I read the article and came across the part which fascinated me – pictures that wait. How do pictures wait? Do they impose a sort of imperative of a human deed to be acted upon them? The things themselves were already meant, in the first place, for something to be done to them. They are not abstract, but rather representational, recognizable. The fact that they are there, on the wall, makes them abstract. But can they still be read as objects, if they are not the object itself? There the viewer faces a stoppage; an obstacle, one that makes the viewer pause in the tracks and ask, ‘should I open the drawer?’. The drawer and the knob is meant to be pulled out, but the painting on the wall is not. The knob is on the wall, so I suppose it is not. But why would the wall have a knob in the first place then? Then the viewer sees two different contexts within which the artwork is surrounded – the wall that makes the art and the thing on the wall itself. Each has its specific context within which each object operates, but only by joining them physically, Johns successfully joins the two of them.