Robert Rauschenberg kept only one major example of his earliest, most influential body of work, the Combine paintings he made between 1954 and 1961. Short Circuit (1955) is similar to other works from the period; it incorporates sculptural elements with both painting and drawing and combines abstraction with images and objects plucked from the young artist’s world. But it was not included in his breakout exhibition, in 1958 at Leo Castelli Gallery. And though it was published in a couple of catalogues, Rauschenberg didn’t loan it to his 1976 or his 1998 retrospective, and he declined its inclusion in curator Paul Schimmel’s exhaustive Combines exhibition of 2005. Its appearance at Gagosian Gallery in 2010, two years after the artist’s death, was the first time the work had been seen in public in over 40 years. (It was wisely acquired by the Art Institute of Chicago.) Despite its low public profile, this Combine has had an extraordinary history and is a pivotal work of postwar American art. But Short Circuit’s significance is based not solely on what is included in it, but also on what is missing.
Short Circuit is made of classic Combine ingredients: thick brushstrokes, a lace curtain, a scrap of polka-dotted fabric, postcard images of a Renaissance painting and Abraham Lincoln, a word scramble, a program from an early John Cage concert, and a Judy Garland autograph, all affixed with paint to a chassis made of scrap wood and cupboard doors. Behind those doors Rauschenberg hid two smaller paintings, by two then-unknown artists: one was a landscape by his ex-wife, Susan Weil, and the other was a U.S. flag by his then-partner Jasper Johns.
Iwanted to address, if not answer, these apparently ignored questions, and so I set out to find theShort Circuit flag. Beginning in 2010, I searched archives and emailed and interviewed every person I could find who might have firsthand knowledge of the Combine, its creation, its history, and the circumstances of the flag’s disappearance. And what I found affected the way I view Johns and Rauschenberg’s work, their relationship, and their place in history.
Rauschenberg’s Combines are very much products of his life and surroundings at the time of their making. The early ones especially, and Short Circuit most definitely, are loaded with personal, autobiographical, and even private esoteric references, which critic Yve-Alain Bois derided as “semantic traps,” good for little more than “keeping art historians busy for generations to come.” And here we are.
Rauschenberg was included on the Stable Gallery artist list; Johns and Weil were not. There is no works list, recorded account, or installation image showing Short Circuit in the show, but the story goes that the Combine doors, which have arrows and instructions to open them, were only ajar at the exhibition opening. Rudy Burckhardt took the first and only known photograph of Short Circuit in its original form. The open doors show Johns’s flag and a brushy scene painted by Weil.
In 1955 Johns was making Flag, the one we know, the one at MoMA, which the artist claimed to have dreamed about and then woken up and made. The art historian Leo Steinberg’s prediction that Rauschenberg would generate “dissertations galore, including of the fine print in the newspaper scraps that abound in Rauschenberg’s pictures,” applies to Johns as well. Flag is commonly dated 1954–55, but in her 1977 infrared imaging analysis titled “The Infra-Iconography of Jasper Johns,” art historian Joan Carpenter tells of a visitor to MoMA in the ’70s who noticed Flag contains a newspaper fragment clearly dating from 1956. The work was repaired after being damaged during a party in the studio, the artist explained. Similarly, I dated a fragment integral to the field of stars in the flag to a news report about the Eisenhower campaign from late May 1955, after the Stable Annual had closed. Whether or not Johns had begun Flag before he made the Short Circuit flag, he had not finished it by that time. The Short Circuit flag came first.
In 1961 Rauschenberg and Johns broke up rather bitterly over irreconcilable professional, aesthetic, and romantic conflicts. They each owned significant amounts of each other’s works, but only one work was the subject of an agreement over its fate: Short Circuit. This agreement came to light in 1962, when a dispute arose over the sale of images of Short Circuit by a subscription slide service called Portable Gallery Press. Editor Albert Vanderburg wrote that Short Circuit was an example of a more established artist giving newcomers a “helping hand” with their careers. That prompted Rauschenberg to deny Portable Gallery permission to sell slides of the Combine. (They had taken pictures of the piece while documenting other artworks in Castelli’s Lower East Side warehouse.) Vanderburg complained that the decision was part of a “cover-up of political maneuvering.” That charge, according to a tale Vanderburg loves retelling, including in an email to me, prompted Castelli to call him a “bitch” on the phone. In response to Vanderburg, Johns wrote a letter, published in the December 1962 issue of the Portable Gallery Bulletin. It is a powerful declaration of an artist’s agency, and his only public statement about Short Circuit:
Dear Sir:
I’ve always supposed that artists were allowed to paint however-whatever they pleased and to do whatever they please with their work—or not to give, sell, lend, allow reproduction, rework, destroy, repair, or exhibit it… Rauschenberg’s decision was part of a solution of differences of opinion between him and me over commercial and aesthetic values relating to that work. The painting itself has been publicly exhibited at least twice and, I believe, slides of it have been used in connection with public lectures.
The solution to these differences of opinion was to not show, publish, or sell the work with Johns’s flag in it. In Vanderburg’s own telling on his website, Portable Gallery decided to offer the Short Circuitslide for free to purchasers of their 1963 Pop art slide package. As for Short Circuit itself, the piece stayed in Castelli’s warehouse, at 25 First Avenue in downtown Manhattan, until at least 1965. From this point there are two slightly different versions of the story, both of which come from Castelli. The first is the public one, which Castelli told Michael Crichton in an interview for the Whitney Museum’s 1977 Johns retrospective catalogue, and which echoed through the writings of New Yorker scribe Calvin Tomkins.
According to this version, and the Castelli Gallery’s paper trail, the Short Circuit flag was stolen sometime “before June 8, 1965,” which was a Tuesday. The date Castelli gave the insurance company was June 6, a Sunday. Line that up with Crichton’s footnote on the “curious historical incident,” in which “one day, [Castelli] examined the painting and discovered that the Johns flag had been stolen.” But it was only “years later,” Castelli told Crichton, that “a dealer—we do not need to say who”—brought a flag to the gallery for authentication, a flag which Castelli recognized immediately as the missing Combine flag. The dealer said he couldn’t leave the work with the gallery, and, Castelli said, “he was very insistent, so I said, ‘Well, all right.’ I never saw the painting again.”So he came with the flag and there it was, the flag that was inside the painting! I sent somebody down to the warehouse, and I told them to open that case and see if the painting of the flag was there, and it wasn’t there. So I said, “This is a stolen flag, so please leave it here.” He said, “No, it’s been given to me by somebody who would suffer direly if I didn’t give it back to her… please let me take care of it. I’ll get it to you.” I said, “Alright, if you promise that you’ll take care of it and get it back and straighten it out with her.” I never got it right back. He made a terrible, hysterical scene and said, “I must have the flag back.” . . . and the flag disappeared for good.
It would seem that when they learned of the theft, Castelli and company scrambled to figure out who was involved. When they couldn’t get the flag back by June, a police report and an insurance claim (according to Castelli’s notebook it was for “JJ,” not “RR”) were filed. In the copy of the report he left behind, the insurance agent, named Mellors, noted the flag’s dimensions (13¼ by 17¼ inches) and upped the initial value from $5,000 to $12,000. Mellors said that, in addition to the Johns, a small 1964 Roy Lichtenstein sculpture edition was also missing. The following week the gallery sent a cursory note to the Art Dealers Association of America that read, “Enclosed please find a photograph of the Rauschenberg work from which the Jasper Johns flag was stolen,” but with no titles, dates, details, or dimensions. According to the Art Loss Register (ALR), which was the successor to the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR), whose Stolen Art Alert list was the successor to the ADAA’s registry, no report of a missing Rauschenberg or Johns comes close to matching the Short Circuit flag.
It is here that the narratives of Short Circuit and its flag inevitably diverge. There is no contemporary record of Rauschenberg or Johns’s response to the flag’s disappearance. In a 2011 lecture on Short Circuit, Art Institute curator (now director) James Rondeau said, “Bob actually called Jasper and said, ‘Jasper, the flag is missing. What do we do?’ And Jasper, according to the literature and my interviews, says two words: ‘Call Elaine’ ”—meaning Elaine Sturtevant, an appropriation artist who had been making direct copies of work by Andy Warhol, Lichtenstein, and Johns. Sturtevant and Rauschenberg were friends. They posed together in the buff for a re-creation of Duchamp’s Adam and Eve in 1967, the same year they also shared a bill, along with Rauschenberg’s new boyfriend, dancer Steve Paxton, on the School of Visual Art’s fall performance calendar.
Charles Yoder, a Rauschenberg assistant, remembers seeing Sturtevant’s flag in Short Circuit in 1971. Castelli called it “ugly” in his 1973 oral-history interview. According to his notes in the Smithsonian Archives, curator Walter Hopps, who organized a Rauschenberg retrospective in 1976 at the National Collection of Fine Arts, held out hope that the original flag might be found in time for the show. When that didn’t happen, Rauschenberg wrote that he might paint a replacement himself, both “to rid myself of the bad memories surrounding the theft” and because he “need[ed] the therapy.” The only existing photo of Short Circuit with Johns’s flag is in the catalogue, but in the last draft of the exhibition checklist, Hopps dropped Short Circuit from the show. Other curators who visited Rauschenberg’s studio lamented the Combine’s condition or its unavailability. It was not until Paul Schimmel’s 2005 to 2007 traveling show of Rauschenberg’s Combines that a full color image of Short Circuit with Sturtevant’s Johns Flag was published. It turns out Sturtevant’s flag was installed higher than the original, in order to accommodate a stamped label strip below it that reads, “The original Jasper Johns Flag was stolen in 1965. It is replaced by an original Sturtevant 1967,” which clears that up.
And what of the original flag? In 2010 I called Ivan Karp, Castelli’s longtime consigliere, who told me that the dealer who had gone to Castelli in 1965 to authenticate the stolen flag was Robert Elkon, and that his client, so to speak, was Gertrude Stein (of Madison Avenue, not Rue du Fleurus). Elkon and Stein both ran secondary-market galleries; the former died in 1983, but the latter is still around and dealing. (Elkon and Stein had been embroiled in a lawsuit in 1993 over the 1967 sale of a Chagall gouache, which turned out to have been stolen from the Guggenheim in 1965. The museum, hoping to avoid publicity and suspecting an inside job, had never reported the painting’s disappearance. Stein, Elkon’s estate, and their buyer agreed to pay the museum in a confidential settlement.) Stein and I spoke many times over the years I spent looking into the flag, most often when I dialed from unrecognized numbers. Though I never pressed, I came to believe that she did indeed have some firsthand knowledge of the Short Circuit flag.CASTELLI: There were three people that were the gallery: myself, Rauschenberg, and Johns. As a matter of fact it was Rauschenberg hyphen Johns, because they seem to be sort of always mentioned in the same breath: Rauschenberg and Johns. As a matter of fact, later on Johns got (there were other reasons too) got so irked by this constant coupling that occurs that he—this is certainly one of the reasons why he broke with Rauschenberg.
CUMMINGS: Really?
CASTELLI: Because he just did not want to be constantly mentioned in the same breath as Rauschenberg. Well there were other reasons of course, they started diverging also on aesthetic grounds and so on. Rauschenberg did not approve of the direction that Johns was taking and Johns didn’t approve of what Rauschenberg was doing.
Rauschenberg-Johns. These two great artists had diverged, but before that, they were totally in sync, influencing each other and developing and making their work together. Short Circuit and its flag were the fulcrum of their relationship and their early practice. And it was gone.
After reading Castelli’s interview, I called Stein one more time, for the first time in almost a year, and asked her if Castelli and Elkon could have simply quietly sold the flag back to Johns, at which point Stein hung up on me. I guess we’ll never know.
you have a great blog .. found the collage post from a year or two ago, and man, your mind is thorough .. thanks much
ReplyDelete