:gE#B

ilillilltilltilffi
i 6033
Inside
the
WhiteCube
The Ideol ogy
of the
Gallery
Space
Brian
O' Doherty
I nt roduct i on
by Thomas
McEvi l l ey
The Lapis Press
Sant a Moni ca
San Franci sco
Copyr i ght @ 1976, 1986 by Br i an O' Doher t y
Pri nted i n rhe Uni ted States of Ameri ca
Al l ri ghts reserved
Thi s book may not be reproduced, i n whol e or i n
part, i n any
form
(beyond that copyi ng
permi tted by Secti ons 107 and 108
of the Uni ted States Copyri ght Law and except by revi ewers
for the
publ i c press), wi thout wri tten
permi ssi on from the
publ i sher s.
The essays i n thi s book ori gi nal l y appeared i n Artforum
magazi ne i n 1976 i n a somewhat di fferent form.
Fi r st book edi t i on 1986
9 0 8 9 8 8 8 7 8 6 5 4 J 2 r
The Lapi s Press
l 8 50 Uni on Street, Sui te 466
San Franci sco, CA 9412l
I SBN 0- 9 32499- 14- 7 cl ot h
I SBN 0- 932499- 05- B
paper
Li br ar y of Congr ess Cat al og Car d No. 85- 081090
Contents
Acknowledgements
Introducti on by Thomas McEvi l l ey
I. Notes on the Gal i ery Space
A Fabl e of Hor i zont al and Ver t i cal . . . Moder ni sm . . . The Pr oper t i es of t he
l deal Gal l er y . . . The Sal on . . . The Easel Pi ct ur e . . . The Fr ame as
E d i t o r . . . P h o t o g r a p h y . . . l mp r e s s i o n i s m. . . T h e My t h o f t h e P i c t u r e
Pl ane . . . Mat i sse . . . Hangi ng . . . Th Pi ct ur e Pl ane as Si mi l e . . . The Wal l
as Bat t l egr ound and' Ar t " . . . The I nst al l at i on shot . . . .
I I . The Eye and t he Spect at or
Anot her Fabl e . . . Fi ve Bl ank Canvasses . . . Pai nt , Pi ct ur e Pl ane,
Ob j e c t s . . . Cu b i s ma n d Co l l a g e . . . S p a c e . . . T h e S p e c t a l o r . . . T h e
Eye . . . Schwi tters' s Merzbau . . . Schwi tters' s Performances . . . Happeni ngs
and Envi r onment s . . . Ki enhol z, Segal . Kapr ow . . . Hanson, de Andr ea . . .
Eye, Spect at or , and Mi ni mal i sm . . . Par adoxes of Exper i ence . .
Conc ept ual and Body Ar [ . . . .
III. Context as Content
The Knock at t he Door . . . Duchan] p' s Knock . Cei l i ngs . . 1. 200 Bags 0f
Cr al . . . Ges t ur es and Pr oj ec r s . . . The Mi l e of St i ng. . . Duc hamp' s
" Body"
. . . Host i l i t y r o t he Audi ence . . . The Ar r i st and t he Audi ence . .
The Excl usi ve Space . . . The Sevent i es . . . The Whi t e Wal l . . . The Whi t e
Cube . . . Moder ni s t Man . . . The Ut opi an Ar t i s t . . . Mondr i an' s Room . .
Mondr i an, Duc har np, Li s s i t z k y . . . .
Afterword
For
Sidney Yates,
who
fghts for
the
artist
Acknowledgements
My t hanks t o J ohn Copl ans. who publ i shed t he or i gi nal essays i n Ar t f or um when he
was edi t or , and t o Char l es Cowl es, who was t hen t he publ i sher . l ngr i d Si schy, t he pr esent
edi tor, offered the wri ter every courtesy i n col l ecti ng these essays for republ i cati on.
Jan But t er f i el d of The Lapi s Pr ess has been an i deal edi t or , and I am gr at ef ul t o her f or
her det er mi nat i on t o put t hese ar t i cl es i n book f or m. Bar bar a Novak r ead t he t ext cl osel y,
as i s her wont . Nancy Foot e most ki ndl y assembl ed t he phot ogr aphs. Susan Li vel y t yped
t he t ext wi t h pr eci si on and r r i o.
I am i ndebted to Jack Stauffacher for hi s careful desi gn of the book.
I am al so gr at ef ul t o t he museums and gal l er i es whi ch per mi t t ed t he publ i cat i on of r he
phot ogr aphs whi ch i l l ust r at e r he t ext .
I want speci al l y t o l hank Thomas McEvi l l ey f or so cogent l y ser r i ng t he cont ext i n hi s
i nr r oduct i on and Ann McCoy f or suggesr i ng r h i dea of t he book.
I shoul d al so t hank Maur i ce Tuchman f or hi s i nvi t at i on t o l ect ur e at t he Los Angel es
Count y Muse um of Ar t i n Januar y 1975, when t he l ecl ur e
" l nsi de
t he Whi t e Cube.
1855
-
1974' was f i r st del i ver ed.
Introduction
I t has been t he speci al geni us
of our cenrury t o i nvest i gat e t hi ngs
i n rel at i on t o t hei r cont ext , t o come t o see t he cont ext as f ormat i ve
on t he t hi ng, and. f i nal l y, t o see t he conrext as a t hi ng i t sel f . I n t hi s
cl assi c essay, f i rst publ i shed as a seri es of t hree art i cl es i n Art f orum
i n1976, Bri an O' Dohert y di scusses t hi s t urn t oward cont ext i n
twentieth century art. He investigates, perhaps
for the first time,
what t he hi ghl y cont rol l ed cont ext of t he moderni st gal l ery does
t o t he art obj ect , what i t does t o t he vi ewi ng subj ect , and, i n a cru-
ci al moment f or moderni sm, how t he cont ext devours t he obj ect ,
becomi ng i t .
I n t he f l rst of t he t hree sect i ons, O' Dohert y descri bes t he modern
gal i ery
space as
"const ruct ed
al ong i aws as ri gorous as t hose f or
bui l di ng a medi eval church. " The basi c pri nci pl e
behi nd t hese
l aws, he not es, i s t hat
"The
out si de worl d must not come i n, so
wi ndows are usual l y seal ed of f . Wal l s are pai nt ed whi t e. The cei l -
i ng becomes t he source of l i ght . . . . The art i s f ree, as t he sayi ng
used t o go,
' t o
t ake on i t s own l i f e. '
"
The purpose
of such a set t i ng
i s not unl i ke t he purpose
of rel i gi ous bui l di ngs
-
t he art works, l i ke
rel i gi ous veri t i es, are t o appear
"unt ouc[ ed
by t i me and i t s vi ci s-
si t udes.
"
The condi t i on of appeari ng out ' of t i me, or beyond t i me,
i mpl i es a cl ai m t hat t he work al ready bel ongs t o post eri t y-t hat i s,
i t i s an assurance of good i nvest ment . But i t does st range t hi ngs t o
t he present ness
of l i f e, whi ch, af t er al l , unf ol ds i t sel f i n t i me. ' Art
exi st s i n a ki nd of et erni t y of di spl ay. and t hough rhere i s l ot s of
' peri od'
(l at e
modern) t here i s no t i me. Thi s et erni t y gi ves rhe gal -
l ery a l i mbol i ke st at us; one has t o have di ed al ready t o be t here. "
7
In searching
for the significance of this mode of exhibition one
must look to other classes of chambers that have been constructed
on similar
principles.The roots of this chamber of eternal display
are to be found not in the history of art so much as the history of
religion, where they are in fact even more ancient than the medi-
eval church. Egyptian tomb chambers. for example, provide an
ast oni shi ngt y cl ose paral l el . They t oo were desi gned t o el i mi nat e
awareness of t he out si de worl d. They t oo were chambers where an
illusion of eternal presence was to be protected from the flow of
t i me. They t oo hel d pai nt i ngs and scul pt ures t hat were regarded as
magically contiguous with eternity and thus able to provide access
t o i t or cont act wi t h i t . Bef ore t he Egypt i an t omb, f unct i onal l y
comparabl e spaces were t he Pal eol i t hi c pai nt ed caves of t he Mag-
dal eni an and Auri gnaci an ages i n France and Spai n. There, t oo,
paintings and sculptures were found in a setting deliberately set
off from the outside world and difficult of access
-
most of the
famous cave galleries are nowhere near the entrances, and some
of t hem requi re exact i ng cl i mbi ng and spel unki ng t o get t o t hem.
Such ri t ual spaces are symbol i c reest abl i shment s of t he anci ent
umbi i i cus whi ch, i n myt hs worl dwi de, once connect ed heaven
and eart h. The connect i on i s renewed symboi i cal l y f or t he pur-
poses of t he t ri be or, more speci f l cal l y, of t hat cast e or
part y i n t he
t ri be whose speci al i nt erest s are ri t ual l y represent ed. Si nce t hi s i s a
space where access t o l ' ri gher met aphysi cal real ms i s made t o seem
avai l abl e, i t must be shel t ered f rom t he appeai ance of change and
t i me. Thi s speci al l y segregat ed space i s a ki nd of non-space, ul t ra-
space, or i deal space where t he surroundi ng mat ri x of space-t i me
i s symbol i cal l y annul l ed. l n Pai eol i t hi c t i mes t he ul t ra-space f i l l ed
wi t h pai nt i ng and scul pt ure seems t o have served t he ends of magi -
cal restitution to the biomass; afterlife bpliefs and rituals may have
been i nvol ved al so. By Egypt i an t i mes t hese purposes had coa-
l esced around t he person of t he Pharaoh: assurance of hi s af t erl i f e
t hrough et erni t y was assurance of t he sust enance of t he st at e f or
whi ch he st ood. Behi nd t hese t wo
purposes may be
gl i mpsed t he
pol i t i cal i nt erest s of a cl ass or rul i ng group at t empt i ng t o consol i -
date its grip on power
by seeking ratification from eternity. At one
8
l evel t he process
i s a ki nd of sympat het i c
magi c, an art empr ro
obt ai n somet hi ng by ri t uarl y present i ng
somet hi ng erse t hat i s i n
some way l i ke t he t hi ng t hat i s desi red. I f somet hi ng l i ke what one
wants is present,
the underlying
reasoning
implies, then what one
wants
may not be far behind. The construction
of a supposedly
unchanging
space. then, or a space where the effects of charrg. u..
del i berat el y
di sgui sed and hi dden, i s sympat het i c
magi c t o pi o-
-
mot e unchangi ngness
i n t he real or non-ri t ual
worl d; i t i s an
at t empt t o cast an appearance
of et ernal i t y
over t he st at us quo i n
t erms of soci al val ues and al so, i n our modern i nst ance,
art i st i c
va I ues.
.
The et erni t y suggest ed i n our exhi bi t i on
spaces i s ost ensi bl y
t hat of art i st i c post eri t y,
of undyi ng beaut y. of t he mast erpi ece.
But
i n f act i t i s a speci f i c sensi bi l i t y, wi t h speci f i c l i mi t at i ons
and condi -
t i oni ngs, t hat i s so gl ori f i ed.
By suggest i ng et ernal rat i f l cat i on
of a
cert ai n sensi bi l i t y, t he whi t e cube suggest s t he erernal rat i f i cat i on
of t he cl ai ms of t he cast e or group
shari ng t hat sensi bi l i t y. As a
ri t ual pl ace
of meet i ng f or members
of t hat cast e or group,
i t cen_
sors out t he wori d of soci al vari at i on, promot i ng
a sense of t he
sol e real i t y'
of i t s own poi nt
of vi ew and, consequent l y,
i t s endur_
ance or et ernal ri ght ness.
Seen t hus, t he endurance
of a cert ai n
power
st ruct ure i s t he end f or whi ch t he sympat het i c
magi c of t he
whi t e cube i s devi sed.
I n t he second of t he t hree sect i ons of hi s essay. O, Dohert v deal s
wi t h t he assumpt i ons about human sel f hood t h" t ur . i nvol ved i n
t he i nst i t ut i onai i zat i on
of t he whi t e cube. , , presence
bef ore a work
of art , " he wri t es.
"means
t hat we absent oursel ves i n f avor of t he
Eye and t he Spect aror. " By rhe Eyehemeans t he di sembodi ed
f acul t y t hat rel at es excl usi vel y
t o f ormal vi sual means . The Spec_
t at or i s t he at t enuat ed
and bl eached-out
l i f e of t he sel f f rom whi ch
t he Eye goes
f ort h and whi ch, i n. t he meant i me, does not hi ng el se.
The Eye and t he Spect at or are af l t hat i s l ef t of someone who has
"di ed, "
as O' Dohert y put s
i t , by ent eri ng i nt o t he whi t e cube. I n
return for the glimpse
of ersatz eternity that the white cube affords
us-and as a t oken of our sol i dari t y wi t h t he speci al i nt erest s of a
group-we
gi ve
up our humanness and become t he cardboard
9
Spectator with the disembodied Eye. For the sake of the intensity
of the separate and autonomous activity of the Eye we accept a
reduced level of life and self. In classical modernist galleries, as in
churches, one does not speak in a normal voice; one does not
l augh, eat , dri nk, l i e down, or sl eep; one does not get i l l , go mad,
sing, dance, or make love. Indeed, since the white cube promotes
the myth that we are there essentially as spiritual beings
-
the Eye
is the Eye of the Soul-we are to be understood as tireless and above
t he vi ci ssi t udes of chance and change. Thi s sl ender and reduced
form of life is the type of behavior traditionaliy required in reli-
gi ous sanct uari es, where what i s i mport ant i s t he repressi on of
i ndi vi dual i nt erest s i n f avor of t he i nt erest s of t he group. The essen-
t i al l y rel i gi ous nat ure of t he whi t e cube i s most f orcef ul l y ex-
pressed by what i t does t o t he humanness of anyone who ent ers i t
and cooperates with its premises.
On the Athenian Acropolis in
Pl at o' s day one di d not eat , dri nk, speak, l augh, and so on.
O' Dohert y bi l l i ant l y t races t he devel opment of t he whi t e cube
. out
of t he t radi t i on of West ern easel pai nt i ng. He t hen redi rect s
at t ent i on t o t he sane devel opment s f rom anot her poi nt
of vi ew,
t hat of t he ant i -f ormal i st t radi t i on represent ed here by Duchamp' s
i nst al l at i ons 1, 200 Coal Bags
\ 1938)
and Mi l e of St ri ng (1942\ ,
whi ch st epped once and f or al l out si de t he f rame of t he pai nt i ng
and made t he gal l ery space i t sel f t he pri mary mat eri al t o be al t ered
by art . When O' Dohert y recommends t hese works by Duchamp t o
the attention of artists of the seventies he implies that not a great
deai has been achi eved i n t he l ast f ort y or f i f t y years i n breaki ng
down t he barri ers of di si nt erest or di sdai n t hat separat e t he t wo
t radi t i ons. Such l ack of communi cat i on i s i mpressi ve, si nce art i st s
t hemsel ves have at t empt ed t o carry on t hi s di al ogue f or a genera-
t i on. Yves I (l ei n, f or exampl e, exhi bi t ed an empt y gal l ery cal l ed
"The
Voi d" (Le vi de\ ( I 958); short l y rhereaf rer Arman responded
wi t h an exhi bi t i on cal l ed
"The
Ful l " (t e pl ei nl (1960) i n whi ch he
di al ect i ci zed Kl ei n' s posi t i ng
of a t ranscendent al space t hat i s i n
the world but not of it by filling the same gallery from floor to ceil-
ing and wall to wall with garbage. Michael Asher, James Lee Byars,
and others have used the empty exhibition space irself as their
l 0
primary
material
in various
works
-
not to mention
the tradition
known
as Li ght and Space.
O, Dohert y di scovered
t he way t o ver_
balize these developments
for the first time. His essay is an exam_
ple.of
criticism attempting
to digest and analyze theiecent past
and t he present -or
shal l I say t he recent p. . i e. rt .
He arguest hat
the communal
mind of our culture went ;hrough
a sigriificant
shift that expressed
itserf in the prominence
of the white cube as a
central material and expressive
mode for art, as well as a fashion_
abl e st yl e of di spl ayi ng i t . He i dent i f i es
rhe rransi ri on
i n quest i on
as moderni sm
bri ngi ng
"t o
an endpoi nt i t s rel ent l ess
habi t
of sel f -
def l ni t i on.
"
The def i ni ng
of sel f means t he purposef ul
negl ect
of
all that is other than serf. Ir is a process
incriasingly
reductive
that
f i nal l y l eaves t he sl at e wi ped cl ean.
The whi t e cube was a t ransi t i onal
devi ce t hat at t empt ed
t o
bleach out the past
arid at rhe same time control the future by
appeal i ng
t o supposedl y
t ranscendent al
modes
of presence and
power.
But t he probl em
wi t h t ranscendent al
pri nci pl es
i s t hat by
def i ni t i on
t hey speak of anot her worl d. . rot t hi r one. I t i s rhi s ot her
worl d,
or access
t o i t , t hat t he whi re cube represent s. I t
i s l i ke
Pl at o' s
vi si on of a l "ri gher met aphysi cal
real m where f orm, shi n-
i ngl y at t enuat ed
and abst racr
l i ke mat hemat i cs,
i s ut t erl y di scon_
nected from the Iife of human experience
here below. (pure
form
woul d exi st , Pl aro f el t , even i f t hi s worrd di d not .
)
I t i s l i t t l e recog-
ni zed how much t hi s aspect of
prat oni sm
has t o do wi t h moderri i st
ways of t hi nki ng,
and especi al l y as a hi dden
cont rol l i ng
st ruct ure
behi nd
moderni st
est het i cs.
Revi ved i n part
as a compensarory
react i on
t o t he decl i ne of rel i gi on, and promot ed,
however
mi st ak_
enl y, by our cul t ure' s
at t ent i on t o t he unchangi ng
abst ract i on
of
mat hemat i cs,
t he i dea of pure
f orm domi hat . d
t rr. est het i cs (and
et hi cs) f rom whi ch t he whi t e cube emerged. The
pyt hagoreans
of
Pl at o s day, i ncl udi ng
pl at o
hi msel f .
hel d t hat t he begi nni ng
was a
bl ank where
t here appeared
i nexpl i cabl y
a spot whi ch st ret ched
i nt o a l i ne, whi ch f l owed i nt o a pl ane,
whi ct rf ol ded
i nt o a sol i d,
whi ch
cast a shadow,
whi ch i s what we see. Thi s set of el ement s
_
poi nt .
l i ne, surf ace, sol i d, si mul acrum
-
concei ved
as coni ent l ess
except
in their own-nature,
is the primary
equiprnent
of much
l t
modern art. The white cube represents
the blank ultimate face of
light from which, in the Platonic
myth, these elements unspeak-
abiy evolve.
In such types of thought,
primary shapes and geomet-
ric abstractions
are regarded as alive
-
in fact, as more intensely
alive than anything with a specific content.The
white cube's ulti-
mate meaning is this life-erasing
transcendental
ambition dis-
guised and converted
to specific social
purposes' O'Doherty's
issays in this book are defenses of the real life of the world against
the iterilized operating
room of the white cube
-
defenses of time
and change against the myth of the eternality
and transcendence
of pure form. In fact, they embody this defense as much as they
."p..tt it. They are a kind of spooky reminder of time, illustrating
how quickly tlle newest realizations of today become the classical
insights of
yesterday. Though it is common to say that modernism'
with its exacerbated
rate of change or development,
is over' that
rate of change not only remains but is increasing.
Articles written
today wi l i , U1, rOl o, ei ther have been forgotten or l i ke these, wi l l
have become cl assi c.
Thomas McEvi l l eY
New York City 1986
I. Notes
on the
Gallery
Space
A recurrent
scene i n sci ^fi
movi es
shows the earth
wi thdrawi ng
from the spacecraft
unti l i t becomes
a hori zon,
a beachbal l ,
a
grapefrui t,
a gol f
bal l , a star. Wi th the changes
i n scal e, responses
sl i de from
rhe parti cul ar
to rhe generat.
fni i nai vi aual
i s repl aced
by the race and we are a pushover
for the race_a
mortal bi ped,
or
a tangl e ofthem
spread
out bel ow l i ke a rug. From a certai n hei eht
peopl e
are general l y
good.
verti car
di stance
encourages
thi s
'
generosi ty.
Hori zontal i ty
doesn' t
seem to have the same moral
virtue. Faraway
figures
may be approaching
and we anticipate
the
i nsecuri ti es
of encounter.
Li fe i s hori zontal , j ust
one thi nq after
another,
a conveyer
belt shuffling
us towardthe
fro.iror.r."sui
;lr_
tory, the view from the departing
spacecraft,
is different.
As the
scal e changes,
l ayers
of ti me are superi mposed
and through
them
we proj ect
perspecti ves
wi th whi ch to recover and
correci the past.
No wonder arr gers
bol l i xed
up i n thi s process;
i ts hi story, per-
cei ved
through
ti me, i s confounded
by the pi cture
i n fronr of your
eyes, a wi tness ready
to change testi mony
at the sl i ghtert p.r..p_
tual provocati on.
Hi story
and the eye have a profound
wrangl e' at
the center of thi s
' ,constant,,
we cal l tradi ti on.
Al l of us are now sure that the gl ut
of hi story, rumor,
and evi _
dence we cal l the moderni st
tradi l i on i s bei ng
ci rcumscri bed
by a
hori zon.
Looki ng
down,
we see more cl earl yi ts
,,l aws,,
of progi ess,
i ts armature
hammered
out of i deal i st phi l osophy,
i ts mi l i i arf
metaphors
of advance
and conquest.What
a si gfrt i t i s_or
was!
Deployed
ideologies,
trancendent
rockets,
romintic
slums where
degradati on
and i deal i sm
obsessi vel y
coupl e, al l those troops run_
l l
ning back and forth in conventional
wars.The
campaign
reports
ii-t"i*a
up
pressed between
boards
on coffee
tables
give us little
i dea of the actual
heroi cs' Those
paradoxi cal
achi evements
huddl e
a"*" rft.t.,
"waiting
the revisions
that
will add the avant-garde
era to tradition,
or, as we sometimes
fear' end it' Indeed'
tradition
i*ff, "t the spacecraft
withdraws'
looks
like another
piece of bric-
,-U.u.
o" the coffee
tabl e-no
more
than a ki neti c
assembl age
gf".a1"g.,ft.r
with reproductions'
powered
by little mythic
motors
l nd spoi ti ng
ti ny model s
of museums'
And i n i ts mi dst'
one noti ces
;; .;;;iy
riintea
"cell"
that appears
crucial
to making
the thing
work:
the
gal l erY sPace'
'
ifr. irirr6ry
of modernism
is intimately
framed
by that space;
or
rathe,
the hiitory of modern
art can be correlated
with changes
in
it ur rpu..
and in the way we see it'we
have now reached
a
point
*t .r. *. see not the aribut
ttre space first'
(A clich6
of the age is to
el al ul ate
over the space
on enteri ng
a
gal l ery' ) An i mage comes
to
.ni .ta oi ,
whi te, i deai space
i hat' more
than any si ngl e
pi cture'
;;;;1h.
archetypal
image
of tw-entieth
century
art; it clarifies
'
itself through
a
process of f,istorical
inevitability
usually
attached
to the art i t contai ns.
ihe ideal
gallery subtracts
from the artwork
ali cues that inter-
f er ewi t ht hef act t hat i t i s"ar t ' "Thewor ki si sol at edf r omever y-
it-rir-rg tl-tut would
detract
from its own evaluation
of itself'This
gi ves the space a
presence
possessed by other
spaces
where
con-
venti ons
are
preserved
through
the repeti ti on
of a cl osed system
of
val ues. Someof t hesanct i t yof t hechur ch, t hef or mal i t yof t he
courtroom,
the mystrl ue
oi the experi mental
i aboratory
j oi ns wi th
chi c desi gn
to
prodr-,ce a uni que
chamber
of estheti cs'
So
powerful
"t. ,f-t.
p"....piuut
fields of force within
this chamber
that' once
outsi de
i t, uri .u.t
l apse i nto secul ar
status'
Conversel y'
thi ngs
become
art i n a space
where
powerful i deas
about art focus on
them.
l ndeed, the obj ect
frequentl y
becomes
the medi um
through
which these
ideas are manifested
and
proffered fo-r discussion-
a
popul ar form of l ate rnoderni st
academi ci sm
("i deas are more
i nter-
.rti ng tf,un art"
)
. The sacramental
nature
of the space
becomes
cl ear,
and so does one of the
great
proj ecti ve
l aws of moderni sm:
l 4
As modernism gets
older, context becomes
content. In a
peculiar
reversal.
rhe object introduced
inro the gallery
,,frames,.
ihe gallery
and i ts l aws.
A gallery
is constructed
along raws as rigorous
as those for build-
ing a medieval
church. The outside world must not come in, so
wi ndows are usual l y seal ed off.Wal l s are pai nted
whi te.The
cei l -
i ng becomes the source
of l i ght. The wooden fl oor i s pol i shed
so
that you
click along clinically,
or carpeted so that you pad
sound_
lessly, resting the feet while the eyes have at the wall. The art is
free, as the sayi ng used to go,,,to
take on i ts own l i fe.,, The di screet
desk may be the onl y pi ece
of furni ture.
In thi s context a standi ng
ashtray becomes al most a sacred obj ect,
j ust
as the fi rehose i n a
modern
museum l ooks not l i ke a fl rehose
but an estheti c conun_
drum. Modernism's
transposition
of perception
from life to formal
val ues i s compl ete.
Thi s, of course, i s one of moderni sm,s
fatal
di seases.
Unshadowed,
whi te, cl ean, arti fi ci al -the
space i s devoted to the
'
technol ogy
of estheti cs. Works
of art are mounted, hung, scattered
for study.Thei r
ungrubby surfaces are untouched
by ti me and i ts
vi ci ssi tudes.
Arr exi srs i n a ki nd of eterni ty
of di spl ay, and though
there i s l ots of
"peri od"
(l ate
modem)
,
there i s no ti me. Thi s eter_
ni ty gi ves
the gal l ery
a l i mbol i ke
status;
one has to have di ed
al ready to be there. Indeed
the presence
ofthat odd pi ece
off.rni -
ture, your
own body, seems superfl uous,
an i ntrusi on. The space
offers the thought that wrri l e eyes and nri nds are wel come.
i rrace-
occupyi ng bodi es,are
not-or are tol erated onl y as ki nestheti c
manneki ns
for further study. Thi s
Cartesi an paradox
i s rei nforced
by oqe of the i cons of our vi sual
cul ture: the i nstal l ati on
shot, sarzs
fi gures. Here at l ast tl .re spectator,
onesel f, i s el i mi nated.
you
are
there wi thout
bei ng there-one
of the maj or servi ces provi ded
for
art by i ts ol d antagoni st, photography.The
i nstal l ati on
shor i s a
metaphor for the gal l ery
space. In i t an i deal i s ful fl l l ed as strongl y
as i n a Sal on pai nr i ng
of t he l 83ds.
Indeed, the Sal on i tsel f i mpl i ci tl y defi nes whar a gal l ery i s, a
definition
appropriate for the esthetics of the period. A gallery is a
pl ace
wi th a wal l , whi ch i s covered wi th a wal l of pi ctures.The
l 5
wall itself has no instrinsic esthetic; it is simply a necessity for an
upright animal. Samuel F. B. Morse's Exhibition Gallery at the
Louvre
( l S33) i s upsetti ng to the modern eye: masterpi eces as
wal l paper, each one not yet separated out and i sol ated i n space
l i ke a throne. Di sregardi ng the (to us) horri d concatenati on of
periods and styles, the demands made on the spectator by the
hangi ng
pass our understandi ng.
Are you to hi re sti l ts to ri se to the
ceiling or get on hands and knees to sniff anything below the
dado? Both hi gh and l ow are underpri vi l eged areas.You overhear
a l ot of compl ai nts from arti sts about bei ng
"ski ed"
but nothi ng
about bei ng
"fl oored."
Near the fl oor, pi ctures were at l east acces-
si bl e and coul d accommodate i he connoi sseur' s
"near"
Iook before
he wi thdrew to a more
j udi ci ous
di stance. One can see the ni ne-
feenth century audience strolling,
peering up, sticking their faces
in pictures and falling into interrogative
groups'a proper distance
away, pointing with a cane,
perambulating again, clocking off the
exhibition picture by
picture. Larger
paintings rise to the top
(easi er to see from a di stance) and are someti mes ti l ted out from
the wal l to mai ntai n the vi ewer' s
pi ane; the
"best"
pi ctures stay i n
the mi ddl e zone; smal i
pi ctures drop to the bottom.The
perfect
hangi ng
j ob
i s an i ngeni ous mosai c of frames wi thout a patch of
wast ed wal l showi ng.
What perceptuai l aw coul d
j usti fy (to our eyes) such a barbar-
i ty? One-and one onl y: Each pi cture was seen as a sel f-contai ned
enti ty, total l y i soi ated from i ts si um-cl ose nei ghbor by a heavy
frame
around
and a compl ete
perspecti ve system wi thi n. Space
was di sconti nuous and categori zabl e.
j ust
as the houses i n whi ch
these pictures hqng had different rooms for different functions.
The ni neteenth cenl ury mi nd was taxonomi c, and the ni neteenth
,century
eye recogni zed hi erarchi es ofgenre and the authori ty of
the framd
How di d the easel pi cture become such a neatl y wrapped parcel
of space? The di scovery of perspecti ve coi nci des wi th the ri se of
the easel picture, and the easel
picture, in turn, confirms the prom-
ise of illusionism inherent in painting. There is a
peculiar relation-
ship between a mural
-
painted directly on the wall
-
and a
picture
l 6
Sam uel F B. Morse. Exhi bi ti on Gal l ert at the Louvre, l 8j 2
-
)j ,
cour l esy Ter r a Museum of Amer i can Ar t , Evanst on, I l l i noi s
t 7
t hat hangs on a wal l ; a pai nt ed wal l i s repl aced by a pi ece of
port -
able wall. Limits are established and framed; miniaturization
becomes a powerful convention that assists rather than contradicts
i l l usi on. The space i n mural s t ends t o be shal l ow; even when i l l u-
sion is an intrinsic
part of the idea, the integrity of the wall is as
oftel,reinforced,
by struts of painted architecture, as denied.The
wall itself is always recognized as limiting depth
(you don' t walk
through it),just as corners and ceiling (often in a variety of inven-
tive ways) limit size. Close up, murals tend to be frank about their
means
-
iliusionism breaks down in a babble of method. You feel
you are looking at the underpainting and often can' t quite find
your
"pl ace. "
I ndeed, mural s proj ect ambi guous and wanderi ng
vectors with which the spectator attempts to align himself.The
easel pi ct ure on t he wal l qui ckl y i ndi cat es t o hi m exact i y where
he st ands.
For the easdl picture is like a portable window that, once set on
, t he wal l , penet rat es i t wi t h deep space. Thi s t heme i s endl essl y
repeated in northern art. where a window within the picture in
turn frames not only a further distance but confirms the window-
l i ke l i mi t s of t he f rame. The magi cal , boxl i ke st at us of some smal l er
easel
pi ct ures i s due t o t he i mmense di st ances t hey cont ai n and
t he perf ect det ai l s t hey sust ai n on ci ose exami nat i on. The f rame of
t he easel pi ct ure i s as much a psychol ogi cal cont ai ner f or t he a4i st
as t he room i n whi ch t he vi ewer st ands i s f or hi m or her. The per-
spect i ve posi t i ons everyt hi ng wi t hi n t he pi ct ure al ong a cone of
space, agai nst whi ch t he f rame act s l i ke- a gri d, echoi ng t hose cut s
of f oreground, mi ddl eground, and di st ance wi t hi n. One
"st eps"
f i rml y i nt o such a pi ct ure or gl i des ef f ort l essl y, dependi ng on i t s
t onal i t y and col or. The great er t he i l l usi on, t he great er t he i nvi t a-
t i on t o t he spect at or' s eye; t he eye i s abst ract ed l rom an hnchored
'
body and proj ect ed as a mi ni at ure proxy i nt o t he pi ct ure t o i nhabi t
and t est t he art i cul at i ons of i t s space.
For t hi s process, t he st abi l i t y of t he f rame i s as necessary as an
oxygen tank is to a diver. Its limiting security completely defines
t he experi ence wi t hi n. The border as absol ut e i i mi t i s conf i rmed i n
easel art up t o t he ni net eent h cent ury. Where i t curt ai l s or el i des
t 8
il
subject matter, it does so in a way that strengthens
the edge.The
classic package
of perspective
enclosed by the Beaux-Arts frame
makes it possible
for pictures
to hang like sardines. There is no
.
suggestion
that the space within the picture
is continuous
with
the space on either side of it.
,
This suggestion is made only sporadically
through the eight_
. eenth and nineteenth
centuries as atmosphere and color eat away
at the perspective.
Landscape is the progenitor
of a translucent
mist that puts perspective
and tone/color in opposition, because
implicit in each are opposite interpretations
of the wall they hang
on_. Pictures begin to appear that put pressure
on the frame. The
archetypal composi fi on
here i s the edge-to-edge
hori zon, separat_
ing zones of sky and sea, often underlined
by beach, with maybe
a figure facing, as everyone does, the sea. Formal composition is
gone;
the frames within the frame (coulisses,
repoussoirs, the Braille
of perspective
depth) have slid away.What is left is an ambiguous
surface partly framed from the inside by the horizon. Such pictures
(by
Courbet, Caspar David Friedrich,Whistler,
and hosts of little
masters) are poised
between infinite depth and flatness and tend
to read as pattern.
The powerful
convention of the horizon zips
easily enough through the limits of the frame.
These and certain pictures
focusing
on an indeterminate patch
of landscape
that often looks like the
,,wrong,.
subject introduce
the i dea of noti ci ng somethi ng,
of an eye scanni ng.Thi s
temporal
qui ckeni ng
makes the frame an equi vocal , and not ah absol ute,
zone. Once you know that a patch
ofl andscape represents a deci _
sion to exclude everything
around it, you are faintly aware of the
space outsi de the pi cture.The
frame becomes a parenthesi s.The
separati on
of pai nti ngs
al ong a wal l , through a ki nd of magneti c
repulsion,
becomes inevitable.
And it wes accentuated and Iargely
i ni ti ated by the new sci ence
-
or art- devoted to the exci si on o1 a
subject from its context: photography.
In a photograph,
the l ocati on
of the edge i s a pri mary
deci si on,
since it composes
-
or decomposes
-
what it surrounds. Eventually
framing,
ediring, cropping
-
establishing limits
-
become major
acts of composition.
But not so much in the beginning. There was
l 9
the usual holdover of
pictorial conventions to do some of the work
of framing
-
internal buttresses made up of convenient trees and
knolls.The best early
photographs reinterpret the edge without
tlle assistance
of pictorial conventions. They lower t}:' .e tension on
the edge by allowing the subject matter to compose itself, rather
t han bonsci ousl y
al i gni ng i t wi t h t he edge. Perhaps t hi s i s t ypi cal
ofthe nineteenth century.The nineteenth century looked at a sub-
j ect -not at i t s edges. Vari ous f i el ds were st udi ed wi t hi n t hei r
decl ared I i mi t s. St udyi ng not t he f l el d but i t s l i mi t s, and def i ni ng
t hese l i mi t s f or t he purpose of ext endi ng t hem, i s a t went i et h cen-
tury habit. We have the illusion that we add to a fleld by extending
i t l at eral l y, not by goi ng, as t he ni net eent h cent ury mi ght say i n
proper perspect i ve st yl e, deeper i nt o i t . Even schol arshi p i n bot h
cent uri es has a recogni zabl y di f f erent sense of edge and dept h, of
Iimits and definition. Photography
quickly learned to move away
f rom heavy f rames and t o mount a pri nt on a sheet of board. A
.frame
was allowed to surround the board after a neutral interval.
Earl y
phot ography recogni zed t he edge but removed i t s rhet ori c,
sof t ened i t s absol ut i sm, and t urne d i t i nt o a zone rat her t han t he
st rut i t l at er became. One way or anot her, t he edge as a f i rm con-
ventio.n locking in the subject had become fragile.
Much of t hi s appl i ed t o I mpressi oni sm, i n whi ch a maj or rheme
was t he edge as umpi re of what ' s i n and what ' s out . But t hi s was
combi ned wi t h a f ar more i mport ant f orce, t he begi nni ng of t he
deci si ve t hrust t hat event ual l y al t ered t he i dea of t he pi ct ure, t he
way i t was hung, and ul t i mat el y t he gal l ery space: t he myt h of
f l at ness, whi ch became t he
powerf ul l ogi ci an i n pai nt i ng' s argu-
ment f or sel f -def i ni t i on'
The devel opment of a shaf l ow l i t eral space
(cont ai ni ng i nvent ed f orms, as di st i nct f rom t he ol d i l l usory space
cont ai ni ng
"real "
f orms) put f urt her
pressures on t he edge' The
great i nvent or here i s, of course, Monet .
I ndeed, t he magni t ude of t he revol ut i on he i ni t i at ed i s such t hat
t here i s some doubt hi s achi evement
mat ches i U f or he i s an art i st
of deci ded l i mi t at i ons
(or
one who deci ded on hi s l i mi t at i ons and
stayed within them). Monet' s landscapes often seem to have been
noticed on his way to or from the real subject.There is an impres-
2 0
Cl aude Monet , Wat er Li l i es, 1920, r r i pr ych: each panel 6, 6, ' x14' ,
cour t esy Museum of Moder n Ar t , New
yor k.
Mr s. Si mon Guggenhei m Fund
2 l
sion that he is settling for a provisional solution; the very feature-
lessness relaxes
your eye to look elsewhere.The informal subject
.
matter of Impressionism is always
pointed out, but not that the
subject is seen through a casual
glance, one not too interested in
what it's looking at.What is interesting in Monet is
"looking
at"
this look
-
the integument of light, the often
preposterous for-
mularization of a perception through a punctate code of color and
touch whi ch remai ns
(unti l near the end) i mpersonal .The edge
eclipsing the subject seems a somewhat haphazard decision that
could
just
as well have been made a few feet left or right. A signa-
ture of Impressionism is the way the casually chosen subject sof-
tens the edge's structural role at a time when the edge is under
pressure from the i ncreasi ng shal l owness of the space.Thi s dou-
bled and somewhat opposing stress on the edge is the prelude to
the definition of a painting as a self-sufficient object-a container
of illusory fact now become the primary fact itself-which sets us
on the high road to some stirring esthetic climaxes.
Flatness and objecthood usually find their first official text in
Maurice Denis's famous statement in 1890 that before a picture is
subject matter, it is first of all a surface covered with lines and col-
ors.This is one of those literalisms that sounds brilliant or rather
dumb, depending onthe Zeitgeist. Right now, having seen the end-
point to which nonmetaphor, nonstructure, nonillusion and non-
content can take
you, the Zei tgei st makes i t sound a l i ttl e obtuse.
That picture plane
-
the ever-thinning integument of modernist
i ntegri ty
-
someti mes seems ready for Woody Al l en and has i ndeed
attracted i ts share of i roni sts and wi ts. But thi s i gnores that the
powerful myth of the
picture plane received its impetus from the
centuri es duri ng whi ch i t seal ed i n unal terabl e systems of i l l usi on.
Conceiving it differently in the modern era was an heroic adjust-
ment that signified a totaily different worid viei'v, which was
trivialized into esthetics, into the technology of flatness.
The l i teral i zati on of the pi cture pl ane i s a great subj ect. As the
vessel of content becomes shallower and shallower, composition
and subject matter and metaphysics all overflow across the edge
unti l , as Gertrude Stei n sai d about Pi casso, the emptyi ng out i s
22
compl et e. But al l t he
j et t i soned
apparat us-hi erarchi es
of pai nt i ng,
i l l usi on, l ocat abl e space, myt hol ogi es
beyond number-bounced
back i n di sgui se and at t ached t hemsel ves, vi a new myt hol ogi es,
t o
the literal surfdce, which had apparently left them no purchase.
The transformation
of literary myths into literal myths-object-
hood, t he i nt egri t y
of t he pi ct ure pl ane, t he equal i zat i on
of space.
the self-sufflciency of the work, the purity
of form-is
unexplored
t erri t ory. Wi t hout
t hi s change, art woul d have been obsol et e.
I ndeed, i t s changes of t en seem one st ep ahead of obsol escence,
and t o t hat degree i t s progress
mi mi cs t he l aws of f ashi on.
The cul t i vat i on of t he pi ct ure pl ane resul t ed i n an ent i t y wi t h
l engt h and breadt h but no t hi ckness, a membrane whi ch, i n a
met aphor usual l y organi c, coul d generat e
i t s own sel f -suf f i ci ent
l aws. The pri mary
l aw, of course, was t hat t hi s surf ace, pressed
bet ween huge hi st ori cal f orces, coui d not be vi ol at ed. A narrow
space forced to represent without representing, to symbolize with-
out benef i t of recei ved convent i ons, generat ed
a pl et hora
of new
convent i ons wi t hout a consensus-col or codes, si gnat ures of
pai nt , pri vat e
si gns, i nt el l ect ual l y f ormul at ed i deas of st ruct ure.
Cubi sm' s concept s of st ruct ure conserved t he easel pai nt i ng
st at us
quo;
Cubi st pai nt i ngs
are cent ri pet al , gat hered
t oward t he cent er,
f adi ng out t oward t he edge. (I s
t hi s why Cubi st pai nt i ngs
rend t o
be smal l ?) Seurat underst ood much bet t er how t o def i ne t he l i mi t s
of a cl assi c f ormul at i on at a ri me when edges had become
equi vocal . Frequent l y, pai nt ed
borders made up of a gl omerat i on
of col ored dot s are depl oyed i nward t o separat e out and descri be
t he subj ect . The border absorbs t he sl ow movement s
of t he st ruc-
t ure wi t hi n. To muf f l e t he abrupt ness of t he edge, he somet i mes
pattered
all over the frame so that the eye could move out of the
pi ct ure-and
back i nt o i t -wi t i rout a bump.
Mat i sse underst ood t he di l emma of t he pi ct ure pl ane
and i t s
t ropi sm t oward out ward ext ensi on bet t er t han anyone. Hi s pi c-
t ures grew
bi gger as i f , i n a t opol ogi cal paradox,
dept h were bei ng
t ransl at ed i nt o a f l at anal og. On t hi s, pl ace was si gni f i ed by up and
down and left and right, by color, by drawing that rarely closed a
contour without calling on the surface to contradict it, and by
2 3
paint applied with a kind of cheerful impartiality to every part of
that surface.In Matisse's large paintings we are hardly ever con-
scious of the frame. He solved the
problem of lateral extension and
containment with perfect tact. He doesn't emphasize the center at
the expense of the edge, or vice versa. His pictures don't make
arrogant claims to stretches of bare wall.They look good almost
anywhere.Their tough, informal structure is combined with a
decorative
prudence that makes them remarkably self-sufficient.
They are easy to hang.
Hangi ng, i ndeed. i s what we need to know more about. From
Courbet on, conventi ons ofhangi ng are an unrecovered hi story.
The way
pictures are hung makes assumptions about what is
offered. Hanging editorializes on matters of interpretation and
val ue. and i s unconsci ousl y i nfl uenced by taste and fashi on. Sub-
Iiminal cues indicate to the audience its deportment. It should be
possible to correlate the internal history of paintings with the
external history of how they were hung. We might begin our
search not wi th a mode of di spl ay communal l y sancti oned
(i i ke
the Sal on), but wi th the vagari es of
pri vate i nsi ght-wi th those
pi ctures of seventeenth and ei ghteenth century col l ectors ei e-
gantly sprawied in the midst of their inventory. The first modern
occasi on, I suppose, i n whi ch a radi cal arti st set up hi s own space
and hung hi s pi ctures i n i t was Courbet' s one-man Sal on des
Refusds outsi de the Exposi ti on of I855. How were the pi ctures
hung? How di d Courbet construe thei r sequence, thei r rel ati on-
shi p to each other, the spaces between? I suspect he di d nothi ng
startl i ng;
yet i t was the fi rst ti me a modern arti st
(who happened
to be the flrst modern artist) had to construct the context of his
work and therefore edi tori al i ze about i ts val ues.
Though pi ctures may have been radi cal , thei r earl y frami ng and
hangi ng usual l y was not.The i nterpretati on of what a pi cture
i mpl i es about i ts context i s al ways, we may assume, del ayed' In
thei r fi rst exhi bi ti on i n I874, the Impressi oni sts stuck thei r pi ctures
cheek by
jowl, just
as they would have hung in the Salon. Impres-
sionist
pictures, which assert their flatness and their doubts about
the limiting edge, are still sealed off in Beaux-Arts frames that do
l i t t l e more t han announce
"Ol d
Mast er, , -and
monet ary
-
st at us.
When Wi l l i am C. Sei t z t ook of f t he f rames
f or hi s great Monet
show at t he Museum of Modern Art i n t 960,
t he undressed can-
vasses l ooked a bi t l i ke reproduct i ons unt i l you
saw how t hey
began t o hol d t he wal l . Though t he hangi ng had i t s eccenrri c
moment s, i t read t he pi ct ures'
rel at i on t o t he wal l correct l v and. i n
a rare act of curat ori al dari ng, f ol l owed up t he i mpl i cat i oni .
Sei t z
al so set some of t he Monet s f l ush wi t h t he wal l . Cont i nuous wi t h
t he wal l , t he pi ct ures
t ook on some of t he ri gi di t y of t i ny mural s.
The surf aces t urned hard as t he pi ct ure pl ane
was
, , over-
l i t eral i zed. " The di f f erence bet ween t he easel
pi ct ure
and t he
mural was cl ari f i ed.
The rel at i on bet ween t he pi ct ure pl ane
and t he underl yi ng wal l
i s very pert i nent
t o t he est het i cs of surf ace. The i nch of t he
st ret cher' s wi dt h amount s t o a f ormal abyss. The easel pai nt i ng
i s
not t ransf erabl e t o t he wal l , and one want s t o know why. What i s
l ost i n t he t ransf er? Edges, surf ace, t he grai n
and bi t e of t he canvas,
t he separat i on f rom t he wal l . Nor can we f orget t hat t he whol e
t hi ng i s suspended
or support ed
-
t ransf erabl e, mobi l e currency.
Af t er cent uri es of i l l usi oni sm. i t seems reasonabl e t o suggest t hat
t hese paramet ers,
no mat t er how f l at t he surf ace, are t he l oci of
t he l ast t races of i l l usi oni sm. Mai nst ream pai nt i ng
ri ght up t o
Col or Fi el d i s easel pai nt i ng,
and i t s l i t eral i sm i s pract i ced
agai nst
t hese desi derat a
of i l l usi oni sm. I ndeed, t hese t races make
\
l i t eral i sm i nt erest i ng; t hey are t he hi dden component of t he
di al ect i cal
engi ne t hat gave t he l at e moderni st easel pi ct ure i t s
energy. I f you
copi ed a l at e moderni st easel pi ct ure
ont o t he wal l
and t hen hung t he easel pi ct ure
besi de i t , you
coul d est i mat e t he
degree of i l l usi oni sm t hat t urned up i n t he f aul t l ess l i t eral pedi gree
of t he easel pi ct ure. At
t he same t i mel t l -re ri gi d mural woul d under-
l i ne t he i mport ance
of surf ace and edges t o t he easel pi ct ure, now
begi nni ng
t o hover cl ose t o an obj ect hood def i ned by t he
, , l i t eral , ,
remnant s of i l l usi on-an
unst abl e area.
The at t acks on pai nt i ng
i n t he si xt i es f ai l ed t o speci f y t hat i t
wasn' t pai nt i ng
but t he easel pi ct ure
t hat was i n t roubl e. Col or
Fi el d pai nt i ng
was t hus conservat i ve i n an i nt erest i ng way, but not
2 5
to those who
recognized that the easel picture couldn' t rid itself of
illusion and
who rejected the premise of something lying quietly
on the wall
and behaving itself. I' ve always been surprised that
Color Field
-
or late modernist
painting in general- didn' t try to
get onto the wall, didn' t attempt a rapprochement between the
mural and the easel
picture. But then Color Field
painting con-
formed to the social context in a somewhat disturbing way. It
remai ned Sal on
pai nt i ng: i t needed bi g wal l s and bi g col l ect ors
and couldn' t
avoid looking like the ultimate in capitalist art. Mini-
mal art recognized
the illusions inherent in the easel
picture and
di dn' t have any i l l usi ons about soci et y. I t di dn' t al l y i t sel f wi t h
wealth and
power, and its abortive attempt to redefine the relation
of t he art i st t o
vari ous est abl i shment s remai ns l argel y unexpl ored.
Apart f rom Col or Fi el d, l at e moderni st pai nt i ng post ul at ed some
i ngeni ous hypot heses
on how t o squeeze a l i t t l e ext ra out of t hat
. recalcitrant
picture
plane, now so dumbly literal it could drive you
crazy. The st rat egy
here was si mi l e (pret endi ng), not met aphor
(bet i evi ng): sayi ng t he pi ct ure pl ane i s
"l i ke
a - . " The
blank was filled
in by flat things that lie obligingly on the literal
surf ace and f use wi t h i t , e. g. , Johns' s Fl ags, CyTwombl y' s
bl ackboard
pai nt i ngs, Al ex Hay' s huge pai nt ed
"sheet s"
of l i ned
paper, Arakawa' s
"not ebooks. "
Then t here i s t he
"l i ke
a wi ndow
shade, "
"l i ke
a wal l , "
"l i ke
a sky" area. There' s a good comedy-of -
manners
pi ece t o be wri t t en about t he
"l i ke
a -" sol ut i on
t o t he
pi ct ure
pl ane. There are numerous rel at ed areas, i ncl udi ng
t he perspect i ve schema resoi ut el y f l at t ened i nt o t wo di mensi ons
ro quot e t he
pi ct ure
pl ane' s di l emma. And bef ore l eavi ng t hi s area
of rat her desperat e
wi t , one shoul d not e t he sol ut i ons t hat cut
t hrough t he
pi ct ure pl ane (Luci o Font ana3 answer t o t he Gordi an
surface) until the
picture is taken away and the wall' s
plaster
at t acked di rect l Y'
Al so rel at ed
i s t he sol ut i on t hat l i f t s surf ace and edges of f t hat
Procrustean stretcher
and pins, sticks, or drapes
paper, fiberglass,
or cloth directly
against the wall to literalize even further. Here a
l ot of Los Angel es
pai nt i ng f al l s neat l y-f or t he f i rst t i me! -i nt o t he
historical mainstream;
it' s a little odd to see this obsession with
2 6
surface, disguised
as it may be with vernacular
macho,
dismissed
as provincial
impudence.
All this desperate fuss makes you
realize all over again what a
conservative
movement
cubism was.It extended
the viability
of
the easel picture
and postponed
its breakdown.
Cubism
was reduc-
ible to system, and systems, being easier to understand
than art.
dominate
academic history.
Systems are a kind of
p.R.
which,
among
other thi ngs, push
the rather odi ous i dea of progress.
prog_
ress can be defined as what happens
when you
eliminaie
the
opposi ti on.
However,
the tough opposi ti on voi ce i n moderni sm
i s
that of Mati sse, and i t speaks i n i ts unemphati c,
rati onal way about
color, which in the beginning
scared Cubism gray.
Clement
Green_
berg's Art and culture reports on how the New
york
artists sweatecrr
out Cubism. while casting shrewd eyes on Matisse and Mir6.
Abstract Expressionist paintings
followed
the route of lateral
expansion,
dropped
off the frame, and gradually
began to conceive
lfe
eaqe as a strucrural
unit through which the painting
entered
into a dialogue with the wall beyond ir. Ar rhis
point
the dealer
and curator enter from the wings. How they
-
in collaboration
wi th the arti st-presented
these works, contri buted,
i n the l ate
foities and fifties, to the deflnition of rhe new painting.
Through the flfties and sixties, we notice the codifiiation
of a
new theme as i t evol ves i nto consci ousness:
How much space
shoul d a work of art have (as
rhe
thrase
went) ro
,,breathe,,Z
tf
paintings
implicitly
declare their own terms of occupancy,
the
somewhat
aggri eved mutteri ng
between them becomes
harder to
i gnore.
What goes
rogerher,
what doesn,t? The estheti cs
of hangi ng
evol ves accordi ng to i ts own habi ts, whi ch become conventi ons,
whi ch become l aws. we enter the era where works of art concei ve
the wal l as a no-man' s
l and on whi ch to proj ect
thei r concept
of
the territorial imperative.
And we are not far from the kind of bor-
der warfare that often Baikanizes
museum group
shows. There is a
pecul i ar
uneasi ness i n watchi ng artworks attempti ng
to establ i sh
terri tory but not pl ace
i n the context of the pl acel ess
modern
gallery.
All this traffic across the wall made it a far-from-neutral
zone.
2 7
: r ank
St el l a, i nst al l at i on vi ew, l 9 64,
our t esy Leo Cast el l i Cal l er y, Nen Yor k
2 8
Now a participant
in, rather than a passive
support for, the art, the
wall became the locus of contending ideologies; and every new
development had to come equipped with an attitude toward it.
(Gene Davis's exhibition of micro-pictures surrounded by oodles
of space i s a good j oke
about thi s.
)
Once the wal l became an es-
thetic force, it modified anything shown on it.The wall, the context
of the art, had become rich in a content it subtly donated to the art.
It is now impossible to paint
up an exhibition without surveying
the space l i ke a heal th i nspector, taki ng i nto account the estheti cs
of the wall which will inevitably
"aftify"
the work in a way that
frequently diffuses its intentions. Most of us now
"read"
the hang-
i ng as we woui d chew gum-unconsci ousl y
and from habi t.The
wall's esthetic potency
received a final impetus from a realization
that, i n retrospect, has al l the authori ty of hi stori cal i nevi tabi l i ty:
The easel picture
didn't have to be rectangular.
Stel l a' s earl y shaped canvasses bent or cut the edge accordi ng to
the demands of the internal logic that generated
them. (Here
ld'ihael Fried's distinction between inductive and deductive struc-
trfie remains one of the few practical hand tools added to the crit-
id3 black bag.
)
The result powerfully
activated the wall; the eye
frequentl y went searchi ng tangenti al l y for the wal l ' s l i mi ts. Stel l a' s
show ofstri ped U-,T-, and L-shaped canvasses at Castel l i i n 1960
"devel oped"
every bi t of the wal l , fl oor to cei l i ng, corner ro corner.
Fl atness, edge, format, and wal l had an unprecedented di al ogue i n
that smai l , uptown Castel l i space. As they were presented,
the
works hovered between an ensemble effect and independence.
The hangi ng there was as revol uti onary as the pai nti ngs;
si nce the
hangi ng was part
of the estheti c, i t evol ved si mul taneousl y wi th
the pictures.
The breaking of the rectangle formally confirmed the
wal l ' s autonomy, al teri ng for good the concept of the gal l ery
space.
Some of the mysti que of the shal l ow pi cture pl ane (one
of the
three maj or forces that al tered the gal l ery
space) had been trans-
ferred to the context of art.
Thi s resul t bri ngs us back agai n to that archetypal i nstai l ati on
shot-the suave extensi ons of the space, the pri sti ne cl ari ty, the
pi ctures
l ai d out i n a row l i ke expensi ve bungal ows. Col or Fi el d
2 9
. ennet h Nol and, i nsr al l at i on vi ew. 19 67,
ourtesy Andr Emmeri ch Gal l ery, New
york
l 0
4
ene Davi s, i nst al l at i on vi ew, 1968. cour t esy Fi schbach Gal l er y,
ew York (photo:
John A. Ferrari )
l l
wi l l i am Anastasi ,West
wal !, Dwan Mai n Gal l ery, 1967
(photo: wal ter Russel l )
j 2
Hel en Fr ankent hal er , i nst al l ar i on vi ew. 1968.
cou rtesy Andrd Emmeri ch Gal l erv
3 3
painting, which inevitably comes to mind here' is the most impe-
rial of modes in its demand
for lebensraum.The
pictures recur as
reassuringiy
as the columns in a classic temple. Each demands
enough
tpu.. so that its effect is over before its neighbor's
picks
up. Otherwise,
the pictures would be a single
perceptual field,
frank ensemble
painting, detracting
from the uniqueness claimed
by each canvas.The Col or Fi el d i nstal l ati on shot shoul d be recog-
ni zed as one of the tel eol ogi cal
endpoi nts of the modern tradi ti on.
There is something splendidly
luxurious about the way the
pic-
tures and the
gailery reside in a context that is fully sanctioned
socially. We are aware we are witnessing
a triumph of high serious-
ness and hand-tool ed
producti on, Ii ke a Rol l s Royce i n a show-
room that began as a Cubi stj al opy
i n an outhouse'
What comment
can you make on this? A comment has been
made already,
in an exhibition by William Anastasi at Dwan in
New York i n 1965. He
photographed the empty
gal l ery at Dwan'
noticed the
parameters of the wall, top and bottom' right and left'
thei
placement of each electrical
outlet, the ocean of space in the
middle. He then silkscreened
all this data on a canvas slightly
smaller than the wall and
put it on the wall. Covering the wall
with an image of that wall delivers a work of art right into the zone
where surfaie, mural, and wall have engaged
in dialogues central
to modernism.
In fact, this history
was the theme of these
paint-
ings, a theme stated with a wit and cogency usually absent from
ou-r wri tten cl ari fi cati ons.
For me, at Ieast, the show
had a pecul i ar
after-effect;
when the
paintings came down, the wall became a
ki nd of ready-made
mural and so changed
every show i n that
sDace thereafter.
II. The Eye and the Spectator
Couldn't modernism be taught to children as a series of Aesop,s
fables? It would be more memorable than art appreciation.Think
of such fables as
"Who
Killed Illusion?" or
"How
the Edge Revolted
Against the Center."
"The
Man Who Violated the Canvas,, could
follow
"Where
Did the Frame Go?" I would be easy to draw mor-
al s: thi nk of
"The
Vani shi ng Impasto That Soaked Away-and Then
Came Back and Got Fat." And how woul d we tel l the story of the
little Picture Plane that grew
up and got so mean? How it evicted
everybody, including Father Perspective and Mother Space. who
had raised such nice real children, and left behind only this horrid
result of an incestuous affair called Abstraction, who looked down
on everybody, i ncl udi ng-eventual l y-i ts
buddi es, Metaphor and
Ambiguity; and how Abstracrion and the
picture plane,
thick as
thi eves, kept booti ng out a persi stent guttersni pe
named Col l age,
who
j ust
woui dn' t gi ve up. Fabl es gi ve you
more l ati tude rhan art
history. I suspect art historians have fantasies about their fields
they would like to make stick.This is a preface
to some generaliza-
ti ons about Cubi sm and col l age that seem equal l y true and fi cti -
ti ous, and thus compose a fai ry tal e for adul ts.
The forces that crushed four hundred years
of i l l usi oni sm and
i deal i sm together and evi cted them from the pi cture
transl ated
deep space i nto surface tensi on. Thi s surface responds as a fi el d to
any mark on i t. One mark was enough to establ i sh a rel ati onshi p
not so much wi th the next as wi th the estheti c and i deol ogi cal
potency
of the bl ank canvas. The content of the empty canvas
i ncreased as moderni sm went on.Imagi ne a museum of such
potenci es,
a temporal corri dor hung wi th bl ank canvasses-from
1850, 1880, 19I 0, 1950, 1970. Each conr ai ns, bef or e a br ush i s l ai d
on i t. assumpti ons i mpl i ci t i n the art of i ts era. As the seri es
approaches the present,
each member accumulates a more com-
t >
plex latent content. Modernism's classic void ends up stuffed with
ideas all ready to
jump
on the first brushstroke. The specialized
surface of the modern canvas is as aristocratic an invention as
human ingenuity ever evolved.
Inevitably, what went on that surface, paint itself, became the
locus of conflicting ideologies. Caught between its substance and
its metaphorical potential, paint re-enacted in its material body
the residual dilemmas of illusionism. As paint became subject,
obj ect, and process, i l l usi oni sm was squeezed out of i t.The i nteg-
rity of the picture plane and the morality of the medium favor lat-
eral extensi on.The mai nstream as schedul ed from Czanne to
Col or Fi el d gl i des al ong the wal l , measures i t wi th verti cal and
horizontal coordinates, maintains the propriety of
gravity and the
upright viewer. This is the etiquette of normal social discourse,
and through it the mainstream viewer is continually reintroduced
to the wall, which in turn supports the canvas-its surface now so
sensitive that an object on it would cause it. as it were, to blink.
But as high art vacuumed the
picture plane, the vernacular
surpassed itself in transgressing its vulgar equivalent. While the
Impressionists occluded traditional
perspective with a curtain of
paint, popular painters and photographers in many countries
gamed with illusion from Archimboldesque
grotesqueries to
trompe lbeil. Shells, glitter, hair. stones, minerals, and ribbons
were attached to postcards, photographs, frames, shadowboxes.
This tacky efflorescence, saturated in the Victorian's corrupt ver-
sion of short- term memory
-
nostalgia
-
was, of course, a sub
-
stratum of Symbol i sm and Surreal i sm. So when, i n l 9l l , Pi casso
stuck that pi ece
of oi l cl oth pri nted wi th chai r-cani ng on a canvas,
some advanced col l eagues may have seen i t as a retardatai re
gesture.
That work is now collage's Exhibit A. Artists. historians, critics
are always tramping back to l9l I to take a look at it. It marks an
i rrevocabl e through-the-l ooki ng- gl ass passage from the pi cture' s
space into the secular world, the spectator's space. Analytic Cubism
didn't
push laterally but poked out the picture plane, contradicting
previous advances in defining it. Facets of space are thrust forward;
J6
Pabl o Pi casso,
Sri l l Li fe wi th Chai r Cani ng, tgl l
sometimes they look stuck on the surface. Bits of Analytic Cubism,
then, coul d al ready be seen as a ki nd of. col l age manqud.
The moment a collage was attached to that unruly Cubist sur-
face there was an instantaneous switch. No Ionger able to pin a
subject together in a space too shallow for it, the multiple vanish-
ing points of the Analytic Cubist picture shower out into the room
with the spectator. His point of view ricochets among them.The
surface of the picture is made opaque by collage. Behind it is sim-
ply a wall, or a void.In front is an open space in which the viewer's
sense of hi s own presence becomes an i ncreasi ngl y pal pabl e
shadow. Expel l ed from the Eden of i l l usi oni sm. kept out by the
literal surface of the picture, the spectator becomes enmeshed in
the troubled vectors that provisionally define the modernist sensi-
bi l i ty.The i mpure space i n whi ch he stands i s radi cal l y changed.
The esthetics of discontinuity manifest themselves in this altered
space and time. The autonomy of
parts, the revolt of objects,
pock-
ets of void become generative forces in all the arts. Abstraction and
reality
-
not realism
-
conduct this rancorous argument through-
out moderni sm.The pi cture pl ane, l i ke an excl usi ve country ci ub,
keeps real i ty out and for good reason. Snobbi shness i s, after al l , a
form of purity, prejudice a way of being consistent. Reality does
not conform to the rul es ofeti quette, subscri be to excl usi ve val ues,
or wear a ti e; i t has a vul gar set of rel ati ons and i s frequentl y seen
sl ummi ng among the senses wi th other anti theti cal arts.
Both abstracti on and real i ty, however, are i mpl i cated i n that
sacred twenti eth century di mensi on, space. The excl usi ve di vi si on
between them has bl urred the fact that the fi rst has consi derabl e
practi cal rel evance
-
contrary to the modern myth that art i s
"use-
l ess." Ifart has any cul tural reference (apart from bei ng
"cul ture")
surel y i t i s i n the defi ni ti on of our space and ti me.The fl ow of
energy betrveen concepts of space arti cul ated through the artwork
and the space we occupy i s one of the basi c and l east understood
forces i n moderni sm. Moderni st space redefi nes the observer' s
status, ti nkers wi th hi s sel f-i mage. Moderni sm' s concepti on of
space, not its subject matter, may be what the public rightly con-
cei ves as threateni ng. Now, of course, space contai ns no threats,
l 8
has no hi erarchi es.
Its mythol ogi es
are drai ned, i ts rhetori c
col _
lapsed. It is simply a kind of undifferentiated potency.
This is not a
"degenerati on"
ofspace but the sophi sti cated
conventi on
ofan
advanced
culture which has cancelled its values in the name of an
abstraction
called
"freedom.',
Space now is not
just
where things
happen;
thi ngs make space happen.
Space was cl ari fl ed not onl y i n the pi cture,
bur i n the pl ace
where the pi cture
hangs-the gal l ery,
whi ch, wi th postmodei ni sm,
j oi ns
the pi cture pl ane
as a uni t of di scourse. If thepi cture pl ane
defi ned the wal l , col l age defi nes the space between the wai l s.The
fragment
from the real world plonked
on rhe picture,s
surface is
the i mpri matur
of an unstoppabl e generati ve
energy. Do we not,
through an odd reversal ,
as we stand i n the gal l ery
space. end up
i nsi de
the pi cture,l ooki ng
out ar an opaque pi cture pl ane
that pi o_
tects us from a void? (Could
Lichtenstein,s paintings
of t].e baik of
a canvas be a text for thi s?) As we move around that space, l ooki ng
at the walls, avoiding things on the floor, we become aware that
that gal l ery
al so contai ns a wanderi ng phantom
frequentl y
men_
ti oned i n avant-garde
di spatches-
the Spectator.
Who i s thi s Spectator, al so cal l ed the Vi ewer, someti mes cal l ed
the Observer,
occasi onal l y the
percei ver?
It has no face, i s mostl y a
back. It stoops and peers,
i s sl i ghtl y cl umsy. Its atri rude i s i nqui ri ng,
i ts puzzl ement
di screet. He-I,m sure i t i s more mal e than femal e_
arri ved wi th moderni sm,
wi th the di sappearance
of perspecti ve.
He seems born out of the pi cture
and, l i ke some perceptual
Adam.
i s drawn back repeatedl y
to contempl ate
i t.The Spectator seems a
l i ttl e dumb; he i s not you
or me. Al ways on cal l , he staggers i nto
pl ace
before every new work that requi res
hi s presence.Thi s
obl i g-
i ng stand-i n i s ready to enact our fanci est
specul ati ons.
He tests
them pati entl y
and does not resent that we provi de
hi m wi th di rec_
ti ons and responses:
"The
vi ewer feel s . . .";
,,the
observer
noti ces . . .";
"
the spectator moves . . . .,, He i s sensi ti ve to effects:
"The
effect on the specrator i s . . . .,, He smel l s out ambi gui ti es l i ke
a bl oodhound:
"caught
between these ambi gui ti es,
thei pec_
tator. . . ." He not oni y stands and si ts on command;
he l i es down
and even crawl s as moderni sm presses
on hi m i ts fi nal i ndi gni ti es.
) 9
Roy Li chtenstei n
,
Stretcher Frame, 196E,
courtesy Irvi ng Bl um (photo: Rudol ph Burckhardt)
Pl unged i nto darkness, depri ved ofperceptual cues, bl asted by
strobes, he frequently watches his own image chopped up and
recycled by a variety of media. Art conjugates him, but he is a slug-
gish
verb, eager to carry the weight of meaning but not always up
to i t. He bal ances; he tests; he i s mysti fi ed, demysti fi ed.In
ti me. the
Spectator stumbles around between confusing roles: he is a cluster
of motor reflexes, a dark-adapted wanderer, the vivant in a tab-
l eau, an actor manqu, even a tri gger of sound and l i ght i n a space
l and-mi ned for art. He may even be tol d that he hi msel f i s an arti st
and be persuaded
that hi s contri buti on to what he observes or
trips over is its authenticating
signature.
Yet the Spectator has a di gni fl ed pedi gree.
Hi s geneal ogy
i ncl udes the ei ghteenth century rati onal i st wi th an astute eye-
Addi son' s
Spectator, perhaps,
whose gal l ery
equi val ent i s cal l ed
"the
onl ooker" and
"the
behol der." A cl oser antecedent i s the
Romantic self, which quickly
splits to produce
an actor and an
audi ence, a protagoni st
and an eye that observes hi m.
Thi s Romanti c spl i t i s comparabl e to the addi ti on of the thi rd
actor to the Greek stage. Level s of awareness are mul ti pl i ed,
rel ati onshi ps reformed, new voi ds fi l l ed i n wi th meta-commentary
by the audi ence.The Spectator and hi s snobbi sh cousi n the Eye
arri ve i n good
company. Del acroi x cal l s them up occasi onal l y;
Baudel ai re hobnobs wi th them.They are not on such good terms
wi th each other.The epi cene Eye i s far more i ntel l i gent than the
Spectator, who has a touch of mal e obtuseness. The Eye can be
trai ned i n a way the Spectator cannot.It i s a fi nel y tuned, even
nobl e organ, estheti cal l y and soci ai l y superi or to the Specrator. It
i s easy for a wri ter to have a Spectator around*there i s somethi ng
of the Eternal Footman about hi m. It i s more di ffi cul t to have an
Eye, al though no wri ter shoul d be wi thout one. Not havi ng an Eye
i s a sti gma to be hi dden, perhaps
by knowi ng someone who has
one.
The Eye can be di rected but wi th l ess confi dence than rhe Spec-
tator, who, unl i ke the Eye, i s rather eager to pl ease.The
Eye i s an
oversensi ti ve acquai ntance wi th whom one must stay on
good
terms. It is often quizzed
a little nervously, its responses received
4l
respectfully. It must be waited on while it observes
-
observation
being its perfectly specialized function:
"The
eye discriminates
between . . . .The eye resol ves . . . .The eye takes i n. bal ances,
weighs, discerns, perceives . . . ." But like any thoroughbred, it has
its limits.
"Sometimes
the eye fails to perceive . . . ." Not always
predi ctabl e, i t has been known to l i e.It has troubl e wi th content,
which is the last thing the Eye wants to see. It is no good at all for
Iooki ng at cabs, bathroom fl xtures, gi rl s, sports resul ts.Indeed, i t i s
so speci al i zed i t can end up watchi ng i tsel f. But i t i s unmatched for
l ooki ng at a parti cul ar
ki nd of art.
The Eye i s the onl y i nhabi tant of the sani ti zed i nstal l ati on shot.
The Spectator i s not present.
Instal l ati on shots are general l y
of
abstract works; real i sts don,t go i n for them much.In i nstal l ati on
shots the question
of scaie is confirmed (the size of the gallery is
deduced from the photo) and bl urred (the absence of a Spectator
coul d mean the gal l ery i s 30 feet hi gh).Thi s scal el essness conforms
with the fluctuations through which reproduction passes the suc-
cessful work of art. The art the Eye i s brought to bear on al most
exciusively is that which preserves the picture plane
-
mainstream
moderni sm.The Eye mai ntai ns the seaml ess gal l ery space. i ts wal l s
swept by fl at pl anes
of duck. Everythi ng el se-al l thi ngs i mpure,
i ncl udi ng col l age-favors the Spectator.The Spectator stands i n
space broken up by the consequences ofcol l age, the second great
force that al tered the gal l ery space. When the Spectator i s Kurt
Schwi tters, we are brought to a space we can onl y occupy through
eyewi tness reports, by wal ki ng our eyes through photographs that
tantal i ze rather than confi rm experi ence: hi s Merzbau of 1923 at
Hanover, destroyed i n 1943.
"It
grows
about the way a big city does." wrote Schwitters,
"when
a new bui l di ng goes
up, the Housi ng Bureau checks to see
that the whol e appearance of the ci ty i s not goi ng
to be rui ned.In
my case, I run across something or other that looks to me as
though it would be right for the I(deE
ICathedral
of Erotic Mis-
eryl , so I pi ck i t up. take i t home, and attach i t and pai nt
i t, al ways
keeping in mind the rhythm of the whole.Then a day comes when
I realize I have a corpse on my hands-relics of a movement in art
- - . - '
Kur t Schw_i r t er s,
i 4 er zbau, begun
l 92l _desr r oyed
1941,
Ha nover,
Germanv
43
rhat is now pass. So what happens is that I leave them alone, only
I cover them up either wholly or partly with other things, making
clear that they are being downgraded. As the structure grows big-
ger and bigger, valleys, hollows, caves appear, and these lead a life
of their own within the overall structure.The
juxtaposed
surfaces
give rise to forms twisting in every direction, spiralling upward. An
arrangement of the most strictly geometrical cubes covers the
whole, underneath which shapes are curiously bent or otherwise
twisted until their complete dissolution is achieved."
Witnesses don't report on themselves in the Merzbau.They look
4f it, rather than experience themselves in it. The Environment
was a genre nearly forty years away, and the idea of a surrounded
spectator was not yet a conscious one. All recognized the invasion
of space, the author being, as Werner Schmalenbach put it,
"pro-
gressively dispossessed." The energy
powering this invasion is not
recognized. though mentioned by Schwitters, for if the work had
any organizing
principle, it was the mythos of a city.The city pro-
vided materials, models of process, and a
primitive
esthetic of
jux-
taposi ti on-congrui ty forced by mi xed needs and i ntenti ons.The
ci ty i s the i ndi spensabl e context of col l age and of the gal l ery space.
Modern art needs the sound of traffic outside to authenticate it.
The Merzbau was a tougher, more sinister work than it appears
in the photographs available to us. It grew out of a studio
-
that is,
a space, materi al s, an arti st, and a process. Space extended (up-
stai rs and downstai rs) and so di d ti me (to about l 3 years).The
work cannot be remembered as static, as it looks in photographs.
Framed by meters and years, it was a mutating, polyphonic con-
struct, with multiple subjects, functions, concepts of space and of
art. It contained in reliquaries mementoes of such friends as Gabo,
Arp, Mondrian, and Richter. It was an autobiography of voyages in
the ci ty.There was a
"morgue"
of ci ty scenari os (The Sex Cri me
Cave,The Cathedral of Erotic Misery,The Grotto of Love,The Cave of
the Murderers). Cul tural tradi ti on was preserved (The Ni ebel ungen
Cave,The Goethe Cave, the absurd Mi chel angel o Exhi bi ti on\.It
revised history (The Cave of Depreciated Heroes) and offered models
of behavi or (The Caves of HeroWorshi p)
-two
bui l t-i n systems of
44
value that, like their environment,
were subject to change. Most of
these Expressionist/Dada
conceirs
were buried, like guii,
by the
later
constructivist
overlay that turned the Merzbaulnto
a utopian
hybri d: part practi cal
desi gn (desk,
stool ), parr
scul prure, part
architecture.As
the Expressionism/Dada
was collaged
ovea
esthetic history was literalized
into an archeological
record.The
Constructivism
did not clarify the structure,
which remained,
as
Schmal enbach
says,
"i rrati onal
space.,,Both
space and arti st_we
tend to thi nk of them together-exchanged
i denti ti es
and masks.
As the author's identities
are externalized
onto his shell/cave/
room, the wal l s advance
upon hi m. Eventual l y
he fl i ts around a
shri nki ng space l i ke a pi ece
of movi ng col l age.
There i s somerhi ng
i nvol uti onal
and i nsi de-out
abour the
Merzbau.Its
concept had a ki nd of nutti ness
that some vi si tors
acknowledged
by commenting
on its lack of eccentricitv.
Its
numerous
di al ecti cs
-
between Dada and constructi vi sm,
structure
and experience,
the organic and the archeological,
the city outside,
the space i nsi de-spi ral
around
one word: transformati on.Kate
Steinitz, the Merzbau's
most perceptive
visitor, noticed
a cave
,,in
whi ch a bottl e of uri ne was sol emnl y di spl ayed
so that the rays of
l i ght that fel l on i t rurned
the l i qui d to gol d.,,The
sacramental
nature of transformation
is deeply connected
to Romantic
i deal i sm;
i n i ts expressi oni st phase
i t tests i tsel f by performi ng
rescue
operati ons among the most degraded materi al s and sub_
j ects'
Ini ti al l y
the pi cture pl ane
i s an i deal i zed
transformi ng
space.
The transformati on
of obj ects i s contextuar,
a matter of rel ocati on.
Proxi mi ty
to the pi cture pl ane
assi sts thi s transformati on.
When
i sol ated,
the conrext of obj ects i s the gal l ery.
Evenrual l y,
rhe gal l ery
i tsel f becomes, l i ke the pi cture pl ane,
a transformi ng
force. at thi s'
poi nt,
as Mi ni mal i sm
demonstrated.
art can be l i teral i zed
and
detransformed;
the gal l ery
wi l l make i t art anyway. Ideal i sm i s
hard to exri ngui sh i n art, because rhe empry g"i l .i y
i tsel f becomes
art manqud and so preserves
it. Schwitt ers,s Merzbau may be the
fir-st example of a
"gallery,,
as a chamber of transformatibn,
from
which the world can be colonized
by the converted
eye.
Schwitters's
career offers another
example of an intimate space
45
defined by his proprietary aura. During his stay in a British deten-
tion camp for enemy aliens, on the Isle of Wight, he established a
living space under a table. This creation of place in a camp for dis-
pl aced peopl e i s ani mal ,l udi crous, and di gni fi ed.In retrospect,
this space, which, like the Merzbau,we can only remember, sig-
nifies how firmly Schwitters forced a reciprocal function between
art and life. mediated in this case by
just
living. Like pieces of Merz,
the trivia of sub-tabular occupancy, curtained by moving feet, are
transformed in time. by day-to-day living, into ritual. Could we
now say this was partly a performance piece in a self-created
proto-gal l ery?
Schwi tters' s Merzbau,l i ke other Cubi st col l ages, sports an odd
l etter-l etters and words bei ng donors of, i n Braque' s vi ew,
"a
feel -
i ng of certai nty." Col l age i s a noi sy busi ness. A soundtrack accom-
panies its words and letters.Without
going into the attractive com-
plexities of the letter and the word in modernism, they are disrup-
ti ve. From Futuri sm to the Bauhaus, words cut across medi a and
literally force themselves on stage. All mixed movements have a
theatri cal component whi ch runs paral l el to the
gal l ery space but
whi ch, i n my vi ew, doesn' t contri bute much to i ts defl ni ti on.Theat-
ri cal conventi ons di e i n the gal l ery. Schwi tters may have recog-
ni zed thi s when he separated hi s two ki nds of theater: one was a
chaoti c mul ti -sensory actual i zati on of the Merzbau, envel opi ng
the spectator; the other a clariflcation of the conventional stage
through Constructi vi sm. Nei ther real l y i ntrudes on the gal l ery
space, though the i mmacul ate gal l ery does show some traces of
Constructi vi st housekeepi ng. Performance i n the gal l ery sub-
scribes to an entirely different set of conventions from stage
performance.
Schwi tters' s reci tati ons broke the conventi ons of ordi nary l i fe
-
tal ki ng, i ecturi ng.The way hi s properl y dressed person framed hi s
utterances must have been di sori enti ng
-
l i ke a bank tel l er passi ng
you a hold-up note after cashing your check. In a letter to Raoul
Hausmann he reports on a visit to Van Doesburg's
group in 1921-
24:
"Doesburg
read a very good dadaistic Program
[in
the Hague], in which
46
he said the dadaist would do something unexpected.
At that moment I
rose from the middle of the
publick
and barked loud. some people
fainred
and were carried out, and the
papers
reported,
that Dada meani barkine.
At once we got
Engagements
from Haarlem and Amsterdam.
It was soli
out in Haarlem, and I walked so that all could see me, and all waited that
I should bark. Doesburg
said again, I would do something unexpected.
This time I blew my nose.The papers
wrore phat
[sic]
I didnot bark, that I
blew only my nose. In Amsterdam it was so full, that people gave phan_
t ast i c pri ses
[ si c]
t o get st i l l a sear, I di dnt bark, nor bl ow my nose, i reci t ed
t he Revol ut i on. A
l ady coul d not st op l aughi ng and had t o be carri ed
out .
"
The gestures
are precise
and could be briefly interpreted
-
,,I
am
a dog, a sneezer. a pamphl et .
"
Li ke pi eces
of Merz, t hey are col -
l aged i nt o a set si t uat i on (envi ronment ),
f rom whi ch t hey deri ve
energy.The indeterminacy
of that context is favorable ground for
t he growt h
of new convent i ons, whi ch i n t he t heat er woul d be
smothered by the convention of
' .acting.,,
Happenings
were first enacted in indeterminate, nontheatrical
spaces
-
warehouses,
desert ed f act ori es, ol d st ores. Happeni ngs
medi at ed a caref ul st and-of f bet ween avant -garde t heat er and
col l age. They
concei ved t he spect at or as a ki nd of col l age i n t hat
he was spread out over t he i nt eri or-hi s
at t ent i on spl i t by si mul -
t aneous event s, hi s senses di sorgani zed
and redi st ri but ed
by f i rml y
t ransgressed
l ogi c. Not much was sai d at most Happeni ngs. but ,
l i ke t he ci t y t hat provi ded
t hei r t hemes, t hey l i t eral l y crawl ed wi t h
words. Words, \ nd. eed, ,
was t he t i t l e of an Envi ronment wi t h whi ch
Al l an I (aprow encl osed t he spect at or i n l 96l ; I 4l o rds cont ai ned
ci rcul at i ng names (peopl e)
who were i nvi t ed t o cont ri but e words
on paper
t o at t ach t o wal l s and part i t i ons.
Col l age seems t o have a
l at ent desi re t o t urn i t sel f out si de-i n; t here i s somet hi ne wombl i ke
about i t .
Yet the realization
of the Environment
was oddly retarded. Why
i s t here al most not hi ng Envi ronment al
bet ween Cubi sm and
Schwi t t ers
-
barri ng f ort hcomi ng Russi an surpri ses
-
or bet ween
Schwitters and the Environments
of the late fifties and early sixties
which arrive in a cluster with Fluxus, the New Realists, Kaprow.
I (i enhol z, and ot hers? I t may be t hat i l l ust rari ve
Surreal i sm, con-
47
Al l an Kaprow,.4r Appl e Shri ne, Envi ronmenr, 19 60,
cour t esy Judson Gal l er y, New Yor k ( phor o: Rober t McEhoy)
48
serving the illusion
within
the picture,
avoided
the imprications
of
the expulsion
from the picture
plane
into real space. Within this
time there are great
landmarks
and gestures
that conceive
of the
gailery
as a unit-Lissitzky
designed
a modern gallery
space in
1925 in Hanover,
as Schwitters
was working
athis Meribau.But
wi th some doubtful excepti ons (Duchamp,s
coal bags and stri ng?),
they do not emerge from
collage. Environmental
collaee
and
assemblage
clarify themserves
with the acceptance
of ihe tabreau
as a genre.
Wi th tabl eaux (Segal ,
I(i enhol z),
the i l l usi oni sri c
space
within the traditional picture
is actualized
in rhe box of the gallery.
The passi on
to actual i ze
even i l l usi on i s a mark_even
a sti gma_of
si xti es art. Wi th the tabl eau,
the gal l ery
,,i mpersonates,,
other
spaces.Ir i s a bar (Ki enhol z),
a hospi tal room (I(i enh
ol z), a gas
stati on (Segal ),
a bedroom (Ol denburg),
a l i vi ng room (Segal ).
a
"real "
studi o (Samaras).The
gal l ery
spa..,,q,rotes,,
the tabl eaux
and makes them art, much as their representation
became art
within
the illusory
space of a traditional picture.
The spectator i n a tabl eau
somehow
feets he shoul dn' t
be there.
Segal ' s art makes thi s cl earer than anyone
el se,s. Hi s obj ects_great
l umps
of them
-
wear a hi story
of previ ous
occupancy,
whether
bus or di ner
or door.Thei r
fami l i ari ty
i s di stanced
by i he gal l ery
context
and by rhe sense ofoccupancy
conveyed
Uy tfre plastei
figures.
The figures
freeze this history bf urug. at a parricular
time.
Li ke peri od
rooms,
Segal ,s pi eces
are cl osel yl i me_bound
whi l e
they i mi tate
ti mel essness.
Si nce the envi ronment
i s occupi ed
already,
our relationship
to it is partly preempted
by the figures,
which have the blush of life completely
withdrawn
from them.
They-even
i n thei r mode
of manufacture-are
si muracra
of the
living
and ignore
us with some of the irritating
indifference
of the
dead.
Despi te thei r postures,
whi ch si gni fy ratf,er than enact
relationships,
they also seem indifferent
to each other.There
is a
sl ow, abstract l apse
between
each of them and between
them and
thei r envi ronment.
Thei r occupancy
of thei r envi ronment
i s a l arge
subj ect. But the effect on the spectator
who
j oi ns
them i s one of
trespass.
Because
trespass
makes one partl y
vi si bl e to onesel f, i t
pl ays
down
body l anguage.
encourages
a conventi on
ofsi l ence.
49
and tends to substitute the Eye for the Spectator. This is exactly
what would happen if Segal's tableaux were painted pictures.It is
a very sophisticated form of
"realism."
Segal's white plaster is a
convention of removal, which also removes us from ourselves.
Encountering a Hanson or a de Andrea is shocking; it violates
our own sense of reality or the reality of our senses. They trespass
not only on our space but on our credibility.They derive, in my
view, not so much from sculpture as from collage, something taken
indoors and artified by the gallery. Outdoors, in the proper con-
text, they would be accepted as live, that is. would not be looked at
twice.They are stations on the way to the ultimate piece
of coilage
-the
l i vi ng fi gure.Thi s fi gure was provi ded at O. K. Harri s i n 1972
by Carlin Jeffrey: the living sculpture. which, like a piece of col-
lage, declared
-
on request
-
its own history. A live figure as a col-
lage returns us to Picasso's costumes for Parade, a walking Cubist
picture; and it is a good point at which to pick
up these two mod-
ern familiars, the Eye and the Spectator, again.
The Eye and the Spectator set off in different directions from
Anal yti c Cubi sm.The Eye goes al ong wi th Syntheti c Cubi sm as i t
takes up the business of redefining the picture plane. The Spec-
tator, as we have seen, copes wi th the i nvasi on of real space from
Pandora' s pi cture pi ane, opened by col l age. These two di recti ons
-
or tradi ti ons, as the cri ti c Gene Swenson cal l ed them-vi e wi th
each other i n thei r opprobri um.The Eye l ooks down on the Spec-
tator; the Spectator thinks the Eye is out of touch with real life.
The comedies of the relationship are of Wildean proportions; an
Eye wi thout a body and a body wi thout much of an Eye usual l y
cut each other dead.Yet they indirectly maintain a kind of dialogue
no one wants to noti ce. And i n l ate moderni sm the two come
together for the purpose of refreshi ng thei r mi sunderstandi ng.
After modernism's final
-
and American
-
climax, the Eye bears
Pol l ock' s pi cture pl ane off tri umphantl y toward Col or Fi el d; the
Spectator brings it into real space where anything can happen.
In the late sixties and seventies, Eye and Spectator negotiate
some transactions. Minimal objects often provoked perceptions
other than the visual.Though what was there instantly declared
50
Cl aes Ol denbur g, Happeni ng f r om, , The
St r eet , , ,
cour t esy Leo Cast el l i cal l er y, New
yor k
( phot o: Mar t ha Hol mes)
5 l
itsclf to the eye, ir had to be checked; otherwise, what was the
poinr
of rhree-dimensionality?
There are two kinds of time here:
i5( <t?
ryrchended
rhe object at once, like painting,
then the
body bore the eye around it.This prompted
a feedback
between
expectation confirmed (chpcking)
and hitherto
subliminal bodily
sensation. Eye and Spectator were not fused but cooperated for
the occasion.The
finely tuned Eye was impressed
with some
residual data from irs abandoned
bbdy (the
kinesthetics ofgravity.
tracking, etc.
)
. The Spectator's other senses, always there inlhe
raw, were infused with some of the Eye,s fine discriminations.The
Eye urges the body around to provi de
i t wi th i nformati on_the
body becomes a data-gatherer.There
is heavy traffic in both direc-
ti ons on thi s sensory hi ghway-between
sensati on
conceptual i zed
and concept actualized. In this unstable rapprochement
lie the
origins of perceptual
scenarios, performance,
and Body Art.
The empty gallery,
then, is not empty. Its walls are sensitized by
the picture plane.
its space primed
by collage; and it contains two
tenants with a long-term lease. Why was it necessary to invent
them? Why do the Eye and the Spectator separate themsel ves
out
from our dai l y persons
to i nterrupt and doubl e our senses?
It often feeis as if we can no longer experience anything if we
don't first alienate it. In fact, alienation may now be a necessary
preface
to experience.Anything
too close to us bears the label
,,Ob-
j ecti fy
and Re-i ngest.
"
Thi s mode of handl i ng experi ence
-
espe-
ci al l y art experi ence-i s i nescapabl y modern. But whi l e i ts pathos
i s obvi ous, i t i s not al l negati ve. As a mode of experi ence i t can be
cal l eddegenerate,
but i t i s no more so than our,,space,, i s degener-
ate. It i s si mpl y the resul t of certai n necessi ti es pressed
upon us.
Much of our experi ence can onl y be brought home through medi -
ati on.The vernacul ar exampl e i s the snapshot.you
can onl y see
what a good time you had from the summer snapshots. Experience
can then be adj usted to certai n norms of
,,havi ng
a good
ti me.,,
These I(odachrome
icons are used to convince friends you did have
a good
ti me-i f they bel i eve i t, you
bel i eve i t. Everyone wanrs ro
have photographs
not only to prove
but to invent their experience.
This constellation
of narcissism, insecurity, and pathos
is so
52
Lucas Samar a s, Bedr oom, 1964,
courtesy The
pace
Gal l erv, New
york
5 3
\ ) , ' ' : :
'"rt39,'
\
e,
(E!
F,4
Yi
I
irl
;ul_i
Irt
RAIE
h
'?f-ffi
economy
SAErt
FIR,E}tEN
MESS
BEEN
ITIXESS
CALIiOK'|IU
AMOt,,i
which
Al l an Kapr ow, l 4zor ds ( det ai l ) , Envi r onment , l 9 62
. t
influential I suppose none of us is quite free of it.
So in most areas of experience there is a busy traffic in proxies
and surrogates.The i mpl i cati on i s that di rect experi ence mi ght ki l l
us. Sex used to be the last stand where privacy preserved
direct
experi ence wi thout the i nterposi ti on of model s. But when sex
went publ i c,
when i ts study became as unavoi dabl e as tenni s, the
fatal surrogate entered, promising
"real"
experience by the very
consci ousness of sel f that makes i t i naccessi bl e. Here, as wi th other
medi ated experi ence,
"feel i ng"
i s turned i nto a consumer product.
Modern art, however, in this as in other areas, was ahead of its
ti me. For the Vi ewer-l i teral l y
somethi ng you l ook through-and
the Eye val i date experi ence. They
j oi n
us whenever we enter a
gal l ery,
and the sol i tari ness of our perambul ati ons
i s obl i gatory,
because we are really holding a mini-seminar with our surrogates.
To that exact degree, we are absent.
presence
before a work of art,
then, means that we absent ourselves in favor of the Eye and Spec-
tator, who report to us what we might have seen had we been
there. The absent work of art is frequently more present
to us. (I
believe Rothko understood this better rhan any other artist.
)
This
compl ex anatomy of l ooki ng at art i s our
"el sewhere"
tri p; i t i s
fundamental to our provisional
modern identity, which is alwavs
bei ng recondi ti oned by our Iabi l e senses. ror thi Spectator and i he
Eye are conventi ons whi ch stabi l i ze our mi ssi ng sense of our-
sel ves. They acknowl edge that our i denti ty i s i tsel f a fi cti on, and
they gi ve us the i l l usi on we are present through a doubl e-edged
sel f-consci ousness. We obj ecti fy and consume art, then, to nouri sh
our nonexi stent sel ves or to mai ntai n some estheti c starvel i ng
cal l ed
"formal i st
man." Al l thi s i s cl earer i f we go back to rhat
moment when a pi cture became an acti ve partner
i n percepti on.
Impressi oni sm' s fl rst spectators must have had a l ot of troubl e
seei ng the pi ctures.When
an attempt was made to veri fy the sub-
j ect
by goi ng
up cl ose, i t di sappeared.The Spectator was forced to
run back and forth to trap bi ts ofcontent before they evaporated.
The pi cture,
no l onger a passi ve
obj ect, was i ssui ng i nstructi ons.
And the Spectator began to utter hi s fi rst compl ai nts: not onl y
"What
i s i t supposed to be?" and
"What
does i t mean?" but
C I aes Ol denbur g
, Bedr oom Ensembl e, 19 6j ,
cour t esy Nat i onal Gal l er y of Canada, Or r awa
56
var d Ki enhol z. Tl r e Beaner y ( det ai l ) , 1965,
ect i on of t he S r edel i j k Muse um, Amst er dam
5 7
Duane Hanson, Man wi t h HandTr uck, 1975,
courtesy O. K. Harri s Works of Afi , New York (phoro: Eri c Pol l i tzer)
5 8
ohn de Andr ea, i nst al l at i on vi ew, 1974,
ourtesy O. K. Harri s Works of Art, New York
5 9
Geor ge Segal , cas St dt i on. 1968,
co u i l esy Nat i onal 6al l er y of Ca na da, Ot t awa
"Where
am I supposed
to stand?' ,
probl ems
of deportment
are
i ntri nsi c
to moderni sm.
Impressi oni sm
began that harassment
of
the Spectator
inseparable
from most advanced
art.As we read
avant-garde
dispatches,
it seems that modernism paraded
through
a vast sensory anguish.
For once the object of scrutiny
becomes
active;
our senses are on trial. Modernism
underrineJ
the fact that
"identity"
in the twentieth
century is centered
around perception,
on which subject philosophy,
physiology,
and psychology
have
also converged
major efforts.Indeed, just
as systems
were a
ni neteenth
century
obsessi on, pe rcepti on
i s a twenti eth.It
medi ates
between
obj ect and i dea and i ncl udes
both. Once the
,,acti ve,.
artwork i s i ncl uded
i n the perceptual
arc, the senses
are cal l ed i nto
questi on;
and si nce the senses apprehend
the data that confi rm
identity,
identity
becomes problematic.
The Eye then stands for two opposite
forces: the fragmentation
of the self and the illusion
of holding it together.The
S.-pecrator
makes possible
such experience
as we are allowed
to have. Aliena_
ti on and estheti c di stance
become confused-and
not unprofi tabrv.
It seems like an unstable
situation: a fractured
self, senses on the
bl i nk, surrogates
empl oyed i n tasks of fi ne di scri mi nati on.
But i r,s
a tight lirrle sysrem
with a lot of stability
built into it. Ir is reinforced
every time you
call on the Eye and the Spectator.
But the Eye and the Spectator srand for more than sl i ppi ng
senses and mutati ng i denti ty.
When we became sel f-consci ous
about l ooki ng
at a work of art (l ooki ng
at oursel ves l ooki ng),
any
certai nty about what' s
"out
there,,was
eroded
by the unceri ai nti es
ofthe perceptual
process.The
Eye and the Spectator stand for that
process,
whi ch conti nual l y
restates the paradoxes
of consci ous-
ness. There i s an opportuni ty
to di spense wi th those two surro-
gates
and experi ence
.,di rectl y.,,
Such expei i ence.
ofcourse. can_
cel s the sel f- consci o u sness that sustai ns memory.
So Eye and Spec_
tator acknowl edge
the desi re for di rect experi ence,
at the same
ti me they recogni ze
that the moderni st
consci ousness
can onl y
temporari l y
submerge i tsel f i n process.
Agai n the Eye and Spec_
tator
emerge wi th a doubl e functi on
_
as much curators of our
consci ousness
as subverters
of i t. Some postmodern
art shows an
6 l
Carl i n Jeffrey. i nstal l ati on vi ew t972.
cour t esy O. K. Har r i s Wor ks of Ar r , New
yor k
(photo:
Eri c Pol l i tzer)
Kosut h, i nst al l ar i
on vi ew, l 97
2
sy Leo Casr el l i
Gal l er y, New
yor k
"r
tl l -
r\---iSrl-.\
6 )
exact appreci ati on ofthi s.Its
quotas ofprocess are frozen by those
traces of organized memory
-
documentation, which
provides not
the experi ence, but the evi dence of i t.
Process, then, gives us opportunities
to eliminate the Eye and
the Spectator as wel l as to i nsti tuti onal i ze them; and thi s has hap-
pened. Hard-core Conceptual i sm el i mi nates the Eye i n favor of
the mi nd.The audi ence reads. Language i s reasonabl y wel l equi p-
ped to exami ne the sets of condi ti ons that formul ate art' s end-
product:
"meani ng."
Thi s i nqui ry tends to become sel f-referenti al
or contextual
-
that i s, more l i ke art or more l i ke the condi ti ons
that sustai n i t.
One of these condi ti ons i s the gal l ery space.Thus there i s a mar-
vel ous paradox about Joseph I(osuth' s
"i nstal l ati on"
at Castel l i i n
I972: tl re tabl es, the benches, the open books.It i s not a l ooki ng
room; i t i s a readi ng room.The ceremony of i nformal i ty i s decep-
tive. Here is the aura of Wittgenstein's study, as we might imagine
i t. Or i s i t a school room? Bare, essenti al , even
puri tani cal , i t cancel s
as weli as draws on the special cloister of esthetics tllat the gallery
i s. It i s a remarkabl e i mage.
So i s i ts opposi te
-
an i mage of a man i n a gal l ery threateni ng hi s
own substance wi th i mpl i ci t or expl i ci t vi ol ence.If Conceptual i sm
eliminates the Eye by once again making it the servant of the
mi nd, Body Art, such as Chri s Burden' s, i denti fi es the Spectator
wi th the arti st and the arti st wi th art-a sacramental tri ni ty. The
puni shment of the Spectator i s a theme of advanced art. Ei i mi nat-
ing the Spectator by identifying him with the artist's body and
enacti ng on that body the vi ci ssi tudes of art and
process i s an
extraordinary conceit. We perceive again the double movement.
Experi ence i s made
possi bl e but onl y at the
pri ce of al i enati ng i t.
There is something infinitely
pathetic about the single figure in
the gal l ery, testi ng Ii mi ts, ri tual i zi ng i ts assaul ts on i ts body,
gather-
ing scanty information on the flesh it cannot shake off.
In these extreme cases art becomes the l i fe of the mi nd or the
iife of the body, and each offers its returns ' The Eye disappears into
the mi nd, and the Spectator, i n a surrogate' s
phantom sui ci de,
induces his own elimination.
64
III. Context as Content
When we al l had front doors-not i ntercom and buzzer-the knock
at the door sti l l had some atavi sti c resonance. De
eui ncy
got
off
one of hi s best passages on the knocki ng at the gate i n Macbeth.
The knocki ng announces that
"the
aweful parenthesi s"-the
cri me
-i s
over and that
"the
goi ngs-on
of the worl d i n whi ch we l i ve"
are back. Literature places
us as knocker (Mrs. Blake answering
the door since Mr. Blake is in Heaven and must not be disturbed)
and knockee (the visitor from Porlock bringing Coleridge down
from his l(ubla l(han high). The unexpected visitor summons anti-
ci pati on, i nsecuri ty, even dread-despi te that i t' s usual l y nothi ng.
sometimes a kid who knocked and ran away.
If the house i s the house of moderni sm, what knocks can you
expect? The house i tsel f, bui l t on i deal foundati ons, i s i mposi ng,
even though the nei ghborhood i s changi ng.It has a Dada ki tchen,
a fi ne Surreal i st atti c, a utopi an pl ayroom,
a cri ti cs' mess, cl ean,
wel l -i i ghted gal l eri es for what i s current. voti ve l i ghts ro vari ous
sai nts, a sui ci de cl oset, vast storage rooms, and a basement fl op-
house where fai l ed hi stori es l i e around mumbl i ng l i ke bums. We
hear the Expressi oni st' s thunderous knock, the Surreal i st' s coded
knock, the Real i sts at the tradesman' s entrance, the Dadas sawi ng
through the back door. Very typical is the Abstracrionisr's single,
unrepeated knock. And unmi statabl e i s the peremptory knock of
historical inevitability, which sets the whole house scurrying.
Usually when we're deep in something, a gentle
knock draws us
to answer it by its lack of pretension
-
it can't be much. We open
the door to find a rather shabby figure, with a face like the Shadow,
65
but very benign. We are always surprised to find Marcel Duchamp
there; but there he is, inside before we know it. and after his visit-
he never stays too l ong-the house i s not qui te
the same. He fi rst
vi si ted the house' s
"whi te
cube" i n l 9l 8 and i nvented the cei l i ng-
i f i nventi on i s maki ng us consci ous of what we agree not to see,
i.e., take for granted.The
second time, four years later, he delivered
every parti ci e
of the i nteri or space to our consci ousness
-
con-
sci ousness and the l ack of i t bei ng Duchamp' s basi c di al ecti c.
The cei l i ng, unti l he
"stood"
on i t i n 1938, seemed rel ati vel y safe
from artists. It's already taken up by skylights, chandeliers, tracks.
fixtures. We don't look at the ceiling much now. In the history of
i ndoor l ooki ng up, we rank l ow. Other ages put pl enty
up there to
l ook at. Pompei i proposed,
among other thi ngs, that more women
than men l ooked at the cei l i ng.The Renai ssance cei l i ng l ocked i ts
painted figures into geometric
cells. The Baroque ceiling is always
sel l i ng us somethi ng orher than the cei l i ng, as i f the i dea of shel ter
had to be transcended; the cei l i ng i s real l y an arch, a dome, a sky, a
vortex swirling figures until they vanish through a celestial hole,
l i ke a subl i me overhead toi l eu or i t i s a l uxuri ous pi ece of hand-
tool ed furni ture, stamped, gi l ded,
an al bum for the fami l y escutch-
eon.The Rococo cei l i ng i s as embroi dered as underwear (sex) or a
doi l y (eati ng).The
Georgi an cei l i ng l ooks l i ke a whi te carpet, i ts
stuccoed border often stopping short of the angle of ceiling and
wal l s; i nsi de, the central rose, di mpl ed wi th shadow, from whi ch
descends the opulent chandelier. Often the imagery up there
suggests that l ooki ng up was construed as a ki nd of l ooki ng down,
which gently reverses the viewer into a walking stalactite.
With electric light, the ceiling became an intensely cultivated
garden of fi xtures, and moderni srn si mpl y i gnored i t. The cei l i ng
Iost i ts rol e i n the ensembl e of the total room.The Georgi an cei l i ng,
for i nstance, dropped a pal i sade
to the pi cture mol di ng, extendi ng
the roof
's
domain as a graceful, graduated
e4closure. Modern
architecture simply ran rhe blank wall into the blank ceiling and
Iowered the l i d. And whar a l i d! Its pods, fl oods, spots, cani srers,
ducts make it a technician's playground.
Up there is yet another
undiscovered vernacular,
with all the
probitv
of function that cer-
66
tifies its bizarre arrangements of grid
and acoustic tlle as honest-
that i s, unconsci ous.
So our consci ousness. whi ch spreads l i ke a
fungus, invents virtues the schlock designer didn,t know he/she
had. (The morality of vernacular is our new snobbism.) The only
grace
technology bestowed on rhe ceiling is indirect lighting,
which blooms like lily pads
on the overhead pond
or which, from
recessed lips. flushes an area of ceiling with the crepuscular
smoothness of an Ol i tski . Indi rect l i ghti ng i s the col or fi el d of rhe
cei l i ng. But up there too i s a dazzl i ng garden
of gestal ts.
On the
more common regi ments of recessed l i ghts, cri sscrossi ng i n endl ess
perceptual
dri l l , we can proj ect
the estheti c of the Mi ni mal /Seri al
era. Order and di sorder smartl y l apse i nto a si ngl e i dea as we move
around below, raising the issue of an alternative to both.
It must have been an odd feeling to come into the International
Exhi bi ti on
of Surreal i sm at the Gal eri e Beaux-Arts i n 193g, see
most of those wild men neatly fitted into their orthodox frames.
then look up expecting the usual dead ceiling and see the
floor.ln
our histories of modern art, we tend to take old photographs
as
gospel .They
are proof,
so we don' t gri l l
them as we woul d any
other witness. But so many questions
about those I
,200 Bags of
Coal don't have answers.Were there really 1,200 bags? (Counting
them is a task to drive Virgos crazy.l Was it the first time an artist
quantified
large numbers, thereby giving
an event a quota,
a con-
ceptual frame? Where di d Duchamp get
those 1,200 bags? (He
fi rst thought of suspendi ng open umbrel l as but coul dn,t get
that
many.
)
And how could they be full of coal? That would bring the
cei l i ng-and the pol i ce-down
on top of hi m.They must have been
stuffed with paper.
How did he attach them all? Who helped him?
You can l ook through the Duchamp tomes and not be cl ear about
this. What happened ro the ceiling lights? The photographs
show
them washing out a cluster of bags here and there. And mystery of
mysteries. why did the other artists let him get away with it?
He had a ti tl e of sorts:
"Generator-Arbi trator.,of
the exhi bi ti on.
Di d he hang the pi crures
al so? Di d he concei ve them si mpl y as
decor for his gesture?
If he were accused of dominating the show,
he coul d say he took onl y what no one wanted-the cei l i ng and a
67
Mar cel Duchamp
, I . 200 Bags of Coal , i nst al l at i on vi ew at
" l nt er nat i onal
Exhi bi r i on oI Sur r eal i sm, " 1938, New Yor k
68
l i ttl e spot on the fl oor; the accusati on woul d underl i ne hi s (gi gan-
ti c) modesty, hi s (excessi ve)
humi l i ty. No one l ooks at the cei l i ng;
it isn't choice terrirory
-
indeed it wasn't (until then) rerritory at
all. Hanging over your head, the largest piece in the show was
unobtrusive physically
but totally obtrusive psychologically.
In one of those bad puns he l oved, Duchamp turned the exhi bi -
ti on topsy-turvy and
"stood
you on your head.,,The cei l i ng i s the
floor and the floor, to drive home the point,
is the ceiling. For the
stove on the floor-a makeshift brazier made from an old barrel,
from the looks of it
-
became a chandelier. The police
rightly
woul dn' t l et hi m put a fi re i n i t, so he settl ed for a l i ght bul b. Above
(bel ow)
are 1,200 bags of fuel and bel ow (above) i s thei r consum-
ing organ. A temporal perspective
stretches between. at the end of
whi ch i s an empty cei l i ng. a conversi on of mass to energy, ashes,
maybe a comment on history and on art.
This inversion is the first time an artist subsumed an entire gal-
lery in a single gesture
-
and managed to do so while it was full of
other art. (He
did this by traversing the space from floor to ceiling.
Few remember that on thi s occasi on Duchamp al so had hi s say
about the wal l : he desi gned the doors l eadi ng i n and out of the
gal l ery.
He made them
-
agai n wi th reservati ons from the pol i ce
-
revol vi ng doors, that i s, doors that confuse i nsi de and outsi de by
spi nni ng what they trap.Thi s i nsi de-outsi de
confusi on i s consi s-
tent wi th ti l ti ng the gal l ery
on i ts axi s.) By exposi ng the effect of
context on art, of the contai ner on the contai ned, Drl champ recog-
ni zed an area ofart that hadn' t yet
been i nvented.Thi s i nventi on
of context i ni ti ated a seri es of gestures
that
,,devel op,,
the i dea
of a gal l ery
space as a si ngl e uni t, sui tabl e for mani pul ati on as an
estheti c counter. From thi s moment on, there i s a seepage of energy
from art to its surroundings. With time the ratio between the
l i teral i zati on
of art and mythi fi cati on
of the gal l ery
i nversel y
i ncreases.
Li ke every good gesture,
Duchamp' s Coal Bags becomes obvi ous
post
facto. Gestures are a form of invention. They can only be done
once, unless everyone agrees to forget them. The best way of forget-
ti ng somethi ng i s to assume i t; our assumpti ons drop out of si ght.
6g
As an invention, however, the gesture's patent is its most distin-
guishing feature
-
far more than its formal contenr, if any. I sup-
pose
the formal content of a gesture lies in its aptness, economy,
and grace. It dispatches the bull of history with a single rhrusr. Yet
it needs that bull, for it shifts perspective
suddenly on a body of
assumptions and ideas.It is to that degree didactic, as Barbara
Rose says, though the word may overplay the intent to teach. If it
teaches, it is by irony and epigram, by cunning and shock. A ges-
ture wises you up.It depends for its effect on the context of ideas it
changes and
j oi ns.
It i s not art, perhaps, but artl i ke and thus has a
meta-life around and about art. Insofar as it is unsuccessful it
remains a frozen curio, if remembered at all. If it is successful it
becomes history and tends to eliminate itself. It resurrects itself
when the context mimics the one that stimulated it. making it
"relevant"
again. So a gesture has an odd historical appearance,
always fainting away and reviving.
The ceiling/floor transplant gesture might now be repeatable as
a
'1project."
A gesture may be a
"young"
project; but it is more
argumentative and epigrammatic, and it speculates riskily on the
future. It calls attention to untested assumptions, overlooked con-
tent, flaws in historical logic. Projects-short-term art made for
speci fi c si tes and occasi ons-rai se the i ssue of how the i mperma-
nent survives. if it does. Documents and photographs
challenge
the historical imagination by presenting to it an art that is already
dead.The hi stori cal process i s both hampered and faci l i tated by
removing the original, which becomes increasingly fictitious as its
afterlives become more concrete.What is preserved
and what is
allowed to lapse edit the idea of history-the form of communal
memory favored at any particular time. Undocumented projects
may survive as rumor and attach themselves to th persona
of
their originator, who is constrained to develop a convincing myth.
Ultimately projects
-
it seems to me
-
are a form of historical
revi si oni sm waged from a pri vi l eged posi ti on.That posi ti on i s
defined by two assumptions: that projects are interesting apart
from being
"
art"
-
that is, they have a somewhat vernacular exis-
tence in the world; and that they can appeal to untrained as well
70
as trained sensibilities. Our architects of personal
space, quasi-
anthropologists, perceptual
revisionists. and mythologists man-
qus
have thus made a break in how the audience is construed. We
are now aware of a tentative attempt to contact an audience that
postmodernism
would like to call up but doesn.t quite
have the
number. This is not the start of a new populism.
It is a recognition
of a neglected resource, as well as disaffection with the privileged
spectator placed
by art education in the gallery
space.It marks a
move away from the modernist conception of the spectator-
abused on the basis of presumed
incompetence, which is funda-
mentally a Romantic position.
Gestures have a becoming quality,
and some can. retroactively.
become projects.There
is a project
shrewdness implicit in
Duchamp's two gallery gestures.They
have survived their naughti-
ness and become historical material, elucidating the gallery
space
and its art. Yet such is Duchampian charisma that they continue to
be seen exclusively in the context of his work. They efficiently
keep history at bay. which is one way of remaining modern (Joyce
is the literary equivalent) . Both the Coal Bags and the Mile of
String, done four years later (1942)
for the First
papers
of Sur-
real i sm show at 5 5l Madi son Avenue, are addressed ambi guousl y.
Are they to be delivered to the spectator, to history, to art criticism,
to other arti sts? To al l , of course, but the address i s bl urred. If
pressed
to send the gestures
somewhere, I'd send them to other
arti sts.
Why did the other artists stand for it not once but twice?
Duchamp was very obl i gi ng about hangi ng peopl e
up on thei r
worst i nsti ncts, especi al l y when those i nsti ncts were di sgui sed as
i deol ogy. The Surreal i sts' i deol ogy of shock someti mes mani fested
itself as exaited public
relations. Shock, as the history of the avant-
garde
shows, i s now smal l -arms equi pment. Duchamp, I feel sure,
was seen as someone who coul d generate
attenti on. In del egati ng
him to provide
it, the artists were playing
little Fausts to an amiable
demon.What is the Mile of String? At a level so obvious our sophis-
tication immediately disallows it, an image of dead time. an exhibi-
tion paralyzed
in premature
senescence and turned into a grotes-
71
que
horror-movie
attic. Both Duchamp,s gestures
fail to
acknowledge
the other art around, which becomes
wallpaper.yet
the artists'protest (did
any ofthem ever say how they feitZl is
preempted.
For the harassment
of their work is disguised as harass_
ment of the spectators.
who have to high-step like hens around it.
Ttvo kids (Sidney
Janis's boys) played
noisy games
during rhe
opening from which Duchamp
of course absented himself. A con_
noisseur of expectations
of all kinds, Duchamp,s interference
with
the spectator's
"set"
is part
of his malign neutrality. The string, by
keeping the spectator from the art, became the one thing he/ihe
remembered.Instead
of being an intervention,
somethi;g between
the spectator and the art, i t gradual l y
became new art of some
ki nd. What i nfl i cts such harassment
i s i nnocuous_
5,2g0 feet of
continuous
string. (Again
the unverifiable quantification
gives
a
conceptual
neatness to the epigram.
)
From the photographs,
the stri ng reconnoi tered
the space
rel entl essl y,
l oopi ng and tauteni ng
across each outcrop wi th
demented persi stence.
It cri sscrosses,
changes speeds, ri cochets
back from poi nts
of attachment,
cl usters i n knots. wheel s new sets
of paral l axes
wi rh every step, parcel l i ng
up the space from the
i nsi de wi thour the sl i ghtest formal worry.
yet
i t fol l ows the al i gn_
ment of the room and bays, errati cal l y repl i cati ng
cei l i ng and
wal l s. No obl i ques pl unge
across the central space, whi ch becomes
fenced i n, casual l y quoti ng
the shape of the room. Despi te the
apparent
ti zzy of randomness,
the room and what i s i n i t deter_
mi ne the stri ng' s peregri nati ons
i n an orderl y enough way. The
spectator i s harassed. Every bi t of space i s marked. Duchamp devel _
ops the moderni st
monad: the spectator i n hi s gal l ery
box.
Li ke al l gesrures,
the stri ng ei ther i s swal l owed
or sti cks i n hi s_
tory' s teeth. It stuck, whi ch means that the formal aspect, i f any,
hasn' t been devel oped.
The stri ng,s pedi gree
borrows from Con-
structi vi sm
and i s a cl i ch i n Surreal i st pai nti ng.
The stri ng
l i teral i zed
rhe space many of the pi ctures
i n thi exhi bi ti on i l l us-
trated.Thi s
actual i zati on
of a pi ctori al
conventi on may be an (un_
consci ous?) precedent
for the wi l l to actual i ze
of the l ate si xti es
and seventi es.To pai nt
somethi ng
i s to recess i t i n i l l usi on. and
72
dissolving
the frame transferred
that function to the galrery
space.
Boxi ng up the space (or
spaci ng up the box) i s part
ofthe central
formal theme
of Duchamp's
art: containment/inside/outside.
From
thi s angl e hi s scattered arti facts ari gn i nto a rough schema.Is
the
box
-
a contai ner
of i deas
-
a surrogate head? And the wi ndows,
doorways,
and apertures
the channel s of sense? The two l ock i nto
fairly convincing
metaphor.
The ricocheting
string (association
tracts?) wraps up the gal l ery
space, moderni sm,s
thi nki ng bowl ;
the Boite en valise is memory; the Large Grass \s the mock mechani-
cal apotheosi s
of aperture and i nserti on (the
i nsemi nati on
of tradi -
ton? the creati ve act?); the doors (open/shut?)
and wi ndows
(opaque/transparent?)
the unrel i abl e senses through whi ch i nfor_
mati on fl ows both ways (as i t does i n puns),
di ssol vi ng i denti ty as
a fi xed l ocati on.
Identi ty l i es scattered
around i n humorousl v
al i enated
body parts,
whi ch contempl ate
i nsi de/outsi de-i i el l sen_
sati on, consci ousness/unconsci ousness -
or rather, the sl ash
(gl ass?)
berween rhe rwo. Lacki ng i denti ty,
rhe parts.
rhe senses,
the i deas decompose
the paradoxi cal
i conographer gl i di ng
around
this anthropomorphic
shambles.
As the Mile of String showed,
Duchamp i s fond of booby traps. He keeps the spectator, whose
presence
i s al ways vol untary,
hung up on hi s own eti quette,
thus
preventing
him/her from disapproving
of his/her own harassment
-
a source of further annoyance.
Hosti l i ty to the audi ence i s one of the key coordi nates
of mod_
erni sm, and arti sts may be cl assi fl ed
accordi ng to i ts wi t, styl e, and
depth. Li ke some obvi ous subj ects, i t has been i gnored.
(It,s
amaz_
i ng how many moder ni sr
hi sr or i ans mi me r he ai t i st s cur at or i al
shadow, di recti ng rraffi c around the work.) Thi s hosti l i ty i s far
from tri vi al or sel f-i ndul gent-though
i t has treen both. For
through i t i s waged an i deol ogi cal
confl i ct about val ues_of
art, of
the l i festyl es
that surround i t, of the soci al matri x i n whi ch both
are set. The reci procal
semi oti cs of the hosti l i ty ri tual are easi l y
read. Each party
-
audi ence and arti sr
-
i s not qui te free to brei k
certai n taboos.The
audi ence
can,t get
mad, i .e., become phi l i s_
ti nes.Its
anger must be subl i mated,
al ready a ki nd of proto_
appreci ati on.
By cul ti vati ng
an audi ence through hosti l i ty, the
7 3
avant -garde gave i t t he opport uni t y t o t ranscend i nsul t (second
nat ure t o busi ness peopl e) and exerci se revenge (al so
second
nat ure). The weapon of revenge i s sel ect i on. Rej ect i on, accordi ng
t o t he cl assi c scenari o, f eeds t he art i st ' s masochi sm, sense of i nj us-
tice, and rage. Enough energy is generated
to allow both artist and
audience to presume they are fulfilling their social roles. Each
remai ns remarkabl y f ai t hf ul t o t he ot hert concept i on of hi s rol e-
the relationship' s most powerful tie. Positive and negative projec-
tions volley back and forth in a social charade that wavers between
t ragedy and f arce. One negat i ve exchange i s basi c: t he art i st t ri es
t o sel l t he col l ect or on hi s obt useness and cras snes s
-
ei si l v oro-
j ect ed
on anyone mat er i al enough t o want somet hi ng
-
and' t he
col l ect or encourages t he art i st t o exhi bi t hi s i rresponsi bi l i t y. Once
t he art i st i s assi gned t he margi nal rol e of t he sel f - dest ruct i ve chi l d,
he can be al i enat ed f rom t he art he produces. Hi s radi cal not i ons
are i nt erpret ed as t he bad manners expect ed f rom superi or t rades-
men. The mi l i t ari zed zone bet ween art i st and col l ect or i s busy wi t h
gueri l l as. envoys, doubl e-agent s, runners, and bot h maj or part i es
i n a vari et y of di sgui ses as t hey medi at e bet ween pri nci pl e
and
money.
At i t s most seri ous, t he art i st / audi ence rel at i on can be seen as
t he t est i ng of t he soci al order by radi cal proposi t i ons
and as t he
successf ul absorpt i on of t hese proposi t i ons by t he support syst em
-
gal l eri es, museums, col l ect ors, even magazi nes and house cri t i cs
-evol ved
t o bart er success f or i deol ogi cal anest hesi a. The mai n
medi um of t hi s absorpt i on i s st yl e, a st abi l i zi ng soci al const ruct i f
ever t here was one. St yl e i n art , what ever i t s mi racul ous, sel f -def i n-
i ng nat ure, i s t he equi val ent of et i quet t e i n soci et y. I t i s a consi st ent
grace
t hat est abi i shes a sense of pl ace and i s t hus essent i al t o t he
soci al order. Those who f l nd advanced art wi t hout cont emporary
rel evance i gnore t hat i t has been a rel ent l ess and subt l e cri t i c of
t he soci al order, al ways t est i ng, f ai l i ng t hrough t he ri t ual s of suc-
cess, succeedi ng t hrough t he ri t ual s of f ai l ure. Thi s art i st / audi ence
dialogue contributes a useful definition of the kind of society we
have evolved. Each art licensed a premises where it conformed to
and sometimes tested the social structure
-
concert hall. theater.
74
ffi
ffi
el Duchamp, , Mi l e c/ 5l r i r g, i nst al l at i on vi ew at
Paper s of Sur r eal i sm, " I 942, New Yor k
( phot o: John D Schi f f )
gal l ery.
Cl assi c avant- garde hosti l i ty expresses i tsel f through physi -
cal di scomfort (radi cal theater), excessi ve noi se (musi c)
,
or by
removi ng perceptual constants (the gal l ery
space). Common to al l
are transgressi ons of l ogi c, di ssoci ati on of the senses, and bore-
dom. In these arenas order (the audi ence) assays what quotas of
di sorder i t can stand. Such
pl aces are, then, metaphors for con-
sci ousness and revol uti on.The spectator i s i nvi ted i nto a space
where the act of approach i s turned back on i rsel f. Perhaps a per-
fect avant-garde act woul d be to i nvi te an audi ence and shoot i t.
With postmodernism,
the artist and audience are more like each
other. The cl assi c hosti l i ty i s medi ated, too often, by i rony and
farce. Both parties
show themselves highly vulnerable to context,
and the resul ti ng ambi gui ti es bl ur thei r di scourse.The gal i ery
space shows thi s.In the cl assi c era ofpol ari zed arti st and audi ence,
the gallery
space maintained its status quo by muffling its con-
tradicitons in the prescribed
socio-esthetic imperatives. For many
of us, the gallery
space still gives off negative vibrations when we
wander in. Esthetics are turned into a kind of social elitism
-
the
gal l ery
space i s excl usi ve.Isol ated i n pl ots
of space, what i s on di s-
pl ay l ooks a bi t l i ke val uabl e scarce goods, j ewel ry,
or si l ver: esrher-
ics are turned into commerce-the gallery space is expensive.What
i t contai ns i s, wi thout i ni ti ati on, wel l -ni gh i ncomprehensi bl e
-
art
is dfficult. Exclusive audience, rare objects difficult to comprehend
-here
we have a soci al , fi nanci al , and i ntel l ectual snobbery whi ch
model s (and at i ts worst parodi es) our sysrem of i i mi ted produc-
ti on, our modes of assi gni ng val ue, our soci ai habi ts at l arge. Never
was a space, desi gned to accommodate the prej udi ces and enhance
the sel f-i mage of the upper mi ddl e cl asses, so effi ci entl y codi fi ed.
The cl assi c moderni st gal l ery i s the l i mbo between studi o and
l i vi ng room, where the conventi ons of both meet on a careful l y
neutral i zed ground.There
the arti st' s respect for what he has
i nvented i s perfectl y
superi mposed on rhe bourgeoi s desi re for
possessi on.
For a gal l ery i s, i n the end, a pl ace to sel l thi ngs-whi ch
i s O.K.The arcane soci al customs surroundi ng thi s-the stuff of
soci al comedy-di vert attenti on from the busi ness of assi gni ng
materi al val ue to that whi ch has none. Here the hosti l e arti st i s a
76
commerci al
si ne qua
non.By gassi ng
up hi s sel f_i mage
wi th obso_
lete romantic fuel. he provides
his agent with the means ro sepa_
rate artist and work, and so facilitate its purchase.The
artist,s irre-
sponsible persona
is a bourgeois
invention,
a necessary
fiction to
preserve
some illusions
from too uncomfortable
an examination
-
illusions shared by artist, dealer, and public.
It is hard now to avoid
the concl usi on
that l ate moderni st art i s i nescapabl y
domi nated
by the assumpti ons-mostl y
unconsci ous-of
the bourgeoi si e;
Baudelaire's
vicious and noble preface
To the Bourgeoisie for the
Sal on of 1846 i s the propheti c
text.Through
reci pi ocati ng para-
doxes the i dea of free enterpri se i n art goods
andi deas,,l ppo.t,
soci al constants
as much as i t attacks them. Attacki ng
them has
indeed become a permissible
charade from which bolh parties
emerge relatively
satisfi ed.
This may be why the art of the seventies locates its radical
notions not so much in the art as in its attitudes to the inherited
"art"
structure. of which the gallery
space is the prime
icon. The
structure is questioned
not by classic resentment
but by project
and gesture,
by modest di dacti ci sm
and phasi ng
of al tei nati ves.
These are the hi dden energi es of the seventi es;
they present
a l ow-
l yi ng l andscape
whi ch i s rraversed by i deas depri ved ofabsol ures
and powered
by low-grade
dialectics.
No peaks
are forced up by
i rreconci l abl e pressures.
The l andscape
l evel s off partl y
because
the genres
i nvol ved i n mutual recogni ti on
and avoi dance
(post_
Mi ni mal i sm,
Conceptual i sm,
Col or Fi el d, Real i sm, etc.; are
nonhi erarchi cal
-
one i s as good
as another.The
democracy
of
means contri buted
by the si xti es i s now extended to genres,
whi ch
in turn reflect a demythified
social structure (the
,,professions,,
now carry fewer rewards and di mi ni shed presti ge).
The si xti es sti l l
headl i ne most peopl e' s percepti on
of the seventi es. Indeed one of
the
"properti es"
ofseventi es art i s the fai l ure of si xti es cri ti cs to
l ookat
i t. Measuri ng the seventi es by the si xti es i s faul ty but un_
avoi dabl e (an arti st' s new phase i s al ways
j udged
i n rel ati on ro rhe
one previ ous)
. Nor does the ski pped decade theory hel p
_
the fl fti es
revival
turned out to be a bummer.
Seventies art is diverse, made up of nonhierarchical genres
and
77
highly
provisional
-
indeed unstable
-
solutions.
Major energies
no longer
go into formal
painting and sculpture
(young artists
have a fairly
good nose for historical exhaustion) but into mixed
categories
(performance,
post-Minimal, video' tuning the environ-
ment), which
present more temporary situations involving an
i nspecti on of consci ousness.
When necessary, seventi es art crosses
media in a gentle, nonpolemical
way
-
understatement
being a
characteristic of its low profile. It tends to deal with what is
immediately
present to the senses and the mind, and so
presents
itself as intimate and
personai. Thus it often appears narcissistic,
unl ess thi s i s understood as a mode of l ocati ng the boundary
where a person
"ends"
and somethi ng el se begi ns.It i s not i n
search of certainties, for it tolerates ambiguity well. Its intimacies
have a somewhat anonymous cast since they turn privacy inside
out to make it a matter of
public discourse-a seventies form of
distancing. Despite this
personal focus, there is no curiosity about
matters of identity. There is great curiosity about how conscious-
ness i s constructed. Locati on i s a key word.It tel escopes concerns
aboutwhere
(space) and.how
(percepti on) . Whati s
percei ved,one
gathers from
genres as wi del y removed as Photo-Real i sm
and
post-Mi ni mal i sm. i s not as i mportant
(though a dwarf cal l ed
i conography schl epps around knocki ng at every door). Most sev-
enties art seems to attempt a series of verifications on an ascending
scal e:
physi cal (out there);
physi ol ogi cal (i nternal ); psychol ogi -
cal ; and, for want of a better word, mental .These roughl y corres-
pond wi th avai l abl e
genres.The correl ati ves are
personal space,
perceptual revi si ons, expl orati on of ti me conventi ons, and si l ence.
These verifications locate a body, mind, and
place that can be
occupied, or at least partly tenanted. If flfties man was a Vitruvian
survivor and sixties man composed of alienated
parts held
together by systems, seventi es man i s a workabl e monad-fi gure
and pl ace, a transposi ti on offi gure and
ground i nto a quasi -soci al
situation. Seventies art does not reject the consequences of fifties
and sixties art, but some basic attitudes have changed. The sixties
audience is rejected by seventies art. Often there is an attempt to
communicate with an audience that hasn't been interfered with
7a
by art, thus dislodging
the wedge rhat
,,arr,,has
driven between
perception
and cognition. (The growth
of alternative
spaces across
the country outside the formal
museum structure is part
of this_a
change of audience, location,
and context that makei it possible
for New York artists to do what they can,t do in New
york.
)
Seven_
ties art remains troubled
by history, yet
so much of it is temporary
it rejects the historical
consciousness.
It questions
the system
through which it presenrs
itself, yet
most of it passed
thiough that
system. Its makers are socially concerned
but politically
iniffec_
t i ve. Some of t he di l emmas
suppressed
duri ng t he avant -garde
era
have come home t o roost , and sevent i es art i s worki ng t hi ough
them in its rather elusive way.
Wi t h post moderni sm,
t he gal l ery
space i s no l onger
, , neut ral . , ,
The wal l becomes
a membrane t hrough whi ch est het i c and com_
merci al val ues osmot i cal l y
exchange. As t hi s mol ecul ar shudder
i n t he whi t e wal l s becomes percept i bl e,
t here i s a f urt her i nversi on
of cont ext . The
wal l s assi mi l at e;
t he art di scharges. How much can
t he art do wi t hout ? Thi s cal i brat es t he degree of t he gal l ery, s
myt hi f i cat i on.
How much of t he obj ect , s el i mi nat ed cont ent can
t he whi t e wal l repl ace? Conrext provi des
a l arge part
of l at e mod-
ern and post modern
art ' s cont ent . Thi s i s sevent i es art , s mai n i ssue,
as wel l as i t s st rengt h and weakness.
The whi t e wal l ' s apparent neut ral i t y i s an i l l usi on. I t
st ands f or a
communi t y
wi t h common i deas and assumpt i ons.
Art i st and audi _
ence are, as i t were, i nvi si bl y spread-eagl ed
i n 2-D on a whi t e
ground.
The devel opment
of t he pri st i ne, pl acel ess
whi t e cube i s
one of moderni sm' s
t ri umphs-a devel opment
commerci al , est het _
i c, and t echnol ogi cal .
I n an ext raordi ri ary
st ri p-t ease. t he art
wi t hi n bares i t sel f more and more, unt i l i t present s
f ormal i st end_
product s
and bi t s of real i t y f rom oursi de
-
, , col l agi ng' ,
t he gal l ery
space. The wal l ' s cont ent becomes ri cher and ri cher (maybe
a col .
l ect or shoul d buy an
"empt y"
gal l ery
space). The mark of provi n_
ci al art i s t hat i t has t o i ncl ude t oo much-t he
cont ext can' t repl ace
what i s l ef t out ; t here i s no syst em of mut ual l y underst ood
assumpt i ons.
The spot l ess gal l ery
wal l . t hough a f ragi l e evol ut i onary product
79
of a highly specialized
nature, is impure. It subsumes commerce
and est het i cs, art i st and audi ence, et hi cs and expedi ency.
I t i s i n
the image of the society that supports it, so it is a perfect surface off
whi ch t o bounce our
paranoi as. That t empt at i on shoul d be resi st ed'
The whi t e cube kept phi l i st i ni sm at t he door and al l owed modern-
i sm t o bri ng t o an endpoi nt i t s rel ent l ess habi t of sel f -def l ni t i on.
I t
hot housed t he seri al
j et t i soni ng of cont ent . Al ong t he way numer-
ous epi phani es
were purchased, as epi phani es can be, by suppres-
si on of cont ent . I f t he whi t e wal l cannot be summari l y di smi ssed,
i t can be underst ood. Thi s
knowl edge changes t he whi t e wal l , si nce
i t s cont ent i s composed of ment al
proj ect i ons based on unexposed
assumpt i ons. The
wal l i s our assumpt i ons. I t
i s i mperat i ve f or every
art i st t o know t hi s cont ent and what i t does t o hi s/ her work'
The white cube is usually seen as an emblem of the estrange-
ment of the artist from a society to which the gallery also
provides
access. I t i s a ghet t o space, a survi val compound, a prot o-museum
wi t h a di rect l i ne t o t he t i mel ess, a set of condi t i ons,
an at t i t ude, a
pl ace depri ved of l ocat i on, a ref l ex t o t he bal d curt ai n wal l , a magi c
chamber,
a concent rat i on of mi nd, maybe a mi st ake. I t
preserved
theposs\bi$o{artbutmadeit"diffi.cutt.ltismainlyaformalist
i nvent i on,
i n t hat t he t oni c wei ght l essness
of abst ract
pai nt i ng and
sculpture
left it with a low
gravity. Its walls are
penetrable only by
t he most vest i gi al i i l usi oni sm. Was
t he whi t e cube nurt ured by an
i nt ernal
l ogi c i i mi l ar t o t hat of i t s art ? Was i t s obsessi on
wi t h
encl osure
i n organi c
response, encyst i ng
art t hat woul d not ot her-
wi se survi ve?
was i t an economi c
const l uct
f ormed by capi t al i st
model s of scarci t y and demand?
Was i t a perf ect t echnol ogi cal
shri nkage
resul t i ng f rom speci al i zat i on
or a Const ruct i vi st
hang-
over f rom t he t went i es t hat became
a habi t , t hen an i deol ogy?
For
bet t er or worse i t i s t he si ngl e maj or convent i on
t hrough
whi ch art
i s
passed. What keeps i t st abl e i s t he I ack of al t ernat i ves'
A ri ch
const el l at i on
of proj ect s comment s on mat t ers of l ocat i on' not so
much suggest i ng al t ernat i ves
as enl i st i ng t he
gai l ery space as a
uni t of est het i c di scourse. Genui ne
al t ernat i ves
cannot come f rom
within
this space. Yet it is the not ignoble symbol
for the
preserva-
t i on of what l oci et y
f i nds obscure,
uni mport ant ,
and usel ess. I t
has
80
i ncubated radi cal i deas that woul d have abol i shed i t. the gal l ery
space i s al l we' ve got, and most art needs i t. Each si de of the whi te
cube question
has two. four, six sides.
Is the artist who accepts the gallery
space conforming with the
social order? Is discomfort with the gallery
discomfort with art,s
eti ol ated rol e.i ts coopti on and vagabond
status as a refuge for
homel ess fantasi es and narci ssi sti c formal i sms?
Duri ng modern_
i sm, the gal l ery
space was not percei ved
as much of a probl em.
But
then. contexts are hard to read from the i nsi de.The ari i st was not
aware he was accepti ng
anythi ng except a rel ati onshi p
wi th a
deal er.And i fhe saw beyond i t, accepti ng a soci al context you
can
do nothi ng about shows a l ot of common sense. Most of us do
exactl y that. Before l arge moral and cul tural i ssues, the i ndi vi dual
i s hel pl ess
but not mute. Hi s weapons are i rony. rage, wi t, paradox,
sati re. detachment,
scepti ci sm. A fami l i ar ki nd of mi nd comes i nto
focus here
-
restl ess, sel f- doubti ng, i nventi ve about di mi ni shi ng
opti ons, consci ous of voi d, and cl ose to si l ence. It i s a mi nd wi th
no fl xed abode, empi ri cal , al ways testi ng experi ence.
consci ous of
i tsel f and thus of hi story
-
and ambi guous
about both.
Thi s Fausti an composi te more or l ess fl ts numerous moderni sts
from Czanne to de I(ooni ng.
Such fi gures someti mes convi nce
you
that mortal i ty i s a di sease to whi ch onl y the most gi fted
are
suscepti bl e, and that the pri vi l eged percepri on
resi des i n rhe
psyche
that can maxi mi ze the contradi cti ons i nherent i n exi s_
tence. Such a fi gure, whatever i ts symbol i st or exi stenti al pedi gree,
suffers from a romantic infection with the absolute; aching for
transcendence,
i t i s detai ned i n process. Thi s fi gure, whi ch has gen_
erated most of moderni sm' s
myths, has done great
servi ce; but i t i s
a peri od
fi gure that mi ght wel l be ful l y reti red. For now contradi c-
ti on i s our dai l y vernacul ar,
our arti tudes to i t a passi ng
anger (a
short-term
synthesi s?), humor, and a ki nd of bemused shrug. We
tol erate other peopl e' s
necessary anesthesi a,
as they do ours. Who-
ever bends on hi m/hersel f the rays of contradi cti on becomes not a
hero but the vani shi ng poi nt
i n an ol d pi cture.
In our own
i nterests,
we are hard on the art that precedes
us.We see not so
much the art as an emblem for attitudes, contexts, and myths
EI
unacceptable to us. Finding a code to reject this art allows us to
i nvent our own.
Moderni sm has al so provi ded
us wi t h anot her archet ype: t he
artist who. unaware of his minority, sees the social structure as
alterable through art. A believer, he is concerned not so much with
the individual as with the race; is, in fact, a kind of discreetly
authoritarian socialist. The rational, reformist urge refers to the
age of reason and i s nouri shed on t he ut opi an habi t . I t al so has a
strong mystical/ideal component that places heavy responsibilities
on the function of art. This tends to reify art and turn it into a
devi ce exact l y measuri ng i t s di ssoci at i on f rom soci al rel evance. So
both archetypes alienate art from the social structure with oppo-
si t e i nt ent i ons. Bot h are ol d Hegel i an doubl es part ners, and t hey
are rarely pure. You can pick you
own pairings: Picasso and Tatlin;
Sout i ne and Mondri an; Ernst and Al bers; Beckmann and Mohol y-
Nagy.
But t he hi st ory of ut opi ani sm i n moderni sm i s rat her spl endi d.
The magni t ude of t he i ndi vi dual ' s presumpt i on i s cl ear t o us, but i t
i s al so cl ear t o hi m. So whi l e al i gni ng hi msel f wi t h myst i cal ener-
gi es, he al so court s t he rat i onal i t i es of desi gn
-
an echo of t he
Desi gn of t he Creat or t hat t he art i st -creat or i nt ends t o correct . At
t he end of an era i t i s easy t o be f unny about such ambi t i ons. We
tend to patronize high ideals after their failure. But the idealist/uto-
pi ans are di smi ssed t oo easi l y by our New York habi t of mi nd
-
i n
whi ch t he myt h of t he i ndi vi dual as a republ i c of sensi bi l i t y i s
f i rmi y set . European ut opi ans-who can f orget Ki esl er movi ng l i ke
a Browni an
part i cl e t hrough t he New York mi l i eu?
-
don' t do wel l
here. Coming from a different structure, their ideas don' t play in a
soci et y t hat reshuf f l es i t s cl asses every second generat i on. But a
ki nd of European mi nd coul d t hi nk about soci al probl ems and
art' s transforming
powers very well. Now we ask some of the same
quest i ons about t he mi ssi ng audi ence and where i t has gone. Most
of t he peopl e who l ook at art now are not l ooki ng at art ; t hey are
l ooki ng at t he i dea of
"
art " t hey carry i n t hei r mi nds. A good pi ece
could be rvritten on the art audience and the educational fallacy.
We seem to have ended up with the wrong audience.
82
What makes artists interesting is the contradictions they choose
to edit their attention-the scissors they invent to cut out their
sel f-i mage.The utopi an arti st/pl anner fi nds that hi s i ndi vi dual i ty,
which must conform to the social structure he envisions. breaks
the rule of such conformity by its individualism. As Albert Boime
wrote (Arts, Summer
' 70): "
.. . Mondri an opposes subj ecti vi ty on
the grounds that individualism leads to disharmony and conflict,
and interferes with the creation of a
'harmonious
material envi-
ronment' (i .e., a uni versal l y obj ecti ve and col l ecti ve outl ook). At
the same ti me, he i s preoccupi ed
wi th arti sti c ori gi nal i ty because
i n hi s vi ew onl y the uni quel y gi fted i ndi vi dual coul d di scover the
universal order. He therefore urged all artisls to detach themselves
'from
the majority of the people.'
"
For such artists, intuition must
be thoroughly rationalized. Disorder, covertly suppressed in Mon-
drian's clear surfaces and edges, is manifest in the whole arbitrary
nature of hi s choi ces. As Boi me says,
"Mondri an
achi eved equi l i b-
rium only after innumerable complex steps, and the multiplication
of deci si ons betrays hi s personal i ty."
So what can one say when
one enters Mondri an' s room (whi ch he hi msel f never entered,
si nce hi s 1926 sketch for a Sal on de Madame B. d Dresden was not
made up unti l 1970
[for
an exhi bi ti on at Pace Gal l ery]
)?
We are i n a proposi ti on that conj ugates basi c needs-bed, desk,
shelf
-
with principles
of harmony derived from the natural order.
"Preci sel y
on account of i ts profound l ove for thi ngs," wrote
Mondri an,
"non-fi gurati ve
art does not ai m at renderi ng them i n
thei r parti cul ar appearance." But Mondri an' s room i s as cl earl y
based on nature as i f i t were l i ned wi th trees.The panel s are so
adj usted that they advance and recede.wi thi n a narrow compass.
The room breathes, as i t were, through the wal l s.Thi s i s enhanced
by i ts perspecti ve, produci ng the obl i ques Mondri an formal l y pro-
scri bed.The room i s not so much anthropomorphi c as psyche-mor-
phi c.Its powerful i deas coi nci de wi th mental contours perfectl y
sensed by Mondri an:
"In
removi ng compl etel y from the work al l
objects, the world is not separated from the spirit, but is on the
contrary put i nto a bal anced opposi ti on wi th the spi ri t, si nce the
one and the other are purified.This creates a perfect unity between
8l
Pi et Mondri an, Sa l on de Madame B. d Dresden,
i nst al l at i on vi ew ( af t er r he ar t i sr ' s dr awi ng of 1926) , 197O,
cour t esyThe Pace Gal l er y, Ner v Yor k ( phot o: Fer di nand Boesch)
84
the two opposi tes."
Si nce the wal l s. despi te
Mondri an,s
obj ecti ons
to Cubi sm' s real i sm,
represent
a subl i mated
nature, the
occupant
is similarly
encouraged
to transcend
his own brute nature.
In this
space, the grossness
of the body seems i nappropri ate;
from
thi s
room burps and farts are exiled. Through
systems of abutment
and
s,lide,
rectangle
and square define a space that places
one inside
a
Cubist picture;
the occupant is synthesized
into a coefficient
of
order whose moti on i s i n consonance
wi th the rhythms
encl osi ng
him or her. The floor
-
which contains
an uncharacteristic
oval
(
a
rug?)
-
and cei l i ng add thei r verti cal pressures.
It' s a marvel ous
pl ace
t o vi si t .
The vi si on
i s not hermeti c.Wi ndows
al i ow for di scourse
wi th
the outsi de.Random process-what
you
see through the wi ndow_
i s preci sel y
framed.Is
thi s formal l y
acknowl edged
i n the smal l bi te
the lower left corner of the window takes orrt of u black scuare
(much
asTexas bi tes off a pi ece
of Arkansas)?
For al l i ts sober
i deal i st program,
the room remi nds
me that Mondri an
l i ked to
dance (though
hi s danci ng,
whi ch was terri bl e, was based more
on extracting pleasure
from the programmed
movements
while
happi l y coupl ed than on wi l d abandon).
Mondri an,s
room.Dro_
posed
an al ternati ve
to the whi te cube that moderni sm i enored:
"By
the uni fi cati on
of archi tecture,
scul pture
and pai nti i g,
a new
pl asti c
real i ty
wi l i be created.
pai nti ng
and scurpture
wi l l not man-
i fest themsel ves
as separate obj ects, ,o. u,
,-,r.ul
art, whi ch
destroys
archi tecture
i tsel f, nor as
,appl i ed.art,
but bei ng purel y
constructi ve
wi l l ai d the creati on
of a surroundi ng
not merel y
uti l i tari an
or rati onal but al so pure
and compl ete i n i ts beaui y.,,
Duchamp' s
ai tered rooms
-
i roni c, funny, fal l i bl e
_
sti l l accepted
the gal l ery
as a l egi ti mate pl ace
for di scourse.
Mondri an s ,poi l .r,
room-a
shri ne to spi ri t and Madame Bl avatsky_attempted
to
i ntroduce
a new
order that woul d make the gal l ery
di spensabl e.
The two counterposed
categori es
suggesri ng;
comi c sl apsti ck not
unknown
to moderni sm:
the scruffy and the cl ean, the bacteri al
and the hygi eni c,
the sl oppy and the preci se.
part
ofthe grand
i rony presi di ng
over such di al ecti cal
separati ons i s thei r frequent
mi mi cki ng
of each other i n di sgui ses too el aborate
to remove here.
8 5
Mondrian and Malevich shared a mystical faith in art's trans-
forming social power. Both men's ventures outside the picture
plane
were tentative; both were politically innocent. Tatlin, in
contrast, was all social involvement, full of great schemes and
energy.
One figure took Tatlin's radical social program and Malevich's
formal idealism and negotiated between them to produce
exhibi-
tions that could
-
and did
-
alter-the public
mind. Lissitzky did so
through an inspiration that doesn't seem to occur to idealists and
radi cal soci al pl anners. He acknowl edged the bystander, who
became the involved spectator. Lissitzky, our Russian connection,
was probably the first exhibition designer/preparhtor. In the pro-
cess of inventing the modern exhibition, he also reconstructed the
gallery space
-
the first serious attempt to affect the context in
which modern art and the sDectator meet.
Afterword
Writing about your past
writing is the closest you ger
to coming
back from the dead.You assume a false superiority
over your previ_
ous self. who did all the work. So, looking back at these articies,
revived between their own pasteboards,
what do I have to add? A
great
deal .
In the past
ten years
so much.has
been buried as if it never hap_
pened.Msual
art does not progress
by having a good
memory. And
New York is the locus of some radical forgetting.
you
can reinvent
the past,
suitably disguised, if no one remembers it. Thus is origi_
nality, that parenred
fetish of the self, defined.
What has been buried? One of the art communitv,s
conceivablv
noble efforts: the concerted move of a generation
to question,
through a matrix of styles, ideas. and quasi-movements,
the con_
text of its activity. Art used to be made for illusion; now it is made
f rom i l l usi ons. I n
t he si xt i es and sevent i es t he at t empt t o di spense
with illusions was dangerous and could not be tolerated for long.
So the art industry has since devalued the efforr. Illusions
are back,
contradictions
tolerated, the art world,s in its place and all,s well
wi t h t hat worl d.
When the economics of a field are disturbed or subverted the
val ue syst em becomes conf used. The economi c model i n pl ace
f or
a hundred years in Europe and the Americas is
prod.uct,filtered
t hrough gal l eri es,
of f ered t o col l ect ors and publ i c i nst i t ut i ons,
wri t t en about i n magazi nes part i al l y
support ed by t he gal l eri es,
and drifting towards the academic apparatus that stabilizes
"hi st ory"
-
cert i f yi ng, much as banks do, t he hol di ng of i t s maj or
repository, the museum. History in art is, ultimateiy, worth money.
Thus do we get not t he art we deserve but t he art we pay f or. Thi s
comfortable
system went virtually unquestioned by the key figure
i t i s based upon: t he art i st .
The avant-garde
artist' s relation to his or her social context is
made up of cont radi ct i ons
because vi sual art has a t i n can t i ed t o
its tail.It makes things. And to switch Emerson around, man is in
87
the saddle and rides these things to the bank.The vicissitudes of
this product,
as it tacks from studio to museum, provoke
occa-
sional comment, usually of a vaguely Marxist kind.The idealism
implicit in Marxism has little attraction for devoted empiricists,
among whom I include myself. Every system construes human
nature according to its desired ends, but ignoring the grubbier
aspects of our nature, or disguising them, is every ideology,s basic
attraction. It sells us on the idea that we are better than we are.The
varieties ofcapitalism at least recognize our basic selflshness: this
is their strength.The comedies of ideology and the object (whether
it be artwork, television set, washing machine) a1s;played out on a
fi el d rampant wi th the usual fal se hopes,l i es, and megal omani a.
Art i s of course i mpl i cated i n al l thi s, usual l y as an i nnocent
bystander. No one is more innocent than the professional
intellec-
tual, who has never had to decide between two evils, and to whom
compromise is synonymous with having his or her epaulettes torn
off. It was the avant-garde that developed the self-protective idea
that its product
had a mystical and redeeming esthetic, social and
moral val ue.Thi s i dea arose from the fusi on of i deal i st phi l oso-
phy's remnants with idealistic social programs
at the beginning of
modernism. John Stuart Mill's On Liberty must be the ideal text to
justify
any avant-garde, whether of right or left. whether Futurist
or Surrealist. But locating moral energy in a saleable object is like
selling indulgences, and we know what reforms that provoked.
Whatever its heroic virtues, the avant-garde notion has, we now
see, l i abi l i ti es.Its pecul i ar rel ati on to the bourgeoi si e (fl rst ci ted by
Baudel ai re i n hi s preface to the Sal on of 1846) i s i nterdependent
and ultimately parodic.
The cult of originality, the determinarion
of val ue, the economi cs of' scarci ty, of suppl y and demand, appl y
themsel ves wi th a parti cul ar poi gnancy
to the vi sual arts.It i s the
only art in which the artist's death causes a profound
economic
shudder.The avant-garde arti st' s margi nal soci al posi ti on
and the
slow move of his or her work, Iike some unmanned craft, to the
centers of wealth and power perfectly
suited the prevailing
eco-
nomic system. With any valuable product,
the first task is to effect
its separation from its maker. Modernism's social program,
if one
88
can call it that, ignored its immediate
contexr to call for large
reforms on the basis that it spoke wirh a privileged
voice.
linis
is
the
"fame"
fal l acy: ask Babe Ruth for sol uti ons to the Grear
Depressi on.
)
We now know that the maker has limited control over the con-
tent of hi s or her art. It i s i l s recepti on
that ul ti matel y derermi nes i rs
content. and that content, as we see from revisionist scholarship. is
frighteningly retroactive.
The retroactive provision
ofconrenr to
art i s now a cottage i ndustry.
And i t i s cumul ati ve.
Even,one musr
shoehorn-i n hi s or her l i ttl e bi t of conrenr. Nor has rhe ori gi nal
content, if we look at the history of modernism.
an1, massir.e
ideological
effect. Modernism transformed perception.
but rhe poli-
ti cs of percepti on
remai n unwri tten.In the si xti es and sevenri i s,
during the art community's dissent on Viernam
and Cambodia. a
new insight took hold: the system through which the work of art-
ists was passed
had to be examined.This is a key marker, ro my
mi nd, of what i s cl umsi l y cal l ed postmoderni sm (i s
death
post-
l i fe?) i n vi sual art.
This was radical. Sometimes it's safer to sound off about large
political
matters than to clean up your
own kitchen.
political
cour-
age i s measured by the degree to whi ch your posi ti on
can. i f pru-
dentl y pursued,
hurt you.It' s
l ess comfortabl e to begi n the pol i ti cal
process
at home. Postwar American artists, with some exceptions
(e.9.
Stuart Davi s and Davi d Smi th) had a poor
understandi ng
of
the poiitics
of art's reception. But several artists of the sixties and
seventies, particularly
those of the Minimal/Conceptuai genera-
ti on, understood very wel l .Thei r concern i nvol ved a curi ous trans-
position.
Art's seif-referential
examination became, almost over-
ni ght, an exami nati on of i ts soci al and economi c context.
Several matters provoked
this. Many artists were irritated by the
audi ence avai l abl e for art; i t seemed numb to everythi ng but, ar
best, connoi sseurshi p. And the expensi ve compound (gal l ery,
col -
l ector, aucti on house, museum) i nto whi ch art i nevi tabl y was
delivered muffled its voice. Art's internal development began to
press
agai nst several conventi onal boundari es, i nvi ti ng contextual
readings. All was occurring in a restless social context in which
89
protest and radical formulations were an everyday presence. A
potentially revolutionary situation existed.That
quasi-revolution
failed, as it had to. But some of its insights and lessons remain,
though. as I said before, there is a vested interest in suppressing
them.
It is an unanswered
question
-
and will
probably remain so
-
whether the art's responses to this situation were teleological or
political. If the art work is the key unit of discourse, both esthetic
and economic, therefore, the thinking then went, remove it.The
system closes in a spasm around a vacuum. There is nothing or
very little to buy, and
"to
buy" is. of course, the sacramental infini-
tive. Make the art difficult; that will hinder its assimilation. If art
lives by criticism. make art more like criticism, turn it into words
that make criticism itself an absurdity. And then have people pay
for that. Examine the collector, including the provenance of his or
her bank accounu study what Nancy Hanks used to call the
museum's greatest enemy: the trustee. Study the corporate drift of
the museum and how the museum director. the most consistently
persecuted member of the bourgeoi si e, becomes a gypsy wi th a ti e
and a sui t.
Study art's monetary fate, the
protectionism that surrounds
great investment. See the auction house at work, where the living
artist may witness his or her authentication, but not partake in it.
See the contradictions inherent in the place where art is shown
and sold. And note the self-selection implicit in this system
whereby the art of the museums is very different from what
Cdzanne tal ked about when he wanted to do over Impressi oni sm.
Just as formal i sm l ed to art made up by prescri pti on (and
j ust
as
the New Cri ti ci sm used to generate i 1s own
poeti c speci mens), so
museums have drawn forth a kind of museum art, to that degree
.
an official art. appropriate for mass viewing.I would hesitate to
counterpose a si nki ng l andscape of good art that evades thi s proc-
ess. But the thought that there is more here than our arrogance
allows us to perceive remains troubling.And how do we explain
the passion for the temporary that attempted to forestall the
future? Above all, we were reminded, we must be aware of the
90
arbitrary and manipulative
ways of assigning value.
What was the nature of this curious outburst of insight? Apart
from the usual mild socialism,
was it a desire to control the content
of art by its producers?
or an attempt
to separate art from its con-
sumers? Part of this, intentional
or not, was the break-up in the
seventies
of the mainstream into multiple
styles, movements,
activities. This pluralism
was intolerable
to esthetic purists,
whose
passion
for a mainstream.
however, assists marketing
_
not the first
time that esthetic idealism
and commerce
superimpose perfectly.
The system also maintains its certainty of new produci
by a
pecul i ar
i mperati ve
I cal l
"sl otti ng,,.uni que
to the vi sual ari s. Most
artists become time-bound
to the nioment of their greatest
con_
tribution, and are not allowed
out of it.The present
rushes by, leav-
ing them curating their investment-sad
imperialists
of the esthetic
self. Nor is any change tolerated;
change is considered a moral
failure unless its morality can be convincingly demonstrated.
Removed from contemporary
discourse, such artists wait for ran-
dom breezes from the present.
Originality is reified; so is its
creator. The art scene in any great
center is always a necropolis
of
styles and artists, a columbarium
visited and studied by critics,
historians, and collectors.
What a grand
irony thar all this insight led. in the eighties, to a
reconfirmation
of all that had been laid bare and rejected.
product
and consumption
returned with a plethora
of content for those
starved of it.The new work's
defense against smooth consumption
is in its various masks, in which complex internal ironies are
decipherable.
Subject matter exploits itself, and some of the para-
doxes ofpop return,
often serviced by a criticism that brilliantlv
questi ons
the basi s for val ue j udgements.
The gal l ery
space has
again become the unchallenged arena of discourse. But that is the
subject of this book. Suffice it to say here that the elusive and
dangerous art of rhe peri od
berween 1964 and l 9Z 6 i s si nki ng,
wi th i ts l essons, out of si ght as, gi ven
the condi ti ons of our.ul trr..,
i t must.
Bri an O' Doherty
New
york
City 1986
9 l