New York School Collaborations: The Color of Vowels

Contents

List of Illustrations vii

Permissions ix

Acknowledgments xi

Introduction New York School Collaborations and The Coronation Murder Mystery 1 Mark Silverberg

1 “Our Program Is the Absence of Any Program”: The New York School Reading the Past 17 Ben Hickman

2 Ballet, Basketball, and the Erotics of New York School Collaboration 35 Terence Diggory

3 “Permeation, Ventilation, Occlusion”: Reading John Ashbery and Joe Brainard’s The Vermont Notebook in the Tradition of Surrealist Collaboration 59 Susan Rosenbaum

4 Slippery Subjects: Thoughts on the Occasion of Ashbery and Koch’s “Death Paints a Picture” 91 Ellen Levy

5 Fair Realism: The Aesthetics of Restraint in Barbara Guest’s Collaborations 113 Kimberly Lamm

Copyrighted material – 9781137280565


vi ● Contents

6 Life without Malice: The Minor Arts of Collaboration 141 Jenni Quilter

7 “An Opposite Force’s Breath”: Medium-Boundedness, Lyric Poetry, and Painting in Frank O’Hara 163 Monika Gehlawat

8 Mourning Coterie: Morton Feldman’s Posthumous Collaborations with Frank O’Hara 183 Ryan Dohoney

9 “Everything Turns into Writing”: Rhizomes and Poetry Re-Processings in Ted Berrigan’s Sonnets 199 Flore Chevaillier

10 Giant Creatures Sculpted Here: Collectivity, Gender, and Performance in the Collaborations of Eileen Myles 215 Erica Kaufman

Bibliography 241

List of Contributors 257

Index 259



INTRODUCTION

New York School Collaborations and The Coronation Murder Mystery

Mark Silverberg

If my words weren’t perfect, Larry could fix them with some red or yellow; the same for his brushstrokes and pictures, I could amend them with adjectives and nouns . . . There was always the chance, too, that we could in however small a way realize some kind of Rimbaud-like dream of doing more with words and colors than words could ever do alone—of finding the colors of vowels, saying what couldn’t be said.

—Kenneth Koch on working with Larry Rivers

We can only imagine the scene: A chilly Friday evening, November 9, 1956, at Mike Goldberg’s studio, 86 East 10th Street. It is Jimmy Schuyler’s thirty-third birthday, and his

friends Frank O’Hara, Kenneth Koch, and John Ashbery have written a play to commemorate the event. Among the audience are Edwin Denby, Rudy and Edith Burckhardt, Fairfield and Anne Porter, Jane Freilicher, and Joe Hazan. Onstage, along with the playwrights (who also serve as actors), are Mike Goldberg, Larry Rivers, Hal Fondren, and Irma Hurley. For the New York School’s romantically inclined readers, the imagined air must be electric with excitement and silliness, with all the allure of the soon-to-be known. O’Hara, Koch, and Ashbery had already published their first books in col-laboration with Tibor De Nagy artists Larry Rivers, Nell Blaine, and Jane Freilicher (a moment Ashbery recalled as “probably my greatest publishing



2 ● Mark Silverberg

experience” [in Crase, 44]), and there would be many collaborative pro-ductions still to come: plays, films, musical scores, operas, poem-paintings, comic poems, and cowritten books of all sorts. 1 An exhilarating sense of artistic community (kept aloft by parties, panels, and art openings) supplied the voltage that still seems to light our imaginative intrusion into Schuyler’s birthday and the many other occasions, performances, and collaborative texts that will be the subjects of this book.

Before we return to the scene of this particular play, The Coronation Murder Mystery , a few preliminary comments on collaboration are in order. For the purpose of this volume, Thomas Hines’s succinct definition of col-laboration as the “work artists do together to produce a joint creation” will be used (4). Of course, this “work” can take many forms. Authors may work in close proximity to one another (think of O’Hara and Rivers hunched over a single lithographic stone) or may be distant in space and time (as in Berrigan’s appropriative, cut-up collaborations discussed in this volume by Flore Chevelier, chapter 9 ). Collaborators may work in a single form, as in the cowritten novel or poem, or in a combination of forms, producing what Hines calls a “composite work,” as in the classic collaborative form of the opera. What’s most important is that more than one author has a defining role in the shaping of the text, so that the final work always results from some form of dialogue. This conversation may be highly structured and constrained by particular rules (as in the complex varieties of the Japanese renga or surrealist collaborative games) or wholly spontaneous and improvisational, but in either case the relationship itself has a defining effect on the work. As Kenneth Koch suggests, “the strangeness of the collaborating situation, many have felt, might lead them into the unknown, or at least to some dazzling insights at which they could never have arrived consciously or alone” ( Locus Solus II 193). While we need not romanticize the collaborative process as a kind of mystical fusion of subjectivities, this doubling of the text does present certain hermeneutical problems. Since intentions and meanings can no longer be ascribed to an individual author, collaborative art opens a range of questions: How do we square collaboration with pervasive notions of solitary authorship and genius? Who owns a collaboratively written poem? What interpretive weight should be given to the actual processes of collaboration outside the text? What status do different forms have in a composite work? If we don’t privilege one form, what procedures should we follow in reading two or more forms together? Do readers play a different role in texts where authorship is dispersed? Do collab-orative works foster a kind of collaborative reading ethos , like the kind Juliana Spahr theorizes in Everybody’s Autobiography and Ben Hickman considers from a different angle in the first essay in this volume? 2 And does it matter, finally, in Beckett’s and Barthes’s famous words, “Who is speaking thus?”



New York School Collaborations ● 3

Though the roots of collaborative art are as old as Greek tragedy, an intense new interest in the practice coinciding with the early years of the New York School (and seen later in the “teamwork” of visual artists such as the Art & Language group, Gilbert and George, and Christo and Jeanne-Claude) is, as art historian Charles Green suggests, a symptom of the shift from modern to postmodern art (x). Just as visual artists at the time were moving away from the easel and the studio (in forms of conceptual art, performance art, earthworks, and body art), so were poets moving away from traditional, page-based lyrics and searching for a “poetry that is better than poetry,” as Koch put it in “Days and Nights” ( Collected 405). That search was con-ducted by the New York School both by adapting strategies of other media and by working directly with the practitioners of those media to further expand the boundaries of what poetry might be. For both visual and literary artists, much of the impetus for these postmodern moves came from a sense of exhaustion with notions of self-expressive identity and object-based art. What developed was a widespread challenge to conventional ideas about the work of art as the unique expression of a singular creator (in forms such as happenings, fluxus, Black Mountain, and New York School poetry, and what Stephen Fredman calls “contextual practice”). 3 Art historian Grant Kester considers another set of these dialogically oriented, process-based practices in Conversation Pieces: Community and Communication in Modern Art , where he turns his attention to contemporary artists and art collectives who have “defined their practice around the facilitations of dialogue among diverse communities” (1). These challenges had far-reaching implications in the worlds of visual and literary arts, but our interest in this volume is with regard to one particular subset that challenged the artist’s and the work’s singularity by performing art’s inherent sociality and multiplicity. 4

While there has been an interest in New York School collaborations (and, more broadly, in interarts conversations) since the earliest critical work on the group, there has as yet been no sustained exploration of this key phe-nomenon in the making of the school. 5 Notable essays by Charles Altieri (on Ashbery and “The Challenge of Postmodernism in the Visual Arts” in Critical Inquiry ) and Marjorie Perloff (on O’Hara, Johns, and “Aesthetic of Indifference” in Modernism/Modernity ) might frame our discussion of interarts collaborations, but only to the extent that both shy away from con-sidering multiple-authored texts in favor of focusing on aesthetic and philo-sophical alliances between artists. Most of the work to date follows this line, begun in the 1970s, exploring individual poets’ “verbal transformation[s] of painterly relation[s]” (Altieri, “Challenge” 809) rather than treating col-laborative texts themselves, which present different and perhaps stickier questions of authorship, genre, and process. As Hines notes, coauthored




works “always stand at the fringe of the accepted oeurvre of any artist” (11), and this is evident in the lack of critical attention they typically receive. Such disregard, Jenni Quilter suggests, may result from the fact that “the practice can appear too casual and social, and, consequently, too ephemeral to merit closer attention” (“Love” 86). 6 That said, some important forays into the world of New York School collaborations have been made by critics such as Terrence Diggory, Andrew Epstein, David Herd, Daniel Kane, Sara Lundquist, Jenni Quilter, Brian Reed, and Hazel Smith, among others. 7 Such work—along with that of publishers like Granary Books and galleries like the Tibor de Nagy—indicates that there has been a small but vital inter-est in New York collaborative art over the past five decades since O’Hara disappeared as the galvanizing center of the “Poets and Painters” scene that the de Nagy celebrated in 2011 with its sixtieth anniversary show. To fur-ther explore some of collaboration’s key terms, themes, and distinctions, we return to Schuyler’s birthday and the performance of The Coronation Murder Mystery .

Goldberg’s studio that night might be seen as a microcosm of the New York School scene —a collective creation that was the product of works, events, and personalities coming together in a unique place and time. The particular “ambience” (in Kenneth Koch’s words) of this scene evolved from a group of friends “seeing each other all the time and being envious of each other or emulous of each other and inspiring each other and collaborating” (Koch qtd. in Crase, 40). Like those famous context-rich New York poems by O’Hara, Koch, and Ted Berrigan, or the portraits of New York School per-sonalities by Porter, Rivers, or George Schneeman, The Coronation Murder Mystery features “the New York School” as both subject and creator, and thus self-reflexively helps construct and reinforce the scene and the brand.

The lights come up, and Jimmy (played by John Ashbery) is talking to Mike Goldberg (played by himself) about his paintings. A Girl (Irma Hurley) bursts in seeking help: “My brother [Larry Rivers] has been mur-dered. At least I think he has” (O’Hara, Amorous 147). At this point, a Psychiatrist (Kenneth Koch) enters, looking for his horse, and John Myers (Hal Fondren) enters looking for Larry whose new play, he tells us, he’s just commended to Dore Ashton. From here the play cheerfully (d)evolves in a series of absurd encounters where an assembly of New York School charac-ters move across the stage (sometimes in person but mostly in reputation through the gossip of other characters), producing nothing much more (or less) than that “ambience,” described by Koch earlier:

GIRL: John Myers recommended me for the Brussels World Fair Nobel Prize. I won this prize. King Hal Fondren the Tenth of Sweden




awarded me a solid gold Jimmy Schuyler. This trophy now adorns my all-white living room.

. . . MIKE: When I was a child I would run up the John Gruen steps and a

Jane Wilson sparrow would alight on my shoulder . . . GIRL: The Isidore Fromm Foundation has just awarded me its Roberta

Peters Award of 25 dollars and a trip to New Haven, but the letter begins, “Dear Jimmy Schuyler” (150, 151).

While Mike reminds them, “We have to solve this murder” (151), John warns, “Elaine told me that if we ever find the real murderer, we will cease to mean anything to each other” (148). In the end, a Body (Frank O’Hara) is found, but it doesn’t belong to Larry (as his sister believed), nor is it dead.

The play’s Psychiatrist wants to “get to the bottom of all these relation-ships,” but that’s unlikely since individuals have been subsumed by the col-lective. The Coronation Murder Mystery stages a kind of collaborative or communal dream where people, reputations, and names float freely and where individual identity is highly problematic. Perhaps an Author or Artist has been murdered (the putative disturbance that begins the play), but no one’s really sure. Despite frequent attempts to catch villains, find victims, or award prizes in the play, these acts of individuation keep being comically foiled. There is no murderer or murdered (“I am the second person who has failed to die during this frightful crime,” Larry proclaims [153]), and while Ms. Rivers may have won the Roberta Peters Award, her letter is addressed to Jimmy Schuyler. Ultimately, it’s hard to distinguish anyone, since every-one’s “playing” one another.

If the “death of the author” is the precipitating trope of the play, the author or artist’s proliferation is raison d’etre. The Coronation Murder Mystery is bursting to the seams with authors and artists who absurdly and unsuc-cessfully try to stake their claims to authority in nearly every line (“John Button says . . . ,” “Joan Mitchell says . . . ,” “Martha Jackson wants to . . . ,” “Elaine told me . . . ”). As a play that is not only collaboratively written and performed, but that also undermines singular authority at every turn, The Coronation Murder Mystery is a perfect model for the collaborative texts and processes that are the subjects of this book.

One of the first and most frequently noted aspects of collaborative art in general is the way in which it challenges romantic, monolithic ideas of authorship that also come under fire in seminal post-structuralist essays of the late 1960s and early 70s by Barthes and Foucault. These theorists




present the author as a limiting historical construct, a fiction associated with privatization and copyright, which marked “the privileged moment of indi-vidualization in the history of ideas, knowledge, literature, philosophy, and the sciences” (Foucault, “What Is an Author” 365). Both argued for a decon-struction of this fiction whose most insidious effect was to reduce the mani-fold, invigorating possibilities of signification and discourse. For Foucault the singular author is “the principle of thrift in the proliferation of meaning” (375). Small wonder, then, that post-structuralism provided frequent cause for justification and celebration of collaborative texts. With their multiple authors, these works repelled the idea of a unified, fixed, author-intentional meaning and provided practical instances of “the way a text is made of mul-tiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, [and] contestation” (Barthes 1469).

Following the lead from this post-structuralist view, it may be useful to consider collaboration as a kind of discourse within contemporary artistic practice in the sense that it constitutes a particular way of thinking about and behaving in art. It’s important to emphasize our own historical moment in thinking this way, since it is only relatively recently that collaboration or “corporate” methods of artistic production (as practiced in medieval craft guilds, Renaissance theatrical companies, or Baroque Dutch and Flemish studios, for instance) became the exception rather than the norm. That “privileged moment of individualization” that Foucault references is most clearly located with Romanticism, which definitively established the isolated genius as the center and measure of the artistic enterprise.

Within the “modern regime authorship” (as Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi define our post-Romantic period’s fixation on singular cre-ators [2–3]), one of collaboration’s discursive functions became its sub-versiveness, its opposition to a singularity that Oscar Wilde summarized well when he called art “the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known.” 8 Lorraine York has argued that “all collaborations are, in some miniscule measure, challenges to the status quo ” (3). She provoca-tively suggests we see the practice as “a textual miscegenation of a sort,” inherently disobedient to “the assumed category of pure (individualized) writing” (12). Collaboration’s defiance of “purity” has been read with both positive and negative valences. While at the turn of the century the practice was often viewed with suspicion as “promiscuous and unnatural” (Wayne Koestenbaum’s word choice highlights the hidden anxiety about the link between collaboration and homosexuality [1]), some contemporary ideal-izers “have taken the former terms of abuse for collaborative writing and embraced them as positive strengths: the deplorably subversive has become the admirably subversive” (York 9). 9




One possible function of collaborations, then, may be as an illicit dis-course , an idea picked up in different registers in essays in this volume by Diggory and Rosenbaum who, following Koestenbaum’s pioneering work, consider the “erotics” inherent in the collaborative mode. This erotic energy is simultaneously sexual and textual, disseminated through networks of indiscreet talk and action. As Koestenbaum enthuses at the beginning of his study, “I presumed that collaborative texts could not help spilling secrets that singly authored works had the composure to hide” (2). His implicit connection of collaboration to gossip, indiscretion, and potentially unmen-tionable “exchange,” underscores another aspect of the practice’s attractive subversiveness (beyond, or in concert with, its denial of classical authority). Collaborations are always “specimens of a relation”; they accent not the individualism Wilde found central to art but instead its necessarily social nature (Koestenbaum 2). This, we might say, is another discursive function of collaboration: to draw particular attention to the occasion, setting, and relationship behind its making and in so doing to emphasize the inevitably social nature of language and the relational nature of art.

Of course, the relationships and settings behind many New York School collaborations are well rehearsed: a rainy Sunday in October 1960 in Norman Bluhm’s studio where, with Prokofiev playing on the radio, he and O’Hara produced the Poem-Paintings ; the backseat of a car on the way to the Hamptons where Schuyler and Ashbery began A Nest of Ninnies ; or PamAm Flight 115, returning from Rome to New York where O’Hara and Bill Berkson composed their eponymous play. The repeated recountings of the “scene of collaboration” that I am adding to here suggest that our indel-ible fascination with sociality and intimacy (and, for that matter, rivalry) tells us something crucial about the practice’s function. 10 As well as the plea-sures of the text itself (often multiplied through the compound modalities of written, visual, or aural performance), collaborations offer the particular voyeuristic allure of the event, the moment, or the occasion. As has been repeatedly noted, New York School collaborations produce a desire to be there , to enter the conversation, scene, or party out of which the work has seemingly grown. Reviews of the de Nagy’s 2011 Poets and Painters show confirm this sense. New York Observer reviewer Will Heinrich described the experience as being “like passing through the middle of a large and urbane but suspended conversation,” and Peter Schjeldahl, writing for The New Yorker , repeats the metaphor, describing “the typical New York School collaboration” as being “as infectious and as frustrating as a lively party overheard through a wall. (You had to be there. You almost are).”

The unique ability of collaborative art to both produce and confound the desire “to be there” might be said to derive from the fact that collaborations




are both events and objects. It will be useful to distinguish between these two categories. What I will call collaborative practice describes collaboration as an event, highlighting the performative and social interactions that take place when two or more artists work together to produce a text. Collaborative form , on the other hand, relates to the dual nature of the composite work where two or more forms—poetry, painting, film, music—are conjoined. While collaborative practices may not always produce collaborative forms (partners may be working in the same form, as in the collaborative poem or novel), they do raise the question of whether we can read the trace of the event in the object . Even when there are not two distinct forms (as in the poem-painting), can collaborative works be said to house two voices, two presences, a living dialogue? Are collaborative works “intrinsically different than books written by one author alone,” as Koestenbaum argues (2)? Rather than try to answer this undecidable question, it may be more important to recognize that one effect of collaboration is to highlight the tension between event and object, collaborative practice and collaborative form. Our desire to read the event behind the text in the text is what produces the collaborative frisson, the double sense of presence (you had to be there) and absence (you almost are).

This frisson brings us back to The Coronation Murder Mystery , the “lively party” that this introduction began with trying to “overhear through a wall.” The play is an extension of the social occasion it celebrates. Not only does it continually reference and reinact the “amorous, rivalrous and incestuous” New York School scene (to quote Holland Cotter), but its particular occa-sion as a gift to Schuyler on his birthday is also frequently referenced:

GIRL : Jimmy, I hope some day you will have a flower named after you. PSYCH : Look! all of Pennerton West County is coming to crown Jimmy

Schuyler with Nell Blaine hydrangeas. It is the world’s most truly beautiful evening. (153)

As imagined audience members, we are both there and not-there for this (campy, overdramatized, and yet for that very reason seemingly real) “most truly beautiful evening.” Structurally, the play defies narrative and the con-ventions of realist theater in favor of a loose construction that we might say takes the shape of a party that audience members have been invited to attend. Since both the play’s subject and occasion are a social gathering, and since part of the cast performs from the audience, the line between perform-ers and observers is practically erased. 11 In fact, both roles are subsumed by the more inclusive and essential role of the partygoer.

I’ve already suggested how The Coronation Murder Mystery thematizes the breakdown of individual authority by confusing characters, actors,




and names, and by refusing to privilege authors (including the play’s own), whether as prizewinners or victims. In this sense, we might say the play per-forms “the death of the author” by showing the slipperiness of individualiza-tion. On the other hand, though it is constantly unmoored, identity itself (through the marker of the name) is of vital importance in the play. Nearly everyone and everything in The Coronation Murder Mystery is named—both through the mechanisms of gossip and name-dropping (“I told him Bob Cornell Al Leslies were the best thing since Julie Harris” [149]) and through a strange and comical anthropomorphism (or perhaps better, a “New York Schoolization”), where normal objects are assigned New York School identi-ties (as in “the Norman Bluhm playing cards,” the “Jane Freilicher peanut butter,” and the “Paul Goodman flowers”). Thus at the same time, names and identities are full of significance (we need to know these people, to find the prizewinners and the murderers) and empty (since who the prizewin-ners, murderers, or victims really are cannot be determined): “Thanks to this body, which I do not know but strongly suspect is Kenneth Koch,” Larry announces in his final speech, “I have been saved from the silver oblivion I mentioned earlier. The young lady my sister is a fan of Jimmy Schuyler’s, and I have only discommoded myself in this unseemly way in order to intro-duce her to him. However, I now forget which one of you he is” (153). Rather than establishing any facts about identity or authorship, the play performs in the space opened by the author’s disappearance and by its own eccentric practice of collaboration. Its “meaning” cannot be reduced to an individual, an author, or a statement (though everyone in the play keeps trying to do just that)—but instead is found in the energy and ambience produced by the dialogue between competing and cooperating artists. Instead of providing an answer to who committed or suffered the “coronation murder,” the play invites us to “ . . . come to the window” where “the John Ashbery petunias have begun to blossom . . . ” (153).

The essays in this collection open a range of windows on the heteroge-neous collaborations of the New York School. Thomas Hines has argued that collaborative forms require a different kind of attention from an audi-ence. “When several arts interact in a single work,” he writes, “viewers must expand their perspective to include all of the collaborating arts” (9). This collection of essays suggests that an even greater expansion is required if we are to read both collaborative forms and practices . That is, if we are to think effectively about not only the texts but also the communities those texts arose out of and continue to produce. As well as considering relationships between words and images, words and sounds, and words and bodies, these essays also read the dialogues between participants (the ones there and almost there ) in collaborative works. The first essay in the volume, Ben Hickman’s




“‘Our Program Is the Absence of Any Program’: The New York School Reading the Past” begins by briefly considering the extensive reading lists the poets worked with at Harvard and after, but its main concern is with “collaborative reading” as a process and methodology at the heart of a New York School aesthetic and philosophy. Hickman presents a model of shared reading as a hermeneutical process, embedded and performed in poems, which enables New York School poetry to update Modernist concerns with tradition and intertextuality. Finally, the essay suggests an analogue between the poets as readers and us as their readers. Hickman implies that the aim of such “connective reading” (as Spahr has elsewhere described it) is the Benjaminian work of the artist as producer—that is, the poetry strives to transform us into co-creators.

Terrence Diggory, editor of the eminently useful Encyclopedia of the New York School Poets , considers the multiple meanings of collaboration and its varying manifestations in first- and second-generation work by analyzing two key New York School metaphors for the collaborative process: ballet and basketball. At first glance, one might contrast the first generation’s focus on European sophistication and “harmony” that O’Hara found in ballets like Roma, with the second generation’s fascination with the raw American drive and competitiveness that Berrigan and others found in bas-ketball. Diggory, however, avoids such oversimplification and suggests more subtle distinctions and connections. Reading both ballet and basketball as complex performances of bodies in motion, Diggory uses these metaphors to open dynamic possibilities for envisioning “the erotics of collaboration” in both first- and second-generation work. Moving beyond Koestenbaum’s sole focus on male erotics, a perspective too often repeated in New York School scholarship, Diggory’s essay concludes with a consideration of Anne Waldman and Bernadette Mayer’s collaborations as a way of extending the basketball metaphor to read “the gender division between player and spectator” (and concurrently author and reader) “from a specifically female perspective.”

Susan Rosenbaum’s essay picks up on the erotic dimensions of collab-orative play highlighted by Diggory by studying the playful interaction between word and image, author and illustrator, in Ashbery and Brainard’s The Vermont Notebook . Exploring the erotically charged “rubbing together” of word and image through Max Ernst’s technique of frottage, and its Ashberian revision as “frontage,” Rosenbaum considers the surrealist heritage of New York School work. Using Ashbery’s figures of “permeation, ventila-tion, [and] occlusion” to suggest means of understanding the often obscure relationships between drawings and text, Rosenbaum reads The Vermont Notebook as a distinctly American “dissecting table” for Lautreamontian



Abstract ExpressionismAshbery and, 209Feldman and, 185gender and, 114, 118Greenberg and, 142, 166, 182Guest and, 113–14, 123–25New York School and, 11, 98O’Hara and, 166, 170, 176

Acker, Kathy, 225Adamowicz, Elza, 66, 70, 87n7, 89n15Adorno, Theodor W., 117, 169–70

“Lyric Poetry and Society,” 169aesthetic purity, 6, 101–2, 105, 110,

166, 173Altieri, Charles, 3Anderson, Ben, 194–95Anderson, Laurie, 228, 238Angel Hair publications, 51–52, 220, 222“anxiety of influence,” 35–37, 45Art and Literature magazine, 105–6, 148ArtNews magazine, 103Ashbery, John

Berrigan and, 199, 206, 208–11Brainard and, 59–86collaboration and, 17–20, 70, 147–48,

150, 152–55, 217, 236collage and, 61, 63, 95Coronation Murder Mystery and, 1, 9ekphrasis and, 60–61Eliot and, 24homosexuality and, 46, 60, 77–78,

80, 83–84

Koch and, 19–20, 91–110love of reading, 17–18O’Hara and, 18on poetry, 32–33scholarship on, 3–4Schuyler and, 7Surrealism and, 64–70Three Hundred Things a Bright Boy

Can Do, 30Ashbery, John (works)

“Death Paints a Picture,” 91–110“Farm Implements and Rutabagas in

a Landscape,” 109–10“Last Month,” 209Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror, 26,

28–29, 59–64, 82, 86, 106“The Skaters,” 26–31, 33Three Poems, 26, 60Vermont Notebook, The, 10–11, 59–86,

151, 153Ashton, Dore, 4

Balanchine, George, 37–38Ivesiana, 38Roma, 10, 38–41, 55

ballet, 36–42, 45–46, 52–53Ballet magazine, 37Barthes, Roland, 2, 5–6, 69basketball, 10, 35–37, 43–56Beat writers, 19, 56n3, 96, 148Bergmann-Loizeaux, Elizabeth, 60–61,

70, 88n13

Index



260 ● Index

Berkson, Billcollaboration and, 144–46Mayer and, 157–58, 161n9O’Hara and, 7, 22, 24–25, 217, 223Schneeman and, 142, 160n3

Berkson, Bill (works)“Companion to Biotherm,” 25“Growing Up” (with Ted Berrigan

and Jim Carroll), 56n8“Notes from Row L” (with Frank

O’Hara), 56n2“St. Bridget’s Neighborhood,” 217What’s Your Idea of a Good Time?

(correspondence with Mayer), 157–58

Bernstein, Charles, 56n3, 115, 211Berrigan, Ted

basketball and, 10, 35–37, 43–50, 52–54

Berkson and, 146Brainard and, 153collaboration and, 2, 4, 13, 54–56collage and, 199, 201, 206–7, 209,

211, 212Poetry Project and, 222

Berrigan, Ted (works)“Bad Timing,” 53Bean Spasms (with Ron Padgett), 44,

46–50“Erasable Picabia” (with Jim

Carroll), 56n8“Growing Up” (with Jim Carroll and

Bill Berkson), 56n8“Love of the Stigma” (with Ron

Padgett), 46–48, 52, 56n7, 57n13“Memorial Day” (with Anne

Waldman), 52Sonnets, The, 13, 199–213“Tristan Unsalted” (with Ron

Padgett), 50biological determinism, 54–55, 57n12Bishop, Elizabeth, 61, 87n6Black Mountain group, 3, 96Blackburn, Paul, 44Blaine, Nell, 1, 8

Bloom, Harold, 35, 45Bluhm, Norman, 7, 9, 12, 40, 44, 167,

173–78Poem-Paintings (with Frank O’Hara),

7–8, 40, 44, 167, 173, 175–78Brainard, Joe

art and, 149–50, 172Ashbery and, 59–86Berrigan and, 200, 206–7, 210collaboration and, 61–63, 69–70,

141–44, 147–59, 174collage and, 48, 61, 70, 158, 161n8New York School and, 11–12, 48, 219pop culture and, 150–51restraint and, 11–12Surrealism and, 69, 76–83

Brainard, Joe (works)100, 000 Fleeing Hilda, 155C Comics, 142, 151, 161n8Vermont Notebook, The, 10–11,

59–86, 151, 153, 161n8Breton, André, 64–68, 70, 76–77,

88–89n13, 95Magnetic Fields, 67

Burckhardt, Rudy, 1, 11–12, 103, 141–44, 147–60

Ostensibly, 155Lurk, 158

Burroughs, William, 56n3, 89n14

capitalism, 22–23, 83, 201–2, 212–13Carroll, Jim, 50, 56n8, 57n9, 199

Basketball Diaries, The, 50, 57n9“Erasable Picabia” (with Ted

Berrigan), 56n8“Growing Up” (with Ted Berrigan

and Bill Berkson), 56n8Carruth, Hayden, 98, 102Chelsea magazine, 111n10Chevaillier, Flore, 13, 199–213, 257Chisholm, Dianne, 233collaboration

aggression, 43, 45, 55Ashbery and, 17–20, 70, 147–48,

150, 152–55, 217, 236



Index ● 261

ballet as, 36–42, 45–46, 52–53basketball as, 10, 35–37, 43–56boxing as, 44–45Brainard and, 61–63, 69–70, 141–44,

147–59, 174collage and, 70–71, 150, 154, 161n8,

167erotics and, 7, 10, 35–37, 39, 45,

48–49, 53, 78–79feminism and, 57n14friendship and, 37, 41, 69, 96, 100,

144, 149–50, 183–84, 200, 206Guest and, 113–40as illicit discourse, 7improvisation and, 2, 45, 173in absentia, 200, 203, 208Koch and, 2, 13–14, 16n10, 68,

93–96marriage and, 36Myles and, 215–39O’Hara and, 2–5, 7, 12, 18, 142,

147, 158Rivers and, 12, 142, 173–74,

176–77Schuyler and, 7, 19, 46, 89n14, 95,

151Surrealism and, 70–71, 85–86territoriality and, 13, 54–55violence and, 44

collageAshbery and, 61, 63, 95Berrigan and, 199, 201, 206–7, 209,

211, 212Brainard and, 48, 61, 158, 161n8collaboration and, 70–71, 150, 154,

161n8, 167erotic potential of, 88n9frontage and, 64–70identification of, 89n15Koch and, 13O’Hara and, 20, 26, 190Surrealism and, 64–70, 87n4Vermont Notebook and, 85–86

contextual practice (Fredman), 3, 14Corbett, William, 149

Coronation Murder Mystery, The, 1, 4–5, 8–9

countermemory, 233see also Chisholm, Dianne

Dadaism, 20, 61, 65, 68–69, 88n9“dangerous divided spaces” (Ashbery,

Vermont Notebook), 83–85Davis, Michael Thomas, 86DeBusschere, Dave, 52–53de Kooning, Willem, 98, 118, 150,

164–65, 169–72Deleuze, Gilles, 13, 201–3, 205,

211–13Denby, Edwin, 4, 5, 10, 11Dewey, John, 31–32Diggory, Terrence, 4, 7, 10, 35–56, 61,

161n7, 180, 231, 257Dohoney, Ryan, 12–13, 183–96, 257Downes, Rackstraw, 159Duchamp, Marcel, 59, 70–72, 77, 118,

205readymades, 59

Dufrenne, Mikel, 194–95DuPlessis, Rachel Blau

feminism and, 88n13, 219–20Guest and, 88n13, 114–15, 218–21New York School and, 16“Other Window Is the Lark, The,”

218Pink Guitar, The, 219on Waldman and generationality,

222

Eglevsky, André, 38ekphrasis, 60–61, 88n13Eliot, T. S., 21–24, 26–31, 59, 100–101,

108, 111n10, 112n13Epstein, Andrew, 4, 15n7, 16n10, 38, 96Ernst, Max, 10, 63, 65–67, 69–70, 72,

77, 87n8collage novels, 63, 67, 70frottage, 10, 63–64, 66–67, 69, 72“Inspiration to Order,” 66Natural History, 63, 66, 72



262 ● Index

Eshelman, Clayton, “Padgett the Collaborator,” 46–47

Everybody’s Autobiography (Spahr), 2experimental theater, 226–28

Fagin, Larry, 51–52, 142, 146Feldman, Morton

on “illusion of feeling,” 187–90, 194O’Hara and, 183–96

Feldman, Morton (works)For Frank O’Hara, 187, 189–90,

192–96Madame Press [died last week at

ninety], 187–88O’Hara Songs, The, 185–86, 188Rothko Chapel, 187–88Three Clarinets, Cello, and Piano,

187–92, 195Three Voices, 186, 194, 196Viola in My Life, The, 187–88

Felter, June, 11, 115, 122, 125–34, 140feminism

collaboration and, 57n14first-wave, 233Friedan and, 122Guest and, 11, 48, 115–18, 120–21,

125, 133–34, 139–40, 218Lost Texans and, 229–31Myles and, 216–18, 220–22, 226,

228–29, 235–37New York School and, 11, 14, 51,

216–18, 220–21second-wave, 51, 54–55, 122Sedgwick and, 36Surrealism and, 68, 88n11

Fischer, Fred, 189fluxus, 3, 228, 230Ford, Charles Henri, 77Foucault, Michel, 5–6, 21–22, 35Fraser, Kathleen, 120, 219, 221Fredman, Stephen, 3, 68Freilicher, Jane, 1, 9, 16n11, 17, 40,

87n2, 89n14, 152–54Freud, Sigmund, 45, 65, 76, 80, 82Frye, Northrop, 31

frottage, 10, 63–64, 66–67, 69, 72Full Court Press, 44

Gehlawat, Monika, 12, 163–82, 257gender

basketball and, 50bias regarding, 16n12collaboration and, 10, 48, 54, 57n14,

68, 114–17feminism and, 50–51Guest and, 114–17, 120, 139homosociality and, 47modernism and, 117, 127Myles and, 216, 219–22, 227, 233,

235–37New York School and, 16n12, 37Surrealism and, 88n11violence and, 127

Gide, André, 185Ginsberg, Allen, 22, 225–26, 229

Kenneth Koch and, 225–26Gray, Timothy, 16n12, 126Greenberg, Clement

art and, 11, 105–6, 142–43, 150Ashbery and, 106Feldman and, 196Guest and, 113–14, 118, 124Koch and, 92“minor art” and, 12, 142–43, 152narrative of modern painting and,

113, 118New Critics and, 101O’Hara and, 164–66, 170–73,

181–82on sculpture, 91, 106–7“State of American Writing, The,”

181Greenwich Village, New York, 51Guattari, Félix, 13, 201–3, 205, 211–13Guest, Barbara

“aesthetic of restraint” and, 11, 113, 115–16, 118, 121–25, 133, 140

collaboration and, 113–40“fair realism,” 115–21, 125, 134, 140Felter and, 11, 115, 122, 125–34, 140



Index ● 263

feminine difference and, 138–40feminism and, 11, 48, 115–18,

120–21, 125, 133–34, 139–40, 218

male gaze and, 88n13, 116, 125modernism and, 116–18, 125, 127,

138, 139Reid and, 11, 115, 122, 134–35,

138–39representation of space and, 126–28,

130–31, 134–39Guest, Barbara (works)

“Cape Canaveral,” 121–22“Dora Maar,” 117, 134“Emphasis Falls on Reality, An,”

119, 132“Forces of Imagination,” 114“Heroic Stages,” 113–15, 121–25“Hurricane,” 126Location of Things, The, 121, 218Musicality, 11, 115, 125–34Symbiosis, 11, 115, 125, 134–39“Thread, The,” 118

Guston, Philip, 161n9, 165, 185–86, 194, 196

Harvard University, 10, 17–20, 28, 32, 37, 93, 147, 178, 236

Hazan, Joe, 1, 40Herd, David, 4, 20, 27, 99, 111n3Hess, Thomas, 97–98, 103, 105–6heterosexuality, 37, 45–47, 49, 57n13,

80, 82, 147, 227Hickman, Ben, 2, 9–10, 17–33, 257–58Hines, Thomas, 2–3, 9Hirata, Catherine Costello, 192homophobia, 25, 47–48, 68, 77,

240n7homosexuality

ballet and, 37, 45–46basketball and, 45Berrigan and, 45–47collaboration and, 6, 37frontage and, 84O’Hara and, 24–25, 41

stigma of, 37, 45–47, 56n6, 83Vermont Notebook and, 83–84see also homophobia; homosociality

homosociality, 35–37, 46–47, 49, 54Hubert, Renée, 67–68, 88n10Hume, David, 23–24, 29Hurley, Irma, 1, 4

individualism, 6, 38, 169, 173, 185individualization, 6, 9influence, anxiety of, see “anxiety of

influence”; Bloom, Harold

Jameson, Fredric, 31Japanese poetry, 19, 43, 69, 95“Joan of Arc: A Spiritual

Entertainment,” 13, 215–16, 222–30, 238–39

Joyce, James, 19juxtaposition, 60–63, 65–66, 69–71,

74, 76–77, 81–82, 85–86, 167, 178–79, 209

Kane, Daniel, 4, 51–52, 148, 159, 211, 220–21, 225, 229, 236–37, 240n6

Kaufman, Erica, 11, 13–14, 16n12, 215–39, 258

Kaufman, Robert, 115, 117, 119Keats, John, 30, 203, 208Keller, Lynn, 16n12, 48, 122, 125, 231,

233Kerouac, Jack, 56n3Kester, Grant, 3, 14Kinnahan, Linda A., 48, 88n13, 120Koch, Kenneth

Ashbery and, 11, 19–20, 91–110collaboration and, 2, 13–14, 16n10,

68, 93–96Ginsberg and, 225–26, 229Locus Solus and, 2, 13, 19, 43–44,

69–70, 94–96, 100, 109, 142, 148New York School and, 4, 18–20,

56n5, 68O’Hara and, 22Rivers and, 1, 9



264 ● Index

Koch, Kenneth (works)“Days and Nights,” 3“Death Paints a Picture,” 11, 91–110In Bed, 154Ko, or a Season on Earth, 224–25

Koestenbaum, Wayne, 6–8, 10, 35–37, 39, 42, 47–49, 54–55, 57n14

Kramer, Hilton, 150

Laird, Holly, 16n12, 57n14Lamm, Kimberley, 11, 113–40, 258language poets, 56n3, 87n1Latour, Bruno, 184Lauterbach, Ann, 116, 150–51Lautreamont, Comte de, 10, 65, 67, 70Lawrence, D. H., 17, 194–95Leave It to Beaver, 234, 236“Leave It to Penis,” 234–35LeClercq, Tanaquil, 38–39, 42Lesniak, Rose, 216, 222, 230, 235Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 36Levy, Ellen, 11, 60, 86–87n1, 91–110, 258Lippard, Lucy, 228–29, 237Living Theater, 226Locus Solus magazine, 2, 13, 19, 43–44,

69–70, 94–96, 100, 109, 142, 148Lopate, Philip, 147, 149–50Lorde, Audre, 235Lost Texans Collective, 13, 215–16,

222–29, 231, 233–38Lower East Side, New York, 44, 236Lundquist, Sarah, 4, 16n12, 88n13,

114, 119, 122–23

MacAdams, Lewis, 145Mayakovsky, Vladimir, 18, 22, 193–94Mayer, Bernadette, 10, 16n12, 37, 48,

50–56, 157–59, 161n9, 219, 221, 239Basketball Article, The (with Anne

Waldman), 50–53, 55, 239“Rattle Up a Deer” (with Anne

Waldman), 50, 53, 55, 57n13Utopia, 158–59What’s Your Idea of a Good Time?

(correspondence with Berkson), 157

McKay, Barbara, 13, 216, 230, 233McLaughlin, Thomas, 44–46, 54Michaux, Henri, 78, 199, 206Middle Generation, 27modernism

Berrigan and, 206Eliotic, 21–22, 26gender and, 117–18, 125, 127, 134Greenberg and, 164–66Guest and, 116–18, 125, 139Koch and, 4, 18–20, 56n5, 68New York School and, 10, 18,

21–22, 33n1, 220O’Hara and, 25–26, 173, 181–82Rivers and, 173Surrealism and, 66

Myers, John Bernard, 4, 41, 46, 96–97, 111n8, 154, 160n7, 227

Myles, Eileencollaboration and, 215–39importance of spontaneity, 13, 216,

226Lost Texans and, 215–16, 222–29,

231, 233–38New York School and, 219–22on performance, 238“poetic education,” 222Poetry Project and, 13, 16

Myles, Eileen (works)Inferno: A Poet’s Novel, 19, 95, 100,

108, 216, 223, 225“Joan of Arc: A Spiritual

Entertainment,” 13, 215–16, 222–30, 238–39

Maxfield Parrish, 239“Patriarchy, a Play,” 13, 216, 229–38“Polar Ode” (with Anne Waldman),

57n13Sappho’s Boat, 224School of Fish, 216

National Basketball Association (NBA), 45

National Organization for Women (NOW), 220



Index ● 265

National Women’s Collegiate Basketball Championship, 51

Nauen, Elinor, 13, 216, 222–23Nelson, Maggie, 16n12, 116, 215, 217,

237New Criticism, 23, 101New York City, 25, 193, 203, 220New York City Ballet, 37, 40–41, 56n1,

154New York School of painters, 12–13,

37, 113–14, 142, 164New York School of poets

Abstract Expressionism and, 11, 98Brainard and, 11–12, 48, 219DuPlessis and, 16first generation, 10, 36–37, 43, 46, 55,

144, 147–48, 159, 208–11, 216–18feminism and, 11, 14, 51, 216–18,

220–21gender and, 16n12, 37modernism and, 10, 18, 21–22,

33n1, 220Myles and, 219–22O’Hara and, 95–99, 103, 221, 223,

236Padgett and, 35, 199, 219reading and, 18–19Rivers and, 147Schneeman and, 35Schuyler and, 97, 217Surrealism and, 10, 77–78, 95, 164Waldman and, 37, 199, 219–22,

236–37see also second-generation New York

School PoetsNo More Masks anthology, 231Notley, Alice, 151, 212, 219, 221–22

O’Hara, Frankabsorption and, 22–26Ashbery and, 18, 26–27ballet and, 36–42, 45–46, 52–53Berrigan and, 199, 210–11collaboration and, 2–5, 7, 12, 18,

142, 147, 158

Coronation Murder Mystery and, 1–2death, 12–13, 217Feldman and, 183–96Greenberg and, 92identity and, 158–59lunch poems, 152, 210New York School and, 95–99, 103,

221, 223, 236on Pollock, 23, 170, 181, 185Rivers and, 40–42

O’Hara, Frank (works)“Biotherm (For Bill Berkson),”

24–26“Day Lady Died, The,” 23, 186, 190“In Favor of One’s Time,” 163“In Memory of My Feelings,” 189–90,

192–93“Mayakovsky,” 193–94Meditations in an Emergency, 40, 42“Melancholy Breakfast,” 174“Memorial Day 1950,” 20–21, 23“Notes from Row L” (with Bill

Berkson), 56n2“Ode to de Kooning,” 164, 170–72“Ode to Tanaquil LeClercq,” 39, 42“Personism,” 35–36Poem-Paintings (with Norman

Bluhm), 7, 40, 44, 167, 173, 175–78

“Poem Read at Joan Mitchell’s,” 40–41

“Radio,” 168–69, 172, 177Second Avenue, 23, 99, 170, 183, 218Standing Still and Walking in New

York, 56n1“Statement for Paterson Society,” 165“St. Bridget’s Neighborhood,” 217Stones (with Larry Rivers), 40–42,

45, 52, 55, 142, 154, 167, 173–76“To Larry Rivers,” 164, 173, 177,

179“Why I am Not a Painter,” 167, 177,

179–80Ostriker, Alicia, 218Oui magazine, 51



266 ● Index

Padgett, Pat, 46–50, 52Padgett, Ron

basketball and, 43–49, 54Brainard and, 149–50, 152, 155, 159New York School and, 35, 199, 219Schneeman and, 142, 160n5

Padgett, Ron (works)100, 000 Fleeing Hilda, 155Bean Spasms (with Ted Berrigan), 44,

46–50“Love of the Stigma” (with Ted

Berrigan), 46–48, 52, 56n7, 57n13Tristan Unsalted (with Ted

Berrigan), 50Pasternak, Boris, 18, 20, 22“Patriarchy, a Play,” 13, 216, 229–38Perloff, Marjorie, 3, 20, 42, 70, 164,

173, 176phenomenology, 44, 154Picasso, Pablo, 20, 117–18Piekut, Benjamin, 196Plath, Sylvia, 231–32Plato, 39, 140, 156–57Playboy magazine, 51Poetry magazine, 100Poetry Project at St. Mark’s Church,

13, 16n12, 51, 148, 158, 215–16, 219, 221–22, 236, 239

Pollock, Jackson, 23, 26, 135, 165–66, 170, 181, 185, 196

Pop Art, 13, 59, 61–62, 143, 200–201, 212

Porter, Anne, 1, 4, 150postmodernism, 3, 31, 173–74, 182, 225Pound, Ezra, 21, 24, 26, 31–32

Quilter, Jenni, 4, 11–12, 16n10, 94, 141–60, 258

Ratcliff, Carter, 1, 29Ray, Man, 61–62, 79–80, 86

“Minotaur,” 79–80“Self-Portrait in the Vine Street

Studio,” 61Reed, Brian, 4, 15n7, 40, 44, 174, 177

Reid, Laurie, 11, 115, 122, 125, 134–36, 138–40, 141

Reverdy, Pierre, 65Rimbaud, Arthur, 1, 14, 20, 29,

40–42, 45, 61, 82, 154, 199Rivers, Larry

art and, 154collaboration and, 12, 142, 173–74,

176–77Coronation Murder Mystery and, 1–2,

4–5Koch and, 1, 9, 147, 150, 154, 217New York School and, 147O’Hara and, 40–42, 46, 55, 164, 179

Rivers, Larry (works)Frank O’Hara Nude with Boots, 152In Bed, 154Stones (with Frank O’Hara), 40–42,

45, 52, 55, 142, 154, 167, 173–76Robertson, Oscar, 53, 57n11Romanticism, 5–6, 15, 29–30, 32, 69,

87n1, 94, 108, 188Rosemont, Penelope, 68, 88n11Rosenbaum, Susan, 7, 10, 59–86, 258Rubin, Gayle, 57n12

Savage, Tom, 43–46, 49, 52Schneeman, George

art and, 11–12, 151collaboration and, 35, 141–49pop culture and, 143prolific work, 148–49New York School and, 35representation and, 151, 153–59

Schneeman, George (works)Cruises, 146Listening to America, 146Tom Clark, 155–56

Schubert, David, 28, 32Schuyler, James

ArtNews and, 97, 103Ashbery and, 7Brainard and, 151collaboration and, 7, 19, 46, 89n14,

95, 151



Index ● 267

Coronation Murder Mystery and, 1–2, 4–5, 7–9

on Eliot, 101Koch and, 56n5, 89n14, 95Museum of Modern Art and, 97New York School and, 97, 217

second-generation New York School Poets, 144, 147–48, 157–59, 199–200, 219–25, 229, 236–37

aesthetics and, 147–48, 157–59basketball and, 36, 46, 51–52Berrigan and, 46, 51–52, 199–200collaboration and, 10, 35–36, 43, 54feminism and, 14, 219–25, 229,

236–37Surrealism and, 61visual artists and, 141–42, 147see also Lost Texans Collective; New

York School of PoetsSedgwick, Eve Kosofsky, 35–36,

46–47, 49, 54–55, 57n12Between Men, 47

semiotics, 13Shakespeare, William, 24, 104, 203–6,

208, 211Tempest, The, 204

Shapiro, David, 35, 45, 48, 56n6Shapiro, Karl, 100Shaw, Lytle, 25, 96, 111n12, 170–72,

174, 176, 184Shoptaw, John, 33n2, 60, 69–71, 85,

87n6Silverberg, Mark, 1–14, 18, 80, 96, 115,

120, 133, 196, 208, 258Simon, Joan, 14Skinner, Quentin, 21–22, 28Smith, Hazel, 4, 16n10, 174Smith, Jack, 142Spahr, Juliana, 2, 10, 230–31Stanyek, Jason, 196Steichen, Edward, 149Stein, Gertrude, 14, 18, 27, 33n1, 59,

70, 72, 77, 81Tender Buttons, 59, 70, 72, 81

Sterne, Laurence, 49

Stevens, Wallace, 30, 59St Mark’s Poetry Project, see Poetry

Project at St. Mark’s ChurchSurrealism

Ashbery and, 64–70Brainard and, 69, 76–83Breton and, 64–68, 70, 76–77collaboration and, 70–71, 85–86collage and, 64–70, 87, 88n9, 89n15double image, 78, 80, 86frottage and, 64–70gender and sexuality, 77–80Koch and, 13, 103New York School poets and, 10,

77–78, 95, 164surrealist image, 65–67, 69, 85Vermont Notebook and, 60–61,

64–70, 77–80, 82, 85–86women’s relationship to, 68, 88n9

Tibor de Nagy Gallery, 1, 4, 97, 111n8, 148, 154, 160n7, 179, 218

Tiger, LionelImperial Animal, The (with Robin

Fox), 57n12Men in Groups, 54

Timmons, Susie, 230–32Title IX, Education Amendments of

1972, 51To Tell the Truth, 223, 227Towle, Tony, 56n7, 219troubadours, 16n10, 19, 43–44, 56n3, 95

United Artists magazine, 52

Verlaine, Paul, 23, 40–42, 45, 154

Waldman, AnneAngel Hair, 51–52, 159, 220, 222, 236basketball and, 50–56Berrigan and, 203Full Court Press and, 44Mayer and, 10, 37, 239New York School and, 37, 199,

219–22, 236–37



268 ● Index

Waldman, Anne—ContinuedPadgett and, 44, 48Poetry Project and, 16n12, 221–22Schneeman and, 149

Waldman, Anne (works)Basketball Article, The (with Bernadette

Mayer), 50–53, 55, 57n11, 239“FEMINAFESTO,” 221“Memorial Day” (with Ted

Berrigan), 20–21, 23, 52“Polar Ode” (with Eileen Myles), 57n13“Rattle Up a Deer” (with Bernadette

Mayer), 50, 53, 55, 57n10Warhol, Andy, 13, 59, 61, 149–50, 153,

200, 212

Warsh, Lewis, 52, 148, 220, 222Whitman, Walt, 25Wilde, Oscar, 6–7Williams, William Carlos, 20, 24, 59,

71, 98, 206, 207–208, 211Winkfield, Trevor, 148Woodmansee, Martha, 6, 15World magazine, 51

Yezzi, David, 217York, Lorraine, 6

Žižek, Slavoj, 223“From Antigone to Joan of Arc,”

223











Documents

New York School Collaborations: The Color of Vowels