art and objecthood freed

8/20/2019 Art and Objecthood freed

1/16

ARTAND OBJECTHOOD" by Michael Fried

In thb essay Michse] Fried criticizes Minimal Arl-()r a . . ~ he rolls it,"Iiremlist" 'Irl-fOl what he dcs('rih~ :ISits inherent theatricality. At the'-1II1t! tune, he nr~llCSlh~t the modernist nrts, indlldillg painting :lnd);('uIPlurc:, have come Incr~sin.~ly to depend [01' their very (.'()Jltil\U:IIICI;!

on their ability to dryl'ttt titt!:llte. Fried ch:\m(.1.NE-I,.(:~tile theatrical interms of a pa.rtiC'Ul."y rclatinn between the beholder (a .mbj4rct and thework ( I S 01> 1 ' . " ( . ': , ;'I relnuon that takes place in tim~, t!t:lt has duration.Wltt:re.'1) defeattng theatre ~'nlail~ t1t:ft!lIling Of suspl.'ndinp. hEdwards's journals frequently explored and tested a meditation he

~clt! r \:n ;d l( )" ' t:d I I ) reach print; if all the wOI'I1 al\\,lI)'< i!ldl.;ntoo whtch

of them Rl'(U:,JI y )aid or \H(ltc n pnru""lar phrase; lite nltcrnoliv6 would have

bl'~'1110 litter the tc~t with fOt>~IIOlt'


2/16

Michael Fried 118

TIll: more the shape of the support is emphasized, ,IS ill recent

modernist painting, the! lighter the situation becomes:

'111(:clements ill....idl~ the rectangle are broad and simple nod cor-

respond closely to the rl.,.'CI:Hl~le.The shapes IIl1d surface are only

those tlmt (,.~III occur plausibly within alld on a rectangular plane.

The parts arc few arid so subordinate to unity as not to he parts

in lUI ordinary sense. A pain ling is nearly an entity, one tiling,

and not the indefinable SIIIO of a group of entities and references.The one thing overpowers the CMlier paint in~. II also eS~lblishc....

IIII~rt:ctall~lc as a definite funn; il is no longer a fairly neutral

limit. A Iorm (~n he used only in so man)' ways. The reetan-

!tul:\r plane L~given Il life SL);III. The! simplicity required to em-

phasize the rectangle limits the arrtlllgl!lnt:llts possible within it.

P';lilllillJ{ is here seen as all arl 011 Ihe verge of exhaustion. one in

which the range o r aooeptablc solutions to it haste problem-how toorganize the surface of the pi ctu re-i.." severely restricted. 11le lise of

shaped rather tlmll redangular supports (;:111, Irom the literalist point

of view, merely prolong the :lgony. The obvious response is to s : tivc

lip workillg on a slngle plane in favor of three dimensions. That,

moreover, automatically

gets rid of the problem of illusionism :Ind o r literal space, space illand around marks slwpc. Morris's "unitary forms"

are polyhedron. .. that resist being grasped other ehan ns a :;ing)c

!(h ,Ii> < ": the gestalt simply is the "constant, known shape." And shapeitself is, in his system, "the most important sculptural value." Simi-

larly. speaking of his own work, Judd has remarked that

the hig problem is that anything Ihat is not absolutely plain he-

gins to have parts in some \~lr, The thing is to he able to work

and do differcnt things and yct not break tiL>the wholeness that a

piece has. To me the piece with the brass and the 6ve verticals is

above ~111"(Jf $11(11'(;.

TIle shape i.~the object: (It IlII)' rate, what secures the wholeness of

the object is the Singleness of the shape. II is. I believe, this empha-sis on shape tit,lt accounts for the impression, which numerous crit-

ICS hove mentioned, thnt Judd's and Morris's pieces are hollos»,

II

Shape has also been central to the mOM Important painting of the

past several years. r Il several recent essays- r have tried to show

; "Shape- as Form: frank Stdb's r\cw rnll'li/l~S," Arlf(1f'(l1n, Vol. V. ~·o. 3.Nm'cmht'f HJ66: "JulC';~Olit:


3/16

An;hony Coro: Bltnn;ng/C)II. 196.1, S'cer painted black. 3'4" x 13' x 11'. In the

colloctPoI'I of Ju o s Ol in k] , Ph ot09ro ph COUnO$Y of AI '\; lrt l ElI 'meri:h Gallery, NewYork.

Anthony COlO: flo,.. 1966. Stool peinsed blue. 2"1" )( 6'9" x 5'4". In the (oll.,ctiorl

e! ,,"'. ond litts. Henry Foiwell. PhOI(;9ropn (ourresy of Andre E'T:"Tlericn Gallery,New Yon.

a __ _ ~ " _. __ ._. _ __ __~

Michael Fried 120

how, in the work of Xoland, Olitski, 11I1(1 Stella, Q conflict has gradu-

~II>' emerged between shape us :t Fundamental property of objects

rind shape as a medium of paillting. HOlIj{hly, the success or failure

of a givcn painting ha~ come to depend on its ability to hold or

~1.:lJnp ltsell out or compel conviction as shape-s-thnt, or somehow tostave off or e-lude the question of whether or not it does SQ. Olitski's

early spray vaillhll~s arc tlH~purest example of painting. Q,,1I1ty :-.tlL~I!Un'l of Ali'S(.\:hiblli,»I. "Aillcrit


4/16

:>onold Judd! Unlilled. 1966. Goh'OlI;ad "eel. Each bOlCl 40" J( 40 " x 4 0" l or

o resel ICf'9lh of 25'4". Phol09roph coutle.y of Owon Vol.ery. N~.... York.

Art and Objscthood 123

extraneous, 1 did not yet know. Truitt's sculpture had this kind of

presence hut did not hide behind it. '111at sculpture could hidebehind it-jllsi as l)''linling did-T found out only after repeated

ucquaintaucc with Minima l works o f :u -t: Jlldd'!5, Morris's.Andre's, Steiner's, some but not all of Smuhson's, some but not nit

o r [..,eWitt's. ~1ittjmal art can also hide he hind presence as size: 1

think of Bladen (though T am not sure whether he is a certifiedMinimalist) as well as of some of the artists jllst mentioned.

Presence can be conferred by size or by the look of non-art. Further-

more. what non-art means loony, and has meant ('Or several years,Is fairly specific, In "Afler Ah"lract Expressionism" Greenberg

wrote that "a stretched or tacked-up canvas already exists as a pic-

turc-s-thougb not necessarily (IS a successiul one."! For thal TC


5/16

Michael Fritld 124

.IS lie remarks in "Recentness of Sculpture," tile "look of non-art \\~

no 1


6/16

Michael Fried 126

Mon'is believes that this awareness is heightened by "the strength of

the const:lI1l, known shape, the gestalt.'" against which the appear-

HrlCC of the piece from diJl'crt.:nt points of view is constantly being

compared, It is intcnsifled also hy the large si';lIe of much literalist

work:

The nwareuess of scale is a function of the comparison made

between that constant. onc s body .~i~.e,and the object. Space

between the subject and the object is implied in such a compari-

SOI1.

The larger the object the more we arc forced to keep om' distance

r rom it:Itis this necessary, greater distance of the object ii' space fromour bodies. in order that it be xeen at nil, that structures thenonpcrsonal Of puhlic mode [which :Morris advonates]. However,

it i:; ju:-I this distance bct\\'(;(·f) object and subject that creates a

more cxtended situation, because phystcal participation bcoomes

rWI.'eSsary.

The theatricality of Morrts's notion of the "nonpcrsonal or public

mode" se-ems obvious: the largeness of the piece, in conjunction with

its nonrelatioual, unitary character, distances the beholder-not just

physically but psycbi~llly. It b o , one might ~I)" precisely this distanc-ing that makes the beholder a subject and the piece in question ...

an object. But it docs nol follow that the larger the piece the moresecurely its "public" character is established: on the (.'Ul'trM)" "be-rond a certain si'l.c the object can 'Overwhelm and the gigantic scalebecomes the loaded term." ~torris wants to achieve: presence

thro\l~h objecthuod. which requires a ccrt~lin largeness of scale,

rather than through :size alone. But he is also aware lll:'1t this dis-tinction is anything hut hard find fast:

FOI' the space of the room it:self is a structuring factor both in its

cubic shape and in terms of the kind of comprcss~ol\ different

S L -l.C d and proportioned rooms can effect upon the objeet-.·mh$ect

terms. That t\1(' spare of the room becomes of such importancedocs not mean that an environmental situation is being estab-

lished. The to t ,1 1 : - ' l ) . ' 1 C C is hopefully altered in certain desired ways

Art and Objccthood 127

by the presence of the object. It is not controlled in the sense of

being ordered h)· un aggregate of objects or by some shaping of

the space surrounding the viewer.

The object, not the beholder, must remain the center or focus of the

situation; but the );itu:lHOIt it,,,elf belon/µ to the b eho ld er-it is his

situation. Or us Morris has remarked. "I wish to emphasize that

things are in a space with oneself. rather than .. , [that) one is in aspace surrounded by things." A~ajn, there is no clear or hard distinc-

tion between the two states of .i.ffaus: one is, after all, a lu . ; lQ lJs sur-

rounded by things. nut the things thnt are literahst works 01 art

must somehow confront the beholder-they must, One might al-

most say, he placed not just in his space but in I D S u,"l1Y. None of this,MOrris maintains.

indicates , I lack of interest in the object itself. Rill the concernsIIOWMe for more control of ... [he entire situation. Control is

necessary if tht! va.riahles of object. light, space, body, are to fune-lion. The object has not become less important, II has merely

become less self-important.

It is, J think, worth remarking that "the entire situation" mSivcncss of lHeral~1 work, but of the special com-

pliclty that that work extorts from the beholder. Something is said to

have presence when it demands that the beholder take il into ac-

count, that he take it scriously-and when the fulfillment of that


7/16

Michael Fried 128

demand consist-, simp), in being uwmC of it and. so to speak, ill

act ing t\c()(mlingly. (CcI'l:1in modes ul SCl'iOUSII(.,l;lI are dosed to the

beholder' by the wor], itself, i.('., those established b)' the !inest paint-

ill~and s(."Ull)tuTc of tilt' recent past. Hili, of course, those arc hardlylIIodes of seriousness in which llIost pcopk' I(,c\ at home, UI'that they

even find toh-rnblc.) Here again the experience of being dist:1ll('ro

by lilt' work ill (l'lt"~tion seems crucial: the beholder knows himself to stand ill nn indctcrtninnte, ope\l.ended-and uoexacting-e-rcln-

tion (1.$ Sfll' it>ct to the impassive uhject on the wall or floor. Tn fact.

l>t:in~ distanced hy such ahjeds is not. 1 suggest. entirely unlike

being dlstanced, or crowded, by the silent presence of unothet per-

S()Il; the experience {If coming upon litcrulist objects uncvpectedly-e-

for l'x;lmp\t·. in somewhat darkened rooms-e-c ..sn be strongly, if

lfIunwlltarily. uis/luieting in jll.~tlhis way.There nre three Irwin reasons why this is $0. Ftrst, the size of

t)lII(·h literalist work, as }..torr1s's remarks iUlp1r. compares fairlydos(,I), with that of tht: human hlldy. In chis context Tony Smith's

replies to


8/16

Michoel Fr ied 130

them [i.e., the sculptures he "always" madc 1 as sculptures but aspresences of ~lsort." The Itlten(,'Y or hiddenncss of the nnthropo-

morphism h3S been such that the literalists thcll1seh,cs have, as we

have seen, felt r reo to characterize the modernist oTt they oppose,e.g., the sculpture of O'lvicl Smith and Anthony Caro, M anthropo-

morpbio=e ell:\ractcri'l~tion whose teeth, ima~intlry 10 begin with,

have just been {)ulll:d. 'R)' the same token, however, what is wrongwith literalist work is not th~tl it .ill anthropomorphic hut that the

meaning :1IId, equally, the hiddcuncss of its ~_lIlhropomorphisJJ) are

incurably theatrical. (Not all literaliS1 art hides or masks its anthro-polllot'pbislIl; the work of lesser flgllrcs like Steiner wcnrs anthropo-

morphislII on its slccvc.) The (;nJci(li (/i.${inctioll that 1 am pr()lK>Sing: 5 " 0 far is beuace« work that is fllndamelltally theatrical 011(/ work

that is not. It is thctltTlcality that. whatever the differences betweenthem, links artists like Bladen and Grosvenor,' both of whom have

allowed "gi.gontie seale Ito become] the loaded tcnn" (Moms).

with other, more rc:strailled figures like Judd. Morris, Andre, Mc-

Crnckcn. J.eWitt 3Jld-Cum. Blnden wrote. "How do you make the ilt


9/16

Tony Slrith: Tho Bleck Box. 1963-65.~ointed wood. 2W It 3'. Pho~c.g(oph

cour-e,y o S Fhchboch Gal!ory, New

York.

Robelt Morris. Ulltitlcd. 1965. Oroy fiberg!o~ w i '" lighl. 2.4" )( 96" diameter.Ifl the coJlecli:)n of II\c DW


10/16

Michael Fried 134

plc but III fact, and lilt' question of whether Or 001 one has really

lwei it does not arise. That this appeals to SlIlith can be seen from his

praise of 1;.; Corbusier as "more available" than Michelangelo: "The

direct and primitive experience of the High Court Buikhng at

Chandigarh i-, lik(' the .Pilch los of UlC Southwest under a Iantastic

oV(.'rh;lIl~ing cliff. It'!\ something everyone C:\1) understand:' 1t is, I

think, hardly necessary to add that the availability of modernist artis !lot of this kind. and thut the ri~htncss or relevance o r one'sconviction about specific modernist works, ;1 conviction thnt begins

and ends in one's experience of the work itself, is always open to

question.But wha] u:as Smith's c'xl~ericn'?-What, indeed, if notilhout

the art jlsdf-as though till: object is needed only within a room"

(01', perhaps, ill ail>' circumstances less extreme thnn these}. In each

of the above cases the object is, so to speak, replaced b)' something:

for example, on the turnpike by the constant onrush of the road. the

simultaneous recc-sion of new reaches of dark pavement illumlned

by the onrushing hcltdlighb. thc sense of the turnpike it~·1f as some-

thing enormous, abandoned, derelict, existing (01' Smith alone and

for those in the

Art and Objcetbocd 135

persistence, with which the experience- presents itself as directed M

him from otlt~itr~tngdy inconclusive:

Wh)' not Ptlt the work outdoors and further change the terms? :\ real need exists to allow this next step to become practical. Archi-teetumlly designed sculptllre courts are not the answer nor is thc

placement of work outside cubic architectural forms. Ideally, it is

a space, without architecture as h:ICkgrolll' experience on the turnpike bears wit ne ss t o

theatre's profound hostility to the art"" ;Ind discloses. precisely in the

al).~t:nCt:of the object and in what takes its pillet" what might be

calico the theatricality of ohjcc:thood. R}' the same token, however.the imperative that modernist painting defeat or suspend its object-

hood is at bottom the impcrativl! th;tI it dejc(ri or .$ 1 I,v r> e tu l theatre.

And this means that there is a war going On between theatre and

modernist painting. between the tht',ltric:al and Ihc pitlorial-~I war

that. despite the literalists' explicit rejection of modernist paintingand sculpture, is not basically a matter of program IlIId ideology but

of experience. conviction, !>t'nsibilit)'. (For example, ilwas n pnrticu-

lar experience that (mgcllt ierc.:ci Smith's conviction that painting-inf:let. that the arts a....such-were flnished.)

Th e starkness


11/16

Micho~l Frie~ 1;$6

being, l),dll(in~s, or sculptures for thut matter, simply I~cm obiccts.

1t would. I think. be closer to tile tnlth to say that the)' .'iimply were

not.!" The risk. even the possibility, of seeing works of ,1 I ' t as noth-

ill~ /liMe than objects did not exist That this pOx'~ibilily began topresent itself nround 1960 was l:u~cl)' rhe rt'!\\l1t of developmonts

within modernist 1Jnert\l is

grounded. Llteralist sCIl"ihility is. therefore, a response 10 the same

developments that have \;1I'gdy compelled modernist p;'i"tin~ to

undo its objeethood-c-more precisely. the same developments seen

c1iJjrm:llt1y, that is. in tht'alric::al terms. by a M"nsihility alm(lt/!I thcat-

rical, already (to say the worst) corrupted or perverted b)' theatre.

14 Sla"lt'y Cavell h~< remarked ill ~j'mhur lh31 COt ({fll) I in lhj' Critiquc .)/

JIIIIr:ITl.mt a \\'(JI~ of MI is nll( .11'1 (,LjI'Cl. T \\;11 take Ihi- ('.'.~()(tunit)· (0 al'-ImowIN\sjt' the Ca(.'l 11..-l wilh.ot.1t IlUlJlt.-TOU> ~'I.).WM"f'nl ~"'


12/16

Michocl Fried 138

other precisely h)' virtue of their [uxrnposition: it is in this sense', a

~1'1I"1'mevtricably involved with the COIICCl)t vf meaning, that every

thin~ in Care's art thai is worth looking :It is in its S}'nlMC, Care's(.'OIl(:\"lIlratioll upon syntax amounts. U 1 Crcenberg's view, to "an

emphasis 011 abstractness. OD radical unlikeness to nature."I:! And

Gr('("nbt:I'g p;ocs 011 to remark, "No other sculptor has "~one us fill'

[rom the structural lo~ic of ordinary ponderable things:' It is wortht'lllpha:;\zin such--.'l~ though the

possibility of "waning what we s:\y ;11)0 do alone makes his sculp-

tun; possible. All this. il is hardly necessary to add, makes Caw's aftn fountainbeud of antilitcralist ancl antithcatricnl senI'e is another, more general respect in which objccthood hasbecome ;111 iSSlI1;! for the most ambitious recent modcmlst sculpture

nnd that is in regard to color. This is " large and difficult subject,

wluc h I c ann ot h op e to do mo re than touc h o n hert>"~ Briefly.

however. color h;l:-: become problematic for modernist sculpture, not

because one senses that it has been apptied, but because the color of

a given sculpture, whether applied or in the natural state of the

material, is iclenticn] with its surface: and inasmuch 3$ all objects

have surface, awareness of the sculpture's surface irnpliex its object-hood-e-thcrcby threatening to q\l(\lif)' or mitigate the undermining

•.-.Thtc ~nd the foUnwin>! t':H\\Wm,; In retrospect to have b\!\."l'mottvnred not br thed('.(l1l1l!thio~ (It! " VC(!I.'l't;l1 CQllfirrru' i t i n its obicethood: chour,h merely

removing Ih.. flo:ddlal doc.$ 1101 in It~c!lf uodermioe obio:-c!llood. :o~ Iit('YlllllOt

work 1 ''''\1 \''' - " " " " ,. Scc \.fco,;tibcrs·~ "Anlhool)' Cnro" :\1«\ thl' In!ct ~ccdoo In lilY "Sh~I)C a .s

F(,nll" f or m o re . t ho u) !t l n o t n grc.,t deal m oee. about color \11


13/16

Michoel Fricxl 1~ O

relevant texts are, O r course, Brecht and Art3I1d.I:') For theatre has an audi('llcl-it exists for Onl.,--10 ;\ \va)' the other arts do not; in

f'l('I, 11Hsmore than anyllung else is what modernist se-nsibiliry finds

intoler.rblc in theatre ~ener.111)'. Here il should be remarked that

litcr.;dbt :II'l, too, possesses an audience, though n solllcwhOlt special

one: that the be-holder is confronted hy literalist work Within a

situation that he experiences :\..\Itls means that there is an importantsense in which thl! work in question c-.:ist:. for him alone. even if Iw

is nut ;wtually alone with the work at the time. It lila)' seem pam-

doxical to claim holh that literalist scn"ihliily aspires to :1 1 1 ideal of

"somcthlng everyone can undcrstaud" (Smith) and thot Iitt'ralist art

addresses itself to th{· heholrle r alone, out the p'II·:.do:.: is only appar-

ent. SOIlll'()IW ha~ merely to enter the rOOlI) in which a literalist work

ha.s been plated to heroine that beholder, that audience of 011(,'-

uhnoxt a.; Ihou~h the work in cjlll':.hon has been wa;(lJIg for hun.

And inasmuch as litcmhst work depends 011 Itw beholder. is ;11C;(III1·

plell' without him. it has been \\"lilin~ for him. And once he i~in the

room tlw wor], rd\L"CS, obstinately. to It'! him alonc-s-which is to

say, it refuses to stop confronting him. distancing hiln, i~iating him.(Slid, isol;lIioll is not solitude ail}' more than such h' \\fin,·" .1 wholr pill' of M ani st p lny~: but 1 11 1> 1 11 :\11 \1:\(- .;

w .., the- unl)' '1 1 < "< '1 .1 1 1 )1 ' for rll~ pl.,y> I'd C'VC'( corm- :1('1'0


14/16

• . ....... 14,i

facl the individual arts have never been more explicitly concerned

with the conventions that constitute their respective essences.

3) The concepts 0 / quality und v(I/uC-


15/16

Michacl Fr icd 146

sculpture is, so to speak. eclipsed by the sculpture itself-which it is

plainly meaningless to speak of .IS

onl}' 1wltiy prescnt.) It is thhconunuous and entire presentness, amounting. :15 it were. to theperpetual creation of itsdf, that one experiences as a kind of instun-faneoustless: 4IS thou~h if only one were infinitely more acute. asingle infinitely brief instant would he long enough to sec every-

thing, to experience the work in all i ts depth and flllIl1~, to beforever convinced hy iI. [Here it is worth noting that the concept of

interest impltes temporality in the form of continuing attention di-

rected 51 the object. whereas the concept of conviction (foes not.) I

want to claim that it is by virtue of their presentness and instantane-ousness that modernist painting and sculpture defeat theatre. In

Iaot, I am tempted Jnr beyond my knowledge to suggest that, faced

with the need to defeat theatre, i t is 81)0\'e all to the oondition ofpainting and sculpture-s-the condition. that is. of existing in. indeed

of seereung or eonsthuting. a continuous and perpetual present-s-

that the other contemporary modcmlst arts. most notably poetry

and music, aspire.'O

1" WI!.:It thi:< Il)ngcr valid: lnoat (he rl~p$odi!St has to treat hi~ IOnteti:lI 01\ w )lol ly in the pust ; the m ime hi ..~ , os w hcJl l )' here and no w. l t should beIlPP:HCtlt IIJI tbrollg)1 h!~ I)ed(lrm.'1ncc tlt:tt 'even at the start nnd in thl! DI/d-dle he klt(l\\'~ how [t ends' and lit:' must 'th\IS mnintain n c-alm tudepcndenecthrougbout. ' He n: iTfnt~ tbe s tory of his charactrn by vivid porlr3Y.lI , always

\;n( )\vin ? 010r(' than It docs :lIld lI


16/16

Michael fried 14.4

however, not because of any fullncss-awt is the inexhaustibility of art-but hCC:1I1~c there is nothing there to exhaust, It is endless the

W,I)' a road might be: if it were circular, for example,

Endlessness, being able to go on and on, even having to go on and

on, is central both to the COIH,'ept of Interest and to th ..t of object-

hood, In fact. it seems to D C the experience that most deeply excitesliteralist ~nsibility, and that literalist artisL~ seck 10 ohjedify il) theirwork-for example, by the repetition of idcntil'ltlllnits (Jlldd's "one

thing after another"), which cnrrics the implicatiou that the units iu

question could be multiplied at! illfi'l!lum,l'" Smith's account of his

experience on the unfinished turnplkc records thtlt excitement all but

explicitly. Similarly, ~rorris'~ claim that in the l ~t new ' . ...ork thebeholder is m..dc aware that "he himself i ..; establishing relationships;1$ he apprehends the object from various positions and under vary-

ing conditions of light and spatial context' amounts to the claim that

the beholder L~made aware of the endlessness and lncxhnustihility if

not of the ohjcct itself at 311)' rate of his experience of it. This

awareness is furl her exacerbated by what might ht' called the inclu-

Sit)(;1I8SS,of his s i tuation, that is, by the fact, remarked earlier, thuteverything he observes counts ns part of that situation and hence is

felt to bear in some W ~ > ' that remains undefined On his experience of the object.

Here finally 1 wont to emphasize something that rna)' alreadyhave become clear: the experience in question persists III time, and

the presentment of endlessne .....s that, I have been claiming, is central

to literalist art and theory is essentially n presentment

o r endless. 01'

indefinite, durauon. Once again Smith's account of his ui~ht drive isrelevant, !! of d.t!ls .mel mnlllllkl'l

art and objecthood freed

Documents