art on paper catalog 8.5x11 - schneider museum of...

FROM THE COLLECTION OF JORDAN D. SCHNITZER AND HIS FAMILY FOUNDATION

Art on Paper:10 Women Artists

Schneider Museum of ArtOctober 27, 2016 through January 7, 2017

ON THE COVER:

Polly Apfelbaum (American, b. 1955)Lover’s Leap III, 2004Monoprint47 x 47 inches


Polly Apfelbaum

Jennifer Bartlett

Louise Bourgeois

Ann Hamilton

Louise Nevelson

Judy Pfaff

Kiki Smith

Pat Steir

Sarah Sze

Barbara Takenaga

Kiki Smith (American, b. 1954)Fortune, edition 15/30, 2008 Etching with hand-coloring66 x 54 inches

Judy Pfaff (American, b. 1946) Snowy Egret, edition 1/10, 2005 Intaglio, relief, acrylic, encaustic, and perforations36 x 831/2 inches

celebrates the prominence of ten women artists by exhibiting their work on a shared medium, art on paper. This is a medium often thought of as secondary to today’s studio practice. History has shown us that women artists, as well as artists of diverse cultural backgrounds, have often been placed in the margins adjacent to men of European descent. Today, the conversation continues in regards to equality in the arts and everywhere else.

What we have learned from going deeper into art history and mining work from these margins is that an uncounted number of women have created work that exemplifies our culture and time in which it outweighs the work of many their male counterparts. Today, we are seeing cultural paradigm shifts, but we are also seeing attitudes from the grizzled past making claims to how things should be and how things once were.

We rejoice the artists in Art on Paper: 10 Women Artists by celebrating their work. This group has broken beyond the glass ceiling and blazed trails for many artists work-ing today; male, female, and culturally diverse. Each has contributed to the conver-sation of art history in a major way and each has a genius to their sensibilities.

We are extremely grateful to have these works available to us from the collection of Jordan D. Schnitzer and his Family Foundation. A special thanks to Collection Manager, Catherine Malone, for all of her kind assistance and hard work on this exhibition and to the talented Trinie Dalton for contributing the following essay.

Scott Malbaurn Director, Schneider Museum of Art


2 The Schneider Museum of Art

A Powerful Lineage By Trinie Dalton

While many may be wary about ways gender has been yoked to women’s exhibitions to exclude or categorize us, this exhibition celebrates a pow-erful lineage of women artists who have exerted and publically acknowl-edged deep influence on one another in their thematic and formal challenges to problematic gendering. For example, Kiki Smith’s and Louise Bourgeois’ considerations and depictions of ambiguous motherhood and a non-glamorized female body; Louise Nevelson’s and Ann Hamilton’s adoptions of personae and theatrical performativity to befuddle catego-rization; Sarah Sze’s questioning of how value is assigned to material by choreographing “lowly” objects into what would come to be called Scatter Art; Judy Pfaff’s employment of power tools, construction machinery, and welding in the studio; Barbara Takenaga’s continual insertion of metaphys-ical and spiritual themes into art critique that traditionally squirms at those topics; Polly Apfelbaum’s bold reclamations of “girly” color palettes; Pat Steir’s embodiment of gesture and gravity to challenge a history of “male” mark-making in Abstract Expressionism; and Jennifer Bartlett’s use of con-ceptual methodologies and systems to counterbalance the clichéd vision of the “intuitive woman”—the list of subversions goes on.

With such a history of confrontation to status quo, it’s no surprise that every single artist presented in this exhibition is multidisciplinary—in part, possibly, because some of them arrived to their mediums through other mediums (Sarah Sze and Judy Pfaff came to sculpture through painting; Pat Steir to painting through writing)—these artists have embraced monu-mental sculpture and painting in particular. Yet all of them have adopted and elevated printmaking into a practice not at all diminutive, secondary, or as “studies” for their larger works. Rather, by harnessing print’s so-called demo-cratic potential which a) makes artworks available to a wider audience and b) allows artists to easily explore imagistic repetition and sequencing; text and image relationships in artists’ books; and evolving printshop technolo-gies from lead to digital, these artists are renowned for citing printmaking

Art on Paper: 10 Women Artists 3

as an alternative space for two-dimensional experiments. Take for example Ann Hamilton’s poche series from Dieu Donné, which have “pockets” built into the pages and supplemented her audio-performance page sounding, which sought to give paper a voice by making waving hands inside paper audible. Of her collaboration between 38 musicians and her poches that premiered at MASS MoCA in 2014, she said that:

Hearing is how we touch at a distance. At distances greater than the reach of our voice, a waving hand can gesture either recognition or farewell. A light, a cloth or a piece of paper extending the gesture of the hand becomes a voice.1

Backing up generationally a bit, Louise Bourgeois might be con-sidered the “mother” of the exhibition, not only because all paths in the Schneider Museum of Art’s exhibition hall lead to her room, or because through her emphatic mixtures of surrealism and abstraction she made a place for womens’ dreams and the uncanny in art2, but because honor-ing motherhood was primary subject matter for her. As curator Carol Smith said of Bourgeois’ printmaking practice which spanned two distinct peri-ods (1930s–1940s then again during the 1990s):

The major focus of Bourgeois’ art is the role of woman in her many responsibilities and functions, from daughter to mother, from lover to wife, and in the ongoing life cycle, from mother to offspring. Personal history and family ties, in particular, inform her work.3

Ann Hamilton (American, b. 1956)poche, edition 4/15 in two parts, 2014 Abaca paper, raw sheet wool, silk, and linen thread24 x 18 inches (each)


Printmaking for Louise Bourgeois was a “friendly” medium, one that offered intimacy and trust in its collaborative nature (often with printers at Harlan and Weaver), as well as ease in-studio since she could work on her drypoint etchings at home in her Manhattan apartment.

Ode à ma mère (1995), a portfolio of nine compositions whose limited edition run for a Parisian book club included a poetic text written by the art-ist, is essentially a suite of doting spider portraits. As arachnids occupy the image in various dynamic ways—often with a kind of etched out “spotlight” shining down upon them like center-stage heroines—Louise Bourgeois considered spiders both incarnations of her own maternal aspect as well

Louise Bourgeois (American, b. France 1911–2010)Ode à ma mère, edition 17/45, 1995 A suite of 9 drypoint etchings on paper12 x 12 inches each© The Easton Foundation/Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY


as “caring mother figure[s], protecting [their] offspring from harm. In sculp-tures, drawings, and prints, she exquisitely designs these long-legged bugs as creatures of beauty and tenderness… Both Bourgeois and her mother were weavers—like the spider—repairing tapestries as the family occupa-tion…”4 In the poem that accompanies the edition, Bourgeois wrote:

The friend (the spider—why the spider?) because my best friend was my mother and she was deliberate, clever, patient, soothing, reasonable, dainty, subtle, indispensable, neat and useful as a spider…”5

Louise Nevelson, too, expanded surrealistic lexicons, subject matter, and material usage in American abstraction. Curator Martin Nelson said of her early wood sculptures constructed in the same style of those which provided relief for the two of six in her Lead Intaglio Series: The Great Wall (1970–1971) exhibited here:

Nevelson, like Bourgeois, comes from a practice rooted in “the anti-ra-tional imagery of the Dada artists and in the sleek, organic forms of the Surrealists.”… But the Americans’ approach was not literal and in place of the European Surrealists’ “hand-painted dream.” The Americans involved a pictographic style in which the canvas was divided into roughly defined grids in which floated rebus-like images of figures,

Louise Nevelson (American, b. Russia 1900–1988)Lead Intaglio Series: The Night Sound, edition 107/150, 1971 Lead intaglio collage30 x 251/8 inches

Louise Nevelson (American, b. Russia 1900–1988)Lead Intaglio Series: The Great Wall, edition 107/150, 1971 Lead intaglio collage30 x 251/16 inches


primitive masks, astral shapes, circles, arrows and asterisks—juxtaposed symbols that were intended to lead to the observer into sequences of visual and psychological free associations.6

From here, Louise Nevelson arrives at and refines her geometric sym-bolism. As Nelson called Nevelson’s sculptures “phantom architecture” since they “allude to no single time and place,”7 one could say the same about her deeply embossed print collages, which have an industrial, hard-edged, yet paradoxically metaphysical, alchemical quality due to the con-stant reminder that they were made with lead, whose patina will morph with time as the metal oxidizes on paper. Here is an explanation about how they were made:

Built specifically for the prints, the relief sculptures were used to emboss, or physically imprint, the surface of the lead foil. Nevelson then arranged the lead foil pieces on paper to create the finished prints.8

This mutability or ephemerality evidenced by time’s progression, or looping, is a primary theme to many of these artists. Sarah Sze’s 2 (2011) is a set of six color silkscreens made at the LeRoy Neiman Center for Print Studies, whose undulating number 2 creates a narrative sequencing game, testing our perceptual understanding of the symbol that we’re looking at over time. It was conceived to “decontextualize the design of the Ishihara color blindness test and to reinterpret the form of the traditional eyechart.”9 The piece correlates with another print, Eyechart (2012), and both were included in her 2012 solo exhibition at The Asia Society in NYC, Sarah Sze: Infinite Line. This exhibition, which featured Sze’s sculptures alongside her drawings which spring from architecture, highlighted the ways Sze moves between two and three-dimensional works. Of this movement, rather than distinguish between mediums Sze said that:

This idea that objects, like experiences, are ultimately fleeting, ephem-eral, and located in a very specific moments—the idea of the anti-mon-umental—became interesting to me. I thought about something that couldn’t be owned, that couldn’t be moved—at least in your sense of it and your experience of it—and yet when you would come to the work you would really think about time in the presence of time. How did it get there, how long would it be there, and how long would it last?10

Sarah Sze’s installation style has been undoubtedly influenced by Judy Pfaff’s pioneering role as an installation artist, according to critic Irving Sandler:

When Pfaff began to make environments in the early 1970s, installa-tion art was a marginal tendency in the art world. Since then, it has become central, in large part because of Pfaff’s work. Now, in the new millennium, many of the most interesting younger artists, among them Polly Apfelbaum, Ann Hamilton, Nancy Rubins, Cornelia Parker, Jessica Stockholder, Jason Rhodes, and Sarah Sze, artists who have received their “permission” from Pfaff, are creating exceptional new installations.11

Sarah Sze (American, b. 1969)2 (Full Color), edition 3/29, 2011 Silkscreen18 x 18 inches

Sarah Sze (American, b. 1969)2 (Light and Dark Green), edition 3/29, 2011 Silkscreen18 x 18 inches

Sarah Sze (American, b. 1969)2 (Red and Green), edition 3/29, 2011 Silkscreen18 x 18 inches


Even Judy Pfaff’s prints, Snowy Egret (2005) and Year of the Dog #10 (2008) made by Tandem Press12, have the three-dimensional, haptic depth of her installations, burned, carved, cut, collaged, radiating out in every direction although flattened behind frames.

Notably, like the Italian Arte Povera artists she and Sze adored, Pfaff, in her formative years took interest in Postminimalist sculpture’s discourse. Barry Le Va, Robert Morris, and Robert Smithson, for example, were “involved with the ideas of entropy, randomness, and chaos.” Pfaff said about this, “A lot of my work came out of these words, trying to create an active field, in every way: visually, physically, spatially, that is, a field of non-focused and nonhierarchical events.”13 Though her installations and prints are monu-mental in keeping with her early influences, I find it fascinating how her aesthetic—which embraces an almost carnivalesque overabundance of colorful clutter and visual complexity, has arisen out of discourses that championed distillation, simplicity, and sometimes monochromatic singu-larity. Her ability to create articulation within wild, emphatic, and densely forested compositions, whether two or three-dimensional, always trans-forms space, which is something Polly Apfelbaum has also openly bor-rowed and tributed to Pfaff. Curator Ingrid Schaffner said regarding Polly Apfelbaum’s Institute of Contemporary Art at University of Pennsylvania survey exhibition that:

Jennifer Bartlett (American, b. 1941)House: Dots, Hatches, edition 124/150, 1999 Screenprint30 x 30 inches


As a student, Apfelbaum studied painting. She remembers the installa-tion artist Judy Pfaff coming to speak at Tyler. Pfaff impresses Apfelbaum as being one of the first professional female artists she ever met, and for making sculpture that used color, a forbidden combination within the art academy.14

Apfelbaum’s Lover’s Leap III (2004), a monoprint published by Durham Press for her exhibition, The Big Picture Show,15 shows her continued inter-est in replicable images that challenge notions of decorative and feminist art. This is true not only in her prints on paper, but in all of her textile works, particularly those made a few years prior to be installed on the floor (see Blossom (2000); Single Gun Theory/Black Flag/Gun Club (2001–2002)). Like Pfaff and Bartlett, Apfelbaum is a skilled colorist whose artworks invite the viewer to revel in optical splendor induced by high-contrast color usage that is at once pleasing and harmonious according to some color theories, yet remains a bit jarring and garish as a nod to Pop Art’s commodification. Of this, Polly Apfelbaum said that:

It’s true that there is always a structure or a pattern for a working idea behind the color. It’s not just arbitrary or expressionistic. But it’s also important to say that the system is completely intuitive, something I am always experimenting with. I like these supposedly structured systems that turn out to be kind of obsessive and crazy—like Alfred Jensen. No one could hope to figure out his systems. It’s not what the system gives him as a means to an end or a way of controlling color, but the system itself that becomes fascinating in the end. I love the completeness, all the small steps of color charts.16

Like Sze’s 2 and Apfelbaum’s Lover’s Leap III, Jennifer Bartlett’s House: Dots, Hatches (1999) and Barbara Takenaga’s Shaker Blue (2004) and Wheel (Zozma) (2008) exploit printmaking as a layering medium to test visual per-ception, overlaying inks to produce optically oscillating, disorienting effects. While Bartlett comes to her particular brand of pointillism through formal-ist methodologies—creating grids of color tests and fields of research that direct her hatch-marks—Takenaga takes a near-opposite approach, by as she says, “loosening-up”:

Process-wise, I have been trying to loosen up. First, I make the back-grounds—splashy, faux Abstract Expressionist grounds with very freely manipulated paint, applied without much preconception. After that, I play “Zen Surrealist,” studying the accidental incidents and finding sub-ject matter embedded in the painting. I just sit and look at them, and wait for them to tell me what to do, and then go with that. They still seem to naturally gravitate, or maybe anti-gravitate, to some kind of explosive/implosive situation. I still love the idea itself of the Big Bang—in many of the paintings there is often a vanishing point and a certain kind of symmetry. So the formal and the evocative are intertwined.17

Barbara Takenaga (American, b. 1949)Wheel (Zozma), edition 5/20, 2008 Stenciled linen pulp and acrylic on cotton and abaca base20 x 161/2 inches


Granted, this is Takenaga reflecting on her painting process, but I’d ven-ture to guess it’s not too far off from her paper works, which also induce the entropy that causes synaesthesia when one is tempted to look and touch her works, feeling for the “beads” which dot her cosmic spiral matrices like star clusters. Maybe this is because every print integrates mechanical and hand-colored elements: Shaker Blue (2004), for example, was printed from five aluminum plates, silkscreened, then hand-colored to achieve its lus-cious layers.18

Metaphysicality and the phenomenological issues inherent to con-sidering the universe are also of keen interest to Pat Steir, who worked through a series of wave and moon paintings prior to her waterfall series, from which these soap ground and spit bite prints, Long Vertical Falls #1 and #4 (1991) derive. Deep longstanding interests in Japanese and Chinese woodcuts and landscape paintings inform Steir’s habit of loading up her brush to enact wide, brave painterly gestures, often determined by the “extreme limit of what her body allows.”19 This bold activity is reiterated in her prints, in which drips cascade down the page in energetic, elegant

Barbara Takenaga (American, b. 1949)Shaker Blue, edition 13/25, 2004 Lithograph, silkscreen, and hand coloring24 x 24 inches


Pat Steir (American, b. 1940)Long Vertical Falls #1, edition TP C, 1991 Soap ground and spit bite aquatints541/4 x 30 inches

blasts that erase their background. Pat Steir uses gravity as a tool, testing the moment of the pigment’s release through soap ground and spit bite. Here is a short description of this aquatint process:

Soap ground, also called white ground, is—like all grounds—a way of protecting portions of a plate from the acid. Soap, however, is imper-fectly acid- resistant. The acid penetrates it in varying degrees depend-ing on its thickness. The artist draws with a paste made of soap flakes, linseed oil, and water. Next, an aquatint is added to provide tooth to the non-image portions of the plate. The resulting image has tonal gra-dations, but is essentially white against a dark background.20

Spit bite replaces soap flakes with a concoction of acid, water, and gum arabic to emulate watercolor-like effects, perfectly suited to her water theme. With this runny liquid ready to cascade down paper, Pat Steir’s approach is one of waiting to hear and feel the right moment. She said of her waterfall paintings that:

Waiting is part of my process. Waiting to be ready. I can’t say waiting for an idea because I don’t really work through ideas. On the other hand, I think my work is conceptually based. But a concept isn’t an idea. I work with gravity and meditation, really. So I wait to start the day the way that a Japanese calligrapher would, or the Chinese literati landscape painters.21

This insertion of physicality into the work is another throughway between all the artists in this exhibition, leaving us with the question of self-portraiture. How much of the body is inserted into the piece, and how is it inserted? Is it gesturally implied, as in Pat Steir’s work, or is it directly rep-resented, as in Kiki Smith’s? Steir has said that:

I’m really not interested in work that refers back to myself. I’m trying to make work that refers away from myself…22

Kiki Smith, the other “mother” in the exhibition because of her attempts to “universalize the female body… like her mentor Louise Bourgeois,”23 began exploring self-portraiture exclusively through printmaking. With five pieces installed in her own room next to Bourgeois’ for this exhibit, the display begins with her most overtly autobiographical print, Worm (1992), featuring a processed photograph of Smith in a fetal position. Made at ULAE (Universal Limited Art Editions) in Islip, New York with the help of etching and photogravure expert, Craig Zammiello:

Her image is printed in the negative, creating a dark looming figure, and the veins and stretch marks in her skin, made visible with pho-tographic filters, promote a sickly almost frightening aura. Smith’s self-portraits do not arise from narcissism: in fact she often exagger-ates what she considers her physical flaws, turning weakness into an advantage for her art.24


Pat Steir (American, b. 1940)Long Vertical Falls #4, edition TP B, 1991 Soap ground and spit bite aquatints531/4 x 30 inches

Smith, even in the animal and fairy tale pieces like Pool of Tears II (After Lewis Carroll) (2000), Regalo (2003), and Fortune (2008), is interested in how all bodies correlate and share experience. Of her animal pieces, she said that:

I was interested in the symbolic morphing of animals and humans. I found this anthropomorphizing of animals interesting: the human attributes we give to animals, and the animal attributes we take on as humans to construct our identity. I’m trying to think about this rela-tionship between nature and human nature, their different objects.25

While it would be erroneous to let one artist speak for everybody included in this exhibit, Smith’s assertion about printmaking below does seem to point to an essential beauty in the medium—that paradox in which a unique image arrives through similarity:

What I like… probably the most about [about printmaking] is the dis-tance of it …that it is removed. That it gets away from the earnest-ness of things… It’s about repetition versus uniqueness. My interest in printmaking is that prints mimic what we are as humans: we are all the same and yet everyone is different.”26

Or as Goethe put it, true poetry happens when the universal is discov-ered in the particular.27 Because in print the original image is embedded within a replicable series, this paradox inherent to the medium serves as a perfect metaphor for the human experience, as Smith says. Each artist in this exhibition clearly understands that, and has played with this in a vari-ety of visually arresting ways.

To claim that these artists have been influenced by one another is not to imply an insider’s club or to categorically flatten their artworks. On the other hand, arguably, everyone is influenced by everything they expe-rience so what does influence really imply? In this case, as mentioned before, these ten artists have shared subject themes and political interests, and have borrowed professional ideas and career tips from one another over time. But it might be more pertinent to consider influence as some-thing that is both atmospheric and inevitable, as well as something to be conscientious of. As poet-novelist-musician Shelley Jackson said, influence is not something to fear unless it becomes a self-conscious constraint that impedes freedom of imagination:

I usually welcome influence. None of us could write without it. But I did avoid reading novels about conjoined twins when I was writing one, not so much for fear of influence, but for fear of feeling constrained to avoid any appearance of influence—of hog-tying my imagination to avoid trespassing on someone else’s territory.28

While these artists and their curators have charted and acknowledged their influence on one another, there has certainly been no “trespassing on someone else’s territory,” as Jackson said. Here, Jackson implies that


as part of feminist practice, territories might be considered differently: to be shared and embellished rather than staked out and defended. Fear of avoiding someone else’s territory “hog ties” one’s imagination, which is to say: the notion of territory is a falsity. We all know that even direct attempts at copying result in different art making. Rather, instead of staking out ter-ritories, author Eudora Welty proposes that our creative intake and output might be synonymous:

Indeed, learning to write may be a part of learning to read. For all I know, writing comes out of a superior devotion to reading. I feel sure that serious writing does come, must come, out of devotion to the thing itself, to fiction as an art. Both reading and writing are experi-ences—lifelong—in the course of which we who encounter words used in certain ways are persuaded by them to be brought heart and mind within the presence, the power, of the imagination. This we find to be above all the power to reveal, with nothing barred.29

To be brought within the presence of the imagination, presumably the goal of art in Welty’s vision, here includes influence. The ten artists in this exhibition have built into their practice this unification of input and output, embracing witness and admiration of other artists’ works to strengthen, steer, and inspire their own practices.

Kiki Smith (American, b. 1954)Worm, edition 33/50, 1992 Etching, aquatint, and photogravure with collage421/4 x 621/8 inches


Trinie Dalton has authored, edited, and/or curated six books. She teaches at Vermont College of Fine Arts. Some of her recent essays have appeared in Dorothy Iannone: You Who Read Me Will Forever Be My Friends (Siglio), David Altmejd (Damiani), Laura Owens (Rizzoli), Anna Sew Hoy: Suppose and a Pair of Jeans (Oslo Editions), and Abstraction in Contemporary Video Art (UC Press).

On this essay: “I write this on the cusp of our nation electing the first woman president, going to go ahead and visualize the positive outcome here, after Michelle Obama’s eloquent, deeply inspiring and his-toric speech at the Democratic National Convention which said, ‘When they go low, we go high.’ Indeed. If, as curator Connie Butler says in her essay for the ground-breaking 2007 WACK!: Art and the Feminist Revolution exhibition, that her endeavor sought to invoke ‘feminish art’s lofty and romantic striving for nothing less than a complete reorganization of cultural hierarchies,’30 then I’m invoking that too by witness-ing history being made on C-Span while tracking this socio-politically conscientious group of artists featured in Art on Paper: 10 Women Artists.”

1. http://www.dieudonne.org/artwork/ann-hamilton -poche-2014

2. See Christian Leigh, “The Earrings of Madame B…Louise Bourgeois and the Reciprocal Terrain of the Uncanny,” Louise Bourgeois: The Locus of Memory, Works 1982–1993, Brooklyn Museum, New York, New York, 1993.

3. Carol Smith, “Louise Bourgeois: A Sculptor’s Return to Printmaking,” p.14. Louise Bourgeois Prints: 1989–1998, Maier Museum of Art, Randolph-Macon Woman’s College Lynchburg, Virginia, 1999.

4. ibid. p.145. ibid. p.136. Martin Nelson, “Nevelson: Wood Sculptures,” p.9. Wood

Sculptures: Walker Art Museum, Dutton, New York, New York, 1973.

7. ibid. p.78. http://www.smith.edu/artmuseum/Collections/

Cunningham-Center/Blog-paper-people/The -Great-Wall9. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arts/neiman/Sze/10. Interview with Melissa Chiu, p.12. Sarah Sze: Infinite Line,

Asia Society Museum, New York, New York, 2012.11. Irving Sandler, “Judy Pfaff: Tracking the Cosmos,” p.46.

Judy Pfaff, Hudson Hills Press, New York, New York, 2003.12. http://www.tandempress.wisc.edu/artists/pfaff/pfaff.html13. Irving Sandler, “Judy Pfaff: Tracking the Cosmos,” p.3.

Judy Pfaff, Hudson Hills Press, New York, New York, 2003.14. Ingrid Schaffner, “Having it All: Polly Apfelbaum at the

ICA,” p.26. Polly Apfelbaum at the Institute of Contemporary Art, May 3–July 27, 2003. University of Pennsylvania/ICA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2003.

15. http://www.ipcny.org/prints/polly-apfelbaum -lov-ers-leap-2004/

16. Interview with Roxana Marcoci, p.44. Comic Abstraction: Image Breaking Image Making, MOMA, New York, New York, 2007.

17. Robert Kushner, “Macro: Micro: Barbara Takenaga in Conversation with Robert Kushner,” September 2013. http://www.barbaratakenaga.com/frames/main_pressd-cmoore_kushner.html

18. http://sharksink.com/print/shaker-blue/19. John Yau, p.59. Pat Steir: Dazzling Water, Dazzling Light,

University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington, 2000.

20. http://www.magical-secrets.com/studio/glossary #soap_ground_aquatint

21. Sarah Trigg “Pat Steir,” p.158 Studio Life, Princeton Architectural Press, New York, New York, 2013.

22. Thomas McEvilley, p.19. Pat Steir, Abrams, New York, New York, 1995.

23. Wendy Weitman, p.16. Kiki Smith: Prints, Books, and Things, Abrams, New York, New York, 2004.

24. ibid. p.1625. ibid. p.10026. ibid. p.1227. See Umberto Eco’s The Uses of Literature28. Shelley Jackson, p.57. The Secret Miracle, ed. Daniel

Alarcón, Henry Holt Publications, New York, New York, 2010.

29. Eudora Welty, p.110. “Words Into Fiction,” Great Writers on the Art of Fiction, Dover Publications New York, New York, 2007.

30. Cornelia Butler, “Art and Feminism: An Ideology of Shifting Criteria,” p.21. WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007.

Trinie Dalton

The Schneider Museum of Art, part of the Oregon Center for the Arts at Southern Oregon University, is a vital force in the intellectual life of Southern Oregon University that promotes an understanding of the visual arts within a liberal arts education. Serving both an academic and community audience, it builds a challenging environment that engages with the visual arts through exhibitions and programs supporting interdisciplinary study, research, and discourse.

JORDAN D. SCHNITZER is president of his fam-ily’s real estate investment company, Harsch Investment Properties, located in Portland, Oregon, with offi ces in six Western states. He is known for his philanthropy as well as for hav-ing served on numerous art, cultural, and social service boards and commissions. For more than twenty-fi ve years, he has been widely known for establishing programs to exhibit prints and multiples at regional universities and nation-ally prominent art museums. Works are loaned from the Jordan D. Schnitzer Collection and the Jordan Schnitzer Family Foundation Collection, whose combined holdings exceed 9,500 prints by regional, national, and internationally rec-ognized artists, including in-depth holdings of some of the most important modern and con-temporary artists. He has organized more than a hundred exhibitions, which have traveled to seventy-fi ve museums, including traveling exhibitions of the prints of Andy Warhol, Ellsworth Kelly, Roy Lichtenstein, Kara Walker and John Baldessari. For more information see www.jordanschnitzer.org.

Open Monday through Saturday,10:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Museum: 541-552-6245

Email: [email protected]

Web: sma.sou.edu

Facebook: SchneiderMuseumofArt

Twitter: @SchneiderMofArt

Instagram: schneidermuseumofart

Tumblr: schneider-museum-of-art

art on paper catalog 8.5x11 - schneider museum of...

Documents