All PostsI posted previously about Cy Twombly’s work. As I was returning the monograph on him I had back to the library, I scanned two images to share.
The first is a “polyptych in 9 parts” called “Nine Discourses on Commodus” (1963). I’d imagine my interest in it is obvious. Layed out as it is on the page, it fits perfectly into the classic 9 panel comics page. The images themselves even have a certain appearance of sequentiality, not unlike the abstract comics of Trondheim or Molotiu. (Click on the images for large views.)
The second image also attracted me for its paneled composition. The piece is entitled “Narcissus” (1960). It’s hard to see on the scan, but the boxes at the bottom are labeled “Reflection” I through VI, while the top is labeled “Narcissus.” One can “read” the painting almost like a comic with the large panel at the top and a row of smaller panels at the bottom. I love the diagrammatic stairs.
Twombly continues to impress.
I wonder if the “appearance of sequentiality” you mention in the “Discourses” piece is more a case of comics conditioning than any actual intended succession. I see it too, but is that only because you and I are “trained” to read a nine panel grid as something like comics? (I have the same concerns with Molotiu, but the context and source of his work make the connection strong enough to say “Hey…Comics!”)
Anyway, keep the scans like this coming. Man, I really gotta get a closer look at this stuff!
I should have mentioned that the images come from:
Cy Twombly : a monograph by Richard Leeman (2005).
Great reproductions in there. Try your library, Tim.
I do think that the sequentiality is mostly a result of ways of reading. But, on the other hand, the Commodus is a segmented work. Regardless of any linear or narrative sequentiality there is at least some kind of process sequentiality or thematic sequentiality.
Doesn’t “sequence” imply some type of linearity?
We can read it anyway we want, regardless of the artists intent. The question is how much the “sequentiality” plays to the interpretation of the piece. Twombly placed these this way (presumably) for a reason, but what reason? Aesthetic? Or is the given sequence important to the overall effect? Otherwise isn’t any perceived sequentiality just an interesting (and personal) side-note?
Anyway, all this is just an aside. I think these are great works and they really get the juices flowing, in regards to thinking about sequentiality and the possibilities therein.
I went to the library’s site right after leaving here. Had to request them in from Cleveland but several books are now on their way.
Thanks, Derik.