Crystal Bridges Announces 2014 Exhibitions:
Masters of Modernism, Portraits from the Revolution and a Contemporary Art Exploration
January 7, 2014
Letter from Thomas Eakins to to Frank Waller
Letters in the Crystal Bridges Special Collections: Part 1
January 9, 2014
Show all

“I Don’t Get It” : Getting comfortable with some of Crystal Bridges’ most challenging works: Jasper Johns

Jasper Johns
"Gray Alphabet

Jasper Johns "Gray Alphabet

in galleryMuseum guests are sometimes surprised when they draw close to Jasper Johns’s monochromatic painting Alphabets. From a distance it looks like a grid of rectangles painted in shades of gray.  It’s not until the viewer draws close that the letter forms become visible in each block. They might just as well all be question marks for some visitors. What on earth was Johns trying to say with this work? 

Jasper Johns “Alphabets” (detail) 1960/1962 Oil on paper mounted on canvas

A close look reveals that the alphabet is repeated, over and over in sequence, from left to right, top to bottom, one letter per square. The letters are styled after those in common stencil patterns, but it’s clear they are painted by hand: some sharp, some almost dissolving into the background, but each letter lined up in regimented rows. In many boxes the paint is thick, the letters seeming almost pressed into the soft surface of the ground. In others the edges of the box are smeared, imprecise.  And yet the overall effect is of a carefully drawn grid of meaningless type. Like old-fashioned rows of dull lead typesetters type: The painting seems full of the potential for meaning, but….what does it mean?

In the middle of the twentieth century, and led by the American Abstract Expressionists, art became increasingly removed from the practice of representation. While the Ab Ex painters eschewed making paintings that looked like something else in favor of large gestures, drips, and splatters intended be spontaneous: to represent the interior emotional life of the artist; other painters sought to strip away all illusion in their work, insisting that a painting be a painting—color, shape, and line in paint on a flat canvas, independent of meaning. The critic Clement Greenberg wrote that “Content is to be dissolved so completely into form that the work of art…cannot be reduced in whole or in part to anything not itself.”

Artists like Johns began to question this approach, and to experiment with ways to create or imply meaning in their work. Johns is best known for his early flag paintings, which also provide a basis for understanding some of the ideas he was working with in Alphabets.  Johns’ representations of the American flag were, indeed, flat paintings; yet they were also fraught with all the many levels and nuances of meaning that a symbol as powerful as a national flag can carry. The paintings were representations of a flag, yes, but also, like actual flags, the works were simply color on cloth: not just the symbol of the thing, but perhaps in a way the thing itself.

Alphabet detail very close

Jasper Johns
“Alphabets” (detail), 1960 / 1962
Oil on paper mounted on canvas

The alphabet painting works in a similar fashion. It is, without a doubt, a painting. The letters and the boxes that contain them are rendered in a highly “painterly” way, emphasizing the fact of the painting as a work of art—hand-crafted using daubs of thick paint on a flat surface. Yet the artist’s exclusive use of gray in the painting is a nod to the black-and-white of print—an oblique reference to the letters as type, not paint, as is the placement of each letter in a box like the lead type once used in printing.

Alphabet detail medium

Jasper Johns “Alphabets” (detail) 1960/1962 Oil on paper mounted on canvas

Johns deliberately selected the alphabet as his subject because it is the basis for all our written language, the building blocks of print (there are those boxes again). And yet the shapes of the letters bear no meaning on their own. Without an understanding of the written code, the letters are just shapes (consider how lost English-language readers feel when faced with a line of Chinese characters, for example). The lines of letters make no words, and yet they are aligned in the familiar order we are taught as children, from a to z, left to right, top to bottom.  It is possible to “read” the painting this way and make sense of it:  Aha! It’s the alphabet!  (Meaning!) This particular sequence of letters, like the stars and stripes of our flag, is heavily loaded with all the potential meanings the alphabet represents, from the simple phrases of Dick and Jane to Man’s Search for Meaning.  And yet, each of the letters is just a letter, devoid of literal meaning.

So:   Is Alphabets just a painting? A representation of a thing?  Or a thing itself?  In a way the painting really IS a big question mark:  How do we glean meaning from a work of art? Listen in on a conversation between Crystal Bridges President Don Bacigalupi and Creative Director Anna Vernon as they discuss the puzzle of Jasper John’s Alphabets.

Linda DeBerry
Senior Copy Editor / Publications Manager

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *