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.

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.

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!