Drawing Papers 018: Rosemarie Trockel: Metamorphoses and Mutations

The Drawing

Center's

DRA\TING PAPE,R ',,

R o s emarieTrocke l: Me tamorpho se san d Mu tatio ns

r8 Ro s e m a r i eTr o c kel: M e ta m o r p h o s e sand Mut at ions February 24-March 31, 2001 T he ex h i b i ti o nw a s c o n c e i v e do f a n d organi zedby t he Ce n trePo mp i d o u ,M u s 6 e n a ti o nald' art moderne,P ari s Curator:Jonas Storsve.

A c k n o w l e d g e men ts T r o cke l 's P romi se

de Zegher C a ther ine A nn eM .W agner

W o r ks i n the E xh i bi ti o n

3 7 20

Acrylicon paper,7 3/4 x 5 3/4 in. (19.6x 14.7cm) 1. Untitled,19B4. nationald'art moderne,Cabinetd'art graphique,Paris;Al\11997-240 CentreGeorgePompidou,l\,4us6e

Ackn o wle d g e ments

Cat h e rindee Z e g h e r

One of the most importantcontemporaryGermanartistsof her generation,Rosemarie drawing,video, Trockel(b. 1952)is knownfor an eclecticart practicethat interweaves painting,sculpture,and installation.

The gazethat the artistturnson societyand documentsin drawingsis at times cruel,often subversive,and somewhatcaustic.Trockel bringsto life a universeof forms in quixoticrelation,and drawingbecomesa transforming force,a kind of fantasticalchemy,changingthe world in curiousand unexpected givenform,with wit of creatures, combinations meetings.She imbuesher unnerving and pathos.As with the most compellingart, we are thrown back and forth between and are leftwith questionsand doubts.Thisexhibitionof the knownand unknowable, her drawingsis organizedaccordingto themesat the heartof Trockel'swork: metamorphosisand mutation.Forthe artist,thingsare neversolelywhatthey seem. and doublemeaningsare constantlypresentin her practice. inversions, Ambivalence, We are indebtedto Trockelfor her new insightsinto contemporarydrawingand it is thereforean honorfor The DrawingCenterto presentthis exhibition,which has been organizedby the CentrePompidou,Mus6enationald'art moderne,Paris,and curated

by JonasStorsve.Giventhe artist'sdedicationto the drawn mark,it seemsparticularly appropriatethat the first museumexhibitionin the UnitedStatesdevotedto this aspect of her practicetakes place in the only institutionsolelydedicatedto the study and of drawingin all its forms. understanding projectof this scope requiresthe cooperationand contributionsof An international many individuals.Firstand foremost,I wish to thank RosemarieTrockelwho has given of her work in NewYork. generously the presentation of her time in envisioning Likewise,my appreciationis extendedto JonasStorsve.With dedicationand expertise, that considers exhibition Jonashas broughttogethera beautifuland thought-provoking longGiventhe CentrePompidou's the artist'sdrawingsin relationto transformation. a focused survey that it undertake it is fitting should standingsupportof Trockel'sart, drawings on contemporary of her drawingsto date.The museum'sseriesof exhibitions is widelyadmired,and The DrawingCenterappreciatesthe opportunityto presentone of the graphicarts.Alsoat the CentrePompidou chapterof this ongoingexploration our thanksare extendedto AlfredPacquement,Director,Agndsde la Baumelle,Chief Curator,Departmentof GraphicArts, and MartineSilie,Chiefof ExhibitionServices.

Thisexhibitionwouldnot havebeenpossiblewithoutthe lenders'generousagreement to part for a time with works from their respectivecollections.In this regardmy thanks are extendedto Dr. ReinerSpeck,RainerCrone,Anne de Villepoix,AndreasOsarek, In who preferto remainanonymous. and P.J.H.Dinghs,as wellas to thoseindividuals additionwe are greatlyappreciativeof the followinginstitutionsthat havegenerously Basel, Kunstsammlung Offentliche agreedto provideworksfromtheircollections: Muller; Statens whereour thanksare extendedto KatharinaSchmidtand Christian ChrisFischerand VibekeKnudsen; especially Museumfur Kunst,Copenhagen, particularly UrsulaFrohne;and Mus6enational Museumfur NeueKunst,Karlsruhe, gratitude the assistance and genthat I acknowledge d'art moderne,Paris.lt is with

erosityof MonikaSprUthof MonikaSprUthGalerie,Cologne,and BarbaraGladstoneof BarbaraGladstoneGallery,New York.I wish as well to expressmy appreciationof Ray Learseyand MelvaBucksbaumfor their hospitality.

As always,I am indebtedto The DrawingCenter'sstaff,amongstwhom are numberof artists,whoseenthusiasmfor Trockel'swork has been both infectiousand informative.

In this regardI thank LindaMatalon,Directorof Operations,and her assistantRachel My appreciaAbramsfor their exemplarywork handlingthe detailsof the installation. tion is extendedas well to Lisa Metcalf,the Center'srecentlynamedAssistantDirector, and RebeccaHerman,for their assistancewith locatingfinancialsupportfor the project. For this publicationI expressmy gratitudeto KatieDyer,ProjectCoordinator, ElizabeihFinch,Curator,and VictoriaNoorthoorn,ViewingProgramand Exhibitions all of whom also contributedto manyaspectsof the exhibition.I also Coordinator, for her creationof educationprogramsfor studentsthat buildon Meryl Zwanger thank themes. the exhibition's I wish to acknowledgeAnne M. Wagnet Professorof Art History,Universityof Californiaat Berkeley,for the inspiringessayshe contributedto this editionof the DrawingPapers.lt is the intentionof this publicationseriesto encourageinnovative writingon drawing,and Anne has broughta new depth of scholarshipto the study of Trockel'sworks on paper.In conjunctionwith the exhibition,Anne has also agreedto for joiningwith I thankeachof the participants assembleand host a paneldiscussion. us in the elucidationof Trockel'sart. With Anne actingas both a speakerand a moderator,the eventwill includeBrigidDoherty,AssistantProfessor,Departmentof the Historyof Art, Johns HopkinsUniversity,Baltimore;ChristinaKiaer,AssistantProfessor of Art Historyand Archeology,ColumbiaUniversity,New York;and Jutta Koether,artist.

The exhibitionhas beenmadepossibleby the Institutfur Auslandsbeziehungen, Germany,The Andy WarholFoundationfor the VisualArts, and ABC Carpet& Home.

We are deeplygratefulto these institutionsfor their supportof this project.

*

.

" J;.. t'{a '-_

I

^tdtr '_q-::lg'':

::

2. Untitled,1987. lnk and rubberstamp,watercolotand ballpointpen on paper,10 1,/4x 8 1/8 in. (25.9x 20.5 cm) Collectionof Anne de Villepoix.

'n s, T*

to l s s ? ,

3 . U n t i t l e d,1 9 9 7In . k o n pa p e r,51/8 x43/4in. ( 12.9x 11.9cm ) .

Centre George Pompidou, lvlus6enational d'art moderne, Cabinet d'art graphique, Paris;AM 1997-247

T r o cke l 's P ro mi se A nn eM.W agner P ic k a d ra w i n g

The choiceis difficult.

Picka drawing,just one,with whichto makea beginning.

RosemarieTrockelhas generatedsomethinglike a thousanddrawn imagesin the last twentyyears:one per week,let us say,everyweek for the two decadessince 1980. of her productionschedule,if, that This formulamight serveas a roughapproximation is, we allow ourselvesto think of her time at the drawingboardas keepingup a more or less regularpace. In manyways it makesgood sense,even beforelookingat drawings,to startbuildingan imageof the artistthat placesher in her studioworking,and workinghard:such a portraitis the only one that fits the facts of the case. Factsabout production,certainly,and facts about exhibitiontoo. Notethat the presentation at The one-personshow since 1983(andher DrawingCenteris Trockel'sseventy-second seventhin New York).That year she had two (onein Bonn,the other in Cologne),but severaltimesmorerecently-in 1994,1996,and againin 2000-she has had as many as six solo showsin twelvemonths'stime.All the while,of course,her work has been of all scalesand sizes,including,in 1997,the muchdisairedin groupexhibitions cussedand highlyvisibleshowcasethat was DocumentaX.1Withinthis broad pattern of visibilityand exposure,drawingis only one elementin a careerthat by now has acquired,alongwith success,a certainprodigious,even proteanallure. ls it any wonder,then,that the drawingI beginwith showsan artistin her studio(fig.3)?

Standingbeforewhat might be an easel,but could just as well be a drawingboard,she seemsto be just gettingdown to work. (l say she, with an eye to both her shoesand shouldbe takenas provisional and subjectto her leggings,thoughthe identification and overburevenat the riskof belaboring change.)But to continuethis description, the smallestwork in The DrawingCentershow:Therethe deningwhat is physically artiststands,with her paint(or ink)all mixedand ready;one line has alreadybeen laid in. A secondwill soon follow,or so it seemsfrom the drips fallingfrom the raisedwet brush.Yet there'sno way of tellingwhereon the waitingsurfacethe secondtouch will go. Nor can we guesshow it will changewhat is alreadythere.A new markcouldwell flattenwhat is comicalabout the first one: not only does that line describea nose,it also givesthe page (or canvas)its own nosetoo. Wiih the nosecomesa penis,and with the penisdawnsa senseof just how muchthis sillylittleimageaimsto do. is havingus on. An accomplished mimicof In this drawing(asin manyothers)Trockel mostthingsgraphic,hereshe is apinga cartoon,one with a rathersophomoricpoint.

How does an artist makea self-portrait?He plucksoff his head,plops it on the stand besidehim,and startsrightin. So much is obvious,as is the slightlyviolentsubtext(all decapitationand splitting)that standsbehindthe joke. But her imitationpervertsits "original"in all the rightways.Now "she"standswherehe did, and what was once takeson a rathermorevolatilecast. conventionally comicabouthis physiognomy This smallimageis a meredrop in the largebucketof Trockel'sgraphicproduction:by rightsit shouldhaveonly a minorroleto play in any accountof that wider pool.And its potential,it mightwell be objected,is furtherundermined instructiveand representative by the sheerrangeof Trockel'sgraphictechniques.Whileshe has redrawnand/or

mimickedothercartoonsand mademanymorepen drawings,oftenusingphotographic coloredand graphite sources,she also musters,as her pleasuretakesher,watercolor, pencils,collage,photocopy,gouache,and acrylic.All thesemediaare deployedvariously, d la carte,in a long menuof ways,manydirectlymimingor indirectlyechoingsome othergraphicsource.ln fact most writersaboutTrockelfeel calleduponto cataloguethe so remarkable-andso muchan intersheerrangeof her varioustechnicalprocedures, pretivestumblingblock-does theirwild diversityseem.Onlythink,by way of contrast, procedurescharacteristic morehomogeneous of othersuccessful of the considerably generation-Cindy Levine. for example, or Sherry the same Sherman, artistsof Diversitywithindiversity,liketelescopingRussiandolls:just as Trockel'smodesof drawingare distinctlyvaried,so also drawingitselfcomprisesonly one elementin a printmaking, video,photography, concepbody of work that alsoincludesinstallation, tual practices,and performance,as well as the productionof wall piecesand freewearson. For this new list of standingobjects.And so the processof classification pays no mindto anotherpossibleway of media,withinwhichdrawingis onlya subset, orderingTrockel'sproduction.Why not arrangeit by subject,ratherthan form? Some criticsdo. Therearethe workswith eggs,and thosewith animals;amongthe animals are monkeys,chickens,and more.Do not mistakemy tone here:behindmy mild burlesqueliesa definingfeatureof how this particularbody of work is usuallyseen.

Notethat subjectmatterdefinesthe groupingsthat governthe presentshow.Yet any task of descriptioninevitablyends up tuckingTrockelall too snuglyinto the proverin otherwords,the realand understandbial procrusteanbed. In most circumstances, able needto classifyTrockel'swork-to make it manageableby givingit a shapeinevitably endsup doingsome large-or small-scaleviolenceto the artisticwhole.

What is striking,therefore,is how persistentlya senseof a singleconsistentproject unifyingit the way the sky survives,hoveringbehindor withinher work'smultiplicity, aboveeventhe roughestlandscapecan pulla vistatogetherintoone continuous terrain.About the continuitiesin Trockel'sart I shallsoon havemoreto say.

AmongTrockel's"objects"shouldbe positionedwhat is perhapsthe artist'sbest known body of work, the knitted"paintings"in which repeatpatterns(oftencommercial generated via commercial fabrication) are usedto spur themselves logosor insignia, as gendered the viewerto think(again)aboutthe natureof artisticlaborand originality work. This may be the momentto noticethat for all the diversityof her media,Trockel rarely"really"paints.One reason-the suggestioncomesfrom the critic and artistJutta Koether,a close associateand friend-may be that drawingboth precededpainting, and "restricted"its role in Trockel'sart.'zDrawing,we mightsay,does for Trockelwhat paintingmight otherwiseaccomplish:it servesboth as figurativefield-a site for concretevisualand conceptualproposals-and as the vehiclefor what Koetherterms "a 'mystery,'that is the claimthat art must leavesomethingopen,that it must providea 'further,'a kind of promise."' And just what drawingproposesand promises,when Trockeluses it, is the largerquestionI am to pursue.

Yetthereis one morepointto be madeconcerningwhat I am calling,for want of a better label,the "diversity"of Trockel'sart. The artistherselffirst broachedthe issuein responseto Koether'sviewson drawingand its modesof meaningin her art. Hereis what she had to say:

A weaknessin concentrationcaused me a lot of troublein my childhoodand youth. I still have this weaknessof not stickingto one thing. OtherwiseI have not abandonedcertaintechniques.

Rather,I yield to myself.lf someonelets a thing lie fallow for some time, that doesn't mean that he's given it up. He has the opportunityto stand at a distanceand once more to approachit. lt's not a questionof giving up, but of givingin.a

but also What interestsme in this statementis not only its confessionof inconstancy, personal the suggestionthat somewherebehindinconstancylie largercontinuitiesof interest,purpose,and need.Somesuch rejoinder,I am suggesting,mightwell be range-even if, offeredto those criticswho haveobjectedto the artist'schameleon-like as Trockel'sviewers,we may count ourselvesamongthosewho are occasionallybewilas all a bit too dered by her formalexcessesor see such ceaselessself-reinventions (if we can call it that)is part and parcelof a workingprocemuch.uFor self-indulgence of ...thought dure marked,in the words of WilfriedDickhoff,by its "inter-penetration possibilities."6 The phrasestranslateawkof associational levelsand...multiplication wardlyfrom the writer'soriginalGerman,but their meaningis still quite clear.Dickhoff this is what is programmaticand conis speakingof what he also terms intertextuality: is not an end in itself,mindyou, but the meansby art.Allusiveness tinuousin Trockel's which the artist's"contemplationof paintingis sublimatedinto form."7 With this ambitiousand vaguelyFreudianphrasewe are returnedto the smalldrawing for this one work. Unlikeour with whichwe began.I want to teaseout its implications painting involves no studiedpostureof "contemplation" of Trockel's acephalicartist, meditationbeforean easel.We mightsay that when she works,she followsher nose or analyfrom task to task.Yetsomeversionof meditativeactivity-call it contemplation parody-a parodying present In a car(perhaps the same. three)-is all all or critique sis in artisticactivity-Trockel toonist'ssend-upof the difficultiesof self-representation findsthe meansto (re)openthat wholecan of worms.This is her way,in otherwords,of alertingus to the main problematicthat hauntsher work,and shapes"painting"as well.

Parodyand citationoperatein this contextto put a certainpressureon eachelement tableau.Who, in art, has a headand who is headless? withinthis all-too-elementary involve,at some levelor other,the depictionof self as phallus?

Doesrepresentation Doesa woman,when she works,end up merelyretracingthe main lineamentsof the masculineself?And what of this odd equation-or transformation-ofmaleand female?

Askingthis seriesof questionsis one way of showingthat Trockelhas made allegory from comedy,usingsuch mundanematerialsas come her way.Viewersneedto grasp and trivialin her chosenconventionsto be and move beyondwhat is pre-processed preparedto recognizethat despiteTrockel's point.

They also be should able to see her penchantfor shallowor dubiousmaterials,her works often involvea deep senseof a complexand embattledartisticself. In the cartoon,for example,she seemsto have I thinkI am rightin sayingthat the headlessand had in mind a muffledself-portrait: guise.The ellipticallikenesspoints sweater-cladartiststandsfor Trockelin professional us in severaldirectionsat once. lt takes us back,for example,to a past momentin the artist'sproduction,when she made knittedgarments(bothsweatersand balaclavahelmets)that sometimesconcealedtheir wearersand sometimespairedthem, in the latter case makingtwo into one (fig. ). And it furtherdirectsus to that whole rangeof works are broachedin differentterms.In in which questionsof identityand relationships paired, even merged,with the enviedor despisedOtherthesean individualis often

4. Schizo Pullover,1988. Wool, 26 x26 in. (60 x 66 cm) Courtesyof lvlonikaSpriith Galerie,Cologne

5. Untitled, 1993. Photocopy on paper, 11 3/4 x g 1/2 in. (30 x 24 cm) Collectionof PJ.H. Dinohs.Utrecht.

anotherperson,or anotherfacet of the artist'sown self. In the lattercase-l am thinking particularlyof the video ContinentalDivide(1994)-two women(onethe artist)play Trockel.One is a passivevictimizedpartner,the otheran abusiveaggressorwho insistently asks a singlequestion,"Who is the best artist?"yet rejectsall the answersshe hears.u The artist,it is clear,is "beatingup on herself"in a literalizingparodyof riven self-doubt.e At one point in the conflictthe aggressiveTrockeldeclares,"l tell the truth," yet giventhis particularcontext,her statementseemssingularlyopen to doubt.

In other cases,artisticidentityis seen in genderedterms.What is femalebecomes male,and vice versa:in one pair of drawingsfrom 1993,for example,two portraitsare photocopiedtogether,one slidingover and into the otherthoughthe use of two transparentfilms.Two hybridsresult.In one, a characteristically elusiveCindyShermanis mixedwith Jeff Koons(sheis barelyvisiblebehindor withinhis features).In the other, Trockelherselfis twinnedwith a Germancounterpart,an artistnamedJiri Georg techniqueresultsin imagesthat rememberthe methodsof the Dokoupil(fig.5).10The Victorianscienceof genetictaxonomy:think of Sir FrancisGalton(1822-1911) obsesphotographs visage in that sivelycompilingand codifyingthe human composite search tirelesslyfor unifyingpatternsand types.l' In Trockel'scasethe searchwas limitedto two, maleand femaleartists;their overlapmakesfor the erasureof both partiesand the emergenceof a slightlywoozynew self. lts putativegenderis the wooziestof all. lf we want an efficientsummaryof the overallfocus of such works,we can do no better than to turn to SidraStich.Trockel,she writes,with admirableclarity,"narrowsthe gap betweenopposites,blursthe boundariesof opposition,and affirmsdifferences.""

All this-especially its centralcontradiction-iscertainlytrue.What is strikingabout Trockel'sartisticoperations,however,is that she accomplishestheseseparateends

6. Untitled (afterKathe Kolwitz), ca. 1992. Beworked photocopy, I 1/2 x 6 5/8 in. (24.1x 16.7cm) OffentlicheKunstammlungBasel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1992-12

7. Untitled (after Andy Warhol), ca. 1992. Reworked photocopy, 7 3/4 x 5 3/16 in- (19.6 x 13.2 cm). dffentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1992-13.

visually,and in such a varietyof ways.Sometimestransparentoverlaysleadto gender opacity,as in the doubleportraits;sometimes,in anothergroup of photocopiedworks, gesturesex-doctorsan artisticoriginal(an elderlyKollwitz a demonicallytransformative (figs.6, 7). The nude or Warhol'simpassiveMao)with a graffitist'slese-majesty changesto Mao make him femaleand flirty,whilethe worn old womangainsa sad penis,with beardand mustacheto match.Theseparticularhybridsare both outraI reckon, geousand finelytuned.ThatTrockelcan bringoff such visualperformances, procedures: grotesque how has everythingto do with the calculationthat guidesher she wantsthem to mean.In any such argumentdrawingtakes prideof place. ln an interview

In an interviewwith Jutta Koether(theone referenceda few linesabove),Trockelherself insistedthat questionsof meaningwere all. Not, however,that she therefore launchedinto the task of explainingher art; on the contrary,one reasonthose who write about Trockelfind themselvesgoing back and back to the same handfulof printed sourcesis that she has beenso sparingwhereexplanationis concerned.("1don't we mustn'tunderstandart that way."13) believethat an artistshouldgive explanations, Yet when Koetherasked, "What demandsdo you place on your art?" the answerwas directand demanding."That I don't get lost in frivolity,and that my assertions-every strokeis one-should be understood."Hereis an artistwho not only insistson her tireShe also asksto be clearlyand closelyread. less assediveness.

Everystroke an assertion?What would it be like, I wonder,to take Trockelat her word?

How would we do so, knowingher strategyof mimicryand imitation?And then there is propositionconthe issueof her insistenceon a second,and apparentlycontradictory,

8. Untitled, 1985. Acrylic on papet 8 1/4 x 11 1/4 in. (2O.9x 28.4 cm\ Centre George Pompidou, Mus6e national d'art moderne, Cabinet d'art graphique, Paris; AM'1997-241.

cerninghow art means.(Herown included,it seemssafe to say.) Laterin the same Koetherinterview,Trockeldeclaredthat any deep artisticmeaningfulness involves beauty,as much as or morethan the intelligibility and relevanceat which good work also aims.To wit: "Art works are focusesof time. They provideinformationabout the relationbetweenart, cultureand the state.And the questionof meaningof art is bound up with this. But works of art only achievethis throughtheir beingobjectsof desire, throughtheir beauty."'o One responseto thesedeclarationsmight be to returnTrockelto some traditionalaesthetic,to dwell with pleasureon the rightnessof her handlingof form. This would not, I think, be a viablechoice.lt failsto respondto what aboutTrockel'sdrawingsis determinedlycasualand throwaway;nor does it speakto theirfrequentand deliberateawkwardness.At first glanceher work can seemaggressively (anddeceptively) de-skilled.

Linessometimeswander,washesbleedraggedly,textureslook roughand unkempt.

The frontierof legibilityseemswell withinview.lf beautyis lodgedin her work, it will haveto be understoodin termsthat acknowledgeits formalidiosyncrasy.

For by no meansare we licensedto think that "form"-her ways of drawing,her draftsmanly decisions-has nothingto say.On the contrary,when,in her recentstudy of Trockel's drawings,HanneLoreckdeclares,"a singleline can changeeverythingas sharplyas a word," her stressfallson just how decisivetheirlook is.15 Her phraseinsistswe consider exactlywhat Trockel'sdrawingsdo. How are lineslikewords?Whena word "changes everything"it catalyzesa kind of action:it "performs"what it aimsthe listenerto becomeor do. For example:"l promise,"or "l now pronounce you man and wife." In each casethe performance,and the transformation, happensin the momenta single word, a singleverb, is said.Werewe to ask how such quick changescome about,the answerwould point to conventionand agreementamongcommunitiesof speakers,as well as to their individualacts of speech.

Againstthis backdrop,let us ask the questionagain:how are lineslike speech?Think back to the singleline on our artist'seasel.Thereone mark madean imageand a message,transformingemptinessinto a spacefor bodilyreference,and hencecatalyzinga

kind of play with the body and its variousforms.This can happennot just becausethe short hookedline resemblesthe proboscison the grinningartist'shead,but also becausein lookingat that line,we viewers"agree"or recognizethat it makesa nose.

And we agreethat it suggestsa penisas well.

Nose/penis:this, for Trockel,is the nameof the game.Call it Analogy.In anotherround head/vase-ringingthe she twins vase/uteruswith severalvariations-uterus/head, changeson the theme.Suchdualitiesplayout in wholeseriesof her drawings,of Perhapsthe most pointed,whenmeaningis at whichseveralare in this exhibition. issue,is an untitledacrylicfrom 1985(fig.B).lt showsanotherlong-nosedcharacter, perhapsan androgynousPinocchio:long-hairedand bearded,s/he seemsto wear a necklace,and some kind of scallopedand decoratedtop. And herlhisnoseagainhas much to say.lt sprouts,for a start,from the very socketof the eye.The long growth both blindsand silencesits wearer;at leastthis is how I read its pointedlyemptying with the languageballoon.This may be the momentto recall,concerning intersection just what it was that lengthened the originalmanikin's Trockel'spenilePinocchios, nose.A long schnozzis the sign of a lie. We needto remember,when takingthe measure of this artist'saestheiic,that when words are pittedagainstimages,we ought ultimatelyto believewhat we see.

Thereare many instancesin Trockel'sart wherea visualimageconfrontslanguageand seemsto carrythe day. Somequite pointedlyoccur on pagesfrom books.The usage has a certainmundaneviolence,particularlywhen the sheetscome from themeor stenographicnotebooks.Rippedout beforebeingwrittenon, theirtatterededges,as On such sheets much as their ruledor squaredsurfaces,declaretheir provenance. job. place, When the sheetis a title its and assumes drawingclearlystandsin writing's page,by contrast,imageand word cohabitin variousways.Takefor examplean untithe latter tled work of 19BB(fig.9).A shapeand a figureinhabita rose-redlandscape: former (hence in her/his arms; the faun an infant hermaphroditic) cradling is a maternal a tall and disembodied(yetstill vaguelyfemale)cloud. Both are risesamorphously, deployedin a fieldon whichappearsa singleGermanword:SCHLUSSFOLGERUNa weightyemissaryfromthe landof logic(indeedthe GEN.The term is declarative, pageitselfmustcomefrom a philosophical text)'u: we mighttranslateit as "logicalconclusions,"so as to maintainsomethingof its rationaland technicalallure.Whatis striking about Trockel'svisualstrategyin this instanceis how she stagesan encounterthat turns"logic"on its head.Thissmalland smilingsatyrseemsto lay hold of philosophiin all theirfuturityand finality,as the signpostto site a rosynew cal conclusions mythosof her own.

Love and grief

"Love and grief":the phraseis as crypticas it is clear.This was Trockel'sbriefanswer to Koether'spenultimatequestion(thecontextwas againthe 1987interviewalready cited above).The critic had asked,"What resourcesdo you considerthe most important for your arI?"and once she had heardTrockel'sreply,she went on to voicethe final queryof ihe day.

JK: What role does ironyhave in your work?

RT:lrony appearswhen I haveto get malicious.lt's a vice that keepsme from endingup as a cynic."

13

5 {;}-{ l .Ll $5FL}}'.G

10. Die legendare E|-RONNY,ca. 1993.Felt-tip pen on paper, 10 1/16 x7 1/8 in. (25.5 x 18.2 cm) Privatecoll@tion.

I cannothelp readingthis interviewwithoutwantingto readbetweenits lines.Did Koetherask about ironyto test or deflectthe comment about "love and grief"?Did her questionstem, in otherwords,from disbelief?WasTrockelactuallybeingironicwhen she spoke in such an empassionedvein?Or was she offering(a versionof) the truth?

Of coursethe three posturesare not mutuallyexclusive,but when and if they go together,they makequestionsof meaningmuch harderto pin down.

The task gets no easierwhen we find that Trockelhas beenall-too-ironicabout irony that very conitself.One of the drawingsin the exhibitionpersonifiesand allegorizes pen (fig. the imageapes a and ink drawing, 10).A small cept; againthe issueis how photograph,perhapsa nineteenth-century daguerreotypeor carte de vislfe-a commercialimage,at any rate,with a thin decorativeborderrunningroundthe edge. In the nineteenthcenturysuch decorationswere printed,thoughTrockeltraceshers in ink.

But her simulationof a photographiccollectiblethat stemsfrom the taprootof modern celebrityculturealso dictateswhat appearsinsidethe frame.Therestandsa "real"perthat for sonality,none otherthan the "legendarylrony"herself.Hereis a personification female:she wearsa showgirl'soutfitwith a certain"saucy" once seemsunmistakably charm.Yet as we take in her saucinesswe see that she too is a genderhybrid:above the tops of her stockingsare two roundcirclesof flesh.Theyare eggs and testicles:or more properlyspeaking,they are neitherand both at once. lrony-or "Ei-Ronny,"to use her properGermanname-is an "Egg Lady." She wearseggs,one of Trockel's autographblazons,from her headto (andin lieu of) her heels. restsdirectlyon her use of the egg as Trockel,we might say,is lrony.The identification a favoritemotif,but it extendsmuch further,to take in her generalstance.But she is ironic(andsuspicious)about such a posture,evenas she takes it up. How can we tell?

Look at lrony herself.With feigneddelicacyshe firesa gun. The reportlooks ineffectual, at most a ping or a pop. lt is as if "legendary"lrony'sincarnationgivesup its firepower when it is emasculated,for which readfeminized.Trockelis surelybeingironichere,or 9. Untitled,1988. Watercoloron book page, 7 'l/2 x 4 3/4 in. (18.9 x 11.9 cm) OffentlicheKunstammlungBasel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1995-58.

15

11, '12.Hoffnung, 1984. Gouache,watercolor,ink, pastel, and chalk on paper Series of ten drawings: 11 3/4 x 8 in. (29.8 x 20.2 cm) each StatensMuseumfor Kunst,Kobberstiksamlingen, Copenhagen;Inv 1988-79-80,82-89.

is she?Whatif she is suggesting-lwouldn'tput it pasther-that lronyin the feminine quitewillinglysurrenders its force?

Let us, for the purposesof a conclusion, readTrockel's tonealongtheselines.To do so, I think,will stagea necessary grief." "love encounterwith and In fact we meettheseemotionstime and again,in suiteaftersuiteof drawings.AmongthemareTrockel'sbest,or at leastthosewhereher brandof beautycan best be seen.I am thinkingin particularof the greatuntitledsuiteof ten watercolorsof animalpuppeteers.Owl and donkey,giraffeand dog-with benigngood humorall maketheirhumanplaythings danceto a new (a beastly?) portraitsthat asksus to lookmonkeysin tune.18Or thereis the groupof ten ink-brushed the eye (fig.11 and 12).Trockelhastitledthe collection"Hope." Thesingleword seems alwaysto carrywith it boththe possibleand the impossible; Hopeharbors,I think,allthe loveand griefin the world.I shallleaveit up to eachviewerto say why it mightdo so here.

Any reasonswe would give,however,could not help but rest on what is immediateand improvisedaboutthe tracesthat animateeach image,the dark poolsof ink at eyesand nostrils,the staccatobrushwork,whose bristlemarksreinventthemselvesas fur. In Trockel'slexiconof valuesanimaandanimalareonly a hair'sbreadthapart.leIn fact she asks her viewerswhereand how thev would draw the line betweenthe two.

.,)''",,: Ai!t44.

:

ts{a*

' '#ffi

13. L|ntitled,1984. Indiaink and watercoloron paper,7 3/B x 11 1/16 in. (18.7 x 28.1 cm) CentreGeorgesPompidou,lvluseenationald'art moderne,Cabinetd'art graphique,Paris;Inv.AM 1997-11B.

It is entirelyappropriate,giventhe sustaineddiversityof Trockel'smedia,that she a new groupof large-scale shouldhaveincludedin this,her most recentexhibition, past year. technique she has not reallymined They employ a from this drawings,all before.Most use leadand coloredpencils,sometimesunderlaidwith ink and watercolor wash.And all show prostratemen and boys.Most-maybe all-are sleeping,and often Trockelframesthe drawingso as to come quitecloseto the slumberingform. Herejust a (figs.14,15). torsoarrayednakedhip to neck;therea headthrownback open-mouthed We mightwell be lookingat bodiesin the wake of sexualsatisfaction,yet the scent of death hangsheavyin the air.

Why do sex and deathcohabitin theseimages?The answerspeaksto the "promise"of Trockel'sart. Whenshe draws,she contractswith the viewerto provide(andthe viewer likewiseengagesto register)a layeredor encodedexperienceof form.We mightsay her work was lexicalor digest-like,if the term did not threatento elidewhat is resonantly purposefulabout its look.Herethe new visualitysponsorsseverallayersof reference: aboutthe formalchoice.Thesecrispstrokesare this is what is useful,evennecessary, brisklyefficientin sendingus in severaldirectionsat once.TheyleadtowardsWarhol, for a start,and his use of a commercialdrawingidiomto conveywhat he found eroticin to draw-even to dramamen.He mobilizedthe samebrisklyhatchedstyle,moreover, tize-both soup cans and greatwads of dollarbills.lt is hardnot to concludethat some of the eroticas productis goingon here.But the referencesin similarhomogenizing insistently multiple;this sameset of imagesis as photographicas it Trockelare always And the photographiclook-the closelyworkedhalf-tone system,the is Warholian.

-17

14. SleepingBeauty, 2000. Colored pencil on paper, 39 3/8 x 27 3/4 in. (100 x 70.5 cm).

Privatecollection.

lack of edges,the mimingof some (softor hard)porn source-invokesGerhardRichter as a furtherreferencepoint.Like Richter'spainting,Trockel'sdrawingattendsto the gaps and generalities that rupturephotographiccontinuitywhenevera viewercomestoo close.Toogreatan intimacywith a photographmakesfor disruptionand blur.And knowledgeof an image'ssubjectis replaced-at leastin Trockel'simitationof such a loss of particulars-by quickly repeatedstrokesof black and grey.In this context her new drawingstylelooksanythingbut aimless;nor could it resembleany of her earlier graphicmodes,and still play so pointedlywith the dissolutionof photographyas source.

Both Richterand Trockelare mimics;the differencelies in each artist'sstancetowards the paradigm.Extractedor excerptedfrom history,Richter'sphotographicmodels inevitablystemfrom some knownincident,registering a specifiablepersonor time.

Trockel's,by contrast,seem considerablymore private.They makefew claimson the "historicalrecord"and theironly relevance arriveswhena vieweris readyand willingto extrapolatefrom what is seen.Say we wereto dwell on an imagelikeS/eeprngBeauty,or to look long and hard at Paulat the Beach.Surelywe could not but rememberTrockel's insistingthat worksof art achievetheiraimsthrough"beingobjectsof desire,through theirbeauty."Heredesireseemsboth provokedand dispelled,evenwhilea graspon Trockel'ssenseof beautycomeswide awake.lf such imagespromiseanything,it is their stagingof an encounterwith love,grief,and loss.And if that encounteris also ironized, via its acknowledgement-indeed its utterreliance-onthe photographic, with Trockelit could be no other way. Surelythis reliancetoo is part of what theseworks assert:here are the terms in which we may know and (re)experience life'spassions.All that remains for us to acknowledgeis that this whole allegory-this chainof reference,effect,and thought-is bound up in imagerythat efficiently,tenderly,puts men asleepand away.

15. Paulatthe Beach,2000.Coloredpencilon paper,20 1/8x27 5/a in. (50.1x 70.2cm) Privatecollection.

1. lvly figures rely on information presented in two key exhibition catalogues: Gerhard Theewen, ed. RosemarieTrockel.Herde (Cologne: Salon Verlag, 1997), and Jonas Storsve, Rosemarie Trcckel: Dessins(Paris: Centre Pompidou, 2000). Hanne Loreck, in her recent article on Trockel's drawings, numbers them at about 1000. See Hanne Loreck, "Storia universale?RosemarieTrockel's Works on Paper,"Ad On paper (May-June 1999): 32.

2. See Jutta Koether, "lnterview with RosemarieTrockel," FlashAft, no. 134 (May, 1987): 41_ 3, tbid.,42.

4. tbi d.

5. The controversy was perhaps most evident at the moment of Trockel's 1999 exhibition at the WhitechapelArt Gallery London. The crjticisms of Rachel Withers, for example, insist that that the sheer range of Trockel's art feeds her refusal to self-edit; the resulting inclusivenessmakes for a show that conjoins "bland naivete" with "arch critique." Withers's review, moreover,which appeared in Artforum, vol. 37, no. 7 (March 1999); 110, summarizes the generally uncomprehending responses of the British press to the Whitechapel show.

6. Dickhoff is a frequent commentator on Trockel's art, For these remarks, see Sidra Stich, ed. Rosemarie lrockel (Munich: prestel Verlag, 1991 106. ), 7 . tbi d.

8. The answers produced by the passive "Trockel/victim" are a roster of the artist's contemporaries and rivals, from Whiteread, Sherman, Bourgeois, and Lawler,to Acconci, Kelley,and Rjchter What is poignant about this performance of neurosis is that when the name "Trockel" is finally forced out of the victim-figure, it too is refused. lt is as if there can be no "right" answer to the question, "Who is the best artist," even though the self-doubting subject can neverstop asking,or be satisfied.

9. The phraseis due to Withers,4tiforum,ll].

10- Jonas Storsve suggests that the impetus behind the elision of these padicular artist pairs stems from the relative inequality of their professionalsuccess. In 1993, Koons, like Dokoupil was at the top of his game, whereas neither Trockel nor Sherman had yet obtained the measureof recognition that was to follow,See Storsve, 16-17 1 1. For images of Galton's photographic researchessee, Martin Kemp and Marina Wallace, Spectacular Bodies: The Aft and Scienceof the Human Bodv from Leonardo to A,/ow (Berkeley:University of California Press, 2OOO), 132-36, 192-93. The catalogue points to the relation between Galton's practices and their knowing revival by the contemporary German artist Gerhard Lang, whose photographic composites look both at selected populations (for example, The Typicallnhabitants of Sch/oss-Nauses,1992-2000)and at human/animaloverlays (as in Pataeanthropial Physiognomy,1g91-2OOO,a projection piece which overlays human skulls and animal visages onto human photographic portraits). See Spectacu/arBodl'es, 190-99. The comparison of Lang and Trockel would be worth pursuing at greater length, not least because of the ways the latter herself elides human and animal.

12. Storsve,13.

13. Koether,40.

14 . tb i d.

15. HanneLoreck,"Storiauniversale?,"36.

16. DieterKoepplin,in his discussionof the sheet,makesthe point that the page must come from some kind of philosophicalstudy,and notes that Trockel herself says she no longer remembers the source. Note that Koepplin, who writes in German but is here translated into French, renders the Germanphrase"Schlussfolgweungen" as "cons6quencesfinales,"his essay'stitle, a grandiloquentand threateninglocutionwhich tends to obscurejts logicaloriginsand use. My thanksto HertaWolf for her help wjth this point.

17. Koelher, 4218. See cover illustration.

19. Melitta Kliege suggests, in light of Trockel's interest in monkeys as imitators, that they may be a kind of self portrait, standing in for the adist herself.

According to Storsve, each drawing in the series was initially understood by Trockel as illustrating a different emotion; two were reproduced, he claims, in the catalogue of the artist's first exhibition at the Ascan Krone Gallery (Hamburg),titled Ratlosigkeit (Distress)and Angst (Fear).Storsve also states that the collective title Hoffnung (Hope) was not employed until 1988. He does not confront the implications of this history for the datF1g84-currenfly assignedto the suite.

19

L ist o f W ork s The abbreviation "MNAM" refers to the catalogue of the exhibition: RosemarieTrockel: Dessins,ed. Jonas Storsve (Paris:Centre Pompidou,Mus6e nationald'art moderne,2000).

Untitled, 1982 Oil and acrylicpaints on paper I 1/8 x 5 3/4 in. (20.6x 14.5 cm) Collection of Dr Reiner Speck, Cologne MNAM cat. 1 Untitled,1982 Oil paint on paper .14.8 7 3/A x5 7/8 in. (18.8x cm) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1994-16, MNAM cat. 2 Untitled,1983 Pencil and sprayed watercolor on paper 9 15/16 x 7 3/4 in. 125.2x 19.6 cm) Ofientliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1985-399 MNAM cat. 3 Untitled, 1983 Ballpoint pen and watercolor on paper 9 15/16 x 7 3/4 in. (21.1x 14.7 cm) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1985-398 MNAM cat. 4 Untitled,1983 Oil paint on paper I 5 /1 6 x 5 1 1 1 1 6i n. ( 20.6x 14.5 cm ) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1991-27 MNAM cat. 5 Untitled,'1983 Watercolor and oil paint on paper A 1/a x 5 7/8 in. (20.6x 14.8 cm) Collstion of Dr Reiner Speck, Cologne MNAM cat. 6 Untitled, ca.'1983 Oil paint, varnish,and silverspray paint on paper 8 3/16 x 5 7/8 in. (2O.8x 14.8 cm) OffentlicheKunstammlungBasel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1991-9 MNAM cat. 7 Untitled, ca.1983 Gouache and ink on paper 11 3/4 x7 7/B in. (29.8x 19.9 cm) Private collection MNAM cat. I Untitled,1984 Chalk and oil paint on paper 11 1/16 x 8 l/a in. (2Ai x 20.6 cm) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1985-400 MNAM cat. 9 Untitled,ca. 1984 Mixed media on paper 8 5/8 x 6 1/8 in. (21.8x 15.5 cm) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett; Inv.1991- 16 MNAM cat. 10 Untitled,1984 Oil paint on paper 81 /4 x5 1 /8 i n. (2 1 x 13 cm ) Collection of Rainer Crone MNAM cat. 11

Untitled,1984 Chalk,ink, and acrylicon paper 81/4x57/8 i n. ( 21 x 14.9 c m ) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1991-4 MNAM cat. 12 Untitled,1984 Ink and chalk on paper 6 3/16 x 4 9/16 in. (15.7x 11.5 cm) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1988-100 MNAM cat. 13 Hoffnung,1984 Gouache, watercolor, ink, pastel, and chalk on paper Ser iesoften dr aw i ngs :11 3/4x g i n.( 29.8x 20.2 cm) each Statens Museum for Kunst, Kobberstiksamlingen,Copenhagen; Inv. 198879-80,82-89 MNAM cat. 14 lllus.p. 16 Untitled, 1984 India ink and watercolor on paper 7 3/8 x'1.11/16 in. (18.7x 28.1 cm) Centre Georges Pompidou, Mus6e national d'art moderne, Cabinet d'art graphique, Paris; lnv.AM 1997 - 118 MNAM cat- 15 lllus.p. 17 Untitled,1984 Chalk,acrylic,and varnishon lined paper 8 1/8 x 5 3/4 in, (2O.7x14-4 cm], Collectionof Dr RainerSpeck,Cologne MNAM cat. 16 Untitled,1984 Charcoal on graph paper 8 1/4 x 6 in. (20.9x 15 cm) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 199.1-1 06 MNAM cat. 17 Untitled,1984 Acrylic on paper 11 314x 8 1/4 in. (29.6 x 21 cm) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1996-49 MNAM cat. 18 Untitled,1984 Watercolor on paper 11 3/4 x 8 3/A in. (29.7 x 21 cm\ Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1991-1 07 MNAM cat. 19 Untitled,1984 Chalk and oil paint on paper I 1/8 x 7 in. (20.6x 17.6 cm) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1993-5 MNAM cat.20 Untitled,1984 Acrylic and chalk on paper 11 3/4x8 3/8 i n.( 29.6x 21 c m ) Offeniliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferetichkabinett;Inv. 199'1-245 M NAM cat.21

Untitled,1984 Gouache on paper 11 3/4 x 8 1/2 in. 129.7x 21 .6 cm) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupterstichkabinett;Inv. 1997-41I MNAM cat.22 Untitled,1984 Acrylic on paper 5 3/4 xA 1/4 in. (14.4x 20.9 cm) Centre George Pompidou, Mus6e national d'art moderne, Cabinet d'art graphique, Paris; AM 1997-239 MNAM cat.23 Untitled,19a4 Acrylic on paper 7 3/4 x 5 3/4 in. (19.6x 14.7 cm) Centre George Pompidou, lvlus6enational d'art moderne,Cabinetd'art graphique Paris; AM 1997-240 MNAlil cat.24 l l l us .p.2 Untitled,1985 Ink on paper 5 7/8 xB 3/8 in. (14.9x 21 cm) Private collection MNAM cat. 25 Untitled,1985 Ink wash and decoupage on paper Diptych: f 1 3/4 x I 1/4 in. (29.7x 20.9 cm) each Private collection, Cologne MNAM cat. 26 Untitled,1985 Acrylic on paper 8 1/4 x'11 1/4 in. (2O.9x 28.4 cm\ Centre George Pompidou, Mus6e natjonal d'art moderne, Cabinet d'art graphique, Paris; AM 1997-241 MNAM cat. 27 l l l us .p. 12

untitled, 1985 Acrylic on paper 81/4x1'1 1/4 in. (20.9 x28-4cm't Centre George Pompidou, Mus6e national d'art moderne,Cabineid'art graphique,Paris;AM 1996-434 M N AM c at.28

Untitled,1985 Acrylic on paper 8 1/4 x 11 1/4 in. (20.9x 28.4 cml CentreGeorgePompidou,Mus6e nationald'art moderne, Cabinet d'art graphique, Paris; AM .1996-435 M N AM c at.29 Untitled,1986 Watercolor,India ink, and burn mark on paper I 3/4 x A 1/4 in. (24.8x 21.0 cm) Centre George Pompidou, Mus6e national d'art moderne,Cabinetd'art graphique,Paris; AM 1999- 12 M N AMc at.30

Untitted,1986 India ink, watercolor, and varnish on paper I 1/8 x 5 3/4 in. (20.5x 14.6 cm) OffentlicheKunstammlungBasel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1991-24 MN A M ca t.31

Untitled,1987 Ink and rubber stamp, watercolor, and ballpoinl pen on paper 10 1/4 x81/8 in- (25.9x 20.5 cm) Collectionof Anne de Villepoix MNAM cat. 32 l l l u s.p. 5 Untitled, 1987 Penciland coloredpencilon paper 11 5/8 x 8 1/4 in. (29.5x 20.9 cm) Private collection, Cologne MNAM cat.33 Untitled,1987 Photocopy and ink on paper 4 7/8 x 41 /4 in. ( 12.4x 10.6 cm ) Privatecollection MNAM cat. 34 Untitled,1987 Acrylic on paper 57 /A x7 3 /4 in. ( 14.7x 19.6 cm ) Centre George Pompidou, l,/us6e national d'art moderne,Cabinetd'ad graphique,Paris;AM 1997-243 I/NAM cat. 35 Untitled, 1987 Acrylic on paper 15 x 1 1 1 /8 in. ( 38.1x 28.2 cm ) Centre George Pompidou, Mus6e national d'art moderne,Cabinetd'art graphique,Paris; AM 1997-242 MNAM cat. 36 Untitled, 1987 Ink and watercolor on paper 8 1/2 x 10 1/4 in. (21-Sx 26 cm\ Collection of Andreas Osarek, Hamburg MNAM cat.37 Untitled,1988 Watercolor on book page 7 'l/2 x 4 3/4 in. (18.9x 11.9 cm) OffentlicheKunstammlungBasel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1995-58 MNAM cat. 38 l l l u s.p . 14 untitled,1988 Ballpointpen on paper 7 3 /8 x 5 1 /a in. ( 18.6x 13.1cm ) Private collection MNAM cat. 40 Untitled,1989 Photocopy on paper 10 3/8 x 7 7/a in. (26.5 x 19.9 cm) OffentlicheKunstammlungBasel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1990-351 MNAM cai. 41 Untitled,1989 Photocopy on paper 10 3/4 x 7 7/8 in. \27.3x 19.8 cm) OffentlicheKunstammlungBasel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv 1990-349 MNAM cat. 42

Untitled,1989 Photocopy on paper 10 3/4 x 7 3/4 in. 127.3x 19.6 cm) OffentlicheKunstammlungBasel, KupferstichkabinetuInv. 1990-348 MNAM cat. 43 Untitled (after Giovanni Battista Piazetta),1991 Reworked photocopy I 1/4 x 6 1/8 in. (21 x 15.5 cm) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett; Inv.1991-266 M NA M c at.45 .1991 Unlifled (after Gustav Klimt), Fleworkedphotocopy 7 3/8 x 5 5/16 in. (18.7x 13.5 cm) OffentlicheKunstammlungBasel, Kupferstichkabinett; Inv.1991-267 MNAlil cat. 46 Untitled (after Kathe Kollwitz),ca. 1992 Reworked photocopy I 1/2 x 6 5/8 in. (24.1x 16.7 cm) OffentlicheKunstammlungBasel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1992-12 MNAM cat. 47 lllus .p. 11 Untltled (after Andy Warhol),ca. 1992 Reworked photocopy 7 3/4 x 53/16 i n. ( 19.6x .13.2c m ) OfientlicheKunstammlungBasel, Kupterstichkabinett;Inv. 1992-13 MNAM cat. 48 lllus.p. 11 Untitled (after Ernst Ludwig Kirchner),ca. 1992 Reworked photocopy 61/4 x 4 5/8 i n. ( 15.7x 11.8c m ) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1992-14 M NAM c at.49 Untitled (d'apres Edvard Munch), ca- 1992 Reworked photocopy 51/2x 43/4 i n. ( 13.8x 12 c m ) Offentliche Kunstammlung Basel, Kupferstichkabinett;Inv. 1992-54 MNAM cat.50 Untitled,1992 Watercolor on paper Seriesof ten drawings,with sevenat 12 1/4 xB 5/8 in. (31 x22 cm\ and three ai I 5/8 x12 1/4 in. (22 x 31 cm) each Collectionamassedby Martin Dislerfor the students of the Centre scolaire des deux Thielles, Le Landeron, Switzerland M NAM c at.51 lllus.on cover Untitled,1992 Charcoal on paper 12 5/8 x 9 1/2 in. (32 x 24 cml Privatecollection MNAM cat. 52 Die legendare ETRONNY,ca. 1993 Felt-tip pen on paper 10 1/16 x 7 1/a in. (25.5x 18.2 cm) Private collection MNAM cat- 53 lllus.p. 15 Untitled,1993 Photocopy on paper 11 3/4 x 9 1/2 tn. (3Ox 24 cm) Collectionof PJ.H. Dinghs,Utrecht MNAM cat. 54 lllus.p.10

Untitled,1993 Photocopy on paper 11 3/4 x 8 1/4 in. (30 x 21 cm) Private collection MNAM cat.55 Untitted,1993 Pencil and photocopy on paper 13 x 91/4 i n. ( 33 x 23.5 c m ) Private collection MNAM cat. 56 Untitled,1993 Pencilon paper 13 x I 1/4 in. (33 x 23.5 cm) Private collection MNAM cat. 57 Untitled,1993 Pencilon paper 't3 x I 1/4 in. (33 x 23.5 cm) Private collection MNAM cat. 58 Untitled,1993 Pencil on paper 13 x I 1/4 in. (33 x 23.5 cm) Private collection MNAM cat. 59 Untitled,1993 Pencil on paper 13 x I 1/4 in. (33 x 23.5 cm) Private collection MNAM cai. 60 Untitled,1993 Pencil on paper 13 x 91/4 i n. ( 33 x 23.5 c m ) Private collection IVINAMcat. 61 Untitled,1993 lmprint of heated plate and ink wash on paper, 8 7/8 x 8 1/8 in. (22.5 x 2O.7 cmJ Private collection MNAM cat. 62 Untitled,1994 Pencil and charcoal on paper '151/16 x 11 1/4 in. (34.2x 28.5 cm) Private collection IiINAM cat. 63 untitled,1997 InKOn paper 5 1/Ax 4 3/4 i n. ( 12.9x 1'1.9c m ) Centre George Pompidou, Mus6e national d'art moderne,Cabinetd'art graphique,Paris;AM 1997-247 MNAM cat. 64 l l l us .p.6 Sleeping Beauty,2000 Colored pencil on paper 39 3/8 x 27 3/4 in. (100 x 70.5 cm) Privatecollection MNAM cat. 66 l l l us .p. 18 Young Man Dolng,2ooo Colored pencil on paper 27 3/4x 393/a i n. ( 70.5x 100 c m ) Privatecollection MNAM cat.67 Kevin at Noon, 2000 Colored pencil on paper .100 27 3/4 x39 3/8 in. (70.5x cm) Private collection MNAM cat. 68

21

untitled,2000 Acrylic and lndia ink on paper 10 1/2 x7 3/4 in. (26.5x 19.7cm.)

Private collection MNAM cat. 69 Untitled,2OOO India ink on paper 8 718 x 8 1/4 in. (22.7 x 21.1 cm) Private collection MNAM cat. 70 Untitled,2OOO India ink on paper 97 l ax7 3/4 i n . (25 x 19.7 cm .)

Monika Sprfith Galerie MNAM cal. 71 Untitled,2OOO Acrylic on paper I 3/8 x 5 1/2 in. (21.3 x 13.8 cm) Monika Spruth Galerie MNAM cat. 74 untitled,2000 India ink on paper 1'l 5/8 x 7 7/8 in. (29.5 x 19.9 cm) Private collection MNAM cat. 75 untitled,2000 India ink and colored pencil on paper 11 5/8 x7 7/8 in. (29.5x 19.8 cm) Monika Spriith Galerie MNAM cat. 76 Paul at the Beach,2OOO Colored pencil on paper 20 1/A x 27 5/8 in. (50.1 x 70.2 cm) Private collstion MNAM cat. 77 lllus. p. 19 Between Mother and Work,2000 Inkjet print and lndia ink on paper I 1/8 x 7 7/8 in. (20.6x 20 cm) Monika Sprtith Galerie MNAM cat. 78 Peter Day tripping, 2OOO Inkjei print and India ink on paper 6 1/4 x I in. (16 x 20.3 cm) Private collstion MNAM cat. 79 Untitled,2OOO India ink and acrylic on paper 8 1 1 /1 6x 5 1/8 i n . ( 22 x 13 cm ) Monika Sproth Galerie Untitled,2OOO Pencil on paper A 1/4 x A 7lA in. (21 x 22.5 cm) Monika Spr0th Galerie untitled,2000 India ink on paper 71 /4 x1 0 1/4 i n. ( 18.5x26cm ) Monika Spruth Galerie

Beclining Nude,20OO Colored pencil and felt on paper 27 1/2 x39 3/8 in. (70 x 100 cm) Private collection

Untitled,2OOO Colored pencil on paper 39 1/2x27 5lA in. (100.2x 70.2 cm) Monika Spriith Galerie

Untitled,2O0O Pencil, acrylic, and ballpoint pen on paper 8 5/16 x 5 7/A in. (21 x 14.8 cm) Private collection

Untitled,2OOO Colored pencil on paper 27 x 19 5lA in. (68.5x 50 cm) Private collection

The Postcard,2OOO Acrylic on paper '16 1/2 x 11 3/4 in. (42 x 29.6 cm) Private collection

Untitled,2OOO Acrylic on paper 14 x 10 5/8 in. (35.4x 27 cm) Monika Spri.ithGalerie

La Possession /nvlsible, 2OOO Colored pencil on paper 32 1/2 x 26 3/4 in. (82.6 x 67.9 cm) Monika Sprlth Galerie

Untitled,2OOO Pencil and colored pencil on paper 8 1/4 x 10 1/8 in. (21 x 25.6 cm) Monika Spriith Galerie

The Benefactor,2000 Pencil and colored pencil on paper 27 1/2 x37 1/8 in. (70 x 96.2 cm) Monika Spruth Galerie Untitled,2OO0 Pencil and colored pencil on paper 13 1/4 x 11 3/4 in. (33.8x29.7 cml Private collection Untitled,2OOO Colored pencil and pencil on paper 12 1/2 x 11 3/4 in. (31.8x 29.6 cm) Monika Spriith Galerie Le Malheur,2OOO Colored pencil on paper 69 1/4 x 49 1/4 in. ('176x 125 cm) Private collection The Abandoned,2OOO Acrylic and pencil on paper 23 x 35 5/8 in. (58.5x 90.4 cm) Private collection Siesta, 2000 Acrylic and colored pencil on paper 21 1/8 x29 3/4 in. (53.5x 75.6 cm) Private collection Moi, je dors,2OOO Acrylic and colored pencil on paper 241/2 x29 1/8 in. (62.3x 74 cm) Private collmtion Peter Playing Possum, 2OOO Acrylic and colored pencil on paper 29 7/8 x 40 1/8 in. (75.8x 101.9cm) Private collection Untitled,2OOO Acrylic on paper 16 1/2 x 11 5/8 in. (42 x 29.5 cm) Private collection Untitled,2OOO Acrylic on paper 16'l/2 x 11 5/8 in- (42 x 29.5 cm) Monika Spruth Galerie

untitled,2000 Colored pencil on paper 21 1/2 x 19 3/16 in (54.6x 48.7 cm) Privale collection

Untitled,2OOO India ink and acrylic on paper 16 112x 11 5/8 in. (42 x 29.5 cm) Monika Spr0th Galerie

Dozing Nicholas,2OOO Colored pencil on paper 27 1/2 x 39 3/8 in. (70 x 100 cm) Private collmtion

untitled,2000 Colored pencil on paper 27 3/4 x 39 'l12 in. (7O.4x 100.3 cm) Private collection

The DrawingCenter is the only not-for-profitinstitutionin the countryto focus solely on the exhibitionof drawings,both historicaland contemporary.lt was establishedin 1976 to provideopportunitiesfor emergingand under-recognizedartists;to demonstratethe significanceof drawingsthroughouthistory; and to stimulatepublic dialogueon issuesof ad and culture.

This is number 18 of the Drawing Papers,a seriesof publicationsdocumentingThe DrawingCenter's exhibitionsand public programsand providinga forum for the study of drawing.Ihe Drawing Papers publicationseries is printed on Monadnock Dulcet 100# Smooth Text and 80# DulcetSmooth Cover.

Germany,The This exhibitionis made possiblewith the support of Institutftir Auslandsbeziehungen, Andy Warhol Foundationfor the VisualArts and ABC Carpet & Home.

Board ofDirectors DitaAmory Negroponte George Co-Chairmen Adler Frances Beatty M.Clark, Jr. James Frances Dittmer Eisler Colin Factor Elizabeth Bruce W Ferguson Michael lovenko Werner H.Kramarsky Leigh Abby William S.Lieberman Michael Lynne Elizabeth RohatynEricC.Rudin Dr.AllenLeeSessoms Jeanne C.Thayef H.Tuck Edward Andrea Woodner deZegher Catherine Director Executive *Emerita

TheDrawing Center Street 35 Wooster NewYork,NY10013 Tel 212-219-2166 Fu212-966-2976 Designer; LucDerycke KatieDyer Coordinator: Center O 2000TheDrawing

Cover lJntitled, 1992. Watercoloron paper. Series ot ien drawings, with seven at 12 1/4 x A 5/8 in. (31 x 22 cm) and thrce al I 5/8 x 12 1/4 in.

(22 x 31 cm) each. Collection amased by Martin Dislerfor the students of the Centre scolaire des deux Thielles,Le Landeron,Switzerland.