May 2 Modern & Contemporary Art Auction Evening Session #5258

EVENING SESSION
MODERN & CONTEMPORARY ART
MAY 2, 2016 ❘ NEW YORK

Front Cover: WILLEM DE KOONING, Lot 69217 (Detail)
Inside Front Cover: ROBERT RAUSCHENBERG, Lot 69215
Inside Back Cover: ROBERT BECHTLE, Lot 69222 (Detail)
Back Cover: JEFF KOONS, Lot 69227
Opposite: HELEN FRANKENTHALER, Lot 69207

41495
Heritage Signature®
Auction #5258
Signature®
Floor Sessions 1-2
(Floor, Telephone, HERITAGELive!®
, Internet, Fax, and Mail)
2 E. 79th Street • New York, NY 10075
(Ukrainian Institute of America at the Fletcher-Sinclair Mansion)
Session 1 – AFTERNOON
Monday, May 2 • 2:00 PM ET • Lots 69001-69115
Session 2 – EVENING
Monday, May 2 • 7:00 PM ET • Lots 69200-69231
LOT SETTLEMENT AND PICK-UP
Lots will be available for pick-up immediately following the
auction at 2 E. 79th Street – New York, NY 10075. If you
wish for your purchases to remain in New York for pick up at
445 Park Ave. after this time, please notify Cassandra
Hutzler at 212-486-3517 or CassandraH@HA.com, or Brian
Nalley at 214-409-1685 or BrianN@HA.com no later than
8:00 AM ET on Tuesday, May 3; otherwise, all property will
be transported to Dallas headquarters and available for
third-party or personal pick-up on or after Tuesday,
May 10, weekdays, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM CT by appointment.
Lots are sold at an approximate rate of 65 lots per hour, but it
is not uncommon to sell 50 lots or 80 lots in any given hour.
This auction is subject to a Buyer’s Premium of 25% on the first $200,000
(minimum $14), 20% of any amount between $ 200,000 and $2,000,000, and
12% of any amount over $2,000,000.
NYC Auctioneer licenses: Heritage Auctioneers & Galleries, Inc. 1364738; Kathleen
Guzman 0762165; Paul Minshull 2001161; Ed Beardsley 1183220; Nicholas Dawes
1304724; Fiona Elias 2001163; Samuel Foose 0952360; Alissa Ford 2009565; Elyse
Luray 2015375; Jennifer Marsh 2009623; Bob Merrill 1473403; Brian Nalley 2001162;
Scott Peterson 1306933; Mike Provenzale 2014734; Michael J. Sadler 1304630;
Andrea Voss 1320558.
PRELIMINARY LOT VIEWING (Highlights Only)
Heritage Auctions, Beverly Hills
9478 W. Olympic Blvd. • Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Monday, April 4 – Wednesday, April 6
10:00 AM – 5:00 PM PT
Heritage Auctions Design District Annex
1518 Slocum Street • Dallas, TX 75207
Thursday, April 14 – Saturday, April 16
10:00 AM – 5:00 PM CT
LOT VIEWING
2 E. 79th Street • New York, NY 10075
(Ukrainian Institute of America at the Fletcher-Sinclair Mansion)
Friday, April 29 – Monday, May 2 • 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM ET
View lots & auction results online at HA.com/5258
BIDDING METHODS
® 1
Bidding
Bid live on your computer or mobile, anywhere in the
world, during the Auction using our HERITAGELive!®
program at HA.com/Live
Live Floor Bidding
Bid in person during the floor sessions.
Live Telephone Bidding (floor sessions only)
Phone bidding must be arranged on or before Friday,
April 29, by 12:00 PM CT.
Client Service: 866-835-3243
Internet Absentee Bidding
Proxy bidding ends one hour prior to the session start time.
Live Proxy bidding continues through the session.
HA.com/5258
Fax Bidding
Fax bids must be received on or before Friday, April 29, by
12:00 PM CT. Fax: 214-409-1425
Mail Bidding
Mail bids must be received on or before Friday, April 29.
Phone: 214-528-3500 • 877-HERITAGE (437-4824)
Fax: 214-409-1425
Direct Client Service Line: 866-835-3243
Email: Bid@HA.com
May 2, 2016 | New York
This Auction is cataloged and presented by Heritage Auctioneers & Galleries, Inc.,
doing business as Heritage Auctions.
New York City 1364738 and NYC Second Hand Dealers License 1364739
© 2016 Heritage Auctioneers & Galleries, Inc.
HERITAGE is a registered trademark and service mark of Heritage Capital
Corporation, registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
1
Patent No. 9,064,282
Modern & Contemporary Art
Evening Session

Consignment Directors: Frank Hettig, Leon Benrimon, Holly Sherratt
Cataloged by: Elizabeth Cassada, Taylor Curry
Research and Authentication: Mary Adair Dockery
Steve Ivy
CEO
Co-Chairman of the Board
Jim Halperin
Co-Chairman of the Board
Paul Minshull
Chief Operating Officer
Todd Imhof
Executive Vice President
Greg Rohan
President
Worldwide Headquarters
3500 Maple Avenue • Dallas, Texas 75219
Phone 214-528-3500 • 877-HERITAGE (437-4824)
HA.com/Modern
Fine & Decorative Arts Department Specialists
Ed Beardsley
Vice President and
Managing Director
Ed Jaster
Senior Vice President
Frank Hettig
Director, Modern &
Contemporary Art
Holly Sherratt
Director, Modern &
Contemporary Art
San Francisco
Leon Benrimon
Director, Modern &
Contemporary Art
New York

MODERN & CONTEMPORARY ART
FRIEDEL DZUBAS Lot 69214
EVENING SESSION

10 To view full descriptions, enlargeable images and bid online, visit HA.com/5258
69200
KAWS (b. 1974)
Untitled (four works), 1999
Acrylic on canvas
16 x 16 inches (40.6 x 40.6 cm) (each)
Each signed and dated verso: KAWS 99
One inscribed verso: Buck [heart] Carney
PROVENANCE:
Private collection, Paris;
Private collection, New York.
Estimate: $80,000-$120,000
An influential member of a new generation of street artists, KAWS’ work is a powerful example of contemporary visual
culture. Growing up in Jersey City, Brian Donnelly began to graffiti on billboards and advertising posters in the late
1980’s. By 1995, at the School of Visual Arts in New York City, he started combining street art and commercial design.
The KAWS has since gone on to produce limited edition toys and street wear, to great acclaim.
In the present work, KAWS captures his iconic Companion figures in full force: The artist’s playful repetition of the
Companion in four colors references the Pop sensibilities of Andy Warhol. Yet, the cartoonish imagery and surreal
depictions look to the illustrative work of Peter Saul, and the creations of H.C. Westermann. The crossed out “X” eyes,
considered to be the artist’s signature, add emotion (or lack thereof) to the work. Utilizing his signature motif, KAWS is
able to mutate and add feeling to the works. The humorous cartoon nature of the compositions is juxtaposed with the
more sinister skull shaped heads. Whether intentional or not, the contradictory effect asks the viewer to seek out and
answer question about life and death.
Some of the artist’s best-known works include his Companion figures of Mickey Mouse, Michelin Man, and Snoopy.
Bridging together Pop, Street and Comic art alongside his commercial merchandising, KAWS has become one of the art
world’s most influential brands.

Evening Session, Auction #5258 | Monday, May 2, 2016 | 7:00 PM ET 11

69201
Keith Haring (1958-1990)
Untitled, 1981
Acrylic on canvasboard
11 x 14 inches (27.9 x 35.6 cm)
Signed twice, inscribed, and dated verso: Keith Haring Kutztown 230 S.
Whiteoak, Dec. 29-81, K. Haring
PROVENANCE:
Christie’s, New York, First Open Post-War and Contemporary Art,
September 23, 2009, lot 26;
Guy Hepner, West Hollywood, California;
Private collection, United Kingdom;
Phillips de Pury, London, October 11, 2012, lot 156;
Estimate: $80,000-$120,000
Keith Haring’s brief but illustrious career, which spanned the 1980s, began with a childhood interest in cartoon figures
lifted from Pop culture created by Dr. Seuss, Walt Disney, and other illustrators of the genre. As a young child his
father encouraged him to sketch characters from comic strips. Through these early learning experiences Haring was
able to create his own unique visual language. Drawing inspiration from Andy Warhol and his contemporary Jean-
Michel Basquiat, Haring believed that art constituted the ultimate expression of individuality. Haring’s works were
featured in over one hundred solo and group exhibitions, and he received tremendous press and media attention.
But not only is Haring a renowned artist, he is also remembered as an influential social activist who responded to
sexuality, death and war.
The present work employs Haring’s instantly recognizable, culturally pervasive pictorial language of bold contoured
lines, graphic figures and barking dogs. Completed a year before his now famous one man show at Tony Shafrazi
Gallery in 1982, this painting was made during a time of thriving alternative art communities that developed outside
the gallery and museum system. One of many themes apparent in Haring’s work is that of sexuality. In much of
Haring’s work he aimed to depict the stigma associated with homosexual relationships in an aesthetically interesting
and captivating manner. Seen in this respect the current work challenges the viewer’s own sensibilities and clearly
demonstrates both of Haring’s social and personal influences while using his innovative artistic language.
“I don’t think art is propaganda; it should be something that
liberates the soul, provokes the imagination and encourages
people to go further. It celebrates humanity instead of
manipulating it.”
– Keith Haring

69202 ◆
Jean-Michel Basquiat (1960-1988)
(Anti) Product Postcards (set of 10), circa 1980
Postcard, ink, and color Xerox mounted on cardboard
5-1/2 x 4-1/4 inches (14 x 10.8 cm) (each)
Eight signed on the reverse
PROVENANCE:
The artist;
Private collection, acquired directly from the above;
Sotheby’s New York, May 7, 1997, lot 195;
Private collection.
Estimate: $40,000-$60,000
Jean-Michel Basquiat produced annotated and collaged postcards at an early stage in his career, selling them on the
streets of lower New York. Although early in date, these postcards already attest to the artist’s hybrid language of
African-American culture, pop culture, and fine art.
In the present works, Basquiat associates textual elements and photocopied images in a manner that is uniquely his
own, described by the critic John Russell in 1984 as proceeding “by disjunction–that is, by making marks that seem
quite unrelated but turn out to get on very well together”.
Although Basquiat’s work is often described as Primitivist, these postcards demonstrate the artist’s refusal to identify
with this view. Expressions such as “stupid games” and “bad ideas” are combined with allusions to authenticity
tropes—a personal identification card, a barcode, and playful photographs—and to money and value—“only $1,” and
“negative surplus data”—as if to suggest their instability.

69203
Keith Haring (1958-1990)
USA-1, 1984
Oil on burlap
24-1/2 x 21-1/2 inches (62.2 x 54.6 cm)
Signed, titled, and dated on the reverse: 84 April / 20 / Keith Haring / USA-1
PROVENANCE:
Sidney Janis Gallery, New York;
Private collection, acquired from the above;
Sotheby’s New York, November 14, 2012, lot 304;
Private collection.
Estimate: $100,000-$150,000
“It was the idea of making the movements I was doing into a
kind of choreography – a kind of dance. I was thinking that the
very act of painting placed you in an exhilarated state- it was a
sacred moment.”
– Keith Haring
USA-1 perfectly encapsulates Keith Haring’s imagery and mature style. The work features his simplistic graphic yet
expressive subject matter, which was inspired from personal experiences and cultural developments occurring in in
New York City. Music played an important role throughout Keith Haring’s public and private life and it became an
essential element in his creativity. Haring often worked to music and played hip-hop at full volume in his studio. He
was a passionate dancer, and visits to his favorite club, the Paradise Garage, were part of his weekend ritual. Having
personal friendships with people in the club scene and the recording industry, his desire for new music guaranteed him
constant sources of new inspiration. While traveling, he would carry a selection of tapes compiled by his friends and
DJs. In New York City, the 1980s saw the rise of the hip-hop culture and a new musical movement. Rappers released
songs detailing their lives and struggles of living in the inner city, break-dancers explored forms of movement. These
exposures became new forms of stimulation for Haring.
The figure in the present work exudes energy: the head has been replaced with a boom box, perhaps referencing
the effect that music can have on one’s body. The strong, bold line work around the figure’s hands and feet indicate
a sense of rhythm and drama. The minimalist technique of the work further emphasizes the rhythmic nature of the
subject. Haring’s figure seems to be in a state of flux, moving to the sound of music. USA-1 Haring at his best—a ‘flat’
painting is brought to life.

69204
David Bates (b. 1952)
Still Life - Winter, 2010-2011
Oil on panel
80 x 48 inches (203.2 x 121.9 cm)
Signed lower left: Bates
Signed, titled, and dated verso: Bates / Still Life - / Winter / 2010 - / 2011
PROVENANCE:
Talley Dunn Gallery, Dallas, Texas (label verso);
Private collection.
EXHIBITED:
Talley Dunn Gallery, Dallas, Texas, “Paintings, Drawings, and Sculpture,” October 27-December 15, 2012;
Nasher Sculpture Center, Dallas, Texas, “David Bates,” February 9, 2014-May 11, 2014.
LITERATURE:
Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth and the Nasher Sculpture Center, David Bates, exhibition catalogue, 2014,
p. 148, illus.
Estimate: $60,000-$80,000
Still Life - Winter draws inspiration from landscapes and traditions of the American South and Southwest, whose
elements Bates appropriates and combines using a visual vocabulary reminiscent of Cubism, African art and the
Hispanic folk tradition. In the present work, Bates renders a tridimensional space, juxtaposed with the flat surface of
the vase, heightened by grays that surround and inhabit the branches and leaves. The result is a tribal-inspired still
life, evocative of a post-industrial landscape. The Cubist aesthetic, which is also evident in paintings such as Magnolia
in a Vase II (2009), is here permeated by non-pretentious patterning and by flatly painted blocks of color that are
reminiscent of American Folk Art.

69205
David Bates (b. 1952)
Vine, 2012
Bronze with white paint and patina
48-1/2 x 9-1/2 x 15-1/2 inches (123.2 x 24.1 x 39.4 cm)
Signed and dated on the underside: Bates 2012
PROVENANCE:
Talley Dunn Gallery, Dallas, Texas;
Private collection.
EXHIBITED:
Talley Dunn Gallery, Dallas, Texas, “Paintings, Drawings, and Sculpture,”
October 27-December 15, 2012;
Nasher Sculpture Center, Dallas, Texas, “David Bates,” February 9, 2014-
May11, 2014.
LITERATURE:
Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth and the Nasher Sculpture Center,
David Bates, exhibition catalogue, 2014, p. 168, illus.
Estimate: $40,000-$60,000
Although David Bates is best known for his paintings, a vital component within his oeuvre is his
assemblages of wood, cardboard and other materials, often cast into bronze – particularly since
1992, when he started visiting the Walla Walla Foundry in rural Washington. Depicting a frail
vine tree, Vine from 2012 illustrates the artist’s fascination with the contradictions of vitality and
decrepitude, abstraction and representation—both significant themes within Bates’ body of work.
The lines and forms of the leaves in Vine suggest a close relation between Bates’ painting and
sculpture, while also attesting to his strong Cubist influence. Vine evokes a pre-modern world: plants,
animals, lakes, land. But rather than mere nostalgia for a pre-urban past or a melancholic description
of what the South could have been, the present work celebrates the South as it is. As such, it
relates to Bates’ series from 2007, created in response to the mediated images of New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina (see The Deluge IV, 2007 or the series Katrina Portraits, 2006-07).

69206
John Chamberlain (1927-2011)
Untitled, from the Foil series, circa 1972
Aluminum foil with acrylic lacquer and polyester resin
5 x 4-1/4 x 5-1/4 inches (12.7 x 10.8 x 13.3 cm)
PROVENANCE:
Stanley Marsh 3, Amarillo, Texas;
Private collection, Austin, Texas.
Estimate: $30,000-$50,000
“I wasn’t interested in car parts per se, I was interested in either
the color or the shape or the amount… Just the sheet metal. It
already had a coat of paint on it. And some of it was formed…
I believe that common materials are the best materials.”
– John Chamberlain

Helen Frankenthaler Lot 69207

69207
Helen Frankenthaler (1928-2011)
Tantric, 1977
Acrylic on canvas
69-1/4 x 67-1/2 inches (175.9 x 171.5 cm)
Signed upper right: Frankenthaler
PROVENANCE:
The artist;
Andre Emmerich Gallery, New York;
Private collection, Dallas, Texas, acquired from the above, 1977;
Private collection, Florida, 1999.
EXHIBITED:
Andre Emmerich Gallery, New York, “Helen Frankenthaler: New Paintings,”
November 19-December 8, 1977.
Knoedler & Company, New York, “Frankenthaler: East and Beyond,” January
8-March 11, 2011.
LITERATURE:
Andre Emmerich Gallery, Helen Frankenthaler: New Paintings, New York,
1977, n.p., illustrated in color;
John Elderfield, Helen Frankenthaler, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York, 1989,
p. 282, illustrated in color;
Knoedler & Company, Frankenthaler: East and Beyond, New York, 2011,
exhibition catalogue, p. 32, illustrated in color.
Estimate: $500,000-$700,000

The name Helen Frankenthaler (1928-2011) immediately conjures up images of radiant hues disposed in voluptuous,
liquid flows – that is to say, she is usually thought of, not without reason, as a lyrical painter who uses thin color with
extraordinary inventiveness. Many of the early paintings that first established Frankenthaler’s reputation in the 1950s
could, in fact, be accurately described this way, as could many of the subsequent works that sustained that reputation,
made over the half century of her long and productive life. But just as Frankenthaler continuously experimented with
different disciplines and mediums – painting on canvas and paper, an enormous variety of printmaking techniques,
sculpture, ceramics, and sets and costumes for a ballet, among other ventures – she never settled for the familiar or
the comfortable and never made only one kind of picture. Throughout her working life, she explored a wide variety
of conceptions of what a painting could be, challenging her own assumptions and striving to surprise herself. Her
earliest works bear witness to an ardent young woman newly graduated from Bennington, armed with a thorough
understanding of Cubist structure, eagerly testing herself against the most adventurous art being shown in New York
at the time. We can follow her exploring the implications of Arshile Gorky, Willem de Kooning, Joan Miró, Wassily
Kandinsky, and Jackson Pollock, sometimes all in the same painting, and in doing so, discovering her own originality.
At a time when most ambitious painters of Frankenthaler’s generation were in de Kooning’s thrall, she famously
concluded that “You could become a de Kooning disciple or satellite or mirror, but you could depart from Pollock…”
As her point of departure, Frankenthaler used Pollock’s radically unconventional method of working on unstretched,
unprimed canvas placed on the floor, approaching the painting from all sides, and responding to whatever emerged
in the course of making, rather than deciding on an orientation or an image before beginning to paint. She rejected
Pollock’s poured and dripped of skeins of paint, however, employing a wide range of tools, rags, and her hands,
among other things, to manipulate – or encourage – thinned-out paint to flow across the canvas, drawing and
painting simultaneously. At times, it seems as if the fluid configurations she achieved through these means had been
willed into being, rather than created by direct paint handling. The resulting works were at once bold and intimate,
distinguished by their uninhibited drawing and by their disembodied, transparent sweeps of color. Frankenthaler’s early
paintings had the large scale and authority that characterized the work of her immediate predecessors, the Abstract
Expressionists, but they also had the immediacy and luminosity of watercolors. In contrast to the layered, wet-into-
wet, surfaces of gestural Abstract Expressionism, her stains of diluted paint, soaked into the unprimed canvas, revealed
few traces of the history of their application. Color and pigment seemed weightless, transparent, and disembodied, as
if these pictures had come about through the sheer force of Frankenthaler’s personality.
While she was still in her twenties, these remarkable canvases established Frankenthaler as a painter to be
taken seriously and watched with great attention – an extraordinarily young age for this kind of recognition, in
an era when artists were supposed to spend years maturing, before presenting their efforts to the public. Even
more surprising, in 1960 – she was thirty one – she had a survey exhibition at the Jewish Museum, a significant
achievement for any artist, but especially noteworthy for a young woman in an art world dominated by seasoned,
intense men who thrived on debate and argument. Yet probably because Frankenthaler was a young woman, critics
wrote about the delicacy and tender color of her work, praising its “femininity.” The exhibition certainly included
paintings that could be characterized as delicate and tender (“feminine” is more questionable) but there were others
that might have been better termed “muscular” or “vigorous” or just plain “tough.” One writer, however, fully
understood the complexity of the artist’s accomplishment: the poet and curator, Frank O’Hara, the author of the
exhibition’s perceptive catalogue essay.
“Frankenthaler is a daring painter,” O’Hara wrote. “She is willing to risk the big gesture, to employ huge formats so
that her essentially intimate revelations may be more fully explored and delineated, appear in the hot light of day.

She is willing to declare erotic and sentimental preoccupations full-scale and with full conviction. She has the ability
to let a painting be beautiful, or graceful, or sullen, and perfunctory, if these qualities are part of the force and clarity
of the occasion.”
For the rest of her life as an artist, Frankenthaler would explore wildly varied moods and emotional temperatures in
her work, an adventurous approach that also informs her comments about her methods and goals. Speaking about
what she referred to in ironic quotes as her “process,” she said she thought of herself as “a spacemaker,” with color
as “the first message on the picture plane… It’s born out of idea, mood, luck, imagination, risk, into what might even
be ugly; then I let it tell me what might/should be used next, until I get the light and order that satisfies to perfection.
The result is color and space and, I hope, a beautiful message.” Frankenthaler always remained open to unexpected
results. “Instead of masterly,” she said, “you want to be – well, two words I frequently use – clumsy or puzzled.”
In spite of her fundamental disdain for the conventional or the familiar in her art, Frankenthaler never rejected that
Fig. 1 ©TheMetropolitanMuseumofArt.Imagesource;ArtResource,NY

much maligned notion, beauty, but as her notion of the beautiful was not limited to the lyrical mode for which she
was best known. Many of her most potent, memorable works, particularly in the late 1970s and early 1980s, were
celebrations of what she called her “darker palette:” resonant, deep-hue, often dramatically lit paintings, such as
Tantric, 1977. In them, transparent swipes of pale hues and zones of magical radiance seem to emerge from pools
of darkness. In contrast to the often biomorphic or organic shapes of the color stains in her preceding paintings,
Frankenthaler’s works of the late 1970s subtly emphasize geometry, loosely reiterating the vertical and horizontal axes
implied by the edges of the rectangular canvas. Because of the combination of this disciplined, lucid approach to
composition and dark, often somber hues, paintings such as Tantric seem to propose a new kind of classicism within
Frankenthaler’s oeuvre, perhaps even a new kind of reference to the art of the past.
If Frankethaler’s exuberant orchestrations of chromatic color bear witness to her admiration for modern masters such
as Henri Matisse or Pierre Bonnard, the resonant hues and expressive chiaroscuro of works such as Tantric seem
to pay homage to the old masters. Starting in the 1950s and continuing until the last years of her life, Frankenthaler
frequently used paintings she was engaged by as the basis for her own work, responding freely not only to works by
Matisse, but also by Titian, Jacopo Bassano, Rembrandt, Francisco Goya, Gustave Courbet, Edgar Degas, Edouard
Manet, and her friend David Smith, among many others. Sometimes, as the titles can reveal, her starting point was
a specific work that she knew well and found compelling; sometimes it was a more general impression of an artist.
Whatever the stimulus, the result was never literal but rather, even in paintings based on specific sources, a kind of
uninhibited, free-wheeling improvisation that distilled her accumulated experience of other works of art into her own
distinctive visual language. While it is not possible to correlate Tantric with any particular source work, it is tempting
to see the painting’s rich play of dark and light as an expression of Frankenthaler’s often expressed love of Rembrandt.
(The connection is reinforced by her having made several similarly dramatic works within a few years of Tantric,
Helmet, 1978, and Portrait of Margaretha Trip, 1980, pictures that, as their titles suggest, are overt homages to specific
paintings by Rembrandt.) Certainly, works such as Lucretia, 1666, (Fig. 2) or Man Seated Reading at a Table in a Lofty
Room, 1628-30, (Fig. 1 formerly attributed to Rembrandt, National Gallery, London), with their enveloping darkness
and geometric zones of light, suggest affinities with the overall structure and luminous planes of Tantric.
The association of Tantric with works by Rembrandt cannot be proven, but the visual evidence suggests that the
connection is plausible, perhaps more so, despite the painting’s title, than with images associated with Tantric yoga.
We might speculate that the composition, with its centralized salmon pink element, could be a response to the
symmetry and centrally placed geometric motifs of Tantric paintings, but Frankenthaler’s interest in works of that type
seems to have been casual, at best, and her titles always came after the fact, provoked by the completed painting itself
rather than vice versa. Of course, we cannot rule out the effect of a chance encounter – a postcard sent by a friend or
a gift of a book of reproductions, both of which have triggered “source paintings.” Ultimately, it hardly needs noting,
the power of Tantric rests not in its possible ties to other works of art, but in Frankenthaler’s ability to transform a flood
of bottomless black-brown, some oversized strokes of luminous rose-taupe and suave orangey-pink, a few delicate
lines of chalky blue, and a scattering of intimate deep red finger marks into a new mysterious, allusive whole.
It is worth noting, however, that no matter how much we probe Frankenthaler’s motivations and intentions, seeking
clues within her work, she herself insisted that she had no preconceptions, but instead strove always to remain open to
all possibilities. Her conversation, like her paintings, reveals an almost mystical sense of submission to the demands of
the emerging picture, a willingness to trust her accumulated experience of picture-making and jettison all comforting,
previously established ideas in order to respond to the unlooked-for suggestions that arose in the course of working.
Many artists refer to this state as “getting out of one’s own way,” a necessary condition, they feel – as Frankenthaler

did – to achieving anything personal or significant. It’s a kind of aesthetic high wire walking. There is always risk of
complete failure, but as assured paintings such as Tantric attest, there can be great rewards, upon reaching the other
side of the chasm.
Frankenthaler eloquently described this intuitive process in the early 1980s: “The only rule is that there are no rules.
Anything is possible – metallic paint or something ugly or pouring a huge quantity of paint on thin paper. It’s all about
risks, deliberate risks. The picture unfolds, leads, unravels as I push ahead. Watching it develop, I seize it. More and
more I feel led into the manifestation of how it must look. Despite the fact that it exists because I am the insistent
developer of how it will look, it must appear as it does. As always, from the 1950s on, I must be ready to work with
what is insisting on emerging and use it and take it from there.”
Karen Wilkin
New York, March 2016
Fig. 2
CourtseyofTheWilliamHoodDunwoodyFund

69208
Sam Francis (1923-1994)
Untitled (Abstract #15), 1979
Acrylic on paper
19-1/4 x 13-3/4 inches (48.9 x 34.9 cm)
PROVENANCE:
Adams-Middleton Gallery, Dallas, Texas;
Private collection.
EXHIBITED:
Adams-Middleton Gallery, Dallas, Texas, “Recent Abstract Painting,”
September 12-October 12, 1985 (label verso).
NOTE:
This work is registered in the Sam Francis Archives under number SF #79-
262.
Estimate: $18,000-$25,000
“Color is born of the interpenetration of light and dark.”
– Sam Francis

69209
Mary Corse (b. 1945)
Untitled (White Knight), 1986
Glass microspheres in acrylic on canvas
81 x 81 inches (205.7 x 205.7 cm)
PROVENANCE:
Adams-Middleton Gallery, Dallas, Texas (label verso);
Private collection.
Estimate: $50,000-$65,000
The combination of a minimalist aesthetic with an attention to subjectivity is central to the work of Mary Corse. The
result is reminiscent of the Light and Space movement, popularized by James Turrell and Robert Irwin. Untitled (White
Knight) exemplifies Corse’s technique: her use of glass microspheres transforms a minimalist canvas into a surface on
which blocks of light appear and disappear as the lighting changes and the viewer shifts perspective. This incorporation
of chance and instability places the spectator’s perception at the center of the aesthetic experience. And yet, the artist’s
gestures are also evident on the canvas. In this way, Untitled (White Knight) articulates unity and multiplicity among the
elements of space, light, the viewer, and the artist’s desire “to put the actual light in the painting.”

69210
Charles Arthur Arnoldi (b. 1946)
Frostbite, 2005
Oil on canvas
78 x 68 inches (198.1 x 172.7 cm)
Signed, titled, and dated on verso: Frostbite Arnoldi 2005
PROVENANCE:
Modernism, San Francisco, California;
Private collection, Houston, Texas, acquired from the above.
EXHIBITED:
Modernism, San Francisco, California, “Charles Arnoldi: New Work,”
September 8-October 29, 2005.
Estimate: $20,000-$30,000
“Ultimately, what I would really love to do is make good
enough paintings that other people who want to make
paintings would say ‘God I wish I made those paintings.’ To
me that’s the ultimate thing, that if another person who feels
the way I do about painting says, ‘I wish I could do that!’
That’s it.”
– Charles Arnoldi

69211
Mary Corse (b. 1945)
Untitled (white inner band), 2001
Glass microspheres in acrylic on canvas
42 x 42 inches (106.7 x 106.7 cm)
Signed and dated verso: Mary Corse / 2001
PROVENANCE:
Private collection, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Estimate: $40,000-$60,000
Mary Corse’s body of work is strongly influenced by her studies in psychology, her interest in quantum physics, and by
the work of Op artist Josef Albers. Utilizing paint and reflective microspheres, a technique that she developed during
years of experimentation, Corse overcomes what was often perceived as mutually exclusive: the Minimalist aesthetic—
monochromatic, seemingly fixed and flat—and the principles behind Abstract Expressionism, particularly its focus on
chance and on the artist’s intention. Untitled (white inner band) from 2001 responds to changes in the position of the
viewer and to the lighting conditions of its environment. However, like the White Light Grid Series of 1969, the central
band of white produces a light effect that seems to pervade the work itself–corresponding to the artist’s statement that
the painting “exists in an abstract perceptual reality”.

69212 ●
Caio Fonseca (b. 1959)
Fifth Street Painting Co2.1, 2002
Mixed media on canvas
49-1/2 x 64 inches (125.7 x 162.6 cm)
Signed lower right: Caio
Signed, titled, dated, and inscribed verso: Caio Fonseca / Fifth Street Painting
Co2.1 / mixed media on canvas 2002 / Caio Fonseca / 2002
PROVENANCE:
Terry K. Watanabe, acquired directly from the artist;
TKW Charitable Trust, Las Vegas, Nevada, donated from the above.
Estimate: $10,000-$15,000
“So many paintings have hidden meanings or need wall texts,
but my work is not in that category.”
– Caio Fonseca

69213
Josh Smith (b. 1976)
Untitled, 2013
Oil on panel
63 x 48 inches (160 x 121.9cm)
PROVENANCE
Luhring Augustine, New York (label verso);
Standard Oslo, Oslo, Norway (label verso);
Estimate: $40,000-$60,000
John Smith’s brightly colored, quasi-abstract paintings are based on appropriated imagery and may be grouped
stylistically with Expressionist Pop artists Martin Kippenberger and Christopher Wool. Seemingly unplanned, his
paintings—including Untitled from 2013—are carefully orchestrated using a selection of sources and a systematic
process of repetition, which can be explained by Smith’s background in printmaking. Like prints and multiples, Smith’s
works are often identical in size and motif, including his name, a leaf, and a fish, a witty way to suggest the functioning
role of the artist rather than visual appeal.
Smith looks for objects that one can strip of meaning. In the present work, the artist paints a common palm tree set
against a nondescript tropical sky of pinks, purples and oranges, revealing his interest not in representation or in
signification but, rather, on the process of painting itself. In Untitled, Smith presents a common subject, and the artist
and the viewer work together to create something interesting.

69214 ●
Friedel Dzubas (1915-1994)
Northern Cool, 1975
Acrylic on canvas
40 x 40 inches (101.6 x 101.6 cm)
Signed, titled, dated, and inscribed verso: Dzubas / 1975 /
“Northern Cool” / Acrylic (Magna) on canvas / 40 x 40
PROVENANCE:
Tibor de Nagy Gallery, Houston, Texas (label verso);
Private collection, Houston, Texas, acquired from the above, 1975.
Estimate: $15,000-$20,000
“In clearing the canvas of all-unessential, I was more and more
reduced to a few, simple, meaningful forms and these forms
were the content of my message. Color came more and more
into play, and I discovered that what I can reach emotionally
and express by color is infinite.”
– Friedel Dzubas

69215
Robert Rauschenberg (1925-2008)
Untitled, 1985
Acrylic, collage and pencil on fabric-laminated paper
64-3/8 x 48 inches (163.5 x 121.9 cm)
Signed and dated lower left: Rauschenberg 85
PROVENANCE:
The artist;
Knoedler & Company, New York;
Private collection, New York, acquired from the above, 1989.
EXHIBITED:
FreedmanArt, New York, “Art in the Making,” October 30, 2014-April 18, 2015.
NOTE:
This work is numbered 85.039 in the archives of the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation.
Estimate: $300,000-$500,000

Moving across the boundaries of Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, and
Conceptualism, Robert Rauschenberg pioneered techniques in almost
every medium that he touched, including collage, assemblage, paintings,
sculpture, prints, photography, dance, and choreography. During the mid
1970s, he expanded his work internationally, producing inventive mixed
media series in France, Israel, and China, and these experiences catalyzed
his most ambitious project to date, Rauschenberg Overseas Culture
Interchange, or “ROCI” (named after his pet turtle, Rocky). Rauschenberg
envisioned ROCI as a collaborative artistic venture, a bridge between
disparate cultures (many of them third-world or stunted by oppressive
regimes), and an opportunity for promoting world peace. He explained at
a United Nations press conference in 1984, “Art is educating, provocative,
and enlightening even when first not understood. The very creative
confusion stimulates curiosity and growth, leading to trust and tolerance.
To share our intimate eccentricities proudly will bring us all closer”
(National Gallery of Art, Rauschenberg Overseas Culture Interchange,
exhibition catalogue, Washington, D.C., 1991, p. 154) (fig. 1).
Spanning 1985-91, ROCI involved eleven countries: Mexico, Chile, Venezuela, China, Tibet, Japan, Cuba, the U.S.S.R.,
Malaysia, Germany, and the U.S. What was the ROCI process? With the help of a logistical coordinator, Donald
Saff, Rauschenberg spent around fifteen days in a country meeting with artists and officials, collecting materials, and
photographing the culture, while his assistants videoed the action; he returned to his Florida studio to design a series
of works based on his time there; he revisited the country to hold an exhibition of his creations alongside native art; he
presented a single piece to a dignitary in the country and allocated another for the collection of the National Gallery of
Art (which hosted an exhibition of the entire ROCI project); and finally, he showed ROCI works from one country in the
exhibition of the next country, thereby
exposing different peoples to one
another. In order to remain completely
free from government or corporate
interests, Rauschenberg personally
funded ROCI by mortgaging his
Captiva Island house and selling his
private collection of modern art. The
ROCI corpus of over 125 paintings
and sculpture ultimately impacted
hundreds of thousands of viewers
around the world.
A self-described agent for positive
change, Rauschenberg selected
Mexico as the first country on the
ROCI tour because of its geographical
proximity to the U.S. and because “at
that moment our political relationship
with Mexico had never been weaker” (National Gallery of Art, p. 164). The exchange was a raging success and boded
well for future ROCI venues. For the ROCI/MEXICO series, he employed painting and collage, while also returning to
the commercial silkscreen process he had popularized during the 1960s, whereby photographic images were transferred
onto canvas. His imagery encapsulated the breadth of his exposure to Mexico City and included his own photographs
Art©RobertRauschenbergFoundation/LicensedbyVAGANewYork,NY
Art©RobertRauschenbergFoundation/
LicensedbyVAGANewYork,NY
Rauschenberg presenting ROCI Announcement Print
(1984) to United Nations Secretary-General Javier
Pérez de Cuéllar, United Nations, New York, 1984
Robert Rauschenberg
Mexican Canary / ROCI MEXICO, 1985
Acrylic and collage on canvas with metal frame
80 3/8 x 150 3/4 inches (2014.2 x 382.9 cm)
Private collection
RRF: 85.002

of everything from lottery tickets, restaurant menus, posters for wrestling
matches, family portrait albums, and canned food labels to ancient ruins,
cathedral sculpture, patterned fabrics and flour sacks, farm animals, and
buses and bicycles. The twelve works from this series typically feature a
grid-like organizational structure, as well as poured or vigorously applied
acrylic passages in “hot Mexican” colors like lime, cherry, tangerine, or
bubblegum pink. Rauschenberg exhibited them with some of his 1970s
paintings and indigenous Mexican art at the Museo Rufino Tamayo Arte
Contemporáneo Internacional in Mexico City in 1985, where thousands of
viewers made visual connections between Mexico and the U.S.
Rauschenberg’s ROCI/MEXICO works foreground an aesthetic sensibility
rooted in Mexican forms, as well as thematic contrasts between high art
versus low art, old versus new Mexico, and rural versus urban Mexico.
For example, in Mexican Canary (fig. 2), he assembles a central matrix of
black-and-white rectangles composed of lottery tickets and photographs of
a temple at Teotihuacan (ancient), school bus (modern), farmhouse (rural),
and government building (urban). In the center, he overlays silkscreens
of a green ice cream cone and floral fabric with bright slashes of green,
white, and red paint - the colors of the Mexican flag - and frames the
entire composition with a fabric-like border of labels from La Costeña
bean cans. With a more simplified palette of black, white, and red, Park
(fig. 3) is a statement about design and domesticity. Here, Rauschenberg
has cut and folded a fabric with red flowers into a vertical “totem” with a
masked face and torso; he echoes this vertical shape in an opened family
album supported on an easel-table; and he weights these images with
a photograph of a household curtain made out of Donald Duck fabric.
Apparent is his delight in Mexico’s strong tradition of textile making,
whether handmade or commercially produced.
Heritage Auctions is pleased to offer the present lot, Untitled from 1985,
one of several contemporaneous works inspired by ROCI/MEXICO.
Rauschenberg arranges the dynamic composition into brightly colored
silkscreened blocks: in the upper left, the same flowered fabric and ice
cream cone (now red) from Mexican Canary (fig. 2), over which he has
painted yellow acrylic, the impasto making the ice cream cone practically eatable; a second tier with red Donald Duck
fabric, the same that appears in Park (fig. 3); and a lower blue tier with lucha libre posters - Mexico’s famous masked
wrestling sport - layered over the Donald Duck fabric. Balancing the rounded ice cream shape, on the right is a rounded
silkscreened image of a statue of Macuilxochitl, the Aztec god of flowers, games, music and dance, and writing and
painting. Rauschenberg activates this overall ordered geometry with broad swipes of yellow, orange, and red acrylic.
As in the twelve works from the ROCI/MEXICO series, Untitled humorously juxtaposes opposites: fleeting ice cream
with timeless Aztec statue; kitschy popular culture (Disney and lucha libre) with ancient Aztec culture; domestic sphere
(printed fabrics) with recreational sphere (wrestling); and carefree pastime (eating ice cream) with apocalyptic warnings
(along the lower edge, the words “Los Apocalipsis,” the name of lucha libre wrestler). Untitled’s lush pigments and
striated bands transform it into a woven Mexican tapestry. At the same time, its layers of images and meaning connote
the very complexity and richness of the 1980s Mexico that Rauschenberg thrillingly encountered.
We wish to thank Lawrence Voytek, Rauschenberg’s studio assistant from 1982-2008, for providing information about
this work.
Art©RobertRauschenbergFoundation/LicensedbyVAGANewYork,NY
Robert Rauschenberg
Park / ROCI MEXICO, 1985
Acrylic, college, and graphite on canvas
114 x 51 3/8 inches (289.6 x 130.5 cm)
Minneapolis Institute of the Arts
Gift of the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation
and the P.D. McMillan Memorial Fund
RRF: 85.008

69216
Sigmar Polke (1941-2010)
Untitled, 1997
Acrylic and mixed media on paper
27-1/2 x 39-1/2 inches (69.9 x 100.3 cm) (sheet)
Signed and dated lower left: Sigmar Polke 1997
PROVENANCE:
Artax Kunsthandel KG, Düsseldorf;
Private collection, California, acquired from the above, March 2000.
Estimate: $120,000-$180,000
Untitled (1997) illustrates Sigmar Polke’s highly original Pop Art aesthetic shaped by his post-War life in Germany. In
1945, Polke’s family fled present-day Poland for East Germany, and after the Soviet occupation of this country, they
escaped to West Germany, where the artist grew up. Responding to the divisive political climate in Germany, Polke
and a small group of artists launched “Capitalist Realism” in 1963. Polke used unconventional techniques in a broad
range of media to depict ordinary items from mass culture, such as Schokoladenbild (Chocolate Painting) from 1964.
The art historian Kathrin Rottmann underscores, “Polke’s layering and overlapping of borrowed images, so that their
meanings come unfixed and enter a state of flux, have been described as ‘postmodern play’” (“Polke in Context: A
Chronology,” in Alibis, 2014, p. 41). In fact, “he was widely viewed as a contrarian without a recognizable style, and
he liked that” (Ibid., p. 66). Both his position vis-à-vis the art world and his interest in experimentation are crucial to
understanding Untitled.
Additionally, Polke’s use of hallucinogenic drugs during the 1970s raised his interest in color as a mind-altering medium.
Untitled, combining several media in “unstable” layers of brown, green, pink, blue and purple, simulates a psychedelic
trip. These blurred color effects also appear in his more conventional paintings of the 1980s and 1990s. In particular,
Untitled is reminiscent of Polke’s seventeen-part contribution to the Süddeutsche Zeitung’s weekly magazine in 1995.
In Bulletproof Holidays (Kugelsichere Ferien), “enlarged raster dots and circles begin to blur…. He employed colored
pencils and felt markers to apply to these photocopies glowing neon colors that the magazine’s printers were unable to
reproduce. The dots in this work recall the raster paintings (Rasterbilder) based on illustrations in newspapers that Polke
made in the 1960s, such as Doughnuts/Berliner (Bäckerblume, 1965)” (Ibid., p. 53).
Interestingly, the scattered dots in Untitled form a pattern that lacks precision; indeed, they seem to slide. Together
with the mixed media, this dot patterning emphasizes Polke’s interest in the derangement of the senses. Examining
his biography offers a potential explanation for this concern: growing up in a period when many Germans deflected
blame for the atrocities of the Nazis by feigning ignorance, Polke was fascinated by the malleability of vision. At the
same time, his work defied the principles of modernism identified by Clement Greenberg. In fact, the art critic David
Campbell writes that the “unruly diversity of Polke’s art is in marked contrast to the modernist drive for purity and
order…; his aesthetic is capricious, his ‘methods’ impure, and he courts ambiguity and iconic corruption” (“Plotting
Polke,” in Sigmar Polke: Back to Postmodernity, 1996, p. 19). Rejecting the comprehensible in favor of the elusive,
Polke’s work is in permanent flux between strangeness and beauty.

69217 ■ ▲
Willem de Kooning (1904-1997)
East Hampton II, 1968
Oil on paper laid on canvas
41-3/4 x 30 inches (106 x 76.2 cm)
Signed upper right: de Kooning
PROVENANCE:
Collection of the artist;
Galerie Ressle, Stockholm, acquired from the above;
Private collection, acquired from the above, 1985;
Sotheby’s London, February 15, 2011, lot 49;
EXHIBITED:
Knoedler Gallery, New York, “De Kooning: January 1968-March 1969,” March 4-March 22, 1969;
[The above exhibition also traveled to] Powerhouse Gallery, University of California, Berkeley, California,
August 12-September 13, 1969;
Pollock Gallery, Toronto, Ontario, “De Kooning: Major Paintings and Sculpture,” 1974;
Richard Gray Gallery, Chicago, Illinois, “De Kooning: Late Paintings and Drawings,” 1980.
LITERATURE:
Gabriella Drudi, Willem de Kooning, Milan 1972, n.p., no. 149, illustrated in color.
Estimate: $600,000-$800,000

East Hampton II (1968) not only
exemplifies Willem de Kooning’s
fascination with the female
figure, but also brings to light
critical discussions regarding his
representation of women. Here,
a female figure emerges from an
amalgam of sweeping brushstrokes
in red, orange, yellow and blue.
Subtle outlines distinguish her legs
and body from her surroundings.
The movement of the woman’s
body – her lifted legs and skirt
– hints at sexual pleasure. De
Kooning painted the work in his
longtime studio in East Hampton,
where he focused on landscapes
during his later years.
East Hampton II points to the
critical discourse centered
around the gender revolution of the 1960s. De Kooning’s paintings of women from the 1950s, such as his famous
Woman I (1950-52), were controversial for many reasons. Indeed, after years of working in pure abstraction, de
Kooning reintroduced figuration in Woman I; some critics like Clement Greenberg considered these paintings a step
backward, especially when contrasted with Jackson Pollock’s non-representational drip paintings. Woman I and
related female paintings also subjected de Kooning to accusations of misogyny. Responding to Thomas Hess’ popular
article “Willem de Kooning Paints a Picture” (1953), which describes the rough physicality of de Kooning’s painting
process, critic Emily Genauer commented that de Kooning “flays [the women], beats them, stretches them on racks,
draws and quarters them” (1969). Similarly, the critic Carol Duncan wrote at the time that de Kooning’s female figure
“fully reveals itself in Woman I as a big, bad mama – vulgar, sexual, and dangerous… The suggestive pose is just a
knee movement away from… the self-exposing gesture of mainstream pornography” (“MOMA’s Hot Mamas,” 1989,
p. 173). Furthermore, Duncan argued that “de Kooning knowingly and assertively exercises his patriarchal privilege
of objectifying male sexual fantasy as high culture” (Ibid., p. 175). Similarly, Lise Vogel offered that de Kooning’s
Woman I “reveals the anxieties inside” men vis-à-vis increasingly powerful women (“Fine Arts and Feminism: The
Awakening Consciousness,” 1974, p. 19). One should mention, however, that comparable criticisms were directed
at other Abstract Expressionists. In fact, Ann Eden Gibson recently proposed that “Abstract Expressionism’s model
for supposedly ‘universal’ subjectivity was actually white, heterosexual, and male” (“Abstract Expressionism: Other
Politics,” 1997, in E. Lendau, “Review of Abstract Expressionism and Other Politics,” 1999, pp. 59-60).
CourtesyofJackdeNijs,1968

However, Woman I and East Hampton II can be viewed in a more positive light. The blending of gestural abstraction
and figuration is not specific to de Kooning’s paintings of women. Earlier in his career, he also depicted men, whose
figures he distorted and reassembled over flattened planes. Paintings like The Glazier (1940) reveal his struggle
portraying hair and hands – leading to his habit of reworking certain areas of his paintings to make them look
unfinished. Indeed, both the subject matter and techniques of Woman I grew from his earlier experimentation with the
male figure.
One can also read Woman I and East Hampton II as reacting to the canonical representation of the female figure in
art history. In fact, de Kooning was particularly inspired by the work of the Old Masters, such as Ingres’ Odalisque
(1814). But one can go even further and argue that his art reflected the zeitgeist, namely changing gender relations. For
example, poststructuralist art historians like Fiona Barber and Judith Butler have revised the misogynistic interpretations
of de Kooning’s women and investigated “the increasing instability of the notion of ‘woman’ as a category …. The
relationship between gender and identity is something that is…both variable and historically contingent” (F. Barber,
“The Politics of Feminist Spectatorship and the Disruptive Body: De Kooning’s Woman I Reconsidered,” in A. Jones
and A. Stephenson, Performing the Body/Performing the Text, 1999, p. 132).
Crucially, Barber describes how de Kooning’s representation of the male body and of the female body have shifting,
sometimes contradictory meanings. She notes that in Seated Figure (Classic Male) (1940), “de Kooning uses a charcoal
line to define a solid muscularity contained with an ordered format reminiscent of the protecting armature of a
breastplate…; the same line…also sweeps upwards to pick out delicate facial features more easily legible as signifiers
of femininity” (Ibid., p. 133). Her reading suggests that definitions of “woman” and “man” – or gender – are unstable.
In fact, she proposes viewing “Woman I as a body…that departs from more normative representations of femininity”
(Ibid., p. 134).
East Hampton II demonstrates Kooning’s lifelong exploration of the relationship between figure and ground. As in
Woman I, the painter blends the woman’s flesh into the background, reflecting the influence of Cubism, particularly
Picasso. However, 15 years later than Picasso’s portraits, East Hampton II is a “freer” composition – which can be
explained both by “the increased liquidity and slipperiness of de Kooning’s medium” (J. Elderfield, de Kooning: A
Retrospective, 2011, p. 364) and by the painter’s (as well as society’s) increasing openness to the representation of
female pleasure. As such, in East Hampton II, one can also see “a range of disjunctures that add up to the sense of a
body incapable of being regulated within more restrictive representations: formal structure and expressive handling of
paint, order and disorder, masculine and feminine…. No longer contained within the existing terms, she has become
a disorderly woman behaving badly in public, but with full knowledge of her right to occupy that space” (F. Barber,
ibid., pp. 133-134).

69218 ●
Romare Howard Bearden (1911-1988)
Untitled (a double-sided work)
Ink and watercolor on paper
24-1/4 x 18-1/4 inches (61.6 x 46.4 cm) (sight)
Signed lower right: Bearden
PROVENANCE:
Peg Alston Fine Arts, New York;
Estimate: $10,000-$15,000
“If you’re any kind of artist, you make a miraculous journey, and you
come back and make some statements in shapes and colors of where
you were.”
– Romare Bearden
Verso of the present lot

69219
Milton Avery (1885-1965)
Bather, 1961
Oil on canvasboard
30 x 24 inches (76.2 x 61 cm)
Signed and dated lower right: Milton Avery 1961
PROVENANCE:
The artist;
Milton Avery Trust;
Knoedler & Company, New York;
EXHIBITED:
Allentown Art Museum, Allentown, Pennsylvania, “Paintings by Milton
Avery and His Family,” September 4-26, 1971;
Grace Borgenicht Gallery, New York, “Milton Avery: My Wife Sally, My
Daughter March,” January 4-31, 1989.
LITERATURE:
Allentown Art Museum, Paintings by Milton Avery and His Family,
exhibition catalogue, Allentown, Pennsylvania, 1971, no. 42;
Grace Borgenicht Gallery, Milton Avery: My Wife Sally, My Daughter
March, exhibition catalogue, New York, 1989, n.p., illus.
Estimate: $300,000-$500,000

Milton Avery’s Bather from 1961 belongs to his late period, which the art critic Hilton Kramer saw as his finest, opining, “I believe
[these works] are among the greatest paintings ever produced by an American artist” (R. Hobbs, Milton Avery, New York, 1990,
p. 24). For decades, Avery had been quietly shaping his unique modernist aesthetic, interpreting vacation haunts or figures in
domestic settings with flattened, interlocking “puzzle pieces” of uniform color. Yet in the late 1950s when he began summering in
Provincetown on Cape Cod, his paintings shifted more decisively toward abstraction. Overall his canvases grew larger, some up
to six feet, while his landscapes, like Sea Grasses and Blue Sea (1958, The Museum of Modern Art, New York) or Beach Blankets
(1960, Wichita Art Museum, fig. 1), were reduced to geometric shapes of pure color. Some art historians attribute these changes
to Avery’s being influenced by his longtime friends, the Abstract Expressionists Adolph Gottlieb and Mark Rothko, who worked
alongside him in Provincetown. For instance, the background sky and sea in Bather — a scumbled powder blue rectangle atop a
saturated indigo rectangle — read as an inversion of the dark green rectangle atop a fluffy white rectangle in Rothko’s Green on
Blue (fig 1.) Nonetheless, Kramer insisted that Avery’s vision was superior to Abstract Expressionism, in part because it balanced
abstraction with representation: “These last paintings by Avery are, in my view, a more impressive achievement than Rothko’s, for
they encompass a far greater range of experience and bring to it a subtler and more varied pictorial vocabulary” (Hobbs, p. 24).
Other critics jumped on the band wagon; Clement Greenberg “called for a full-scale retrospective ‘not for the sake of his reputation
but for the sake of the situation of art in New York. The latest generation of abstract painters in New York has salutary lessons to
learn from him that they cannot learn from any other artist on the scene’” (B. Haskell, Milton Avery, New York, 1982, p. 170). For
the first time in his career, Avery was receiving major acclaim. The
American Federation of Arts and the Whitney Museum offered him
exhibitions, and he even appeared in Time magazine.
What critics admired in these late works was Avery’s powerful and
nuanced use of color, as well as a lyricism that derived from personal
imagery. Indeed, Bather is not simply an abstracted figure superimposed
on a color field, she is March, Avery’s daughter who inspired numerous
paintings throughout his life. Indeed, at the end of the day, Avery was
a family man, and “his pictures managed to combine a witty and
affectionate view of life with a very clear grasp of what it is that makes
a painting, as a painting, really live” (Hobbs, 24). Bather perfectly
encapsulates Avery’s modernism, where family and painting are always
integrally connected.
It is not surprising that Avery’s embrace of modernism coincided
with his marriage to fellow artist Sally Michel in 1926. Prior to this
momentous occasion, he had studied Impressionism in the style of
John Henry Twachtman and Childe Hassam at the Connecticut League
of Art Students and the School of the Art Society in Hartford, all the
while supporting himself with construction jobs. In 1924, he met Sally
Michel from Brooklyn in Gloucester, Massachusetts, the artist’s colony
made famous by Winslow Homer, Twachtman and Hassam, Marsden
Hartley, John Sloan, and Stuart Davis. Captivated by Sally and by the
daring canvases of Hartley and Davis, Avery moved to New York City
in 1925 and effectively reinvented himself at the age of forty. Sally and
Milton’s partnership was perfectly symbiotic and complementary. Gregarious, energetic, and devoted to her husband’s career, Sally
supported them through her work as a freelance illustrator for publications as varied as the Progressive Grocer and The New York
Times. Meanwhile, quiet and introverted Milton was free to develop the first of his demarcated color paintings, based on his study
of Edouard Vuillard, Georges Braque, Raoul Dufy, Henri Matisse, and Franz Marc. The couple did everything together: painted
side by side, read American literature, traveled, and, although frugal, graciously entertained friends like Gottlieb and Rothko at their
Lincoln Arcade apartment. Avery’s exquisite use of color in his paintings of Sally, figures in interiors, and rolling country landscapes
reflected his joyful state of mind. Too, his simplification of recognizable forms to their essences of color and pattern paid tribute
not merely to the Fauves, but to Sally, who practiced a whimsical cartoonish style, and to homespun American folk art. Avery was
developing his own color-form aesthetic infused with humor, playfulness, and intimacy.
And then March arrived. Sally and Milton’s only child, March, was born in 1932, and her constantly evolving physical and
emotional being provided Avery with endless material for his modernist experimentation. Sally remembered:
Fig.1
©1998KateRothkoPrizel&ChristopherRothko/ArtistsRightsSociety(ARS),NewYork

“March was only a week old when Milton made his first painting of her. Her pediatrician looked horrified. ‘How could you make
such an ugly painting of such a beautiful baby?’ March was always with us, trailing along on our walks, sketching side by side.
There were myriad renditions of our daughter, some stark and bold, some pale and tender. Every aspect of the growing child was
noted; the tiny baby fast asleep, the little girl having her hair combed, the gangly teenager on the telephone. The awkwardness, the
moodiness, the boniness all found equivalents in color and form radiating the father’s delight in discovering new harmonies inspired
by a growing child. We were a family united, united by a passionate love for painting” (S. Avery, introduction to My Wife Sally, My
Daughter March, exhibition catalogue, Grace Borgenicht Gallery, New York, 1989).
In early paintings of March, Avery favored local color and detailed settings. For example, Two Figures at Desk (1944, Neuberger
Museum, State University of New York at Purchase, fig. 3) depicts Sally standing behind March, age twelve, who is seated at a
desk in her bedroom. Although Avery begins to abstract the figures, constructing them out of angular shapes, he identifies March
with her real-life jet-black hair and situates her in a specific room with household objects like a painting and a desk with lamp
and inkwell. He also captures emotion through facial expressions and body positions: Sally, with her gentle face and soft form,
tries to relate to her pre-teen daughter, who, staring straight ahead and holding her body rigid, essentially ignores her. As March
aged, Avery further abstracted her. In Summer Reader (1950, The Roland Collection), an image of eighteen-year-old March reading
while leaning against a daybed, Avery renders her with blue skin and without facial features, her bent arms and legs a jumble of
geometric masses. Avery tips his hat to Matisse here, with the collage effect of the flattened figure and furniture, as well as in March
on Balcony (1952, The Phillips Collection, Washington, D.C.). In this painting of March at age twenty, he seats her in a “Matissean”
interior with a shuttered window overlooking a sailboat on a river. March now becomes a massive, primitive sculpture-like form in
a red dress and with a red face and yellow hair. That Avery considered March integral to his creative process is evidenced by his
choice of theme for his first retrospective, held at the Durand-Ruel Galleries in New York in 1947: “My Daughter March.”
One of Avery’s last major paintings of his daughter, the present lot, Bather, is a masterful summation of the March oeuvre. Here, he
renders his twenty-nine-year-old daughter with the same long limbs and knobby knees as her twelve-year-old self in Two Figures
at Desk. Suggesting Avery’s adoration of March, the bather is monumental, stretching from heaven to earth. While he employs
“logical” local color in her peach skin and dark hair, he removes her facial features altogether. On the one hand, this blank mask
connotes the anonymity and alienation of a Cold War society. It also transforms March into an archetypal human in communion
with nature. The mask serves as a formal device; by making March’s face blank, Avery prompts the viewer to focus on her bathing
suit as a vibrant yellow shape balancing the cool blue rectangles of sky and sea.
Bather also underscores the importance of landscape for Avery as a family man and artist. He, Sally, and March relished their
annual summer vacations, particularly to the Massachusetts beaches of Gloucester and Provincetown, as opportunities for
relaxation and artistic renewal. The rocky coasts, dunes, beaches, and water provided ideal subjects for Avery’s experimentation
with color. Preferring soft, harmonizing hues, he thinned his paints and often tinted them with white pigment; too, he used rags to
control layers of paint and allow light to reflect off of the surface. Where Avery’s seascapes from the 1930s and ‘40s feature locale-
specific details like boats, piers, and bathing huts,
his late Provincetown paintings are universal in
their radical reduction to three or four geometric
color-forms. Such is the case with Beach Blankets
(fig. 2), and also with Bather, in which sea and
sky become vigorously painted blue rectangles
complementing the warmer yellow and pink
cylinders of the figure. Ultimately, Bather is as
much about color and form - Avery’s art - as it
is about March - Avery’s family. This complete
integration of painting and family effected a
sense of intimacy in his work and prompted his
longtime friend Rothko to laud, “Avery is first a
great poet. He is the poet of sheer loveliness, of
sheer beauty. Thanks to him this kind of poetry
has been able to survive in our time” (Milton
Avery: A Singular Vision, exhibition catalogue,
Center for the Fine Arts, Miami, 1987, p. 13).
©2016TheMiltonAveryTrust/ArtistsRightsSociety(ARS),NewYork
Fig. 2

69220
Wayne Thiebaud (b. 1920)
Silver Landscape (Study #1), 1971
Pencil on paper
Signed and dated lower right: Thiebaud 1971
PROVENANCE:
Foster Goldstrom Gallery, Dallas, Texas (label verso);
Private collection, acquired from the above, 1985.
Estimate: $15,000-$20,000
“I’m not just interested in the pictorial aspects of the landscape
– see a pretty place and try to paint it – but in some way to
manage it, manipulate it, or see what I can turn it into.”
– Wayne Thiebaud
69221 No Lot
CourtesyofAkronArtMuseum

Lot 69220

69222
Robert Bechtle (b. 1932)
At The Golden Nugget, 1972
Oil on canvas
44-7/8 x 64 inches (114 x 162.6 cm)
Initialed lower right: RB
PROVENANCE:
Galerie des 4 Mouvements, Paris;
Private collection, Paris, acquired from the above;
By descent to the present owner, November 1973.
EXHIBITED:
Württembergischer Kunstverein, Stuttgart, “Amerikanischer Fotorealismus,” 1972;
[The above exhibition also traveled to] Frankfurter Kunstverein, Frankfurt and Kunst-und Museumsverein, Wuppertal, 1972;
Galerie des 4 Mouvements, Paris, “Grands Maitres Hyperréalistes Américains,” May-June 1973;
Palais de l’Europe, Menton, France, “Dixième Biennale International d’’Art de Menton,” July-September 1974.
LITERATURE:
Württembergischer Kunstverein, Amerikanischer Fotorealismus, Stuttgart, 1972, cat. no. 3;
Galerie des 4 Mouvements, Grands Maitres Hyperréalistes Américains, Paris, 1973, n.p., cat. no. 2, illus.;
Palais de l’Europe, Dixième Biennale International d’Art de Menton, Menton, 1974, n.p., cat. no. 80;
Louis K. Meisel, Photorealism, Harry N. Abrams, New York, 1980, p. 37, pl. 31, illustrated in color.
Estimate: $80,000-$120,000
Robert Bechtle’s powerful At The Golden Nugget epitomizes California scene painting from the 1970s. The painting exhibits the dual
influences of photography – the snapshot-like cropping – and of cinema – the narrative of a middle-class woman dressed in late 1960s-
era fashion getting up from her chair in a room suffused with sunlight. Indeed, time is a central subject of Bechtle’s work. As the artist
notes, “a photograph often gives the feeling of a particular moment in time, and you get the sense of how that is bracketed in with the
before and the after.” This said, Bechtle is not interested in strict representational verisimilitude like the Photorealists, as evidenced here
in the painterly depiction of the woman’s face.
Interestingly, most critics in the 1970s considered Bechtle’s work as Photorealist and therefore regressive, arguing that it was a retreat
into nostalgia. Nonetheless, a recent reevaluation of the relevance of Photorealism in the 1960s and 1970s interprets it as exploring
the increasingly mediated nature of vision. For example, the art historian David Lubin writes that Photorealism “was the art form that
perhaps best posed the question only then emerging in media studies and information theory… Do mechanical devices of transcription
and reproduction bring us closer to reality or ultimately make it more remote? (“Blank Art Deadpan Realism in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction,” in Picturing America: Photorealism in the 1970s, 2009, p. 55). Other critics highlight instead Bechtle’s desire to represent
the “essence of American experience” (for example, J. Bishop and M. Auping in Roberth Bechtle: A Retrospective, 2005).
Both analyses help us understand At The Golden Nugget. The painting reflects the carefulness of Bechtle’s method (which, according
to Lubin, examines the increasing presence of images in American culture) and the slow rhythm of California life. Oppositely, At The
Golden Nugget portrays a world of increasing consumption and industrialization. As the critic Dieter Roelstraete writes, ”we are left
with the intriguing paradox of Photorealism’s definite investment in notions of craft and the artisanal production of images, on the one
hand, and its move to chronicle precisely those early years of postmanual… post-Fordist post-production on the other… It painted an
accurate portrait… of the very processes through which this world was evaporating” (“Modernism, Postmodernism and Gleam: On the
Photorealist Work Ethic,” 2010).

69223
Charles Bell (American, 1935-1995)
Study for Ta-Daa, 1985
Colored pencil on board
39 x 59 inches (99.1 x 149.9 cm)
Signed in pencil lower right: Charles Bell ‘85
PROVENANCE:
Louise K. Meisel Gallery, New York (label verso);
Private collection, Connecticut.
LITERATURE:
Louis K. Meisel, Photorealism Since 1980, Harry N. Abrams, New York,
1993, p.61, illustrated in color.
Henry Geldzahler, Charles Bell: The Complete Works: 1970-1990, Harry
N. Abrams, 1991, p. 102, illustrated in color.
Estimate: $40,000-$60,000
Charles Bell is primarily known for his large-scale Photorealistic depictions of children’s toys, gumball machines, action
figures and similar imagery, arranged in classical poses, assembled in his New York Studio. The significant scale of
his work, combined with his use of bright colors and his rendering of glass-like surfaces and textures, elevate these
everyday objects to the level of the traditional still life. In #4620 Study, Bell’s use of established techniques and media
distinguishes him from other Photorealist artists. Additionally, the positioning of the various toys—directly regarding
and engaging the viewer—encapsulates the centrality of spectacle in the American way of life. As Bell affirmed: “my
paintings look real, but it’s a subjective reality.”
CourtesyofLouisK.MeiselGallery

69224
Robert Longo (b. 1953)
Untitled (Pillow from Consulting Room Couch, 1938), from the Freud
Drawings series, 2001
Charcoal on mounted paper
48 x 50-3/8 inches (121.9 x 128 cm)
PROVENANCE:
Galerie Hans Mayer, Düsseldorf;
Sotheby’s London, March 11, 2015, lot 145;
Private collection, London.
Estimate: $40,000-$60,000
Untitled (2001), part of Robert Longo’s famed Freud Drawings series, reflects the artist’s fascination with power,
beauty, and horror, conjured in his portrayal of seemingly benign objects or events. In 1938, days before fleeing Nazi
prosecution to relocate to London, Sigmund Freud and his family invited Edmund Engelman to photograph their home
as well as Freud’s office and consulting rooms at Berggasse 19, in Vienna. The resulting catalog became the catalyst
for Longo’s series. These thirty large-scale charcoal drawings either recreate individual photographs, or magnify key
objects, reaffirming the historical significance of the images. In this case, rather than sketching Freud’s consulting couch
in its entirety, Longo highlights a single square pillow. Encapsulated in almost complete darkness, the white pillow
emerges as a remnant of Freud’s pioneering work. Velvety and intimate, the drawing points to an impending absence –
the impending exile and the horror caused by the Nazis. In Longo’s words, the Freud photographs “enabled me to […]
become the patient […]. I felt as if I had arrived for an appointment to find the premises deserted, but undisturbed – left
for me to explore in solitude.”

69225
Adolph Gottlieb (1903-1974)
Open Forms, 1956
Gouache and ink on paper
Signed in ink lower center: Adolph Gottlieb
Inscribed in pencil on the reverse: G #6
PROVENANCE:
The artist;
Paul Kantor Gallery, Los Angeles, California, 1959;
Swann Galleries, New York, November 9, 2004, lot 55;
Private collection, Los Angeles, California.
NOTE:
This lot is accompanied by a photocopied letter of authenticity from the
Adolph and Esther Gottlieb Foundation, New York, dated April 15, 1994.
Estimate: $30,000-$40,000
“When I work, I’m thinking in terms of purely visual effects and
relations, and any verbal equivalent is something that comes
afterwards. But it’s inconceivable to me that I could experience
things and not have them enter into my painting.”
– Adolf Gottlieb

69226 ●
George Segal (1924-2000)
Maquette for Immigrants, 1986
Plaster, painted wood, and metal
39 x 24 x 19-3/4 inches (99.1 x 61 x 50 cm)
PROVENANCE:
Sidney Janis Gallery, New York;
Edward Totah Gallery, London;
Private collection;
Christie’s Paris, December 3, 2014, lot 215.
Estimate: $20,000-$30,000
“Even though the museums guarding their
precious property fence everything off, in
my own studio, I made them so you and
I could walk in and around, and among
these sculptures.”
– George Segal

Photo Credit: Richard Greenhouse
Property from
The Estate of Anita Reiner
Anita Reiner continued a long tradition of support for contemporary art, one that was especially
compelling here in the United States. Anita is best remembered as a collector, but she was also
an advisor, an educator, and a patron. And in all of these roles, she was first and foremost a
passionate advocate for the new. A woman with boundless energy and enthusiasm, she had a
formidable eye and a finger directly on the pulse of what was good, valuable and important, in
the growing field of contemporary art.
According to Renée Reiner, Anita’s youngest child: “Anita purchased her first piece of art in
1967. It came from Leo Castelli and cost $540. (She asked for, and received, a 10% discount off
of the $600 price.) It was Andy Warhol’s black-on-black Self-Portrait. Other artists that became
part of Anita’s early collection included Larry Bell, Robert Rauschenberg, Jim Dine, John Salt,
Don Eddy, Claes Oldenburg, Duane Hansen, Kenneth Noland and Ralph Golings….Anita was
an avid collector of contemporary art for close to 50 years. She was smart, focused and intense
about this pursuit. And, at the same time, she was also fast. Mom would walk into a gallery,
move through once quickly, and home in on ‘best in show’ before I could park the car and join
her inside.”
Through Anita’s fierce passion for collecting, combined with her intellect, tenacity, and
adventurous spirit, she built a remarkable art collection. We hope that you will be inspired by
our offerings from the Estate of Anita Reiner, and equally inspired by the passion and intelligence
that brought these works together.

69227
Jeff Koons (b. 1954)
Ice Bucket, 1986
Cast stainless steel
9-1/4 x 7 x 12 inches (23.5 x 17.8 x 30.5 cm)
Ed. 1/3
PROPERTY FROM THE ANITA REINER COLLECTION
PROVENANCE:
The artist;
Daniel Weinberg Gallery, Los Angeles, California;
Anita Reiner, acquired from the above, 1986;
Estate of the above, 2013.
EXHIBITED:
Daniel Weinberg Gallery, Los Angeles, California, “Luxury and Degradation,” July 19-August 16, 1986 (this example exhibited);
[The above exhibition also traveled to] International With Monument Gallery, New York, October, 1986 (this example exhibited);
Faggionato Fine Arts, London, “Object/Sculpture/Object,” October 9-November 24, 2000 (another example exhibited);
Gimpel Fils, London,”The (Ideal) Home Show,” July 11-September 8, 2001, (another example exhibited);
Dickinson Roundell Inc., New York, “Aftershock: The Legacy of the Readymade in Post-War and Contemporary American Art,” May 5-June 20, 2003,
(another example exhibited);
Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art, Oslo, Norway, “Jeff Koons: Retrospective,” April 9, 2004-December 12, 2004, (another example exhibited);
Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, “Jeff Koons: A Retrospective,” June 27-October 19, 2014 (this example exhibited);
Cristin Tierney Gallery, New York, “Meet Me Halfway: Selections from the Anita Reiner Collection,” February 26-April 4, 2015 (this example exhibited).
LITERATURE:
A. Muthesius, Jeff Koons, Cologne, 1992, p. 77, no. 14;
R. Rosenblum, ed., The Jeff Koons Handbook, London/New York, 1992, p. 157;
Dickinson Roundell, Inc., ed., Aftershock: The Legacy of the Readymade in Post-War and Contemporary American Art, New York, 2003, p. 87, no. 37,
another example illustrated;
Astrup Fearnley Museum of Art, Jeff Koons: Retrospective, Oslo, 2004, p. 41, another example illustrated;
Hans Werner Holzwarth, ed., Jeff Koons, Madrid, 2009, pp. 198 and 207, another example illustrated;
Whitney Museum of American Art, Scott Rothkopf, Jeff Koons: A Retrospective, New York, 2014, p.79, pl. 37.
NOTE:
This work comes with a certificate of authenticity from the artist’s studio.
Estimate: $300,000-$500,000

Ice Bucket (1986) embodies key themes that characterize the work of Jeff Koons, from luxury and consumption to culture
and sexuality. Part of Koons’s Luxury and Degradation series, Ice Bucket centers around the consumption of alcohol. This
series also includes models of a travel bar and of pick-up trucks and barrel cars used to transport bourbon, as well as oil
paintings reproducing advertisements of liquor brands. In theory, the stainless steel sculpture could function as a literal
ice bucket; as such, it alludes to Marcel Duchamp’s ready-mades and the absence of a distinction between art and non-
art. However, if Ice Bucket only operated on this level, it would cease being an artwork. Compared to Duchamp, Koons
“uses objects that are already a little closer to art, or at least to design, and that are defined not as much by their function
as by their audience, their market…. They are highly charged and meant to fulfill emotional and psychological needs” (J.
Caldwell, “Jeff Koons: The Way We Live Now,” in Jeff Koons, 1992, p.10).
Clearly, Ice Bucket confirms Koons’s interest in luxury. Appropriating a subject from popular American culture, Ice
Bucket explores the ways in which objects both signify specific lifestyles and reproduce their appeal. Koons employs
the polished stainless steel material of Ice Bucket throughout the whole series, and he describes this medium as “fake
luxury” and “the material of the proletariat” (Koons quoted in ibid., p.65). Using stainless steel in combination with
advertisements communicates a fascination with “the ambition of upward mobility…. Luxury and Degradation reflects
harshly on the pretensions of the middle classes” (J. Lewis, “A Modest Proposal,” in Jeff Koons, 1992, p. 19).
Like Andy Warhol, Koons here effects an intricate relation between consumer culture and the art world. Luxury and
Degradation immediately followed the series The New and Equilibrium, for which he appropriated vacuum cleaners and
basketballs, sometimes placing the latter within half-filled water banks in a clear reference to conceptual art. “Luxury and
Degradation…both evokes and frustrates this liquid desire…; rather than displaying their contents, [these works] closely
reflect us and our desires” (J. Caldwell, op. cit., pp. 11-12).
In addition, the concept of desire gives form to Ice Bucket. The sculpture not only suggests upward mobility, but also
male power by hinting at the idealized figure of the successful professional who consumes bourbon. In Koons’s work,
this figure of success (which he personifies) is accompanied by a submissive woman; for example, in the explicit series
Made in Heaven, 1989-1991, he represents himself having sex with his future wife, porn star Ilona Staller. Koons has
stated that his goal is to show viewers that “they don’t have to live with unfulfilled desire” (J. Bankowsky, ”Pop Life,”
in Pop Life: Art in a Material World, 2009, p.27). And yet one can read his work precisely as revealing his permanently
unfulfilled desire for “mainstream relevance” (ibid., p. 25) – a yearning expressed in the series of “advertisements for his
1988 show Banality, [which] promoted the artist himself as a new kind of celebrity” (S. Rothkopf, “Made in Heaven: Jeff
Koons and the Invention of the Art Star,” in Pop Life: Art in a Material World, 2009, p. 39).
Desire is, in fact, the central theme of Koons’s work. Ice Bucket embodies a Duchampian paradox: it is and always will
be empty. Too, it foregrounds the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan’s concept of the “objet petit a,” or an unattainable
object of desire (whose unfulfillable quest guides our actions). Like the erotic Made in Heaven sculptures, Ice Bucket
“shows us is the moment when the fantasies fall away” (J. Caldwell, “Jeff Koons: The Way We Live Now,” in Jeff Koons,
1992, p.14). The art historian Andreas Beyer, underscoring Koons’s obsession with desire, suggests that “what comes
about repeatedly in all of [his] works…is the looking for the one and only work, the work in which all art is contained
and preserved” (“All in One – Jeff Koons and the Sum of Art,” in Jeff Koons: The Sculptor, 2012, p.24).
Ultimately, Ice Bucket exposes the interdependence between artworks and commodities, which further reiterates the
validity of a psychoanalytic interpretation. Indeed, Brian Wallis discusses Koons’s work as fetishistic in its exaggeration

of the work of art to the expense of “the object’s use value” and in its revealing of the “intense incompatibility of the
rare bourgeois art object and mass-produced consumer goods” (“We Don’t Need Another Hero: Aspects of the Critical
Reception of the Work of Jeff Koons,” in Jeff Koons, 1992, p. 29). Reminding “us of art’s (and our own) ambivalent but
deeply embedded relation to the market” (ibid.), Koons’s work functions “as a grand ‘readymade’…, producing a meta-
level of awareness about [the] machinations and effects [of the late capitalist economy]” (C. Wood, “Capitalist Realness,”
in Pop Life: Art in a Material World, 2009, p.62).

69228
Louise Lawler (b. 1947)
Woman (statue) from above, 1985
Dye destruction
30 x 40 inches (76.2 x 101.6 cm)
Ed. 1/5
Signed and dated in pencil, with the artist’s ink stamp on the reverse
PROVENANCE:
The Saint Louis Art Museum, Saint Louis, Missouri (label verso).
Estimate: $20,000-$30,000
“I don’t exactly think I am a photographer… I’m just trying to
point things out, I never feel like I am answering anything”
– Louise Lawler

69229
Andy Warhol (1928-1987)
Ethel Scull, 1963
Synthetic polymer and silkscreen ink on canvas
19-3/4 x 16 inches (50.2 x 40.6 cm)
Estate of Andy Warhol stamp verso
PROVENANCE:
The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, New York;
Private collection, California, acquired directly from the above, October 2000.
LITERATURE:
N. Printz and G. Frei, The Andy Warhol Catalogue Raisonné. Volume 1: Paintings and Sculpture,
1961-1963, Phaidon, New York and London, 2002, no. 473, p. 417, illustrated in color.
NOTE:
This lot is registered at the Andy Warhol Estate under number P060.035. This lot is accompanied
by a certificate of authenticity from The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc., signed
and dated January 29, 2001.
Estimate: $200,000-$300,000

Lot 69229

Ethel Scull (1963) reflects a key moment in Andy Warhol’s career. On the occasion of New Yorker Ethel Scull’s
42nd
birthday, her husband, Robert Scull, asked Warhol to paint her in the style of his Marilyn Diptych (1962), and
the resulting portrait inspired hundreds of subsequent celebrity portrait commissions. As preparation for Ethel’s
birthday present, Warhol took her to a photo booth in Times Square and, from 36 of the hundreds of black-and-
white images taken during the session, produced the silkscreen Ethel Scull 36 times (1963). The present lot, Ethel
Scull, is based on one of the remaining photographs. Although the Sculls were already well-known art collectors,
the “Ethel” artworks strengthened their identification with Pop art, which they collected and supported. At the
same time, this event marked a central moment in Warhol’s practice: the emergence of both his signature style
and of his own status as a celebrity.
Ethel is reputed to have said of Ethel Scull 36 times that “it was a portrait of being alive.” This statement counters
critical interpretations of the Marilyn Diptych, which has been discussed as a fetish (Jean Baudrillard) or as
a way to come to terms with the death of the actress (Hal Foster). In fact, “one commonality amongst these
historians and critics is that they tend to analyze [the Marilyn Diptych] according to its social function or Warhol’s
psychology and identity” (R. Hooper, “The Beauties: Repetition in Andy Warhol’s Paintings and Plato’s Ascent
to Beauty,” in The Legacy of Antiquity, 2014, p. 219). Rather, Ethel Scull confirms Warhol’s emerging interest in
art as a form of personal branding. Indeed, Ethel, wearing a white shirt and Andy’s black Wayfarer sunglasses,
is a classic beauty. She could be any fashionable woman living in New York in 1963, and that is precisely
how Warhol depicted her in photographs and portraits. Here, Warhol develops a tension between repetition/
reproduction and individuality/uniqueness and questions the very nature of subjectivity: none of our feelings
or ideas is ours alone. Much as in advertising, where the consumer plays a role by distinguishing between
competing yet similar products, so does the viewer of Ethel Scull help shape her identity.
The art historian Edward Powers notes, “by acknowledging the limits of originality while, nevertheless, wresting
it from the margins of repetition, Warhol’s practice” demonstrates that “authenticity, like originality” does not
“remain irreconcilably opposed to repetition” (E. Powers, “Attention Must Be Paid: Andy Warhol, John Cage and
Gertrude Stein,” 2014, p. 24). As such, Ethel Scull foregrounds the marriage between Warhol’s celebrity portraits
and common brand images from the early 1960s.
©TheMetropolitanMuseumofArt.Imagesource;ArtResource,NY

69230 ●
Victor Vasarely (1906-1997)
Neff, 1980
Oil on panel
23-1/2 x 11-3/4 inches (59.7 x 29.8 cm)
Signed lower right: Vasarely
Signed, titled, dated, and inscribed verso: 3.084 Vasarely / “Neff” / 59 x 30
/ 1980 / Victor Vasarely
PROPERTY FROM THE COLLECTION OF MR. AND MRS. HENRY R.
HOFFMAN, DALLAS
PROVENANCE:
Kenneth G. Hatfield Fine Art Inc, Vancouver, British Columbia;
Private collection, Dallas, Texas, acquired from the above, April 21, 1981.
Estimate: $25,000-$35,000

69231
Richard Joseph Anuszkiewicz (b. 1930)
Violet, Green and Blue Knot, 1987
Acrylic on canvas
30 x 36 inches (76.2 x 91.4 cm)
Signed, dated, and inscribed verso: Richard Anuszkiewicz 1987 820
PROVENANCE:
ACA Galleries, New York (label verso);
Hokin Gallery, Inc., Palm Beach, Florida (label verso);
Harmon-Meek Gallery, Naples, Florida (label verso);
Private collection.
Estimate: $20,000-$30,000
“My work is of an experimental nature and has centered on
an investigation into the effects of complementary colors of
full intensity when juxtaposed and the optical changes that
occur as a result, and a study of the dynamic effect of the
whole under changing conditions of light, and the effect of
light on color.”
– Richard Joseph Anuszkiewicz
End of Auction

MODERN & CONTEMPORARY
PRINTS & MULTIPLES
MAY 24, 2016 | LIVE & ONLINE | HA.COM/5267
Andy Warhol (1928-1987)
$ (9), 1982
Estimate: $80,000 - $120,000

PRINTS & MULTIPLES
Andy Warhol (American, 1928-1987)
$ (Quadrant), 1982
Estimate: $60,000 - $80,000

PRINTS & MULTIPLES
Chuck Close (b. 1940)
Self-Portrait, 2000
Estimate: $60,000 - $80,000

PRINTS & MULTIPLES
KAWS (b. 1974)
Ups and Downs, 2013
Estimate: $25,000-$35,000

AMERICAN ART
William Robinson Leigh (American, 1866-1955)
Indian Rider, 1918
Estimate: $400,000-$600,000

INDEX
ANUSZKIEWICZ, RICHARD JOSEPH 69231
ARNOLDI, CHARLES ARTHUR 69210
AVERY, MILTON 69219, 69221
BASQUIAT, JEAN-MICHEL 69202
BATES, DAVID 69205
BEARDEN, ROMARE HOWARD 69218
BECHTLE, ROBERT 69222
BELL, CHARLES 69223
CHAMBERLAIN, JOHN 69206
CORSE, MARY 69209, 69211
DAVID BATES 69204
DE KOONING, WILLEM 69217
DZUBAS, FRIEDEL 69214
FONSECA, CAIO 69212
FRANCIS, SAM 69208
FRANKENTHALER, HELEN 69207
GOTTLIEB, ADOLPH 69225
HARING, KEITH 69201, 69203
KAWS 69200
KOONS, JEFF 69227
LAWLER, LOUISE 69228
LONGO, ROBERT 69224
POLKE, SIGMAR 69216
RAUSCHENBERG, ROBERT 69215
SEGAL, GEORGE 69226
SMITH, JOSH 69213
THIEBAUD, WAYNE 69220
VASARELY, VICTOR 69230
WARHOL, ANDY 69229

May 2 Modern & Contemporary Art Auction Evening Session #5258

May 2 Modern & Contemporary Art Auction Evening Session #5258

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (13)

Similar to May 2 Modern & Contemporary Art Auction Evening Session #5258

Similar to May 2 Modern & Contemporary Art Auction Evening Session #5258 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

May 2 Modern & Contemporary Art Auction Evening Session #5258