In a striking fusion of color, code, and corporeality, a newly uncovered painting—believed to be an original by Jasper Johns—continues the artist’s lifelong investigation into semiotics and perception. Best known for his use of familiar symbols such as flags, targets, numbers, and letters, Johns has spent decades blurring the line between image and language. This untitled work exemplifies that legacy, presenting a chaotic yet calculated landscape of typographic fragments and spectral faces.

​

The painting is a dense palimpsest of meaning. Layered reds, yellows, blacks, and whites erupt across the canvas in a visceral symphony of paint and collage. At first glance, the eye is drawn to scattered ampersands, stenciled A's and D's, and what appears to be the numeral 3—motifs that Johns has often used to disrupt literal interpretation. “Take an object. Do something to it. Do something else to it,” Johns once said of his process. This piece is an echo of that iterative logic: a visual sentence deconstructed and rewritten in pigment.

​

Beneath and between the symbols, ghostly human faces emerge. Their expressions are serene yet fractured, haunting reminders of the body amid abstraction. Johns has rarely been a figurative artist, but his recent works show an increasing tendency toward personal memory and interiority—what curator Roberta Bernstein refers to as “autobiographical excavation”. These features suggest a departure from his early conceptual coolness toward something more intimate, more mortal.

​

The work also resonates with Johns’s interest in perception and cognition. By fragmenting letters and faces, the artist invites viewers to reconstruct meaning themselves—a hallmark of his practice. As scholar Leo Steinberg noted, Johns’s paintings “make seeing into a thinking process”.

​

If authenticated, this painting may mark a crucial link between Johns’s early symbolic experiments and his later, more emotive phase. It is a canvas that speaks not only to language and form but also to the layered, sometimes contradictory nature of identity itself. Like much of Johns’s oeuvre, it leaves us with more questions than answers—and that is precisely the point.