Anti Form

In recent objcct-typc art thc invention of new forms is no:

an issue. A
morphology of geometric, predomizxantly rectangular fol-ms has becn
accepte-d givcn premsc. The engagement cf the work bccomcs
as a
focnscd on the particularization of thcsc gcnera forms by mcans
ofvzry-
ing scaIc, materal, proportion, placement. Becausc of the flexibilityas
well as thc passive. unemphasizcd nature of object-type
shapc, i: is a
uscful means. The use of the rectangular has 2 long
history. The right
angle has bcen in use since the first post and lime} constructions. lts
efficicncy is unparallcled in building with rigid materals, stretching a
picce of canvas. etc. This generalized uscfulness has moved rhc rectangle
through architecture, painting. sculpture. objccts. But only in thc case of
993 objcct-type art have the forms of the cubic and the rectangular been
brought so far forward into the final dcfinition of thc wotk. That is, i:
stands as a self-suficimt whole shape mthcr than as a relational elemcnt.
To achicvc a cubic or rectangular form is to build in the
simplcst, most
rcasonable way, but it is also to build well.
Ths imperative for thc well-built thingsolvcd certain problcms.
Il: got xid of asymmetrical pladng and composition. for one
thing. The

solution also threw ou: al! nonrigid materials. This is no: the whoIe
story
of so-called Minimal or Objcct art. Obviously i: does not account for thc
use of purely decorative schemes of rcpcttivc and
progressive ordcring
of multiple unit work. But thcbroad xationality ofsuch schcmes is rclatcd
to the rcasonabicncss of the wcll built. What remains
problcmatic about
these schcmes is the fact that any ordcr for multiple units is an imposed
onc chat has no inherent relation to thc physicality of thc
existing units.
Permuted, progressive, symmetriral organizations have a dualistc char-
actcr in relation to the matter they distribute. This is not t0
imply chat
 Chnpter 4 42
Ant Form
43

rhesc simple orderings do no: work. Thcy

smply scparace. more or lcss.
from what is physical by making rclationships thcmselvcs nnothcr
order
of facts. The rclationships sucii schcmcs cstablish arc
no: critical from
point to point as in European art. The duaiity is cstablished by thc fact
thatan ordcr. any ordcr, is
opemting beyond thc physical thngs. Probably
no art can complctcly rcsolve ths. Some
art. such as Pollocks, cornes
close.
The proccss of making itsclf" has hardiy bccn cxanfincd.
It has
onIy reccived attention in tcrms of soi-ne kind of mythical, romanticizcd
polarity: thc so-called action of thc Abstract Exprcssionists and thc so-
calicd conceptualizations of thc Minimalists. This docs
no: locate any
diicrcnccs betwccn the two types of work. Thc actual work
particularizcs
gcneral assumptions about forms in both cases. Therc are some
excep-
tions. Both ways of working continue thc Europcan tradition of
csthcti-
cizug general forms that bas gonc on for half a century. Europcan art
since Cubism has bcen a history of permuting
rclationships around thc
gcxicral premisc that reationships should romain critical. Amcrcan art
993 has developed by uncovcrng successive alternative
itsclf.
promises for makiug
Of thc AbstractExprcssionisrs, onIy Pollock was able to
rccovcr
proccss and hold on to i: as part of the cnd form of the work. PoIIocks
44 Rob"; Monts, Unrrled, 1967. (Courtesy d Solomon R. Guggenheh Museum. recovery of process involvcd a profound rethinking of the rolc of both
New York.)
nutcrial and tools in makng. Thc stick chat dtips
pain: is a tool that
acknowlcdgcs thc nature of the fluidiry of paint. Lke any other zool. it
is still one dm controls and transforms imtter. But unlike the
brush, it
is in far grcatcr sympathy with matter becausc it
aclcnowiedges thc in-
hcrcnt tendencies and propcrtes of that mattcr. In soma
ways Louis was
aven doser to matte: in his use of thc container itsclf
to pour thc fiuid.
To thinlc that painting has somc inhcrcnt optical nature is ridic-
ulous. [t s cqually silly to definc its thingncss" as acts of
logc chat
acknowlcdgc thc edges of thc support. The optical and thc physical arc
bot}: there. Bath Pollock and Louis werc aware of both. Both used
 Chpter 4 44 Am Pour:
45

4-3 JfldflsnP0110449 On: (Numbcri,1950), 1950. Ol and entame! pain: on cmavan,8 1G

X I7 5%".
(une Muscum of Modem Art, Ncw York. due Sidney and Hnrrct Janis
Cullccton Fund {by exchangoy)

L98 4.3 Alun Saur, Untltd, 1968 or enrlier.

cfircctly thc physicnl, fluid properries of pant. Thcir "optical forms

rcsultcd from dealing with the propcrtics cf fluidity and the conditions
of a more or lcss absorptive ground. Thc forms and thc order of their
work wcrc no: a priori to thc mcans.
Thc visibility of process in art occurtcd With chc savng of
sketches and unfinishcd work in thc High Renaissance. In the ninctecnth
tcrial. Form is not perpctuated by mcans but by prcscrvation ofscparable
idealzed ends. This is an anti-cntropic and conscrvstivc cntcrprise. Il:
accounts for Grcck architecture changing from wod t0 marblc and look

ccntury both Rodin and Rossa lcft traces of touch in finished worlc. Likc
thc Abstract Exprcssiorxists after them, thcy rcgistercd the
plasticity of
materal in autobiographicaltcrms. l: remained for PoIIock and Louis to
go beyond thc pcrsonalism of thc harxd to thc more direct rcvelaton of
matte: itself. How Pollock brokc the domination of Cubisc form is tied
to his investigation of menus: tools, mcthods of making, nature of ma-
iug the samc. or for the loqk of Cubist bronzes with their fmgmcnted.
faccted planes. The perpemation of form is functionlzg Idcalism.
In objcct-typc art process s not visible. Matcrials often are. Whcn
they are. their reasonableaess is usually apparent. Rigid industrial mate-
riaIs go togcthcr at right angles with grentvcasc. But i: s the a priori
valuation of the well built hat dictates thc tmtcrials. Thc weIL-builtform
 Chapter 4 46 Ami Fox-m 47

of objccts precccled any consideration of mcans. Matcrials thcmsclves

have bccn limited t0 thosc that efficicntly makc thc gencral object form.
Rccently, materials othcr than rigid industriel! oncs have bcgun
to show up. Oldcnburg was one of thc first to use such mntcrials. A
direct investigation ofthc propcrties of thesc matcrials is in progress. This
involvcs a reconsideratioxx of thc use of tools in relation to matcrial. lu
somc cases thcsc investigations movc from thc making of things to thc
making of material itsclf. Somctimes a direct manipulation of a givcn
nntcrial without the use of any tool is mande. In these cases considcrations
of gravity bccomc as important as thosc of space. The focus on matte:
and gravity as means rcsults in forms that wcrc not projcctcd in advnncc.
Consiclcrations ofordering are neccssarily casual and imprccise and unem-
phasizcd. Random piling. loose stacking, hanging, givc passing form to
the matctial. Chance is acccpted and indeterminacyi5 implcd, as replacing
will rcsult in anothcr configuration. Discngagcmcnt with preconccived
enduring forms and orders for things is a positive assertion. It is par: of
893 thc works rcfusal_ t0 continue csthcticzing the form by dcaling with i:
as a prcscribcd cnd.
4.4 Chics Oldcnburg. Gianl Sofl Paru-Giron l'avion (tenter). Installation in onc-
person exhibitiona: lite SidneyjnnisGallcry. New York, 1967. (Connesy ofdne 4min.)