Emma Venturini
Art and Life in America: 1945-65
Spring 2011
Ithaca College
Professor Nancy Brcak
Jasper Johns and the American Flag: Desecration or Reverence?
In Alan R. Solomon’s 1964 piece, “Jasper Johns,” the critic asks a very simple, yet
thought provoking question in reference to Johns’ 1954-55 canvas Flag: “Is it a flag or is it a
painting?” The answer should be easy, we should know if what we’re looking at is the actual
object, or if it is a simulation or representation. However, Johns’ canvas threads through this
dichotomy, making the answer convoluted and uncertain. Looking to Johns’ responses to
critics and reporters should help to solve this dilemma, but his vague answers provide little
insight into the intended meaning behind Flag. When originally asked how he came to make
Flag and what exactly he meant by it, Johns would reply that he “‘intuitively’ liked to paint
flags.” Later his story changed and he would say that one night he dreamt of painting a large
flag and when he awoke, he went out to buy the materials in order to do so.1 Even in a 2004
interview with British journal, The Guardian, Johns remained suspiciously and aggravatingly
ambiguous. When asked about the contemporary interpretation of Flag as a straightforward
expression of patriotism, he responded, “But I wasn’t trying to make a patriotic statement.
Many people thought it was subversive and nasty. It’s funny how feeling has flipped.”2
In an effort to find an answer to Solomon’s question, we must first put this work into a
context of the artist’s timeline. Jasper Johns was born in Augusta, Georgia on May 15, 1930.
As a teenager, he studied art at the University of South Carolina, but moved a year later to
New York in 1948, where he was apprenticed to a commercial artist. From 1951 to 1952,
1
2
Fred Orton, Figuring Jasper Johns (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1994), 98.
Emma Brockes, “Master of few words,” The Guardian, July 26, 2004.
Venturini
2
Johns served his time in the army and it is not until the later half of the 1950s that his artwork
became known.3 The works of Jasper Johns in the 1950s and 60s dealt with objects that the
mind already knows, cultural symbols that are familiar to all and not necessarily linked to
Johns’ personal taste. Unlike the Abstract Expressionists, Johns sought to keep “any trace of
autobiography or discernible emotion out of the work he produced.”4 These easily transferable
objects were the American flag, targets, numbers, alphabets, and maps, recognizable shapes
that evoke particular reactions and even actions when viewed either outside or inside a
gallery. For instance, when one sees an American flag, they want to salute it, when one sees
an alphabet, they want to recite it, and when one sees a map, they want to locate its
geographical placement. Because of this automatic and almost instinctual reaction one does
not know whether to salute Johns’ Flag or to analyze it as a work of art. However, and this is
why the answer to Solomon’s question is largely disputed, Johns’ Flag can receive both
treatments, it can be revered as the symbol of our independent country as of 1777 and then it
can be critiqued as a painting.
But why exactly would Jasper Johns choose to paint a flag? It has been theorized that
because the flag, like any other well-known cultural image or icon, already has a set design
and therefore, the creativity involved with designing a composition was out of Johns’ hands,
leaving him room to explore esthetic ideas like texture, color, and value.5 Texture is the main
focus of 1954-55 Flag (Fig. 1), particularly the intricacies of collage used with the ancient
technique of encaustic. To further complicate the argument of painting versus flag, the
flatness of the flag as an object allows for a flat depiction on the surface of the canvas.
3
“Jasper Johns Biography.” Art Directory. http://www.jasper-johns.com/.
Amy Finnerty, “Masterpiece: Jasper Johns’s Potent Symbol; An American ‘Flag’ as welcome in an Alabama
bar as in an anarchist’s dorm room,” The Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2006.
5
Debora Wood, “Art and Transformation,” Issues in Integrative Studies No. 16 (1998): 64.
4
Venturini
3
Without the use of perspective, foreshadowing, or modeling, the replication of this onedimensional object does not need to be “simulated” on a one-dimensional form.6 Instead, the
object becomes the painting, an isolated thing without a background that could be looked at,
rather than into.7 Furthermore, the object’s design is easily measure and transferable, leaving
little room for adjustments that would designate this canvas a painting. Instead, Johns
truthfully paints this fixed pattern in the traditional red, white, and blue, modeling his canvas
flag after the 1954 American flag with its forty-eight stars aligned in a six by eight grid.8
Johns runs into problems of authority by using such a nationally known symbol, this
design does not belong to anyone; it is a public design that cannot be attributed to anyone
except possibly Betsy Ross.9 Who then has the right to alter the symbol, to tweak it or change
it, if it is not owned by anyone specifically but a people, in general? Does Jasper Johns have
the authority to recreate the flag as a United States citizen? Is not his artistic expression
protected under the First Amendment, or does this national symbol receive special treatment
because of its importance to the country?
The American flag is a familiar cultural symbol, but what exactly is a flag and what
does it mean to Americans? The general definition is a symbol or collective sign of an
organized society that is made visible to all and held aloft.10 “It is the emblem of a coherent
group identity that in principle expresses the shared values of that group and distinguishes it
from all others.”11 President Woodrow Wilson has been quoted calling the American flag the
“emblem of our unity” and its meaning as a sacred object is further exemplified in the post6
Roberta Bernstein, Jasper Johns’ Paintings and Sculptures 1954-1974: “The Changing Focus of the Eye”
(Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1985), 1.
7
Max Kozloff, Jasper Johns (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1972) 13.
8
Anne M. Wagner, “According to What,” ArtForum International 45.3 (November 2006): 274.
9
Orton, 96.
10
William Elliot Griffis, The American Flag of Stripes and Stars (Ithaca, New York: Andrus & Church, 1863) 1.
11
Albert Boime, “Waving the Red Flag and Reconstituting Old Glory,” Smithsonian Studies in American Art 4.2
(Spring 1990): 4.
Venturini
4
World War II period in which families of American soldiers who died in battle were given a
folded up American flag in honor and perhaps, in exchange, for their life.12 This symbolic
gesture gives meaning to a soldier’s death, since it was on behalf of the freedom of all those
represented by this one symbol. One particular definition of a flag that lends itself to Johns’
canvas is “a collage of collective memories and assumptions about what America is and ought
to be.”13
The current American flag is an easy symbol to analyze and decode. It has thirteen
horizontal stripes of alternating red and white; these thirteen represent the original colonies
and allude to the days of British control. Fifty white stars representing the fifty states of the
Union lay in the blue canton located in the upper left corner. These definable features have
resulted in the alternative naming of the flag as “the Stars and Stripes.”14 The flag’s colors all
maintain separate meanings as well. Red expresses hardiness and valor, purity and innocence
represented by white and lastly blue to portray vigilance, perseverance, and justice.15
In the Supreme Court case of Hatler v. Nebraska from 1907, it was declared how
important and vital the flag was to the American spirit, when a statue of Nebraska law which
prevented and punished flag desecration and prohibited the advertising use of the flag was
alleged to invade personal property rights. The court ruled in favor of the Nebraska statue,
commenting “every true American [has a] deep affection” for the flag and therefore “insults
to a flag have been the cause of war, and indignities put upon it, in the presence of those who
12
“Nation: Who Owns the Stars and Stripes.” Times Magazine, July 6, 1970, accessed April 20, 2011,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878329,00.html.
13
“Nation: Who Owns the Stars and Stripes.”
14
Griffis, 53.
15
“American Flag info: USA Flag Site, Patriotic Pictures,” USA Flag Site, accessed April 19, 2011,
http://www.usa-flag-site.org/.
Venturini
5
revere it, have often been resented and sometimes punished on the spot.”16 This ruling acted
as a precursor to the countless laws and codes ratified in the twentieth century to protect the
usage and treatment of the flag.
The American flag became a symbol of disciplined and universal reverence in 1898
when New York state legislature passed the first statute requiring a flag salute in public
schools. By 1905, nineteen other states passed school flag laws, making a salute and recitation
of the Pledge of Allegiance obligatory. However, it was not until the end of World War I
when there was a push to create a standard salute and uniform national flag code, that the
details of treating and respecting the American flag were decided at two National Flag
Conferences in 1923 and 1924. It was determined at these conferences “All civilians should
stand with ‘the right hand over the heart,’ and then at the words ‘to the Flag’ the right should
be ‘extended, palm upward, toward the Flag.’ At the close of the Pledge, the hand was to be
dropped to the side.”17 In 1923, the Pledge of Allegiance was amended to include “to the flag
of the United States” and in 1924, “…of America” was added.18 Despite these changes, the
Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892 by socialist author, Francis Bellamy, was not officially
recognized as a part of the nation’s flag ceremony etiquette until 1942.
Also in 1942, the flag salute decided upon in the National Flag Conference of 1923
was altered to what it is today, with one hand continually resting over the heart. This
alteration was the result of public outcry in 1935, when they began to notice similarities
between the American salute and the German “Heil Hitler” salute. Finally, in this year, a Flag
Code was adopted, an official congressional codification of flag rules and etiquette. These
16
Robert Justin Goldstein, Flag Burning and Free Speech (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2000)
31-2.
17
Shelley Lapkoff, Turner Media, “History of the Pledge of Allegiance, under God, Speech Program,” accessed
April 23, 2011, http://www.historyofthepledge.com/history.html.
18
Lapkoff.
Venturini
6
various rules included specifics about weather conditions and treatment of the flag while
raising or lowering it. However, the most interesting part of the Flag Code was appropriate
flag etiquette, which could spark a debate about Johns’ portrayal of the flag and whether it
breaks this national Flag Code. It is stated that the American Flag “should not be used for
decoration in general…should never be used for any advertising purpose…should never have
any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind placed on it, or
attached to it.”19 This specific treatment and limited use of a flag becomes pertinent in the late
1960s when artistic renderings of this symbol as a form of war or political protest test the
strength of flag desecration laws.
In 1940, the first of many Supreme Court cases raised a question of obligatory flag
saluting and its unconstitutional status under the First Amendment. In Minersville School
District v. Gobitis, the US Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania law in which local autonomy
in educational policy and national unity took precedence over religious beliefs of children,
thus requiring two students who were Jehovah’s Witnesses to recite the Pledge in school.20
Three years later however, this decision was essentially reversed with West Virginia State
Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), in which it declared state laws requiring public school
children to recite the Pledge unconstitutional. It was decided that under the First Amendment,
“a child required by state laws to attend public schools could not be forced by public
authorities ‘to utter what is not in his mind.’”21 This Supreme Court decision was
revolutionary at this time because it allowed for an individual opinion to be held of the flag
and its importance to one’s daily life. Instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and saluting
this national symbol, one could refuse not to as a sign of political or religious protest. The
19
“American Flag info.”
Lapkoff.
21
Goldstein, 32.
20
Venturini
7
priority of the First Amendment over the proper treatment of the flag becomes especially
important later, as the controversy of flag desecration became a national issue.
The American flag has always had a unique place in history; it is a symbol of
patriotism, brotherhood, and unity. The flag itself means more to Americans than any other
country, as our independence was founded and then flaunted with our own personal flag in
opposition with the British. And in the aftermath of World War II, the American flag became
an even more poignant symbol of American victory with the 1945 Joe Rosenthal photograph,
Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (Fig. 2), arguably one of the most iconic photographs of
American power and perseverance. Taken on February 23, 1945, this photograph captures the
raising of the second flag on top of Mount Suribachi, the highest point on the island, at noon.
Earlier in the day, the first American flag was hoisted up, but was soon replaced by a larger
version because its small size detracted both from its symbolic power and visibility.22 The
battle at Iwo Jima was a vital victory for American troops, but produced the most causalities
of World War II. To date, Iwo Jima has been the costliest battle in Marine Corps history, with
a death toll of nearly seven thousand Americans; six thousand of those casualties were
Marines.23 Iwo Jima was the last territory that U.S. troops recaptured from the Japanese and
ultimately led to the end of the war later in 1945.
The effect of this image on the American spirit is not quantifiable, but Life Magazine
reported “it arrived on the home front at the right psychological moment to symbolize the
nation’s emotional response to great deeds of war.”24 It was so widely acclaimed because it
offered a representation of war’s heroism and valor in an era of uncertainty and wavering
22
Lance Bertelsen, “Icon on Iwo,” Journal of Popular Culture 22.4 (Spring 1989): 81.
Mitchell Landsberg, “Fifty Years Later, Iwo Jima Photographer Fights His Own Battle,” Associated Press,
http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pulitzer/rosenthal.html.
24
Bertelsen, 88.
23
Venturini
8
hope. The photograph has been dissected as a work of art itself, particularly the upward
motion of the American flag, as the crude pole cuts across the composition in a dynamic
diagonal. Janis. L. Edwards and Carol K.Winkler identify the flag as a symbol of “American
ideals of liberty, equality and democracy,” as it moves toward the upper and empty expanse of
the sky, which is “waiting to be filled” by this positive American influence.25 This bold
interpretation implies the superiority of the American ideal, as prevailing over different forms
of government, ways of life, even people. This photograph, though Rosenthal insists was
merely a candid picture, not only uplifted American spirits, but also revitalized the American
flag’s spirit and importance in the country.
The photograph’s power did not die once it no longer graced the front covers of
newspapers and magazines. Instead, the Iwo Jima photograph was refashioned by an L.A.
Times cartoonist and used as the logo for the Seventh War Loan Drive (Fig. 3) in the summer
of 1945. In one of the many interpretations, civilians replaced the soldiers raising a flag
marked ‘bonds’ and the caption underneath read, “You, Too, Have an Iwo Jima,” expressing
the sentiment that ordinary men and women can be war heroes without going into battle.
These Iwo Jima inspired logos appeared on 3.5 million posters and an additional 175,000 car
cards, which resulted in one of the most successful loan drives, bringing in over $220 million
for the U.S. Treasury to use against the inflation of the war costs.26
The Rosenthal photograph persisted through out the next decade, culminating in 1954,
the very year Johns began his first flag painting. On November 11, 1954, President Dwight D.
Eisenhower dedicated the Iwo Jima Marine Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery in
Virginia (Fig. 4), a life sized bronze sculpture by Felix de Weldon based on the Associated
25
Janis L. Edwards and Carol K. Winkler, “Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph: The Iwo Jima Image
in Editorial Cartoons,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 83 (1997): 291.
26
Bertelsen, 89.
Venturini
9
Press photograph of the flag rising.27 As “a symbol forever of the valor and sacrifices of the
U.S. Marines,” the date and location of every major Marine Corps activity is inscribed around
the base of the monument.28 Also engraved are the words, “In honor and in memory of the
men of the United States Marine Corps who have given their lives to their country since
November 10, 1775.”29
In the post World War II environment, there was a period of questioning of
“Americanness,” specifically in contrast to the foreign, dangerous, and unknown “other.”
Nineteen fifty-four was no different and is described as a year that truly tested national unity
and patriotism. Moira Roth in “The Aesthetic of Indifference,” notes the particular ambiance
of 1954 and further comments on its application to Johns’ paintings:
I do not see how one could paint the American flag in 1954 and claim, as Johns did,
that it was merely inspired by a dream. Perhaps so, but dreams are ultimately
connected to reality. Nineteen fifty-four was in reality, a year of hysterical patriotism.
Johns could not have been insensitive to this.30
Not only was 1954 a year of “hysterical patriotism” as Roth writes, but it was conversely a
year of crisis as the paranoia of the Cold War reached its peak in the Army-McCarthy
hearings from April 22nd to June 17th. Amidst the Senate investigation that spurred the
hysteria of invading Communism and the “other,” more than ever it seems the American flag
became the symbol of Americanness and national unity.31 The Army-McCarthy hearings were
the first time a Senate investigation was televised to the nation, which brought these
27
Orton, 103.
Landsberg.
29
Rachel Cooper, “Iwo Jima Memorial – U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial,” About.com Guide, 2011
http://dc.about.com/od/monuments/a/IwoJima.htm.
30
Orton, 100.
31
Orton, 101.
28
Venturini 10
unresolved trials into the living room of every American household and to the forefront of
everyone’s mind.
With this as front-page news, Flag Day in 1954 proved to be a pivotal event for
Americans. Celebrated annually on June 14th, in this particular year, President Eisenhower
approved legislation to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. His
explanation for this decision was it provided a means to “[reaffirm] the transcendence of
religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen
those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace
and war.”32
Politicians realized the importance of this holiday to the American spirit, as it was a
day of recognition for a symbol under which all citizens live and come together as one entity.
In New York Mayor Robert F. Wagner’s speech on Flag Day, he urged citizens to display the
flag on this universal holiday because “a return to old-fashioned patriotism [through]
universal flag display will do much to unite us all, regardless of our creeds or political
affiliations.”33 The flag was revitalized as a symbol of unification and a way for citizen’s to
flaunt their patriotism amidst a controversy of “un-Americanness” within the nation.
Within this context, it is difficult to view Jasper Johns’ renditions of the American flag
without suspecting or gleaning any political messages behind it. Jasper Johns’ 1954-55
canvas, Flag (Fig. 1) was originally shown in his first solo show held at the Leo Castelli
Gallery in January and February of 1958. Alfred H. Barr Jr., Director of the Museum of
Modern Arts’ Collection, had wanted to buy Flag in 1958; he saw Johns’ paintings as “a
32
33
Orton, 101.
Orton, 102.
Venturini 11
refreshing change from abstract expressionism and evidence of a new spirit.”34 However, the
board voted against acquiring it because they were afraid of how the public would react to the
painting, in particular, concern that it would “offend patriotic sensibilities.”35 This reaction to
the painting provides a new dimension to the Solomon question of paintings versus flag. As
an object, flags are not meant to offend patriotic sensibilities, in fact they inspire patriotism;
however, MOMA’s fear of public reaction is evidence that Johns’ canvas is in fact a painting.
A painting holds a personal point of view that can be criticized and analyzed by a viewer, its
meaning can also be widely misinterpreted or unclear. In this particular case, it was the
possibility of a misinterpretation that kept the museum from buying Johns’ canvas.
Johns’ Flag is unlike the American flag we see and salute today. It only has fortyeight stars, as Alaska and Hawaii would not join the Union until January 3 and August 21,
1959, respectively. Like a sewn flag, Johns stitched together three separate pieces of canvas,
one for the canton, the upper stripes to its right, and the lower stripes.36 Though he was
creating a canvas, the process of putting together the cloth had its basis in flag making, which
makes discussion of the painting versus canvas argument convoluted.
As discussed earlier, Johns used this familiar symbol with a transferable design in
order to explore other elements of painting beyond composition, including texture. Flag’s
most unique aspect is its texture, the surface of the canvas beneath the familiar and
comforting red, white, and blue. Johns’ process involved dipping cut or torn pieces of paper
and cloth into hot pigmented wax and fixing these collage pieces to the canvas before the wax
cooled and hardened.37 Johns used everyday newspapers, including The New York Times, the
34
Orton, 93.
Orton, 145.
36
Orton, 131.
37
Orton, 111.
35
Venturini 12
Daily News, and the Nation, but instead of using the front-page headlines that evoke political
or historical memories, he stuck to the back pages of these newspapers, including
advertisements and articles that avoided overt political expressions.38
Though this texture differentiates Johns’ Flag from the American flag in terms of
Solomon’s question, the layering affect and the transparent quality of the colored wax allows
for the visibility of Johns’ process. We can see the layers of newspaper and cloth built on top
of one another, with several portions of text easily readable from a close vantage point (Figs.
5 and 6). These marks also imply the experience of the artist, the layers that he labored over to
create the iconic image of the American flag. It is a complying of stories and images, which
all combine and coalesce to create this one symbol that defines an enormous and diverse
nation.
Among the many details of Flag are an embossed seal bearing the words “United
States” located in the bottom-left corner of the canton. The West coast part of a map of the
United States is visible through the lowest red stripe. Also, there are several fragments of a
medical textbook chapter titled “The Nervous System” as well as an essay from the Nation
that mentions the “Middle East” and the “State Department.”39 While none of these details
directly mention any of the events of 1954 explained above, there is still a reference to current
events and the amalgamation of these various elements under the disguise of a flag becomes
even more significant.
While Johns’ Flag remains suspended between the dichotomy of painting and flag, his
later representations of the object stray from this first reproduction and settle into the category
of painting, differing from the well-known symbol through color and representation
38
39
Orton, 125.
Orton, 125-6.
Venturini 13
alterations. In the next year, Johns created White Flag (Fig. 7) using a similar process of
encaustic. However, as the title suggests, the flag has been drained of its symbolic and
recognizable colors, leaving only a ghostly white defined into the flag’s typical stars and
stripes through manipulation of texture. Though the white of the typical American flag is
meant to symbolize purity and innocence, its overwhelming use in this 1955 canvas also has
an association with emptiness, blankness or disappearance, as if the canvas previously had
color and vibrancy, but is now devoid of any life.40 From afar, White Flag appears to be
lacking content altogether, an observation that may express the artist’s personal feelings
toward the American flag as an empty symbol that does not accurately portray the diverse
citizens of the United States. The further associations of the White Flag with a white
surrender flag are particularly poignant given the flag’s contemporary associations with
victory as seen in the Iwo Jima image. Another example of Johns “painting” flag is the 1958
Three Flags (Fig. 8), a canvas that borders on optical illusion, with three fully colored
American flags superimposed on top of one another in varying scales. The manipulation of
the flag image provides for an alternative view of our national symbol, here, we are removed
enough from its stars and stripes, to actually analyze it as a design, without any patriotic bias.
As shown by these examples, the American flag was a recurring subject that Johns
explored and though hidden meanings have been found and theorized in these canvases, none
express the blatant political message as seen in Moratorium (Fig. 10), a flag painting from
1969. This green, black, and orange flag was originally painted as part of Flags, 1965 (Fig. 9),
in which Johns hoped to demonstrate an optical illusion.41 Paired with an all gray flag beneath
it, the American flag’s complementary colors would result in a haunting afterimage in which
40
41
Bernstein, 10.
Bernstein, 15.
Venturini 14
the regulation red, white, and blue flag would persist on one’s retinas.42 Johns used a
photographic reproduction of the green, orange, and black flag to fulfill a commission for the
National Vietnam Moratorium Committee to use as a poster for an unorganized protest
against the Vietnam War in 1969.43 Within this new context, the colors become a sickly
representation of an ailing and putrid America and the white dot that was previously used as a
central marker for one’s eye now appears as a bullet hole.44
Around the same time that Moratorium was circulating on posters another image of
the American flag in a more optimistic and positive light was published as well. The moon
landing on July 20, 1969 was huge news for Americans. The image of Neil Armstrong and
Buzz Aldrin planting the American flag in the moon (Fig. 11) was as monumental as the Iwo
Jima image. Akin to the conquistadors who claimed the New World for their mother country,
these images of the moon landing were a victory in the space race, in which America beat the
Soviets to the moon, redemption for their second place in sending a satellite into orbit.45
During the latter half of the 60s, the American government was slowly beginning to
respond to the mistreatments of the American flag in protests. Spurred by an anti-Vietnam
War protest in April of 1967, in which two flags were burnt in Central Park, New York, the
Federal flag desecration law passed in 1968, making flag desecration a Federal offense.
However, the word ‘desecration’ is uncertain and ambiguous language. Though this law is
commonly referred to as the “Flag Burning Amendment,” it could potentially prohibit all
forms of flag desecration as outlined in the Flag Code of 1942. This includes the few rules
mentioned above, which Johns’ Flag is in violation of. Yet, this 1968 law “confined its reach
42
Wagner, 276.
Wood, 64.
44
Wood, 64-65.
45
Boime, 18.
43
Venturini 15
to a persons who ‘knowingly’ cast ‘contempt upon any flag of the United States’ by engaging
in ‘publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon’ it; no reference was
made to advertising use or verbal criticism of the flag.”46 In the years following, the flag
desecration laws would find themselves pitted against the freedom of expression in artistic
usage of the national emblem.
In 1969 Faith Ringgold completed her controversial canvas, Flag for the Moon: Die
Nigger (Fig. 12), an alarmingly adaptation of the Stars and Stripes. From afar, it appears to be
the traditional American flag, but upon closer inspection, one can see “Die” embedded in the
canton and the word “Nigger” adapted as the white stripes. The title of this piece is taken
from a rap song by the street group The Last Poets and from H. Rap Brown’s attack on
America’s double standards, Die Nigger Die!, both of which were published in 1969.47 The
adaptation of this title contrasts Ringgold’s work with the lunar flag; it degrades and disgraces
what was celebrated as a momentous achievement in American technology and science.
Ringgold has explained that she was expressing her anger over the billions of dollars spent on
the space race, while millions of Americans continued to live in abject poverty in 1969.
This particular painting, along with two other flag paintings by Ringgold were
exhibited at “The People’s Flag Show” in November of 1970 at the Judson Memorial Church
in New York City. The show was meant to challenge the repressive nature of the “flag
desecration laws” as well as to protest the war in Vietnam. On the closing night of the
exhibition, Ringgold, along with artists Jean Toche and Jon Hendricks were arrested and
charged with flag desecration. Despite enormous support from the art world, the artists
46
47
Goldstein, 22.
Boime, 18.
Venturini 16
dubbed as the infamous “Judson Three,” were found guilty on May 14th 1971 and sentenced
to pay a one-hundred dollar fine or spend a month in jail.48
The increasing politicization of the flagin art reached its peak in 1970 with Kate
Millett’s The American Dream Goes to Pot, an installation piece of a flag in a toilet. The New
York County District Attorney shut down this exhibition and three of the shows organizers
were arrested and then convicted on charges of flag desecration.49 A similar installation by
photography student, “Dread” Scott Tyler, at a minority student exhibition at the School of
the Art Institute of Chicago caused uproar twenty years later. His piece What is the Proper
Way to Display a U.S. Flag? (Fig. 13) included a large flag spread out on the floor with a
notebook attached to the wall for spectators to write down an answer to the title’s question.
However, in order to properly write, one would have to stand on top of the American flag and
violate federal and state laws; the Flag Code specifically states that no part of the flag should
ever touch the floor.50
Because of this work of art, the school’s government funding was cut from $70,000 to
$1, Veterans of Foreign Wars picketed, and President George Bush even used the public
outcry to propel an initiative for a Constitutional amendment to officially ban the desecration
of the flag.51 Veterans, along with Republican Senator Walter Dudycz, went on a mission to
rescue the flag, though they failed to remove the flag from the gallery permanently, on a daily
basis, they would remove the flag from the floor, ceremoniously fold it and place it on the
shelf beside the ledger. Gallery attendants would then return the flag to its original location on
48
Lisa Farrington, Ph.D, Art on Fire: The politics of race and sex in the paintings of Faith Ringgold (New York:
Millennium Fine Arts Publishing, Inc., 1999) 67-68.
49
Margaret Regan, “Snarls & Stripes: The Phoenix Art Museum’s U.S. Flag Exhibition Brings Out The Worst in
Arizona’s Conservatives,” Tuscon Weekly, April 4-10, 1996.
50
Boime, 23-4.
51
Regan.
Venturini 17
the floor.52 Though neither Tyler nor the school were criminally liable for the artwork because
of protection under the First Amendment, the Chicago Police Department informed the school
that any viewer who walked on the flag may be charged with a felony. There is only one
documented case of a spectator who was arrested by police for walking on the flag in order to
write in the book.53
Miscellaneous charges of flag desecration were common in the late 60s and 70s,
including several cases against publications that featured photographs of flag burning, as seen
in the dismissed case of Korn v. Elkins (1970).54 Though these charges were later overruled,
artistic uses of the flag as a form of critique of the government or protest were punished more
severely. The best example is when New York City gallery owner Stephen Radich was
arrested in 1966 for displaying a Marc Morrel exhibition. Morrel, an ex-Marine with an
antiwar stance, exhibited sixteen sculptures and paintings such as The United States Flag in a
Yellow Noose (Fig. 14) and The United States Flag as a Crucified Phallus. The first was a
flag molded into the shape of a cadaver hanging from a noose and the latter, an erect phallic
symbol covered with a flag and attached to the base of a cross wrapped in a religious garment.
Though these sculptures are radical and offensive uses of the American flag, the artist himself
was never prosecuted for this protest art, instead, Radich was formally charged with violation
of the flag desecration law. It was argued in court that this art display would generate public
outrage and potentially a riot, so the gallery, a public entity and space, unlike the artist, was
not protected under the First Amendment.55 The Stephen Radich Affair sparked a national
52
Michael Welch, Ph.D, Flag burning: moral panic and the criminalization of protest, (New York: Aldrine de
Gruyter, Inc., 2000) 76.
53
“Dread Scott’s Proper Flag,” CAC Censorship Archive, accessed May 6, 2011,
http://www.cd.sc.ehu.es/FileRoom/documents/Cases/329dread.html.
54
Welch, 57.
55
Welch, 58.
Venturini 18
debate in which artists stood behind the gallery owner, realizing that if he was convicted,
police and government involvement in the arts would impinge their ability to work truthfully.
Though it was later established that the exhibition was an act of symbolic speech and thus
protected under the First Amendment, those in favor of prosecution brought up interesting and
debatable points about the American flag and its status in daily life. The president of the Flag
Foundation stated in reference to the Radich arrest, “You can’t use the flag as protest…The
American flag is so high above everything – it’s on a pedestal – that nothing can touch it.”56
Given these extreme cases of flag desecration and the prosecution of artists, it is
interesting to view the escalation of this simple emblem in art from an innocent depiction to a
powerful statement that causes moral panic and rioting. Can Jasper Johns’ Flag be seen as a
precursor to the semiotic exploration of this powerful and revered symbol? Was Johns
responsible for the first break with the ritualistic display of the flag, which led to these
controversial uses of the flag? As the years went on, Johns own flag images became
increasingly more exploratory and bordered on offensive with changing colors and
perspectives. For instance, Flag from 1971 (Fig. 15), which shows us not only a vertical
image of a flag, but the flag from the wrong side.57 Yet, it appears that Johns Flag no longer
offends or confounds; it was later brought by the Museum of Modern Art and was recently
used as the DVD cover design for a concert for New York after the World Trade Center
attacks.58 Though Johns was never prosecuted for his depictions of the American flag, which
in this later context appear to be a tame representations of the Stars and Stripes, his seemingly
innocent exploration of texture in Flag ushered in a movement Albert Boime coins as
56
Boime, 11.
Wagner, 278.
58
Jonathan Jones, “Star turn: Is it patriotic? Subversive? Both? Jonathan Jones on how Jasper Johns made a
provocative masterpiece out of the American flag,” The Guardian, April 22, 2003.
57
Venturini 19
“Patriotic Pop,” a combination of the avant-garde movement focused in popular images
presented in an ironic and deadpan way.59 As a predecessor to Pop Art, the repeated motifs in
Johns early works suggest an exploration that these symbols are deprived of their symbolic
function by daily reproduction in mass media.60 However, it appears that the American flag is
invincible to this dulling of meaning seen in its ability to incite emotion and reaction when
used improperly, from Faith Ringgold in 1969 to “Dread” Scott Tyler in 1989.
Though this paper outlines multiple perspectives on Alan Solomons’ painting versus
flag question, the question is not an either or, because the answer is both. Jasper Johns’ 195455 Flag is both a painting and a flag. It is made up of two different messages, as a painting, it
has a set of ideas of aesthetics, whereas as a flag, it retains a set of ideas about citizenship and
patriotism.61 While critics such as Robert Rosenblum questioned its intent: “Is it blasphemous
or respectful, simple-minded or recondite?” others saw it as full of stories. Underneath the red
and white bars “of the flag’s simple iconic presence are complicated lives, happenings and
secrets. The simple banner conceals untold possibilities…[it is] a reminder of what ought to
be obvious: that nations, like individuals, cannot be summed up easily.”62 Whether or not
Johns meant to desecrate, revere, or simply explore texture, Flag explains why the American
flag will never become a symbol without meaning, because it is intricately connected to the
citizens it means to represent.
59
Boime, 3.
“Jasper Johns Biography.”
61
Orton, 140.
62
Jones.
60
Venturini 20
Fig. 1 Jasper Johns, Flag, 1954-55, encaustic, oil, and collage on fabric mounted on
plywood, three panels
Fig. 2
Joe Rosenthal
Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima
1945
Photograph
Venturini 21
Fig. 3
Seventh War Bond Drive logo
1945
Fig. 4 Felix de Weldon, Iwo Jima Marine Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery in
Virginia, 1954, Bronze sculpture
Venturini 22
Fig. 5 Jasper Johns, Flag (detail), 1954-55, encaustic, oil, and collage on fabric mounted on
plywood, three panels
Fig. 6 Jasper Johns, Flag (detail), 1954-55, encaustic, oil, and collage on fabric mounted on
plywood, three panels
Venturini 23
Fig. 7 Jasper Johns, White Flag, 1955, encaustic, oil, newsprint, and charcoal on canvas
Fig. 8 Jasper Johns, Three Flags, 1958, encaustic on canvas
Venturini 24
Fig. 9
Jasper Johns
Flags
1965
Oil on canvas
Fig. 10 Jasper Johns, Moratorium, 1969, photographic reproduction
Venturini 25
Fig. 11 Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, July 20, 1969
Fig. 12 Faith Ringgold, Flag for the Moon: Die Nigger, 1969, oil on canvas
Venturini 26
Fig. 13
“Dread” Scott Tyler
What is the Proper Way to Display a U.S.
Flag?
1989
Mixed media installation in the student
exhibition “A/Part of the Whole” at the
School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Fig. 14
Marc Morrel
The United States Flag in a Yellow Noose
1966
Hanging soft sculpture of fabric and rope
Venturini 27
Fig. 15
Jasper Johns
Flag
1971
Encaustic and collage on canvas
Venturini 28
Bibliography
“American Flag info: USA Flag Site, Patriotic Pictures.” USA Flag Site. Accessed April 19,
2011. http://www.usa-flag-site.org/.
Bernstein, Roberta. Jasper Johns’ Paintings and Sculptures 1954-1974: “The Changing
Focus of the Eye.” Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1985.
Bertelsen, Lance. “Icon on Iwo.” Journal of Popular Culture 22.4 (Spring 1989): 79-95.
Boime, Albert. “Waving the Red Flag and Reconstituting Old Glory.” Smithsonian Studies in
American Art 4.2 (Spring 1990): 2-25.
Brockes, Emma. “Master of few words.” The Guardian. July 26, 2004.
Buell, Hal. Uncommon Valor, Common Virtue: Iwo Jima and the Photograph That Captured
America. New York: Penguin Group, Inc, 2006.
Carpenter, Joan. “The Infra-Iconography of Jasper Johns.” Art Journal 36.3 (Spring 1977):
221-227.
Cooper, Rachel. “Iwo Jima Memorial – U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial.” About.com
Guide. 2011. http://dc.about.com/od/monuments/a/IwoJima.htm.
“Dread Scott’s Proper Flag.” CAC Censorship Archive. Accessed May 6, 2011.
http://www.cd.sc.ehu.es/FileRoom/documents/Cases/329dread.html.
Edwards, Janis L. and Carol K. Winkler. “Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph: The
Iwo Jima Image in Editorial Cartoons.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 83 (1997): 289310.
Farrington, Lisa, Ph.D. Art on Fire: The politics of race and sex in the paintings of Faith
Ringgold. New York: Millennium Fine Arts Publishing, Inc., 1999.
Finnerty, Amy. “Masterpiece: Jasper Johns’s Potent Symbol; An American ‘Flag’ as welcome
in an Alabama bar as in an anarchist’s dorm room.” The Wall Street Journal, April 1,
2006.
Griffis, William Elliot. The American Flag of Stripes and Stars. Ithaca, New York: Andrus &
Church, 1863.
Goldstein, Robert Justin. Flag Burning and Free Speech. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press
of Kansas, 2000.
“Jasper Johns Biography.” Art Directory. http://www.jasper-johns.com/.
Venturini 29
Jones, Jonathan. “Star turn: Is it patriotic? Subversive? Both? Jonathan Jones on how Jasper
Johns made a provocative masterpiece out of the American flag.” The Guardian. April
22, 2003.
Kozloff, Max. Jasper Johns. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1972.
Landsberg, Mitchell. “Fifty Years Later, Iwo Jima Photographer Fights His Own Battle.”
Associated Press, http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pulitzer/rosenthal.html.
Lapkoff, Shelley. Turner Media. “History of the Pledge of Allegiance, under God, Speech
Program.” Accessed April 23, 2011. http://www.historyofthepledge.com/history.html.
“Nation: Who Owns the Stars and Stripes.” Times Magazine, July 6, 1970. Accessed April 20,
2011. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878329,00.html.
Orton, Fred. Figuring Jasper Johns. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1994.
Perl, Jed. New Art City: Manhattan at Mid-Century. New York: Vintage Books, Random
House, Inc., 2005.
Regan, Margaret. “Snarls & Stripes: The Phoenix Art Museum’s U.S. Flag Exhibition Brings
Out The Worst in Arizona’s Conservatives.” Tuscon Weekly. April 4-10, 1996.
Wagner, Anne M. “According to What.” ArtForum International 45.3 (November 2006): 272277.
Welch, Michael, Ph.D. Flag burning: moral panic and the criminalization of protest. New
York: Aldrine de Gruyter, Inc., 2000.
Wood, Debora. “Art and Transformation.” Issues in Integrative Studies No. 16 (1998): 57-71.