u e " [ i . e . , t h a t which i s not a modeal of r e a l i t y - I assume] i n l o g i c can have a profound a e s t h e t i c r e a l i t y i n a r t . ' ^  -  Supposing Johns.' work does contain tautology and contradiction, they are no more 'models of r e a l i t y ' merely because they are presented also presents us with such statements.  to us.  Wittgenstein  It i s as i f Kozloff feels Wittgenstein  has a problem over not being able to f i t such propositions into r e a l i t y , that deep down he would l i k e to somehow and Johns manages i t by being creative art to the rescue!  Kozloff has also f a i l e d to r e a l i s e that i n the Tractatus  aesthetics i s outside the world of r e a l i t y , the world of f a c t s , and hence Johns' work i s no 'answer' since i t i s outside the Tractatus'  conception of  reality. Apart from these claims we should look at some of Johns' work to see i f they stand up to any of them.  By the Sea, 1961 (Plate XXXV) i s a useful one  to take since i t i s also discussed by Rosalind Krauss i n r e l a t i o n to Wittgenstein.  In t h i s work there are four colour l a b e l s : RED, YELLOW, BLUE,  and a fourth i n which a l l three words are superimposed to form, not a single word as Krauss claims, but a coalescing of the three into v i r t u a l l y an unreadable sign.  Each word labels one of four sections of stretched canvas  that go to make up the work.  Although for the most part they have been  painted separately, when joined together the e n t i r e surface i s covered  by a  more or less uniform p a i n t e r l i n e s s . Kozloff i s asking us to look at these labels and treat them as either tautologious or contradictory or possibly even both.  Hence we are to say the RED section i s red and the RED section  i s not red>;the YELLOW section i s yellow, the YELLOW section i s not yellow and so on. However, there i s no tautology since the red section i s not wholly red and there i s no contradiction since the section i s not wholly not red.  The work i n fact has nothing to do with such propositions and even  Kozloff himself asserts this.when discussing False Start:  40 1  .... Johns would never confuse a symbol w i t h a s i g n he i s n e i t h e r i n t e r e s t e d nor u n i n t e r e s t e d i n p r e s e r v i n g c o l o u r p u r i t y . . . . . You do not ask whether t h a t y e l l o w p a t c h i s red as the l a b e l says but i n the u n l i k e l y event t h a t you do, the y e l l o w i s a f f i r m e d and the r e d ( o f the l e t t e r i n g ) acknowledged, but the c o n n e c t i o n i s not i m p l i e d . ' 7  The  ambiguity of By  at l a t e r  the Sea  lies  i n something f a r d i f f e r e n t t h a t we  contradictions,  He  t h a t , t r u e enough, he p i c k s t h i s up  the I n v e s t i g a t i o n s .  I n v e s t i g a t i o n s t h a t has  But  little  to do  s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h the usage of  'Imagine someone's s a y i n g " " A l l t o o l s serve to modify Thus the hammer m o d i f i e s the p o s i t i o n of the n a i l , the shape o f the b o a r d , and so on." - Arid what i s m o d i f i e d ruler, the glue p o t , the n a i l s ? "Our knowledge of a l e n g t h , the temperature of the g l u e , and the s o l i d i t y box." - Would a n y t h i n g be gained by t h i s a s s i m i l a t i o n expressions?'^ a t o o l as a ' m o d i f i e r '  what i t m o d i f i e s  i n t u r n may  i s not  modify.  sufficient  Whilst  K o z l o f f takes a b r i e f l o o k at Passage, 1962 treatment o f W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s  but  to give i t meaning  d e a l i n g w i t h meaning and ( P l a t e XXXVI) and  the r u l e r as a s c r a p e r  is_ no  since usage  Johns'  concept.  'proper f u n c t i o n ' of the word  l a b e l l e d ) or the o b j e c t : r u l e r .  ruler of he also  r a t h e r than a t o o l f o r measuring  K o z l o f f misses the whole p o i n t t h a t b o t h Johns and  namely t h a t t h e r e  thing.  something. saw the by the thing's of the of  'But when the a r t i s t l a b e l s an area " s c r a p e " he shows t h a t a has e f f e c t e d the s c r a p i n g , and t h a t i t has smeared out p a r t the w r i t t e n d i r e c t i o n to do what i t has done! Not o n l y i s d i s p l a c i n g the p r o p e r f u n c t i o n o f t o o l s , - b u t i n the end he d i s p l a c e s "use" showing i t i n i t s t r u e a e s t h e t i c g u i s e of uselessness. ' 9 Johns i s indeed u s i n g  directly  K o z l o f f i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s w i t h a passage  more w i t h the f a l l a c y of t h i n k i n g a word s i g n i f i e s one  To d e s c r i b e  and  then s t a t e s t h a t what i s at the c e n t r e o f Johns'  work i s the n o t i o n of usage and from r e a d i n g  tautologies  " s t a t e s o f a f f a i r s " which from the T r a c t a t u s ' p o i n t of view  they d e f i n i t e l y are n o t .  words and  look  on.  K o z l o f f proceeds to make a f u r t h e r e r r o r i n c a l l i n g  from the  will  Wittgenstein (the r u l e r has  make, been  A r u l e r i s o n l y a measuring instrument when  we use i t for measuring.  To the boy who  i t means an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t thing.  i s caught throwing i n k - p e l l e t s i n clas  I f we use i t to scrape paint then that  i s what i t s meaning i s . The paradox of the word 'scrape' i n Passage that i t s e l f has been scraped i s not a question of a word being rendered useless since we can s t i l l read i t , hence use i t .  On the contrary Johns i s very n i c e l y reading i t from the van-  tage point of two language games at the same time - one of report: paint has been scraped" and one of command':  "The  " i t says 'scrape' so I scraped i t !  F i n a l l y , Kozloff believes Johns d i f f e r s from Wittgenstein  i n 'pointing  out' that there are no rules common to a l l language games - but does not Wittgenstein  do this? - and managing a 'redundant naming of objects.'"*"^  But to presume that naming of objects already present to miss the whole point.  In Fool's House, 1962  i s a redundancy i s again  (Plate XXXVII) Johns labels  the broom, towel, stretcher and cup with a scribbled name and arrow pointing to the object not i n order to indicate any absurdity of r e p e t i t i o n but to reveal the ill-reasoned notion of names giving meaning. concerned with what Wittgenstein  Johns i s , e s s e n t i a l l y  asks us:  'Suppose, however, someone were to object: " I t i s not true that you must already be master of a language i n order to understand an ostensive d e f i n i t i o n : a l l you need - of course!' - i s to know or guess what the person giving the explanation i s pointing to. That i s , whether for example to the shape of the object, or to i t s colour, or to i t s number, and so on" - And what does 'pointing to the shape', 'pointing to the colour' consist in? Point to a piece of paper. - And now point, to i t s shape - now to i t s colour - now to i t s number (that sounds queer!). - How did you do i t ? 'H What i s the word 'towel' pointing to?  Something to dry our hands on?  paint rag, as i t has paint smeared on i t ? t h i s work further i n the next  A piece of collage?  A  I w i l l discuss  chapter.  * * * Rosalind Krauss' a r t i c l e i s more useful and she steers clear of said i n the Tractatus altogether, concentrating  anything  s o l e l y on passages from the  42 Investigations.  Her  u n d e r s t a n d i n g i s much more s e n s i b l e than K o z l o f f ' s but  l i m i t s h e r s e l f to a s k i n g idea of has  'usage' and  q u e s t i o n s s p e c i f i c a l l y i n the l i g h t of  does not  d e a l w i t h the i m p l i c a t i o n s  i n the w o r l d of a r t as Johns does.  confusing  v a r i o u s works and  In Passage, 1962,  the  Krauss succumbs to the  The  project  Wittgenstein's  that h i s philosophy  i s s l i g h t l y marred  at times s e e i n g what- i s not s t i c k device  she  by  there.  o f Device i s r e p l a c e d  by a r u l e r  and  temptation of a s s i m i l a t i n g Johns' iconography to 12  Wittgenstein's  imagery.  This  even then the paragraph she  i s spurious  work i n the  a t t r i b u t e s the use  l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p to the context i n which we  first  place,  but  of the r u l e r to bearSvery f i n d i t used i n Passage.  'Suppose I were to ask: i s i t c l e a r to us, w h i l e we are u t t e r i n g , the sentences " T h i s rod i s one y a r d l o n g " and "Here i s one s o l d i e r " , t h a t we mean d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s by "one", t h a t "one" has d i f f e r e n t meanings? - Not at a l l - .... Asked "Do you mean the same t h i n g by both 'ones'? one^would perhaps answer: "Of c o u r s e I mean the same t h i n g ; one!" (Perhaps r a i s i n g one f i n g e r ) . Now has "1" a d i f f e r e n t meaning when i t stands f o r a measure and when i t stands f o r a number? I f the question,, i s framed i n t h i s way one w i l l answer i n the a f f i r m a t i v e . ' x 3  The  reason f o r the m i s t a k e appears to be  a v i s u a l one.  the r u l e r manages to e s t a b l i s h the whole s c a l e of the  Krauss b e l i e v e s  that  picture:  'The r u l e r seems to me to f u n c t i o n not o n l y as a s c r a p i n g t o o l but a l s o as a measuring d e v i c e s i n c e the s i z e of the upper t h i r d of t h e canvas can be read o f f from the r u l e r ' s s c a l e . This i s wishful  t h i n k i n g s i n c e i t does no  canvas i s 18" x 40",  such t h i n g .  Each t h i r d of  whereas the r u l e r i s j u s t under 14"  long.  It i s also  unnecessary to f o r c e t h i s a n a l y s i s s i n c e the d i f f e r e n t usages are implied  as p o i n t e d  out  previously.  imagery o f Passage w i t h Out reading  the  already  In a d d i t i o n to t h i s Krauss confuses  the Window, I I , 1962  ( P l a t e XXXVIII) which makes  difficult. ^  Rosalind K o z l o f f ' s but  1  K r a u s s ' view of By even then she  the  does not  Sea  the  i s f a r c l o s e r to the  q u i t e make i t .  She  t r u t h than  sees Johns  as  43 'demonstrating the i m p o s s i b i l i t y object'"*"^  and  of s e p a r a t i n g out m e a n i n g f u l a s p e c t s of an  f i n d s a p a r a l l e l i n the I n v e s t i g a t i o n s .  '...• i f I am shown v a r i o u s d i f f e r e n t l e a v e s and t o l d " t h i s i s c a l l e d a ' l e a f , " I get an i d e a of the shape o f a l e a f , and a p i c t u r e of i t i n my mind. - But what does the p i c t u r e of a l e a f l o o k l i k e when i t does not show us any p a r t i c u l a r shape, but 'what i s common to a l l shapes of l e a f ? Which shade i s the 'sample i n my mind' o f the c o l o u r green - the sample of what i s common t o a l l shades o f green?... Ask y o u r s e l f : what shape must the sample o f the c o l o u r green be? Should i t be rectangular? Or would i t then be the sample of a green r e c t a n g l e ? - So s h o u l d i t be ' i r r e g u l a r ' i n shape? And what i s t o prevent us then from r e g a r d i n g i t - t h a t i s , from u s i n g i t - o n l y as a sample o f i r r e g u l a r i t y o f s h a p e ? ' ? 1  T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y the p o i n t o f By t h e Sea. v e r y s m a l l p a r t i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g them. how we  are u s i n g t h e s e names.  or two c o n c e p t i o n s of what  The naming of c o l o u r s p l a y s a  -We have t o take i n t o  A P e r u v i a n blanket-maker  may  consideration  have o n l y one  'red' i s w h i l s t Greenberg would presumably  only  read i t i n terms of b r i g h t n e s s . What Krauss omits a r e the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the lower p a n e l where a l l t h r e e words have been superimposed but the o v e r a l l c o l o u r i n g remains the same. L i t e r a l l y Johns i s c o n v e y i n g the a b s u r d i t y o f naming to a stage where he to t r y t o d e s c r i b e a c o l o u r t h a t has been made up of the primary pigments  says i s no  more s u c c e s s f u l than a c t u a l l y p h y s i c a l l y mixing t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l names i n t o one meaningless composite  sign.  I t becomes i n the end a q u e s t i o n o f what we mean by a  colour:  'We use the word "composite" (and t h e r e f o r e the word "simple") i n an enormous number of d i f f e r e n t and d i f f e r e n t l y r e l a t e d ways. (Is the c o l o u r o f a square on a chessboard s i m p l e , o r does i t c o n s i s t o f pure w h i t e and pure y e l l o w ? And i s white s i m p l e , or does i t c o n s i s t o f the c o l o u r s of the rainbow?...). To the p h i l o s o p h i c a l q u e s t i o n : " I s the v i s u a l image o f t h i s t r e e composite, and what a r e i t s component p a r t s ? " The c o r r e c t answer i s : "That depends on what you understand by "composite"." (And t h a t i s of c o u r s e not an answer but a r e j e c t i o n of the question)'.18 The o n l y o t h e r work Krauss d i s c u s s e s s p e c i f i c a l l y i n r e s p e c t to  W i t t g e n s t e i n i s F i e l d P a i n t i n g , 1963-64 ( P l a t e XXXIX) where she sees Johns actually  ' u s i n g ' c o l o u r i n a new  way  by making i t l i t e r a l l y  i n the form of wooden l e t t e r s of the words, Red, out  from the canvas.  but he has not enabled meaningfully  Johns indeed has  shown t h a t new  us, as Krauss s u g g e s t s ,  than b e f o r e .  Yellow  and  three  dimensional  Blue t h a t  uses g i v e now  stand  meanings  to p o i n t to c o l o u r any more  The q u e s t i o n s t i l l would remain, as Johns e x p r e s s l y  wants i t t o : e x a c t l y what are you p o i n t i n g to? Beyond the v a r i o u s e r r o r s and t h a t appears i n K o z l o f f ' s and i s i n some way to p r e s e n t  anxious  d i s c u s s e d , a common undertone  to a l e s s e r extent  i n Krauss'  i s t h a t Johns  to r e f u t e W i t t g e n s t e i n - as i f somehow he were t r y i n g  a s i t u a t i o n where we  or r e s o l v e d i n p a i n t i n g . work we  omissions  can i n a c t u a l i t y d e s i g n a t e  something  T h i s i s not o n l y to deny the n a t u r e  of a l l the  have looked at i n Chapter I but a l s o to go a g a i n s t h i s own  i n the v a r i o u s i n t e r v i e w s . c l e a r e r i n showing how  In the next  specific  remarks  Chapter I hope to make t h i s much  Wittgenstein provided  a methodology where Johns  was  not o n l y a b l e to remain even more s u b t l y o u t s i d e h i s work but among o t h e r t h i n g s t o o f f e r c o u n c i l to c r i t i c i s m i n g e n e r a l .  CHAPTER FOUR:  JOHNS AND WITTGENSTEIN  'Furthermore he disposes of the whole matter of influence by observing: "The problem with influences i s that the thing or person you say i s an influence has to accept some of the blame for what you've done,"and laughing uproariously.'1  Through h i s c o n t a c t w i t h Duchamp i n 1959 was  essentially refining  and W i t t g e n s t e i n i n 1961  h i s i n q u i r y i n t o the meaning of a r t .  p r e v i o u s work he p r o b a b l y saw  Johns  With h i s  a c e r t a i n s u p e r f i c i a l i t y i n simply showing  f e a s i b l e s i t u a t i o n s where c o n t r a r i e s c o u l d e x i s t  s i d e by s i d e .  As  Fried  suggests: 'An a r t i s t w i t h Johns' c r i t i c a l powers c o u l d not but be aware sooner or l a t e r , t h a t h i s p u t a t i v e s o l u t i o n was no s o l u t i o n at a l l but r a t h e r a y o k i n g o f i n c o m p a t i b l e s . ... From b e i n g an attempt, to s o l v e a f o r m a l problem i n h e r e n t i n abstract e x p r e s s i o n i s m Johns'"'art Becomes' an exploring, h e i g h t e n i n g and showing o f f of the problem i t s e l f . ' 2  F r i e d , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , would read i t i n terms of a H e g e l i a n d i a l e c t i c , it  seems more f r u i t f u l  t o b r i n g i t c l o s e r t o home and  n a t u r e of Johns' d e v e l o p i n g methodology from the two  simply a s c e r t a i n  but  the  f i g u r e s t h a t were  becoming prominent d u r i n g these y e a r s . An a n a l y s i s of Johns' growth v i a Duchamp would, of course be a paper i n itself  and  s i n c e t h i s i s fundamentally  a l o o k i n t o the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the  'problem' g i v e n by W i t t g e n s t e i n , I w i l l be b r i e f . man  show, h e l d a t the C a s t e l l i G a l l e r y  A f t e r Johns' f i r s t  (January 20th — February  one-  8 t h , 1958),.  3 he was  spoken of f r e q u e n t l y as a neo-Dadaist.  meant he read M o t h e r w e l l s ' Robert visit  Having  a n t h o l o g y , Dada P a i n t e r s and  L e b e l came out w i t h h i s monograph on Duchamp. t o the A r e n s b e r g  a f f e c t e d Johns.  little Poets.  i d e a what In  1959  T h i s , together with a  C o l l e c t i o n i n P h i l a d e l p h i a i n the same y e a r ,  S h o r t l y a f t e r , N i c o l a s C a l a s brought  this  deeply  Duchamp t o Johns' s t u d i o .  Johns began to c o l l e c t h i s works and wrote a s h o r t review of a new  translation  4 of  Duchamp's notes  from the Green Box.  goes to show the s t r o n g a f f i n i t y he f e l t I c o n o g r a p h i c a l l y we  Such d e v o t i o n was f o r the o l d e r  unprecedented  man.  c o u l d l i n k much o f Johns' subsequent work w i t h  Duchamp's - the use of r u l e r s w i t h T r o i s Stoppage E t a l o n , 1913-14, Johns' Thermometer w i t h the one  i n Why  not Sneeze, 1921.  The  c o l o u r c h a r t s of  and  According with  t o What w i t h  t h e same i n Turn', 1918.  the r o t o - r e l i e f s and so on.  The scraped  Device  circles  In h i s review i n Scrap, Johns showed  p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n t h e famous passage from the notes t o the Large 'To  Glass.  loose the p o s s i b i l i t y of recognizing  2 s i m i l a r objects \ 2 colours, 2 laces 2 h a t s , 2 forms whatever to reach t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f s u f f i c i e n t v i s u a l memory to toatransfer from one l i k e o b j e c t t o another the memory i m p r i n t Same p o s s i b i l i t y w i t h sounds, w i t h b r a i n f a c t s . ' For Duchamp the e x e r c i s e o f t r a n s f e r a l i s p r i m a r i l y an i n t e l l e c t u a l one whereas Johns' would-(like t o see i t take p l a c e  perceptually:  'My i d e a has always been t h a t i n p a i n t i n g t h e way i d e a s a r e conveyed i s through the way i t l o o k s and I see no way t o a v o i d t h a t and I don't t h i n k Duchamp can e i t h e r . ' 6 T h i s does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t the same.  But Duchamp i s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e c o n c e p t u a l  specifically any  a c l a s h o f i n t e r e s t s s i n c e the aims a r e 7  w h i l s t Johns i s  i n t e n t i n p o i n t i n g out the f a l l a c y o f g e n e r a l i s a t i o n , n o t from  cosmological  aspect  - although,  the v i s u a l p r a c t i c e i t s e l f .  o f course,  i t i s r e l a t e d - but w i t h i n  Johns i s a p a i n t e r and consequently f i n d s  enough t o t h i n k about i n terms of t h e p a i n t i n g a l o n e .  Duchamp encouraged  him  t o d e p o l a r i s e t h e s i t u a t i o n and showed a way out of the n o t i o n of the g p r o b l e m a t i c - 'there i s no s o l u t i o n s i n c e t h e r e i s no problem'. Johns saw Duchamp as moving h i s work from one o f r e t i n a l b o u n d a r i e s 9 ' i n t o a f i e l d where language, thought and v i s i o n a c t e d upon one a n o t h e r . ' We have seen the b e g i n n i n g s o f t h i s i n t e r e s t i n F a l s e S t a r t and P a i n t i n g With Ruler  and "Gray".  Wittgenstein  provided  a method o f d e a l i n g w i t h  way t h a t t h e a c t i v i t y would remain without the p r o b l e m a t i c that c l a r i f i e d  the d e f i n i t i o n o f l o o k i n g .  this i n a  - i t was a method  Wittgenstein's  l a t e r stance i s not  the p h i l o s o p h i c a l problem was not  to any  s o l u t i o n but  c o u l d w e l l serve  u n l i k e Duchamp's.  His conception  of  a need to e l u c i d a t e i t - a procedure t h a t l e d  to i t s d i s a p p e a r a n c e .  A passage from the  Investigations  as Johns' dictum:  'We do not advance any k i n d of t h e o r y . There must not be a n y t h i n g h y p o t h e t i c a l i n our c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . We must do' away w i t h a l l e x p l a n a t i o n , and d e s c r i p t i o n a l o n e must take i t s p l a c e . And t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n gets i t s l i g h t , t h a t i s to say, i t s purpose, from p h i l o s o p h i c a l problems. These are of course not e m p i r i c a l problems. They are s o l v e d , r a t h e r , by l o o k i n g i n t o the workings.... The problems are s o l v e d not by g i v i n g new i n f o r m a t i o n , but by a r r a n g i n g what we have always known. P h i l o s o p h y i s a b a t t l e a g a i n s t the bewitchement of our i n t e l l i g e n c e by means of language.'10 As w i t h W i t t g e n s t e i n , but it.  r a t h e r he  looks  Johns does not  there  i n t o the a c t u a l workings of p a i n t i n g and  Unlike, i n fact  regard  advance a t h e o r y ,  i s no  the p e r c e i v i n g  of  d i r e c t l y opposed t o , the f o r m a l i s t i n t e r e s t , he does not  the problems of contemporary p a i n t i n g as e m p i r i c a l but  to the i n h e r e n t  and  the problems by  'arranging  t h a t he  explanation,  u n a v o i d a b l e v i s u a l aspects.. what we  as a  blindness  Johns attempts to d i s s o l v e  have always known' and  sees h i s r o l e as a r t i s t , as a b a t t l e a g a i n s t  i t c o u l d be  said  the bewitchment of  s i g h t - as w e l l as i n t e l l i g e n c e - by not j u s t language, but more  our  specifically  criticism. In 1961,  Johns made the s c u l p m e t a l  p i e c e , The C r i t i c Sees ( P l a t e XXXX).  It c o n s i s t s of a small b r i c k of p l a s t e r coated with sculpmetal, 6-1/4  x 2").  each eye has  The  f r o n t of t h i s shows a p a i r of s p e c t a c l e s b e h i n d whose g l a s s  been r e p l a c e d  as the t e e t h b a r r e d .  by a mouth, one  open, the o t h e r not  p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e was exhibitions.  t h i s information.  1 1  so much c l o s e d  I t i s an important work s i n c e to misunderstand i t i s  to confuse the a r t i s t ' s stance i n f u r t h e r works.  his  (3-1/4 x  Johns r e l a t e s t h a t  i n s p i r e d by a three minute v i s i t I f i t has  The  critic  not  done a l r e a d y  i s not  the  this  of a c r i t i c to one  of  i n t e n t i o n becomes c l e a r from  as i n t e r e s t e d i n l o o k i n g at a r t as he  is  t a l k i n g about i t . This does not assume that the c r i t i c does not look at a l l , only that looking i s a means to another end. the message becomes doubly c l e a r .  From a Wittgenst'inian  outlook  In the Investigations Wittgenstein  the sensation of seeing and the describing of that sensation.  discusses  When we  look  at something, we are not simply involved i n the act of the sensory but also in an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of that something.  When we look we experience d i f f e r e n t  aspects of a figure which i n fact are d i f f e r e n t interpretations of i t .  Our  judgement of that figure w i l l only be one of many that could be made.  Conse-  quently there i s no authoritative view of the thing seen. obvious, but Wittgenstein forgetting i t .  Perhaps t h i s i s  f e e l s i t necessary to warn us of the danger i n  As with the mistake of attaching meaning  to a word by i t s  naming function so we must remember that aspects of a painting can be d e s c r i bed but not explained and ultimately the only authority i s the painting itself. This i s what Johns i s saying. only to the extent of suggestion.  The practice of c r i t i c i s m i s meaningful We are a l l involved i n i t - even though I  think the work points d i r e c t l y at the professional - and must beware.  To  argue over i n t e r p r e t a t i o n where i t becomes a question almost of dogma comes p e r i l o u s l y close to l o s i n g one' s sense of sight. 'Here i t occurs to me i n conversation on aesthetic matters we use the words: "You have to see i t l i k e t h i s , this i s how i t i s , how i t i s meant"; "When you see i t l i k e t h i s , you see where i t goes wrong";"You have to hear this bar as an introduction"; ^ "You must hear i t i n t h i s key"; "You must phrase i t l i k e t h i s " . ' New  York c r i t i c i s m i n p a r t i c u l a r has become so out of control as to  almost impose rules of perception not only on to the audience but the a r t i s t 13 himself - e.g.,  some of the c o l o u r - f i e l d painters.  The status of the  c r i t i c i s nigh similar to a f i l m star and consequently there i s an a t t r a c t i v e position to be held, a reputation that must be c a r e f u l l y nurtured. Sketchbook Notes Johns says that 'looking i s and i s not eating and  In the being  eaten'  which indeed i s the case of the mouths i n The C r i t i c Sees.  Not only  i s this a reference to the more mundane f i n a n c i a l aspect of the critic^'s a c t i v i t y but also to the whole process of chewing over and regurgitating the artwork.  Nicolas Calas, one of the few American art writers to watch out f o r  the dangers of c r i t i c i s m , notes: 'When c r i t i c s treat pictures as texts rather than images, the public i s expected to see a r t i n terms of problems and solutions. Marcel Duchamp was fond of comparing c r i t i c s to parasites feeding on a r t i s t s ; today many formalist a r t i s t s could seem to aspire to be fed on. '-> x  In such a state where material as well as psychological s u r v i v a l plays a large r o l e , such work as Johns' that refuses to be pinned down poses i t s e l f even more as a threat and hence more ingenuity must be brought to bear to bring i t under c o n t r o l . This would explain the reluctance of a writer l i k e Kozloff to accept The C r i t i c Sees f o r what i t i s and to interpret i t i n a way that i s compatible to h i s own ends. 'It i s perhaps not as worth belabouring the obvious inference that a c r i t i c sees with h i s mouth as i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the piece i s f i g u r a t i v e l y endowed with a sensory capacity of i t s own ... Taken i n i t s e l f the object would imply, not that sight i s more important than speaking, but that they are Peers , brought together i n an unnatural s i t u a t i o n . . . the p r o b a b i l i t y remains that they are necessarily mutual reinforcements, components of an integrated f u n c t i o n . ' l ^ So for Kozloff, Johns i s celebrating the glorious practice of the c r i t i c who brings about the i n t e r a c t i o n of sight and voice - 'the prime motive of any work i s the wish to give r i s e to discussion'!  Not only i s this r i d i c u l o u s l y  biased, i t i s an actual example of the c r i t i c seeing.  He has avoided the  implications of the aggressive mouths, the absence of any perceptual organ we see mouths not eyes, spectacles i n f e r poor v i s i o n not clear sightedness  -  purely i n order to safeguard h i s p o s i t i o n that the f i r s t reason for painting i s not simply to look at i t , but so somebody can t a l k about i t !  51 Johns i s attacking the c r i t i c whose motives are very d i f f e r e n t from learning to see.  Wittgenstein sees the role of the philosopher as some sort  of doctor who cur.es diseases of misunderstanding and likewise Johns takes i t upon himself to clear up bad habits about looking.  He does this not by  advancing any kind of theory on the meaning of art but by conveying to us that irony i n the discussion of art i s unavoidable.  For every interpretation  of a c o l l e c t i o n of p i c t o r i a l elements another w i l l follow and application of language to the art object must take t h i s i n consideration. 'Well suppose that a picture does come before your mind when you hear the word "cube", say the drawing of a cube. In what sense can t h i s picture f i t or f a i l to f i t a use of the word "cube"? Perhaps you say: " I t ' s quite simple - i f that picture occurs to me and I paint to a triangular form for instance, and say i t ' s a cube then t h i s use of the word doesn't f i t the p i c t u r e . " - But doesn't i t f i t ? I have purposely so chosen the example that i t i s quite easy to imagine a method of projection according to which the picture does f i t a f t e r a l l . The picture of the cube did indeed suggest a certain use to us, but i t was possible for me to use i t d i f f e r e n t l y . ' x 7  The effect of Wittgenstein's argument i s that i t c a l l s attention to the fact that there are other processes, apart from the one we o r i g i n a l l y think of, to applying apicture to the word "cube".  The connection between, word and  image i s tenuous. 'What i s e s s e n t i a l i s to see that the same thing can come before our minds when we hear the word and the application s t i l l be d i f f e r e n t . Has i t the same meaning both times? I think we s h a l l say not.' Johns must have been a l i t t l e bewildered to begin with over the varied and c o n f l i c t i n g interpretations h i s work received i n the l a t e f i f t i e s - not to mention the d i f f e r e n t schools they gave r i s e to.  Contact with  Wittgenstein's work probably came as a welcome r e l i e f .  In another  sense,  however, because of i t s e f f e c t i n providing Johns with a f a r subtler v i s i o n and methodology of eluding dogmatic interpretations, he has brought most of the North American 'heavies' to have a go i n an e f f o r t to put him i n some  comprehensible  slot.  The s i t u a t i o n of course i s not new,  but what i s different  i s that Johns i s the f i r s t to construct an oeuvre that leaves himself out e n t i rely i n the same way Wittgenstein deals with what we have rather than giving us yet  another hypothesis.  Because of t h i s , h i s work i s considered impenetrable  and thus d i f f i c u l t and a common result i s that l i t e r a t u r e on his work i s also difficult.  Max KOzloff, with the intent of producing the d e f i n i t i v e work,  produces:aumonograph that at times of uncertainty almost hides behind mysti19  fication.  In a world of c r i t i c i s m where interpretation i s h i e r a r c h i a l such  measures are understandable, even i f unforgivable, whereas Johns' work addresses i t s e l f to nobody and  everybody.  Johns i s p a r a l l e l i n g Wittgenstein's anthropocentrism where the meaning of the painting i s only relevant to the s p e c i f i c context i t i s being viewed in and nothing else.  What the c r i t i c s , and consequently ourselves, have  done i s to perceive through bringing certain concepts to a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a tion.  The r e s u l t has been that the painting's success i s dependant on whether  i t affirms these preconceptions or not. 'What i s meant i s that we often see and come to know things only in terms of habit, of conditioned response of mental set, of necessary and predictable cues. We tend to o b l i t e r a t e those facts which contradict that which we already know and anticipate. '20 Johns began a compaign as i t were to remedy this mistake and i f understood i n terms of Wittgenstein's philosophy h i s works became much easier to l i v e with.  Presumably the d i f f i c u l t y the professional c r i t i c would have  l i e s i i i the requirement that he take a r a d i c a l relook at what he i s doing 21  and ultimately a t o t a l requestioning of his motives for writing. Before I go on to look at some of Johns' painting i n a Wittgenstiirian context, an interesting thought occurs at t h i s stage.  We have been talking  about the dangers of generalisation when trying to find meaning i n a r t . However, at the same time, both Wittgesntein's and Johns' anthropocentrism  inversely has a l e v e l l i n g e f f e c t .  Pears on the Investigations states: ;i  'It does not assimilate one kind of discourse to another: on the contrary, i t i s always the differences betwen them that are emphasized ... But i t does bring a l l the great philosophical questions which arise within them back to the same l e v e l , ordinary human l i f e , from which philosophy started. Philosophy i s the voyage out, and the voyage back, both of which are necessary i f the l o g i c a l space of our ordinary l i n g u i s t i c practices i s to be understood.' 22  This i s p r e c i s e l y what Johns' l a t e r work emphasises.  We are presented  with  the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of setting any of our perceptions within a s p e c i f i c framework of reference and this i n the end paradoxically leads us to the generalisation that a l l our perceptions, the c r i t i c ' s , the a r t i s t ' s can f i n a l l y be reduced only to human l i f e from which art started. 'He i s engaged with the endlessly changing ancient task: the imitation of nature i n her manner of operation.... he does so without structure, he sometimes introduces signs of humanity to intimate that we, not birds for instance, are part of the dialogue.' 23  The painting No, 1961  (Plate XXXXI) reveals a painted surface where the  cut out l e t t e r s of the word 'NO' painted shadow.  hang from a wire casting both a r e a l and a  The work as i t s t i t l e implies deals with things and  their  opposites - the wire-looking shape i n the upper l e f t i s the outline of an imprint Johns made with the base of a cast of Duchamp ,'s Female F i g Leaf - which 24  in turn i s an imprint.  The l e t t e r s on the wire serve as a pointing device.  Johns w i l l s us to select an area of the painting - or even the whole painting i t s e l f - define i t and then attempt to v e r i f y the d e f i n i t i o n by swinging word on the end of the wire over to that area.  We are continuously  the  denied.  Informed, we proceed to affirm that our f i r s t d e f i n i t i o n i s not the right for that area and f i n d ourselves doubly denied.  Whatever portion we  and interpret not only i s i t negated but the negation i s denied.  one  select  The irony  here i s that there i s no persuasion on anybody's part towards a d e f i n i t e conclusion.  Nor i s i t a stance of n e u t r a l i t y since each time the word  'NO'  54 r e f u t e s , i t a f f i r m s the e x i s t e n c e  of something  new.  'He s a i d t h a t even the n e g a t i v e c o n d i t i o n imposes the "... e x p r e s s i o n o f new sense which can h e l p one i n t o what one has not known".'25 Again t h i s work i s i n q u i r i n g i n t o the l i m i t a t i o n of d e s c r i p t i o n and of l o o k i n g w i t h a mind to c a p t u r i n g . t h i n g as pure s e n s a t i o n , p r o c e s s and judgements. they be to NO,  Wittgenstein  that each time we  i t s p a r t i c u l a r c o n d i t i o n i n g by Wittgenstein  nor  l o o k at something our e x p e r i e n c e produces  i s no  involuntary  In a passage t h a t i s s u p r i s i n g l y a p p l i c a b l e  'Suppose we s a i d , t h a t we cannot d e s c r i b e i n words the e x p r e s s i o n of God i n M i c h e l a n g e l o ' s 'Adam'. But t h i s i s o n l y a matter of t e c h n i q u e , because i f we drew a l a t t i c e - w o r k over h i s f a c e numbered,  * * ?  .|  :  x  =  3  .  <+ —  ? f  ?  * ? —  ;  —  •  £  :  6  :  7  ..  such  thought  says:  ;  fallacy  Johns deny the v a l i d i t y of these but never must  thought of as c o n c l u s i v e . Wittgenstein  agrees t h a t t h e r e  the  '  ft  <)l 1 1 1 1  1  1 1 11  I would j u s t w r i t e down numbers and you might say: "My God! I t i s grand." I t wouldn't be any d e s c r i p t i o n . You wouldn't say such a t h i n g at a l l . I t would o n l y be a d e s c r i p t i o n i f you c o u l d p a i n t ( a c t ? ) a c c o r d i n g to t h i s p i c t u r e , which of course i s c o n c e i v a b l e . But t h i s would show t h a t you can't at a l l t r a n s m i t the i m p r e s s i o n by words, but you'd have a g a i n to paint.'26 In o r d e r  to reach a s a t i s f a c t o r y d e s c r i p t i o n of the f a c e of M i c h e l a n g e l o ' s  Wittgenstein  suggests t r y i n g . ; a system whereby a s e r i e s of g r i d r e f e r e n c e s may  create the necessary we  may  c o n j u r e up  Likewise, it and  as we  impression.  That i s by a c o l l e c t i o n of p i n - p o i n t e d  the image i t s e l f .  The  a b s u r d i t y of t h i s n o t i o n i s  Johns i n v i t e s us to d e s c r i b e the canvas by like  w i l l be  ...  references  obvious.  s e l e c t i n g as many p o i n t s  i n the. hope o f c r e a t i n g the image i t s e l f .  double n e g a t i o n we  After continual  on  negation  f o r c e d to r e a l i s e t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n does not  capture,.and t h a t , as W i t t g e n s t e i n the p a i n t i n g  God,  says, f i n a l l y the o n l y s a t i s f a c t o r y answer i s  itself.  F o o l s House, 1962  c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , as the next  i n l i n e from Courbet's L ' A t e l i e r , 1855  and  Rauschenberg's White P a i n t i n g ,  step 1952.  As Rauschenberg's w h i t e p a i n t i n g s were ' a i r p o r t s f o r the l i g h t s , shadows and 27 particles' On but  i t he has  so Johns' canvas becomes a l a n d i n g s t r i p f o r o b j e c t s from h i s s t u d i o . f i x e d a number of a r t i c l e s and  as i f concerned i n t h e i r c o m p o s i t i o n a l  the Rauschenberg sense but cup  of  important  p l a c e d them not factors.  i n a haphazard  way  They a r e not d e t r i t u s i n  elements of the a r t p r o c e s s  - even to  the  teal  The labelled  fundamental i r o n y l i e s i n t h e naming of the o b j e c t s . "broom", but  the common c o n n o t a t i o n also compositional  i t i s a l s o a p a i n t brush.  The  of the broom c o u l d a l s o be  elements, c o l o u r , t e x t u r e .  The  s t r e t c h e r by  broom i s i n f e r e n c e of  taken as the f l o o r .  They are  K o z l o f f even goes as f a r as  to  suggest t h a t the d i v i d i n g of the canvas down the middle by the broom handle i s 28 a p r e c u r s o r of the s i m i l a r d i v i s i o n i n F i e l d P a i n t i n g . An i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of  56 the naming irony was  provided by™the occurence of a friend who  seeing the picture  29  for  the f i r s t time exclaimed, "Any  an i l l u s t r a t i o n of Wittgenstein's  f o o l knows i t ' s a broom."  Johns has  given  maxim, 'the meaning of language i s i n i t s usage'  and s i m i l a r l y the meaning of art i s i n i t s usage.  Such a b e l i e f of Johns' i s what  Cage meant i n his 'Statements re Duchamp'. 'Duchamp showed the usefulness of addition (mustache). Rauschenberg showed the function of subtraction (de Kooning). Well we look forward to m u l t i p l i c a t i o n and d i v i s i o n . It i s safe to assume that someone w i l l learn trigonometry. Johns.'^0 Johns does not simply add or subtract to give extra or changed meaning. shows the whole i n a way Wittgenstein's  philosophy  that can be understood from numerous angles.  He  As with  i n which he sees a duty not to impose a uniform grid  on the space of language, Johns, by naming various objects that we rapidly begin to a t t r i b u t e d i f f e r e n t uses to, i n v i t e s us to look at things from d i f f e r e n t con-texts and not merely from a single preconceived one.  To treat the proposition,  "This i s a broom" as an atomic fact denies the other associations we cannot help making.  It i s t h i s complexity of meanings that Johns i s anxious that we  Pears on Wittgenstein  recognise.  describes this as an i n t e r s t i n holism - a procedure that  creates an enormously involved task i f i t i s to be f u l f i l l e d .  The object must  be approached again and again i n order to r e c a l l a l l i t s aspects that make up whole meaning.  the  From a mathematical point of view the a c t i v i t y i s trigonometrical  in that two aspects of a work would constitute one triangle and so on. The idea of usage that occurs i n Passage has already been discussed i n the previous chapter.  In addition,a piece of collage that i s l a b e l l e d "envelope" not  only indicates the meaningless of naming but i s also a pun on what language and art  constitute, - a l i t e r a l enveloping  of several meanings.  A piece of wire and  chain joined together by a fork when used i n the painting plays the role of l i n e , a b a r r i e r to the action of the r u l e r , another reference to eating and, of course, a piece of chain and wire joined together by a fork.  57  Andrew Forge speaks of Johns' work i n almost W i t t g e n s t i n i a n terms: 'Johns' motive i s not t o a s t o n i s h or e n t e r t a i n but t o open our eyes to the w i d e s t p o s s i b i l i t i e s of p a i n t i n g as a language and to i n t r o d u c e t o i t a new concept of a c c u r a c y . ' i 3  T h i s concept all  of accuracy  i m p l i c a t i o n s and  i s e n v i s i o n i n g t h a t realnwhere  a l l t h i n g s meet, where  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s can e x i s t t o g e t h e r .  Johns says:  'Beware of the body and mind. Avoid a p o l a r s i t u a t i o n . the edge o f the c i t y and the t r a f f i c there'32 Look to t h a t p o i n t where extremes meet, the c o u n t r y and Sea where l a n d and  Think of  the c i t y and  i n By  sea meet - the t i d a l s t r e t c h where n o t h i n g d e f i n i t e can  s a i d but a l l i s p r e s e n t .  W i t t g e n s t e i n t a l k s about t h i s domain i n almost  the be  humorous  tones. ' C e r t a i n drawings a r e always seen as f l a t or always t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l l y .  f i g u r e s , and o t h e r s sometimes,  Here one would now l i k e t o say: the v i s u a l i m p r e s s i o n of what i s seen t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l l y i s t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l ; w i t h the schematic cube, for instance. (For the d e s c r i p t i o n of the i m p r e s s i o n i s the d e s c r i p t i o n of a cube). And then i t seems queer t h a t w i t h some drawings our i m p r e s s i o n should be a f l a t t h i n g and w i t h some a t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l t h i n g . One asks o n e s e l f "Where i s t h i s going t o e n d " ? ' 3 3  P e r i s c o p e (Hart Crane) , 1963  ( P l a t e XXXXII) and Land's End,  XXXXIII) take t h e i r cue i n i t i a l l y from the poem The B r i d g e .  1963  (Plate  'Cape H a t t e r a s ' s e c t i o n of Hart  I t would be a study i n i t s e l f  Crane's  to c o n s i d e r Johns' work i n 34  r e l a t i o n t o Hart Crane's as w e l l as Frank O'Hara's p o e t r y . t h a t a t the b e g i n n i n g of 'Cape H a t t e r a s ' Crane has reached  S u f f i c e i t to say a v i s i o n of the abso-  l u t e on r e t u r n i n g to h i s n a t i v e l a n d , but i t i s never more than momentary and as he enjoys i t he f o r e s e e s i t s d i s a p p e a r a n c e : , ... w h i l e time c l e a r s Our l e n s e s , l i f t s a f o c u s , r e s u r r e c t s A p e r i s c o p e to glimpse what j o y s or p a i n Our eyes can share o r answer - then d e f l e c t s Us s h u n t i n g t o a l a b y r i n t h submersed Where each sees o n l y h i s dim p a s t r e v e r s e d ....' -* 3  even  58 The p e r i s c o p e symbolises  our everyday v i s i o n t h a t views the w o r l d  i t s s i d e s but never c o m p l e t e l y , Johns a d v i s e s t h a t we When we it  l o o k , we  at a time.  the Jastrow  h o l i s t i c a l l y as our s p i r i t u a l  On  sense can  r e g a r d our v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n of t h i n g s i n t h i s  view the whole even though we  from a l l  a r e o n l y aware of one  and  light. aspect  of  t h i s q u e s t i o n o f a s p e c t - s e e i n g W i t t g e n s t e i n b r i n g s to a t t e n t i o n  d u c k / r a b b i t which can e i t h e r be viewed as the head of a duck or  the  head of a r a b b i t .  'The change o f a s p e c t : "But s u r e l y you would say t h a t the p i c t u r e i s a l t o g e t h e r d i f f e r e n t now?" But what i s d i f f e r e n t : my impression? my p o i n t of view? - Can I say? I d e s c r i b e the a l t e r a t i o n l i k e a p e r c e p t i o n ; q u i t e as i f the o b j e c t had a l t e r e d b e f o r e my eyes. "Now I am s e e i n g t h i s " , I might say ( p o i n t i n g to another p i c t u r e , f o r example). T h i s has the form of a r e p o r t of a new p e r c e p t i o n . The e x p r e s s i o n of a change of aspect i s the e x p r e s s i o n of a p e r c e p t i o n and at the same time of the p e r c e p t i o n s b e i n g unchanged. ' 36 P e r i s c o p e has been d i v i d e d up areas l a b e l l e d RED, l a r g e r and arm  YELLOW and  i n a s i m i l a r way  BLUE.  to the r i g h t - h a n d edge.  The  to Passage i n t h r e e  segment of the scraped  circle  equal is  The  s e m i - c i r c l e c o n t a i n s a deep  space l i k e the tube of a p e r i s c o p e .  R o s a l i n d Krauss b e l i e v e s the  arm m o t i f to have a s p a t i a l q u a l i t y of an X-Ray photograph of a limb.  But  the r e p r o d u c t i o n i t seems r a t h e r to emulate v e r y c l o s e l y the space of the d e v i c e i n b e i n g d e f i n e d w i t h i n a f l a t b a n d - l i k e shape. different  than p r e v i o u s l y , though.  now  I n s t e a d of a r u l e r , a p a i n t e d hand and f o r e -  appear to cause the s c r a p i n g a c t i o n .  illusionistic  new  Now  i t has  The  from ruler  scraping action i s  a s t a c c a t o , s t o p - s t a r t rhythm  and  59  instantly we are reminded of the probing concentric action of a periscope viewer.  Krauss refers to the hand as suggesting the 'materiality of the paint 37  manually applied to the l i t e r a l surface of the canvas'.  But taken i n a  Wittgenstinian context we read i t as the a r t i s t spreading before us the holism of v i s i o n by separating i t into the segments or aspects that we cannot avoid reducing i t to when attempting to grasp i t either i n language or thought. The areas l a b e l l e d RED,  YELLOW and BLUE are a l l the same metallic blues  and grays and expose the same concept of meaning as they did i n By the Sea. However, there are now additional questions brought up with the use of l e t t e r i n g . Rather than enforce the picture plane they set up a s p a t i a l i l l u s i o n even i f an uncertain one.  The word RED i s echoed by a smaller one behind and a n t i t h e t i c a l l y  the word BLUE i s shadowed by a larger one behind.  The word YELLOW i s preceded  by a mirror image of the f i r s t two l e t t e r s 'EY'.'b'y the back of the canvas being suggested as i n the e a r l i e r Canvas, or, as Kozloff asks, has the canvas been 38  folded to produce a negative? Another word RED i s shown with the 'R' upside down and the 'ED' back to front, and a word BLUE i s turned i n upon i t s e l f .  'Cape Hatteras' has an under39  l y i n g theme dwelling on space and the t r a v e l l i n g through i t  and i t i s evident  that Johns i s interested i n giving us not a defined or even contradictory one but an experience of a l l space i n producing a c o l l e c t i o n of d i f f e r e n t aspects of seeing the same word.  The irony rests i n the fact that even though we view  these words from d i f f e r e n t angles, they are always recognizable as either YELLOW or BLUE. linked.  RED,  It seems too close to Wittgenstein's similar interest not to be  60 'Hold the drawing of a f a c e u p s i d e down and you can't r e c o g n i z e the e x p r e s s i o n of the f a c e . Perhaps you can see t h a t i t i s s m i l i n g , but not e x a c t l y what k i n d of s m i l e i t i s . You cannot i m i t a t e the s m i l e or d e s c r i b e i t e x a c t l y . And y e t the p i c t u r e which you have turned around may exact r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a person's face.'^0 Land's End  more l i k e a s i g n than i n P e r i s c o p e  XXXXIV) where  arm.  The  tiny"arrows  arms (depending on how gestures.  the most  employs s i m i l a r thoughts i n terms of l e t t e r i n g .  c o n t a i n an arrow p o i n t i n g downwards.  the u p s t r e t c h e d  be  you  Wittgenstein  and  In Land's End  Both p i c t u r e s  the arrow i s made to  look  i t p o i n t s c o n t r a r y to the d i r e c t i o n of  s i t u a t i o n emphasises t h a t i n D i v e r , 1962 a r e p l a c e d on two  (Plate  e i t h e r o u t s t r e t c h e d or diving-down  look at them) i n opposing d i r e c t i o n to the  t a l k s to h i s f i c t i t i o u s  limb's  questioner:  ' "Then can whatever I do be brought i n t o a c c o r d w i t h the r u l e ? " l e t me ask t h i s : what has the e x p r e s s i o n of a r u l e - say a s i g n post - got to do w i t h my a c t i o n s ? What s o r t o f c o n n e c t i o n i s t h e r e here? - W e l l perhaps one>: I have been t r a i n e d to r e a c t to t h i s s i g n i n a p a r t i c u l a r way, and now I do so r e a c t to i t . But t h a t i s o n l y to g i v e a c a s u a l c o n n e c t i o n ; to t e l l how come about t h a t we now go by the s i g n - p o s t ; not what t h i s s i g n r e a l l y c o n s i s t s i n . On the c o n t r a r y ; I have f u r t h e r t h a t a p e r s o n goes by a s i g n - p o s t o n l y i n so f a r as t h e r e r e g u l a r use of s i g n - p o s t s , a custom.'41 What a r e the v a l i d i t y of r u l e s i n p a i n t i n g ? o f t e n made i n t a l k i n g about Johns' work. c o l l e c t i o n o f c o l o u r the r e s u l t tion.  However, the r e s u l t  meaning. and  A s i m i l a r m i s t a k e as the above i s  I f a word  i s explained  'red' l a b e l s a jumbled  as an a b s u r d i t y or d a d a i s t i n t e n -  i s an i r o n y on the whole n o t i o n o f r u l e s g i v i n g  Rules can o n l y be understood w i t h i n the c o n t e x t  Johns i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the i d e a of l o o k i n g not  established  i t has going-by-theindicated exists a  of a p a r t i c u l a r  custom  i n the r e i n f o r c i n g of any  pre-  ideas about i t .  'To obey a r u l e , to make a r e p o r t , to g i v e an o r d e r , to p l a y a game of chess, are customs (uses, i n t u i t i o n s ) ' ^ 2  I f the background o f a custom i s removed, the r u l e s embedded i n the custom would a l s o d i s a p p e a r .  In t h i s way  to a n a l y s e  Johns' use  of arrows as c o n t r a d i c t o r y  61 i s merely to see them within a p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n .  Solomon reads the  arrows i n Diver as creating a tension but Johns i s not concerned with contradictions rather he i s intent on preventing reference i n order that we may by retaining an accepted way  us resting i n any one frame of  see h o l i s t i c a l l y . Absurdity  of seeing.  presenting  Wittgenstein  i s only brought about  asks:  'How does i t come about that this arrow ^points? Doesn't i t seem to carry i n i t something besides i t s e l f ? "No, not the dead l i n e on paper;only the psychical thing, the meaning can do that" - That i s both true and f a l s e . The arrow points only i n the application that a l i v i n g human being makes of i t . ' ^ 3 Wittgenstein  r e a l i s e s that following rules i s an a c t i v i t y which i s involved  i n v i r t u a l l y everything we do and hence the importance of understanding the concept of the r u l e , before we become completely subordinate to them. t h i s way  Johns' work i s highly moralist.  Seen i n  His rigorous search for the curing of 44  misconceptions has the undertones of asceticism.  It i s a methodology that  i n t e r e s t i n g l y enough has close a f f i n i t y with Zen and  i t i s not at a l l inconcei-  vable that the poetic beauty of this approach could have strongly rubbed off from Cage to Johns.  K..T.  Fann i n his analysis of Wittgenstein's  regards i t i n much the same way.  Wittgenstein's  philosophy  contribution i s not r e a l l y a  philosophy but a method, an a r t : ' .'. . Zen masters were very much concerned with giving peace to those who were tormented by abstract philosophical questions ... [and were] well known for t h e i r a b i l i t y to show the nonsensicality of metaphysical questions by replying to the questioner with nonsense, a joke, an irrelevancy, a gesture or what not. The state of 'enlightement' i n which the mind i s free from philosophical questions i s not unlike the state of 'complete c l a r i t y ' Which Wittgenstein was s t r i v i n g for.'^5 Johns' hunt for t h i s 'complete c l a r i t y ' makes i t not too farfetched to suggest that he also enjoys an i r o n i c sense of humour i n Periscope and Land's End. the interests of holism we are given the representational aspects as w e l l . Periscope i s painted i n the metallic colours associative of a submarine and Land's End can also work as an expressionistic view out to sea with the  sun  In  62  going down on the horizon! 'One thing working d i f f e r e n t ways at d i f f e r e n t times.'  46  Watchman, 1 9 6 4 (Plate XXXXV) i s a more kindly development of the C r i t i c Sees probably because the e a r l i e r pace deals with the careerist and the latter with the everyday onlooker.  Watchman i s almost a manifesto of Johns' idea of perception  and we gain a great deal of insight into i t s nature from the Sketchbook Notes: 'The watchman f a l l s " i n t o " the "trap" of looking. The "spy" i s a d i f f e rent person. "Looking" i s and i s not "eating" and "being eaten" (Cezanne ? - each object r e f l e c t i n g the other). That i s there i s cont i n u i t y of some sort among the watchman, the space, the objects. The spy must be ready to "move" must be aware of h i s entrances and e x i s t s . The watchman leaves h i s job and takes away no information. The spy must remember and must remember himself and h i s remembering. The spy designs himself to be overlooked. The watchman "serves" as a warning. W i l l the spy and the watchman ever meet?'47 The work consists of two stretched canvases, the left-hand one divided into areas l a b e l l e d RED, YELLOW and BLUE (or p a r t i a l l y so anyway) which have the o v e r a l l muddy tones as i f the three pigments, had been mixed.  On the other panel, a chair  with the lower part of a body cast of a Japanese a r t c r i t i c s i t t i n g on i t has been 48  inverted and fixed to the upper h a l f . and the remainder  of the anatomy replaced by a series of bold brush-strokes of  green, orange and greys. primaries.  The cast has been truncated at the waist  To the right are three rectangles representing the  Much of the paint has run down from the figure into and over a c o l l a -  ged newspaper.  The whole bottom section of both canvases shows a length of  scraped paint which not so much wipes out the painting as 'cheekily' covers i t with a mechanical and a r b i t r a r y scheme of dark to l i g h t s .  The s t i c k that has been  used to do the scraping rests against a b a l l near the left-hand edge. The explanatory notes read i n a style l i k e a cross between Duchamp and 49  Wittgenstein.  They survey the whole practise of the creation of and the  confrontation with the art object i n a way reminiscent of the more detailed search i n the Green Box notes. There are a number of p a r a l l e l s i n Watchman to passages i n the Investigations. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of l a b e l l e d areas i s clear.  The inverted figure on the chair i s  63 being the  confronted  w i t h a schematised v e r s i o n o f c o l o u r  - the p r i m a r i e s  s i t t e r ' s own makeup i s one of d i v e r s e p e r m u t a t i o n s .  d i s c u s s i o n o f the p l a y between sample and memory.  It recalls  - although Wittgenstein's  The sample o f a c o l o u r  appears  to be a s t a t i c a f f i r m a t i o n o f i t s q u a l i t i e s but even then our c r i t e r i a f o r l o o k i n g at i t each time change s i n c e our memory changes.  Consequently, a sample i s no  more ' f i n a l ' than i s our memory. 'Imagine t h a t you were supposed t o p a i n t a p a r t i c u l a r c o l o u r "C" which was the c o l o u r t h a t appeared when t h e chemical substances X and Y combined - Suppose t h a t the c o l o u r s t r u c k you as b r i g h t e r on one day than on another; would you not sometimes s a y : " I must be wrong, t h e c o l o u r i s c e r t a i n l y the same as y e s t e r d a y " ? T h i s shows that we do not always r e s o r t t o what memory t e l l s us as t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e h i g h e s t c o u r t o f appeal'50 The brown s t r e a k i n g of the p a i n t on t o the c o l l a g e d newspaper or j o u r n a l again  i n f e r s , as an a s i d e , what p u b l i s h e d  c r i t i c i s m i s f e d w i t h and  reprocesses  i n t o terms t h a t s u i t t h e p a r t i c u l a r argument the w r i t e r i s concerned i n .  The  s t i c k and b a l l h i n t a t t h e t o y s o f a c h i l d - a reminder o f the 'game' view. Barbara Rose i n h e r C.A.A. t a l k t h i s year a t t r i b u t e d the use o f the c h a i r i n Watchman and A c c o r d i n g  t o What d i r e c t l y to a passage i n the I n v e s t i g a t i o n s .  '...We see component p a r t s o f something composite ( o f a c h a i r f o r i n s t a n c e ) . We say t h a t t h e back i s p a r t o f the c h a i r , but i t i s i n t u r n i t s e l f composed o f s e v e r a l b i t s o f wood; w h i l e a l e g i s a s i n g l e component p a r t . We a l s o see a whole which changes ( i s d e s t r o y e d ) w h i l e i t s component- p a r t s remain unchanged. These a r e t h e m a t e r i a l s from which we r e c o n s t r u c t that p i c t u r e of r e a l i t y . ' 5 1 Of c o u r s e nobody c o u l d d i s c l a i m t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n o f imagery c o m p l e t e l y but i t does not seem t h a t p l a u s i b l e .  I f the c h a i r r e f e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h i s passage  then why has n o t Johns emphasised t h i s q u e s t i o n i n g  o f component p a r t s ?  the passage would have c l o s e r a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h the p l a s t e r c a s t .  Actually  Field  t h a t the c h a i r has c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h a passage from Understanding Media read by Johns':  suggests surely  64  'If the nineteenth century was the age of the e d i t o r i a l chair [the private point of view - F i e l d ] , ours i s the century of the p s y c h i a t r i s t ' s couch. As extension of man the chair i s a s p e c i a l i s t ablation of the posterior, a sort of oblative absolute of backside, whereas the couch extends the i n t e g r a l being.'^2 However, even this sounds a l i t t l e speculative to warrant too much attention. F i n a l l y we come to what has been regarded as Johns' most d i f f i c u l t and tant painting, According  to What, 1964  (Plate XXXXVI).  impor-  It i s made up of seven can-  vases which c o l l e c t i v e l y offer some sort of grand apologia of painting.  Reading  i t from l e f t to right the f i r s t panel contains a repeat of the Watchman chair and plaster cast theme with the difference that this time the image i s not only facing in the opposite d i r e c t i o n but we see the i n t e r i o r surface of the cast as well as a cross-section of the chair.  Attached to the bottom of this section by hinges i s  a small canvas that can be opened or closed.  When closed i t shows simply the back  of a t y p i c a l canvas with the t i t l e of the work s t e n c i l l e d on as well as the date and signature.  On opening i t we see a p r o f i l e of Duchamp, the s t e n c i l l e d l e t t e r s  'M.D.' and a spot of paint that has been allowed to dribble a l i t t l e .  The  area  that this small canvas covers when closed i s a 'trompe l ' o e i l ' version of the rear view of a canvas and has been l a b e l l e d 'stretcher'. Next to a l l t h i s i s a large section very s i m i l a r to F i e l d Painting. the l e t t e r s of the words RED,  YELLOW and BLUE are made of s o l i d aluminum rather  than wood and have none of the studio objects magnetically piece does.  Here  attached  as the e a r l i e r  Also the neon l e t t e r 'R' of F i e l d Painting has been omitted but  l e t t e r s of 'BLUE' have been constructed bent. band that looks a b i t l i k e a multi-coloured as a colour chart.  the  To the right i s a narrow v e r t i c a l  t r a f f i c l i g h t and has been described  What would have been the metal s t e n c i l used to draw each  c i r c l e has been bent out and attached  at the base.  A wider s t r i p of canvas joins  t h i s colour band and simply shows a passage from white to blue-black through a procession of blended blue-gray tones. The right-hand  section consists of a large area covered with abstract-  65 e x p r e s s i o n i s t brush strokes together with three f l a t  rectangles of red, yellow  and b l u e to c r e a t e a Hoffmanesque ' p u s h - p u l l ' e f f e c t  o f s u r f a c e and i l l u s i o n .  Beneath t h i s i s an u n p a i n t e d and  s u r f a c e - w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f a few s p l a s h e s  d r i p s from above - on which a common w i r e coat-hanger  i t has been bent  H a l f of  back t o show a t r a c i n g t h a t c o i n c i d e s w i t h the p r o t r u d i n g por-  t i o n i n a way t h a t we can read the hanger as a f l a t same time.  i s attached.  image and a bent  one a t the  A c r o s s the whole l e n g t h of A c c o r d i n g t o What i s a l o n g s t r i p o f c o l l a -  ged newspaper and each s e c t i o n i s l i n k e d t o another by the p a i n t  ' b l e e d i n g ' over  the edges. A c c o r d i n g t o What has been read as not o n l y a hommage t o Duchamp, but as a p o s s i b l e paradigm t o h i s p a i n t i n g Tu m', 1918 ( P l a t e XXXXVII), i n t h a t they employ c o l o u r c h a r t s .  I c o u l d i n c l u d e w i r e coat-hanger  which have been t r a c e d around.  Barbara  both  w i t h hat r a c k , both of  Rose l i n k s the work w i t h Duchamp i n  making the c o n n e c t i o n between p l a s t e r mold and m a l i c mold  53  and we b e g i n t o see that  54 w i t h enough i n g e n u i t y the a s s o c i a t i o n s c o u l d be i n f i n i t e . C e r t a i n l y Duchamp i s thought and  o f but i f we were t o r e l y s o l e l y on t h e work  Johns' Notes t h e r e i s no evidence  In Johns' n o t e s t h e r e i s t h i s  t h a t i t has t h a t much attachment to him.  inclusion:  'Profile? Duchamp ( ? ) . D i s t o r t e d a s a shadow. Perhaps on a f a l l i n g hinged s e c t i o n . Something t h a t can be erased or s h i f t e d . (Magnetic area) I n WHAT use a l i g h t and a m i r r o r . ' 5 5 Too many c r i t i c s have wanted to make the t i t l e , A c c o r d i n g  t o What e i t h e r a q u e s t i o n  which should be answered, "Duchamp", o r i n i t ' s ' q u a l i t y o f e l l i p t i c a l  abbrevia-  56 tion'  a r e f l e c t i o n o f Tu m' o r any o t h e r Duchampian word p l a y .  the hinged  From the Notes  canvas seems t o be more i n d i c a t i v e of Duchamp as an onlooker  body t h a t c o u l d 1 eave, be ' s h i f t e d ' or 'erased'. N i c o l a s Calas w r i t e s : 'Johns i s not r e c a p i t u l a t i n g or remembering but assembling w i t h Duchamp as watchman.'57  - some-  66 Even the t i t l e may have been simply intended as 'WHAT' which would l e s s e n Duchamp b e i n g the core o f the work. From our knowledge o f W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n the t i t l e d i f f e r e n t connotations.  I t asks a  interpretation?  Mine?  Yours?  q u e s t i o n : " a c c o r d i n g to what?" - Johns'  Duchamp's?  T h i s c r i t i c ' s or t h a t c r i t i c ' s ? and so on. has been done a c c o r d i n g to 'what'."  takes on q u i t e  Max K o z l o f f ' s ?  B a r b a r a Rose's?  I t i s a l s o a statement, "the work  S i n c e t h e f i n a l word d e f i n e s n o t h i n g  we a r e i n v i t e d t o use i t i n any way we choose.  Johns does not make the  specific  title  s o l e l y a q u e s t i o n s i n c e i t would pose him as a q u e s t i o n e r s e e k i n g answers. W i t t g e n s t e i n s i m i l a r l y seeks c l a r i t y not answers;  He acknowledges the meaning of  a word a c c o r d i n g t o a c e r t a i n usage but t h a t i s not the e n t i r e The use of the c h a i r has a l r e a d y been d e a l t w i t h . the Duchamp p o r t r a i t  i s a copy o f h i s S e l f P o r t r a i t  meaning.  In the hinged canvas,  in Profile,  1958  [ I have  chosen the l i t h o g r a p h v e r s i o n o f t h i s s e c t i o n s i n c e the r e p r o d u c t i o n s o f the o r i g i n a l a r e u n s a t i s f a c t o r y ( P l a t e XXXXVIII)]. is  c l e a r why  In the l i g h t of W i t t g e n s t e i n i t  Johns chose t h i s image i n p a r t i c u l a r .  W i t t g e n s t e i n d e s c r i b e s the  diagram below as a w h i t e c r o s s on a b l a c k background and a b l a c k c r o s s on a w h i t e background.  '(The temptation t o say, " I see i t l i k e t h i s " , p o i n t i n g to the same t h i n g f o r " i t " and " t h i s " ) . Always get r i d of the i d e a of the p r i v a t e o b j e c t i n t h i s way: assume t h a t i t c o n s t a n t l y changes but t h a t you do not n o t i c e the change because your memory c o n s t a n t l y d e c e i v e s you.'58 The Duchamp p o r t r a i t p r o v i d e d Johns w i t h an image he c o u l d not r e s i s t . the background and what i s the foreground?  What i s  In 1972 as a b i r t h d a y p i e c e to %  67  Picasso, Johns made a lithograph, Cup 4 Picasso (Plate XXXXIX) which uses the old party  t r i c k of two p r o f i l e s facing each other which i n turn describe a chalice or  candle-stick i n the middle. more i s Johns' sentiment  Wittgenstein's admonishing of the "private object' once  as well.  Richard F i e l d , describes the small paint spot alongside the p o r t r a i t i n terms of Duchamp's declaration, 'a work of art i s dependent on the explosion 59  made by the onlooker'  as well as a symbol of the sperm that appears i n Munch's  lithograph The Madonna and a reminder of Duchamp's 'bachelor s h o t s ' . ^ as i t may,  Be this  i t ' s loneness - there are many examples of 'impact and drip' within  Johns' work - does encourage p a r t i c u l a r attention and seems to r e f l e c t Wittgenstein again. 'But i f a sentence can s t r i k e me as l i k e a painting i n words, and the very i n d i v i d u a l word i n the sentence as l i k e a p i c t u r e , then i t i s no such marvel that a word uttered i n isolation and without purpose can seem to carry a p a r t i c u l a r meaning i n i t s e l f . ' ^ Taken i n this way  the isolated paint spot i s p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate to the  'lonliness' of Duchamp's own unique p o s i t i o n , and i t i s interesting that when Johns himself refers to this i n h i s obituary he counters i t , as i t were, with a quote of Wittgenstein's. 'He [Duchamp] said that he was ahead of his time. One guesses at a certain lonliness there. Wittgenstein said that "time has only one d i r e c t i o n " must be a piece of nonsense'^ The canvas that has i t s prototype i n F i e l d Painting i s not only a pun on making colour three dimensional by constructing the words i n wooden r e l i e f but also as i n By the Sea an attempt by l a b e l l i n g to establish the stereotype of red, yellow or blue.  The l e t t e r s of the words never quite match up with their imprints.  The l e t t e r s of 'RED'  affirm a redness but never of a uniform tone, due not only  to the pigements themselves, but also to the d i f f e r e n t background colours.  68 'Does i t make sense t o say people g e n e r a l l y agree i n t h e i r judgements of c o l o u r ? What would i t be l i k e f o r them not to? - One man would say a f l o w e r was red which another c a l l e d b l u e , and so on. - But what r i g h t s h o u l d we have t o c a l l these p e o p l e ' s words " r e d " and " b l u e " our ' c o l o u r words'? How would they l e a r n to use these words? And i s the language-game which they l e a r n s t i l l such as we c a l l the use of 'names'of c o l o u r ' ? There are  e v i d e n t l y d i f f e r e n c e s o f degree  The word any way  here.'^3  'BLUE' has l i t e r a l l y been bent.  Does t h i s change i t s meaning i n  l i k e a c o l o u r b l u e g e t s 'bent' by i n d i v i d u a l p e r c e p t i o n s ?  The l e t t e r  of  YELLOW shows i t s i m p r i n t to have b u r s t i n t o the c o l o u r i t supposedly was  to  s i g n i f y but i t s b r i g h t n e s s q u i c k l y d u l l s i n t o a d i r t y  has t r i e d  ochre.  meant  I t i s as i f Johns  t o a c t u a l l y d e p i c t the mental p r o c e s s between language and  image.  The c o l o u r c h a r t and graded tone s c a l e make the same r e f e r e n c e s as F a l s e S t a r t , J u b i l e e and D i v e r .  The l a r g e r i g h t - h a n d a r e a f i n d s p a r a l l e l s i n  W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s q u e s t i o n i n g o f two  and t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l i t y i n drawing  (see  above quote, page 5.7, I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , page 202e) . The l o n g canvas benath shows a coat-hanger t h a t can be viewed of  d i f f e r e n t ways.  i n a number  Johns has taken a v e r y common o b j e c t , t r a c e d around  a l s o bent i t , changing i t s nature w h i l e at the same time r e t a i n i n g i t s recognizability. 'Take an obj e c t . Do something t o i t . Do something e l s e t o i t . it  II  il  il  II  I  '0'  b4  The procedure i m i t a t e s W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s a n a l y s i s of the cube diagram:  i t and  69 'You c o u l d Imagine t h e i l l u s t r a t i o n ... appearing i n s e v e r a l p l a c e s i n a book, a text-book f o r i n s t a n c e . I n t h e r e l e v a n t t e x t somet h i n g d i f f e r e n t i s i n q u e s t i o n every time: here a g l a s s cube, t h e r e an i n v e r t e d open box, t h e r e a w i r e frame o f t h a t shape, t h e r e t h r e e boards forming a s o l i d angle.'65 '... i f you see the schematic drawing o f a cube as a p l a n e f i g u r e c o n s i s t i n g o f a square and two rhombi you w i l l , perhaps c a r r y out the o r d e r . " B r i n g me something l i k e t h i s " d i f f e r e n t l y from someone who sees the p i c t u r e t h r e e dimensionally.'66 I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the l e n g t h o f newspaper i s a r e f e r e n c e which w i l l h o l d i t s e l f manageable u n i t .  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r embracing a l l these i d e a s i n t o some  Johns i n v i t e s , a l l u d e s and i l l u d e s but i n the end escapes a l l  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r meaning. he  to c r i t i c i s m  I t may have been Johns whom IGage had i n mind when  said: 'When you s t a r t working, everybody i s i n your s t u d i o - the p a s t , your f r i e n d s , enemies, the a r t world and above a l l , your own ideas - a l l are there. But as you c o n t i n u e p a i n t i n g , they s t a r t to l e a v e , one by one, and you a r e l e f t completely a l o n e . Then, i f you're l u c k y , even you leave.'*'''  CHAPTER FOUR:  CONCLUSION  71 Wittgenstein said: 'The r e a l discovery i s one that makes one capable of stopping doing philosophy when I want to - the one that gives philosophy peace, so that i t i s no longer tormented by questions which bring i t s e l f into question.' 1  If philosophy i s a voyage out and back rather than a move towards different things so i s art for Johns and consequently, prove anything.  l i k e Duchamp, he does not have to  Recently he has bought some land i n St. Maarten, i s b u i l d i n g a  house and intends to l i v e there most of the time. Raynor he was  In the interview with Vivien  asked what he intended to do there, he r e p l i e d :  'Swim! No, I'm t r y i n g to get i t set up so that I can paint. I assume I ' l l continue painting,. I don't know. I don't have that kind of plan r e a l l y . ' 2  Cage writes that Johns i s 'not interested i n working but only i n playing 3  games'  and he says himself:  'I just know that i n the studio I'm doing a l l the work and I'm f a i r l y lazy, and have never taken any pleasure i n compulsive work.'4 Painting i s not a l i n e a r process and i t : i s d i f f i c u l t to imagine there being any anguish with Johns since he i s comfortably aware that the moment a work leaves his studio i t w i l l take on d i f f e r e n t meanings, i t w i l l be 'used' d i f f e r e n t l y . 'There i s a great deal of intention i n painting; i t ' s rather unavoidable. But when a work i s l e t out by the a r t i s t and said to be complete, the intention loosens. Then i t ' s subject to a l l kinds of use and misuse and pun. Occasionally someone w i l l see the work in-a way that even changes its significance for the person who made i t ; the work i s no longer "intention", but the thing being seen and someone responding to i t . They w i l l see i t i n a way that makes you think that i s a possible way of seeing i t . ' 5 Once c r i t i c i s m bothered him, now  i t does not matter.  essential humanity behind i t and Wittgenstein was  6  He has seen the  c e r t a i n l y a teacher i n t h i s  awareness. In the various interviews many of Johns' comments reveal not only a knowledge, but a deep sympathy with the philosopher's thought.  72 'In one person's work, say i n my work, where t h e r e are two or t h r e e f o r m a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s and i n another person's work where o n l y one of t h r e e formal p u r s u i t s i s developed - i t doesn't n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t he has l e s s p r e s e n t i n h i s work than I have i n mine. T h i s can mean t h a t t h e r e i s a new language or aspect of a r t . I don't b e l i e v e i n the q u a n t i t y of i n v e n t i o n or a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y . When two t h i n g s come out of the a i r so c l o s e l y , one i s apt to see two a r t i s t s whose work i s r e l a t e d , and compare them and to say t h a t one does more or l e s s ;than another. T h i s , I f e e l , i s j u s t an aspect of your a t t e n t i o n at t h a t time. I don't b e l i e v e i n n e g a t i n g one man's work i n r e l a t i o n to a n o t h e r ' s . ' 7  'One of the c r u c i a l problems i n a r t i s the b u s i n e s s of "meaning i t " . I f you are a p a i n t e r , meaning the p a i n t i n g s you make; i f you a r e an o b s e r v e r , meaning what you see. I t i s v e r y d i f f i c u l t f o r us to mean what we say o r do. We would l i k e t o , but s o c i e t y makes t h i s v e r y hard f o r us to succeed i n d o i n g . ' ^ 'I t h i n k ... the a r t i s t i s not t i e d to the p u b l i c use of h i s work. There can be feed back, but i f one has to i d e n t i f y w i t h the way one's work i s used, then I t h i n k most a r t i s t s w i l l f e e l misused. So I t h i n k i t ' s b e s t to cut o n e s e l f o f f from what happens a f t e r . ' 9 'If an a r t i s t makes something - or i f you make dhewing gum and e v e r y body ends up u s i n g i t as g l u e , whoever made i t i s g i v e n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f making g l u e , even i f what he r e a l l y i n t e n d s i s chewing gum. You can't c o n t r o l t h a t k i n d of t h i n g . As f a r as b e g i n n i n g to make a work, one can do i t f o r any r e a s o n . ' Apart  from p r o v i d i n g the n e c e s s a r y  imagery i n the l a t e r p a i n t i n g from 1961 have l e a r n t two  a i d i n understanding  Johns' use  of  on, from a study of W i t t g e n s t e i n  we  fundamental t h i n g s about Johns' work:' l o o k i n g i s r e l a t i v e  and,  l i k e meaning i n language, the o n l y common denominator i s l i f e - the human a c t i v i t y of  looking.  T h i s i n t u r n l e a d s us to view c r i t i c i s m i n a much l e s s anxious  c o n t r o v e r s i a l f a s h i o n and  the need f o r polemics  and  t h e o r i e s are d i s s o l v e d .  Johns' has been a 'problem' to such p r a c t i t i o n e r s s i n c e h i s work does not itself  to t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r a p p e t i t e s .  d r e s s i n g i t i n a way ambitions. its  a t r o p h y i n g e f f e c t on  Johns:  'rule-book'  address  In o r d e r to 'eat' i t they must r e s o r t  t h a t makes f o r a p a l a t a b i l i t y c l o s e r to t h e i r own  Cage summed up t h e s e two  and  to  personal  elements of acknowledgement of l i f e  and  c r i t i c i s m p e r f e c t l y i n h i s hommage to  'We imagine ourselves on a tightrope only to discover that we are safe on the ground. Caution i s unnecessary. Nevertheless, we tremble more v i o l e n t l y than we did when we thought we were i n danger. Johns has given us our freedom but i n so doing has denied us the comforts resting secure i n our prejudices.  FOOTNOTES  INTRODUCTION  1.  R o s a l i n d Krauss, 'Jasper  Johns' Lugano Review, v o l . 1, No. 2, 1965, p.97  2.  Norman Malcolm, Ludwig W i t t g e n s t e i n : A Memoir, Oxford Paperbacks, 1958, p. 51-52.  3.  R i c h a r d K o s t e l a n e t z , John Cage, Praegar,1968, p.3.  75 FOOTNOTES  CHAPTER  ONE  1.  Joseph Young, 'Jasper Johns; An A p p r a i s a l ' , A r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l , September, 1969, p. 51.  2.  Barbara Rose, 'The Second G e n e r a t i o n : Academy & Breakthrough', A r t f o r u m, September, 1965.  3.  Harold  Rosenberg, 'The  1952,  p.  American A c t i o n P a i n t e r s ' , A r t News, December,  22.  4.  Marshall  McLuhan, The  5.  C a l v i n Tomkins, The  Medium i s the Massage, Bantam Books, 1967,  B r i d e , and  the B a c h e l o r s ,  V i k i n g Press,  p.  1962,  93.  p.  200.  I w i l l not go i n t o any d i s c u s s i o n on the d i f f e r e n c e s between Johns and Rauschenberg f u r t h e r than t h i s f o o t n o t e . Perhaps i t c o u l d be summarised by Edward Lucie-SmitHs comment t h a t : 'Of the two, Rauschenberg i s the more v a r i o u s and Johns i s the more e l e g a n t ; elegance has a genuine i f r a t h e r uneasy p a r t to p l a y i n any d i s c u s s i o n of what these two represent.' L a t e Modern:  The  V i s u a l A r t s Since  1945,  Praegar, 1969,  p.  122.  T h i s i s i n agreement w i t h P e l l e g r i n i ' s b e l i e f t h a t , u n l i k e Rauschenberg, Johns' p a i n t i n g i s so s e n s i t i v e 'That he i s a b l e to produce e x t r a - o r d i n a r y c o n t r a s t s t o the b a n a l i t y of the a r t i c l e s used.' New 6.  Tendencies i n A r t ,  Clement Greenberg, October, 1962,  (Trans.  Robin L a r s o n ) ,  'After Abstract  E l e k , London 1966,  Expressionism', Art  p.  215.  International,  p.27.  7 .  i b i d , p.  26-27.  8.  Nicolas Calas, p. 192.  9.  S t e i n b e r g asked Johns why he had i n s e r t e d these p l a s t e r c a s t s . was t h a t they happened to be l y i n g around i n the s t u d i o . Leo S t e i n b e r g , J a s p e r Johns, New York, 1963, p. 18. ( o r i g . p u b l i s h e d i n Metro, M i l a n , May 1962).  10.  Max  11.  Leo S t e i n b e r g , 'Contemporary A r t and Magazine, March 1962, p. 38.  Icons and  Images of the  S i x t i e s , Dutton Paperback,  K o z l o f f , Jasper Johns, Harry Abrams, New The  York, 1968,  p.  His  1971, answer  15.  P l i g h t of i t s P u b l i c ' , Harper's  76 12.  The degrees of a b s u r d i t y t h a t w r i t e r s have gone to i n order t o f i n d c o n c l u s i v e messages i n Johns' work should be mentioned. P i n c u s Witten's 'Theater of The C o n c e p t u a l : Autobiography and Myth', Artforum, October 1973, p. 41, e x p r e s s e s an attempt to prove t h a t Johns was aware o f Duchamp w e l l b e f o r e h i s r e a d i n g of L e b e l ' s book i n 1959 and t h e r e f o r e t h a t the t a r g e t was p a i n t e d to compliment Duchamp's c a s t , O b j e t Dard 1951 w i t h Johns r e a d i n g i t as ' d a r t ' . Such a tenuous thought would g i v e e q u a l v a l u e to the n o t i o n t h a t the t a r g e t image cameffrom Johns' a c q u a i n t a n s h i p w i t h Cage and Zen. H e r r i g e l ' s famous book, Zen and the A r t of A r c h e r y had been t r a n s l a t e d f o r the American p u b l i c i n 1953. I t was p r e f a c e d by D a i s e t z S u z u k i , under whom Cage was s t u d y i n g at the time; he would almost c e r t a i n l y have read i t . P i n c u s Witten's c l a i m i s no more v a l u a b l e than M e l v i l l e ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of F l a g on Orange F i e l d , 1957 as a p o l i t i c a l comment on America:, and the d r o p p i n g o f the atomic bomb: "The orange g l a r e at H i r o s h i m a ' - 'Master of the S t a r s and S t r i p e s ' , A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, March 1965, p. 226.  13.  David S y l v e s t e r , 'Jasper Johns a t the Whitechapel', unpub. t a l k on B.B.C. T h i r d Programme, December 12th, 1964 (excepted i n K o z l o f f Jasper J o h n s ) .  14.  K o z l o f f , J a s p e r Johns, p.  15.  See Henry G e l d z a h l e r , 'Numbers i n Time: Two American P a i n t i n g s ' , M e t r o p o l i t a n Museum B u l l e t i n , A p r i l 1965, pp. 295-298.  16.  Walter Hopps, 'An I n t e r v i e w w i t h J a s p e r Johns', A r t f o r u m , March 1965, 35.  17.  i b i d . , p.  18.  Seen i n t h i s l l i g h t the alphabet and n u m e r i c a l s e r i e s are a d i r e c t r e f u t a t i o n of S t e i n b e r g ' s analysisc.of the f l a t images. 'Was i t , I wonder, a p a i n f u l d e c i s i o n t h a t p a i n t was to be no l o n g e r a medium of t r a n s f o r m a t i o n ? P r o b a b l y n o t ; f o r the p a i n t e r i t must have been merely the t a k i n g of the next s t e p . But once taken, i t p l a c e d him at a p o i n t o u t s i d e the crowdedroom, whence one s u d d e n t l y saw how Franz K l i n e bundles w i t h Watteau and G i o t t o . For they are a l l a r t i s t s who use p a i n t and s u r f a c e to suggest e x i s t e n c i e s o t h e r than s u r f a c e and p a i n t ' . J a s p e r Johns, p. 18. This i s t r u e f o r the f l a g s and t a r g e t s but v e r y d e f i n i t e l y not the case w i t h the numeral and alphabet c h a r t s which have been transformed by the p a i n t a c t i v i t y t o suggest q u a l i t i e s they do not o r d i n a r i l y have.  19.  T h i s becomes even worse (or b e t t e r ) w i t h the l a t e r Colour Numerals s e r i e s of l i t h o g r a p h s , 1969 where we are p r e s e n t e d w i t h permutations of primary and secondary c o l o u r s as w e l l . In l o o k i n g a t Joseph Young's diagrams of t h i s s e r i e s (Art I n t e r n a t i o n a l , September 1969, p. 53) i t i s v e r y tempting t o s e a r c h f o r some meaning behind the graphs. T h i s comes a c r o s s so f o r c e f u l l y as to suggest i t o n l y b e i n g a matter of time b e f o r e the s t r u c t u r a l i s t s get h o l d o f i t .  20.  M a r s h a l l McLuhan, Understanding  14.  pp.  34-  35.  Media, McGraw H i l l ,  1964,  p.ll.  77 21.  K o z l o f f , Jasper Johns, p .  22.  Johns, t o g e t h e r w i t h Rauschenberg and R o s e n q u i s t , was i n v i t e d by the S u r r e a l i s t s to e x h i b i t w i t h them i n the 1960, ' I n t e r n a t i o n a l E x h i b i t i o n of S u r r e a l i s m ' , d'Arey G a l l e r i e s , New York.  23.  See A l a n Solomon ' P a i n t i n g i n New November 1969  - January  19.  1970  York: 1944  - p.  24.  Hopps, Artforum, March 1965,  25.  S t e i n b e r g , J a s p e r Johns, p.  26.  K o z l o f f , J a s p e r Johns, p.  27.  i b i d . , p.  28.  R o s a l i n d Krauss, J a s p e r Johns, p.  29.  S t e i n b e r g , J a s p e r Johns, p. 23-24.  30.  See Barbara Rose, 'The  to 1969', Pasadena A r t Museum,  15.  p. 35-36. 27.  21.  21. 89.  G r a p h i c Work of J a s p e r Johns. P a r t I ' ,  Artforum,  March 1970, pp. 39-45. Rose saw l i t h o g r a p h y as g a i n i n g the s u r f a c e i n t e g r i t y t h a t Johns, having a c h i e v e d i n h i s e a r l i e r work,loses from F a l s e S t a r t on when he becomes a p a i n t e r of space, and views the l a t t e r as some s o r t of compromise. She i s c o r r e c t i n a s s e r t i n g t h a t Johns' e a r l i e r work i s non-Cubist f o r the v e r y f a c t t h a t none of them a r e concerned w i t h r e c o n c i l i n g t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n w i t h the picture plane. But Rose i s wrong i n assuming he i s not a s p a t i a l p a i n t e r d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . In f a c t we c o u l d argue t h a t Johns has i n v e r t e d the C u b i s t procedure s i n c e h i s f l a g s , e t c . are r e c o n c i l i a t i o n s of the i l l u s i o n i s m of a p a i n t e r l y s u r f a c e t o f l a t images. Greenberg h i n t s a t something c l o s e to t h i s : ' E v e r y t h i n g t h a t u s u a l l y s e r v e s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and i l l u s i o n i s l e f t to s e r v e n o t h i n g but i t s e l f , t h a t i s a b s t r a c t i o n ; w h i l e e v e r y t h i n g t h a t u s u a l l y connotes the a b s t r a c t of d e c o r a t i v e - f l a t n e s s bare o u t l i n e s , a l l over o r symmetrical d e s i g n - i s put t o the s e r v i c e of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ' ( G r e e n b e r g , A r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l , October 1962, p. 27). T h i s would h e l p t o e x p l a i n Johns' use of e n c a u s t i c and c o l l a g e i n t h a t an o i l medium, w i t h such 'a p r i o r i ' s t r u c t u r i n g as the f l a g image f o r i n s t a n c e , would not be so s u c c e s s f u l i n g e n e r a t i n g the i l l u s i o n i s m i n h e r e n t i n p a i n t i n g t h a t Johns wished t o r e t a i n . Rose intended - and c o n t i n u e s d o i n g so* - to e s t a b l i s h h e r s e l f as an a u t h o r i t y through way of an adventure i n t o Johns' g r a p h i c s , p o s i n g t h a t s p a t i a l s u g g e s t i o n was taboo f o r Johns and t h a t g r a p h i c s became the o n l y v i a b l e medium. But, as I hope to emphasise l a t e r , the r e t e n t i o n of the s u r f a c e ' s i n t e g r i t y was not the o b j e c t of Johns' work so much as an e x p l o r a t i o n i n t o the a b s u r d i t y of . a t t e m p t i n g such a s o l u t i o n . *  (I am indebted to P r o f . George Rosenberg f o r h i s resume on Barbara Rose's t a l k at the 1974 Annual Meeting of the C.A.A. h e l d i n D e t r o i t : Recent Graphic Works of J a s p e r Johns From R e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o R e p r o d u c t i o n ) .  78 31.  ' I t seems r i d i c u l o u s t o speak o f the d e c l i n e of an a r t i s t not y e t t h i r t y f i v e y e a r s o l d . Yet t h a t i s the c o n c l u s i o n I f e e l one has to draw from the J a s p e r Johns r e t r o s p e c t i v e a t the Jewish Museum.... t h e r e i s c e r t a i n l y l e s s i r o n y i n h i s new p a i n t i n g s . There i s i n s t e a d a s o r t of v i s u a l k i n k i n e s s , and even as a f a c i l e t e c h n i c i a n Johns has become a l i t t l e seedy.' Sidney T i l l i m , 'Ten Years of J a s p e r Johns', A r t s Magazine, A p r i l 1964, pp. 22-26.  32.  Hopps, A r t f o r u m , March 1965, p. 35.  33.  'At the s t i l l p o i n t o f the t u r n i n g w o r l d . N e i t h e r f l e s h nor f l e s h l e s s ; N e i t h e r from nor towards; at the s t i l l p o i n t , t h e r e the dance i s , But n e i t h e r a r r e s t n o r movement. And do not c a l l i t f i x i t y , Where p a s t and f u t u r e a r e g a t h e r e d . N e i t h e r movement from n o r towards, N e i t h e r a s c e n t nor d e c l i n e . Except f o r the p o i n t , the s t i l l p o i n t . There would be no dance, and t h e r e i s o n l y the dance.' T.S. E l i o t ,  C o l l e c t e d Poems 1909-1962, Faber, 1963, p.  191.  34.  L i k e w i s e John Cage went i n t o an anechoic chamber a n t i c i p a t i n g he may exper i e n c e pure s i l e n c e and ended up h e a r i n g h i s own body. At the r i s k of s c h o l a r s h i p , i t i s tempting to draw such p a r a l l e l s between the two friends. We wonder i f perhaps Johns may have used the chance methods of Cage precedence i n d e t e r m i n i n g where and what l a b e l s would be used in False Start. Very o c c a s i o n a l l y the' l a b e l s may match up w i t h the c o l o u r s but how more i n t e r e s t i n g i t i s when the two are i n wide d i s agreement. Then t h e awareness of c o l o u r becomes f a r r i c h e r . It i s l i k e the I Ching i n t h a t the more d i s j o i n t e d a r e t h e hexagrams the g r e a t e r need t h e r e i s to e x e r c i s e one's f a c u l t i e s .  35.  K r a u s s , J a s p e r Johns, p. 88.  36.  C a l a s , Icons and Images, p.  37.  Hopps, p.  38.  K r a u s s , J a s p e r Johns, p. 88.  39.  Solomon, Jewish Museum C a t a l o g u e , p. 13.  40.  G. R. Art  74.  36.  Swenson, 'What i s Pop A r t ? - An I n t e r v i e w w i t h J a s p e r Johns'. News, F e b r u a r y 1964, p.  67.  41.  S t e i n b e r g , J a s p e r Johns, p.  42. 43.  Rosenberg, A r t News, December 1952, p. 22. M i c h a e l Levy, E a r l y R e n a i s s a n c e , S t y l e and C i v i l i s a t i o n S e r i e s , Penguin 1967, p.  123.  24.  Books,  79 44.  o p . c i t . , p. 23. In Cage's, 'Jasper Johns; S t o r i e s and Ideas', he quotes Johns as r e g a r d i n g t h e dancer, Merce Cunningham's f o o t as 'another k i n d o f r u l e r ' . (John Cage, A Year From Monday, Wesleyan U n i v . P r e s s 1963, p. 82.  45.  Michael F r i e d ,  'New York L e t t e r ' , A r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l ,  46.  K o z l o f f , J a s p e r Johns, p. 30.  47.  V i v i e n Raynor, 'Jasper Johns,  48.  Rose, C.A.A. 1974.  (Interview)'  F e b r u a r y , 1963, p. 61.  A r t News, March, 1973, p. 22.  80 FOOTNOTES  CHAPTER  TWO  1.  G. R. Swenson,; 'What i s Pop A r t ? - An A r t News, February 1964, p. 66.  2.  See Bernhard L e i t n e r , The A r c h i t e c t u r e of Ludwig W i t t g e n s t e i n , Nova S c o t i a C o l l e g e of A r t and Design, ( c o - p u b l i s h e d by S t u d i o I n t e r n a t i o n a l , London) 1973. Bernhard L e i t n e r , ' W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s  3.  See  I n t e r v i e w w i t h Jasper  A r c h i t e c t u r e ' , Artforum  the r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d book by A l a n J a n i k and  Wittgenstein's  V i e n n a , Simon and  Schuster,  New  York  Norman Malcolm, Ludwig W i t t g e n s t e i n : A Memoir, Oxford  5.  Ludwig W i t t g e n s t e i n ,  Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus,  #1.21, p.  #2.0232, p.  1970.  1973. Paperback, 1958, Routledge and  ibid.,  7. 8.  i b i d . , #2.02331, p. 11. See George H e n r i k von Wright's  Kegan  11.  W i t t g e n s t e i n : A Memoir, p.  ' B i o g r a p h i c a l Sketch'  published  i n Malcolm,  8.  9.  op.  3.  10.  ibid.,  #4.462, p.  11.  ibid.,  #6.41, p.  12.  i b i d . , p. x x i .  13.  ibid.,  14. 15.  Malcolm, W i t t g e n s t e i n : A Memoir, p. 69. W i t t g e n s t e i n , P h i l o s o p h i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , ( t r a n s . G.E.M. Anscombe) B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1958, #3, p. 3e.  16..  ibid.,  #6,  17.  ibid.,  #32,  p. 15e-16e.  18.  ibid.,  #43,  p.  19.  ibid.,  #23,  p. l i e .  20.  ibid.,  #67.,  p.  32e.  21.  ibid.,  #98,  p.  45e.  22.  J u s t u s Hartnack, W i t t g e n s t e i n and Modern P h i l o s o p h y Cranston) Methuen, 1962, p. 67.  p.  69. 145.  #6.54, p.  p.46.  7.  6.  c i t . , p.  February  Stephen Toulmin  4.  P a u l , 1961,  Johns',  151.  5e.  20e.  ( t r a n s . Maurice  81 23.  op. c i t . , #309, p. 103e.  24.  ibid.,  #109, p. 47e.  25.  ibid.,  #153, p. 60e.  26.  i b i d . , #323, p'. 106e.  27.  ibid.,  28.  K. T. Fann, W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s Conception o f P h i l o s o p h y , B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1969, p. 107.  29.  op. c i t . , #415, p. 125e.  #180, p. 73e.  82 FOOTNOTES  CHAPTER THREE  1.  V i v i e n Raynor, A r t News, March 1973, p. 22.  2.  N i c o l a s C a l a s , Icons and Images o f the S i x t i e s , p. 76.  3.  Max K o z l o f f , Jasper  4.  Ludwig W i t t g e n s t e i n ,  5.  pp. c i t . , p. 40.  6.  i b i d . , p. 40.  7.  i b i d . , p. 27-28.  8.  W i t t g e n s t e i n , P h i l o s o p h i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , #14, p. 7e.  9.  op. c i t . , p. 40.  10.  ibid.,  11.  Wittgenstein,  12.  Johns has used t h e r u l e r b e f o r e i n P a i n t i n g With Ruler and "Gray", and i t would be a s h o r t step t o s u b s t i t u t e t h e s t i c k of D e v i c e w i t h a r u l e r from t h i s p r e c e d e n t . Good Time C h a r l e y 1961 a l s o uses a r u l e r .  13.  op. c i t . , #552, p. 147e (abbrev.  14.  Rosalind Krauss,  15.  Johns, p. 40. T r a c t a t u s , #2.202 - #2.21, p. 17.  p. 41. I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , #33, p. 16e.  'Jasper  by K r a u s s ) .  Johns', Lugano Review, v o l . 1, no. 2, 1965, p. 92.  T h e spoon and w i r e b e l o n g t o Out The Window IT whereas the f o r k and w i r e b e l o n g t o Passage not v i c e v e r s a .  16.  op. c i t . , p. 93.  17.  Wittgenstein,  18.  ibid.,  I n v e s t i g a t i o n s #73, p. 34e-35e.  #47, p. 22e-23e.  CHAPTER FOUR  FOOTNOTES 1.  V i v i e n Raynor, A r t News, March 1973, p. 20.  2.  Michael F r i e d ,  'New York L e t t e r ' A r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l , February 1963, p. 60-61  F r i e d l i k e n s Johns' development t o the Renaissance/Mannerism transtion: ' S i m i l a r l y I t a l i a n Mannerist'.architects d e l i b e r a t e l y accentuated the a m b i g u i t i e s and begged q u e s t i o n s i n h e r e n t i n the great achievements o f t h e High Renaissance', p. 61. 3.  See H i l t o n Kramer, 'Month i n Review', A r t Magazine, February 1959, p. 49 Newsweek ( e d i t o r i a l ) March 31st, 1958, p. 94-96. 'His Heart Belongs to Dada',  -  Time, May 4 t h , 1959 p.58,'  M i c h e l Ragon, Cimaise, January, 1959. P i e r r e S c h e i d e r , ' A r t News from P a r i s ' , 'Art News, March 1959, p. 48 Emily  Genauer, New York H e r a l d T r i b u n e , A p r i l 3rd, 1960.  4.  J a s p e r Johns,  'Duchamp', Scrap, v o l . 1. December 23rd, 1960.  5.  M a r c e l Duchamp: From t h e Green Box, ( t r a n s . Hamilton)  6.  Walter Hopps, A r t f o r u m , p. 35.  7.  P i e r r e Cabanne, D i a l o g u e s w i t h M a r c e l Duchamp (trans.' Ron Padgett) P r e s s , 1971, p. 77.  8.  i b i d . , p. 53.  9.  J a s p e r Johns,  10.  W i t t g e n s t e i n , I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , #109, p.47e.  New Haven 1960.  Viking  'Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968)', A r t f o r u m , November 1968.  T h i s passage i s e x p l a n a t o r y enough t o counter T i l l i m ' s c o m p l a i n t : 'But t h e r e i s no deep engagement o f p a i n t and o b j e c t so t h a t a new and g r e a t e r s i n g l e v i s u a l g e n e r a l i t y does n o t r e s u l t . On the whole t h i s has been Johns' " c r i s i s " , one from which he has n o t e x t r i c a t e d h i m s e l f . ' A r t s Magazine, A p r i l 1964, p. 26. 11.  K o z l o f f , J a s p e r Johns, p. 10.  12.  op. c i t . , p. 202e.  LEAF 84 OMITTED IN PAGE NUMBERING.  85 13.  C a l a s , i n Icons and  Images e l a b o r a t e s on t h i s phenomenon:  'Experimentation i n a r t has had the p a r a d o x i c a l e f f e c t of making of methodology the s u b j e c t matter of a r t , an i d e a most e l o q u e n t l y i l l u s t r a t e d i n L i c h t e n s t e i n ' s use of the b r u s h - s t r o k e as the cont e n t o f a new image. In the s i x t i e s a r t i l l u s t r a t e s methodology the way the i m a g i s t s of o l d i l l u s t r a t e d the Le'gende Doree, w i t h t h i s d i f f e r e n c e , t h a t today i t i s the c r i t i c who has to j u s t i f y the use of t h i s new s u b j e c t matter', p. 17-18. 14.  Jasper  Johns, 'Sketchbook Notes', A r t and  15.  op.  16.  K o z l o f f , p.  17.  Wittgenstein,  18.  i b i d . , #140,  19.  Robert M e l v i l l e d e s c r i b e s such c r i t i c i s m where the motto seems to be, ' i f i t l o o k s d i f f i c u l t make i t d i f f i c u l t ' , as a p r o c e s s of 'mystery-mongering'. (Master of the S t a r s and S t r i p e s ) , A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, March 1965, p. 226.  20.  R i c h a r d F i e l d , J a s p e r Johns: P r i n t s 1960-1970, P h i l a d e l p h i a Museum of A r t , A p r i l 15th - June 14th, 1970.  21.  N i c o l a s Calas has i t as a p r o c e s s  c i t . , p.  L i t e r a t u r e , S p r i n g 1965,  p.  185.  18. 10. I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , #139, p.  p.  54e.  553.  a l r e a d y come to terms w i t h h i s r o l e as c r i t i c , of s e l f - k n o w l e d g e not d e c e i t :  valuing  'Let us go on w a t c h i n g how Johns performs, how he r e p e a t s a move, or t r i e s a new manoeuvre, p i t t i n g b l a c k a g a i n s t w h i t e , green a g a i n s t r e d , b l u e a g a i n s t orange. I w i l l watch h i s performance i n and game.' Icons and Images, p. 82. Pears, W i t t g e n s t e i n ,  out of h i s game, f o r t h i s  22.  David  23.  John Cage, A Year From Monday, Wesleyan U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973,  24.  Richard F i e l d ,  Jasper  Fontana Modern M a s t e r s , 1971,  p.  i s my  173. p. 75-76.  Johns: P r i n t s  F i e l d quotes Johns' comment i n h i s Notes: "Japanese p h o n e t i c 'NO' (possessive ' o f ' ) . " Johns has v i s i t e d Japan a number o f times and F i e l d extends the q u e s t i o n of o p p o s i t i o n w i t h t h i s i n mind. 'Thus the 'NO' i m p l i e s a YES, j u s t as the Noh Theater i m p l i e s i t s o p p o s i t e , Kabuki.' 25.  A l a n Solomon, Jewish Museum Catalogue,  p.  15.  26.  W i t t g e n s t e i n , L e c t u r e s and C o n v e r s a t i o n s on A e s t h e t i c s , Psychology R e l i g i o u s B e l i e f , (ed C y r i l B a r r e t t ) B l a c k w e l l , 1966, p. 38-39.  and  86 27.  John Cage, S i l e n c e , M.I.T. P r e s s , 1961,  p.  102.  28.  K o z l o f f , J a s p e r Johns, p. 34. Rosenberg i n 'Things the Mind A l r e a d y Knows' a s s o c i a t e s the sweeping a c t i o n of the broom as a n o s t a l g i a towards the t a r g e t m o t i f . The Anxious O b j e c t , H o r i z o n P r e s s , 1964, p. 183.  29.  Quoted i n Solomon, Jewish Museum Catalogue, p.  30.  John Cage, A Year From Monday, p.  31.  Andrew Forge, 'The Emperor's F l a g ' , The New 11th, 1964, p. 938.  32.  Johns, Sketchbook Notes, p. 185. T h i s a r e a i s the same t h a t concerned Leonardo and t h a t Johns p i c k e d up on, namely t h a t a r e a where the boundary of a body i s n e i t h e r a p a r t of the e n c l o s e d body nor a p a r t of the s u r r o u n d i n g atmosphere.  33.  W i t t g e n s t e i n , I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , p. 202e.  34.  The t i t l e Passage c o u l d have come from Hart Crane's poem of the same name which i n t u r n comes from Walt Whitman's Passage t o I n d i a . Barbara Rose i n her C.A.A. t a l k suggests i t comes from Duchamp's The V i r g i n ' s Passage t o the B r i d e . E q u a l l y i t c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d Cezanne's use of 'passage' - t h e r u n n i n g t o g e t h e r o f p l a n e s o t h e r w i s e s e p a r a t e d i n space - as we see a r e f e r e n c e t o the same i d e a of Cezanne's i n Johns Sketchbook Notes (p. 187) and i n a quote i n c l u d e d i n Cage's 'Jasper Johns" S t o r e s and Ideas' (A Year From Monday, p. 79).  35.  Hart Crane, C o l l e c t e d Poems of tart Crane (ed. and L i v e r i g h t I n c . , 1933, p. 32.  36.  W i t t g e n s t e i n , Inve s t i gat i o n s, p. 195e-196e.  16.  71. Statesman, v o l . 68, December  i n t r o . Waldo Frank)  Gombrich r e f e r s t o t h i s image i n A r t and I l l u s i o n London, Phaidon p. 5-6. 'True, we can s w i t c h from one r e a d i n g to another w i t h i n c r e a s i n g r a p i d i t y ; we w i l l a l s o "remember" the r a b b i t w h i l e we see the duck, but the more c l o s e l y we watch o u r s e l v e s , the more c e r t a i n l y we w i l l d i s c o v e r t h a t we cannot e x p e r i e n c e a l t e r n a t i v e r e a d i n g s a t the same time. I l l u s i o n , we w i l l f i n d , i s hard t o d e s c r i b e or a n a l y z e , f o r though we may be i n t e l l e c t u a l l y aware of the f a c t t h a t any g i v e n e x p e r i e n c e must be an i l l u s i o n , we cannot, s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , watch o u r s e l v e s h a v i n g an i l l u s i o n ' . 37.  Krauss,  J a s p e r Johns, p.  92.  38.  K o z l o f f , J a s p e r Johns, p.  39.  'The c a p t u r e d fume of space foams i n our e a r s ' arid i s p e n e t r a t e d by the p r e s e n t day image, the a e r o p l a n e : 'Man hears h i m s e l f an engine i n a c l o u d ... the n a s a l whine of power whips a new u n i v e r s e . ' Hart Crane, C o l l e c t e d Poems, p. 32-34.  34.  87 40.  W i t t g e n s t e i n , I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , p.  198e.  41.  ibid.,  #198,  p.  80e.  42.  ibid.,  #199,  p.  81e.  43.  ibid.,  #454, p.  44.  Johns, i n f a c t , i s o f t e n d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s way. V i v i a n Raynor s a y s : ' N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t i s hard - and p o i n t l e s s p r o b a b l y to t r y - to r e c o n c i l e Johns' aura o f s o c i a b i l i t y w i t h the o t h e r i m p r e s s i o n of almost p r i e s t l y a p a r t n e s s . ' A r t News, March., 1973, p. 22.  132e.  Cage w r i t e s : 'The thermostats a r e f i x e d t o the r a d i a t o r s but l e a d i n e f f e c t u a l l y t o two bare w i r e s . The Jaguar r e p a i r e d and ready t o run s i t s i n a garage unused. I t has been t h e r e s i n c e October. An e l e c t r i c i a n came t o f i x the thermostats but went away b e f o r e h i s work was f i n i s h e d and never returned.The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the r e g i s t r a t i o n of the c a r has not been found ... For odd t r i p s a c a r i s rented. I f i t g e t s too hot a window i s opened. The f r e e z e r i s f u l l of books.' A Year From Monday, p. 78-79. 45.  K.  T. Fann, Wittgenstein:?^ Conception  of P h i l o s o p h y , p.  110.  46.  Johns, Sketchbook Notes, p.  47.  i b i d . , p. 185-187.  48.  See  49.  Barbara Rose, draws the same p a r a l l e l between the Sketchbook Notes and Investigations. C.A.A., 1974.  50.  W i t t g e n s t e i n , I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , #56,  192.  F i e l d , Jasper Johns: P r i n t s 1960-1970.  p.  28e.  W i l l i a m Lycan i n h i s a r t i c l e , 'Gombrich, W i t t g e n s t e i n , and the DuckR a b b i t , J o u r n a l o f A e s t h e t i c s , v o l . 30, Winter 1971, examines the degree to which A r t and I l l u s i o n and the I n v e s t i g a t i o n s a r e i n agreement. He c i t e s an example of a c t u a l c o l o u r d u a l i s m : 'But c o n s i d e r the c o l o u r of a s l i p of l i t m u s paper i n a p e r f e c t l y n e u t r a l e l e c t r o l y t i c solution. Sometimes i t i s l i t e r a l l y i m p o s s i b l e t o say whether the paper i s b l u e or p i n k . In t h i s case, "Now I see i t as b l u e ... now p i n k " makes sense, even i f the c o l o u r o f i t h e paper a c t u a l l y remains c o n s t a n t . ' p. 236. 51.  ibid.,  #59,  p.  29e.  52.  M a r s h a l l McLuhan, Understanding Media, p. 5. Johns: P r i n t s 1960-1970, 1970.  53.  Rose, C.A.A.  1974.  Quoted i n F i e l d  Jasper  88 54.  Walter Hopps i n the b r o c h u r e f o r Gemini's e d i t i o n of Johns' l i t h o g r a p h s Fragments - A c c o r d i n g t o What, A p r i l 1971 takes t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n t o absurd l e n g t h s : 'Both p a i n t i n g s a r e of e l o n g a t e d and h o r i z o n t a l format, combine v a r i o u s p a i n t i n g and g r a p h i c t e c h n i q u e s , i n c l u d e l i t e r a l ' o b j e c t s and the i l l u s i o n of o t h e r l i t e r a l o b j e c t s and p o r t r a y images d e r i v e d s p e c i f i c a l l y from p r i o r work? We have simply t o l o o k at a Rauschenberg, Dine, Wesselman, e t c . t o see how Johns' p a i n t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y f i t s Tu m' .  55.  Johns, Sketchbook Notes, p.  56.  K r a u s s , J a s p e r Johns, p.  57.  C a l a s , Icons and Images, p. 81.  58.  W i t t g e n s t e i n , I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , p. 207e.  59.  Dore Ashton, 'An I n t e r v i e w w i t h M a r c e l Duchamp', S t u d i o June 1966, p.  185.  94.  International  245.  60.  F i e l d , J a s p e r Johns: P r i n t s 1960-1970.  61.  W i t t g e n s t e i n , I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , p.  62.  Johns,  63.  op. c i t . ,  64.  Johns, Sketchbook Notes, p.  65.  op. c i t . ,  66.  i b i d . , #74,  215e.  'Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968)', A r t f o r u m , November,  1968.  p. 226e.  p.  192.  193e. p.  35e.  As an a s i d e , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t i n K o z l o f f ' s r e p r o d u c t i o n the shadow c a s t by the bent coat-hanger and w i r e t h a t i s a t t a c h e d , a c c i d e n t a l l y i s t a n g e n t i a l t o t h e bends. In the Fragments - A c c o r d i n g to What l i t h o g r a p h : Coathanger and Spoon t h i s l i n e i s r e p r e s e n t e d by one p a i n t e d i n the c o l o u r s o f the rainbow or spectrum. Johns used K o z l o f f ' s r e p r o d u c t i o n as a model r a t h e r than j u s t the work i t s e l f (Walter Hopps, Gemini b r o c h u r e , 1971) and the spectrum l i n e becomes a comment on the n a t u r e of l i g h t t h a t c a s t s the shadow. 67.  Quoted p.  i n Maurice Tuchman, The New  76.  York S c h o o l , Thames and Hudson,  1965,  89 FOOTNOTES  CONCLUSION  1.  Wittgenstein,  Investigations,  #133, p. 51e.  2.  V i v i e n Raynor, A r t News, March 1973, p. 21.  3.  Cage, A Year From Monday, p. 77.  4.  op. c i t . , p. 21.  5.  G. R. Swenson, A r t News, February 1964, p. 67.  6.  'I o b j e c t t o none anymore. Swenson, p. 43.  7.  Joseph Young, A r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l , September 1969, p. 54.  8.  i b i d . , p. 54.  9.  Raynor, A r t News, p . 21.  10.  Swenson, A r t News, p. 66.  11.  A s p e c t a c u l a r example o f t h i s type o f w r i t i n g i s found i n K o z l o f f ' s 'Johns and Duchamp', A r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l , March 1964, p. 45. 'Each o f Johns' s t r o k e s i s a l a r v a l p a l p i t a t i o n o f p l e a s u r e i n the l i v e n e s s o f the pigment - a s t r o k e whose morbidezza and cadenced slowness s t r i v e s t o i d e a t e sense i t s e l f . '  12.  Cage, A Year From Monday, p. 83.  I used t o o b j e c t  t o each as i t o c c u r r e d ' .  90  PLATES  91  PLATE I  F l a g , 1954. E n c a u s t i c and c o l l a g e on canvas 41-1/4 x 60-3/4" C o l l e c t i o n P h i l i p Johnson, New Canaan C o n n e c t i c u t .  PLATE I I  Target With P l a s t e r C a s t s , 1955. E n c a u s t i c and c o l l a g e on canvas w i t h p l a s t e r c a s t s , 51 x 44 x 3-1/2". Collection Mr. and Mrs. Leo C a s t e l l i , New York.  92  m\\W \WW\W\x  PLATE IV  C o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h Toy Piano, 1954. G r a p h i t e and c o l l a g e w i t h toy p i a n o , 11 x 9 x 21". C o l l e c t i o n Mr. and Mrs. R. S c u l l , New York.  PLATE V  U n t i t l e d , 1954.  O i l and c o l l a g e w i t h p l a s t e r c a s t , 26-1/4 x  PLATE VI  Large Green T a r g e t , 1955. E n c a u s t i c and c o l l a g e on canvas, 60 x 60". Museum of Modern A r t , New York.  PLATE VIII  F i g u r e 5, 1955. E n c a u s t i c and C o l l e c t i o n the a r t i s t .  c o l l a g e on canvas 17-1/2 x  14"  95  PLATE IX  Charles Demuth. I Saw The Figure 5 i n Gold, 1928. O i l 36 x 29-3/4". Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.  PLATE X  Gray Alphabets, 1956. Encaustic and collage on canvas 66 x 49". Private c o l l e c t i o n .  PLATE XI  PLATE XII  Collection Mr. and Mrs. John Powers.  Gray Alphabets, 1956.  D e t a i l of Plate X.  PLATE X I I I  U n t i t l e d , c.1954. O i l and J a n s s , Los Angeles.  PLATE XIV  Tango, 1955. Mr. and Mrs.  collage  on s i l k .  C o l l e c t i o n Edwin  E n c a u s t i c on canvas 43 x 55". Collection Burton Tremaine, Meriden, C o n n e c t i c u t .  PLATE XVI  Canvas, 1956. E n c a u s t i c and c o l l a g e on wood and canvas 30 x 25". C o l l e c t i o n the a r t i s t .  99  PLATE XVII  Drawer, 1957. E n c a u s t i c on canvas and wood, 30-1/2 x 30-1/2 Rose A r t Museum, B r a n d e i s U n i v e r s i t y , M a s s a c h u s e t t s .  PLATE X V I I I  Gray R e c t a n g l e s , 1957. E n c a u s t i c on canvas, 60 x 60" C o l l e c t i o n Mr. and Mrs. V i c t o r Ganz, New York  PLATE XIX  P a i n t i n g With a B a l l , 1958. E n c a u s t i c on canvas 31-1/2 x 24-1/2. C o l l e c t i o n Edward Power, London.  PLATE XX California.  PLATE XXI  PLATE XXII  The, 1957. Encaustic on canvas, 24 x 20". Herbert Lee, Belmont, Massachusetts.  Collection Mrs.  Shade, 1959. Encaustic on canvas with objects, 52 x 39". C o l l e c t i o n Mrs. Leo Steinberg, New York.  PLATE XXIV  Delaunay, Windows on the C i t y , 1912.  PLATE XXV  F a l s e S t a r t , 1959. O i l on canvas, 67-1/4 x 54". Mr. and Mrs. R. S c u l l , New York.  Collection  PLATE XXVI  Magritte, The Use of Words, 1928-29, 21-1/2 x 28-1/2, W i l l i a m Copley, New York.  PLATE XXVII  Jubilee, 1959. O i l on canvas 67-1/4 x 54". Robert Rauschenberg, New York.  Collection  PLATE XXVIII  Out the Window, 1959. Encaustic and collage on canvas 54-1/2 x 40". Collection Mr. and Mrs. R. S c u l l , New York.  105  PLATE XXIX  PLATE XXX  Painting with Two B a l l s , 1 9 6 0 . canvas with objects, 65 x 5 4 " .  Encaustic and collage on C o l l e c t i o n the a r t i s t .  106  PLATE XXXII  P a i n t i n g w i t h R u l e r and "Gray", 1960. O i l and c o l l a g e on canvas w i t h o b j e c t s , 32 x 32". C o l l e c t i o n Mr. and Mrs. Helman S t . L o u i s .  PLATE XXXIV  108  PLATE XXXVI  Passage, 1962. Encaustic and collage on canvas with objects, 54 x 40". C o l l e c t i o n Georges Marci de Saqqarah, Gstaad, Switzerland.  PLATE XXXVIII  Out the Window I I , 1962. O i l on canvas w i t h 72 x 48". C o l l e c t i o n the a r t i s t .  objects,  PLATE XXXIX  F i e l d P a i n t i n g , 1963-64. O i l on canvas w i t h 72 x 36-3/4. C o l l e c t i o n the a r t i s t .  PLATE XXXX  The C r i t i c Sees, 1961. Sculpmetal on p l a s t e r w i t h glass. 3-1/4 x 6-1/4 x 2". C o l l e c t i o n Mr. and Mrs. R. S c u l l , New York.  objects.  Ill  PLATE XXXXI  No, 1961. Encaustic c o l l a g e and s c u l p metal on canvas w i t h o b j e c t s , 68 x 40". Collection the a r t i s t .  112  PLATE XXXXIII  Land's End, 1963. O i l on canvas w i t h wood. C o l l e c t i o n Edwin Janss, Los A n g e l e s .  67 x 48".  PLATE XXXXIV  D i v e r , 1962. O i l on canvas w i t h o b j e c t s 90 x 170". A l b e r t A. L i s t Family C o l l e c t i o n .  113  PLATE XXXXVI  According to What, 1964. O i l on canvas with objects, 88 x 192". C o l l e c t i o n Edwin Janss, Los Angeles.  PLATE XXXXVII  Duchamp Tu m', 1918. Katherine S. Dreier.  27-1/2 x 122-3/4.  Collection  PLATE XXXXIX  Cup  4 Picasso,  1972  l i t h o g r a p h , Leo  Castelli  Gallery.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  117: 'The E v o l u t i o n o f J a s p e r Johns'. (September, 1969), p. 40.  A l l o w a y , Lawrence.  A r t s Magazine, v o l . XLIV  'Popular C u l t u r e and Pop A r t ' . S t u d i o I n t e r n a t i o n a l , v o l . 178 ( J u l y / A u g u s t , 1969), pp. 16-21. Essay i n S i x P a i n t e r s and the O b j e c t c a t a l o g u e o f e x h i b i t i o n New York: Guggenheim Museum, 1963. 'Spectrum of the Monochrome'. (December, 1970), p. 30.  A r t s Magazine, v o l . XLV  A r t News, v o l . 65, (March,  1966)  A s h b e r r y , John.  'Brooms and P r i s m s ' pp. 58-59+.  Ashton, Dore.  ' A c c e l e r a t i o n i n D i s c o v e r y and Consumption'. Studios I n t e r n a t i o n a l , v o l . CLXXV (May, 1964), p. 212. 'An i n t e r v i e w w i t h M a r c e l Duchamp'. S t u d i o v o l . CLXXI (June 1960), pp. 244-247.  B a t t c o c k , Gregory ( e d . ) . Minimal A r t : Paperbacks, 1968. The New  International,  A C r i t i c a l Anthology, New  A r t , New  York; Dutton  York, Dutton Paperbacks,  1966.  B e r n s t e i n , R o b e r t a . I n t r o d u c t i o n to J a s p e r Johns:Decoy, The P r i n t and The P a i n t i n g , e x h i t . c a t . , H o f s t r a U n i v e r s i t y : E m i l y Lowe G a l l e r y , 1972. Cabanne, P i e r r e .  D i a l o g u e s w i t h M a r c e l Duchamp ( t r a n s l a t e d Ron New York: V i k i n g P r e s s , 1971.  Cage, John.  A Year From Monday: New L e c t u r e s and W r i t i n g s , Middletown, C o n n e c t i c u t . Wesleyan U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969. Siiencei,• cCambridge-, Mass.  M.I.T. P r e s s ,  Calas, Nicolas.  Icons and Images of the S i x t i e s , New Paperback, 1971.  C a v e l l , Stanley.  Must We Mean What We  Contemporary  Say?, New  York:  G r a p h i c s P u b l i s h e d by U.L.A.E., M i n n e a p o l i s : 1968.  Padgett),  1961.  York:  Dutton  Scribner, Dayton's  1969. Gallery,  Crane, H a r t .  C o l l e c t e d Poems of H a r t Crane (ed. and i n t r o . Waldo F r a n k ) , New York: L i v e r i g h t I n c . , 1933.  Domingo, W i l l i s .  'Meaning i n the A r t of M a r c e l Duchamp', A r t f orum, v o l . IX (January, 1972), p. 63.  du P l e s s i x , F r a n c i n e  (ed.). ' P a i n t e r s and P o e t s ' , A r t i n America, v o l . 53 (October/November, 1965), pp. 24-56.  118 F a c t o r , Donald.  (Review) A r t f o r u m , v o l . 1 ( F e b r u a r y , 1963), p. 17.  Fann, K. T.  W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s C o n c e p t i o n of P h i l o s o p h y , L o n d o n : . B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1969.  Field,  Richard.  J a s p e r Johns: P r i n t s 1960-1970, New Museum of A r t , 1970.  Fried,  Michael.  'New York Letter'., A r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l , v o l . V I I ( F e b r u a r y , 1963), p. 60-62.  York:  Philadelphia  Three American P a i n t e r s , Noland, S t e l l a , O l i t s k i , Cambridge, Mass.: Fogg A r t Museum, 21st A p r i l - 30th 1965.  May,  Forge, Andrew.  'The Emperor's F l a g ' . The New Statesman, v o l . 68 (December 11th, 1964), pp..938-939.  Geldzahler,  'Numbers i n Time: Two American P a i n t i n g s ' . Metropolitan Museum B u l l e t i n , v o l . 23 ( A p r i l , 1965), pp. 295-298.  Henry.  Gottlieb,  Carla.  'The Pregnant Woman, The F l a g , the Eye: Three New Themes i n 20th Century A r t ' . J o u r n a l o f A e s t h e t i c s and A r t C r i t i c i s m (Winter, 1962), p. 117+.  Gombrich,  E.H.  Art  and I l l u s i o n .  London, Phaidon,  1960.  Gray, C l e v e .  'Tatyana Grosman's Workshop,'. A r t i n America, v o l . 53 (December/January, 1965-66), pp. 83-85.  Greenberg, Clement.  'After Abstract Expressionism'. Art International, v o l . 6 (October, 1962), pp. 24-32. 'Post P a i n t e r l y A b s t r a c t i o n ' . (Summer, 1964), pp. 63-65.  Art International, v o l . 8  H a l l e t , Garth.  W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s D e f i n i t i o n of Meaning U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1967.  Hartnack, J u s t u s ,  W i t t g e n s t e i n and Modern P h i l o s o p h y ( t r a n s l a t e d , Maurice C r a n s t o n ) . London: Methuen, 1962.  Heller,  'Jasper Johns' School o f New York: Some Young P a i n t e r s (ed. B. H. Friedmann), New York: Grove P r e s s , 1959, pp. 30-35.  Ben.  Hopps, W a l t e r .  Fragments - A c c o r d i n g to What (Brochure) Gemini G.E.L., Los A n g e l e s , A p r i l , 1971. 'An I n t e r v i e w w i t h J a s p e r Johns'. (March, 1965), pp. 33-36.  Hughes, Robert.  as Use, Fordham  'Jasper Johns' E l u s i v e B u l l ' s - E y e ' . (Summer, 1972), pp. 20-29.  A r t f o r u m , v o l , 3,  H o r i z o n , v o l . 14  119 Johns, J a s p e r .  "Duchamp'.  Scrap, v o l . 1 (December 23rd, 1960).  'Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968)'. (November, 1968).  .Artforum, v o l . 7,  I n t e r v i e w i n The P o p u l a r Image, c a t a l o g u e of e x h i b i t i o n . Washington, D.C.: Washington G a l l e r y of Modern A r t , 1963. 'Sketchbook Notes'. 1965), pp. 185-192.  A r t and L i t e r a t u r e , no. 4,  (Spring,  Statement i n 16 Americans, New York: Museum of Modern A r t , 1959. 'Thoughts on Duchamp'. 1969), p. 31.  A r t i n America, v o l . L V I I  (July,  Johnson,  Ellen.  'Jim Dine and J a s p e r Johns: A r t about A r t " . A r t and L i t e r a t u r e , v o l . 6 (Autumn, 1965), pp. 128-140.  Kozloff,  Max.  ' A r t ' , The N a t i o n , v o l . 198 (March 16th, 1964), pp. 274-276, J a s p e r Johns, New York: H a r r y N. Abrams, 1968. 'Jasper Johns: The " C o l o u r s " ; The "Maps"; The "Devices"':! A r t f o r u m , v o l . 6 (November, 1967), pp. 26-31. 'Johns and Duchamp'. 1964) , pp. 42-45.  Art International, v o l . VIII,  'Pop C u l t u r e , M e t a p h y s i c a l D i s g u s t and The New A r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l , (March, 1962) .  Krauss, Rosalind.  Kostelanetz, Richard  'Jasper Johns'. pp. 84-113.  Vulgarians'.  The Lugano Review, v o l . 1, no. 2, (1965),  ( e d ) . John Cage, New York: Praegar, 1968.  L e b e l , Robert.  M a r c e l Duchamp ( t r a n s l a t e d G.H. Grossman P u b l i s h e r s , 1967.  Leider,  'In The American G r a i n ' . 1965), pp. 23-24.  R.  (March,  H a m i l t o n ) , New  York:  F r o n t i e r , v o l . 16, (October,  L i p p a r d , Lucy.  Pop A r t , New York: P r a e g a r , 1966.  L i t t m a n , Robert,  'Notes' i n J a s p e r Johns: Decoy, The P r i n t and The P a i n t i n g , e x h i b . c a t . , H o f s t r a U n i v e r s i t y : E m i l y Lowe G a l l e r y , 1972.  L u c i e - S m i t h , Edward.  L a t e Modern: The V i s u a l A r t s s i n c e 1945, New York: Praegar, 1969.  Lycan, W i l l i a m .  'Gombrich, W i t t g e n s t e i n , and the Duck-Rabbit'. Journal of A e s t h e t i c s , v o l . 30 (Winter, 1971), pp. 229-237.  120 Malcolm, Norman.  Ludwig W i t t g e n s t e i n : A Memoir, London: Oxford Paperbacks, 1962.  McLuhan, M a r s h a l l .  The Medium i s the Massage, T o r o n t o : Understanding Media, New  Melville,  Robert.  Bantam Brooks,  York: McGraw H i l l ,  1967.  1964.  'Master o f the S t a r s and S t r i p e s ' , A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, VOL, CXXXVII (March, 1965), pp. 225-228.  M i c h e l s o n , Annette. 'The Imaginary O b j e c t : Recent P r i n t s by J a s p e r Johns', A r t i s t s ' P r o o f , v o l . 8 (1968), pp. 44-49. ;  M o r r i s , Robert.  'Beyond O b j e c t s - Notes on S c u l p t u r e , P a r t v o l . 7 ( A p r i l , 1969), p. 50-55.  IX'.  Artforum,  O'Hara, Frank.  'Skin w i t h O'Hara Peom', A r t i n America, v o l . 53, (October, 1965), pp. 26-27.  Pears, David.  W i t t g e n s t e i n , Fontana Modern Masters, London: C o l l i n s ,  Pellegrini,  New Tendencies i n A r t ( t r a n s l a t e d , Robin Carson) London: E l e k , 1966.  Aldo.  1971.  P i n c u s - W i t t e n , Robert. 'Theater of the C o n c e p t u a l : Autobiography and Myth'. A r t f o r u m , (October, 1973), pp. 41-44. (Review), A r t f o r u m , v o l . 4,  (March, 1966), pp. 47-50.  Porter, F a i r f i e l d .  'The E d u c a t i o n o f J a s p e r Johns'. (February, 1964), p. 44+.  A r t News, v o l . L X I I ,  Prak, N.L.  ' P e r s i s t e n t Schemes: the Quest f o r a N e u t r a l Form'. I n t e r n a t i o n a l , v o l . XIV, (September, 1970), p. 74.  Raynor, V i v i e n .  'Jasper Johns - An I n t e r v i e w ' , A r t News, (March 8^=1973),  Art  pp. 20-22. Pritchell,  George  Restany, P i e r r e .  (ed.).  The P h i l o s o p h i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s , Doubleday,  'Jasper Johns and the Metaphysic o f The Common P l a c e ' . Cimaise, v o l . V I I I ,  Rose, B a r b a r a . '  1966.  (September,  American A r t S i n c e 1900, New  1961), pp. 90=97.  York: P r a e g a r ,  1967.  'Graphic Work o f J a s p e r Johns - P a r t I . A r t f o r u m , v o l . 8, (March* 1970), pp. 39-45. 'Graphic Work of J a s p e r Johns - P a r t I I ' . A r t f o r u m , v o l . 8 , (September, 1970), pp. 65-74. 'The Second G e n e r a t i o n : Academy and Breakthrough'. A r t f o r u m , v o l . 4, (September, 1965), pp. 53-63.  121 Rosenberg, H a r o l d .  'The American A c t i o n P a i n t e r s ' , A r t News, v o l . L I , (September, 1952), pp. 22-25. The Anxious O b j e c t , New  Rosenblum, Robert.  'Jasper Johns'. 1960) .  Sandler,  'The New Cool A r t ' . 1965), p. 96.  Irving.  York: H o r i z o n P r e s s ,  Art International, v o l . 7  'New York L e t t e r ' . 1961) .  1964.  (September,  A r t i n America, v o l . L I I I , ( F e b r u a r y ,  A r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l , v o l . 5, ( A p r i l 5 t h ,  S e c k l e r , Dorothy.  ' F o l k l o r e of the R a n a l ' . 1962) , p. 58.  Solomon, A l a n .  J a s p e r Johns, c a t . of e x h i b . , New  A r t i n America, v o l . L, (Winter,  J a s p e r Johns: Lead R e l i e f s , Los A n g e l e s , 1969.  York: Jewish Museum, 1964.  (brochure) Gemini, G.E.L.,  'The New A r t ' , The P o p u l a r Image, c a t , of e x h i b . , D . C : Washington G a l l e r y of Modern A r t , 1963. P a i n t i n g i n New York; 1944-1969, c a t . o f e x h i b . , A r t Museum, 1969. Stein,  Judith.  S t e i n b e r g , Leo.  G.R.  Sylve s t e r ,  Dav i d .  'Contemporary A r t and The P l i g h t of i t s P u b l i c ' , Harper's Magazine, v o l . 224, (March, 1962), pp. 31-39.  Sydney.  (May, 1962), 34i pages. ?  'What i s Pop A r t ? - An I n t e r v i e w w i t h J a s p e r Johns'. News, v o l . LXII ( F e b r u a r y , 1964), p. 43+.  Sunday Times Magazine (January  'Ten Years o f J a s p e r Johns'. ( A p r i l , 1964), pp. 22-26.  A r t s Magazine, v o l . XXXVIII  (Review), A r t s Magazine, v o l . 37 Tomkins,  Calvin.  Art  'Jasper Johns a t The W h i t e c h a p e l ' . u n p u b l i s h e d t a l k on B.B.C., T h i r d Programme, (December 12th, 1964). 'Art i n a Coke C l i m a t e ' . 26th, 1964).  Tillim,  Pasadena  'Jasper Johns: The Spy and The Watchman', u n p u b l i s h e d g r a d . seminar paper, U n i v e r s i t y o f P e n n s y l v a n i a , P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1967.  'Jasper Johns', Metro, v o l . 415 Swenson,  Washington,  The B r i d e  and The B a c h e l o r s , New  (March, 1963), p. 62. York: V i k i n g P r e s s ,  1968.  Tuchman, Maurice.  The New  York School, London, Thames and Hudson, 1965.  Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious B e l i e f , (ed. C y r i l Barrett), Oxford: Blackwell, 1966. Philosophical Investigations (translated, G.E.M. Anscombe), Oxford: Blackwell, 1958. Tractatus Logico - Philosophieus, London: Routledge Kegan and Paul, 1961. Wollheim, Richard.  'The Art Lesson'. pp.  Young, Joseph.  Studio International, (June, 1971),  278-283.  'Jasper Johns: An Appraisal'. Art International, v o l . XIII (September, 1969), pp. 50-56.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093801/manifest

Comment

Related Items