Sturtevant. Study for Various Beuys Actions. c. 1971. 16mm film transferred to video (black and white, silent), 26:33 min. The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Gift of Virginia Dwan

During the early 2000s, as the artist Sturtevant approached the last decade of her life, she produced a work titled The Dark Threat of Absence (2002), a video installation in which she revisits Paul McCarthy’s video Painter (1995), an abject exploration of Abstract Expressionism and painterly prowess. The installation features, according to Sturtevant, “strident repetitions that bring to full force the blatant exterior: the outside brutally dismissing the interior.” At this point in her career, she was working primarily in video, following four decades during which she had interrogated the conventions of originality and authorship by “repeating” works in various mediums by other artists, particularly iconic works by her friends and peers, including Andy Warhol, Jasper Johns, Claes Oldenburg, and Marcel Duchamp.
While Sturtevant’s repetitions appear to be facsimiles, she clarified, “The brutal truth of the work is that it is not copy. The push and shove of the work is the leap from image to concept. The dynamics of the work is that it throws out representation.” As the 21st century began, Sturtevant’s investigation of “the dark threat of absence” was a piercing analysis of the interior of an image saturated world that had become all “blatant exterior.” The project ironically seemed to parallel her own relative absence from the standard art historical record, a lacuna that was addressed by a series of shows at the time, including Sturtevant: The Brutal Truth, a major survey at Museum für Moderne Kunst in Frankfurt, Germany in 2004. In 2014, the same year she died, MoMA hosted a major exhibition of Sturtevant’s work curated by Peter Eleey and Ingrid Langston. Early on during this period of rediscovery and recuperation, in 2001, Sturtevant met Bruce Hainley and Michael Lobel, two scholars who knew the artist intimately and whose writing on Sturtevant has become indispensable to understanding her work in all of its slippery but trenchant glory.
On the occasion of Sturtevant’s centennial year, Hainley and Lobel discuss some of the artist's earliest exhibitions in New York and Paris in the 1960s, and her enduring influence today. In our world transformed by infinite reproduction, endless data sets, AI, and social media channels, Sturtevant’s art seems more relevant than ever. As Hainley and Lobel explore, we are only just beginning to understand what she was up to.
—Stuart Comer, The Lonti Ebers Chief Curator of Media and Performance

Michael Lobel: On occasions like a centenary, the usual inclination is to highlight and celebrate the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the individual being honored. But, in preparing for our conversation about Sturtevant, for her centenary this month, I was struck by how ironic that was, given how much she put into sidestepping or challenging the image of herself as a singular artist. That’s certainly the case with her Duchamp After Man Ray Portrait (1966), a version of which is now in MoMA’s collection, in which she restaged a famous photograph Man Ray took of Marcel Duchamp slathered in shaving cream. There’s a kind of double erasure going on here, with Sturtevant submerging herself in the existing pose of Duchamp, who had obscured his own face: a disguise hidden behind yet another disguise, in effect. I think both of us come into this conversation wanting to highlight the contributions of an artist whose work we believe didn’t get its due during her lifetime; but, at the same time, how much is that laudatory intent undercut by her own strategies of absenting and self-effacement?

Bruce Hainley: She was no shrinking violet! When you and I first met Sturtevant, in Los Angeles in early 2001, for dinner at the then very new, very hip, and very “LA” Standard Hotel on Sunset, she was magisterially wrapped in what I always think of as her “Beuys” coat. A special guest of the Getty Research Institute, she provided so many lessons in how to move through the world—generously, but with no time for suffering fools. During a Q&A after her lecture, a supposedly eminent art historian delivered what she thought would be a skewering quizzing of the artist. Elaine turned to us and said, sotto voce but aware of a hot mic, “Is it just me or was that a really stupid question?” She brimmed with élan. Or Elaine.

Sturtevant. Duchamp after Man Ray Portrait. 1966

Sturtevant. Duchamp after Man Ray Portrait. 1966

There is still so much about Sturtevant’s enterprise that isn’t known and that isn’t understood and that is exciting.

Bruce Hainley

You raise such a crucial aspect of her adventure, especially in this moment when the self—the self as brand, the artist as lifestyle influencer—reigns supreme. By doing the work of others, Sturtevant tested why and how the name operates, circulates, and provides value. Untethering it from the art object, which also loosens it from a straightforward chronology and narrative, she shifts attention from the known and nameable “genius” to what about art is unknown and unnameable: fundamentally, what makes this thing and concept, “art,” in all kinds of societies, in every historical period, so dear. Of course, she began her investigations in a moment when the dominance of Abstract Expressionism was being sidelined by Pop, Minimalism, Judson Church, the “return” of Duchamp. She ran counterfactuals to such moves and isms. There is still so much about Sturtevant’s enterprise that isn’t known and that isn’t understood and that is exciting.

Installation view of the exhibition Sturtevant: Double Trouble, MoMA, November 9, 2014–February 22, 2015

Installation view of the exhibition Sturtevant: Double Trouble, MoMA, November 9, 2014–February 22, 2015

View of Sturtevant’s exhibition at Bianchini Gallery, New York, 1965, showing 7th Avenue Garment Rack and Warhol Flowers

View of Sturtevant’s exhibition at Bianchini Gallery, New York, 1965, showing 7th Avenue Garment Rack and Warhol Flowers

ML: While we’ve both been thinking about and writing on Sturtevant’s work for some time now, we’ve more recently been reflecting on the paucity of information about some of her most important early efforts. In 1965, she had a watershed exhibition at the Bianchini Gallery in New York, in which she showed a series of pieces that looked to mimic the work of her artistic contemporaries, including Jasper Johns, Claes Oldenburg, Frank Stella, and Andy Warhol. But there’s only a single existing photograph of that installation. Do you think Sturtevant intentionally limited or withheld additional documentation of that show; and if so, why might she have done that? Again, it’s so out of keeping with our current Instagram, TikTok, social media moment, when nearly everyone, including artists, is obsessively documenting their every move.

BH: Sturtevant remained in dialogue with many artists: she was close to Robert Rauschenberg, who owned her work; ditto Johns, who was the godfather to one of her daughters; the divine Steve Paxton was the model for her George Segal sculpture in the Bianchini show; she had some brief do-si-dos with Yvonne Rainer; Oldenburg was a close supporter—she appeared in some of the Happenings—until he wasn’t. We know that she had ongoing conversations and friendships with the influential dealers Virginia Dwan, Illeana Sonnabend, and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Leo Castelli. Naive about the artworld isn’t what she was: she was talking to and in the studios of almost every single artist whose work she made. When she came to the conclusion that the Bianchini show should be represented by a single photograph is as interesting a question as the decision for it to be the sole vantage on her project. By hanging a Johns, Oldenburg, Stella, among others, all Sturtevants, on a rolling clothes rack, she was highlighting a traffic in art that isn’t unrelated to the fashion system. The current barrage and everywhereness of the digital image denies any attempt of this kind of strategic and meaningful move.

When Warhol was asked about how he made his silkscreened works, he characteristically avoided giving direct information about his own artistic process by replying, “I don’t know. Ask Elaine.”

Michael Lobel

ML: I’m left wondering if somewhere there are additional photographs of the Bianchini show. If so, I’d love to see them! You’ve mentioned Sturtevant’s close dialogues with other artists, and her presence in their studios, details which put to lie the notion that she was somehow an unknown or outlying figure. That leads me to one of the most oft-cited anecdotes about her work, which involves one of the most famous and iconic artists of the 20th century, Andy Warhol. Supposedly, at one point when Warhol was asked about how he made his silkscreened works, he characteristically avoided giving direct information about his own artistic process by replying, “I don’t know. Ask Elaine.” Given that you and I have been muddling over the precision of such accounts regarding Sturtevant and her work, I’m wondering: Do you have a sense of when that memorable response by Warhol first appeared in print?

BH: The narratives around Sturtevant’s work changed or coalesced when she returned to exhibiting in 1986 with her survey at White Columns in New York, after a break of more than a decade. (She said she was “playing tennis and carrying on” and in artistic “silent red alert”; one rumor is that she worked as a psychotherapist, which, given her aesthetic psych-outs, is delicious.) The press release for Sturtevant, which ran from February 5 to March 1, 1986, vouched for her work by emphasizing her relationships with other artists: “At last we are beginning to understand why Warhol lent her his Marilyn silk-screens…why Rauschenberg collaborated time after time with her…and why Duchamp attended her counter-creation of his ‘RELACHE’.” The Warhol anecdote first appears in the printed record in 1989, in the interview for the Journal of Contemporary Art between Sturtevant and Bill Arning, who was then director of White Columns. Perhaps it’s worth quoting in full:

Bill Arning: I would like to ask for the record the reaction of some of the original artists. What was Warhol’s reaction?

Sturtevant: Warhol was very Warhol. “Wow Elaine,” and he gave me the screen for the flower. Then I told him that I wanted to do the Marilyn. I went to his loft, a huge place full of silk screens. His assistant told me to take whatever Marilyn I wanted. I was in there for two hours, going through hundreds of screens, no bloody Marilyn. When I saw Andy he said, “Oh, wow, oh, wow, I didn’t know that, I thought it was in there.” I said, “Oh, wow, Andy, oh, wow.”

I decided to find the original Hollywood still, one chance in a million and I found it, I took it to Andy’s silk screen man and it was perfect. A Warhol screen from my photo which was his photo.

Later at some social thing, some guy is asking Andy all these questions, “How do you do that? How do you do this?” And he answers, “I don’t know. Ask Elaine.”1

This is about as close to a description of her methods as there is, and it emphasizes the ecology of any given artistic community. “For the record” suggests that these stories about her relationships with other artists were in circulation before they were recorded, some of them, perhaps, neatened a bit. I feel certain you have your own way of reading this account, perhaps a way to locate it more exactingly.

ML: To some extent this gets us back to our sense of a slow drip of new information, one that over time has changed our sense of the history and reception of Sturtevant’s art. In this case, that would pertain to a letter I came across recently, one written by poet John Giorno to Rauschenberg, when the two were an item in the 1960s. It was early February 1967, and Giorno had just attended a party at Claes and Patty Oldenburg’s loft in Rauschenberg’s absence. It sounds like it had been a wild night—Giorno described it as “8 parties going simultaneously”—with dancing and drinking and plenty of art-world luminaries in attendance, including Warhol, curator Sam Wagstaff, and curator and eternal gadfly Henry Geldzahler. And Sturtevant as well. Here’s what Giorno recorded, in that letter soon after the event, about her exchange with Warhol: “She told Andy how she couldn’t do his Marilyns and he said ‘Oh Elaine, bring your screens to the factory and I’ll help you with it.’”2

These sorts of first-person accounts tend to be given primacy in art history. But this one has me scratching my head, since from what we know Sturtevant had already made at least a few Warhol Marilyn silkscreens by 1965—or at least that is what’s recorded in the artist’s catalogue raisonné. So I’m left wondering how we square Giorno’s anecdote with the existing chronology of Sturtevant’s working practice. In other words, why would she have been soliciting Warhol’s advice if she’d already begun making those works some two years earlier?

Elaine Sturtevant papers, c. 1960–2014, bulk 1990–2014. “Series: Printed Material”

Elaine Sturtevant papers, c. 1960–2014, bulk 1990–2014. “Series: Printed Material”

Sturtevant. Study for Various Beuys Actions. c. 1971

Sturtevant. Study for Various Beuys Actions. c. 1971

The Elaine Sturtevant exhibition America America, Galerie J, Paris. 1966

The Elaine Sturtevant exhibition America America, Galerie J, Paris. 1966

BH: Well, while not quite a codex, the catalogue (artist’s book?) for Sturtevant’s 1973 Everson exhibit, Studies for Warhols’ Marilyns Beuys’ Actions and Objects Duchamps’ Etc. Including Film, conveys some interesting information. Of the roughly dozen and a half Warhol Marilyns listed, most of them the artist dates 1973, the paintings seemingly made with the Everson exhibit specifically in mind, with a few strays from 1972. Only three are dated 1967—Peach Marilyn, The Turquoise Marilyn, The Lavender Marilyn—and none earlier. Other than the artist’s catalogue raisonné, which even Sturtevant had “stamped” on its back cover, upon its publication in 2004, in bright warning red, “FIRST DRAFT,” do we know of any other occasion when her Warhol Marilyns would have appeared, outside of her studio-laboratory, prior to 1967? Which, of course, doesn’t necessarily mean the dates in the “first draft” catalogue raisonné are wrong. So much of our knowledge of any given artist is provisional. As you know all too well: it can take a long time to really see something, to understand what is seen, and it can take an equally long time to be able to unsee, to wean oneself from convenient narratives, some arriving from artists themselves.

I don’t know of anyone who has suggested Warhol Marilyns appeared in the Bianchini show, for which a checklist has not yet surfaced. I don’t believe either one of us imagines that there was a Warhol Marilyn at her 1966 Galerie J show, however much sense that might have made. How do we know the Galerie J show was actually called “America, America”? The other day we were laughing when I blurted out that question. How do we know anything about that show? The usual materials frequently accompanying art exhibits—an invitation card, a poster, a checklist, an ad in a magazine or newspaper—neither one of us has ever come across any. What remains–so far–are four (?) Shunk-Kender photographs3, in black and white, at least one other in color (reproduced in Parkett in 2005, part of your first tango with the artist’s endeavors), and, well, who knows? Galerie J was located at 8, rue Montfaucon (VIe arrondissement). The space, with its flagstone flooring and distinctive stone arches, is now a restaurant, le Paris Paris. As you joked, from “America, America” to le Paris Paris. The Shunk-Kender pics show an exhibit that looks like it’s in the midst of being unpacked and installed. (Or staged?) Why home in on this elusive exhibit to toast Sturtevant’s centenary?

ML: Maybe the Galerie J show is a fitting place to wrap up our tribute to Sturtevant on the occasion of her centenary. In part because, as you’ve noted, our understanding of that exhibition is still in process, subject to further revision, much like our broader sense of Sturtevant’s art. Even though it came relatively early in her career, many of its constitutive elements seem to look forward to her practice as it would come to be shaped in the years that followed. There’s the show’s provisional nature, as you’ve pointed out—how it may not have had a final, finished form, and how it embraced signs of transitoriness, including the paintings propped on the floor, the installation photos that show objects in different positions, and the work nestled in a packing crate. While some observers focus on Sturtevant’s finished pieces as the way into her approach, in the Galerie J exhibition—or at least, the extant photos of it—we really get the sense that process was key for her. Relatedly, I find myself chuckling at her riff on a catalogue raisonné, which is supposed to be the last word on all the works an artist made in their lifetime. But not for Sturtevant, who worked to evade such finality! And then there is the show’s location, and the title we think it ran under, “America, America.” The play between Europe and the US is key to her work, given that she was an American artist who spent much of her career in Paris, and one whose work was more robustly exhibited and celebrated in Europe (particularly Germany and France) than in the US during her lifetime.

BH: That traffic in art and ideas between Europe and the US makes me think that some intrepid curator should see fit to bring home from Paris one of her most unbelievable and unbelievably American works, House of Horrors (2010), finally making an exhibition centered on that full-scale, blockbuster, spooky house ride, maybe with a single Warhol Black Marilyn, hanging on owl wallpaper, watching her fans waiting to climb aboard the ghost train.

Sturtevant. The House of Horrors. 2010

Sturtevant. The House of Horrors. 2010

Bruce Hainley is David and Caroline Minter Professor of the Humanities at Rice University, where he teaches in the Art Department. His most recent book is Really, No Biggie.

Michael Lobel is a professor of art history at Hunter College and the Graduate Center, CUNY. His most recent book is Van Gogh and the End of Nature (2024).

  1. “Sturtevant,” Journal of Contemporary Art, Vol. 2, #2 (Fall/Winter 1989), 43-44 (entire interview runs from 39-50).

  2. Letter from John Giorno to Robert Rauschenberg, February 6, 1967. Robert Rauschenberg papers, Box CO29. Robert Rauschenberg Foundation Archives, New York.

  3. For more information on the Shunk-Kender photographs of "America, America," see Peter Eleey's essay "Dangerous Concealment: The Art of Sturtevant" in Sturtevant: Double Trouble (MoMA, 2014).