.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Much of Robert Mangold’s painting can appear deceptively simple at first glance; yet further contemplation of these syntheses of shapes and color reveals an assiduous, systematic inquiry of the boundaries of the pictorial plane. By means of arranging concrete geometric forms, unresolved arcs, lines and angles against fields of pure color, the artist allows his work to approach “neither a limit nor a totalizing conclusion. Open, it seeks its fortune rather than attaining some aim” (R. Schiff, “Autonomy, Actuality, Mangold,” Robert Mangold, London, 2000, p. 8). Mangold’s art embodies the rich American tradition of Minimalism, where seemingly familiar shapes take on a scintillating mystery as they are transformed by the medium of painting and drawing. The experience of viewing or living with this breed of deeply complicated (and yet uncomplicated) work can become a catalyst for any number of satisfying adventures of thought or emotions. As the critic, Michael Kimmelman wrote in a review of the artist’s “Zone Paintings” at Pace Wildenstein, “…they invite intense scrutiny, which, in the nature of good art, is its own reward” (M. Kimmelman, “Art in Review,” New York Times, 18 April 1997).
Although hugely influenced by the titans of Abstract Expressionism, Mangold’s work distinguishes itself from that movement by championing the totality and autonomy of the art object, rather than the aesthetic qualities of the means of its making. Mangold admired the way in which the Abstract Expressionists appealed directly to the emotions of their viewers and sought to incorporate a similar sense of communication in his art, albeit in ways that were precisely calculated and exactly controlled. In contrast, the communication that the artist sought to relay could never be explicitly defined. What exists then between Mangold’s autonomous painting and its audience is a channel of manifold possible reactions. The artist’s preamble to his 1967 statement, “Flat Art,” expands on this idea by way of a lengthy, almost polemical title: “'In Face Of,’ ‘On the Face of It,’ ‘Face Value,’ ART SHOULD BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE.” At once explicit and enigmatic, these fragments—their joining characteristic the word, “face”—would seem to insist upon the importance of approaching the artist’s paintings literally, as they are; not as symbols or unfinished equations, but as independent, unified wholes.
Another precedent for Mangold’s unique approach to Minimalism is the advent of the Pop movement and the artistic possibilities that it left in its considerable wake. As the artist emphatically recalls, “Nothing can ever be more dramatic than Pop colliding with the end of Abstract Expressionism. That completely turned everything around and made everybody rethink what painting could be” (R. Mangold quoted in R. Storr, “Interview with Robert Storr on October 1, 1986,” Abstract Painting in America, Klagenfurt, 1988, p. 183). The return of the referential image to the forefront of the American avant-garde, especially Jasper John’s cryptic appropriation of symbols, would prove a critical touchstone for Mangold in his quest towards uncharted creative territory. Whereas, for example, Johns’ seminal Target paintings integrate the familiar circular motif precisely for its accumulated meaning—if only to evacuate that meaning via abstraction—Mangold’s circles arrive within his compositions already devoid of all signification, representing nothing more than geometry. An entry from the artist’s studio notes riffs on this crucial conceit: “How can I make something of meaning? I cannot look at any one of my paintings and say what a particular work means or even what a group of paintings means. In that sense, they mean nothing” (R. Mangold, “studio notes, 14 March 1994; 20 August 1994,” Robert Mangold, London, 2000, pp. 165-166).
Double Circles #1 exemplifies the artist’s investigation of the outer limits of abstraction while maintaining an unequivocal and refined aesthetic. Fusing the practices of painting and drawing, Mangold sets two concentric graphite circles against a pale blue wall of acrylic. The innermost circle abuts the upper and right edges of the canvas, while the outermost does the same to the left and lower edges. While the entirety of the innermost circle is contained within the picture plane, the circumference of the outermost circle is large enough that it extends beyond the upper and right edges of the canvas. The resulting composition is a beguiling visual equation that is all the more compelling for its clarity and finesse. The “open” quality of the painting is manifest in the twice interrupted arc of the circle. Intriguingly, this mechanism of disruption accentuates the self-contained nature of the artist’s painting in that it insists upon the finality of the boundaries of the canvas while implicating the space beyond.
For Mangold, the achievement of the fully-realized art object itself, rather than the pleasure of the act of making it, is at the heart and soul of his oeuvre. In this sense, he upholds the distinctly Minimalist tenet of using painting to make manifest a predetermined goal: “The painting part to me is a little like the printing part in printmaking. It’s just something that’s needed to arrive at the work” (R. Mangold quoted in R. White, “Interview by Robin White,” View, December 1978, n.p.). In Mangold's hands, color and form constitute neither illusion nor allusion. The materials remain mere matter—as matter-of-fact as the edge of a building or the distant horizon.
Although hugely influenced by the titans of Abstract Expressionism, Mangold’s work distinguishes itself from that movement by championing the totality and autonomy of the art object, rather than the aesthetic qualities of the means of its making. Mangold admired the way in which the Abstract Expressionists appealed directly to the emotions of their viewers and sought to incorporate a similar sense of communication in his art, albeit in ways that were precisely calculated and exactly controlled. In contrast, the communication that the artist sought to relay could never be explicitly defined. What exists then between Mangold’s autonomous painting and its audience is a channel of manifold possible reactions. The artist’s preamble to his 1967 statement, “Flat Art,” expands on this idea by way of a lengthy, almost polemical title: “'In Face Of,’ ‘On the Face of It,’ ‘Face Value,’ ART SHOULD BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE.” At once explicit and enigmatic, these fragments—their joining characteristic the word, “face”—would seem to insist upon the importance of approaching the artist’s paintings literally, as they are; not as symbols or unfinished equations, but as independent, unified wholes.
Another precedent for Mangold’s unique approach to Minimalism is the advent of the Pop movement and the artistic possibilities that it left in its considerable wake. As the artist emphatically recalls, “Nothing can ever be more dramatic than Pop colliding with the end of Abstract Expressionism. That completely turned everything around and made everybody rethink what painting could be” (R. Mangold quoted in R. Storr, “Interview with Robert Storr on October 1, 1986,” Abstract Painting in America, Klagenfurt, 1988, p. 183). The return of the referential image to the forefront of the American avant-garde, especially Jasper John’s cryptic appropriation of symbols, would prove a critical touchstone for Mangold in his quest towards uncharted creative territory. Whereas, for example, Johns’ seminal Target paintings integrate the familiar circular motif precisely for its accumulated meaning—if only to evacuate that meaning via abstraction—Mangold’s circles arrive within his compositions already devoid of all signification, representing nothing more than geometry. An entry from the artist’s studio notes riffs on this crucial conceit: “How can I make something of meaning? I cannot look at any one of my paintings and say what a particular work means or even what a group of paintings means. In that sense, they mean nothing” (R. Mangold, “studio notes, 14 March 1994; 20 August 1994,” Robert Mangold, London, 2000, pp. 165-166).
Double Circles #1 exemplifies the artist’s investigation of the outer limits of abstraction while maintaining an unequivocal and refined aesthetic. Fusing the practices of painting and drawing, Mangold sets two concentric graphite circles against a pale blue wall of acrylic. The innermost circle abuts the upper and right edges of the canvas, while the outermost does the same to the left and lower edges. While the entirety of the innermost circle is contained within the picture plane, the circumference of the outermost circle is large enough that it extends beyond the upper and right edges of the canvas. The resulting composition is a beguiling visual equation that is all the more compelling for its clarity and finesse. The “open” quality of the painting is manifest in the twice interrupted arc of the circle. Intriguingly, this mechanism of disruption accentuates the self-contained nature of the artist’s painting in that it insists upon the finality of the boundaries of the canvas while implicating the space beyond.
For Mangold, the achievement of the fully-realized art object itself, rather than the pleasure of the act of making it, is at the heart and soul of his oeuvre. In this sense, he upholds the distinctly Minimalist tenet of using painting to make manifest a predetermined goal: “The painting part to me is a little like the printing part in printmaking. It’s just something that’s needed to arrive at the work” (R. Mangold quoted in R. White, “Interview by Robin White,” View, December 1978, n.p.). In Mangold's hands, color and form constitute neither illusion nor allusion. The materials remain mere matter—as matter-of-fact as the edge of a building or the distant horizon.