Leo [1st state] 1997

Editor: Here we have Jasper Johns’s 1997 print, "Leo [1st state]." The composition, with its minimal figures under a starry sky, gives me a sense of looking at some distant, maybe even prehistoric, event. What strikes you when you look at this piece? Curator: What I see is a commentary on representation itself. Consider the date, 1997: Johns is engaging with his earlier work, specifically how symbols evolve and are re-contextualized over time. The seemingly simple stick figures are not merely primitive humans; they’re also a reduction, an abstraction of the human form. Who gets represented in art, and how? This speaks volumes, especially when considered through a lens of inclusivity and visibility. How can the simplest form evoke complex narratives about personhood and agency? Editor: That's fascinating. I hadn't considered it as a statement about representation itself, just as simple figures. Are you saying the minimalism is deliberate, almost political? Curator: Precisely! The “primitive” aesthetic can be deceiving. Whose stories are told through art, and how are those stories validated, particularly within a dominant cultural narrative? Johns’ work challenges us to consider art history's gatekeepers. How does an artwork either perpetuate or subvert existing hierarchies of power? And who are the figures absent from this depiction? Editor: So the "simplicity" becomes a critical tool. I hadn’t thought about it in terms of challenging art historical canons and power dynamics. Curator: Exactly. It is in what is left out, that the challenge appears. Thinking about it from this perspective really transforms my reading of the artwork, wouldn't you agree? Editor: Definitely. I’m leaving with a totally different perspective on Johns and his prints. Thank you!