Viewing page 42 of 51

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

                                                                       (26C)
   I suggested what about Peggy Guggenheim thinking there was no other place to go. But he said "I'm not a non-objective painter." I can see that, but he seems to think he has something new. It looks to me like this work is similar to things he did when abstraction was fashionable 15 - 20 years ago, and as a matter of fact it is worse because it lost sensitivity. It is like patch of one color against another like a poster and he really didn't mean to do that way. 

   Either figure or landscape he made a point of distorting it or try to break up, but in itself nothing really destroyed, and brought back in pieces. He is still tied to shape of figures as thoug hhe felt he dared not disturb it. I don't know what reason is necessary to be abstract if he paints they way he does. All in all, I can only say that he is more confused than ever and felt very sorry that I ever saw it so that I had to talk about it. I wanted very much to say some encouraging words but I couldn't find the words to say. I guess he felt that I didn't like them so we didn't stay very long and we quickly went downstairs. 

   Before I left I suggested a few other dealers and talked to him about Rohn Gallery where numver of his friends is connected with it. I thought he might have chance there than any other gallery because of good word from friends might help. [[strikethrough]] [?] [[/strikethrough]]