Jasper Johns New Sculpture and Works on Paper at MATTHEW MARKS GALLERY

[Manusturbo]

I never knew that Johns was influenced by Wittgenstein. Could you point me towards any material I could read up on this?

[jameskalmroughcut]

@Manusturbo Check out "Art Since 1900" Volume II by Hal Foster, Rosalind Krause, Yve-Alan Bois and Benjamin H.D. Buchloh, page 404. 

[KeithHarperSF]

Gorgeous work

[theripper7675]

great one James!

[timeanagain]

borrowing

[Judadiah]

would like to see block prints of the bronze numbers



[claureic]

At 2.45, in the lower left corner, are those small

keys that are inserted in the aluminium surface?

[jameskalm]

@claureic  Yes.

[eenkjet]

thought experiment: when viewing any legend or no name artist, take yourself out of the moment and just pretend you've never ever seen the work or heard of the artist. ..."jasper who? ...let's take a look." the pieces aren't worth millions, no coffee table books available. just art worth no more than the supplies involved. on that level how good is johns or warhol or twombly? historically significant, yes. but is this a window of genius? art is now no longer meretricious. but it can be.

[artbyty]

@eenkjet Thought experiment: Lets imagine Michelangelo is resurrected into our time. He makes a few sculptures.  They are not as epic as "The David". Michelangelo sucks!

[andblast]

@artbyty look up epic

[claureic]

@eenkjet I don't think your experience is valid. It would imply going back in time to the early fifties, when no art of the sort had ever been made. If Twombly or Johns started making "flags" or "scribbles", it would not be significant. It is significant because they made it WHEN they made it. I also think it is merely impossible to get rid of clichés (Deleuze) when you look at a work of art.

[eenkjet]

@claureic i completely agree with the WHEN factor. if so from a critical standpoint we must categorize artists, if not currently breaking new ground in "today's" art scene, as "classical". such as a musician from the fifities doing covers from six decades ago. we call those songs "oldies". when i see an exhibit by a '50's/classical artist, and the work has not changed in 60 years. to me, those pieces are beautifully done classics. there is nothing "neo" about dadaism.

[spawnofdawnacle]

After all the years, I don't have to think, I love his work. Thanks, thanks, thanks.

[Oilbeefooked]

here's my pastiche of Jasper Johns, right here on your screen, for free.

451934-475-517341239480-238913­457817430387847509284918273464­858870123847083478740878703471­083472875827465664761237461950­947539872834612634183724597245­7q4736418263434274592745097340­971410187342974587264576475647­651283748127348674576234652784­358747658276586958597382673626­192398461203485710239846102386­501283452048351098237407645283­467501263502834650298467501928­367416450283475091862350162304­987120384562043865192837420394­865129

[stierlein]

was that Colette'

[d1artbob]

Thanks for those tight shots--a good way to see johns' depth. Overall, however, I sense that Johns is being very permissive with himself, almost whimsical. When he does move deep, though, my breath grabs.

[oliverodomenico]

bellissimo reportage, come sempre!

beautiful reportage, as always!

d.o)

[Coriolana]

I don't mind the plinths. Very interesting that he used old letterpress plates, I guess as a substitute for paper collage in his encaustic works. Great to see this from Australia. Thanks James :)

[claureic]

OK, he's the pope....I saw that show and liked it, but I can't help thinking he's become repetitive over the years, kind of boring when I come to think of it...

[claureic]

I'm like Charlie Finch: I don't like the wood pedestals.

[cosmicku]

altho Johns is good, Rauschenberg is the GOD of gods in my book