MIT Press: MIT Press Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To October

MIT Press
Star
Author(s): Jean-Claude Lebensztejn and John Johnston
Source: October, Vol. 1 (Spring, 1976), pp. 86-103
Published by: MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778509
Accessed: 18-10-2015 06:16 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/778509?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.46.11.114 on Sun, 18 Oct 2015 06:16:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Star
JEAN-CLAUDE LEBENSZTEJN
TRANSLATED BY JOHN JOHNSTON.
... Let us beginwitha banality.Talking about paintingis difficult becauseof

an enigmaticand disproportionatedisparity(not necessarilygigantic,but worse:
indeterminate)between painting and its critical commentary.This disparity
applies less to thedistancebetweenthemthan to theirheterogeneity: no common
standardwill measure the relationshipbetween two objects situatedin different
spaces. The relationship,shall we say,is infinite, as Michel Foucault writes:"It is
not thatspeech is imperfect, and in a deficitrelationto thevisible which it strives
vainly to make up. Rather,thetwoare irreducibleto one another:we tryin vain to
say whatwe see,whatwe seeneverresidesin whatwe say,and in vain we tryto show,
throughimages, metaphors,comparisons,what we are saying; but the space in
which theyshine is not that unfoldedby the eyes,but one definedby syntactic
successions."1
It is still moredifficult to talk about Frank Stella,whose paintingeliminates
every trace of discourse and perspective,brushing aside theirveryforms.The
difficulty is evident in two books thatsetout to talkabout thispainting.2Considered
on theirown terms,theyare both ideal: full of information,highlyintelligent,as
theysay; and even "superblywritten",as one says of the other.3Above all, both
books revealan analyticprecisionlackingin our own writingon art.They cruelly
demonstrate,in everyway, thedifference betweenAmericanartcriticism--precise,
economical, controlled-and French--garrulous,excited,ridiculous.
Afterreadingthem,however,one retainsas an after-taste, theimpressionthat
everything has not been said, and consequently that nothing beensaid. That it's
has
possible that everything remains to be said and that nothing can be said. That
Stella's work may be entirelydeprivedof interestthroughdislocation fromthe
pictorialfieldto theplane of criticism.
One oftheauthorsacknowledges,on twoseparateoccasions,theimpossibility
ofadequate commentary on paintingofthissort.The blackpaintingsof 1959"seem
1. Michel Foucault, Les motset les choses,Paris, Gallimard, 1966,p. 25.
2. William Rubin, Frank Stella, New York, Museum of Modern Art,1970; Robert Rosenblum,
Frank Stella, Baltimore,Penguin, 1970.
3. Rubin, p. 84.
Frank Stella. Black Adder.1965. Metallic powder in polymer
emulsion on canvas. 77 by 178 inches.(Coll: Mrs. Leo Castelli.)
i~ii-
:???i:::.:??
ii - --?::- - -- ?i -ii:
-ii-i-::i--..
,!ai-
i i -: :::--i-:--: ris
ii:i-ii'i~ii
iii: ' iii-i-i
ii!ii:ii:
-:, i
s?ii-:si : :-iii-i: -i, Ii: ---:
-:: :- :-::.
?~:-i":ii-i---_i-i~i:-~i--ii-i:iiii ':ii-:ii-:i-: :i-: :iliil.:-s-s-ia::::- :.l:ii::4::i:::::ij:j::_::_:
ii'~iiiiiiiiiiii iiiii~i~i
ii :;:.
!i!i
!ii!ii: siii: iiiIiii.:!ii
.....................
ii
... ..
88 OCTOBER
to defy interpretation." 4 And when the commentaryaspires to overcome this

impossibility-to try would only be a description of what happens in the
painting-it becomes tedious and unreadable. Thus the passages on what are
known as the colored labyrinthsof Hyena Stomp or Jasper's Dilemma: "The
predictablepatternsthatgoverntheseworksare as tedious to describein wordsas
any otherconfiguratioisin plane geometry,but the resultsare totallyalive and
exhilarating."
Who, then,is going to account forthis lifeand enthusiasmelicitedby the
visible product?Certainlynot Robert Rosenblum, the author of the above text,
exceptto say thathe cannotsay anything.(And what,actually,is one tosayofthese
black stripesin regular,symmetricalconfigurations, theseparallel zigzags, these
interpenetrating planes, thesearcsofinterlacedcircles?Nothing.The iconographic
study will be made threehundred years fromnow, assuming the world hasn't
changed by then.)
Speaking of painting and of the AbstractExpressionistPainters (with a
capital P, which theythemselvesbelieved in), who dominated the artisticscene
when he himselfstartedto work,Stella says, "I began to feelverystronglyabout
findinga way thatwasn't so wrappedup in thehullabaloo, or a wayofworkingthat
you couldn'twriteabout." 6In anycase,a wayofworkingabout whichthecriticcan
say nothing that appeals to the life of the painter, to his psychology,to his
torments--nothing which does not alterthelaws of thecriticalgenre.Stella forces
us to tryto inventanothertypeofdiscourse;or tonote,bydefault,theinadequacyof
traditionaldiscourseon art. His work makes us admit thatcriticalcommentary,
disguisedas a transparentneutrality,is a loaded discourseand frequently inappli-
cable.
What is it, in Stella's work,thatstops criticalcomment,(and can we ask this
question withoutabandoning it?) It maybe this:our visual field,withinwhich the
aestheticdiscourse is inscribed,is still overwhelminglyfigurative. Although the
systemofrepresentation establishedin theRenaissancemayno longerbe available,
it continues to shape our way of seeing. Our aestheticsand our discourse are
invisiblystructured by it.
(The age-old and mimetic foundation of this systemhas only begun to
decompose. The workof Jacques Derrida,which is not unrelatedto thisdevelop-
ment,directsattentionto it throughstrangeness,and throughthe extravagent
patience of its strategy.)
One must not forgetthataftersixtyyears the break with representationis
still not whollyacceptable to our culturalconscience.As William Rubin reminds
us, "Stella is one of thefirstmajor paintersin themoderntraditionto have been
formedvirtuallyentirelythrough the practice of abstractart."'7 We certainly
4. Rosenblum,p. 11.
5. Rosenblum,p. 30.
6. FrankStella, interviewgiven to a televisionnetworkin 1966,citedin Rubin, p. 13.
7. Rubin, p. 8.
Star 89
accept abstractart.The correctionsinflictedover thepast centuryby thejudgment

of historyupon our predecessorsforcethecultivatedman to overcomehis distaste.
The artist, however, is firstrequired to have demonstratedhis abilities by
deliveringhis masteryof representationto History."Some criticsplace a kind of
moral value on representationalcompetence,as ifsuch competenceguaranteedan
artist'sprofessionalismand gave him the rightto be abstract."8
Stella's paintingcuts theseundergroundrootsaway. To beginwith,itrejects
the traditional values transmittedthrough AbstractExpressionism: creation,
expression,discourse. It rejects:art understoodas "constantlya recordof your
sensitivity,"9as an emanation expression of the artist; the artistas fatherand
tormentedcreatorof his work; theworkas a visibleformofan invisibledepththat
transcends it, analogous to the soul trnascendingthe body of which it is
nonethelessthe necessaryincarnation.Finally it rejectsthe apocalyptic or senti-
mental sauce which, in AbstractExpressionism,binds all theseelements: "Al-
thoughStella had a high opinion of Motherwell'sJe t'aimepaintings,he was put
offby what he consideredtheromanticpretentiousnessof the Frenchinscriptions
painted across the surfacesof the paintings. In his parody of the series,Stella
inscribedsuch titlesas 'Your lips are blue' and 'Mary Lou douches with pine-
scentedlysol.'" 10
It is here thatparadox intervenes.With one near exceptionconcerningthe
pictorial field's shape, Stella's painting, at least up to 1966-7, is not very
remarkableforits inventionof forms.Reflection,not incompetence,is involved.
The paradox consists not in the rejectionof values linked to lyricabstrac-
tion,or of thoselinked to geometricabstraction,but in thesimultaneousrejection
of both,and of theverybasis of thatsortof taxonomy.Stella's paintingdismisses
both of thesestubbornoppositions: discourseand aesthetic,contentand form,art
for something else and art for art's sake, the transcendentalsignifierand the
transcendentalsignified.In both lyricand geometricabstractioneach of these
valorizedtermsimplies theother,since, througha dual exteriority, each bearsthe
other'shollow imprint.Stella acknowledgesneither.
Stella's work is one of signification.But in his work the signifieris not
understoodas a given. It is constructedaccording to a complex and problematic
process. Here are some of therules:
Let us firstrecall what's at stake: the extractionof the figurativeroots of
abstractart-discourse, figure-ground relationship,illusionisticspace. The figure-
ground relationship,which in the 20th centuryhas replacedperspectivein order
to restorean illusionisticspace, generallypresupposesquantitativedifferences, of
extension and recurrence.If we have, on the one hand, relatively few units of
extension and relativelynumerous units of recurrence,and, on the other hand,
relativelynumerousunitsofextensionand fewunitsofrecurrence, we tendto read
8. Rubin, p. 8.
9. Stella, 1966 interview,citedin Rubin p. 13.
10. Rubin p. 151,n. 10.
90 OCTOBER
the firstas units of a figure,the second as units of a ground. If thequantitiesare

equal, or constant in relationship,if theytake the formof rectilinearbands of
equal widthand identicalcolor which do not overlap, thefigure-ground relation-
ship, and thus therestorationof illusionism,is halted. One mightclaim it is still
possible to regardsuch a paintingas an outlinedrawing.The bands act as ground,
the lines which separate themas figures.In Stella's work,however,thisreading
becomes unfeasible.In the seriesof black paintings,forexample, the four-inch-
wide bands are painted black and thethinwhitelines ofseparationare unpainted.
They are lines of reserve.They forma negativeweb throughwhich theprimeof
the canvas reappears.A dilemma arises. One must eitherassume thatthe 'figure'
(theweb) is not marked,which contradictsour notion of thefigureas the locus of
themark,or else suppose thatthemarkestablishesthelargeblack bands as figure.
But thiscontradictsthequantitativerelationshipsaccordingto which a figure,in
order to be read as such, provides a certain field in the ground. And this
problematicreversalfollows logically fromthe work's restrictionof means: no
color otherthan black, no formotherthan the rectilinearbands, parallel and of
unvarying width. "As is often the case in twentiethcenturyart, this stark
reduction of pictorial means produced ends of high visual complication ...
Stella's relation here of black stripeto white linear ground exists in a constant
ambiguityof solid and void, with extremesof light and darknessshiftingtheir
roles as positive and negative One notes the manner in which the
areas.""'
in
commentary, correctlydescribing a situation that subvertsthe figure-ground
relationship, it still caught up in habits,which determinethe descrip-
figurative
tion of thewhiteweb as ground.The result,however,is clear: "Even such vestiges
of illusionistic space as remained in Abstract Expressionist pictures . . . have been
largelyexpunged fromthe picture."12
Otherrules are hereimplied,such as theprincipleofrepetition,obsessivein
Stella-"I began to thinka lot about repetition"1--and in theartof the 1960sin
general.
There is also theprincipleof non-hierarchization, as in themonochromatic
paintings of 1961, or in those of theMoroccan seriesof 1964-5, in which thebands
"totally annihilate the sense of major and minor components."14 (In these,the
notion of a radiating center generally takes its place, restoringa problematic
hierarchywhich is no longer discontinuouswith respectto the partsof thefield,
but is continuous with its density.)
Or again, the principle of symmetry, generallyeliminated fromgeometric
paintingsince the 1920sor 1930s: "The idea of symmetry was in disreputeamong
painters,but it seemed to me thatit could be used." 15
11. Rosenblum,p. 17.
12. Rubin, p. 20.
13. Stella, in Rubin, p. 20.
Star 91
Symmetryhas as its corollaries the abandonmentof composition,and the

elimination of illusionisticspace.'6 Reversabilitystrikesanotherblow at figura-
tion. In the space of representation, whetherperspectivalor not (as, forexample,
in Egyptor theMiddle Ages), thepartsof thepictorialfieldare differentiated. The
top and bottom,right and left sides are not given the same values.'7 And in
Westernculture,themost frequentorderof reading,fromleftto right(and top to
bottom) creates a link between habits of writingor reading and the narrative
thread of a pictorial text.'8 When the representationalsystem began to be
dismantled,at the beginning of the20th century,threesolutions appeared. The
paintercould retainthetraditionalnarrativesequence,as in figurative abstraction.
This solution is exemplifiedin the work of Kandinsky,which maintains and
systematizesthe classic differentiation betweenleftand right,top and bottom.'9
On the other hand, the paintercould introducea more complex temporalorder
into the pictorial text,throughwhich he referredto models of writingand a
differenttemporality.Or finally,thepainterconstructedhis surfaceon a structural
model which called for a total apprehension of the field.Matisse provides an
example: "Expression derives from the colored surface which the spectator
perceivesas a whole." 20
Stella rejectsthe firstsolution, since it is attachedto a discursivesystemof
painting. A problematic residue does remain, nevertheless,in the zigzags of
1964-5, which impose a horizontallyoriented reading that is simultaneously
disrupted,and in the protractorseries of 1967-8, which, for the most part, rest
solidly on horizontal bases. But he radicalizes the last two solutions. For his
paintings, in order to be perceivedin theirsymmetricalalignment,suspend the
traditionaldifferentiation of the partsof the field,"demandingan instantaneous
visual grasp of the oneness."21 At thesame timeone or more temporalordersare
superimposed,fromone or severalcenterstowardsthe edges and fromthe edges
towardsthecenteror centers."Like a diagramof sound waves thatradiatefroma
generatingcenter,thesemetallic stripescan be seen to reverberateoutwards,in
ever-expandingpatterns;or contrariwise,theirconcentricitiesmay produce an
effectof inwardcontraction."22
These complex effects of readingaccount forthefact-Stella doesn'tsign his
canvases-that theirhanging is oftenproblematic.The same is trueof the non-
symmetricalcanvases. For example, Creede I, a picturein the shape of an L, is
16. On thesepoints see Stella in Bruce Glazer, "Questions to Stella and Judd",in Minimal Art,ed.
GregoryBattcock,New York,Dutton, 1968,pp. 149-50.
17. See MeyerShapiro, "On Some Problems in the Semioticsof Visual Art:Field and Vehicle in
Image-Signs,"Semiotica,I, No. 3 (1969), 230-234.
18. See Rubin, pp. 24-5 and 152,n. 32.
19. WassilyKandinsky,Point-Ligne-Surface,Paris, Editions de Beaune, 1926,pp. 99-104.
20. Henri Matisse, "Propos a Teriade," L'Intransigeant(January14, 1929); cited by R. Escholier,
Matisse,se vivant,Paris, Fayard,p. 98.
21. Rubin, p. 25.
22. Rosenblum, p. 21, regardingthe picturesof the aluminum series (reproducedin Rubin, pp.
48-62, and Rosenblum,pp. 20-2.)
sometimesreproducedreversed,as an Dilemma, in which twospiral
of theotherof ..23 Jasper'sis
squares-one values, hues-coexist, reproducedwiththegrisaille
sometimeson the right,sometimeson the left.24 The directionof its hanging is
unimportant;these pictures functionas well either way. Or rather,it's this
indifferenceto hanging that matters,for with it something disappears: the
irremoveable,intangible characterof the work of art, whose signature has
guaranteedits directionor sense (in the full meaning of thatword) and unity.
There are otherrules which emphasizethedeconstructive aspectsof Stella's
work.One is theformof thethinwhitelineswhich,in all ofStella's workto date,
separate and connect the colored unities. These lines are never painted. Stella
insistedon thispoint in a letteraddressedto an Americanweeklyin whichtheart
criticseemed not to have noticed the gaps: "Those who battlefortheclaims of
'taste'should remindthemselvesoccasionallythattheartsare based upon concrete
data." 25
Anotherrule concernstherelationshipbetweentheworkand itsboundaries,
or what Michael Friedcalls "deductivestructure."
26Roughly,as Frieddefinesthis
relationship,pictorialconventionis deducedfromtheframingedge of thepicture
field. Differently
stated, the boundaries are no longer denied, as theyare in
Classical painting from the Renaissance to Ckzanne, but acknowledged as
determinants.Like Rosenblum, Rubin, who discusses the notion of deductive
23. Reproducedthus .J in Rubin, p. 66; thus L in Rosenblum,p. 23.
24. On the right:in Rubin, p. 77, and in theexhibitioncatalogue FrankStella, London, Hayward
Gallery,1970,n. 17. On the left:in Rosenblum,p. 30, and in theAmericanPavilion catalogueof the
Venice Biennale, 1964(not paginated,towardstheend.)
25. Stella, letterto Newsweek,Feb. 1st.,1961,citedin Rubin, pp. 16-18.This letter,Rubin says,was
actuallywrittenby Hollis Frampton,thewell-knownfilm-maker. It was not published.
26. Michael Fried,prefaceto the exhibitioncatalogue ThreeAmericanPainters:KennethNoland,
JulesOlitski,FrankStella, Cambridge,Mass., Fogg ArtMuseum, 1965.
Frank Stella. Tetuan 3. 1964. Fluorescentalkyd on canvas.
77 by 77 inches. (Coll: Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Hopper.)
structurein detail, feels-perhaps morejustly-that therelationshipbetweenthe

framingedge and the picture'smotifsis not deductivebut correlative."Thus the
aluminum stripesparallel, with strictobedience, the canvas edge. Justas con-
versely,the canvas edge parallels the patternof the stripes."27
The acknowledgmentof limitsis in thissense aggravatedby theirtransgres-
sion. The word transgressionshould be used with caution. One mightsay that
Stella, as he dispenses with a systemwhich does not acknowledge the framing
edge, does away with the framingedge as a supposedly absolute separation
betweentheworkand thatwhich lies outside it. The dynamicquality of thework
as signifierpresses one writer to extend the work beyond the limits that it
neverthelessacknowledgesand affirms, and which genuinelyconstituteit. Thus,
beginning with the black paintings of 1959: ". . . As in Mondrian, these rectilinear
relationshipsneverproduce discrete,self-sufficient shapes, but radiatebeyondthe
canvas edges. Stella's rectangles. .. implyinfiniteextendibility,thetautfragments
of a potentiallylargerwhole." 28
In the aluminum series of 1960 the principle of acknowledgment-
transgressionlogically leads to cuttingout partsof thefieldparallel to themotifs.
And, reciprocally,the whole play of exchanges, of interpenetrationsbetween
inside and outside, visiblyand materiallycalls into question the closure of the
classical pictorial field.
At times,as in theviolet seriesof 1963,thecenterof thepicturewill even be
occupied byan emptyspace, wherethewall reappears,parallel to themotifdrawn
by the bands and to theouterpolygonal edges. The relationshipof thepictureto
its frameis therebyinverted:the pictureappears as theframeof a pictureformed
by the resurgenceof the wall.
I am not going to enlargeat thispoint upon thethreeprinciplesinvolvedin
the structuralfunction of restraint,the acknowledgmentof limits and their
transgression. They raise seriousquestions as to thestatusofart,generalnotionsof
fullnessand emptiness,of the mark and the non-mark,of inside and outside,
divisionand limit-all questionstoo serioustosettlein a fewlines. We will have the
occasion to returnto them. Settingaside Stella's own statements,which on this
subjectremainseparatefromhis workas a painter,we can saythattheverystatusof
art and of cultureare implicatedin art'sclaim to ignoreboth its location and the
materialand culturallimitswhich defineit.
Stella demystifies art. In our historicalspace, painting inclines us to forget
what it is materially,to substitutethehand of thepainter(thatis to sayhis spirit),
forthe brush,the facture(the traceof his genius) forthepigments,the transcen-
dental depth of contentforthe materialdepthof thesupport.For his part,Stella
tries to preventthese substitutions,to make painting vulgar. Thus he avoids
pigmentsand media with 'high art'connotations.Regardingtheseriesofpolygons
27. Rubin, pp. 54-60.

94 OCTOBER
with hollowed out centers,painted in metallic violet: "I was looking fora very
vulgar color." 29
Or again: his workevokestheactual connectionbetween'theartof painting'
to the professionof housepainting.Stella uses its tools, medium,gestures:large
brushes,paint froma can applied withouttheeffects ofa personaltouch,absenceof
positivedesign,movementof thearm ratherthan thehand.
Stella worked as a housepainter, and consciously links the referenceto
housepainting-by which artis vulgarized-with theconcerntoexpel illusionistic
space fromthepictorialfield.The latteris themeans to theformer."The solutionI
arrivedat ... forcesillusionisticspace out ofthepaintingat a constantratebyusing
a regulatedpattern.The remainingproblemwas simplyto finda methodofpaint
application which followedand complementedthedesignsolution.This was done
by using the housepainter's technique and tools."30 For thereis a relationship
betweenillusionisticspace, whichcancels itsmateriality, and theprivilegedstatus
of painting,which establishesitselfas a high artonlyon conditionthatit effaceits
materialconstituents. And itcan attainthetitleofart,in theparticularmeaningour
culturegives to this word,only if it respectsthe dividing line which setsit apart
fromeverything else while whollyeffacingtheevidenceof thisseparation.Repres-
entation, illusionisticspace, an unacknowledgedreverenceforthe frame,and the
valorizationof art,conspire to build the classic systemof westernpainting. And
'avant-garde'attemptsto challenge these termssingly are doomed to succumb
eventuallyto thereturnof others,which takeovera systemonly slightlyrevised.
A star. Or ratheran asterisk.When supplemented by a blank space, in

OCTOBER, it is thesign ofdiscontinuity.(In otherplaces threeasterisksarranged
in a trianglesignal and supporta textualbreak.)
Most oftenStella paints in series,following a traditionthatdates back to,
among others, Dubuffet,Mondrian, Monet. The series creates a higher and
problematicunityin a painter'swork.The variable intersticesbetweenpaintings
have a unifyingfunctionwithinthisunity,like thecelestial'field'whichrelatesthe
starsofa constellation.The field-in thiscase thespace ofa galleryor a catalogue-
is therebyrecognized.The individualworkassumesitsshape onlywithinthefieldof
the series.It no longerdenies itscultural space throughtheunityof therectangle.
Stella's work generates,on all its levels,a recurrentshape, the brokenline.
When open, it's a zigzag, when closed, a star. Their discontinuous movement
traversesthe work (the relationshipamongst motifs),the series(the relationship
among the works), the totalityof the production (the relationshipamong the
series).

30. Stella, statementgiven at PrattInstitute,1959-60;reprintedin Rosenblum,p. 57.
Star 95
When speaking of a painter's development, one frequentlyforgetsto

consideritsform.Stella seemsto constructthisformwiththesame attentiveness as
the motifsof his canvases. But can one still speak of development,in the sense of
evolution? Not if developmentor evolution as we now understandit suggests
continuityin a painlessly changing transformation. Development implies the
formof a straightline or, less frequentand morearchaic,of a circle.31A shape, in
everycase, continuous,forseeable(retrospectively), oriented.We are familiarwith
the political effectsof this linearity.Revolutionariesare also preoccupied with
evolutionism,and with the violence that puts an end to violence. And violence
silentlypervadestheevolutionismthatdenies it by tryingto smoothout or round
offits angles.
Stella's careeris predicatedon discontinuity.He certainlyfeelshimselfto be
rooted in AbstractExpressionism,fromwhich he had adopted the materials,the
gestures,the vast all-overcomposition of surface.Stella admits to theseroots: "I
still feel rootedin AbstractExpressionism--orNew York School-as I probably
always will be." 32
But Stella did not retain everythingfromAbstractExpressionism:only
certainmaterialdecisionsand not thepathos, theconceptionof artand theartist.
"I see it a littledifferentlynow and I began to see it differently
then-what I saw,
what I liked,was theopennessof thegesture,thedirectnessof theattack."33"I was
verytaken with AbstractExpressionism,largelybecause of the obvious physical
elements,particularlythesize of thepaintingsand thewholenessof thegesture.I
had always liked house paintinganyway,and theidea thattheywereusing larger
brushes... seemed to be a nice way of working."34
Stella shrewdlyreversesthe question of influenceas artcriticism,including
Rubin's, has tendedto put it. It's not a question of X's influenceon Y, but (and
theseobvious factsstill bear repeating)of how Y has seen X, what he has adopted
and rejected.Stella, in rejectingAbstractExpressionism'sidealistpoint ofview,in
retainingonly its workingmaterial,transforms thisworkdeeply,foregroundsit,
raises it fromthe low estate to which it had been consigned by the idealism of
paintersthemselvesand of theircritics.In spiteof this,it is thebreakand not the
link with AbstractExpressionismwhich mustconcernus, as it struckthosewho,
in 1959,confrontedthe black paintings.
Stella's workcontainsanother,even moreremarkable,principleof disconti-
nuity.Stella is, obviously,a distinctfigurewhose paintingsare easilyrecognizable.
But theworkis not all of one piece. His progresshas been neithercontinuousnor
linear.
For example: the acknowledgmentof the framingedge is achieved through
31. Jacques Derrida,"Positions," Promesse,No. 30-31 (1971),23: "In a linearfashion,as you recall,
in a straightor circularline."
32. Stella, televisedinterviewin 1966,cited in Rubin, p. 10.
33. Rubin, p. 10.
34. Rubin, p. 9.
FrankStella. Bam. 1966. Fluorescentalkydon canvas.
90 by148 inches.(Coll: Kasmin Gallery,London.)
two contrarymodalities. Some seriesadhere to the traditionalformof the field,

rectangularor square: theseriesof black paintingsof 1959,themonochromeones
of 1961, the concentricsquares and labyrinthsof colors (1962-3), the Moroccan
series(1964-5),theSaskatchewanseries(1968-9).Othersare constructed according
to variouspolygonal forms.These shaped canvases,perhapsStella'smoststriking
formalinvention,are producedconcurrently with theothertype:the aluminum
seriesof 1960, the curvedseries (1960-2), the violet serieswith the open centers
(1963), the seriesof V's and zigzags (1964-66),theirregularpolygonsof (1966-7),
the protractorseries(1967-9).
Star 97
As Rosenblum observes,the rectangularseries and the cut-outseriesoften

alternate."5But notaccordingtoa simple alternation;thatwould retrace,in a way,
a linear development,and some verydifferent series have actually been made
simultaneously. In 1964-5, Stella worked on the zigzags, V, and Moroccan
paintings all at the same time. That is to say, simultaneouslyon the shaped
canvases-both monochromeand multi-hued,in which the colors only serveto
emphasize the cut-outs, and on the square polychrome canvases, where the
squareness engendersa more or less complex play of color relationships.
Our idea of a painter's evolution is doubly challenged. For we expect an
evolution without too many turns,and one that at the same time escapes the
painter'scontrol;thatthe risksof lifeand historydirectits course. Here,.nothing
of the sort. In Stella's work the transformationsare simultaneouslyviolentand
calculated. From theirbreaks,regressions,disagreeableproposals, he extricatesa
shape neitherrectilinearnor circular.Whetherzigzag or star,it is as if theshapes
that organize the canvases also dictate the forms of transformationin their
production.
In thishomomorphy,a seriesis like a shape. Such is thecase in theseriesof
zigzag and starcanvases of 1963,whose titlesare takesfromthe names forFlorida
cities:Plant City,Polk City,Tampa. From thesepaintingstwo typesof seriesseem
to radiate. In 1964 theirconfigurationsgeneratesimultaneouslythe V-multiples
(named after English sailboats) and the Moroccan canvases, the latter being
squares divided equally fromthe centerand comprisedof fouror eight sections
constitutedby bands of alternatecolors, the ensemble of sections producing an
alternationof alternations.
A sheet of graphpaper,dated 1964, seems to confirmtheselinks. It depicts
fourdesigns: two of the Moroccan canvases,one of the star-canvases,and one of
the zigzags.If thesestar-canvasesdate from1963,as Rubin says,and thetwoother
seriesfrom1964-5,we can assume that the star-canvaseshave givenrise simulta-
neously to consecutiveseriesthatare verydiverse,or at least thatthethreeseries,as
well as the V-multiples,are closelyrelated.
Stella doesn't sign his work, a condition of theirreversability,since the
signaturewould impose a top and bottom.This relationshipbetweenthe name
(the signature,authority,patronage) and implicit hierarchy,deservesfurther
consideration.
The signature,in pointing towardsthe top, establishesthe painting as an
irreversible, unique, irreplaceableobject-as original, as art, and as figure.The
figurativefunction,name, God, the origin-a clusterwhich acts to establishour
historical idea of the transcendentwork of art. Everythingthat confersshape,
sense,and value is condensed in the signature.
In a certain way, however, Stella does sign his work. He does so more
elegantly,invisibly,totally,reversibly,questioning therectangularsupport(even
98 OCTOBER
when present):by theplay of protrudingand returningangles; bytheparadigmof

the star; by the arrangementof the work into series-which is to say, constella-
tions; in the starredcourse tracedby the seriesof series.
To effacethe signature requires delicate, patient, strategy.The time for
anonymityhas not yetarrived.The artists,writers,galleryowners,editors,critics,
experts,buyers,who representthe forcesat work in the productionof art and
literature,derivetheirprofitfromtheprivilegeconferred upon thename oftheartist
in our culture.
Stella, then,eliminateshis signaturebut not his name. And thesedays,with
a name like his, one doesn't play down the effectof its brilliance. The use of
metallicor fluorescent paint,absorbingand reflectinglightin disjunctivescintilla-
tion,and emittingit in turn,is also thereto make thestarshine. And the"literary
or glamorous" titlesof the aluminum series,which referto "Arab philosophers,
bullfighters, and racingdrivers"6 evokeanothersense of theword star.For Stella
himselfis also a star.
All of which is rathertrivial.The mostseriouscriticismis thatwhichattends
to its function,checkingthe fetishismof the artist'sname.
Otherwise the name takes revenge by returning to play in the text
unacknowledged. For example, in the title of an article in which Stella is
implicated: "Constellation by Harsh Daylight."37 Or in the course of a little,
somewhat pedantic, book, in which the notion of constellation,applied to the
structuralconstellationsof JosephAlbers,comes to inexorablyhaunt the text.38
The critical text,blind to what governs it-the fetishismof the name-
cannot entirelycover over Stella's work. It repressesthe point of rupture,it
multipliestheproblematicplay. But thisrepressionreturnsto thetextin theludic
formof the paragrammatizedname.
We now returnto the critical textsof Rubin, an intelligentcurator,and

Rosenblum,an intelligentartcritic-historian. There are threewaysin which these
textsboth miss and mask Stella's problematicwork. They reduce the effectof a
breakby a 'linear' pasting-over;theycancel the obliterationof thesignifiedwith
an expressionistrhetoric,theyco-opt the devalorizationof the transcendental
signifierthrougha formalistvalorization.
It is at this point that the old batteryof influencesis hauled out. Rubin
discussesStella's developmentin termsof influences,beginningwith Pollock and
JasperJohns.There is an extensiveconsiderationofthescope ofBarnettNewman's
influence.And, finally,that of Matisse. We note, in passing, that Stella's name
returnsto play quietly in the text: "It is primarilyunder his star that Stella's
enterprisehas evolvedin recentyears."93
37. Lucy R. Lippard, "Constellation by Harsh Daylight:The WhitneyAnnual," Hudson Review,
(Spring 1968),174-82.
38. Max Indahl, Frank Stella, SanborvilleII, Stuttgart,Philip Reclam jun., 1970,pp. 24, 28-30.
39. Rubin, p. 149.
Star 99
These claims are undoubtedlytrue. However, given the tirelessciting of

influences,sources, origins, declarations,one must insist that the criticfails to
account forthe intensityof thebreak thatcharacterizesthework.If Stella is to be
relatedtootherpainters,he mustbe connectedtootherartistsofthefifties and sixties
who have shared in thatsame break (in reading thesemonographs,one gets the
impressionthatStella existsall alone); and, in thisconnection,not as a link in a
chain of influences,but as an element in a system,or as part of a lineage of
discontinuity:Cezanne-Matisse-Mondrian-Pollock, which is to say, in a
traditionof problematicpainting. To state it differently: seen in a traditionof
discontinuity,Matisse and Pollock no longer occur as providersof formsand
stylisticformulae,but as painterswhose workirrevocablyquestionrs paintingas to
its very nature. This series of breaks must be seen, not as an avant-garde
succession-in which an evolutionofdiscontinuityis substitutedfortheevolution-
ismof continuity-but in theformofa problematicconstellation,whosesystemics
setoffthe20thcenturyas a deconstructive synchrony.
Rubin even effacestheparatacticdivergencesof Stella's careerby presenting
the seriesin a linear succession,one afteranother.Everyso often,a sentencecalls
attentionto thispractice:"Stella's developmentfromtheBlack throughthePurple
series impressesone in retrospectby the taut, step-by-steplogic with which it
unfolds (despite the tangentialoffshootsfromthe Benjamin Moore pictures)."40
This logic, in effect,
is striking,but his deviationsare no exception.If thedifferent
series are deduced fromeach other, it's according to a logic which is broken,
bifurcated.Alternation of the rectangular and shaped canvases must not be
consideredas a simpleopposition or deduction.The twotypesare structured bythe
same set of problems,the acknowledgmentand transgressionof limits.And the
logic of theseproblems,which shapes Stella's career opens up an extravagantand
dividedpath.
Certainlythereare remediesto make thebreaksdisappear. One is to erasethe
marksof a fartoo visible effacement. The adjectivesnow marchby: "theirnumb,
enigmaticallyvacantsimplicity."4' "The severelyheraldicdesigns,whose ritualis-
ticdignityis wittilyechoed in one of thetitles,Luis Miguel Dominquin, thename
of a bullfighter."'42
The pathosofadjectivesis notonlydecorativeand emotional;ithas a function
withinthetext.It allows thetrenchantly problematicnatureoftheworkas signifier
to be effaced,"to preservetheold humanisticvalues"; toreestablishcontinuitywith
theartfromwhich thisworksetsitselfapart; to re-attachartto life,theman to the
work,thepictorialworkto theprivatedrama.The black paintings"perpetuatethe
mood of the 1950sin theirheroic,Newmanesque scale and in thepersistentaura of
40. That is to say, themonochromesquares of 1961 traversedby rectilinearshapes. Rubin, p. 89.

41. Rosenblum,p. 21. He is referring to theblack paintings.
42. Rosenblum,p. 21. He is referring to thealuminum paintings.We recall that,accordingto Stella
himself,the titleof the picture in question makes no referenceto its "ritualisticdignity,"but to its
glamorousbrilliance.
100 OCTOBER
some privatedrama thatmustlie behindtheirsolemn,monkishpresences."43The

artistis indeed the transcendentalfatherof the work, it is he who inhabits its
beyond,he who is doubly signifiedby thework'semotional depth.
Finally, the glory to which the criticismcontributes,and which it never
questions,is artitself.Take, forexample,the1967-8series,withthecircularcolored
bands: "Its fluorescentpinks, reds, oranges, yellows, and indigos give Tahkt-i
SulaymanI somethingof theair ofpsychedelicdesign--although,of course,in the
formof high art."" Stella can workto renderproblematicthestatusofartand the
values thatare thereembodied; the commentaryis here to reassureus. Of course,
thereis high art,presentedto us in a formwithina form,and criticismcan make
allowance fordifferences, setup a hierarchy,distinguishits levels.
And Stella,followinga classicprocedurein talkingabout art,certainlyevokes
other artists.But in so doing Stella remains no less unique: "Yet forall these
externalconnectionswith the styleand the tasteof thelate 1960s,whetheron the
level of the finestpictorial achievementsand themostseriouscriticalattitudesof
these yearsor simplyon the level of a popular vogue forpsychedeliccolors and
extravagantgeometries,Stella's artremainsmagnificently unique."45
In orderto understandthis weirdreasoning,one must retrievea fewelided
elements. Stella allows the well-stockedmemoryto summon up the names of
many painters,therebyplacing him within the great familyof painters,in the
consoling continuityof our cultural heritage.But since art (high art) is, as we
know, thedomain of theunique, themore theartistcan evoke thenames ofother
artists,the more he can awaken our capacity forassociation and can extendour
'Museum withoutWalls', the more will he be unique.
Thus, in spite of the painter's effectivedisruption of high art (and the
hierarchiesof taste, feeling,and the stock-exchangevalues that such concepts
support),his workis co-optedthroughthe institutionaldiscourseof themuseum
and theartcritic.Stella does also elude discourseof thissort,forit is powerlessto
conveythe shock-effect in which his principle strengthresides.It is preciselythe
system on which this criticismis based (a systemwhose values are evolutionism,
the author, intrinsicwork, belief in art as a superior value, the form-content
opposition) thatStella's work tendsto undermine.
Why,then,need we discuss his work?Because thatis preciselythefunction
of discoursein a threatenedculture.Criticismis like an antibodythroughwhich
theculturalorganismdefendsitselfand triesto reducetheviruswhichattacksany
point in itsorganization.One should, however,in thedefenceofcriticism,add the
following: if Stella can be incorporated,hoisted by criticismto the level of high
art,it is because his workdoes exhibitcertainambiguities,contradictions,points
which offera footholdto thatdiscourse.Stella remains largelycaught up in the
conceptsof theoeuvre,of art,of thepositivismof thevisible.The antithesesofart
44. Rubin, p. 135.
Star 101
Frank Stella. Tahkt-I-SulaymanVariation I, 1969.

Fluorescentalkyd on canvas. 120 by240 inches.(Coll:
Dr. JohnShuey.)
and everything else, of theartistand the non-artist, continue to theirfunctionas

constitutiveelementsof his work.The functionofartis not a problemforhim. He
navigatessuccessfullyin the space of the galleryand museum. These questions
demand furtherexploration, but we can say for the presentthat it could be
otherwise;Stella could departfromhis own cultural space.
Since abstractionand Dada, thedouble strategyof excess and transgression
has disruptedart. It may be thatthoseartistswho tryto make an exit,vanishing
around art'sotherside in a transgression of itslimits,are finallyresponsibleforthe
restorationof those values they wished to leave behind. The readymade,in
questioning the notion of the workof art,insuredthe triumphof the Artistand
theMuseum. Ecological and environmentalart,in stakingout a space outsidethe
museum,denytheculturalspace in which theyare grounded,"therebyproviding
an alibi forthe Museum/Gallerywhich didn't make good its avowed claim." 46
And thestrategy of thecross-over, whichpretendsto dissolveoppositions,to inject
artintoeverything and everything else intoart,tocrossthelimitsseparatingthem,
respects,in the movement of thiscrossing,the line of separation,theopposition
betweeninside and outside on both sides.
The most incisivestrategy, the shrewdest,is probablythatof painters(like
Matisse, like Klee, like Mondrian,like Stella) who workwithinthedomain ofart,
who stand firmwithinits limits,pressinghard on them,declaringthem,exceed-
ing them.
46. Daniel Buren,Limites critiques,Paris, Yvon Lambert,1970,p. 5.
102 OCTOBER
But if Stella remainscaught within art,and respectfulof it as a concept,he

also respectscriticismwhich articulatesand supportsart (and which, it must be
remembered,enhances its marketvalue-a consideration not without import-
ance): "SometimesI thinkour paintings are a littlebit different, but on theother
hand it seems that they'restill dealing with the same problem of making art. I
don't see why everyoneseems so desperatelyin need of a new terminology, and I
don't see what thereis in our work thatneedsa new terminologyeitherto explain
or to evaluate it. It's art,or it wants to be art,or it asks to be consideredas art,and
thereforethe termswe have fordiscussingart are probablygood enough."47
This position is self-contradictory. Doesn't the painter look fora "way of
working you couldn't write about?" The strategyof success entails its own
particular difficulties. And the pressure of the artisticcircuit-collectors, mu-
seums, dealers, critics-remains very strong,veryeffective.Despite its present
crisis,artis completelycapable of simultaneouslyincorporating,in itsown space,
transgression and excess,theartistand theart,Warhol and Stella. Metallicviolet,
"veryvulgar" nine yearsago, ends by growingmild. And thedisruptionof artin
1960,ten yearslater,becomes art,even high art. From thisconversion,Stella has
everythingto win, everythingto lose.
Stella's art,since it wants to be art,doesn't need a new criticalterminology.
Criticism,in orderto clarifytheproblematicsof thisart,does,in spiteofitself,need
somethingmore: a new setof theoreticaltools (notevolutionist,notexpressionist,
not religious); a new procedure(not linear); a new syntax,a new page lay-out.
(At this point, candour demands thatwe heed a risingvoice: "But you, Sir,
who judge accordingly,fromwhat position do you consider yourselfto speak;
aren'tyou a criticlike any other?" Of course.)
-Paris, 1972.
(The illustrationsfor this essay,which has been slightly
abridged,are editoriallyselected.A subsequent issue
of OCTOBER will presenta discussion of Stella's work
since 1969 byJeremyGilbert-Rolfe.)
47 Stella, in Minimal Art,p. 163.
FrankStella. Haran I. 1968.Fluorescentacrylicon
canvas. 120 by240 inches.(Coll: Mr. William Ehrlich.)
.. ......................
....
..?1
.... ......
....
..........:: ...
......

MIT Press: MIT Press Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To October

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MIT Press: MIT Press Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To October

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MIT Press

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

TRANSLATED BY JOHN JOHNSTON.

... Let us beginwitha banality.Talking about paintingis difficult becauseof

to defy interpretation." 4 And when the commentaryaspires to overcome this

accept abstractart.The correctionsinflictedover thepast centuryby thejudgment

the firstas units of a figure,the second as units of a ground. If thequantitiesare

Symmetryhas as its corollaries the abandonmentof composition,and the

structurein detail, feels-perhaps morejustly-that therelationshipbetweenthe

27. Rubin, pp. 54-60.

A star. Or ratheran asterisk.When supplemented by a blank space, in

29. Stella, in Rubin, p. 82.

When speaking of a painter's development, one frequentlyforgetsto

two contrarymodalities. Some seriesadhere to the traditionalformof the field,

As Rosenblum observes,the rectangularseries and the cut-outseriesoften

when present):by theplay of protrudingand returningangles; bytheparadigmof

We now returnto the critical textsof Rubin, an intelligentcurator,and

These claims are undoubtedlytrue. However, given the tirelessciting of

40. That is to say, themonochromesquares of 1961 traversedby rectilinearshapes. Rubin, p. 89.

some privatedrama thatmustlie behindtheirsolemn,monkishpresences."43The

Frank Stella. Tahkt-I-SulaymanVariation I, 1969.

and everything else, of theartistand the non-artist, continue to theirfunctionas

But if Stella remainscaught within art,and respectfulof it as a concept,he

47 Stella, in Minimal Art,p. 163.

You might also like