art and objecthood

8/13/2019 Art and Objecthood

1/16

ARTANDOBJECTHOOD*yMichoel rieaIn this essly Michael Frid criticLe,, Minimat Art- or 6 he ca s ir."literalisC' lrt-for what he desoibes as its inhercnt theatricrlitv. At tlrqmF ume. Ie Jrgucs thdt tic modemisr rt . iactuding paining rr"l ulpture.l,ave comc incrFasingly o depend for 6eir very conrjnua,r,on their ibility to d4par rh".be. Fried characteria rh; |-hqtrical ,,,rems ot a pgticular rebtion bcr$een the beholdFr6 $b/?ct and t1.,.wtk .it oqict- a rchtion tbat lales place in rime, rhat bs duratiu,,Wh6e6 defclting theatree',raihdeferringor suspending ot-h biecthoo,t

Fried was born in t\'ew York City in 1939. }le took his B.A. arhinceton Udversity.md was a Rhodes Sc.holarat MertoD Colteg, Or.f.rd. He is a ContrihurDs Edrtor tor Alrlorun. ud he organ;ed rt,TItr. Ahc can Paintcruexhibirionat the Fogg Arr Vuse;, HdN,.,,lUni\F6it). in 1985. Hc is curendy a Junio;-FeIow in rhe H.w3,,l

Edwards's toumals frequendy exploed and tested a meditation h.seldomallowcd to reach print; if all the world were annibilated, h{,wote . . . and a new world were freshly created, though it werc toexist in evry particular in the sarnemanner as this Eorl4 it llr'ouftlnot be the same. Therfore, becaue there is conriDuity, which istnne, it is ccrtain with me that tle world edsrs anew every mo-ment; tlat the existenceof things every moment casesand is evcrymoment rcnewcd.' The abidiDgassunnce is that 'we ever).momentsee }le sameproof of a God as we should haveseen f we had seenHim create thc rvorld at 6rst."-Perry l{iller, Ioruttun Ed.wadsIThe enterprise known variously as Minimal Art, ABC Arq PrirnaryStructues, and Spcciffc Objects is largely ideologcal. It seeks todeclare and occupy i position--,one that can be formulated in

r Reprintedrom Artlrmrr, Iurc, 196'7.

ond Obiecthood 117and in fact basbeen Iormulatd by someof its leading prac-If this distinguishesit from modemist paiDting and sculp-on the one haad, it also marl$ an importast difierenc betweenArt----or, asI prefe. to call it, litetarit afi----andPop or OPon the other. From its inception, literalist aft Las amountd tomore tla an episod in th history of taste. It belongs

to the bitory-almost ttre nattrdl history-of sensibility; andis not an isolated episodebut tbe expressionof a general andcotrdition. Its seiousness s vouched for by the {act that itin relatiod both to modemist painting and modemist sculptureliteralist art defles or locats the positioD it aspnes to occupyis, I suggest, is what makes what it declares som-ething hatto be ca[ed a position.) Speciffcally, literalist art conceivetof itsef asneitbs onnor tle otherj on the conEary, it is mothatdy speciGceservations,or worse, about both; and it aspirs,Perhapslot exacdy, or not immediately, to disPlace them, but in any coseto establish tself as an indpndentart on fl footing $'itl either.The literalist caseagainstpainting rests mainly on two counts: theioral character of almost all painting; and the ubiquitousness,the virtuel iDescapability, of picto al illusion- In Donald

wher you start relating parts, in the ffIst Plac, you'rc assumingyou have a vague rvhole-the rectangle of the canvas----and e6-nite pans, which is a[ soewed up, bccauseyou should heve adefnite il)holsend maybeno parts, or very few lrThis Ms saldby Judd D an inttriw with Btucecloser,editdbv LucvL r,ippardmd published s 'Questionso StellaandJudd,"At Neod, VollXV, No. t S6"t@bs 1966.The ItlrELr othibutdn the presnt ssovoJudd rnd Moris lEvc het taLeo trem tb& intewiN fr@ Judds 65av SDe-cGc Obiets. Attt fqrbook. No. 8. 1965, or fr@ Roberr Nlorb.s esvs."Not6 d Solpturc' @d "Note m soipturc, Patt 2," publishd in Att',orn, vol IV, No. O, fbmey 1966, snd Vol. 5, No. 2, Octobd 1966' re{Ec-nve&- (1 hlG also tala ore lfut by Motis f @ ihe ataloguc io thelrhibitiotr - :iaht Solpto^: tlF Ambieuous Imsge, held al the W,lker ArtCentd. Odob;FDce;bs 1966.r I 'hould add that in laving oul shat seosto @ ihe posiHon ludd and Mord hotd in comon I }av ielored vdloujdifieMc between th@. and hav ued eenain lennrls in contdts fo. ivhichthey may Dot hove bee iltndd. Morove., I lave not alwavs ildicated whichof thm achDlly soid d wt a pdtidlar phdse; lhe altenative vould haveben to litter the lext vith f@rnotcs.


2/16

liichoel Fried ll8The more the sbape of the spport is emphasized,as in rcccrrlmodcmist painting, the tights the situation b.Dmes:

The etements nside the rcctangle are broad and simple aDd correspondclosely to the rcctangle.The shapesand su acare onl)thosc that can occul plausibll' s'ithin and ona rettangular plancThe pars are fervand so s"bordimlc lo unity rs Dot to be prrt\jn en ordinary sense.A pa'nting is rcarly an entity, one thing.and not tbe hdefiDablesum of a $oup of entities and rcferenccs.The one thing overpowe$ the earlier painting. It alsoestablishr'sihe rect:tngte as a dcffnite {olm: it js no longcr a fairly neutiillimit. A form can be used only tu so many ways The rectau-gu)ar p)ane it given a life span.The simplicity required to enphasjzehc rectangleimits heanangements ossiblcvithin iLPabting is here seenas an att oD the vcrge of exhausuon,one itrwhich thc rangc of acceptabtesolutionsto a basic problem-how tirorg&nize he surfacof the pictuFis severely cstricted The useolshaped rather tbanrectangular supportscan, frcm the literalist poiltof view, merely prolong the agony. The obr-iousresponseb to 8i\(up working on a singl plane in favor of tlree dimnsions.That,moreo\,cr. automaticallY

gcts rid of the problem of ilusionism and of literal space,sPace rrand around marks and colors-rvhic.h is riddanc of one oI th.salient and mostobjectionable relics of Euopean art. The severallimits of printing areno longer Fesent. A vo.k can be aspowcr-fttl rs it can bc tlought to bc. Actual space s inirinsically morcpoNerful nndspcciGc han paint oD a flat sudace.The literrtist attitude toward sculpture is more ambiguorrs.Judd.for c'xuryrle, semi to think o{ what h calls Specific Objects assomcthi g othcr thnn sculpture, while Robert Moris c'onceivesolhis own unmistrkably titeralist work as rcsuming rhe lapseil tradi-tion o{ Constructivist sculpture establishedby Tatlin, Rodchenko,Cabo, Pevsner, and Vantongerloo But this and other disagreementsare less mpoltant thnD the viervsJudd and l{orris hold in commonAbove all thcy are opposed to sculpture that, like most painting' is

"made part by pnrt. by addition, composed"and in wbich 'specifcelcments . . . separatefrom tbe $'hole, thus setting up relationships

9tle rvorlc" (They would include the \r"ork of Dayid SmirhAnthony Carc uiler tlis description.) It is worth rmarki:rgthe 'part-hy-part" and "rclational" character of mo$tsculpture

Monis devotes considerableaftcnrion to 'lthe use of strung gestaltor of unitary-type foms to avoid divisiveness";whilc Judd is chieflylnterested n the *ind of wholeness hat canbe achievedtbroueh therepetitionof identicalunits. The order at work in his pieces.-os eonc remarkedot ltral in Stelta's b'ipepaintings. is simply order.like that of continuity, one t}ing after another." For both Judd andMords, however,the citical factm is srkp?. Morris's "unitary forms"lre polyLedrons tlat resist being grasped other than as a singleshape: the gestalt simply ir the'oonstan knol'n shape." And shapeitsef 4 in his system, -the nost important sculptural value." Simi-larly, qeaking of his ow'n work, Judd has remarkedthat

rhe big Foblem is that anything that is not absolutely plain be-gils to have parts itr some *ay. The thing is to be able to workand do difierent things aad yet not break up the wholeness hat apiece has. To me the piece with the br3ss and the ffve verticalsiselnve allthat shaoe.

associatedby ludd wit]l what he calls anthrcnomowhtcm: 'Atlrusts; a piece of iron follolvs a gesture; togethcr they form anaturalistic and antlropomorphic image. The space corresponils."such 'multipart, inflcted' sculpture Judd and Monis assetvalues of *'holeness, singlenss,and indivisibility---o{ a work'sas nearly as possible, "one thing," a single "Specific Objecr."

sbape e the object: at any mte, what secures he wholenessofobject is the siDglenessf the shape. t is, I believ, this empha-sison shape that acoDunts or the impression,which numerouscrit-ics have mentioned,ttrat Judd s and Moris's piecesarc hollou,t l Shapehas also beencenhal to th most impotant painting of thePast several years. In sevral recent essays2 bave tried to show

"'Shape as Fom: rraDk srelai Ns painringr,,, Arrl@D, Vol, V, No. 3,ov@ba r968j "Jur6 Olftski," tbe @t losue iDrroductionro an erhibition ofIn; wqk at the Cd@m caltery, wshinsron, D.C., April-Jue, l967j and"Bolald Davis: sulhe dd m6id," A'rtoM, Vol. V, No. 8, April 1967.


3/16

120ho{, in the wor} of:iotaDd,Olitski. and Sieltr. a conflicthasgradu-ally emcrgedbcNeen shapcas a fundanrcntat ropertyof objccl\and sLapcas a 'ncdiun of paintilg. Roughh,the success r frilurcof a gi\n paintinghas comc to depeDdon iis ability to hold orstamp tsel{out or compelconvntion asshape-tl)it, or somcho$ ostaveoS or eludc he qucstionof *hethcr or rot it doesso. Olitsli\early spraypaiDtnrgs re he purcsterampleof paintings hat cithfrhold or fait to hold as shapcs;Nhilc in his more rccentpi.turcs, tt\rvell as n thc bestof Noland's rndstelh's recent rork, thc denran(]that a gilen pichre hold 1ls h.rpes stavedofi or eluded n variorr\rvays. \4rat is at stakc n this confict is $hcthcr the paintings orobjccts n qucstionarc expericnced spaintnrgsor asobjccts:arwhat deciclcs hejr idcntit) as |ditirtrg is thcir conlrontingof th fdemand hat thcy l,old asshaPesOthenvise rey are erlerienccdrsnothing ore than objc.is.This crn bc sun rcd up b)'saving thrtmodemistp^inting h.rscone to 6nd it imperatir.c bat it defeatorsuspendts own objecthood,nd that the crucial actor n this undcftaking s sliape, ut shrpethat mustbelong o /tdinting-it must 'pictolirl, not, or not merel),, itcral Whercrs litcralist art stakcsevcrythingon shapeas a given propert of obiccts, f not, ind.o(].as a kind of obicct in its o$'t) right. Ir rspircs, not to defcat olsuspendts o$n obiecthood,but on the contrar)'to discover:rn(lpmjectobjectlrood ssuch.In his essay lcccntnessof Sclllphre" Cleme:rtCreenberg discusseshc cf(ict of p'crn.{],wl)ich, ronr thc start,has beenassociated with ljtcnlist $ork.3 This cornesup in conncctionNith thcsrcrk of Arno Truitt. m artist Creenbergbclicvesanticipated ))('literalists h. crlls tldr \ Iinnn.lists :

Truiit s irt (li(l llirt with t}c look of non-alt, andher 1963sho$was tbc firsl ir \lhiclr I roti(c'd ho$ this look corld confcr rlcfect of p,r'v,ir. Tlat prcseDcc s achicved hroughsize $riacstheticrlh (\lnntous, I alrcadl' lncs'. That presence r\achieYedhroruh thc lool' of non art slls likesise aestheticill\3PubLish.dnr tlr car,Ll,)(ur ,, the Los Anseles Count-w 'l$em of r\n 'rxl'ibition, .ADeriQn sculphtu oI ile Sixti6.,'lhc verb proiEf tu I hr 'jlrt urd it is trkrn fronr (irq)hrJrs sratement The osrensibleaim of 1lr

Nlinimalhh is b lroject ol)j,ds N(l d,semblesof objoch th.t arc just nuds,

AnrhonyCoro, Benni^st6h.1964- $eel pdinted block. 3'4" x 13' x ll'. ln rhe.olrectionof lules Olitski, Phorosrdph ourtryot Andre Emmeri(hGolery, New

AnrhonyCoro; Flox. 1966.Sreelpoinredblue. 2'1" r 6'9" x 5'4". In the .ollectionol Mr. ond Mre, fienry Feiwe . Photosroph.ou esy of Andre EmmerichGollery,


4/16

d o.d Obiecihood ' t23.\trxneo,,s. I did noi et kDo(. T itt\ sculpturc had diis knrd ofpres.nc. bnt dnl not lrirle b.hind it- Th;rt scrlphrre could hklhchind it-jusi rs panrtiDs did t {ound oui only aftcr rcpcitedrc. luanri , ln.e $j ih i \ lhinl l1l \orks of art i Judds, \ lodsi ..\rdre s, Sienicr's, somc but rot dll of SmiihsoD s. sone but not dlol Le\\'iit's. \finnlal ld.irn.lso hidc behilrl pr.sencc xs sizc: Ithinl ol Bladcrr lthough I dm Dot su.c whethor lie is a certined\ l iniN)l ist l :1s . l l rs of \onic of thc:ut isis just ment ion.cl .

Itcvrcc c.lD be .o|fened l) sizc or by the look of non art. Frrther-inrc. \'hrt DoD-nrt rn.rrns tocld), and hs n{:rnt for scveral ).cars.ir fxirl\ speci6.. ID "\fier ,\Lstrrct Evressionisn Creenberg*rotc thii r ltr.ichcd or t..le.l up .anvas alre,r.lrr e\ists as ,r pic,lrrre- though not necess.rrih as a .r,r.c.sst, oDe. For that reison,

r,'thd r\hnr.{t li\tirer\iori. ," 1,1h rtrdridn,l, \ii vI, r_o.8. O.rober:5. lglil. .ll) IlirD.'sigeii.D \l]nh thir hd been rrle. rErd\ r\ f.llo*r:t'ul'J tle te\ln,g ,)f nb(L isn no.. Dd norr of ih .onrentjons .f iheIi .f prirl s i.trc ,l${r lhrn\olver t. be di.red\rbl.. nness.nri,l. llutro$ it li.,s L..n rnrblished, it \dnl,l icrn. thri rle rred .iblc crier.c offirluriil .tri .oBnts i', Lut ttro . .rtitltive ..rtr ertionJ or.omrr flarDessand rlir,lrlinritxhoD of nrbes\r rnd thrt rie obs-.rv.n(e of ntrolw tbesehro romx j\ ero',qh lo.reite rn ,[j,..t thrt.rn be e\ e.ier.ed r. a pi.,l r.: l)rrs .i rtrel.li.d .r hctod{p .nv.s .]re d) osins .s a licruelhutr{li r.t re(cstil:; rs r s,...sl,rl orc.

In its lrnul o'rtljrr rln n nrdonLtdl Lorre.r. Tl,,Jc ar., }o\'.yer,.errai.q'rilific.tlio.\ ll,rt.xn br Dr.le'lo LrLrn \jrli, it n not quite.n.nql lo sar that r b..e crnvrs ia.:Lcd ro n$rI n ht inG\..'ril\" I $..0\sful pi.t'r.j n w.ul(i, I drnrk, b les of...\rgs.rrt'or r{r \x ll,Jl it is not LorttinbllJ .it. lt nu} be .on.t rcd rhrtrrlurr.i(1rm\lan.es Dill,t ln .h rs to ndli" it. u.c\sfu] printinsi bur Js,[l(l rrrxr rl, , n). tl)rt r,, I'r ,r.n, ihe cnterprise ot Dannnis \vonld ]raven, (hnr{r \o.lrr\|n]llv tlit n.llrnrq n.rc thin thc nine Noul.l r.nlnr. (I r\odd nrlrirc x hr Art,,n.r chrnge rhrD lhrt tl'rt ,rn,rin hrs undercone ron\hn.l lo Nol.ftl, Oln\ki, rn,l Stdhl) \loreover, reenis w'nctling.s . paint-nrs in tl). \1trr thrt on. \e.\ Ll,e nr'lrd-up Qnvas as a rDnnn,g, i.d }cingcorvinrcd llnl r rJnrtilul.r $ork.rn \tJd .omplison \rft the DanrL.s of rhelJx\t Nh\r qmlit_v r n.t ni doubt, rre rlt.setl'er diffenJ)t r\prricn.s: it is,I \ art 1,, .,) rr thoLcl, u er\ {'n.thing compels o.vi.Li.r 2s ro its (l nlib,il is.. nw. thrf bniilly,tr ronrnully a printing. This susgrsts liat llalles\rnd lhe delnnitrtion ot llrtn.s .usht not to be thonght of rs rhe ir'ellu.ible.\icrc. df pi.tdial rlt but rrdrer rs \omctln,g litc t\e ni ,tdl .ontlitiarclot $,'\1h"1 s ])tir : ..r ut a r,ln,rirsi ind dnt dr..ru.ial qu.\tion js not

: -' ":+:i:::::1966.Golvonized reel .E.ch box,40" x {0" x O" i'Phorogtoph oudesyol D*on Golle'v, Ne* York

"1II11 4:1? r

Donold udd, unri t ledo lorol lensth oi 25'4"


5/16

MichoelFried 121as he rma*s in 'Recentress of SculPture," the 'look of lon_art s asno longcr availableto paintin8." Instead, tbe borderline between artand non-art bad to be sought in t]te three-dimensioDal,where scubtruc was, and where everything material that was not art also wasCreflberg goasos to say:

The look of machinery is shunnednorv because t doesnot go frrenough towards tbe look of non-art, which is presumably arr'inerd look that ofieis thc eye a miBimum of "interesting" inci_aent-udike the nachinc look, which is arty by comparison( andwhcn I thinl of Tmguely I vould agree witl thi ). Still' nomatter how simple the object may be, there remain tle telationsand interelatioDs of surface,cotrtour, etrd spatial intrval Mini-rnal worts are readable as art, as almost an)'thing is today-iD_cluditrg a door, a table, or a blank sbcetof papr. . . . Yet it wouldseen that a kisd of art oearcr the condition of non_artcould notbe etrvisaEed r idcated at tiis momeDt.

what ih@ midn l dd, so to sp@I, lDds onditios ar.' but raths sbnt.at a siv@ mondq is @Psble of @nplliDg @ ictio , of suc.ding a pan't_ing- This is Dot to sy that paiDti,g fu to *.D; it ,5 o clai6 tlat thrre-xn{Fi.e. rhat *hi.h coinpdt @'victil,Fjs legetv dete@ilcd bv' aD'lihe.Ior6 chang6 @tilully io retMse to, the vltal work of the reeDt pan'The scD@ oi Dliltirs is oot somdthiDg ireducible Raihd, the tasL of tlr'modmist paiotq G to dis@q those @veDtions that' nt E givcn o@etlzlotu a( i,oabl. of BlablDhitg }is wol's idodtv 6 P.intios'cErb|;aDorc.chs lhis p6iti@ when he sd& Ar it rdls to Ee, Ne\mn, Rolhlo, and Still lave $dg the lellditici$ of Elod.dist Dainting n'a nN ilnA bon simDly by @ntiouing it io its old ooe. The qu6tion nN a'lcJ$bush rhet art is ro lo"ger *hrt ortitutcs att, or tle art of psilting' r\sch-btrt what inedDcibly mstitutes goo, alt s $ch Or rathq, what h th'ulbnale source of valuo or quolitv i an?' But I *ould argrre that what mo(l'mnm hd\ mennt is tltlt lhe two qucstiorwhat @n5titut6 'hcan ot Drnrt

inc? ,,sd vh con\tilutA ced p"intiog?-." no loneer sepedbler tle 6r'lAi"*nn-^. o, incra\inrlv rend\ to dis.pp.r' into the s@nd (I am 'no*i". r*i"s B.u. het. with the v6sio. of nodehisn put foMrd in nrTbee Anarican PanncB.)For eole on thc oture of qscnce aDd cowondon i the Eod@ist arr'sm ny A.ays oD sl"llJ r',J OliL'ki nentiood .bove, 6 well s SlanlevCav'll_\lsj; [email protected]. ind neioind6i to cnti6 of thlt e$v' to b' FUI'X.hed as oan oi a 'vmno.iun bv the U iv.6tv of Pitlsburgh PB in a v"l-".otiti"a

e'r. trinrf"r,i nriieia C"vdl s Dies will als lppcar io LxJWe M.ot What We Sdr?, n b@ of his 6savs to be poblishd in the ndr

Arr ond Obicthood 125lte meaning in ttris contcxt o{ "the condition of non-art" is what Ihavebem cslliDg obiecthood. It is as tlough objectlood alone can,ln ihe present cicumstances, securesomethinds identity, if not asnon-aft, at least as neitber painting aor sculpture; or as though.awork of art-more accurately a *'ork of modemist painting orfculPture- were in some essential espe& not anobieca.

'Itere is, in aDy case,a sba4) contrast between the literalist es-o{ ob ecthood-almost, it seems,as an alt in its own dght-modemist painting's self-imposed imperative riat it defeat orruryend it o1ralobjectlood tbrough the medium of shape. In {act,ftorn the perq:ective of recnt modemist painting, the literalist posi-flon evinc asensibility not simply alien but antithetical to its own:as though, from that pEpective, the demanAsof art and the condi-tioDsof obiecthood are indrrect coLflict.Here the question arfucs:What is it abourobjecthood 6 pmiectedand hnostatized by the literalists that makes it, if only from theper*)ective of recnt modemist painting,antithetical to art?

answer I want to propose is this: the lite.alist espusal of ob-amounts to nothing other than a plea lor a ne*' genre of; and theeEe is now the neeationof art.Literalist sensibility is theatrical because,o begin with, it is con-witb the actual circrnnstances n vhich the beholder en-literalist work, Morris makes this explicit. Whereas in pre-art 'what is to be had from the work is located stricdy rritiin" the experienceof litenlist art is of atr obiect in u sihtatton-that, virtually by deGnition, indudes the beholdet:

The better new work takes relationships out of the wo* andneks them a function of space, ight, and the viewer's ffeld ofvision. The obiect is but one of the terms in the newer aestletic.It ii in some rl,ey more reflcxive becauseonet arvarenessof one-self existing iD the sarne space as tlre work is sEonge. than inprevious work, with its many intemal relatioDships.One i5 moreaware than befoie that he himself is establishing relationship ashe alDrehn& the obiect fiom various positions and under vary-bg conditioB of light ena spatialcontext.


6/16

Michoel Fried 126Monis belicrcs tlat iliis a\rarcncss s hciglrtcncd by "thc shengd) ('1the constant, knorvn shape, the gestalt," agaiDstwhich thc appc,ance o{ t}ie piece Irom difierent ponns of vje\\' is constantly bcir{compared. It is intcDsiffed also b)' thc l.rrge scale of much litcrnliil

TLe artareness of scale is a furction o{ tl)e comparison nrx(l,between ihat constaDt, oDe's body size, and the ol)J'ect.Spr(,betveen thc sobject and thc object n inplied in such 8 con)pili

The larger the object the nore Fc uc forced to leep our distatt,,

It is this necessary,ge.tter dist.rnce of the objcct iD spacc fm',,oru bodies, nr order thai it be seen at dl, tbat structurcs tlnonperonal or public modc llnich IIoris tdlocatcsl. IIo\\eu'lit is just this distancc bctlveen object and subject that creat( s Imore extended situation, becaNe phrsical participrtion becoDr(*

Th theatricalit-v of \lorris's notion of thc "nonpersonal or publi,mode seemsobvious: tlre largenessof thc piccc. in contunction lri(llits nonrclational, unitary character, dir.m.sj t}c bcholder-not jtFlphlrically but pslchicallr. It n, one might s.ry,prccisel)' this distrrtring that ,ll?}.s the bcholde. a subject and the piece in question . .an objcct. But it docs not follo( thrt tlte l:uger the picce thc mor'securely its -publii' character is cstablished; on the contrxr , 'lnyond a ceta size the object can orcnYhcln and dte gigantic sc I,'becomes the loaded term." Uoffis \\'ants to achiel prcsen.tthrougl oLiectlrood. \'Lich .equircs a certanr Idgeness of scnl(.nther dian through size alone. But he is ako avarc tiat this distinction is aDl.thnrg but Lard and hst:

For the space of th. roon itself is a stnich'.ing factor both in it\crrbic shape and in t.'nDs of the kind of conrprcssion diferertsizcd and prcportioned room can efiect upon the object-subjc.ltems- That ihe sp.rcc of thc room bccomes of such importan(,does not mean drNt .rn cnlironnrental sihration is being estal)lished. The tot.rl spacc s LopeftrlJyaltcrcd ir ccrtain desired wn '

Ad ond Obiedh@d 127Ly lh. prescn,o t dreob jc .r t r is nor .ontro c,l in t t ,e ,cn\ .o lrrnrg ordi c.thy _.n gg,. l j r tc ot ntr i .( \ or Ly si ,mc h ,pingolrDc pacc rrro,rndjnA ],e \ ieq"r.'lhe obtect,not thebehotder,mustremain he centeror Locus f theri lua,ioobut the \ i fuarioo t-e [ belona, o t_LF.hotder _ir " /, i rsnuatron. r $ \tol i \ . l rx\ I , mrr l ,ed. t $i , t , to .,r ,ph1\i7. h"rf lungs r. in a:pdcFwir l ,onc.ef mttr", t ,dn... l r j rJ l ]one s n ast,a., um(n,ndrd\ t l ,rng.. \g.r in. ,, . is noct,aror hrrt ld isr in,,rrcnh.t v.Fn hc so siatcs f igairs:onF s. Jtcr al l .a/u,1, rur_rotrnded by things. Brt rhe thirgs thar llre litcralist works of artfDusr somhow confront tbe be.hotdcr_thcy must, one might al_

Ir:ostrr) . b..r l .r .edni , ' u i r n h'sspx, Lur n hisu1ly.Nonc ,r lh is,indicatcs_a ack of interest n the obiecr tsetf. tsnt th. concernsnorv are tor nroreconrrotof. . . thc enriresftuatior. Controt sn.cc(\rn it.dn vr.iabhs of objecr tighLspace. od\ arc ro f,,nc.non. re ohic, l h.6 nor hcmr,,. Iess mporlJnt. t h is ,, ,erclybecomecss elfnnporranr.

I t is-. t l fk. rrorth remarhne har - the cnrrre ihrahon-mexnslac y rhat.: 4 ol_n .iD,tuL]ing,ir se.rns.Gp b.hotderi ,o.r,/lhcrc is norhing irhin hls 6eld , i v is ion_norhing . t hc rut;snoteol n Jny $2] th..r . s r \ .Fre. c, lares rs rclF\anc" ro thesrruanon.nd th.rctore o lhe.\p.r i rDie in .rupsrion.n thc.on_trary. orsomebinqo Ircfe,,.e i \ , dt aU s or it ta L,F.r.ts i \cd |r\pan o[ thrt ( i ruation.E\cryr] ing ouol\_not.F pad ot rh^obj .cr,Dur sprtor hesi iu.r t ionn $ hrch lsobi*r lhood e.r.bl i \hFd"xJnwhnh th. ' roLiFcthoodrr .Jstpa,l tvdppend.

Furlhcrmor. hepmspn,.ol l i tFHl i \ tart. h i .h CrpFnbcrg.,5 t, .nr(t o andlvr. isbai .. y I thc:rb- ic.r t0F,1or qu*Irv_ r t ind olst?g, presncc. is a function,not just of the ofrt.,,riu*o" atra,oren.pvcnrggrA.iFni $ ofl i l .ra l isrwo,l . buro t th. cp.,. i " l om.pircr ly hal hrt wor( c\ lods rom hebehotder.som"rhi ;gs Hi. l ohav. pr.s.ncewh.n ir dcmdrdr hrL t l r . bchotdcr - t . l t ;nro nc_count, hat he take it reno dy-and when tlic fdnllrent of that


7/16

124denand consists inrply in bcing .rrarc of it and, so to speak,iacting accordingly. Certain modcsof scriousncss re closed o thebeholderby le work itself, '.e..hoseestablishcd y thc ffncstpainfing and sculptureof the recentpast.But, of coursc,lote arc hardlnodcs of scnousncssn shi.h nrosipcople eel at home,or ihat thecvcn ffnd tolcrablc.) Here aganr he eriperience f being distancedby the Nork nr qucstionsccrns rucjal, thc beholderknorvshimsdlto stand n aD indcterminatc,opcn-cndcd-and rrne$cting-reltttion dr flrlrlcc-t o dre nnp:rssne bicct on tbe (all or lloor. In fact.bcing dhtancedby such objects s ot. I suggcst,cntircly unlil,bcing distrnccd,or croNded.by t he silentprcscnccof anotherPe,-sonr he cxpericncc f comingupon iteralistobjcctsunevcctcdl)-for cxamplc, in somc*hat d:rkencd rooms-caD be strongly, i{momentarilv, isquieting n tust his \'ay.There are tbree matu retrsons h.r thh is so. First, thc size olmuch literalist {o*, As \lorris's remarks irnpl}, mmpares fairJ'clorcty$ith that of thc human body. In this contcrt Tony Sinitllreplics o q(estionsabouthis six-footcubc. Dir,. rre highly sugge.

Q: Iihy didnl you 'nakc t ltrgcr so that it $ould loomorer t| ,l: I \ asnot makinga monument.Q: nren shy didnt.,-ou m:rke t smiller so that the obscr(c'could seeo\er the tor)?,{: I sas ot,nalnrg an objcct.i

One \aI of drscribingshat Snrith frr m.rkingmight be so'nethnnlikc a surrogatc crson-thrt is, a kind of st.rtr". (This reading6nil'support n the crr)tion o a photograph f anotherof Smith'spiccc\.Tftr Blat tjor. publishtd h the December1967ssue f Artlortitr. ',1shicli Samlrcl \'{itstif. Jr.,presunably*idr th artists sanction. l'sened, Onc'carr c thc h o-b) foursundcr thc piece, 'hich keep lfrom appeartug ikc rr(l)jtcdure or a monumcnt,and set it ofi ir .sculpturc."Thc t\ \o b\.f ours nre. in e{ect, arudimentaryp?desrriland thcrcbvrcinlorcc tlc statuelikequalty of the piece. Secotrrlthe entitiesor beings cncouDtcredn reryda,v \perience n ten,s. Quotdi by ltoris rs tl)c epigr.Dh to hG Notcs on S.Lrlpture, art 2 '

lhrt mostclosel],approach he lit.alisr dealsof thc noffelationnt,lhe unitaryand he vholistic arc orier persons. nnitarly, lc titernllst prcdilection or syrnmetry, nd n seneral or a kind;f order hat"issimplyordcr . . . one hing aJteranorher,,'s rooted,not. asJuddM.ems o.bclier,'e, n new phitosophicatand scientific pnnciples,whatev-erc takes hese o be, bur in ,atnre. .Lnd hfd, *e apparcnt hollos'r1cssf rrost liteirlist lvork-the quatiry of having an/mirte-is alrnost blatantly anthropomorphic. t is, as numemuscommentato$have rcmarkd approviDgl],, s rhough rhe work inquestjon has an inncr, evcn se$ct, Iife-an eficct that is perhapsnade moste\dicir in \lonis's Unlftt".t ( 1965 6), a large rirgtiietorm in t\ro hatvei, with fluorescent ight gto,ving t-^ *itnn ,i *.narrow 8ap behlcer tnc t*o. In rhc samespirit Tony Smith hassrid. i m intercst(Jn rhe nrrutrhi l i ty and myrertousnessf rhelhing. s Hc h,r. .rlqohF"n qlored rs sryin$.

\torc dnd nrorc I've become nterestcdm ptlcmaoc strLrctures_In these, lll oI thematerial s n rension.But it is the character fthe fonrr that .rppealso nrc. Thc Lionorptric forms that res rfrom the constnrctioD ave i.lr.amlikc qurliry for mc, at leastIike Nb.rt is srid to be a fairly .ommon t).pc of AmedcanSmiths ntered in pnoumaric tructues may seemsurpnsing,bur itis consistenr oth lvith his own rvork anrl wittr literaiist s;ibilitySenerally. ncumaticstructures an be describcclrsholov witb avngeance-the fact rhat they are not ..obdumte, sotid masses"(ltloris) b.ing nlJtrr?r/on instcad of taken for granted.And irreveahsomethirg, think, aboutwhat holownessmeans n literalistart h.rt he orm: l , i t r .sult r, bn,norphic.-

I am suggcsting,hen, that a kind of latent or hiddcn naturaljsm,indeedanlhropomorphisn\ ics rt tle core of literattst heory aodpraclice.The .oncept of presenceall but says as mrrch, tiroughrarely so nakcdly as in Tony Smith'sstatemenr,I didnt think;f^' ' : ,ot l , rhe.] torFFriahph rn..rty uured.I . r, iFm,.nr{} I .onysmrlh hrvc brel lrlen frrm SJmuel W"q.t.rn. J, r. -T,Ilrns in Tuny Sm,rh,:,Arrt tur', Vol. v. No. .1.Dec@brr 1966.

An ond Obiecthood 't29


8/16

130them [i.e., thc sculptures he 'ahvays" made] as scrlptues but r{gesences of a sort." The latency or hiddenness of th anthroPl,morphism has bccn such that the literalists ttremsclveshave, as $r.havc seen, elt frec to chanctedze he modemistart they oppor..e.g., the sculpture of Dartd Smith and Anthony Caro, as anthmp,,moryhic< chiracterization *'hose teeth, imaginary to bcgin i itl,.Lave rrstbeenpulled. By thc same oken, however, hat is $ror11with litralist work is not $at jt h antluopomorphic but that tlrmeaningand, equally, he hiddenncss f its anthropomorphisnar,.incurably theatrical. (Not aI Literalist art hides or marks its anth('pmorphism; the u'


9/16

Robe Modll Unlirled, 1965. Grdy tiberstoss wirh lisht, 24' x 96,, dionelelIn lhe colledion of the Dwon Golle.y. phor.srdph coudesyof tea c.nelti Goltery,

Jules Oliiski; surso ,5, 1t67. Aluminun poiored vith ocrrtic resin. O, x ,14,In lhe colleclionoJ Robe Rowon.Pholosrophcoudesyof Andre EhmerichGa

TonySmnh: e slocl sox. 1963_65Pointedwood. 2%,x 3,, phoiosr.phi";k'Y 'r Fi"hb".hG"lr",v,N".


10/16

MichoelFried 134ple but in fact, and the questionof lehethcror not one has realh,rdl it doesnot arise- hat this appealso Smit can be seen rom hNpraisc of Le Corbusier as more ailabld' than Michelangelo: '"Th,dircct and primitive ei?cricnce of thc High Court Buildhg xrChandigarh s likc thc Pueblosof the Sou$\restunder a fantasti,overhanging lifi. It's somethinge\eryone can understand." t is. Ithink, hardly necessary o add that thc availability of Dodemist artis not of this kind. and that the riqhtnessor relevanceof on.sconviction about speciffcmodemist s'ork, a conviction that begnr{and cnds in onc'sexpe.ience f the work itself, is always opcn n,

But what oar Smidl'se)ipericDce r the tumpilc? Or to put th,.sane questionanother way. if t}lc h rrnpike, airstrips,and drillgound arc not worksof:rt, shat ore the],? What, indeed, f n otempty, or 'abandoned. sitrotions? And \rhat leas Smith's cxpcrience f not the expcriencef rvhlt I have beencalling ftealrc: It isas hough he tumpike,airstrips, nd drill groundreveal he thairical character I literatst art,only ilithout the object, hat is, 1ri|horlthe att itself-as though the obiect is nccded only witlin x roon"(or, perhaps,D any circumstaDcesesscxtreme han tbese). n cachof the abovecases he object s, so o spcak, "plrrs{/by something,for eriample, n thc tumpike b) tle mnstantonnlsh of t}lc road, hlsimultaneouscccssion f ne$ reachcsof dark pavement llumnredby theonrushing eadlights,hc scnse f the turnpike Lselfas sonrthing enormous, abardoned, derclict, sristing for Smith alonean(lfor those n the car with hiln. . . . This lastpoht b important. On throne hand, he tumpike, ai$trips, anddrill gound belong o no onc:on the olher, bc sitDrtionc*abtishcdby Snith'spresen.s in earllcase clt by him to be ftir. Nloreolcr, n eachcasebeing ableto goon and on indefinitrlr is of the essencc.\/hat replaceshe object-s}lat does hc sa'nc ob of distancingor isolating hc beholder,ofrnaking him a sul)iect, hat tbc olject did jn the closed oont isaboveoll th e erdlssncss. or obicctlessness,f the approachor onrush or perspectn(. It is thr cvlicihre$s, that is to say, the sherr

I The (oncelt of r roon n, mostly clandcsiinely, mDoitant to liicirlist artald thco.y, ln fact, it crn olten lc substihrted for rhe word 'irEce" in thelatrer: $merhi.g is sanl ro be in or s {ce if it is in the sdc '@a sith Dc{and if it is pla.ed s. d)at I can harilly fril to Dotice i).

Ad ond Obiecth@d 135p.rsistence, ith whictr the experience rcscnts tself ^s directedathim rom outside on the tumpike from outside be.dt) thnt simul-t$neouslymales llim a subjcct-makes hi]n subicct-and establ;shesthe experiencetself as somethinglike thrt of an object,or rather, ofobiecthood. o sonder tr{olris's pcculations bout hov to put liternlistwork outdoorsemair str.rng+ in.oclusive:

Why not put thc work ouklools rnd frdhcr changethe terms?.4.real needexists o allow his nc\1 stcp o beconeprrtical. Arch;tecturalh dpsigredstulpturc courls nk sol lhe Jl|s(cr nor is theplacement f *'orkoutsidccubicarchite.tDral orms ldeally, it isa space,without arcbit.chrreas backgroundand rcferencc,hatvould give diferent tenns to vork withUntcrs the piecesare sct doNn in . Nholl}' nah|ral contcxt,andMorris doesnot sccm o be advocating his, somc sort of artiGciall)ut not quite Architcctural setting must be constructed trVhatSmith's remarks seem o suggesl s that the more effective-meaningefiectivc ns fhedlrc-tie setting is madc, the morc superfluous thervorks henNelves ecome.

Smitn"s accomt of his expe ence on the tumpikc bears \sitnesstotheatris profoundhostitity o thc arts,anddiscloses,reciselyn theabsencc f the objectmd in *hat takes ts place, what might beca ed the tbeatricalitJ, f objccthood.By the same okeD,however,the imperrtive drat modemist Finttng defeat or suspend ts obtcct-hood s at boftom thc impcratile that it.Irf"ar or susPend lreure.And thrs means that there is ir s'ar going on between thcatre andmodemistp;Linting, ehseen hetheatricaland thc pictorial-n warthat, despitc hc literalists'explicit reiection of modemistpaintingand sculpture,s not basicauya Datter of programand ideologybutof s?ericnce, conviction, ensibitity.For example,t wns a ptrticrLlar expcriencthat engendrc.lSmith's conviction that painting infact, that the arts assuch verc ffnishcd.)The starbess snd apparent ineconcihbility of this connict issometlring erv.1 remarkedearlier hat objecthoodhas becomeanissue or modemist painting only vitlin the past severalyears.This,however, is not to sry t\at beforc tlc Prcsent siturtion came into


11/16

136being,paintings,or sculptures or that ,naiter, stnply te,e obie(t\.It would, I think, be closcr o thc truth to say btrt they sttrplU$1'rr'not.1o lle dsk, e c.n hc possibility,of sccing lorks of a]t as rollring moretban objectsdid not exjst. That this possibjlitybegantoprcscnt tsett around 1960 'as lnrge ly tbe result of dcvclopmcnl\\rithin modemistpainting.Roughly, he more nearly assimilablc,)objectscertain advanced ainting h.rd comc to seem, he lnoret| ,entire history of paint'Dg sincc \{mct could bc urderstood-delusn'e\'. believe as consistn,gn the progressivethough ullimately nadcquatc) revelationof its cssenti:lobjecthood,tland tlmore urgcntbccarne he need for Drodcrnist ainiing to make(\plicit its coDventioml speci6call), ts /ridfolidl-esscnceby defo.lling or suspe.ndiDgts o$r objccthoodhrough he tnedium of shrp,The view of tnodemistpairting as teDding o\yard obiccthood 'implicit in Judds rDrnrk, The ne$ [i.e.. iteralist] sork obliourhresembles culptuc more than t doespainting,but it i\ nearerL)painting'j and t is in tlis \'ie\I that literalistseDsibilityn gcncralgrounded.Literalist sensibiliry s, therefore, r responseo the tarrdevelopnents lat havc ldgely compelled nrodcmistpAinting 1,,mdo its obiecthood-more precjsely, he sanredcvclopments .,Jl.Iiffercntlq,n\at s,n thatricd tem$. br l sensibility /r.o.Iv thcrlIical, alrcady(to sayth worst corruptcdor pencrted b tic)tf,

t Sianlc)_Cavell ias r.n.rled in senina tl.t to. (nnt in ihe Criii.rxr '4Jrzlg,cnt a $ork of a.t is 'ot in obicci. I sill ia}. rhis oppornnrilv to r,lndrledse 6e facr rhat s.itloot numcro$ .onvosations sith Cilcll duri,the prst fcs r?a6, and Ni$oui \\Ial I hale learled frotu him in colrrc\ lllsemn,rr\, fu prcspnt essar-and rot it alone\onld hat br.n n,okcn.l'|,I $rnr ,lso lo c\pr.ss hl gntitude antl indcbtqlncss to the comDoscrJ,'l 'Harbison, \rho, toFeilFr \nl his $ifc, rh. violnist no*nary lltrb'son. l'.'sien me \' ateve. nriiirln,, inio modem music I lEve hail, both for thlt i' ,tjrtion aDd {or ndrerous sishls bearins oD dre subjmt of thn essay.

' 1One (ay of dsoibnrs this vieN misht be to ey that it dr.$s som.thi''likc r false infernce ron lle fact th.t thc incrersingl) cxplicit aLdnoslr,lme]t of tlc litcral charrct(,r of the sutpod has b{u..ntral to thc dereli,l,melt of moder sr tannn,g: mnl , that litenlness ,s rrcft is an irti\tic \'.r1,.of supreme mporta .. In shape as Fon I argued thrt tljs iifcrur{lblind to ccnain vital .on\nlerations: nnd implicd that liter.lncss-more r)i,cisclt, thc litcralnessof the suppo -n. vrluc only oitlnr modctnist .i,rnrg, and tio oDly bcclnse it hrs bccn ,,d./e onc by lhe listoD of t}it eln

Snnilrrly,what hascornpclledmodcnist painting to dcfeat or sus_pcnd ts oll.n objccthoods not jusr developmentsnrernal o itselJ,hut th. samegeneral,cnveloping,nfecrious thcatricality rhat cor_rupted iteralistsensibilityn ihe Arstptaceand n the gnp oI whichllrc developmeDtsn quesiion-and modernistpajnting n general_orc senas nothing more than .rn uncompelhrgand presencetesskindof thcatre. t rras he nced o break he fingersof this grip thatnrad bjccthood n sstreor modemistpainring.Objcctbood has also becomean iss;c for modcrnistscutpture.]'his is ttue dcspite hc fact that sculpture, ei,g three dimcnsionat,i{.semblcs oth ordinarvobjcctsand lfteratistwork in a wav thatprinting docs ot- .\lnost ten yees ago Clemenr creenbergstmmcd up \r+at hc saw as the cmergenccof a nerv sculprural"$tyle,"Nhosemaster s undoubtcdlyDlrlid Smith, n the fo ;wineTo render srbstance entircly optic.al,and form, wllerher pictonat,sculphrral, r architechral,as an ntcgratpart of anbicnt space_thjs brirss anti-ith$ionism irll circle.Insterd of the il ion 6fthings,we rre nowollcredrhc ltusionof modatitics:nanet),.,hatmattcr is incorporeal, \yeighdess,aDd existsonry opticaly- lik amiirgc.rl

Since1960 dis development as been crried to a successionfclimaxcsby the English scutptor ,{nrhony Caro, r,hose Nork is far'noresp"c'f.zlly resisranto bcins seen n term of objecthoodhanthat of David Smith. { chaJacte*ric sculptureby Caro consists,wirnt o say, n the mrrturl and nakcd ufr?posriionof the l_beaDs,girders,cylinders, engthsof piping, sheermetal, aDCl rill that itconrprisesathcr than in the .ompoundobl.ct ttiat they composc.The mutual infcction of one elementby another, ath;r tha; theidcntity of er.h, is shat is cmcial-though of courseatte ng theidentity o{ any elemcnt vouldbe at leastas drasricas attcring tsplaclment.(The ideniity of eachelementmattels n some\ }af thcsameway as the fa ct that it is an arm, or rhis aml, that makesaparticulargcsture;or as he fact thlt it is rhrr word or rtis note andnot sno thcr rh/t o.curs n I part iculr FlacF n a scnt, , .c orDrclody.Thc individurl l .nrFnr. - . ' ro" , igr i f icrnccon onc rn-

'tr Th. \ew Sc.ulpturc,'Ar, nd Crftzr,, Boston, g(jt, p. 14. .

A.t ond Obiecihood 137


12/16

Arr ond Obie


13/16

t40 Ad dnd Objecthood 141relevaDt texts e, of couse, Brecht and \taud.li) For thcatre ld.n audicnce it e fs lor one in a \\'ay the other arts do noti irlfact, this mor than an)'tling else s $nat noderDitt sensibilitl fin(lsinhteraLle in theatrc generalt.Ilcrc it sliould bc rcmarked thatliteralist afi, ioo, possesses n audience, t}ough a somc\rhat spccillone: thai the beholdcr is confronted bv literalist Nork $ithiD .situation ihat he eeeriences as hi, means lhat there is an importanlseDsenr $'lrich the $ork in qrrestion exjsts or him olonr, c\.cn if h,is not;rctually alonc witn $e work at tbe tinle lt mrv sccm Par']'doxical io chin] bolh that literalist scnsibjlit) tlsPircsto an ideal of"somctliing cveryone can understand' (Snittr ) an.l that liic':'list rtiad.lresscstsclf to the bchokler aloDc.but the Parador is or)ly aPpaf-ent. Som.onc has merely to enter tlle room in *hich a Iitcmlist Norkhas Leen p]accd io becorr that beloldcr- th.tt audicncc of onc-.tlmost as though thc laork in qDcsiion has bccn uo,tnrg tor hnnADd nr.rsDuch as liteirlist rvork rJependson the beholdcr. i{ hc(),Lplrtc Nithout hnn, it l ur l,eeD vaiting for him And once bc is n) thtroom thr: \ork refuscs- obstinatclv. to let hiD alone-$hich is losry, it refuses o stop confronting him, distancjng him, isolating hiD)(Such isotati(n is not solitude an) more tlian such coDfrontation is

It is the olcrcoming o{ ihentre that nodernist scnsil,iliiy li dsmost cxatting and that it expedencesas the halln)ark of high art iDour time- There is, ho\\'e er, onc art th:lt. b)' its tery nature, ?scdp'stheatrc eninely-thc mosies.roThis Lelps crplaijr \'ht molies nr': l-h.,'e.d t. achicre (\L rl.tion to the spcturor'Ii.h llrrcht feltrDd l,ir hr dis.rsred imeand again i hn \ntings on the.trc Nrt rot sim_l) tlre restrltof i\ \la^Lsm.O die..ntlarr, his djsco\(4 ot Nlnrss(rd'i,, hve t.c,' n, lrn tle d'nove.-\oI slat riis .elarjon'nisht be lik.' \h.t itnisht Dexn: \\'tr.n I rcrd Il.Ns Crrrituf undeAt@dm phJ's li.tur:'ll'I \bl nr sc }is bo,,t \nlcll cirdrlated t Nisr'r of coursr hat I foun(l|id un.on .nn^l\ \,itten | \Iolc Dilcof \lanist phrs: bnt this I'r \l'rxs,.s th. .nly srFctrtor ,r nrr pla,rs d cvF come cros\'' lBrcJn on Th'at'r'cditc(lcnd t[nshtc(l b J.]]n \lillctt, ^"e$ Iork- 1964. p 23_24liEu.th non rhc morns cscrpe lc.tre is a bautihrl trestion,Nl tlereis ro.lonl't |ut &rt I plc,r)nenology f rle cnrcDr hat conccntrrted n th|iinilnrities n.l di[.Jc,{.\ her\tcnt a.d tbe hcihe-e g. th'r h the novi"stlc ..tds are ot llilsi.xlly presetr, hc ilD self s proj({.d (eill trom us,

thr screens not .tD"ti"""",l ". a kinJ of objecte\inins, so to \perk ib I$eijfic tlysi.rl rl.tn', 10 us, {t. \'odd be cdremcl,t c\i(lirrg Crlcll

gdrral, ncluding rankly appaltingones, re acceptabteo modcm,ist sensibilitywhercas ll but the mostsuccessfutainrjng,sculpture,r'rusic,and poetrl..s rot. Because ine 1a cscapes hcatre-auto-n'xti.ally,as t \rere-it providesa rvelcomc nd rbsorbiDgefugc os.nsibilities t war vith theatreand theatncatity.At the sarnc imc.l l ( automJric.urrJnt.cd.l ,r". tFrol drc etl lge more ccrrrrrcl l .lh. fact tllat whrt is provided is a rctuge {rom the(lhc and not ttlfi"rnph oi?r it, absorption ot conviction means hat the cinem ,cleDat ts mostexperimental,s not a rnol"mist art.2) Aft degenentes ae it approaches the co rlitiotr af theata,'I heatre s thc commondenominatorhat biffls a larse and sccm-i'rgly disparatevaicty of activities o one another.and that distin-[rishes t]iose .rctivities Irom the radicalty ditrercnt enterpriscsol thcrnodemistarts. Here as elsewherethe qrestion of valuc or level isrcntral. For example, failu.e to resister thc enormousdifierencc inrluality betlvcen, sa]', the music oI Catcr and that of Cnee or bc-lNccn hr painl ings l Iouir dnJ dm:col R:rusch"nt,ersi .ansh"ttl'e rcrl dislindions-lrehvceDmusicand rherrrc n rhe irst nst.rncenDdbehveenpaintnrgsd theatre n the second-arc disolacedbvthc ijiusionLbat he lrdriers bchlccn rhe ans are in r_hc ro".*, oirrumhlnrq iCage rnd Raus.henbcrg eirg scnq ronccrtyl,as simi.l.tr) and that tle arts tlerrsetves are at Iajt slidins towards somelind of ffndl. implosi e. hug.h Lle.irabtesy:orhc\ii.,, vh{rr.rs innRiD, lDs (allcd ancntion, in .{nversarion, to the sort of rctuenbetury thntloes into giriDg ar ac.tut of a novie, and nore Esjc.illy ro rlc nuture ofrh di$.ul rr- rh-r , inrohFd inpi inr.u(h an x.mur,rr;Ttis is the vie{ of Susu Sonrag, s,hosc various essiys. colleck\l j,AIJ.i6t lnteryrctation, Dount ro per}aps the pu.cst


14/16

l,ti.hoel F ed 112fact the individual arts havcncver been norc cr?licitly conccm(dwith thc conventions that constihrte dreir respective essences.3) Tlrc concep.sol q alitg anel aalue 'aruI to the enefi thttthesearc centrd to art, tlrc conceptof utt itsery arc D.ea'1itt' lnl,,uholly nuaningful, on/v ivithin tie indil)iLlua ds. What lies batwccn tft? a,ts is theatre.It is, I think, sigDiffcart hat jn tl)eirvariousstatcmentshe literalistshare la rgely avoided he issucolvallreor quAlityat the same ime as they ha\ sho\mconsidcrabluncertainty as to whether or not what ihey are making is art li,dc$c be their entcrpnsc s an atteDpt to establisha nzlf art clocsnot removc the unccrta intyiat most it points to jts source.Jutldhimsclf has as nuch asRctaovledged hc problematicclurncter ofthe literalistenterprise y his claim, A work needsonly to be irteresting,"For Judd.as or literalistsensjbilit,v cnerally,all that mai-ters s whetheror not a givenwor]( s able .o elicit aDdsustain his)interest. VhcreasNithin the modernistarts nothingslmrt of ronui(tion-speciffcatly, thc conviction that a particular painting or scub'ture or poemor pic.c of music can or cannot supportcomparisorrwith past wo* within that art {'hose quality is not in doubt-mattcrs at all. (Literalist sork is oftcn condemncd \ehen it i\condcmncd-for being bonng. A tougher charge\rould be that it ismerely ntcrcsting.The interestof a given work resides, a Judd's iew, both in ilsch^r.cter asa Fhole nnd in the sheer pecfcitv o{ the matcridlsolwhich it is mad,

Most o{ the 1r'ork uvolves e\\-materials, ither rccent nventionsor thiDgsnot nsed beforc n art. . . . Vatedals vary greatlyan(larc simDlynlateri:rls-Iomica, aluminum,cold-roled steel,plc)ii-glas, cd and comoon brass,and so forth. They arc spciffc.1lthe one betwccD rrt" ard non-art ; but alsomary stdblisheJ dislinctior's'it])jn the uanl{l oI (ltrre itself t t bex @n fod and.6nteDt, the frilolous nrd t r, sernus, lrd (a fayorite of literary irtelectu.ls) "high u(l"low' culium. ll)]). 996 97)

'lhc tru$ is thit tlc dkln {ion bt{Ten ihe hivolos and tlE seriouebe.u .mon ulseDt, dcn iLn,lrr,., e\D da), and d,e enie4'ns.s of tle m.denist d''r.more purely motilaic(l l)v the t lt ned to perpetute the stand,rds anil uht*of rhc higl lrt ol the pisl.

A.t ond Obiecthood 113thI arc us.d dire.tlv. d,c} ue nrorc spccr6( Also. rtrcyarc usurl ly aggrFssne.herc s M oLi.et iv i t) o r l ,eol)d,,r .r tcde ri r) o t

Like tl shapeof the obiecr,he nrateriats o nor reprcsnt, ignify,or allude o arything;rhe1, rervhat hcy are rnd nothing rrc_-lndwhatthy arc ii not, stricrtyspeaking, omething hat is grAspcct rhrtuitcdor rccognized once and tbr all. Rrthcr, thei'bdurate identitr' of a speciffcmaterirt, Iike rhe rvholcncxo{ theshape,s sinply statedor givenor est:rLlishedt tho vcry outset, fnot before he outset;accordingly, e expcrience I lnth is on e ofrDdlessnss,I incxhaustibilitr., f being able to go on and on ler,llng, for example, he matcrial tself conlrort onc in dl its litcral_'r(ss, ts "objectivi ,,. its abseDcc I anythingbcyond itscu. In a$nnihr cin trIoris haswritten:

Charactefistic of a gestalt is rhat oncc ft is cstrblithcct all theinfomution about it, grd gestal is cxhausted. One does not,for example, eek he gestaltof a gesralt.) . . . One is thcn bothfrce of the shapeandbound o it. Freeor relcased ecause f thecxhaustionof infomation about it, as $hapc,and bound to itbecauset remains onstanrand rdivisible.

Tle same note is struck by Tony Srnith in a statement the firstientencof which I quotedearlicr:Im intercstcd n the inscrurabilityand mysteiior$ness f thething. Somethingobviouson tle faceof it (like a washingma-chiDeor a pDmp) is of no futhcr interest. A Bcnningron earthen-s,aretar, for instanc,las subttctyoI color, argenessf form, ageneralsuggestion f subsrancc, enerosity,s calm and rcas-rrring---qualities hat tlke ft be)ond pure utiliry. It continucs onourishus tim and time again.We can,tsce t in a sccond,wocontinue o rad t. Therc s something bsurd n thc fact th:r youcangoback o a cube n th s,rmeway.

l,ikc Judd'sSpeciffcObjecrsand MoEis's gestalts r unitary forms,S'nitlis cube s dhdrs ot further interest;one nevcr feels hat onehascome to the end of itj it is inexhaustible.t is inexhaustibte,


15/16

14 4horvever, ot because I nny fullncss rldt is tlre nexhaustibility lart bui becausc hcrc is nothing hcre io e\ha ust. t is cndlcts th i\,\'ay roadmight be: if it wcre circDlar,or eliample.trndlcssncss,enrgable o go on nnd on. evenha\iog to go on an(lon, is central botl to the concepto{ inteJestand to that of objecibood. n fact, t seemso be tlr(i c\penencc liat most deeply cricit,literalistsensibilit),and hat liicralist artists eek o objcctify n thcirwork-for exanplc,by tlc rcpetition of identicalunjts (Judds oD|thing ,ft$ anodrei ), \lhich cnrries he nnplcatior tlnt $e units rlquestioncould be multiplied a(/ i,,fnttrr,.15Smittr accountof hi\experiencen the un6nishcd urnfik. recordshat cxciteDentall hule\plicitl)'. Similarlv, brris's clrnn that in the best nerv rvork thcbeholder s madearvare hit "he hnDselfs establishingclationship:ns he apprchcndshc objcct ronr variouspositiorsaDd rndcr v.rr .tng conclitions f light rnd spaiialcontext"amounts o the claiD th.rlthc bcholders madeawareof the endlessnessDd ne\haustibility 1not o{ the object itself at any rate of his e r?edence of it. Thisax'arenesss fur$er e\acerb.rted y whai might be called he tnclrsio,'rrss of his situation, hat is, b , the fact, rcDdkcd carlier, haleverlthinghe obsenescountsasDartof that situationand hcnce sfelt to bear n someway that rennins undennedon his expc;enceolthc objcct.Ilere finall,s I \rant to emphasizesomething that may alread\have become lear: the e)iperiencen questionpersxts n firn", arr(ltle prcsentment I endlessncsshat, I barc bcen cliimiDg, s certtfulto liter.tlistdt and thcory s csscntiall-\'a rescntBentof cndless,)lindcfinilc, lrratron.Once ngainSmitht accountof his night drnc isrclcvant,aswell as his remark, trVe an't see t [i.e., be jar and.b\implication, he cubel nr a second,Ne continue o read it." Monj\.too, bas stated erplicitly, The erp erienceof the rvork necessarillexists n time' thoug} it *ould makeno difierence f hc bad Dot

rs Tlat is, drc ddkl nnrnxr of strchunits in N giver licce n fch to bc .rl,trnry, nnd th pje.e itselt-despitc the Lteralist pr6Dtation Nith sholi\lnfomFis s..n ns r frnsmL,rt oI. or (ut into, someihing nfinitely hrg.r. lli\ ior of thc most importu,t dillcrenc$ bctrvccn lit.{alist rvork tnd mod.ir'nrpaintnrs, $|lich ha madc isclf r$poNible fo. ts phr;sil timils as neler l),for.. Notadi and Olilsl,i s paintnrsr a. t\ro oblios, atrd dillrnt, cites n,Don,t. It is il this conrcction, too. tllt ih importan of tle paint.\l brnn'Nound ihc bottom and th{, top of Olitslis sculpturc, Bdsa, tEcomc dr.r

'fhe litdalist prcoccupationwith time-more prccisety,with thethtratkn,ol lr .r l t t eru., - is. sugserrp,r.rd]smnti(Iy rr,. .1r;_. i r : rs ' l rsh Lhr"tre.or,tro lr . he heholJ,r . 1 Id lcrehy .otxtFsfi i rn. idr lhc endlcrsn:s\ or uslo t ob i ,L hoorl .ur ot r j rr . ; or ..sr l 'oughhe scnsc hich,at hol tom. hFab_..rddres.ess x \,ncc otrcmpo-ralit).,oJ rime borh passir and to come, ntuItlnco1lsll 1q)_roaching drl recetlin{:,as if apprehended n ar inffnite pcrspccrive. .rs Ttus prnoccunlion mr,Ls a protound diocrencc Lcnveenrrr.rat i \ t ort ind moJcrn;(t , nt ing rnds.ulprur.. t r \ rs thoughoDcserperienccof rhe laftcr lz ro duation_.ot bccruseo"c ln//ca erpdiencesa pichrreby Nolanrtor Olitski or A scutprurcbyfrrvid Smith r Crro n no tn,r ar r lJ.bur ,. .nn. , , t coc,i n,on,,,rI . t ,r ort i tvtJ is tt l to l l . 'Jr,,ry ' .v. Tl js ish eot \culphrrc. l , \ t tFl l 'c ob ,nrs a, th.r t. ing hrPc imFr.ion., l ,r crn ir" ,c", r ,o,nrn infinitenumbcr of pointsof vic.$,.Ones expcrience f r Caro snot incompletc,and onc'sconvicrionas to jts quality is not suspcnded,sinrph.btrruse one has secn r only fio"r rvhcre o,re isxt.nding. \Ioreovcr. in thc grip of his best york one,svielv o{ the

,- l l3:: .* l , u"l b"r$e.n.( hrr .essioDnd umc eb ,\per f,e or:.1l'ry,",1 "--l x. ,f rh,.6,.r {.c,r i kindof D,tu'Jrmetrpr;{Jo, rr,,...'ua b p'aent n nu, h Suft rtnl rrJinbns , p.o . up |.hi,n.u, trh, T.n,rur,l l { r ,- : . , \roreu\" .rmDu ir\_h,nire.e.r.or., . ,mpr-.,rr , , ,r .r"n,::1-:- , i : : ' i pr.tut im,nr.memun. orJe,.. r . .n. i ,nrLn hc \ r . . i ..nnmr o_ i , , . l ,prj ln. (s. i -tn, rr r, i , t -. , " d-Fp , f t . i l ' h, ,h,A,r err} r; Jn dim F"l j . r ." ib rh (. , r. ,nJ ,e. *,hF t"upr D-tp. r i .pU , .1r . t t re " . .k o l]lll l:"J:, ":- " ,i . \ r,(hdrhr ,o LennrF.r.o,h mpl.v."",.,y ,r.,i . ,il " ' , : , . ,

. . .9 In J{n.r. r--emq,,dn. i -. omplFrc. .nrt , . .L4rt o i nmiI r Ja1 upoDorr' / i r . r ^l , 'bre. l . n, . ] , , - lUD"."11n. ot ut , ,F, , . jn S,rr iFl tbml : i : la "T"r , .pup.(. nr..rR.^.r ' . .ndrr rh LrJ ru,replJy,nd .orrrprq,y6 and p, FaF nr \ trdrior6_'l,e ,to-.1 ,nor Jn I rh" ..b.ir tune(lxrrrffdJo Srr, . i t : ,o J. to t jhr. , t fn. rTuny Smirl l , r $l lo F?,rtu,dcs.nbedrhc.riFrf lp. . . . 1 -S, ,nraLi{ t -n. l "c"p,* .; 11; , n6n; .uup b\ \,yrnc thal sum,rti{ se.\ibit\. n. ,n.,nif.{r,t in rt,.""1':' **,", .,dnr\. .,d tndJnr .pu\ibdit a,c bod, r/,"ar,nr?. I ,to norl l l l l " . l l ,",_,, o,r f,h,rehtood.s\hc rh,rL , t rLV, rr.r . tr . herrner.rrl"::"j., )"* tnar srd( tr,c Jhorp \hffr, turj.\ rJir J. drr: J n,hpr.uou.ArJnn,col mlur sor rsr (1n b. , tc\ . r ib.d j. dr,dbrdt ;, LiJcnnetri \ sur., r l rsrrudprLF. otr thc,oi lnr hdnd. n r, rhJp. nor r jdru,r l . iJ.nin. nc/ thrt; l l { l * . . i f f ]" ' r"mpr"or J sun"dr: ' dnd'c"ppn' rhc i ,r ,d rro,an

Ad ond Obiecrhood 14 5


16/16

144sculpture is, so to speNk,ecltps"d L)'$e sculpture itself-$ hich it isplainly neaninglcss to spoak of as onl] pdr.rg' present. ) It is thiscontinuoLs and cntjrc prcscntn.ss, amounting, as it \eeie, to th(pcrpehral creation of itself, that oDe expcriences a.sa kind o{ inston.taneou$ness:as though if onl) one Nere iDffnitcly morc acute, rsinsle in6dtel)' brid{ iustant $ould be Iong enough to see crer}'thing, to e\perie ce the sork in all its dep$ and frlllness, to h,forever conrin.ed by it. (Hcrc it is $orth noting th^t t}le conccpt olinterest implics tcmporalitr in thc folm of continuing attention dircctcd at the objcct, \'hcrcas the conccpt o{ con\iction does not.) Iwant to claim that it is b) irluc of thcir prcscntnessand inst.rnt ).ousness that modernjst prrinting and sculpiure defeat thcatre. LLfact, I rnn tempted f,u belol)d n)' krowledge to suggcst that, fac(.(lwith the Decd to dclcat lhcairc, it is .ibove all to the condition .]painting rnd s.ulphrr('-thc coDclition, hat is, of e)iisting D, 'ndef(lf secrcting or constitutnrg, a continuous and perpetual p,ese,rl-that thc othcr coDk'Dporary nrodemjsi arts, most notably po.tr\and music, aspire.lt'

r" $'hat i hls neansnr x.I art \ill natuollt be dille.cnt. Fo. cxafrpl..mnsicssituation s espe.jdlly il$cult n thrt mosicsharesith ihe,i.e dr .@n\.c'tion, f I friy crll it thrt, of durdtioFa coNerrior ihat, I am srl.sstins,us it\.lf b.con. iD.r($hslr tle rri..l. Besides,be ph]iicsl cn.unlstan@sof a con.elt clos.ly resenble rhoseof a thealrical perfomnn.c. lt n.,\hlve ben he deie f.r lonrethingile prcsenrnessi.t, ar ler\t io some \tent, ed Brccht . adro.rt( a nonill$ioristi. tlatue, i \rhich for e..'rrnpl,tlre stase islitnrsvrl,l bc visible o the audience,n nhich the dctoB oul,lnot idltily $ith th. lhir.ctes thr Dln,y ut rathcr rould slo\ rlrem o tl,.dnd n \rhich t.mpohlity ilsclf \$onklbe prcse.icdh a neN w.y:Justas the n.tor n. l{)hrer fls to pcNr.d the a,diencc lr.t it is tlr'author's hurct.r rnd rot }imself that is standins ihe stase, o lso l,need ot pr.ten(l hit llc rlenrs takinsplaceon tle stagc rve neverbarrelea*ed. n.d rn,rN\ l,rppcDin or the fi6t and only rim.Schill.r\ di.tin.tion k ro lons.r vilidr tliflt the Ihn )sodistd ro br his material '{holly in tle pist; tho mine his, as \rhoily here md now. rt should ),apDrurt all rl,ursh lis Drfo.manceh.t ern at tI stirt ind in th. nnlile he knors ho$ it .ndi nhd hr mast d,u\ miltain a calm indepeDd.n(rb.oughout.' Ic narrt.s Ilc (ory of his charactd by yivid port rril, al\\ r\ .hno$nts more hrn it (lo.srnd tr.nting nos' and hcre' ot d a pt.ltinade possibl. lh. r,l.s of thesme but s mcthing to be disti $isl,r,lfrcm yesterdry and ,me other place, so I to make vjsible tle kuottjll

toseiher of ihe events.( o. 194.

Ari ond Obiecth@d t47v lThis essay yitl b read asan attackon ceiain artists (and critics)ltt)dasa defense f others.And of coursc t is true thatthe desire odistinguish between \r'hat is to me the authentic art of our time andother work, which, ivhateverrhc dedication. ,assion. nd inrelli-g.nce ol ils creato^. s.pms to m. to share rtain ehararreristicsssociated here *ith the @nccpts of literalism and theatre, hasl.trgely motilated what I have wdften. In thcse last setrtences, owcver,I want to call attention o the utter pewasiveness the vitualuniversalig- {f the scnsibilityor modc ot bing harI luve char.rc,k.r izcd s.omrptedor pcrvened y thertre. Vc re al l Ul .rat i rrs

'uostorall of ou livcs.Presentncsss srace.lhrt jest {s t}e e$oscd lishtilg Brc}t .dvocdtes .s be.omc merly a.otherk'kl ol thqFrJ, ,avcnrion ^rc, norcover. | } l1t . I rpn t .4 , " rmpojr, ln, l . D tn, Cr.FdJton ot l r"nl i , r suk, J: th, n, . lat tdHon h$ of J, ,dd\rir cube pi.c in the Dvan Callety sho$,s), t is not cleir $, erler rhe hnn-,lling of time Brecht calls for is t.ntasount to .ut}entjc D.es.,ntnss.r mcrclvr, , . ,n. 'h, r Lnd of r, , .- n. , i , . lo rhe re.p, , rm,.nl"t uD. i . . , t * rhnusi lil rvere some sort of litenlisr object. In poet.'. rle nccd for Dresentnessmui_nrh i l \&lJ - lh. l )n. p. ,m: rhrr . i nrt ,_(rt h" i rq, , , rp. , r. o"o r, , "un.nr.For dr" t r. . ion. of de'r ' , r" lc\ rhr tn thrs *") , "c CJ\F , F-nI on Bd.k-ttt\ Lnd Canp. Endinc rli. $c jng Crme, anJ thc A\oi,bn\F ot Love; Reading of Kirs If,ar, to be prblishcd in 6r We :\teaa Whar We Saq?

art and objecthood

Documents