Asher Michael Writings 1973 1983 On Works 1969 1979

'. .
,I
!'
.
I
1llIllglllm.11111
3 0100 00326 7483
Dale Due
JUffl ~ 1988
i<A 1'1
'LO Ii '/..
i
:
I
I
eM No 23 2
~ ... OS "
""",",' ~
JUN 1984
~ ...
. '.
I
f
,
I
(
,
Writings 1973- 1983 on Works 1969-1979
Michael Asher
Writings 1973- 1983 on Works 1969-1979
Wri tt en in collaboration with Benjamin H.D. Buch loh
Edit ed by Benjami n H.D. Buch loh
The Press of t he Nova Scotia College of Art and Design
and
The Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles
The Nova Scotia Series
Source Materials of the Contemporary Arts
Editor: Benjamin H. D. Buchloh
CONTENTS
Bernhard Lei tner
Claes Oldenburg
Yvonne Rainer
Simone Forti
Steve Reich
Hans Haacke
Donald Judd
Michael Snow
Paul -Emile Borduas
Dan Graham
ear l Andre/Holl is Frampton
Daniel Buren
Leslie Shedden
Serge Guilbaut (ed.)
The Architecture of LUdwig Wittgenstein
Raw Notes
Work 1961 -1973
Handbook in Mot ion
Writ ings About Music
Framing and Being Framed
Complete Writ ings 1959-1975
Cover to Cover
Ecrit slWri tings 1942-1958
Video-Architecture-Television
12 Dialogues 1962-1963
Les Couleurs: sculpt ures Les Formes: peintures
Mining Photographs and other Pict ures 19481968
Modernism and Moderniiy- The Vanvouver Conference Papers
Vol umes 1-8 were edited by Kasper Koenig

Editor's Note
Author's Introduction
VII
ix
February 13-March 8, 1970
Gladys K. Montgomery Art Center at
Pomona College
Claremont, California 3 1
Published by
The Press of the Nova Scoti a College of Art and Design
5163 Duke St reet
Hal i fax, Nova Scotia,
Canada B 3 J 3 J 6
Co-published by
The Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles
414 Boyd Street
Los Angeles, Cal i fornia 900 13
Copyright by Michael Asher and The Press of the Nova Scotia
College of Art and Design, Hal ifax
All rights reserved
Pri nted and bound in Hali fax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Design: Michael Asher and Gerald Pryor
Cover Destgn: Sarah Pugh
Product ion: All an Scarth
Printed by Guy Harrison
CANADIAN CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION DATA
Asher, Michael.
Writ ings 1973-1983 on WOfks 1969-1979
(The Nova SCot ia series: 15)
Bibliography: p.
ISBN 0-9 19616-27-5
1. Asher, Michael. 2. Conceptual art- United
Slates. 3. Art, Modern- 20th century-Uni ted
States. I. Buchloh, Benjamin H. D. II. Nova Scot ia Coll ege of Art
and Design. II I. Till e. IV. Series: The Nova SCotia series: source
materials of the ccotempceeryarts: 15.
N6537.A83 A4 1983 709' .2' 4 C83098835-1
Aprit ll-May 3, 1969

18'6" x6'9" x11'2 '12" x47' x 113;'6" x29'8%"
x 31' 931,6"
San Francisco Art Institute
San Francisco, California
May I1-June 28, 1969
The Appearing/Disappearing Image/
Obiect
Newport Harbor Art Museum
Newport Beach, California
May 19-July 6, 1969
Antilllusion: Procedures/Materials
Whitney Museum of American Art
New York, New York
September 4-0ctober 5, 1969
'557087'
Seattle Art Museum Pal/ilion
Seattle, Washington
NOl/ember 7-December 31,1969
La Jolla Museum of Art
La Jolla, California
December 30, 1969-March I , 1970
Spaces
Museum of Modern Art
New York, New York
1
5
8
12
18
24
May II-July 4,1971
24 Young Los Angeles Artists
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Los Angeles, California 43
March 22-April16, 1972
Market Street Program
Venice, California 50
June 30-0ctober 8, 1972
Documenta V
Museum Fridericianum
Kassel, West Germany 57
January 8-January 11, 1973
Gallery A 402
California Institute of the Arts
Valencia, California 64
May 14-May 18, 1973
The Unil/ersity of California at Irvine,
Gallery 167
Irvine, California 70
Augusl 18, 1973
Project, Inc .
Boston, Massachusetts 72
August 24-September 16, 1973
Lisson Gallery
London, England ...... . 76
_Al.lfOItNIA STAl t: 1"ttt.Y1I:CHNIC UNI\' EIb"Y. I"VlWo.INA
~ O N CAUfClftHlA ?1768
April 19-May 22, 1977
95
Facul ty Exh;bWon and Student
ExhibWon
Californi a Institute of the Art s
Valencia, CaUfornia
July 3-November 13, 1977
101 Skulptur
WestfaJisches Landesmuseum
tiir Kunst und Kulturgeschichte
Miinster, West Germany
104
August 3-August 29, 19 77
StedeJijk Van Abbemuseum
Eindhoven, Netherlands
October 9-November 20, 1977
108
Los Angeles in the Seventies
Fort Worth Art Museum
Fort Worth , Texas
March 1-ApriJ 15, 1979
Los Angeles in the Seventi es
112 Joslyn Art Museum
Omaha, Nebraska
June 8-August 12, 1979
118
The Museum of Contemporary Art
Chicago, Illinois
73rd American Exhibition
The Art Institute of Chicago
125
Chicago, Illi noi s
Exhibitions
138
Bibli ography
September 4-5eptember 28, 1973
Heiner Friedrich Gall ery
Cologne, West Germany
September 13-October 8, 1973
Galleria Toselli
Milan, Italy
Claire Copl ey Gall ery, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
October 7- 0ctober 10, 1974
Anna Leonowens Gallery
Nova Scotia College of Art and Design
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
The Gallery of Otis Art Institute
September 1975
Vision, Number 1
edited by Tom Mar;oni, published by
Kathan Brown Crown Point Press,
Oakland, Cali fornia
January 8-February 8, 1976
Via Los Angeles
Port land Center for the Visual Arts
Portland, Oregon
May I-May 22, 1976
Floating Museum
March 20-April 10, 1976
The Clocktower
The Institute for Art and Urban
Resources, Inc.
Hew York, New York
July 18-0ctober 16, 1976
Ambiente erte, dal futurismo ad ogg;
Venice Bi ennal e
Venice, /laly
Los Angeles Institute of Contempo
rary Art
82
88
146
February 8-26, 1977
Morgan Thomas at Claire Copley
Gallery Inc.
Claire Copley Gallery Inc. at
Morgan Thoma s
918 North La Cienega Boulevard,
2919 Santa Monica Boulevard,
Santa Monica, csutomi 154
160
164
174
184
190
196
207
223
226
Edi tor's Note

This volume-the fifteenth in the Nova Scot ia Series
- present s t he work by Michael Asher f rom 1969 to
1979 and t he descript ions and commentaries on t hi s
work t hat were written by Mi chael Asher for this book
from 1973 (wi t h my collaboration from 1978) to
1983 . It is an attempt on the side of the author and
the edi tor to make accessibl e to readers and viewers
t he document s of an art ist ic practice t hat one could
characteri ze as being both ext remely ephemeral and
transient and that is-in t he view of the editor-at t he
same time among the most concrete and mat erial i st
aesthet ic producti ons of the Sixti es and Seventies.
Asher's work commit ted it sel f to t he develop-
ment of a pract ice of si t uat ional aesthet ics t hat
insist ed on a cri tical refusal t o provide an exist ing
apparatus wi t h legi ti mizing aest hetic information,
whi le at t he same t ime reveali ng, i f not changing, t he
existi ng condi tions of the apparatus. More than any
ot her artist of his generat ion t hat I am aware of did he
mai ntai n that stance once it had been defined after
t he shortcomi ngs and compromises of Min imal art
had become apparent in the late Sixt ies and Concep-
t ual art had revealed its idealist fallacies.
When not ions such as si te specifi city or dernate-
rializat ion and the denial t o commodify t he work had
already become myths t hat were used by the inst it u-
t ions to rejuvenate their legi t imation at a historical
moment when t heir liberal humanist publ ic image
had come under scruti ny by phil osophers and art ists
alike, Asher' s work increased the speci fici ty of i ts
cri t ical analysis of t he condi tions of aesthet ic produc-
t ion and reception with every work that he inscri bed
into t he institutional framework. It ls as a resul t of t he
radicality of that speci f ic analysis (i ts emphasis on
institut ional and spati al cont igui t y, and a sense of
t emporal it y that is operational) t hat Asher' s work
- wit h t he except ion of one work in a pub lic collec -
tion and anot her work t hat was commissioned by a
pr ivate collector -has ceased to exist wit hout any
vestige whatsoever. In t hat respect alone it differs
already from most ot her work of t he conceptual
period that objecti f ied itsel f after all in the photo-
document, the written definition or the archive (as
art object ).
The book's paradoxical function- to document
as discourse what operated as pract ice at one t ime
(or, to be more accurate, as bot h, practi ce and
discou rse}- result s part ial ly f rom t he fact t hat the
work seems to have generated the same resi stance on
t he side of t he inst it ut ions (and the hi storians and
cri t ics and col lectors) that it performed it self wi t h
respect to t he not ion of visual cul t ure t hat they
represent. Or, what is more appropr iat e hi storicall y,
the def inition of aestheti c production as it i s inherent
in Asher' s work could not be accomodated cult urall y
(as t he work of most art ists in the twent iet h cent ury
who profoundly affect ed, i f not outri ghtl y dismantled
t he modernist f ramework). Qui t e t o the opposi te, as
soon as t he legit imati on crisis of the inst itut ions that
contain the discou rse of visual culture seemed to be
overcome-not by a resolut ion of t heir increasingly
apparent cont radictions and confl icts of interest, of
course, but by a rigid socio-pot it ical reconst itution of
tradit ional hierarchies and t he aest het ic myt hs that
adorn t hem, the radical practice of art i sts of Asher's
generat ion could be marginalized to t he ext ent t hat the
work was made to appear historical before i t had even
properly entered t he cult ure. I hope it will be one of
the funct ions of t hi s volume t o publi cl y cont radict
t hat t endency and to denegate t he falsif icat ion of
history that goes along wi th it.
If it i s one of the paradoxes of thi s book t o
transfer from practi ce to di scourse what was defined
as a temporally and spat iall y speci f ic and effici ent
operat ion, anot her one is its attempt to reconst ruct
t he material data of the work as accurately as possi-
ble when in fact the work' s st rategies required a
systematic abstent ion f rom a quant if iable endur ing
const ruct . In fact , one of the ambitions of t he aut hor
and one of t he most difficult and time-consuming
tasks in t he format ion of the manuscr ipt for t his
publ icat ion was the rendering and reconst ruction of
t he actual data (archi tect ural size, di mensions of
areas affect ed by the part icular work, placement ,
VII
VIII
locati on, etc.) which ind icate t he problems of that
transformat ion that t he book t ries to perform.
It might well t urn out to be the most cumber-
some aspect of the writ ings and on first glance t he
least att ract ive for readers working t heir way t hrough
t he accumu lat ion of minutely specified data and
measurement s of each indi vidual installati on. If thi s
condi ti on refl ects certa inly the author 's concern t o
maintain the materi al element of his practice even
within it s transformation into discourse (and it might
indicate hi s relat ive di sregard for the latter), I would
all the more emphasize that it is in th is rigorous
devot ion to the materiality of his deconstruct ive prac-
tice that Asher' s position might best be understood .
I might go further and say that among the many
rewarding experiences that working with Michael
Asher on t his proj ect implied, the most important has
been the recognition to what extent of material detail
the contemplat ion and analysis of history and ideol-
ogy can be (and have to bel developed in order to
generat e knowledge through the const ruct ion of per-
cept ual models. To put i t si mply: if t he t radi ti on of
scul pt ural product ion upon which Asher has obvi-
ously founded the devel opment of hi s work could
have a meaningful continuat ion and evoluti on (and
that mode of product ion coul d cl aim aut hent icity and
validi ty) i t would be in that devotion to all the mate-
rial conditions within which an aesthetic const ruct i s
produced and perceived.
I would l ike to thank Michael Asher for having
offered me the experience to work wi t h him on th is
book and to haveconf ronted me with those atti tudes
i n hi s work and during th e preparati on of t he
manuscript . Among the many ind ividuals who have
been involved at some stage of t he planning, prepara-
t ion and production of t his volume (t hei r names are
acknowledged separat ely) I woul d li ke to t hank espe-
cial ly l awrence Kenny, t he archi tect who has pro-
duced most of the drawin gs and pl ans f or t he
documentation with a clear understandi ng and a
commi tment to the project, and, resulti ng from that
wit h excellence t hat not many contemporary archi tects
woul d be wil li ng to provide in t heir ambi tion to
compet e with, if not replace, t he art ist.
Furt hermore, thi s volume of the Nova Scot ia
Series, probably more than any ot her before it , in t he
t ime and means that t he product ion of the manu-
scr ipt and the book required, has put considerable
demands on Garry N. Kennedy, t he president of the
Nova Scot ia College of Art & Design. For his cont in-
ued support , and for his generous patience with and
interest in a long and complicated project, I would like
to express my sincere thanks.
Final ly I would like to thank Gerald Pryor who
has designed the book in col laborati on with Michael
Asher.
Benjamin H. D. Buchloh
NewYork, July 1983
Author's Introduction
Late in 1973 Kasper Koenig, then edi tor of the Press
of t he Nova Scot ia College of Art and Design, pro-
posed that I should publish a documentat ion of my
work for t he Nova Scot ia Series. The projected vol -
ume should comprisewrit ingsand detailed documenta-
t ion (photographs and architectural drawings) on
each indivi dual work that I had compl et ed by t he t ime
of publication. I accept ed the condi tions set forth by
this proposal since the book would provide me wi t h
an opportuni ty to document and probl emati ze my
product ion and It would off er a coherent reading of
my work that would have remained ot herwise i solated
and di spersed.
From 1973-1976 I developed the first written
draft s while I was teaching and whi le I cont inued to
produce work. In 1976 Kasper Koeni g left t he Press
of t he Nova Scotia Col lege to commi t himsel f to
diff erent projects, and in 1978 Benjamin H.D. Buchloh
was appointed as the newedi tor of t he Press. Prior to
hi s appointment , Benjami n Buchloh and I had corres-
ponded on a cont ribution for the journal that he was
edi ti ng at t hat t ime. Wefirst met in 1976 at t he
Venice Biennal e and we agreed that he would write an
essay for the catalogue of my forthcoming exhibition
at t he Stedelij k van Abbe Museum in Eindhoven. In
1978 Benjamin Buchloh proposed the cont inuat ion
of the book project. suggesti ng that t he few initial
wri t ings and all future wr it ings shoul d be developed
beyond their li mi ts of mat erial descript ion and t hat
they should incl ude elements of a perceptual and
theoret ical analysis of my work.
I agreed to t hi s proposal in spit e of the ri sk inher-
ent in such an appr oach. Because of the change in
approaching the project , the editor had to i nvest a
signi ficant amount of t ime in the development of the
writings. This book is therefore the result of a close
col laborati on between aut hor and editor; the wr it ings
are oft en t he result of a joint aut horshi p. Neverthe-
less the reader should know t hat all proposals for
descr iption and analysis t hat were cont ri buted by the
edi tor, were examined caref ully until I opted to in-
cl ude or exclude those proposal s.
Although the reader might expect ot herwise, this
techn ique of writing i n collaboration i s most likely t he
slowest process, but both author and edi tor consid-
ered it to be t he method that would guarantee as
preci se a documentation as current ly possible.
In retrospect I can say t hat the nature of our
working relati onship was partly defined by Benjamin
Buchl oh's crit ical and historical interest in my practi ce.
His contribut ions to t he format ion of t hi s text af -
fected the outcome of t he project considerably. In my
experience I do not know of any publicat ion where an
artist and a cri tic have shared authorshi p to t hi s
degree. Our collaboration has been essent ial for t he
anal ysis of t he ind ividual works as well as for an
understanding of the general historical context . Yet I
hope that t he f usion of t he two approaches has not
resulted in a seamless text, but rat her reveals t he
paral leli sm t hat exists within the two enterprises of
art production and cr iti ci sm that are general ly consid-
ered separate if not opposi t ional .
As this manuscript wasbeing proofread, Benjamin
Buchloh and I were st i ll di scussing whether to add or
subtract writings. Also, due to the circumst ances of
joint ly writi ng the t exts for t his book, we had to agree
to an art ificial cut-off date for t he writ ing and t he
documentation of my production. It would have meant
to delay t he publi cat ion of th is volume endlessly if
wehad attempted to include everynewwork that I pro-
duced while t he documentation was established for
thi s publication. The date that we chose was 1979.
Even though the more recent work si nce 1979
seems less removed in t ime and more accessible , I
would very much hope to publi sh at a later date a
second volume. In the meantime the reader is encour-
agedtoviewthe operation of my present workand com-
pareit to the work in this documentat ion and its texts.
This bookasa fin ished product wil l have a
mater ial permanence that cont radicts the actual im-
permanence of the art -work, yet paradoxicall y funct ions
as a testimony to that impermanenceof my product ion.
Only those works were incl uded in \he documenta-
t ion that were actuall y install ed at some t ime in an
IX
The aut hor and editor woul d li ke t o thank the foll ow-
ing for having assi sted in various ways in the prepara-
t ion of t he manuscript of this book:
x
inst it ut ional context of a museum, commercial gal -
lery or exhibit ion. All proposal s or project s that I
might have submi tt ed or considered and that turned
out to be unfeasibl e or were ref used by the insti tution
for ot her reasons, are not considered to be work and
have therefore been excl uded from the documentat ion.
Each chapter t ries to assemble as accurately as
possible the documentat ion of the indi vi dual work (or
t hose aspect s of it that can be represented in one
form or another): t ext . photographs, drawi ngs and
architect ural plans. Even t hough t his wi ll at best
approximate cert ai n aspect s of the actual work, I
hope t he reader wil l be able to develop a cri ti cal
examination of t he work on the grounds of t his material .
I am indebted t o Benj amin Buch loh f or his
advice, t he insight that he has invested into thi s
book project , of the ti me he spent assisti ng me with
wri tin g and for his edit ing of the book.
I would also like t o thank Kasper Koeni g f or t he
commi t ment and guidance during t he ini t ial phase of
thi s project. Equall y, my thanks should go to Garry N.
Kennedy, t he president of the Nova Scoti a Coll ege of
Art and Design, who has supported t hi s project wit h
generosit y and pat ience for an extended period of
t ime. I wish t o thank also t he various persons who
were on t he staff of t he Press of t he Nova Scotia
Collegeduri ng the years of the preparat ion of this book
for their dedicat ed attention to t he di ffere nt stages of
its manuscript preparation and production.
Michael Asher
l os Angeles, March 1983
,
Anna Astner
Daniel Buren
Dorit Cypis
Court ney Donnell
Thierry de Duve
Geral d Ferguson
Gretchen Gli cksman
Marge Goldwat er
Dan Graham
Ian Hazl itt
Kim Hubbard
Than Hyun
Gary Kibbins
John Knight
Connie Lewal len

Jennifer Lic ht
Sarah Pugh
Steve Prina
Thomas Repensek
Anne Rorimer
Cora Rosevear
Al lan Scart h
Mark Stahl
Barbara Taylor
John Vinc"i
Bob Wilkie
Chris Wi lli ams
XI
April 11-May 3, 1969
18'6" x 6'9" x 11 '2
1
12" x 47' x 113/16" x 29'8%" X 31'9
3
/16"
San Francisco Art Institute
Poster andannouncement lor theexhibinon ' 18'6" X6'9" X
11 2 I h ~ X47' X 3 6 ~ X29 'SW X3 1' 9 3/ 16" at the
San FranciscoArt Institute, 1969.
The work at the San Franci sco Art Inst itute was de-
fined exclusivel y by the gallery's preexisti ng archi tec-
tural elements and visible equipment. Givens were
considered to be thoseelements that were not prefab-
ricated or produced and not inserted from outside into
the existing insti tut ion for the product ion of t he work.
The given elements were: t he whol e real gallery
space, whose aggregate wall dimensionswere 41 feet-
2 inches by 29 feet B1h inches, with a maximum cei l-
ing height of 36 feet. The gallery had three doors- one
used for entry/exit , the second leading to an off ice,
and the third one blocked off. Nat ural ambient light
was diffused mainly from a skyl ight t hat bisected t he
length of the gallery, and from four windows, 20 feet off
t he fl oor; in addit ion, shielded fluorescent lights l ined
t he perimeter of t he gallery 10 feet from t he floor.
The actual const i t uent element s of the work were
interlocking modular wall panel s. Nine of t he panel s
(each 10 feet hi gh by 4 feet wide) were attached t o-
gether to form a 36-foot part it ion which was abutted
against the 29 toot-Bva inch sout h st ruct ural wal l.
Install ed 10 feet from t he entry, the partition extended
the lengt h of the 41 root-z inch wall, forming a pas-
sageway to the larger area 5 feet 2 inches wi de. Two
thirds of t he gall ery were light arid airy, but had no
real exit; one-t hi rd was essenti ally a hallway, sli ghtly
darker, invit ing the visi tor to walk around the part it ion
into the more open area.
Installati on took less t han half a day and was
accompl ished with the assistance of st udents from the
art school. Once the panel s were joined toget her, t he
verti cal seams were fini shed with tape and painted to
create a continuous wall , similar t o the preexi sting
exhibi t ion walls. The st ruct ural wal ls were 26 feet
higher than t he part it ion wall s.
Modular walls are designed to function as a back-
drop for the presentation of paint ingsand objects using
real space. They are successful ly employed in exhibi-
t ion inst i tut ions to vary int eri or architectural design
and to incr ease t he existing amount of wall surface.
They are support and decorat ion for ,t he work as op-
posed to being part of t he work. Modular walls involve
1
South wall durmg tne consrrucucn of parti t ion wall. Photo-
graph by Mi chael Asher.
South wall wrt h open entry/exi t of gallery space and smaller
bisec ted area on the lell with partition wall Insteuencn dUring
construction.
North wall wst h endof parnnon weumstauatlcn duongccn-
suucncn. Closed curta ins behind the north wall cover mural
by Di ego Rivera.
' ']
- .
r
1 s:
L
a struct ural ambiguity: they const itut e a stat ic struc-
ture, whereas. in fact. they are movable; they appear
to be architectural surfaces when they are reall y
planar objects.
Thedecision to useexist ingelements as determi-
nants for t he work-as opposed to prefabricated
material s-was based on the assumpt ion that the
viewer will most l ikely be famil iar with certain pre-
existing charact eristics of the institutional context. The
work related, therefore, more directl y to the viewer' s
prior experience of that context, making it less likely
to be read as an arbit rary abstraction.
NORTH ELEVATION
, t:;-
,
,
PLAN
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
7

m
,
sn

l
m
r
m
<

5
111i l
z
rIID
"
r
IIi!)
LB
l
[ E:::)
11 c::::>
2
SOUTH ELEVATION
} r
Groundptan and elevation of the Inst allation m t he Diego Rivera
Gall erv. OrawtnQbv l awr ence Kennv.
3
Completedpartition wall installation photographed from the
passageway between the entryl exit zoneareaon the left and
theopen area on the right. Photograph by Phil Liners.
May 11-June 28, 1969
The Appearing/Disappearing Image/Object
Newport Beach, California
4
Post er/Announcement for theexhibition " TheAppearingl
Disappeari ng lrnage/Gbject" at the Newport HarborArt Museum,
1969.
In response to Joe Goode's window paintings of t he
mid-sixt ies, and wondering why he would not use the
actual wi ndows as he claimed t o be interested in the
window phenomenon, I decided to open my own win-
dow and sit beside i t, and feel t he air as it passed
through. This was the first step that event ually led to
the air works.
Next I opened various windows in the apartment
in east-west direct ions and observed the air as i t con-
densed and accelerated in corri dortike zones of the
apart ment (Venturi effect). Finall y, I bought a stan-
dard fan from Sears and placed it on the f loor.
In the airworks I attempted to avoid speci fic, for-
mally ordered art-object mat erialit y. Most of the air
works were ready for publi c exhi bi t ion by the end of
1967. Agroup of pressured air works had already been
installed in 1967 in a garageadjacent to myapartment.
The producti on of these works is document ed in the
sales receipt s for material s bought for their construc -
tion. On August 2, 1967, I purchased a simple f ixed
fan from Sears.
On August 4 I returned the fi xed fan and pur-
chased two oscil lating fl oor-model fans. On August 8
I bought a Dayton air blower to see what it would do in
combination wit h the oscillati ng f loor fans. I deci ded
that I want ed the ai r-generati ng unit s concealed, so
on August 27 I purchased from L & M Lumber some
two-by-fours to frame-in t he cei ling, and, a littl e later,
enough drywal l to finish the garage walls and con-
struct four-by-f our movable panels to be placed above
the cei ling frame. The air blower was installed above
the ceili ng to generate a vert ical column of acceler-
ated ai r from ceil ing to floor. The di ameter of the ceil -
ing out let was approximately 4 inches, the column
diameter gradually increasing toward the fl oor. The
air units were moved around to different ceiling out-
lets to produce linear, ambient , and planar bodies of
air for a more efficient and versatile air-delivery system.
On October 31 of the same year I purchased two large
air-conditioning blowers and mounted them on adjust -
able platforms suspended above the ,ceil ing. t con-
structed a plenum chamber to equalizethe air generated
5
6
by the blowers. Duet ing att ached to t he blowers made
it possi ble to create a continuous planar body of air
and to insert it li ke a wall across the full width of the
garage from f loor to cei ling.
Subsequent ly I extended t he dueting so that it
deli vered ai r simultaneously to four out let s approxi-
mately 4 inchesin diameter, located in all four corners,
which direct ed air at an angle to converge at the cen-
ter of the garage floor. Finally, I instal led the two osci l-
lat ing fans above the ceiling at opposite ends on the
same side to generate randomly phased light air cur-
rents throughout the space. A fine mesh screen fit
over the ceil ing out let to di ffuse the ai r.
All the hardware was given away or sold in the
summer of 1968, except the Dayton blower with it s
fl exible tubing. Further development in the areas of
noise reduct ion and columniation based on greater
technical know-howand improved equipment resulted
in the exhibition " The Appearing/Disappearing Image!
Object " , and later. at the Whit ney Museum of Ameri-
can Art , New York, i n the exhi bit ion " Ant i-Ill usion:
Procedures/Materials."
In the Newport Harbor instal lation, a planar body
of air was located just inside the main passageway to
the inner gallery of the museum. The pressured ai r
extended across the entranceway so t hat visitors en-
countered it on entering or leaving the museum. At
point of origi n the plane was 3 feet wide (parallel to
the doorway) and 3 feet 3fa inches thick, and di spersed
graduall y in both di mensions unt il it reached the fl oor
and spread into ambient air.
The planar air body was generated by a self-
contai ned blower uni t (rent ed fr om Curtai nai re of
Calif ornia). The blower was centered- wit h approxi-
mately 1 foot on eit her side- bet ween the joists of a
suspended ceili ng (4 feet by 7 feet). which had been
constructed and att ached to the exist ing west wall at
the height of the doorheader, 6 feet 7 inches from the
fl oor. The length of the constructed ceiling concealed
the blower unit from view.
\
,
\
,
/
/
/
Diagramfor a seriesof air works 1965-1966. This isone at
four air workswhich werei nstalled in MIchael Asher'sgarage
in 1965-1966. Drawing by Michael Asher.
/
/ '
7
End View
Bottom View
Secti on01Installation
AIR ECONOMY CORPORATION I
11 'ttD USnJAl !laIVi
i
1
I
6.,... V,ewj
r
"
I
I v..-;..,- St<JOf./ O'lt 1- 4- 1
-t
I
!
l--i
Ta Dm)N, i'I. I . DNIt
i
,
.. S'U /W"L ,
I
I I
I
-
I ,
- ), ,'
I
1.<;
,
*
120
-
,
-
,
::1
, ,
,
Ls'
. . ,
I . , , . ,
;! .
,.-
-','
,
'-
t I! -
- , ,
-
...
-
,..
,' "
. , ,
I 1 I
J1 =, /
I
tifL ;,
J
I
I
. I. _
,
....I Si6. ic..
,
I '
, I
l
May 19-July 6, 1969
Anti-Illusion: Procedures/Materials
Whitney Museum of American Art
New York, New York
9
i
AIR ECONOMY CORPORATION
'1 lMOllJTll .... l OUVI
n.llfTOH. It. I. _ 1'
,
,
, '
,
r .r' ..., I
"..... ; '
I
I
.....LlfOKNIA ST"a I'I.JliTtCHNK UNlvEll SITY, t'l...INIVNA
PONoONA. CALlfOll.NIA 91768
I
j
I
,
r_ ..
,- ., . ..J... ,
IISV tr I,ul l
''1'[4',.

I
, ,
i
,
I I
I
I
': ,
I I
I
I
,
10 - 0 -
'.
-'
-
A.IR. ECoI'/. O("'l" L o _ D"n -AIR G.,f;c.TI\ \ U
'St ITEM ::rc R: A 'f'<:, A-.
\J\ \ \T tJEY M I.I S" 0 M ! N.Y.
Preli minaryconstruction plans lor theair-curtaIII installation
by Michael Asher, designed byAir Economycorocranon.
airf low. Understanding the potent ial for comparat ive
analysis of di fferent works and their possibl e interrela-
tionship with in an exhi bi tion, I decided to reduce the
velocity of the airfl ow t o a minimum.
Consi dering the terms of this exhibition ("Ant i-
Il lusion : Procedures/ Mat eri al s" ) and the works i t
contained , I felt that reducing the ai rfl ow would
strengthen it s conceptual dimension.
A planar body of pressured air, 8 feet high and 5 feet
long, extended acrossan existing8-foot wide passage-
way between the large gal lery of the fourt h fl oor and
Gallery 40 1. The air body was produced by a self-
cont ained blower and pl enum-chamber uni t with ve-
locity control , cust om engi neered by and rent ed from
Air Economy Corporati on.
A container for t he air-blowi ng unit was con-
structed and mounted at doorhead level f lush with a
preexist ing architectural recess, thereby loweri ng t he
existing doorfrarne by approximately 2 feet. The hous-
ing contained the bracing, the uni t itsel f, and sound-
insulat ing mat erial ; a narrow air-intake openi ng was
provided along the ceil ing of the small gall ery as well
as an air-outl et grill in the constructed doorheader.
The enclosure corresponded to the archi tectural de-
tai l in structure and fin ish and appeared from both
sides of the doorway as if it were part of the wall . The
velocity of the airstream was reduced to a minimum.
The blower maintained a consistent level of air pres-
sure along the gri ll and the laminar airflow gradually
expanded from ceil ing to fl oor, leaving unaccelerated
air to the left side of the passage, so t hat the airf low
could be bypassed unnoti ced.
The noise level of the blower was also kept to a
minimum so that i t was hardly not iceable over the
noise level of the room.
In thi s work 1was deali ng wit h air as an elemen-
tary mater ial of unl imit ed presence and avail abil ity,
as opposed to visual ly determined elements. I int er-
vened t herefore to structure this material, given in the
exhi bition container i tself, and to reint egrate i t into
the exhibi tion area.
It was necessary to enclose the generati ng device
and int egrate the encl osure with i ts architectural con-
t ext in order to focus the viewer's attention on an or-
dered body of air, j uxtaposed to and cont inuous wit h
the ambient air t hat was defined by the exhibi t ion
container.
The works in this group show ranged from such
expressively soli d sculptural pieces as Richard Serra's
House of Cards to t he extreme subtlety of my laminar
8
10
I
J
/
",\
'\
\,
"
\
I
------)
,-,
'I It
: I I I
I ' I I
" ,I
I I I I
, , I
. .'
: I , I
, I I I
.. ~
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
~ - - I
I
l
,
.-
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
, ' -,
,
. "
,
- ,
,
,

,
, .-
,
,
,
-
l
'--
I
-
l
z
0
~
>
W
~
W
I
~
~
0
Z
o
-
'"
-e-
'"
N
-
o
11
'557087'
Seattle Art Museum Pavilion
Seattle, Washington
Drawing by Michael Asher. document ing the element s
and their placement in the install ati on for the
Seatt le Art Museum Pavili on, September 1969.
12
Index cardsand envelope functi oning as catalogue of the
exhibit ion " 557087" at the Seattl e Art Museum Pavili on,
Until now I had not attempted to investigate the fun c-
t ion of a space in it s own terms. In all instances, my
work-like that of most contemporary arti sts that I
knewof-was involved wit h adding an element int o a
gi ven architectural context. Even t hough the work at
the San Francisco Art Institute had reduced thi s prac-
t ice of adding objects to a given space to the use of
objects already found wi thin the given space, t he
Seattl e installat ion was the f irst t ime the act ual enti re
space was incorporated in the work.
After accept ing an invitat ion to part icipate in a
group exhibition at the Seattle Art Museum Pavil ion,
my origi nal proposal turned out to be unreal i zable.
I submi tted no further proposal on arri val, and was
given a place in t he exhi bit ion area and fi ve days to
do the work.
Throughout the museum t he ceili ng height was
15 feet; in the area all ocat ed for my work, which mea-
sured 18 feet by 30 feet , the ceili ng was 9 feet hi gh.
The vi ewer coul d reach t he area from the main en-
trance of t he pavilion by crossing t he adjacent large
exhibiti on space, where numerous works by ot her art -
ist s were on display. This exhi bi tion space was ill umi -
nated primari ly by natural light entering from the sout h
facade' s glass curt ain wall.
I part it ioned the space with two movable wal ls
(9 feet by 9 feet) to bi sect its width and to reduce it s
size t o approximatel y a squarel ike format . The area's
14-foot widt h was formed by two parall el preexist ing
walls. The preexi sting wall adjacent to the large gal -
lery was 11 feet long, t hus leaving an s-toot access to
t he area. Parallel t o thi s wall I placed a third movable
wall (8 feet by 9 feet) in f ront of the accessway, 2'12
feet into the large gall ery.
The third movable wall also f unct ioned as a light
baffl e for the large gallery's glass curtai n wall. It served
si mult aneously as a screen for art ifi cial li ght from the
interior of t he part iall y enclosed area, where two 150-
watt blue spotlights were i nstalled in preexisti ng cei l-
ing sockets that were di rected toward t he screen. The
rest of t he fl uorescent and incandescent l ight f ixt ures
of the enclosed space were not used.
The nat ural l ight converged at the baff l e and
merged with t he art ifi cial light in t he parti ally encl osed
area. The arti fic ial light di d not pass through thescreen.
The surface of t he st ruct ural wall s of the encl osed
space and the movable wal ls were all covered in the
same light bur lap. Both stat ic and movabl e wall s were
framed by anodi zed aluminum angl es. The movabl e
wall s were weighted at the bottom so that t hey coul d
stand without being secured t o the fl oor. The color of
t he f loor was approximately the same as t he color of
the walls. Where the movable walls were joined and
where they j oined the st ruct ural wall s in the partia ll y
enclosed room, I fabri cat ed thr ee wooden blocks which
were insert ed into t he wall s at their bases. The verti -
cal seam between t he two movabl e walls was covered
with masking tape to make a cont inuous wall simi lar
to t he conti nui ty of t he permanent wal ls.
The t hree wooden blocks, t he masking tape, and
t he two blue light bulbs were the only objects added
to the 14 foot-by-I S foot area. The two movabl e wall s
as object s created t he part ial ly enclosed space. The
condi t ion of the third movable wall was cl early defined :
it served as a part it ion for ent ry/exit; connected t o the
ceil ing, it was visi ble f rom both sides. Each part of
t he enclosed area could be seen in t erms of its pr ior
orJ emporary f unct ion.
Can space it sel f become an object of percepti on?
I would have created an enclosure in a given enclo-
Sure because that was t he onl y way to adapt t he propo-
sit ion to the gi ven condi t ions of t he group show.
It i s very clear that I was creati ng a space in rela-
t ion to all these objects. If you create an enclosure in
an enclosure, it is considered a more int imate space.
Ei ther everybody in the show object ifi ed hi s work
or t he artists cl osed t heir works off .
I had always asked myself; "Why put stu ff on t he
wall , Why put st uff on t he f l oor?" And then I ended up
faci ng the fact that what I was doing was probabl y an
object. Looking at bl ue li ght, I want ed people to see
that they were looki ng at blue light.
What is t he difference bet ween making a room
wi th noth ing in it and inserti ng an objec t into a room?
What is a room wit h noth ing in it? After al l, it was
made out of a lot of st uff , but people t reated it as
though it was an empty, left over room of the museum
that had not been fi ll ed, with blue light s in it. There
was sti ll the question: "Why place anyt hing at all in a
room, in a space, in an area?"
The work emerged historicall y at precisely t he mo-
ment when Minimal sculpt ure developed into Concep-
t ual art. The work tr ied to come to t erms with both,
without bei ng part of ei ther. At t he t ime of t he Seatt le
show I st ill t hought of the art i st as being an innovator.
So I asked; " Why are all these artists conti nuing t o
produce objects?" I wasn't aware of what I was doing:
I was doi ng objects . Real space for me was def ined as
the space between the obj ect and t he viewer.
The work is acceptin g t he concrete mat eriali t y of
preexist ing givens, or responding to the aestheti c prac-
t ice of the moment ; which is to say, that t he work is
essent ially an inquiry into aesthet ic practi ce.
Traditional practi ce had been to insert somet hi ng
into a space rat her than to comment on t hat insert ion.
A space wit h an object in it is dominated by t he object,
rather than by itself.
So the idea in thi s work was t o use the partiall y
enclosed area as the object .
The work coul d be anal yzed in terms of i ts spe-
ci f ic si t uat ion, or it s ent ire cul t ural context. It wasn't
t he walls t hat were object ified, for t hey were t reat ed
as secondary objects. Nor could t hey be conceived of
as a support system, since I used t hem for something
else. Any analysi s assumed either a scul pt ural or ar-
chi tect ural det erminant. Yet a sculpt ural approach
would have defeated the purpose.
The walls were st il l part of the building for me; I
wanted to incorporat e thei r use into my work; once
incorporated int o the work, they woul d be read diff er-
ent ly, as long as t hey did not have anything on them.
Their use i s a cult ural defi ni t ion, so once again I was
responding to a cultural defi niti on.
By concret izi ng the work you automatical ly have
some materi al analysis, and a theoret,ical analysis at
the same t ime. Why would an analysis always have to
13
Detai l-view of t he install ation showing passageway and part I-

non wall (camera viewing north-easl dIrection).
14
precede the fact ? I first felt that an analysis partly
precedes, and partly comes aft er t he fact. My feeli ng
is nowthat one could pose the analysis oneself, but it
would be a very self-consciousact. One might sayt hat
the fact that the work relates to ot her works directly
makes it a response.
Oeteu-vew Into the mstauanon from passageway(camera
viewmg south-west) .
16
'--
JlrY
II
-
-

o
c
0.
c
,
e
'-'
Seattle Art MuseumPavilion, Interior Elevalion. Drawingby
lawrence Kenny.
WEST ELEVATION FRO M GALLEAY
L
WEST ELEVATION OF INSTALLATI ON
J
' I I I
0 123 45 10 ft .
17
November 7-December 31, 1969
La Jolla Museum of Art
La Jolla, California
First floorgroundplan of theLa Jolla Museumof Art.
. ~
...:, :::j
I
I
I
i
.._---,
,
,_ J
I
'-r--
I
:..-1- -f
. , I
\
/
_ _ _ 1 ___
--- - -=,
~
'
.....c:=:1111-==::11..= - - - --- - --d--
--- -- - ---r---:-,'- " T -;- -
M
e! ; r j ~ =
I , ..J-.,... , I
.. '"- :
j\
t
Two fabricated aluminum shi elds each 48 inches
long were attached to the functi oning perimet er light s
at the center point 14 feet 6 Vl:I inches of the north-
south axis.
Behind the glass face of the perimeter fixt ures,
blue gels, diffu sers, and polarizers were att ached to
produce a low level of t inted l ight.
All ot her incandescent lights wit hin the peri me-
ter fixtures were di sconnect ed. Therefore t he l ight
shields directed light towards t he center of the floor
where t he li ght dispersed evenly across the gall ery.
The intensi ty of the l ight gradual ly decreased from
the center to the wall surfaces.
The wall s appeared as though they were evenly
generating light , creating an illusion, on first obser-
vat ion, of changing spatial depth.
Exist ing and newly constructed wall surfaces were
made of drywal l and fini shed wi th white paint. The
original whi te sound-dampeni ng f inish of the cei ling
surface was left untouched. The f loor was covered for
th is exhibi t ion with a white wall-to-wall carpet so that
both of the horizontal surfaces in the room had a sound-
dampening quali t y. I also attempt ed in thi s way t o
establish a visual conformity bet ween the walls, floor,
and cei li ng of the gal lery.
The sound equipment consist ed of an audi o oscil -
lator, an amplifier, and a speaker. Thi s equi pment
generated a constant t one at a very l ow frequency
(approximat ely 85 cps) which was ampl if ied onl y
enough to be audible. The vert ical surfaces responded
to the sound frequency, whi ch caused them to reso-
nat e as i f t hey were tuned, whi le t he hori zont al
surfaces, due to their sound-dampening effect, reduced
the frequency. The cancel lation of the sound waves
occurred when these frequencies coinci ded. The sound
waves cancel led each other out at a point exactl y in
the center of the gal lery and, on a diagonal axi s, on
the right hand si de of each corner. Up to each poi nt of
sound wave cancel lat ion, the sound increased grad-
ually in intensity; whereas at t he exact cancell ation
point none of the generated sound was heard.
The work which I had done just previous to this
Early in 1969, Lawrence Urrut ia, t hen Curat or at the
La Joll a Museum of Art in Cali forni a, invi t ed me to do
a one-person exhi bi t ion which was to be open to the
publ ic from November 7 to December 31, 1969.
The Meyer Gall ery, where t he exhibit i on was
located, was a room in a privat e house designed by
IrvingGill in 1915, which hadbeen modified by Mosher
and Drew in 1948, and again modified in 1960 to
serve as a museum. Theactual dimensionsof the room
were 37 feet 8 inches on t he north-sout h axis and 23
feet on t he east -west axis.
The cei ling was 8 feet 11 inches high, recessed
all around 4 inches deep and 35 inches wide. Above
the perimet er of the lower ceili ng, incandescent lights
were inst all ed and covered wi th glass at a 45 -degree
angle. At the centers of the east and south wall s were
two passageways, each 5 feet wide: the south-wal l
passageway was 6 feet 10 inches high and the east -
wall passageway, which led into a small room that since
then has been closed off, was approximately the same
height.
For the purposes of this exhi bi ti on a complete
f loor-t o-ceiling wall was constructed 3 feet 6 inches
in from, and paral lel to, the passageway of the sout h
wal l, stopping short of the west wall by 3 feet. This
result ed in an entrance part it i on and an 11 feet hall -
way between the constructed space and the existing
space. The area wi thi n the gallery when completed
measured 23 feet by 29 feet 2
1
/ 4 inches.
A third and fourt h wall were butted at 90-degree
angles t o the east side of the south-wall entry-passage:
one closing off the 3
I
h -foot -wide hall way in order to
dir ect the viewer to the ent ry/exit passage; and the
ot her extending 52 inches into t he out side corri dor,
to functi on as a baff le against noise and light filt ering
into the room.
A speaker was inst alled into the east-wall entry-
passage and t his entry was surrounded by a drywall
construction, cl osing it flush with thegallery wall. Also,
fl ush with the whi te surface of the drywall , a match-
ing white cloth was attached to cover the open speaker
elements.
18 19
........
...
VIewing northeast: entry/exit of installat ionand constructed
light and sound baffle.
Viewmg eastdown theconstructedhallwayandtaHard entry/exI!.
-
Northwest corner of constructedwall andexisting wal l.
View01north wall on east-west axis showing detail of con-
structed tight baffle (aluminum shields).
! I
20
at the Seattle Art Museum could be considered an
outline tor the La Jolla work, which diff ered from it i n
the labor and materials that were needed to achieve a
visual and spat ial cont inuit y.
As wi th li ght , the use of sound had the capacity
to confront the viewer' s understanding of space as
stat ic. tact il e, and formally structured (a dominant
trend in art during this period in SouthernCalifornia),
wi th the notion of its temporality and dynamics.
Regional conditionswereexemplified in the "disc-
paintings" of Robert Irwi n whose exhibition had pre.
viously been in the sa me gall ery. This work's presence
as a highly fi nished object seemed to deny it s int er-
dependence on general external condi tions. Whil e
being i nterdependent and pretending to be discon-
nect ed, it set up a ritualized event which could only
be perceived from one posit ion on a bench in front of
the presentation, thereby making the presentation more
important than the person viewing it. The symmetry
of presentation and object were idealized and ab-
stracted from the viewer's perception . In response to
works such as this, my work employed a formally com-
parable point of departure, but was mani fested in real
space and time. The materials and the structure pre-
vented the work from bei ng percei ved in exclusi vely
visual and objectif ied terms. The constructed space
funct ioned as a contai ner for perceptual phenomena
leading beyond the usual wall and floor references in
the placement of works of art in a gall ery.
The li ght in thi s installat ion, rather than high.
lighti ng any one point of the display wall s of the con-
tainer, was directed away from them and dispersed
over the floor into the room. All of the elements-the
spread of tinted l ight , the wall s, and the equi pment
generating the light - were equall y visibl e and acces-
sibleand existed on the same spati al level as the viewer.
Thiswas in contradist inction to installation work where
colored light emanated from speci fic objects and
materials, and where the li ght source was contained
in objects or concealed in construct ions.
It becomes apparent to me in retrospect that the
experience of the work was based on a contradi ction
2 1
I
OSCILLATOR,
AMPLIFIER,
SPEAKER
NORTH ELEVATION
. .... ,
,
,
~ _ -
.,
-
L
- m
~
"'
...
m
r-
m
~
...
is
z
-
"
..
" .
..
..
" ,.
..
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
",
.
..
.
..
"
"
"
PLAN
_____ n
__ . n.
,. LI GHT BAFFLE
ABOve
y
r.- .---.---.
I
,
..
..
..
,
..
,
"
.,
- " ..
..
"
-
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" ..
"
z
Q
~
>
w
~
w
in
w
~
I
of principles; nonvisual material had been treated and
organi zed according to pri nci ples that had been de-
rived from formal-visual aesthet ics. The work served
to aestheticize those contradictions. At the same t ime
t he work became problematic: instead of the work' s
being developed from and conti ngent upon exist ing
material conditions. it was based on, and developed
by the use of preselected materials and princi ples.
Sound equipment l or instal lat ion in the adj acent room on the
east side.
Axonomet'lc drawingoll he Charles E. Meyer Gall ery Ill us-

trati ng t he installat ion 01t he tight baffles and the sound-
generating equipment . Drawmg by lawrence Kenny. 0'
I ,
5
22
December 30, 1969-March 1, 1970
Spaces
New York, New York
24
In the late summer of 1969, I was invited to part ici -
pate in a group exhibition curated by Jennifer Licht at
the Museum of Modern Art entitled "Spaces. " The
exhi bit ion area al located for my work-located in the
sout heast part of the Garden Wing of the museum
- measured 20 lJ2 feet by 23lf2 feet. Corridors 6 f eet
wide extended along the nort h-south and east-west
axes, while t he north and west sides were def ined by
two f loor-to-cei ling wall s which had been previously
constructed for the installation of work by other partici -
pating art ist s.
I had two walls constructed: one on the north-
south axis (22 feet long) and the other on the east -
west axis 08lf2feet long), fromthe floor to the ceili ng
0 4 feet high). These were posit ioned in the corridor,
reducing it to a width of 4 f eet 10 inches. Bot h walls
stopped 3 feet short of the two preexisting wal ls to
leave an entry/exi t opening. All of the wall s were of
standard-grade wood-frame constr uct ion.
Then, a wood-joi st ceili ng was constructed below
the 14 foot ceili ng at a height of 8 feet, spanning the
entire 20'12 foot-by-23 'h foot area. All cei li ng and
wall surfaces were covered with drywall.
To make the area highly sound absorbent, I had
two addi tional layers of wal l added to the interior sur-
faces of all four wal ls. The existing walls had been
fil led with fiberglass insulat ing mat erial. The two ad-
di t ional wall layers were separated by a one-inch area
which funct ioned as an acoust ical plenum. The first
layer was adjacent to the exist ing wall surf ace, and
consisted of a wood-frame const ruct ion f il led with f i-
berglass insul ation and covered with drywall. The sec-
ond layer, set adj acent t o th e ai r pl enum, was a
wood-frame construct ion fill ed wi th f iberglass insula-
tion and covered wi th text ured fiberglass acoust ical
paneling.
These sound absorption layers extended from the
floor to the height of the 8-f oot ceiling and the lengt h
of the existing wall s.
This resulted in f inal interior area dimensions of
22 feet 10 inches (north-south) by 19 feet 10 inches
(east -west).
Once finished, the composite thi cknessof the wall
and plenum on the west side was 1 foot 4 inches,
while the composi te thickness of the three other wal ls
was 1 foot 3 inches. The open edgesof the constructed
wall layers were covered with drywall at the point of
entry/exi t.
Each of the completed wall secti ons stood on a
rubber pad t o isolate them f rom subsonic sounds
caused by vibrations aff ect ing the buildi ng. Fiberglass
acoustical insulation material 2 inches thick was placed
above the constructed ceil ing.
Final ly, t wo layers of textured acoust ical panel -
ing were install ed to cover the ceili ng and f loor com-
pletely. This reduced the cei li ng height t o 7 feet 10
inches.
The finished work absorbed sound, as opposed
to t he previous work at the La Joll a Museum which
reflected it.
Ambient sound from the exterior, such as st reet
traffi c, the interior, such as movement and voices of
people in the corri dor of the museum, as well as me-
chanical noises, such as the air del ivery-and-return
system of the Garden Wing, all merged and condensed
on a diagonal axis at the two entry/exit openi ngs. Be-
cause of the increased absorption on the entry/exit
axis, the sound reached i ts lowest level toward the
center of the install at ion. On the opposite diagonal
axis sound steadily decreased, gradually approaching
complete absorption where the wall s met in the cor-
ners of the install ation.
Two li ght s illuminat ed the nort h-south corri dor,
serving also as a li ght source for the installat ion. The
east-west corridor was il luminated by incandescent
light and, in addit ion, by the ffuorescent l ight of Dan
Flavin's contri bution t o the exhibition. After passing
through the two entry/exits, the light spread out across
the textured surfaces of the installation, causing a pro-
gressivel y lower light level toward the center and
corners. The areas where sound was almost total ly ab-
sorbed were also the areas wit h the least amount of
light.
The highly secluded installat ion space was j uxta-
l
..
F .E _WA LTHER
I
ROBERT MORRIS
fl
LARRY BELL
'--
-
DAN FLAVIN
~
MICHAEL ASHER
~ 7 --,",
a . 5 10 ft.
Groundpla n of t he garden wi ng of t he Museum 01Modern Art . N.Y. and lay-out
of exhi bi tion areas l or the " Spaces" exhi bi t ion. Drawing by Lawrence Kenny.
25
Installat ion during constructi on process.
Photograph byClaude Picasso.
,
~ I ,
r. ,
""0 ,
I
ry.,." ,
r; , ,
"P"=
,
t
, J
f .
.
"' J,
l
,
:
-
VI/' . t' I 0.....
""
l'
-
~
~ . ? I
,
''''
.. 1
j
I
"--EXISTING CEILI NG
Sectionof acoustic wall construction (Detail). Drawingby
lawrence Kenny.
,
\
I r
\
Documentarysketch torecorddimensions. constructionand
location of compleled install ati on. Drawing by Mi chael Asher. 27
' / 4" RUBBER PAD
.., - ,
I il e. A I f
,
"
(
Viewof t he jnsteua ncn and me north-east entryl exit. Pbcto-

graph by Claode Picasso.
Vi ewof the installation and t he sooth-west entry}ent . Photo-
graph byClaude Picasso.
28 29

Gladys K. Montgomery Art Center at Pomona College
Claremont, California
30
posed with the open hallway, continually receiving and
direct ing all sounds and light in it s vicinity. The work
was itself isolat ed from t he museum, yet f unct ioned
by simultaneously integrat ing t he sound and l ight pro-
duced within the museum. Once these sounds had
entered the work, t hey were st ruct ured on a diagonal
axis and were ult imately dissol ved within t he conf ines
of the instal lati on.
As a rectangular container with all of its surfaces
treated in the same way, thework created acont inuity
with no singular point of perceptual objectifica t ion,
unlike phenomenologically determined works which
atte mpted to fabr icate a highly control led area of vi -
sual perception. The various consti tuent elements and
f unct ions of the space were made accessibl e t o the
viewer' s experience. This was in cont radistinction to
an installat ion t hat would insert a predet ermined ob-
ject between t he viewers and t heir perception of t he
space, whi le, at t he same t ime, attempt to control t he
viewers' percept ion, event ual ly creati ng a hierarchy
between the object and t he viewers where t he viewers
subsequent ly became subservient to t he object. I
lConllary to mlormatlOfl m the "Spaces " cata logue, edited by Jenmt ee
LICht. Museum 01 Modern Art. New Yolk. 1969. the plan to use sound-
generallng eqUipment in the WOl' k (speakers. noise generatOf. osclllalOf)
was eventually dropped. The dead space allocated !Of the installat ion 01
the sound equ ipment . which is depicted in the catalogue. was thefefOfe
not used. Furlhel'more. noIIghling system .....as installed .....ithin the con-
suueted area. Finally, the pefspec hve diagram reproduced In the care -
logue IS ups ide down.
MICHAEL ASHER'S PROJECT
at Pomona Coll eg e Art Gallery
is now completed a nd will be ope n
day a nd night until Ma rch 8, 1970.
In 1969. Hal Glicksman , the curator of the Gladys K.
Montgomery Art Cent er at Pomona College, offered
me the opportunity to stage a work in the center's
large exhibit ion gallery. Aft er visi t ing and inspect ing
the center, I consider ed using a locat ion in t he build -
ing that was outside of the area normally all ocated for
exhibi t ion purposes.
Only after I had taken up residence in a dorrni -
tory at the college to plan and install t he work, did I
decide to use t he large exhibi t ion gallery, the lobby,
and t he mai n ent rance from t he st reet.
The art center i s situated at one end of t he cam-
pus. There is an intersect ion of publ ic st reets on it s
sout h and west sides. The main entrance is on t he
west side of t he gall ery. On the nort heast side, the
gallery is open to a pat io which is surrounded by ot her
college buil dings.
A portico at t he front ent rance l eads into the gal-
lery lobby whic h is flanked on t.he sout h by an en-
closed office space. The lobby is 27 feet square wi t h
an 11 toot-S inch ceiling. At t he sout heast corner of
the lobby a corridor 6 feet wide opens into the large
exhibition space. The dimensions of the space are 41
feet 3 inches in length and 25 feet 9 inches in width
wit h a cei ling height identical to that of t he lobby.
For this exhibition, three wal ls were constructed,
one in t he large gal lery and two in the lobby. The wal l
in the large gallery, a three-part const ructi on incorpo-
rat ing two already exist ing wall s, delineated a t riangu-
lar area. One wall was adjacent to t he west edge of
the passagewayand extended 43 feet 4 inches across
the gallery to its southeast corner. The other two al -
ready exist ing walls measured 28 feet 5 inches on the
north side and 25 feet 9 inches on t he east side.
A second constructed wall , adjacent to the east
edge of the passageway, ran parallel to the fi rst wall
and extended 27 feet into the lobby. I had a third wall
const ructed adjacent and perpend icula r to the exi st-
ing nort h wall of the main ent rance. It ran parallel to
t he gal lery's west wall and extended 8 feet 9 i nches,
joining t he end of the second const ructed wal l at an
acute angle.
31
Gladys K. MontgomeryArt Center Gallery; mai n entry/exit
viewed from street duringexhibi ti on. Photo taken wi t hdayli ght.
Detail of entry/exit and view into constructed tria ngular area.
Phetc taken wi th dayl ight.
Viewingout of gallerytoward street rromsmail i riangular area.
Photo taken with daylight.
32
33
34
Together wit h t he two const ructed wall s, anot her
exist ing wal l measuring 2 1 feet 4 inches on the sout h
side of the lobby and main ent rance, completed a
smal ler triangul ar area. A fl ush door const ruct ion was
added t o the off ice door of th e exi sti ng wall for a
smoot h, unbroken wall surface.
The two glass doors that normally parti t ioned t he
main ent ryway and lobby, and which were hinged to
t he north and sout h wall s at a point 5 feet 2 inches
from t he outer wall , were removed for t he durati on of
t he exhi bi t ion, leaving an open entry/exit 6 f eet 4
inc hes i n widt h. The doorjamb and hardware were
covered.
A 6 foot- l0-inch-high cei ling was constructed that
t otally covered the two tr iangutar areas, and turned
the 6 foot-4 -inch-wide entry into a perfect square. tt
extended through t he main entry passage and ended
outside, f lush wit h t he exterior fr ont wal l of t he gal -
lery where t he gap was boxed in with a drywall panel.
Theconstructed cei ling and walls were drywall mounted
on wood frami ng. All drywall surfaces were f ini shed
with off -white paint . The li nol eum fl oor, whi ch had
been covered wi th a protect i ve tape, was painted the
same off- whi te color.
The cei ling, l owered t o a height of 6 f eet 10
inches, became as int egral a part of t he work' s spati al
cont inui ty as t he wall s and t he fl oor. As SUCh, t he ceil-
ing directed the vi ewer 's awareness t o st andard
architectura l usage with in an exhibit ion space, si m-
il ar to t he way in which t he const ruct ed wall s altered
percept ion of t he standard rect i linear areas.
Asthe ground plan indicates, each triangular area
was positi oned in reverse of t he other. Each side of
one triangular area had a corresponding parallel wal l
in t he ot her. Therefore, bot h t ri angu lar areas had a
right angle and two ident ical acute angles. Final ly,
the parall el hypot enuses of each tr iangular area over-
lapped for a distance of 5 feet , result ing in a corridor
2 feet in width.
The interior of t he archi tectural contai ner, hous-
ing t he office and add it ional gallery space, could be
reached f rom a courtyard behind t he gallery building.
From t his area t he vi ewer coul d see t he const ruct ion
and the support of th e smal ler tr iangular space, in-
cluding st ructural detai ls (i.e. , the two-by-four framing,
the sandbag props that were used to stabi lize the wal ls,
the joists holding t he ceil ing and walls together, and
t he back of t he drywall panels (see photos p. 40-41) .
Whi l e in t he off ice/gallery space, viewers could
observe t he backside of t he const ructi on, and at t he
same t ime the front side and t he out door el ement s in
t heir formali zed context.
In th is case, as i n many ot hers, t he archi tect ural
si te did not excl usively determi ne how the work was
st ruct ured or perceived. However, it did give the viewer
an opport uni ty to see what could be accommodated
with in the parameters of a museum's architect ural
st ruct ure.
Wi t h t he two glass doors removed, t he install a-
t ion was open to anyone twenty-four hours a day. Exte-
rior light, sound, and ai r became a permanent part of
t he exhibi tion. Daylight sat urated all t he surfaces of
the f irst small tr iangular area. It condensed in the cor-
ridor and gradual ly di spersed over al l t he surfaces of
t he large tri angular area. Only the back wall facing
the corri dor was fairly evenly l it by t he projected day-
light f rom the corri dor. light i ntensity, color, and shad-
ows varied, depending on t he sun's posit ion in t he
sky. Refl ect ed light had a yellow t int due to t he ot t-
white color of t he interior.
Nighttime light entered from st reetlights which
cast a low, t inted blue light into t he installat ion. Al so
a 75-watt bulb in t he lobby ceil ing, which was cov-
ered wit h a clear blue Plexigl ass sheet and several
layers of f iberglass diffusers in order to match t he color
of the st reetlights, cast a dim, t int ed bl ue light into
t he t riangul ar areas, produci ng an extent and degree
of ill umi nat ion si milar to t hat of daylight.
Sound was generated from such sources as st reet
t raffi c, peopl e walking past the gal lery, and people
wit hin the installation. Exterior and interior sounds
were collect ed and ampli fied in the small er t riangular
space and transmi tted through t he corridor. Channeled
and intensi fi ed in t he corri dor, sound was furth er am-
.-..----------
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
the construction
gular space , in-
-by-four framing,
abi l ize the wal ls,
l is together, and
-hotos p. 40- 41).
:!, viewers could
:ti on, and at th e
ioor elements in
:he architectural
)w the work was
d give the viewer
accommodated
I'S architectural
ed, the i nst alla-
ours a day. Exte-
ermanent part of
the surfaces of
ensed i n the cor-
I h ~ C II ...f":)f"'O C f"'\ f
the const ruct ion
gular space, in-
-by-four framin g,
abil ize the wall s,
lis together, and
Ihotos p. 40- 41).
:!, viewers could
:tion, and at th e
Iocr elements in
:he architectural
)w the work was
d give the viewer
accommodated
I'S architect ural
ed, the i nst alla-
ours a day. Exte-
errnanent part of
the surfaces of
ensed in the cor-
I th" C" ..f", ,..oc:: " f
....-,
.... '
~
: : : : : : . : : ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
Axonometr ic drawin g of t he i nstall ati on for the Gladys K.
Mont gomery Art Cent er Gall ery. Drawing by Lawrence Kenny.
Camera i n small tr iangular area facing passageway i nto large
tr iangul ar area. Photo taken wi th art ifi cial light.
Detail of constructed ent ry/exi t to offices south 01msteu a-
tion. Photo taken with art ificial light as mdicated byetectrc
power cord.
View from trent (small) triangular area with constructed office
door on the far rrght . viewmg Into passageway. All photos by
Frank Thomas.
38
plif ied in the larger triangular spaces, reaching its high-
est level at the back wall. With the removal of the
main-entry doors, the installation wasalsodirectly ven-
tila ted from outdoors, and therefore subject to vary-
ing cl imatic conditions.
I originally intended the installation at Pomona
College to deal with air movement generated from
natu ral, outd oor sources rat her than mechanical
means, and to direct that air movement through the
gallery. In thi s regard, the installat ion was an amplifi -
cation and variation on my early air works and, speci f-
ically, my more recent air works at Newport Harbor
Art Museum and the Whitney Museum of American
Art, all of which had employed mechanical devices to
generate air flow into the exhibit ion area. The Pomona
work was simil ar to the installati on at the Museum of
Modern Art in that it col lected and structured given
exterior elements and integrated them into the work.
While worki ng on the Pomona installat ion, I rear-
ized that it was impossible to focus on one singular
element such as the movement of air. All of the van-
ous elements, once the space had beenli terally opened
to them, had to become inherent determinant s in the
product ion and recept ion of the work.
The installat ion shifted formal control from a sin-
gul ar object to a seemingly neutral given archi tectural
structure previously containing that object. The in-
duced and false neutrali ty of t he obj ect had been de-
pendent upon t he fal se neutral ity of the container.
The triangular shapes weredef ined i n opposit ion
to the usual archi tectural context surrounding a work
of art . As right triangles. they simult aneously adapted
and referred to the condi tions of t he archi tectural
contai ner.
The arbitrary way in which the exterior element s
entered the triaogular spaces was as important to the
work as the material constructi on of the installation,
if only as a contradicti on of the install ation's formal
control over those element s.
Entering and moving through the installat ion, the
viewer became increasingly removed from the exterior
real ity, at the same t ime perceiving gradual abstrac-
39
40
Detail of prop-eonstructlon and sandbags from t he service
area of t hegallery after the conprencn of the instal lation .
Photo by Hal Glic ksman.
Small tr iangul ar area faci ng toward passageway. Photo taken
wi th daylIght . Photo by Frank Thomas.
Detail of cel ltng and wall junction undemeat h i s t t n ~ ceiling
aft er the completion of the installation. Photo by Hal Glicksman.
Photo taken from back wafl of large triangular area vlewtng
onto front wall of small tr iangular area. Photo taken with
artificlil i light by Frank Thomas.
41
-
"
. " . ,
,. "
,
"
May 11-July 4, 1971

24 Young Los Angeles Artists
Los Angeles .County Museum of Art
42
Isometric drawingof wallsof installation by Michael Asher.
tions of that real ity with in a formall y deter mi ned and
controlled space.
Graduall y walking back t hrough the two triangu-
lar areas, theviewersreconstructed what had previously
been abst racted. reaching t he point of total recon-
struction at the moment they returned to theoutdoors.
This view of exterior real ity was framed by t he square
entry/exit whi ch was combined and juxtaposed with
the f i nal element of the i nstallat ion's formal ab-
st ract ion: the 6 foot-4-inch-by-B-foot-9 inch wal l panel
to t he right of the entry/exit square.
The twenty-four-hour time order, a popular st ruc-
ture in the Los Angelescommunity, was transposed to
the operatio n of t he work. This time st ruct ure intro-
duced a t emporal conf igurat ion of reality, opening the
work t emporally as t he ent ry st ruct ure had opened it
spati all y. Some of my earlier works had al so devel-
oped a formal temporal st ruct ure through t he use of
sound: sound as a t emporal st ructure determined by
it s mechani cal generat ion within t he work (as in the
work at La Jolla), or by the viewer's l imi ted access to
t he work, whi ch was ult imately determi ned by t he
museum' s operat ing hours (as in the work at the Mu-
seum of Modern Art).
The sound in thi s work was the sound of theact iv-
it y of the communi ty surroundi ng the work as wel l as
that of viewers who entered it. Because of the t went y-
f our-hour time st ruct ure, viewers activat ed the work
by entering at a t ime determined by them, rath er t han
accordi ng to the museum' s usual dayt ime schedule.
The thr ee-week durati on of twenty-four -hour accessi -
bil it y f ocused on a more generali zed understand ing of
temporal experience.
The visual, spat ial, and formal cont inui ty of t he
installati on was dial ect i call y in opposi t ion to the ac-
t ual cont inui t y of t ime, sound, l ight , and climat ic
conditions. To stage a work that would express t hese
opposit ions wi t h ideal clarity, it seemed that certain
facets of t he real it y of the work- it s various l evel s of
support, for exampl e- had t o be sup pressed. The
work's specific reality- what it shares with the inst i t u-
ti on t hat contains i t- remained elusive. Thi s appar-
ent absence der ived from conditions created in t he
work's constructi on: t he demarcatio n of the exist ing
space and the partial concealment of the acti vi tie s
within that space.
Thi s exhibi ti on, organized by Maur ice Tuchman, Se-
nior Curator of Modern Art , and Jane Li vi ngston, Asso-
ciate Curator of Modern Art, included, in addit ion to
myself , t he following art ists: John Alberty, James Brad-
ley, Vija Celmi ns, Ron Cooper, Mary Corse, Robert
Cumming, David Deutsch, Guy Dill , Laddi e John Dill ,
Frederick John Eversley, Jack Goldstein , Scott Grieger,
Patr i ck Hogan, Richard Jackson, Peter Lodato, All an
McCollum, Barbara Munger, Peter Plagens, Joe Ray,
Allen Ruppersberg, Wol fgang Stoerchle , John White,
and Will iam Wegman.
Since th e exhibit ion was sc heduled t o open
si mult aneously wit h the " Art and Technology" exhibi -
t ion at t he Los Angeles County Museum of Art , t he
arti sts were given thr ee weeks to conceive and con-
st ruct t heir works. My proposal was accepted at the
end of t he f irst week, so that -with the assistance of
Tahn Hyun- I had two weeks to bri ng the work t o
compl eti on.
Two complete rooms and several parti t ioned, car-
peted areas on the fourt h f loor of t he Ahmanson Build-
ing were allocated for the exhibi tion. My work would
be in the small er of t he two rooms, which measured
30 feet 6 inches by 29 feet by 15 feet 6 inches,
I had t hree walls constructed in an area to the
right of t he passageway leading to t he installat ion area,
running on a nort h-south axis, parall el to the exist ing
west wall of t he museum and paral lel to one another.
These thr ee wal ls were 5 feet, 10 f eet , and 20 feet
respect ively in lengt h, 15 feet 3 inches high, and 4
inches thi ck. The 5-foot wall was cl osest to the pre-
existi ng wall , followed by the 10-foot wall , whi ch was
foll owed by the 20-foot wall , each wal l separated from
the preceding wall by a distance of 4 inches. The wall s
project ed into the passageway at increments of 5
inches (t he shortest wall projectin g 5 inches, and t he
longest wall 15 inches).
The 20-foot wall stopped 1 foot 11 inches short
of t he existing south wall of t he install ati on area, leav-
ing that l engt h of t he exist ing west wall visible, and
providing a very narrow access to observe t he interior
wal ls. The constructed walls stopped 3 inches short
of t he cei li ng, to whic h they were held in place by
several angle bars.
The wall s were const ructed on a piece of plywood
fl ooring whic h was cut in on one end to conform to
the projections of the wal ls and extended on the ot her
end to the full lengt h of t he 20- foot wall. The wal ls
were two-by-tour frames covered in plywood. The east
and west sides of t he wall s were covered wit h drywall.
All seams were f ill ed wi t h wood compound and t he
plywood was treated wi t h a coat ing t o stabil ize the
grain.
All const ructed surfaces, including the plywood
fl ooring, were fi nished with t he same white pai nt nor-
mally used to cover the museum wall s, ther eby estab-
li shing an interna l conti nui ty and simi larity between
the const ructed surfaces and the exist ing wal ls.
As the viewer approached t he passage, t he edges
of t he constructed wall s appeared as a serial sculp-
tur al relief ; abreast of t he edges the dept h of t he wal ls
was revealed against the background of the exist ing
sout h wall , which they appeared to fragment.
The pl ane of t he 20-foot wall, which faced into
the install at ion area, blocking the view of the interior
wall elements as well as most of the existi ng west wall,
appeared to be anot her f ull -sized exhibi tion wall.
The preexisti ng exhi bi t ion wall , recessed 2 feet
behind the outer const ructed wal l, could be seen
through the] foot 11 inch vert ical opening in the
sout hwest corner. The outer wal l was therefore often
perceived as an integral structural element where works
of art were normal ly install ed. Vi sitor s f requently
t hought it was an unused wall , and they would lean
against it t o view ot her works in t he exhi bi t ion.
As a response to t he use of part ition walls in mu-
seum design, the constructed wall s ran parallel to ot her
part it ion wall s in t he area where the exhibi ti on was
install ed; the project ing reli ef of t he const ructed walls
could only be viewed f rom the passageway, however.
The solid edges of the constructed walls al ternat -
ing with the intersti ces resulted in seven vert ical li nes,
parallel and equidistant. As these edges formed a vi -
sual relief, they also const it uted the beginning of each
43
it
I
f\ Mr
t:
-,
a
.'I
,
1 ,
.1J ,
,
TI'Tr ~ . ,
Ie-
"7J L" 1 \
~ \ "l "'\ ""
.
<>- o ~
\
~
- <?
l' ~
0
-
o
,
-
v ~ C' liUIIIIIL ,
, ,
,
[
,
,
, J
,
,
Il
,
~

~ J
~ .. m
,

----
..
- - --
,

~
Eo
.: 'I
,!
~ r
~ I ,I
L-
0..5 Tott.
Elevat ion 01wall construct ion wi th exi st i ng partit ion wal l.

Fi nal drawmg by Mi chael Asher, May 1971 .
Compl ete groundplan of fourth floor of Ahmanson Building,

l osAngelesCounty Museum01Art. Theexhibit ion 24 Young
Los AngelesArtistswas located in the north -west port ion of
t he building. The nort h gall ery space marked amofcates the
constructionof theseparall el walls by Michael Asher. Ground-
plan by l awrence Kenny.
44
Plan 01installation area with detail of waltconstruction.
Drawing by Kim HUbbard.
45
46
of the planar wall sect ions.
The relief structure disappeared when the wall
planes were viewed frontall y. The outer wall was seen
as a white rectangular archi tectural plane. This outer
plane not only covered the internal elements but
seemed to compress the internal space against the
existing west wal l. The int ernal progression of con-
structed wall s complemented the highl y visi ble pro-
gression of what appeared to be a sculptural exterior
relief. Through the narrowvertical opening at the south-
west corner, the edges of the three wall s coul d be
viewed as progressing inward, t he 5-foot wal l reced-
ing furt hest int o the interior space. The edge of the
5-foot wall wit hin t he exterior reli ef structure was the
f irst to extend 5 inches into the passageway.
Viewed from t he exhibi tion area , the vertical and
horizontal edges of the outer wal l seemed to cover
and frame all ot her planes and edges of the work.
The outer wall and the internal elements denied
the complete 360-degree view tradit ional ly appl ied to
freestanding scul pture, by compressing it against t he
existing architect ural wall and combi ni ng it with inter-
nal SCUl ptural space and i ts structural elements.
My previous works- t hose at La Joll a Museum of
Art (see p. 18), the Museum of Modern Art in New
York (see p. 241, and Pomona College (see p. 31)-
had made use of the complete interior space- walls,
floor, and ceiling- to create a full y integrated in-
stallat ion. This work, however, negated the archi tec-
tural totality of thoseinstallations by negating any sense
of i ts own three-dimensionalit y as a sculptural rel ief .
The completed work was given to t he Los Angeles
County Museum of Art for their contemporary collec -
tion in exchange for a Young Talent Purchase Award,
which I had received in 1967. The work was later dis-
mantled by the museum, and since that time has not
been reconstructed.
Vi ew01museum atri um and passage di rected toward tnsteua-
non area and edges of wall const ruct i on. Photograph by
Michael Asher.
vrewct wai f const ruct ion Irom Install at ion area Into passage
and general extnbucn area. Photograph by Michael Asher.
Detail 01progressi vel y recessing edges of wal l const ruction as
seen !r om westside of installat ion area. Photograph by MI-
chael Asher.
DetalllOter lOf vtewol wal l mstauenon as seen Irom east -srce
otmstettanon area. Photograph by Edward Comeco. Courtesy
01l os Angeles County Museum of Art , l os Angeles , ca.
47
Viewof edges01threeconstructed wall sasseen from hallway.
Viewof outer constructed wall asseen frommsrcethe Installa-
tion areaat 45
0
angle.
Frontal viewof wall mstauenco. Photographs (ad) by
Edward Comacio. courtesy LosAngelesCounty Museumof Art,
LosAngeles, Ca.
I
48
0' , , ' 5 lOll:.

I
<, I

- -
ing any of the given planes; and the integrity of the
original interior plan was therefore maintained. This
was unlike the later work at "Documenta V" in 1972
(see p. 57), in which t he space was divided by bi-
secting planes. At t he samet ime t his design allowed
for disjuncti ve surfaces.
A wall was constructed from floor to ceil ing in a
passageway i n the north wall to make that wall appear
as even and conti nuous as the other three wall s. A
standard-sized door was fitted fl ush within this newly
constructed wall, and was butted up asclose as possi-
ble to the doorframe soas to create the appearanceof
a seamless surface. Thenorth wall containing thedoor
constructi on was painted black to further conceal the
door and the seam.
Thereweretwoskylights measuring 7 feet 8 inches
by 5 feet. Theywere the only sources of natural light
in the installati on area. Several pieces of white clot h
were stretched across the bottom of the skylight wells,
flush with the ceili ng surface, in order to reduce the
intensity of the light and todiffusethe light moreevenl y
throughout the installation area. Two rows of track-
lights, which had been installed for t he program, were
removed for this installat ion.
The viewer entered through t he door in t he north
wall, which was one of the two black walls. Since the
doorway was located near the adjacent whiteeast wall.
theviewer tended to feel lessvisually compressed upon
entering.
Theview from the two adjacent white walls look-
ing diagonally into the installat ion, produced an unin-
tended effect an ill usion of a haze spanned the two
adjoining black walls, sometimes causing the corner
to drop out completely, depending on the intensity of
natural light entering through the skylights. The view
from the adjoining black corner looking diagonall y
across to the two adjoining white walls made the in-
stallati on area appear highly focused and sharply
detailed.
Each group-the three black planesand the three
white planes-was viewed asself-contained yet inter-
dependent, internally conti nuous and adjacent. At the
Facade of exhIbition spaceat 72 Market Street. Venice.
Photograph by MIchael Asher
I
.
The Market Street Programwas a nonprofit, artist-run
exhi bition program that operated for approximately
twelve months in an artist's studio space- later to
become a commercial gal lery-at 72 Market Street,
Venice, California. Market Street Programdefi ned its
own aims as follows:
A comprehensive research project cl assifying and
exhibiti ng the work of professional artists accord-
ing to their own cri teria. The objective of the proj-
ect was to ful fill the need in any art communi ty for
anexhibition program to tie together existingexhibi-
tion facilities under a decent ralized museum plan
while act ing as a laboratory for procedures used in
the selection and evaluat ion of art . I
The program was set up and participants were
selected based on Southern Californiaartists' responses
to computer-processed questionnaires. This method
of artist self-selection was conceived by Robert Irwin
and Joshua Young, who was the adminstrator and or-
ganizer of theexhibit ion program. One question sought
the names of artists then working in the area; another
asked which arti sts one would be most interested in
showing with.
2
This procedure resulted in my being
invited to provide a work for the exhi bit ion.
The existing exhibi tion area was 49 feet 1 inch
by 29 feet 1 inch by 13 feet 4lJ2inches. Between the
north wall of the exhibit ion container and the sout h
wall, where the main entrance was located, was an
office foyer area which measured 29 feet 1 inch by
15 feet 10 inches.
My proposal for the programwas approved. It con-
sisted of painting the enti re planes of the west wall
and the north wall and t he enti re floor with a matte-
black house paint. The enti re planes of the east wall
and thesouth wall , aswell ast he ceili ng, were painted
with a matte-white house paint. Each painted plane
wasdefined by the floor, wall, and ceili ng juncturesof
the architectural container.
Because the work was determined by the preex-
isting architectural planes, I found that I could divide
the space into a black and a white half without divid-
March 22-Apri/16, 1972
Market Street Program
Venice, California
50
7
Altonometnc drawmg of 72 Market Street, the bUlkhng usedlor t he
Market Street Programext nbmcn. Drawmgby LawrenceKenny.
51
52
same time, t he three i nt erl ock ing complemen tary
planes appeared to form a rectangular architectural
cont ainer.
Unlike the work at t he Los Angeles County Mu-
seum (see p. 43), t he rel ief plane and the architec-
t ural support plane in this work were compressed to
the point of coalescing. Thearchitectural planes, how-
ever, remained juxtaposed.
This instal lati on of painted planes was completely
determi ned by the preexisting architectural dimensions.
The work thereby clearly cont radicted the moderni st
tradit ion in painti ng which claimed t hat a work's struc-
ture was determined by the framing edges of its int er-
nal support. Even if thi s were granted, the scale of
the work was totally arbit rary, with one qual ificat ion:
the painti ng always had to fi t into a specifi c whit e
architectural contai ner. The edges or frame of t he paint -
ing attempted to create a discret e mark, and whether
or not that mark was posi t ioned on the floor, wall , or
ceili ng, it manifested its own separate existence whil e
ignori ng t he archi tectural container.
To create or materialize a work, conventional prac-
tice dict ated putt ing as much mater ial and/or percep-
t ual bulk as possible between the viewer and the display
st ructure in order to identi fy the autonomous aestheti c
object and to di st inguish it from it s nonaesthet ic
surroundings. In t he Market Street inst al lat ion, I was
questioni ng t he requirement of vi sual bulk.
By defining t he planar element s in t erms of t he
quant ity of paint t hat it would normally take to pre-
pare the architectural container for an exhi bit ion, I
directl y objecti fied t he space wi th a material which
was fami l iar to t he viewer by common experience. In
this way I di sengaged the aestheti c objec t from its
support ing surfaces by coalesci ng i ts material con-
structi on with the support st ruct ure it self .
The paint used to cover the surfaces was the stan-
dard commercial type used for interior and exterior
decoration and protection, and was appl led by profes-
sional pai nters using an ai rless compressor. The paint
was unli ke industri al materials t hat have been adapted
for art product ion. (For example, using thi s paint on a
canvas would have t ransformed it from a stock item
into a found material object. ) This was al so t rue of
ot her material s that were especially designed, manu-
factured, and appl ied to cover wall surfaces in a rel ief ,
and t hat negated t heir inherent painterly characteris-
ti cs which had exist ed previous t o t he installat ion of
such materials on a wal l.
This installat ion physi cal ly made use of a f lat or
planar surface as in tradit ional painting. Yet , the wall -
sized dimensions of t he "painti ng" were predetermined
by the archi tectural context rather than by a st retcher
or armat ure, whi ch are used to hold paint away from
the wall to ensure that i ts material mani fest ation is
di sclosed and framed as a spectac le autonomous and
separat e from its supporti ng st ruct ure.
I Mlchael Leopold, "Computer Mating/Los Angeles:' The Art Gallery.
Summer. 1972 s.p.
2Pel er Plagens, "LOS Angeles, The Markel Street Program," Artforum,
January, 1972, p. 77 fl.
vlewmg south-west corner.
vlewmg north-east corner.
vrewmg south-east corner.
Viewing nort h-east corner.
Detail of east wall and skylight .
Detail of west wall and skylight.
Photographsby Frank Thomas.
53
Viewingsouth.
Viewingnorth. Photographsby Frank Thomas.
56
Linedrawingaftercompletionof installation.
Drawingby Michael Asher.
I
I
_'Il .0. ....
.... "'" "...
- - .,.
I
!
,,J1I "-..
..
..
" .
June 30-0ctober 8, 1972

Documenta V
Museum Fridericianum
Kassel, West Germany
"Docu menta," one of t he largest group exhi bitions of
contemporary art, is staged in Kassel, West Germany,
every four t o six years. Approximately eighty artists
partici pated in " Documenta V," which was held in
1972, withi n t he confi nes of t he Museum Frideri c-
ianum and t he Neue Galerie. The direct or of "Docu-
menta V" was Dr. Harald Szeemann .
In July 1970, Dr. Szeemann wrote to me express-
ing interest in my work, and in December of the follow-
ing year invi ted me to participate in the exhi bi tion.
On February 2, 1972, Jean-Chri stophe Amman , a cu-
rator representi ng " Documenta V," showed me a plan
with t he assigned space for my instal lation during his
visit to Venice, California . The area that would be avail -
able for my work was part of a long hall way, 3.66 me-
ters hi gh, 4.25 meters wide , and 10.97 meters l ong.
At the t ime, I was unable to go to Kassel , ei t her
t o inspect t he location, or for the final installat ion of
the work. It occurred to me t hen t o see i f another art -
ist could manage t o construct my work and modi fy it
if necessary in order to adapt it to i ts locat ion. It was a
challenge to design an installat ion on paper that woul d
lat er be const ruct ed in a pl ace I was unfami liar wi t h. I
asked John Knight, an artist and friend, and he agreed
t o go to Kassel t o constr uct the work. I didn' t know
then whether I would ever see t he f inished instal lat ion.
So, in late March 1972, I made my f inal plans for a
proposal. 1
My proposal was determined, in part , bY t he length
and wi dt h of the available space. The work woul d be a
wood-f rame const ruction of walls, f loor, and ceiling
measur ing 9.65 meters by 3 .86 meters by 2.28
meters. The fl oor would be 10 cent imeters from t he
museum floor and the cei li ng 2.28 meters high, so that
it would be in t he normal perceptual fiel d of persons
of average height. Walls, fl oor, and ceili ng were cov-
ered with particle board and drywall and were treated
with vinyl latex paint.
This proposal focused on i ssues similar to those
addressed at the Market Street Program. Here I wanted
to visually divide the interi or of the enclosure in half,
along the centerline of its longest axis, by painting
the north half black, and t he sout h half white. This
meant that the ceili ng, floor, and two end walls were
half black and half whi te. Whereas t he ent ire north
wall was painted black, and the enti re sout h wall whit e.
Two li ght wells were constructed in the whit e half
of the contai ner at the east and west corners. These
were cut out of the ceiling where t he cei ling met the
adjacent sout h wall. Each li ght well measured 1.83
meters in lengt h and 7.6 centimeters in wi dth. Ught
from the museum interior passed t hrough t he li ght
wells and was di ffused, due to a polari zer and a pi ece
of transl ucent clot h whi ch stretc hed across the bot -
tom of t he light well , f lush wi t h the cei ling. I wanted
enough light t o come through these wells so that , aft er
a short t ime of eye adjustment , every surface in t he
enclosure could easi ly be seen.
The construction was completed by using a 9 1.5
cent imeters wide, li ght-t ight door, mounted fl ush on t he
black side of t he int erior container, for ent ry and exit. 2
The standard-grade const ructi on for the wall s,
floor, and cei ling foll owed the configurat ion of the avail-
abl e space, making it long and narrow. an unusual
shape, cont rary to any enclosure which would normally
be used for an exhibition area for the di spl ay of art-
works. But, by integrating t he shape of the hallway
i nto t he const ruction, I was revealing a framework
which defi ned the internal st ructure of the work. As a
leftover architectural element which had been assigned
to me for the execution of a work, the 10 .97 met er
walkway was incorporated in the determinat ion of t he
work. The hall way due to i t s formali zation, was con-
vert ed into a f unction of bodily and visual perception,
st ill mirroring the external architectural st ructure to
which it was bound.
On August 19, 1972, I arrived in Kassel to see
t he f inished work and realized t hat it was very beauti-
fully const ructed. While the whi te surfaces were im-
mediately visi ble on entering, the black surfaces in
the distance remained below the visual threshold. Even-
t uall y, as the eye adapted, t he black surfaces could
be visually established as contiguous. The black half
of the installat ion absorbed light and was t heref ore
57
59
rr c...
3" :::- r: Oi l
/ /
---
..
f 0 ..... (".

r
Q.
q I -

..
D
,.",
-
- - - -6- -_
A
U J
I
A" ... #01'=. .3 60 ...
I NDICATS C':)l'I Sl' K<sC'l w dL.L$ 5ECESSARY
FOR " OR!.
6UCX tw..F OF' 'ItOFilt/TO EE l:.PftAr eo-
OUT AS SUCH
7 '6" CULIBG W&o1Gtll' F"I'lOM ? INI 3.'{EI) ?LOOR
(G) EJl Tnr/oor 000i\ ( U Gf!. T- 'l'IG .r )
(A) .t (cl 12 '-0" 1I 6 ' - 0"
( B) .t ( Dl } 6' - 0 " 1I 7 ' -6"
.... - - -
G
"
I
I
f
'-.0., ..... "=
'1"1
/ ,
,. ,-
I
A- . ,
-
1001.1,50 UIool UO
.

-_..._-- -d .. ".. . ,
.... ...., ---....
<,i _ ...- .
---- .....
_-... ---. ...,
.-.._-----..-.-
Detail drawingof light well. planandelevation by John Knight
for the purposes of his supervision of the installation.
Drawingbyexhibitionarchitect Oombois indicatingposition
and placement of installation inthe hallway.
. ,
.,
MUSEUM FRIDERICIANUM ZWISCHENGESCHOSS
I I'
;:; .1
. r . [Lll_
I - J
l __..J c ......
.
- , - - I
I j I i: I I I .
OOCUMENTA5
..;",o".....-"'.. , I
---,_..........
, l l l ' . l l e l i

Constructiondrawing of installationbyexhibitionarchitect
Dombois.
58
60
fairly dim; while the white half, i lluminated by the
light well s at each end, refl ected light.
While the viewer was standi ng in the white half ,
the work appeared t o be all whit e, although it seemed
as if a sheet of smoked glass ran the entire lengt h of
the space. The black half seemed to be denser than
the white half . While standi ng in the whit e half, the
viewer formed a strong perceptual i mage of spati al
mass in the opposite black half . Whereas, while stand-
ing in the black hal f , the illusion disappeared.
Although each architectural plane wasdivided per-
ceptuall y by paint, there were no physical obstacles
to prevent the viewers from walking across the floor
plane in any directi on they chose.
Bisect ed and encompassing the viewer, this en-
closure could not be seen in i ts enti rety from anyone
point of view. Each view from zone to zone, as well as
each diagonal view found i ts complementary spati al
and chromatic perception in the project ion of the vi-
sual axis behind the viewer.
All of the planes in this install ation were assem-
bled and dist inguished as adjacent pictori al planes.
Therefore they also became planes or elements constl-
tuting a scul pture. The installation was not , however,
viewed in the round as conventi onal sculpture rather,
the sum of the six planes consti tuted a volumetric,
rect angular body, forming an encl osure around t he
viewer. The entire sculptural volume was viewed from
within, waswalked through, over, and upon. By being
an enclosure or housing, the assembled planes were
si multaneousl y experienced as an arch itectural
container.
The door def ined a transit ion from the actual ex-
hi bit ion space into the actual sculptural and pict orial
space. Upon returning to the general exhibition space,
the viewer was cut off from the formalized perceptual
mode which equated bodily and visual percepti on.
Once outside, the viewer's percepti on was once again
fragmented into its various functi ons.
The wood-frame construction was a stage or me-
diat ion for the paint. The paint was not appli ed t o the
given architecture, as in the Market Street work. Rather,
it was applied to the work's separat ely constructed
surfaces, thereby contradic ti ng the work's origi nal in-
tenti on as a method of directly art iculat ing t he given
archit ectural support .
By formalizing i ts own purpose with in the exhib-
it ion. thi s install ati on- asa stage-reflected the cul-
tural st age which "Oocumenta" - as an exhibit ion-
occupied. As a spati al enclosure, it occupied an autono--
mous position; yet the enclosure did not define the
more general conditions of the viewer's experience at
the exhibition. The implied autonomy of the work could
only be seen wi thin the context of most of the other
works, each of which operated with in their own sepa-
rate framework. The work seemed to seclude itself from
the rest of the exhibi tion. whi le it was actuall y subj ect
to and recept ive of it s condi t ions.
IThis work is extenstvelyreviewed In Carter Ratcliff, "Adversary Spaces,"
Artforum October, 1972. pp. 40-44.
2'Jhe docf was shipped from the Marllet Sl reet Program.
Viewof installation fromwest wall.
Detail of light-well onthe east side
of the installation. All photographs by
Karf-HemzKrIrlgs.
1
62
Vi ewof mstauancn from north-west corner. View01instaltanon fromsouth-west corner.
63
64
January 8-January 11, 1973
Gallery A 402
California Institute of the Arts
Valencia, California
Ga llery A 402 was a student-run gallery where exhibi-
t ions were organized by Suzanne Kuffler, who was at
that time a graduate student at the Cali fornia Insti -
tute of the Art s. The gallery funct ioned as an exhibi -
tion space for both artists and st udents to make their
work accessible to the Instit ute community. In late
1972 I was i nvited to exhi bi t a work there.
Thegallery measured 27 feet 7 inches by 16 feet
8 inches. with a ceiling height of 9 feet. Two rows of
fluorescent light fixtures-the gallery's only source of
l ight- extended the ent ire length of the room. The
floor was coveredwith brown wan-to-wencarpeti ng. A
series of rectangular wall facets-floor-to-ceil ing wall
projections which formed short st rips of wall surface
or wall planes on a north-south and east-west axis-
interrupted the exhibiti on wall planes, breaking up any
contin uity that the installati on space might have had
as a rectangular volume. There were two rectangular
wall projecti ons on the east side and one large 6-by-
9-foot wall projection on the west side. Looking straight
ahead int o the southeast corner of the room, there
was another short rectangular wall project ion. All of
t hese projected wall surfaces were permanent and ac-
commodated ut il it ies and air-ducting. Only the south-
west corner was not interrupted by any project ions.
Given thi s architectural configuration, I developed
a proposal for al l of the white wall surfaces. My idea
was to paint the six parallel, opposing surfaces on the
north and south side with the whit e Dunn-Edwards
paint that was normally used for wall surfaces through-
out the Institute. The seven east-west surfaces I wanted
to leave as they were. yellowed. spotted with finger-
prints. and broken through in various places.
It didn't occur to me to tell the gall ery director
what I planned to do. other than saying that I would
paint the gallery. The morni ng I arr ived to do the
i nst all at ion, I found all the wall s freshly paint ed. I
was reall y shocked because it was li ke having pai nted
the work away. After think ing about i t for a couple of
hours I decided to adapt the idea slightl y. I kept al l
the east-west opposi ng wal l surfaces paint ed with
Dunn-Edwards Beau-T-Wall -Wl1itesince the gallery or-
ganizer had used that paint. On all of the north-south
opposing wall surfaces, I t hen appl ied Sherwin Wil -
liams Nu-White. Both paint s were matt e-whi te. and
close in tone and value, but the Nu-Whit ewas intended
to di ff use the li ght from the fl uorescent fixtur es while
the Dunn-Edwards carried the light. The int erior sur-
faces were identi fied therefore in terms of their dis-
t inct response to li ght rather than t heir chromat ic
difference.
The one set of double doors at the entrance to
the gallery and the removable doorhead were dis-
mantled. making the passage to the gall ery an open
span from floor to cei li ng. This made the gallery acces-
sible at all ti mes during the exhi bi ti on. The doors
- two rect angular planes- were normall y part of the
gal lery's interior. Wit h t he doors removed, the viewer
became aware of the funct ion uti lit ies (fire hose, water
fountain. ut i lit y-room door. and elevator) in the out-
side hallway framed by t he open doorframe of the ex-
hibit ion space. Viewers also became aware of their
own stati c position ing wi thin the formalized space as
they watched people passing in the external space of
the hall way. Visitors ent ering through t he doorframe
thusestablished a connection between exterior dynam-
ics and i nterior stasis.
The two different whites of the painted surfaces
were reduced to a considerat ion of axis of locati on
and amount of light absorbed. There result ed from
this an increased awareness of the interior funct ional
elements (power outlet s, air vents. light fixtures. sprink-
ler system, and wooden floor molding). which were
contin ued and refl ected in the exterior funct ional ele-
ments visi ble through the doorframe.
My work wasa tormelizaticn of the gal lery's archi-
t ectural surfaces as well as the preexisting architec-
tural order that determined the configuration of the
int erior gal lery space and the ext erior hal lway. The art -
display funct ion of t he gallery container appeared
with in the larger multi ple-function archi tectural con-
tainer . Just as the appearance of a box with in a box
was obviated by the removal of the doors. the sepa-
rateness of the war! pl anes, emp hasized by t heir
. -
pai nted surfaces, decomposed t he whi t e gall ery
container.
As a consequence of integrat ing the outer hal l-
way and gallery interior the passer-by, foll owing the
normal traffi c patt ern through the bui lding, could have
entered the perceptual range of the viewers facing the
doorframe. Thus the viewer' s more or less static per-
ception of the spati al configurat ion was interrupted.
The people passing through the hall way were unaware
of the viewer's static position whil e assessing the work,
but t he viewer's percept ion was act ivated by becom-
ing aware of the movement in the hall way. The simul -
taneity of these two viewing modes brought about a
shift in theway in which the viewer perceived the seem-
ingly autonomous structure of the installat ion.
Modernist tradit ion has created cult ural bound-
ari es wi thin which aesthet ic product ion is viewed as
being autonomous and part iculari zed: usually those
of insti tut ions such as museums and gal leries. There
the works of art . as objects, are solely interacti ve with
the viewer, disallowi ng any other routines or reality to
take place wit hin the field of the viewer's percept ion.
On the other hand, the Insti tute installation did not
negate the real ity of different movement sand rout ines
(e.g. entering and leaving the gal lery space) that may
have been ancill ary to the process of perception.
Camera inside of installat ion viewingnorth into hallway.
Camerain hallwayviewi ng south i nto GalleryA402 and
installati on. Photographs by Alvin Comiter.
65
Cameravlewmgnorth mto hall way and

install atl on space SI multaneously.
Camera vewmg Irommstaueucn area north-
west mto hallwayandmezzenme.
Camera vlewmgfrom installation areanort h-
east mtc hallwayand mezzar nne.
All photographs byMichael Asher.
...
'\
,j '

/ l OQ !' c c.rpc t "
- 9 ree e ...
I , ll ar cu '\t
";all s - 'l" Gyp<! .:oc1:
l' l u ortw c c u t Li lih ting Z 5'1:; r.:.-
.' 1
rr (J) tJ.,)r I 1.-
v' 2"
"'"
10 " 1:

..
5 ' 6"
\
27 ' 7"
RE.'''' au E: D06r

GAl..L:: i{Y
l- A 5rt E: .<!.
tJFF I.E.e..
GFi L.J.. rsr;:,v' 7:'1 , E_C r .:;t:!
J \
SHE:R.WlIv
(V LJ t.U H- Jrc:
e"'-"::1
UvN '\)
{3C.llv-r- t..v$L.o-
LJ,J H IT. W /., oS -I
[e;rwJ
5
16 ' 8"
,.j " i
f,)'"
.",
l-
e
"\ W
c:
(-'
..-
r.'
Study plan of Gallery A402 wit h noteson exhibition project
by Michael Asher.
66
67
-
PLAN
I
I,
I
--- m :;::-
-
>
+ -
'"
-I
m
f- - ,..
m
<

6
z
z
Q

i;j

w

'--- ...J
NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
J
Camera insidemstanatton area lookmg
at south wall.
Camera viewing north-western area of
installation toward north-wall adjacent
10 utIlity shalL Nort h wall pamted wIth
Sherwin Williams Nu- wnue. West
wall pain ted with Dunn- Edwards
Beeu-r-wauwrute.
N ,
"
10 ft.
Camera viewing into south -east corner of
installationspace. East wall painted with
Dunn-Edwards Beau-T-Wall White. South
wall painted wrtn Sherwin Wi lliams
Nu-WhIle.AII phot ograph s by MIchael Asher.
Groundplan and elevations of Gallery A 402.
Drawi ng by lawrence Kenny.
68 69
May 14-May 18, 1973
The University of California at Irvine, Gallery 167
Irvine, California

Detail 01glassSQuareand its support. Photograph taken alter
actu al install ation by Mi chael Asher.
70
/Y'Al NETTEANDU SON
MlCHEAL ASHER
STEVE CARSON
LESLIE DAVIS
u le DIESSlIN
lUCY OUalN
MAlty 8ElH ElliOTT
BAil.BAitA FILET
BETSY GERAa
ALEXANDRA GllEVATT
JANET oeove
ANDREW HARll:IS
DE8SY HDUCK
I<IM HU8BARD
JIM JAHN
JOHN KNIGHT
JANEREYNOLDS
R08ERT SENOUR:
STePHANIE THOMASSON
PHI LIP TI PPETT
enc WALT
TERRANCEWIlliAMS
WAH HO YOUNG
ElINOR YE.I!:KES
RECENT W()li!ICS ,
GAl1UY 161 MAY I.e MAY hI
UNIVaSllY Of CAllfOllNlA, lilVINE
I had the opportuni ty to teach as a replacement in-
st ructor in the Studio-Probl ems Class, at t he School
of Fine Arts, Universit y of Cali forni a at Irvine, during
the second quarter of the school year. At the end of
the termthestudentsorganized anexhibition, request-
ing that both faculty and students who had partici-
pated in the class be represent ed in t he exhibit i on. As
a participat ing faculty member I agreed to contribute
t o the exhibi tion .
The exhibition was instal led in a small room on
campus and contai ned primarily drawings and photos
framed behind glass, as well as a few paint ings, some
sculpt ure, a work wit h audiotape, and a work dealing
wit h temperature. I proposed for my cont ribution that
each piece of gl ass t hat was used in t he exhi biti on for
protection and display be measured, and that their
total lengt hs and widths be computed and averaged.
The result was a 14 inch-by- 14 i nch glass square,
which was att ached to the wall at eye level wi th four
finishing nails. This piece of glass was thus installed
as t he other works.
My work framed a 14 inch-by- 14 inch section of
the wall. The surf ace of the glass reflected light and
was thus distinguishable from the matte-white wall
surface. The four fini shing nail s hol ding the gl ass
square against the wal l were also clearly vi sibl e.
The structure of the work addressed the part icu-
l ar present at ion elements used in a unive rsity art
exhibi t ion, which the st udents considered part of their
education . I t herefore assembled the work wi t h the
material s necessary for such a presentation. The work
was unmedialed by paper or ot her support material s.
which, by t hemsel ves, block the wall or immedi ate
st ruct ural support . My use of isolated presentat ion el -
ement s discl osed the existence of mediat ion devices
as funct ioning elements in their own right.
By i solat ing t he 14 inch-by- 14 inch section of
the wall without the intervent ion of paper or other mate-
rials between t he framing glass and t he support -wal l ,
the text ure of the rol led paint over t he drywall and the
color of t he wal l became objecti fied. I employed dis-
pl ay and presentat ion materials t hat were generally
part of t he contex t of t he exhi bition : glass, nails, and
wall surf aces of roll ed pai nt. Therefore, what func-
tioned as a backdrop for t he other works In t he exhibi -
t ion became the content of my own. Parti cul ari zed in
my work, t he paint on the gallery wall s could t hen be
percei ved in i ts usual func tion as well as a backdrop
behi nd al l of the ot her works on the wal l.
The glass in my own work was meant 10 funct ion
as the object of percepti on, not t he focal poi nt of t he
work. The work did not clai m atte nti on for itsel f as an
object. but, rat her, as a device whereby modes of pre-
sentation and t heir cons ti tuent eleme nt s could be
analyzed, ranging from the archi tectural container, to
the glasswhich normally protects and frames the work,
to the nails used to support the glass, to t he wall, the
wt nte backdrop for the works of art .
Inslallalion of glassSQuare onwall. Photographtakenafter

act uermstattenco by Michael Asher,
71
72
August 18, 1973
Project Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts
M IC#;fE.L /l)flU..
FILM
fJl?OJ ECr INC
<f/18'/73
Announcement card lor Proiect. Inc.
An invitation to do a workcame from Paul McMahon,
at Proj ect , Inc., a nonprofit . communi ty arts project
that shared a buil ding in Boston with other similar
programs. I decided that this work would involve the
use of film and film projection . I had experimented
with videotape, usi ng mostly a static camera, since
early 1973. Video and film could be used with media
technology in a way that would be analogous to my
previous useof various materials in existing architec-
tural contexts. For example, I had produced 30 min-
utesof tape and had run it through a tapedeck to pick
up the deck' s signal, without the use of a camera.
This work had been rejected.
In the Project , Inc. work I used film and film pro-
duction in a way similar to myearlier use of videotape.
I wanted to make a medium-gray frameless film with-
out a camera , using only the processing equipment
and chemicals usually employed for development.
This film was meant for only one screening at
Project, Inc.. because, after being shown once the
medium gray would i nevitably be fractured wit h
scratches which would then be perceived as moving
l ines within the project ed picture plane.
Wit h the assistance of Mark Whitney, a profes-
sional filmmaker, I made some trial runs with a cam-
era sothat the technicians processing the fil m would
know exactly t he sort of gray I was looking for. I did
this with a Super-8 cartridge. the least expensiveway
possible. Shortly afterward the camera was put aside
and test runs were begun as 16mmfilm stock was put
through thechemicalsand processing machmery. For
each run the amount of light and the voltage used in
the processing equipment was changed. Each test was
recorded so that it could be referred back to. The re-
sults ranged from dark to light gray.
After goingthrough various screenings, avery fine
grain film stock (Eastman Kodak 7302) was chosen.
This was spli t from 35mm to adapt it for 16mm use.
The final fi lm, 15 minutes in lengt h, wassent through
the processing chemicals at li ght 5 and at 68 volts.
The final print was not screened before its first presen-
tation in Boston.
-
I
Enlarged detail 01actual fi lm stnp.
73
The location of Project, Inc., at the Artsand Crafts
Center in Boston, turned out t o be inappropriate for a
screening. Therefore I used one of the vacant dorrni-
tory roomsat Cambridge School in Weston, Massachu-
setts, where Paul McMahon li ved and worked duri ng
the summer. The projector was set up on a wooden
bedside table, among other insti tut ional furniture. The
projected fil m frame was approximately 3 feet wide
and the qual ity of the film turned out to be uniformly
excellent. It had a completely consistent medium-gray
tone with a very fine, even texture. The projected fil m
had only two technical events, consisti ng of the ap-
pearance of the splice of clear leader and film stock
at the begi nning and end of the film. Ideall y, I would
have liked to project the film in a temporally unlimited,
conti nuous loop, without any variat ion whatsoever.
Due to the absence of visual events, viewerswith-
drew their attenti on f rom the projected frame, while
the light, which was cast back onto them, increased
their awareness of themselves as viewers. Without a
camera-directed point of view located wit hin the film,
viewers recorded their own points of view, external to
the pict ure plane. The light from the cinematic frame
was reflected back, as well , to it s source of generation
- the project or-and onto other material objects and
the room i tself.
Viewers were not only made aware of themselves,
but alsoof the projection process, the funct ioning pro-
jector, and the objects and architecture surroundi ng
them. All of these elements, therefore, became the
"content " and " representation" of this ci nematic
event. The " acti on" existed external to the cinemati c
frame, opposing its static image. The narrative struc-
ture of the film's temporal sequence was evidenced
by i ts two technical events, defining it s opening and
it s closure.
Each step of mediation was disclosed, start ing
wi th the film itself and its projection, then the projec-
tor, the wall , t he arch itec tural contai ner, and the
audience. What the viewers sawwas therefore differ-
ent iat ed from the representat ion of the projected
image.
74
Both material processes-that of cinematic pro-
duction and ci nematic projection-were. in separate
and parall el ways, decomposed into their consti tuent
elements. And while they were only referring back to
themselves. they represented themselves upon recon-
struction as film and film project ion. Both processes
were synthesized and became congruent in real t ime
as a pictorial project ion on the plane of a given archi -
tectural container.
Image01 111mdUringproJection,
Closeup of film Imagedurmg projection.
-
75
77
f-
f-
~
I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
I
L
Groundplan of exhibiti on space.
Detart 01wall and ercmtecnna! reveal.
After visi ti ng " Documents V" in Kassel , Germany, on
my first trip to Europe in 1972. I went to the Li sson
Gallery in l ondonat the invitation of Nicholas Logsdail ,
the owner of the gal lery, who had asked me to do an
exhi bi ti on there. Since the gallery was t hen undergo-
ing renovation, I didn 't see the compl et ed exhi bi tion
area unti l l ret urned to act uall y do the work in August
of the following year. I did take notes, however, which
I consul ted on my return to Los Angeles. Inspect ing a
gallery space and taking notes was an essential part
of my met hod, since my work never consi sted si mply
of addi ng preconceived or completed objects to a space
for exhi bition purposes.
On my ret urn to London in August 1973, I dis-
cussed several proposals for the exhibit ion with Nicho-
las Logsdail, all of which t urned out to be impract ical
for t he available space. A proposal was finall y deemed
feasible for a basement exhi bition area which the gal -
lery owner had originally descr ibed as being "unsuit -
able for any kind of installati on."
The dimensions of th is gallery space were 16 feet
8lf2 inches by 13 feet 9 inches. The height to the
bottom of the untreated wooden beams of the open-
beam ceiling was 7 feet 4 inches and to t he actual
ceili ng plane, 8 feet 3 inches. On t he east and west
wall s of the gall ery there were two vert ical st ruct ural
reli efs extending from fl oor to cei ling and proj ect ing
6 1/ 2 inches and 7 inches respect ively into the room,
both having a 9inch width. In the southwest corner
t here was a fl oor to cei li ng recess 1 foot 4 inches wide
and 7 inches deep. The wall s were composed of bri ck,
cement, and plaster and fini shed wi t h a whi te acryl ic
emulsion. The floor was reinforced concrete, fini shed
wit h gray polyuret hane.
There was a door 30 inc hes by 62 inches and a
window 34
1
12 inches by 50 inches i n t he south wal l
opening to a garden pat io which was 241f 2inches above
the basement floor level. Furthermore, t here was a
passage 75 inches by 40 inches in the east wall which
connected t he basement wi t h the upstai rs galleries.
The basement area was il luminat ed with natural l ight
from the pat io door and wi ndow, and with art ificial
MOiAfl ~ E R 2" AWG. 16 'il'PT. IL.' IIl.COHRS. TUES
LISsa.... GAUfRY 66 se ea STREET LONDON 1'1....1 '"tl. ~ ?'l
Announcement card of exhibition.
Detail of soot h-west corner, showmg reveal and ceumg beams.
August 24-September 16,1973
Lisson Gallery
London, England
76
r
L
L
South elevation. Indicated are ceiling structure. windowand
door to gardenof the gallery.
Installation VI ew, south wall.
r
L
78 East elevation. lndicated IS passagewaytoacjacent gallery
space. Drawings byNan l egate.
J
-
.
Installation view, north-east, with entry/exit passage.
79---- - --- --- -
Installationview, south-west.
Delatlof entry!eJlllt passage. the POtnt where t he reveal IS
completed.
Detailof architectural reveal aroundperimeter
Detail of reveal 10 cornet. Photographsby Nicholas logsdall
light from two overhead fluorescent l ight tubes.

My proposal for this space was to cut an architec-
tural reveal, V4 inc h wide and I 112 inches deep, into
the wal l at fl oor level , around the per imeter of the
room. The arch itectural reveal began and ended at
the entry/exit passageway, without turn ing into t he pas-
sageway, since t hat funct ioned as a t ransit ion zone
between two exhibi tion spaces. Because the reveal
fol lowed t he perimeter continuously, i t was necessary
to cut around and into the vert ical projec tion s and t he
recess. A masonry grinder was used to cut into t he
wall , making a recess averagi ng I 112 inches deep, so
that the floor l ine became indisti nguishable.
The creat ion of a pict ori al or sculpt ural sign t radi-
ti onally involves the addi ti on of material s to an ini tial
support unt il some sort of resolut ion is brought about.
The work at the Li sson Gall ery reversed t hi s process
by creati ng a mark or sign t hrough a process of mate-
rial subt racti on, in which exist ing material s were wit h-
drawn from t he architect ural support . This procedure
of material withdrawal was simi lar to that used by Law-
rence Weiner in several works he di d in 1968 in which
he removed mat erial s from gallery floors and wall s.
(For example. " A removal t o the lathing or support
wall of plast er or wal lboard from a wall ." in: Lawrence
Weiner, Statements, New York, 1968, n.p.)
The walls of the white container stopped where t he
open-beam ceiling began. The open-beam construc-
t ion seemed, therefore, to be excluded from the pre-
sentat ion area. yet was at the same ti me essential to
it, funct ioning to delineate and frame the displ ay walls,
as did t he vertical st ruct ural reliefs and t he vert ical
recess in t he corner. The const ructed reveal at t he
j uncture of the wall and the floor- receding f rom the
wall surface and t he gallery space-and t he open
beams at ceiling height, f ramed the wall s and vi suall y
located t hem as pict ori al pl anes for hanging artworks.
The vert ical wall surfaces remained part of t he
architect ural container, whi le bei ng visuall y isol ated
between f loor and ceiling. The isolated floor plane could
therefore be seen as analogous to t he wall's pi ctorial
planes. At the same t ime , the recess at the base of
the wall s defined t he wall s as VOlumetr ic masses.
At that point in the hi stori cal development of art ,
any process t hat involved the add ing, struct uri ng, or
assembling of material s on a support was acceptable
wit hin aesthetic practi ce. The procedu re of withdraw-
ing material interrupted and questioned the cont inua-
t ion of that pract ice. The addi tive process was partially
t he result of t he t raditi onal avant-garde concern for
innovat ion, whereby materi als were synthesized and
context ual ized in a manner t hat was alien to t hei r own
materiality and method of product ion.
In this work, t he subtraction of materi als f rom
t he site of bot h, product ion and reception, di sclosed
and defi ned the st ruct ure of t he product ion, as well
as its contextual determinat ion.
81
September 4-September 28, 1973
Heiner Friedrich Gallery
Cologne, West Germany

I
"
.,
A
f
.--!-
! . ~
,
.
.
Groundplan ol lhe Herner Fnednch Gall ery
by Kim Hubbard.
RUI EI FlnD.ICI
l ~ O N
v......... u ..
..... ..n"' ..
IICHAEL ASHER ~ SEPTEMBER 28. SEPTEMBER 1913, io-tah, OIENSTAG SAMSTAG
I
82
The Installation at the Lisson Gallery wasmy first indi-
vidual exhibit ion in a commercial gallery; my next two
one-person exhibitions would also be in European
galleries. When I visited the Heiner Friedrich gallery
on my return from " Documenta V" in 1972, I was
invited to do an exhibit ion there. The gallery seemed
to be well finished, particularly in the detail ing of i ts
hardware (radiator ledges, windowbl inds, doorknobs,
etc.). Structural ly, however, the wal l and floor junc-
tures were quite rough in places, and the surface of
the wall s was wavy. In fact , on cl oser observat ion,
one could see that the floor and wall di d not always
meet. The space was broken up into what, at t he
t ime, seemed to be a disorder too incomprehensible
to work with.
At thegalleryentrance, a foyeradjoinedan open-
ing to a rectangular exhi bition area on the right. This
exhibiti onarea measured 8.50 meters by 3.87 meters.
The ceili ng height was 3.50 meters and was consis-
tent all through the gallery area . Three windows pro-
vided natural light and a system of fluorescent light
fixtures provided artificial light. Leading directl y ahead
from t he entry and foyer was a hallway, 7.95 meters
in length and 1.35 meters in width, which provided
access to the second exhibition space and theoffices.
To the left of the foyer was a door to the bathroomand
next to it, a door to the kitchen. Perpendicul ar to the
kitchendoor, adouble doorgave access to the secretar-
ial offices. This office area was a rectangular space
measuring 7.45 meters by 3.70 meters and had two
windows. At the end of t he hallway another door led
to a second, more private office, measuring 5.80 me-
ters by 3.60 meters, with one large window. The hall-
way merged at the end i nto the second exhibit ion
space, a semirectangular area measuring 11 meters
by 6.05 meters, set askew, so that , on the ground
plan of the whole gallery, it appeared as an append-
age of the otherwise perpendicular layout of the gal-
lery. This area was evenly lit by two windows.
The floor throughout thegallery was brown-t inted
black asphalt; whereas theopposi ng horizontal surface,
the ceili ng, was painted white, as were the existing
vert ical surfaces. the walls.

My proposal for thegallery focusedon theceiling
and the floor, the only two interior architectural sur-
faces that were ident ical in sizeand shape, but not in
color value. I proposed that the t int of the floor be
dupl icated in a latex-paint mixture and applied to the
enti receil ing surface, within the perimeter of the gal-
lery. The paint was mixed and appli ed by professional
build ing painters. Meanwhile, I filled in all spaces
where floor and wall did not meet. This enti re proce-
dure was completed during my stay for the install a-
ti onof the work, and it was the only material addit ion
and visual change brought about by the work within
the gallery.
The paint color that was mixed was a sl ightl y
darker tone than the color of the floor, in order to com-
pensate for the high light reflecti on on the ceili ng dur-
ing t he day. The two surfaces, therefore, appeared to
be similar, yet the act ual diff erence in tone and tex-
ture remained evident.
The chromatic simi lari ty effected a visual conti-
nuity without achieving an i l lusionary congruence,
which would have controlled the viewers' experience,
as opposed to allowing the viewers to visually assem-
ble the discrete parts of the installat ion. Because of
thi s visual simi larity, all horizontal surfaces through-
out thegalleryareaapeared to be the same dark brown
color; whereas all vertical surfaces retained their origi-
nal white finish. This meant that all opposing horizon-
tal surfaces were a simi lar brown and all vertical
surfaces, opposing or adjacent, a simi lar white.
Each and every part of the gallery was linked by
the newly painted ceili ng, establishing an actual vi-
sual continuity and t herefore integrating the exhibi-
tion areas with those areas normally not on view. By
visually unifying t hevarious areas, thei r funct ional in-
terdependencewasrevealed to theviewer who, inorder
to perceive the work in its totality, had to have access
to all of the galleryareas. The normal procedures and
funct ions of the gallery became integrated into the
exhibit as the work focused upon them as the content
of the exhibition.
The color of the ceil ing and its conjunct ion with
the li mits of the perimeter wall s, demarcated the ac-
tivities and properties of the gallery. At the same time,
the correspondi ng color of the floor and ceiling ere-
ated a relationshipof accessibility/ inaccessibil ity. The
ceiling was inaccessibleto foot traffic, but , by paint-
ing it a " floor" color, its properties as a cei li ng be-
came visible as st ructurall y fixed and integral to the
gall ery. The floor and ceili ng sandwiched mobile fea-
tures such as office equipment, furniture, works of
art, appliances, and hardware. In contrast to the static
nature of the relationship between floor and ceili ng,
the arbitrary nature of the placement of these mobil e
elements became emphasized, as for example in mov-
ing them from room to room, or replacing and updat-
ing them. No matter howarbitrarily these objects were
placed within the space, their funct ion would remain
t he same.
The works at both the Lisson Gallery and the
Heiner Friedrich Gallerywereconceived for and deter-
mined bythe site and context of each institution. like
earlier works that had been produced for museums
and public exhibit ionspaces, theseworks for commer-
cial galleries were definedequally for and by the situa-
tion into which they were i nserted. Therefore these
works remained outside of the conventions of reloca-
tion or adaptation.
The intent ion of the installation at the Heiner
Fri edrich gallery was to formally define and material ly
differentiate the functionof aestheti c producti on from
thearchitectural structureand fromtheactivitieswithin
the gallery. Theseact ivit ies usually served to abstract
theaesthetic product ion for its commercial adaptati on.
The gall ery was therefore called upon to authorize it-
self to define the purposes of the work of art, which
supposedly was congruent with the actual purpose of
the producer. Even though the gallery dealer did not
partici pate in the product ion of the work, it was ulti -
mately the dealer who fixed the commercial value of
the work and its potent ial for surplus production, re-
gardless of its function as aesthetic production.
83
i
Axonomelr icdrawingof the Heiner FriedrichGalleryby Maunzlo

Mochett l
84
In this way, the gal lerywas more l ike a brokerage
firm where commerce was carried out, represent ing
neith er the actual producti on, nor the interests of the
community, nor the interests of the individual pro-
ducer, nor anyconcern for thework's historical context.
The gallery could have served the same function if it
had been an off ice wi th some filing cabi nets.
In this work, t he viewer coul d see the relati on-
ship between t he gallery' s office space activit ies and
t he gal lery's exhibition space activities, whi ch vi sibly
appeared as opposed functions in t hat the fixed na-
ture of the work (t he whole gal lery) came int o opposi -
ti on with t he commercial functi ons of the gal lery. In a
sense, the exhibition suspended the commercial func-
lion of the gallery.
The work was proposed and accepted for an aver-
age exhibi tion period of one month , a t emporal deter-
mination inherently given wi th the work. The proposal
request ed t hat t he work shoul d be painted over after
complet ion of t he exhi bi tion . Even t hough t he cei ling
was not repainted as requested, t he work ceased to
exist as defined by t he proposal. Inst ructicns are an
integral part of my work si nce t hey define t he t ime
frame and the context in which t he work exists. Since
the work was not painted out , it existed beyond my
definit ion and cont rol , and the conti nued perception
of t he work necessarily falsified my origi nal intentions.
The material placement and temporal durat ion whi ch
I had defined bot h became misappropriat ed and mis-
const rued by the ent repreneur's motiva t ion. Awork of
art that is insert ed into and det ermined by t he archi-
tecture of a commercial enterprise lends itself to being
mani pulated as though it were t he property of t hat
commercial establishment. The work t hen consti t utes
an irresolvable conflict between the aut hor's inten-
t ions and t he ent repreneur's interests. As a visual fact.
t he work could be perceived as anyt hing ranging from
a remnant of an aest hetic production to interior decora-
t ion. It could be perceived as a vestige of aesthet ic
production- for example, a dissassembled installat ion
- but only i f the art ist were to defi ne it as such. East vIewof general office spacewith sculpture by DanFlavi n.
Photograph byTimm Rautert.
85
West View 01general ettce space.
View01ueecto-s euce space wIth sculpture by Dan Flavin.
Hal lway vtewmgInto back gallery.
Hal lway vlewlng toward f ront entrance.
a
Viewof gallery lobby durmg eeubmon.

Front gallery vrewmg northwest wall .
BackgalleryvIewing south-west wall .
Back gallery viewing north-east toward hallway.
Photographs by TimmRautert.
86
I
I
-
87
Galleria Toselli
Milan, Italy
My last stop during my trip to Europe in 1973 was t he
Franco Toself gallery, a commercial gallery in Mi lan.
Franco roself had previously i nvi ted me to do an
exhibition; we had exchanged letters, I had seen plans
of the gal lery, and I had some idea of what I might
want to do. But since I had no specific project for the
Tosell i Gallery- unlike the l.isson and Heiner Fried-
rich galleries, where I had been able tovisit the exhibi-
tion space in advance-I went t here with the hope of
doing something, but with the agreement that a work
did not necessarily have to result from my visit.
Visitors to the Franco Tosell i Gal lery, which is lo-
cated in a lively residential neighborhood, enter through
a cobblestone courtyard. From the west side of t he
courtyard five steps leaddown to the gallery, which is
sit uated below ground level. The gallery space is
expansive, resembling an industrial warehouse or ma-
chine shop. The east-west axis of the gallery is an
unencumbered space, 17.10 meters long. The ceil -
ing height is 4.90 meters. The maximum width on
the north-sout h axis is 1L 90 meters. The width of
Installationviewof anexhibition by Robert Mangold at the
Franco Tosell i Gall ery. PhotographbyGiorgioColombo.
MICHAEL ASHER
the space is interrupted by a seriesof 50-centimeter-
square columns with bevelled edges which support a
beam of t he same square dimensions, extending the
entire length of the gallery, 3.50 meters fromand par-
al lel to t he south wall. In the far half (t he southeast
area) of the gallery, the spaces between the columns
have been fi lled in to form a 9. 13-meter-long wal l
which, together with a short perpendicular wal l, en-
closes a space used for an off ice. The rest of t he col-
umns areopen, 4.40 metersfrom floor to ceiling beam,
part ially framing an encl osed stairwell which provides
residents of the dwell ing above wit h access to the
courtyard. Three windows in thewest wall admit natu-
ral light from the courtyard and two rows of fluores-
cent light fi xtureson theceili ngprovideartif icial l ight.
At the t ime of the exhibi t, the floor was gray concrete
wit h a nonskid surface. The walls and ceiling were
finished with numerouslayers of white paint from pre-
vious exhibi tions.
My proposal for this exhibition was to have the
wall s and ceiling sandblasted, so that every trace of
the many layers of white paint which had been ap-
pliedover the years would be removed and the under-
lyingplaster exposed. Once the proposal was approved,
work began immediately. It required t he labor of four
people for four days to complete the paint-removal
operation and the followi ng clean-up.
Sandblasting revealed a brown plaster surfaceon
the walls and ceili ng. Thecolumns and ceiling beam
were a l ighter brown than the plastered-wall sect ions
between the columns. Just as there were regular chro-
matic variations in the brown plaster of t he sections
between the columns, t he oppositewall also had regu-
lar tonal variations, indicating where windows had been
fil led in sometime after constructi on of the building,
On the same wall, a darker horizontal plane along the
floor was possibl y a signof moisture belowstreet level.
(See photograph p.911
Hardware in the gallery was also sandblasted: two
pipes entering through theceil ing and passing through
the wal l at a 45-degree angle, and an electrical con-
duit near the door. Once the gallery was sa ndblasted,
a
Groundplan of the Franco Toselll Gallery. Drawing byJohnKnight.

only natural light was used to light the i nterior. I
What was explici t in t he floor- t he uncoated
concrete-had been impl icit in the wall and ceiling
surfaces before sandblasting. Once the plaster had
been exposed, thewalls and ceiling had the same prop-
erty as the f loor- no coating. The walls, ceili ng, and
floor were t hereby identified in terms of a common
condit ion, and this established a surface continuity.
The work cast the gallery in its most rudimentary
state, appearing to be either under construction wit h
its surfacesyet unf inished, or at a stageof dismantl e-
ment that would uncover the record of the gallery's
past. The bare plaster was reminiscent of a construe-
tion site before any f inishing coats of paint have been
applied to interior surfaces. In addi tion, the wall be-
tween the columns, which was filled in wit h one kind
of plaster, and the f illed-in windows, where another
kind of plaster was used, served as a possible histori-
cal document.
Thevariations in brown earthen chroma were vis-
ually rich compared to theconsistent whiteof thegal-
lery container. These brown hues- paradoxically, once
used in the visual arts- were particularly surprisi ng
here since the usual surface color for gallery display
is white paint. In this work, a large exhibition space
had been totally stripped of all the conventional coat-
ings that had buil t up over the years on its display
surface. The brown pl aster surfaces resembled the
common, indigenous outdoor plaster wallsof the com-
munit y. The previously concealed plaster essentially
brought inside an outdoor material , disclosing a rela-
tionship between the gal lery and its surroundings.
The complete material withdrawal-a process of
SUbtraction- was also a process of addit ion, since the
exposed plaster could also be viewed as an added
material. The wit hdrawal of the white paint. in this
case, became the objecti fication of the work.
For the realization of this proposal thegallery had
to temporarily dispense with its conventional display
surfaces for a material alterat ion or withdrawal. This
was a strategy I had not used in any of my previous
work. It meant t hat the gallery had to forego a certain
amount of its property in exchange for a work of art
which appropriated and dismantled the gallery's dis-
play surfaces. In additi on, should t he newdisplay sur-
faces turn out to be nonfunctional for the purpose of
display in future exhibiti ons, the exchange also com-
mitt ed the gallery owner to reconvert and restore the
surfaces to conditions which would allow for conven-
tional usage.
Prior installat ions of my work had consisted of
material appli cati on or construction. This work, how-
ever, deployed a procedureof material withdrawal. More
than any other prior work, it integrated its materials
with the actual materials of thegallerydisplay surfaces,
and it was simul taneously joi ned and synthesized in
its totality with its own architectural locationand sup-
port struct ure.
Compared to the works at " Documenta V" or the
Market Street Program, which could still be perceived
in terms of a f igure-ground relat ionship, the work at
the Franco Toselli Gallery substituted a material with-
drawal, which encompassed the total ity of the exhibi-
tion space, for a figure-ground relat ionship (addition
of material marks). The ceili ng and wall s revealed the
marks of this commerci al gallery's architecture rather
thananauthor's predetermination toorganizeand place
marks as part of a painted surface, or even to arrange
elements in order to penetrate or add to the surface.
Even t hough the work at the l.isson Gallery employed
to a certain extent a procedure of material withdrawal
similar to thework at the FrancoTosell i Gallery, it was
still operat ing as a material extension of a conven-
ti onal manner of mark-making, in this instance a lin-
ear volume used to framethewall surfacesof thegallery
space.
Marking by disclosure, rather than by construct-
ing figure-ground relationships, revealed the building's
construction history. At the same t ime, it established
the integral totality of both exhibit ion spaceand work,
without isolating either one, or any single element
within them. It escaped a traditional formulat ion by
synthesizing both the gallery and work as an objectifi -
cat ion of the exhibi t ion and the exhibiti on space. At
89
I
\
\
\
Viewingwest duringexhibit ionat ~ FrancoTosefhGallery.
Fluorescenl l ighlShave beenHtuminated forthe purposes
01photographyonly.
Viewing east In Install ati on. Photographs byGiorgio Colombo.

9 1
.----..,.- .,.
__ C' ... . -
..
-
VIewing south wall and part of stauweu with artrticra! li ght .
Detailof stenwenm south wall .
92
that ti me I considered thi s work to be the most spe-
ci fic materializat ion of the history of a gallery' s con-
struct ion and funct ional properties.
Traditionally, the white interior of a commercial
gallery presented an arti st' s product ion within an ar-
chitectural sett ing of fal se autonomy. If, through it s
absence, the viewer was remi nded of the white paint ,
an interesting question, was then raised: How does
the white "part it ion" of paint affect the context of art
usually seen on that support surface. At the Tosell i
Gallery, 1used a procedural approach, attempting to
materially withdraw an author's sign and responsibil-
ity. Usuall y an artist 's sign, as an addit ion to a given
architectural space and a discrete, visually ident ifi-
able element, guides and restricts viewer awareness
and shifts it from the problems inherent in the gallery
space and the work to an arbit rarily formali zed insert.
The method of def ining this work was st i ll depen-
dent on the Minimal Ist idea of specifi city. The term
"specific ity," as it occurred in Minimali st di scourse,
described materials as being unmediated. Therefore
the perception of a work incorporati ng such materials
was understood to be equall y unmediated. The instal-
lation of my work at the Tosetl i Gallery was structur-
all y comparable to thi s concept, except that it differed
from sculptural objects by its expanded dimensions,
coalesci ng the display-structure with the work.
Furthermore, by integrating the work wit h its ac-
tual exhi bition space and the actual material s of the
display surface, it went beyond the speci f icit y of
materials. as def ined in Minimalist discourse, by not
introducing any materi als whatsoever. It therefore be-
came materially more specific to its own operation,
not withstanding the totali ty of its site and context.
In cl ear cont rast to Minirnafism, t he work did not
assumethat the viewers' perception could go unrnedi-
ated, but instead revealed every si ngle aspect of the
way in which the viewers' percepti on of the work was
materiall y mediated with in the conditions in which
the work was inscribed.
The whit e display surfaces-one of the I unda-
mental elements normall y taken for granted and sup-
D
pressed as part of the presentati on of works i n a
gall ery- had been withd rawn. A feeling of relief , re-
sulting fromthe recognition of tradit ionally suppressed
visual elements, activated a perceptual and cogni tive
process. The ideological deconstruct ion of the archi-
tect ural surfaces of the commercial gallery occurred
simultaneous to t heir material deconstructi on.
If viewers assumed that the space had been tiber-
ated from the whi te paint support, they had only to
view the plaster to appreciate an inherent paradox:
t he plaster, as anot her support surface (another
coating), was as much an integral part of the gallery
as the whi te pai nt.
"I he lights were SWItched on when someof the photographs of the
tubltlcn were taken.
Viewing east Into ctncearea and extubmcn area.
Phot ographs by Franco'Icselh.
1/iewlng north wall dunng
93
94
VIewing west under natural hght ccnd. ncns.
Photograph by Franco r oseul.
a
September 21- 0 ctober 12, 1974

Clai re Copley Gallery, Inc.
A year after the exhi bit ion of my work at the Franco
Tosell i Gall ery in Milan, I did an installation for the
Clai re Copley Gall ery in Los Angeles. It was my fi rst
individual exhi bi tion in a commercial gallery in North
America.
The gallery was located on LaCienega Boulevard,
oneof the city's major north-south thoroughfares, where
most of the other commerci al art galleries in Los Ange
les were locat ed at that t ime, and where there was a
constant f low of pedest rian t raff ic. The gal lery space,
which ori ginally had been a mult ipurpose storef ront ,
was entered direct ly at st reet level. A storef ront win-
dow facing the st reet measured 6 f eet 8 inches by 5
feet 4 inches. The gal lery from f ront wall to back wal l
measured 53 feet 71J4 inches; its widt h was 14 feet
41J2 inches and height 11 feet 2
3
/ 4 inches.
A part it ion wal l separat ing an ottlce area from
the front exhibi t ion space extended fl oor-to-ceiling 10
feet 8% inches across the widt h of the gall ery at a
point 16 feet 5'14inches from the back wall. The parti-
t ion ended 4 feet 2% inches short of t he opposi te
wall , forming a passage connecti ng bot h areas. The
office area contained office f urni ture and equi pment,
artworks in storage, and a separate ut il ity area. The
whit e wall surl aces of t he larger f ront area were main-
tained as a backdrop for exhibition purposes.
The work I proposed was t he dismantl ing of the
part it ion wal l for t he durat ion of the exhibi t ion. The
idea was to int egrat e t he two areas, so t hat t he office
area and its act ivit ies coul d be viewed from t he exhibi -
t ion area, and t he exhibit ion area opened to t he gal -
lery directors' view.
Once the proposal had been accept ed, t he enti re
part i t i on was removed. It s drywall surf aces were
st ri pped from it s f rame, whi ch was then di sassem-
bled and stored unt il rei nstallat ion after t he exhibition.
Remnant s of the part ition' s original const ruction, such
as seam compound. were removed, and a small piece
of rug cut out to make way for the part it ion, had to be
replaced.
Since the work also meant to restore t he display
surfaces of the gallery to presentat ion standards, It
SAT URDAY. SIl:PT IUolCR 21 THROUGH SATURDAY . O(;TOB.R 12 . ' 8 7 4
was necessary to f ill in cracks and cover over any fea-
t ures that might have become obj ect s of perception,
so t hat the ent ire int erior would appear t o be an inte-
grated and conti nuous fl awless container. In the nort h
wal l large cracks marked by waterstai ns had t o be
caulked from t he outside and f il led with cement on
t he inside. In t he south wall cracks caused by the
joining of plywood against plaster al so had to be f illed
in. Atl cracks were f inished wit h drywall compound
before t he wall s were paint ed. Wall and cei li ng sur-
faces were then t reated to the usual gallery whit e with
an airless sprayer, and they were f ini shed by being
" fogged" out. The off ice and storage area was pai nted
in the same way as t he exhibiti on space, but was ot her-
wi se left untouched. Once t he wall surfaces were f in-
i shed and everyt hing was in place, the exhi bi ti on area
wall s seemed to vignette the of f ice area and it s act ivi-
t ies and turn t hem int o the content of the exhibi t ion.
A sign over t he storef ront window identi fied the
gall ery by name and served to frame t he gallery'Soper-
at ion for passersby. Once inside, t he viewer could hear
as well as assi mi late more readil y t he vari ous private
and business activi t ies wi t h museum staff. collectors,
art ists, and f riends usual ly screened from view. Also,
95
96
artworks could be c learly seen in storage in t he
exhibi tion/gallery, as opposed to being placed on t he
gal lery wall s tor exhi bi t ion.
I left inst ructions wit h the gal lery deal er to in-
form viewers who requested information about the work
that I had produced it, and that by removing the part i -
ti on wall the day-to-day activit ies of t he gallery were
discl osed to t he viewer in the unif ied off ice/exhi bit ion
space. In t he same way t hat gal lery personnel seemed
t o become increasi ngly aware of t heir act ivities, view-
ers also became more aware of t hemselves as viewers.
The viewers were conf ronted wi th t he way in which
they had been t radit ionally lulled into viewing works
of art and , simul taneously, t he unfolding of the gal-
lery struct ure and i ts operat ional procedures. Works
had been perceived f rom a safe cult ural di stance whic h
generally prevented t he viewer from quest ioning t he
issues involved. Withou t t hat Questioning, a work of
art could remain enclosed in i ts abst racted aesthet ic
context, creati ng a situat ion where t he viewer coul d
myst if y its actual and hi storical meaning. As a com-
mentary, t his work laid bare the cont radicti ons inher-
ent with in t he gallery st ruct ure and i ts const it uent
element s.
The gall ery dea ler is- i n t he vi ewer's under -
standing- t he knowledgeable, responsible mediat or
of the work in the many st eps of its abstract ion f rom
its context. The dealer's prime funct ion is to commodi fy
t he work of art , to transform the work's aesthet ic use-
value into exchange-value.
To accompli sh t hi s aim the works are generally
isolated on the white walls of the gallery, clearly sepa-
rated f rom the area of business act ivity. Once t hey are
return ed t o the storage area, that is, t he area of busi -
ness operat ion, t hey have been reduced to their essen-
t ial commodi ty-function.
Because the gall ery dealer must give t he work an
economic value, t he dealer is ofte n unable to reveal
its act ual f unct ion. Paradoxi call y, t he reality of the
work can be viewed only through this conduit in which
i t undergoes the ini ti al abstraction in t he accrua l of
exchange-value.
The f unct ion of the work at the Claire Copl ey Gal-
lery was didact ic : to represent materiall y the visi ble
aspects of thi s process of abst racti on. For t his reason,
t he work's st ruct ure was circular in order to reveal its
aff iliati on wit h the producti on, the mediati on, and t he
recept ion of cult ure. In one sense t his could be viewed
as a concomi tant of economi c int erest, while other
cul t ural aspects could come under scruti ny as wel l,
f rom t he handli ng of money to th e sel ecti on of
exhibi tions. Works in storage- t hose preserved in cabi-
nets and those leaning against t he wall -were now
also visibl y accessible. The material reali ty of t he gal -
lery operat ions surfaced as Questionable and probl em-
at ic even t hough t he author and viewer mi ght f ind the
gal lery t o be the most effi cient way for t he publ ic re-
cept ion of works of art. If t he viewer saw t he Tosel li
Gal lery displ ay surfaces perhaps as a def init ion of the
arch itectural st ruct ure and, furt her, what t hat st ruc-
ture impli es, then the work at the Claire Copley Gal-
lery coul d be def ined as an anal yti cal model of the
actual operati ons of a gal lery behind those di spl ay
surfaces.
The removal of the paint at t he Tosel li Gal lery
was in part a reference t o the t radit ional concern in
painting of the processes of adding and subt ract ing
mat er i al s t o a two-d imensi onal pl ane. The t wo-
dimensional plane was generally determined by its con-
tour and i ts support st ruct ure, which in turn impli ed
furt her architect ural support st ruct ures as well as co-
vert ly operational support systems. From a simi lar point
of view but in a dif ferent way, the volume of the part i -
t ion determined the act ual space and its f unct ional
operati ons; its removal from that space di scl osed t he
off ice vol ume and j uxt aposed it to t he exhi bit ion vet-
ume which was necessary for t he exhibi t ion to take
pl ace. The Clai re Copley work was rej ecti ng t he con-
ventional funct ions of the space i t occupi ed to make
the space function as an exhibition/presentation.
A cr it ical analysis of the gallery struct ure was de-
veloped by a small number of artists in t he lat e sixties
and early seventi es, at a t ime when t hey viewed t hen
role as artists as that of ind ividual producers with the
T
-
Axonometn<:: drawiog of Claire CopleyGallery. Gl\ostilne show-
mgremoved wall. Drawingby Lawrence Kenny
l.-L-J J 1.-.-,
o 5
,
10 It.
97
,
Vrewlng through gallery toward entry/ellil and street. Photo-

graphs by Gary Kruger.
98
Installationat Claire CopleyGallery. Viewing throughgallery
toward office and storageareas.
,
a
October 7-0ctober 10, 1974
Anna Leonowens Gallery
Nova Scotia"College of Art and Design
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
100
right to control totally not only the production but also
the distributi on of their work. They bel ieved that art -
ists of previous generations had accepted uncri ticall y
and wit hout qualifi cation a distr ibution system (t he
gallery/market) which had often dictated the content
and context of their work. These art ist s found them-
selves i n a paradoxical sit uation ; they either had to
suppress the intent ions of their work when it inter-
sected with the gal lery/market or they had to forgo t he
conventi onal di stributi on system altogether and give
up their role as individual producers; or they coul d
exhibit outside the t radit ional exhibi tion context. with
the hope that a new producti on and di stribution sys-
tem could be developed. When their work conf licted
with the commodity stat us required by t he gal lery
system, these arti sts had no choice but to develop a
new cultural context for their work before they coul d
expect to function withi n the gallery nexus.
Interest ingly enough these works were oft en seen
as " nonmaterial" since they seemed to funct ion out-
side of the tradi tional context of the marketplace. In-
stead of der iving their cultural meaning f rom the
conventi onal exhibition support , they funct ioned in a
variety of locat ions. Ult imately, in the late sevent ies,
it was shown that these works had at least an eco-
nomic materiality of their own and did not in fact oper-
ate out side of the cultural cont ext. Some younger
generation art ists considered thi s discrepancy of the-
ory and practice suff icient proof that once again the
interdependence between producti on and distribution
in the work of art could be totally ignored. The work as
object reinstated the dealer and the distribut ion sys-
tem to its original status. Some arti st s of this younger
generat ion, possi bly seeking a way out of object-
producti on and gallery/museum distribut ion similar to
that of artists of the late sixt ies and early seventies
formed production collectives, which attempted to keep
their non-object -oriented production outsi de of the
confi nes of the cultu ral industry.
Another phenomenon of the early seventi es, de-
riving from artists' anticommercialismandconcern with
the problem of commodi ficati on was the development
of the alternative space system for exhibi tion alt hough
not necessari ly for distri but ion. The alternative space
relied for its funding on outside sources rather than
the market for which the work was primarily produced.
Alt ernative spaces made more works more frequent ly
accessible t han the commercial gal leries, yet they fal-
sif ied t he work's commodity status, assuming that visi-
bilit y alone would complete the recepti on process and
that exchange value was not one of the work's features.
The alt ernative space system provided visibil ity for the
work regardless of specif ic interest , but it did not nec-
essaril y stand behind the work, with the full support
necessary for reception wi thin the cul t ure. Paradoxi-
call y, t he only way for a work to be fully received is
thr ough it s initi al abstract ion for exchange value. To
resolve these contradicti ons between the art ist' s inter-
ests and the functions and capaci ti es of the alterna-
t ive space, these inst itutions fi nal ly had to assume
the role of being ei ther a commerci al gallery or a
museum.
I felt at the time and st ill feel that the gallery is
one essential context for the cultural recept ion of my
work. What came under scruti ny in t he Claire Copley
work was the quest ion of whether a work of art whose
discourse disclosed the system of economic reproduc-
t ion could possibly, at the same time, engender t hat
economic reproduct ion for itself . Just as the work
served as a model of how the gallery operated, it also
served as a model for it s own economi c reproduction.
m
Whil e teaching asa visi ti ng instructor at the Nova Sco-
ti a Coll ege of Art and Design i n the fall of 1974, I was
invi ted to do a work at the College's Anna Leonowens
Gall ery, which was then directed and curated by Alan
McKay.
The College was then located in a residential area
where the campuses of several other universit ies are
also located. The gallery building was set back approxi-
mately 40 feet from the street on it s front or north
elevat ion. The gallery had a floor to ceiling window-
wall 15 feet 4 inches high. Each window section is 8
feet 9 inches wide and was framed by verti cal steel
columns. The building containing t he gallery also
housed the classrooms, workshops, and library of the
Coll ege. The entrance through the gallery area was
used as the main access to these facilities. This en-
trance consisted of a double door which was set under
a metal canopy, placed 9 feet 6 inches from the north-
east corner and projecting 8 feet into the interior gal-
lery space. The act ual di mensions of the gal lery were
40 feet on i ts nort h-south axis and 57 feet 10 inches
on it s east-west axis.
Five feet four inches from the north window-wal l
and parallel to the east wal l at a distance of 5 feet ran
a partit ion wall 17 feet 4 inches long, which formed a
storagearea. The secretary's desk was placed in front
of the part it ion wall. These two elements were con-
structed or placed wit hin what was otherwise an uni n-
terrupt ed rect angular volume. Plaster coated steel
columns were spaced 8 feet 6 inches along t he sout h
wall. These columns extended from floor to ceili ng, at
a height of 15 feet 4 inches, where they stopped at
the exposed corner of the ceiling. At the east corner
of the south wal l there was a double door entry/exit ,
which was the main access to the building's elevators
and the library. At the west corner, a doorway lead to a
stairway to t he mezzanine level, 9 feet abovet he main
gall ery. The mezzanine gal lery was 23 feet 1
1
12 inches
by 22 feet , with a cei l ing height of 8 feet.
For the purposes of this installati on, I did not
alter the gall ery or any of i ts material s or architectural
detai ls in any way, leaving everything, includi ng t he
MICHAEL ASHER
OCTOBER 7 - OCT08ER 10, 1974
ANNA LEONDWENSGALLERY
NOVA SCOTI A COLLEOEOF ART AND DESIGN
61S2COBURO ROAD
HALIFAX NOVA SCOTIA
CANADA
lighting fi xtures, in exactly the same posit ion and con-
di tion inheri ted from the previous exhi bit ion, During
the exhibi tion I did not turn on any of the lights in the
gallery. I want ed the space to be perceived solely as
an arch i tectural vol ume uninfl ected by detail s or
fixtures. For the same reason I also took the tinted
sunscreens off the top of the window-wall , since they
were not a part of the original design and would have
modifi ed the normal qual ity of interior l ight. I did not
want the walls to be painted, so all of the interior sur-
faces were left in the condi t ion they were in aft er the
previous exhibit ion. I had the floor swept clean, but
not poli shed. I also asked that the secretary not be
present every day since the gallery space was regu-
larly open and accessible to the general public and
the school. A bull etin board, outside of the gallery,
announced the exhibi ti on.
Unli ke my earl ier works, this work was concerned
with the minimal amount of modi ficat ion to the gal-
lery space itsel f. In part , i t showed that any place
defined as a gallery would be perceived as such by the
viewer, whether or not objects were bei ng exhi bi ted
there. The absence of obj ects, in t his case, first
objectified the architectural space and design detail s
and then shift ed the viewers' attention to their own
preconcepti ons of what an exhibition should look li ke.
Ult imately, the viewers were left to decide to what
degree they might have been the subject of thi s exhi-
101
m
,
Anna LecnowensGallery, Nova Scoti a Collegeof Art and

Design, Halifax. Viewingwest wit h otticeequipment before
removal andopeningof the installation.
quence of percept ion was det ermined by t he viewer.
Shoul d an exhibi tion inst i t ut ion generate exhibi-
ti ons, or does the given insti tu tional space, t ime, pro-
ducer, and receiver suffic e to define t he experience of
t he exhibition? For an exhibi tio n to concretize and de-
marcate itsel f with in a culture, it wi ll generally re-
quire a publ i c's presence and awareness wi th in a
specific t ime and place, as determined by t he pro-
ducer. A work such as t hi s generates i ts own historical
mode of product ion. At a mini mum. it affect s i ts own
discourse. At a maximum, wit hin artisti c practice. it
demands t he receiver to take a criti cal posit ion with in
t he material world. Aft er t he conclusion of the ex-
hibition, t he work cont inued t o exist as an abstract ion
of the origi nal context and experi ence.
Viewingwest wall of galleryduring extubtrlon.
Viewing north. Detail of glasscurtain wall and entrance
canopyof gall ery. Photographs by Michael Asher.
Viewingeast in gallerytoward officearea beforethe opening of
thei nstallation.
Viewingsouth wall and mezzaninegallery.
f
I
I
[
I
I
bit ion or whet her they were supposed to proj ect some
imagi nary exhibition int o t he space.
Viewers may have percei ved the i nst all at i on as
an exhi bi tion by Michael Asher, part icularly i f they
were aware of the announcement post ed on the bul -
leti n board; as an archit ectural container wait ing f or
a funct ion; or as an empty galle ry space between
exhibitions. Audience perception could also have been
direc ted back upon itself , since the installation was
set up wi th no object or person as it s focus. Finally,
the method of t he work, in the tradition of designa-
t ion or declarat ion, could have been seen as its domi-
nant f eature. Unl ike a designatory work, however, thi s
instal lat ion was located with in an exist ing exhibition
space conti nuing to functi on as a gal lery. Whil e all of
these possibil ities were inherent in t he work, the se-
102
103
The Gallery of Otis Art Institute
ens ART INSTtTUTt 0 .... ons AliT ASSOCIATES
_ lie you 10 on exIliblt_ by
MICHAEl ASHEIl
f ebruary 2-4 - Mordl 9, 1975
ons ART lNSTlTUTE G.....lEIl'l' l'OyElt
2-401 Wil"".,. 8ou1evd,1.ol Ancel,", CA 90051
OAum t'IOOl:S
Mond.v-T!>und.'l' nd Sflllfd.y 10,30 ,m '0 S 00 pm
Sunct.y, 10.30 1m' 0 SOOpm,dosed F'ldoy
,
104
Close-upof directCKY boarddurrngexhibition at OtIS Art
l nsntute. Photograph by Frank Thomas.
-
Gurdon Woods, direct or of the Otis Art Inst it ute. ex-
tended an invi tation to do an exhibi tion at t he gallery
of Otis Art Insti tute, which is located directly on Mac-
Arthur Park, one of the largest and most visi ted parks
in downt own Los Angel es. The park consists of two
areason each sideof Wilshire Boulevard, a major east-
west axis; it is a recreational faci li ty used by famil ies,
older residents, and different et hnic groups. Situated
on the park, t he gall ery is visi ted by passersby who
frequent its exhi biti ons. Froma double-door ent ry/exi t,
a foyer leads into t he main gallery ' s exhibit ion area.
The gallery measured 99 f eet by 33 feet 3 inches
by 16 feet 6 inches. The wall s were fi nished with wood
panel s painted white, which were evenly grooved from
floor to ceili ng for hanging paint ings. A wooden grid
st ruct ure, painted black, formed a false cei l ing which
contained t he light ing fixtures. I decided not to use
t his space, however, because its interior decorat ion
seemed inconsistent with t he sort of installation I had
in mind. The doors to the exhi bition area, t herefore,
remained locked for t he lengt h of my exhibition, and I
used the foyer with its double doors t o t he st reet for
the installation. The foyer measured 11 feet on the
nort h-south axis and 11 feet 6 inches on t he east-
west axis, wi th a ceiling height of 8 feet 6 inches. The
wall s of t he foyer were wood paneled from floor to ceil -
ing and varnished. Along t he south wall was a bui lt-in
illuminated display case wi th a floor-standing ashtray
beneat h it ; on the north si de there were elevator doors
and a drinking fountain. The locked doors to the ex-
hi bit ion area were on the west si de. Permanently
mounted on t he east wall and next to the doors to t he
st reet was a glass-covered, bl ack-f elt directory board,
2 feet 6 inches high and 1 foot 8 inches wide, whi ch
was designed for t he mount i ng of molded plast ic
lett ers. Approximately t hree-fourths of t he way down
from t he top of t he direct ory board, I placed letters
whi ch spelled out the fol lowing phrase:
IN THE PRESENT EXHI BITION I AM THE ART
And j ust above that I att ached the mailer sent out by
t he Otis Art Insti tute which read:
OTIS ART INSTITUTE ANDOTIS ART
ASSOCIATES
invi te you to an exhlbitron by
MICHAEL ASHER
February 24- March 9. 1975
OTIS ART INSTITUTE GALLERY FOYER
240 1 Wil shire Boul evard. Los Angeles, CA. 99057
Gal lery hours
Monday- Thursday, and Sat urday; 10;30 A.M. to
5, 00 P.M.
Sunday, 10,30 A. M. to 5,00 P.M., closed Fri day
The work at the Claire Copley Gallery had direct ed
vi ewers' attention t o the way t he gallery funct ioned,
and therefore focused primarily on t he gall ery direct or;
the work at t he Nova Scoti a College of Art and Design
had di rect ed t he vi ewers' att ent ion primar i ly t o
themselves. The work at the Otis Art Inst it ute, how-
ever, directed t he viewers' atten tion primaril y to the
artist; i n th is way t hese works circumscribed t he
production, distr ibution, and recept ion of the artwork.
The statement on t he di rectory board was read
as an objec tification of t he producer as subject. It
reflected the producer's pnnciptes regarding produc-
tion at t he t ime of the exhibition . The statement im-
piled t hat t he aut hor was not separate from his own
mani festation and that hi s work had developed from
and was integral to his experience . It furt her implied
that if t here were no separations between the aesthetic
manifestat ion of t he work and the aut hor, t he aes-
t het ic producti on would have it s own dialect ical rela-
t ionship wi th hi story. Perhaps alienat ion begins when
t he art ists view t heir production as materiall y sepa-
rate from t hemsel ves, or as a product exist ing inde-
pendent ly from t heir own consciousness; while t he
viewers consider i t necessary to isolat e the aesthet ic
producti on from the aut hor in order t o generate t heir
own vision of the arti st' s product ion, which is part ly
ficti onal ized t hrough project ion. This separati on is con-
current wit h t he t ransformat ion of t he work of art into
a commodi ty which negates the role of t he producer.
When art is placed in its historical context, the separa-
l, l\IlAIIl
CALlfOll:NlA STATt POll'lKHHIC 105
POMONA. CAUFOlHIA 91768
OtISArt tnsutute Gall ery groundpl an wit h cereus of lobby,
elevation of dIsplay case and rear entrance. Indi cated ISthe
placement 01t he directory board inssde the lobby that was
used for this exmtaucn. Courtesy Oils Art Inst itute Gall ery.
Otrs Arllnst ltu te Gallery. West vrewct mstaltancn area.
Nort h-east corner 01lobby dunng exhlbl hon .
Exterior and enlry.lexl t to lobby. Photographs byHal Gli cksma n.
T G:
--
L L
ti on once again occurs withi n the cult ure, which di-
vides author from production and negates t he work's
dial ectical relationshi p with history.
By using a wri tten statement to integrate the
author's experience with his product ion, the paradox
of the work's own aestheti c real ity is stated. Experi-
ence, in this case, might havefinally been understood
as a question of " life. " as the personal pronoun "I"
seemed to suggest , but subjective experience alone
did not contain the impulse of aestheti c production,
since that would have precluded all of the other fac-
tors necessarily determining the work.
I was t rying to di scover if i t was historicall y possi-
ble to integrate author and production in a specific
work. The work perhaps defined the meani ng of the
separation between author and product by juxtapos-
ing its material presence (lobby, directory board, state-
ment in plastic lett ers) with the abstraction of the
written statement. Those viewers who ident ified them-
selves with the " I" of the author chose their own sub-
jectivity over a confrontation with the arti st's statement.
But can the material ization of the work's own aes
thet ic principle be located and identi fied? As a mate-
rial enti t y. i t seems t o contai n a great number of
contradictions. Is it t he actual installation, the state-
ment itself, or the " I" in the statement (the aut hor of
the statement) where the materiali ty of the principl e
is located? Which of these const ituents or which of
thei r interrelationshi ps incorporates the proclaimed
aesthet ic principle and howdoes that principle operate?
Language can point to a material or visual prob-
lem, or it can proclaim a principle in aestheti c produc-
tion which can be verified within and through language.
I used language in this work to define a principle that
contradicted i tself in its material presentation . This
work is the only one to date that I have def ined in the
medium of language.
..
I
1
I
I
__J

I
.,' - s -
1!;Vl EtlTIlAMC l:
@' 6 21D U6l-lf,
106
.. GIoLL-U 'l' 7fU''''
6..1.... 1 .,' t'1/
rAt.,1I'l 5 0
1
HflltHT PAIl EI.lft;f j'l.'
Ito',,
5,(1; <,.
September 1975
Vision, Number 1
edited by Tom Mariani, pUblished by
Kathan Brown Crown Point Press,
Oakland, California
I
,
108
In August 1975, I was asked by Kathan Brown and
Tom Mariani, who planned to publ ish t he first issue of
Vision magazine, to cont ri bute to this issue which fo-
cused on arti st ic production in Cal iforni a. The con-
cept of the magazi ne was presented to me in a letter
by Kathan Brown, definingthe main features and tunc-
t ion of the magazine as follows:
Vision will be a publi caticn by and for artis ts....
Each art ist wil l present his own work in what ever
way he chooses. . . . The page size is standard l egal
paper, 8 Ifl 'x14", but si nce the work of an i ndivid-
ual will always be shown on two facing pages the
effec t ive working si ze is 16"x 14".
Tom Mari ani, t he editor, define d t he purposes of the
magazine in t he first issue as f oll ows:
It is the purpose of Vision to make available infor-
mation about idea-oriented art . It is an artist-oriented
publicat ion, presenting works and mater ial only from
art ists, each issue devoted to a part icu lar region of
t he world. In this f irst issue we have included Cal i -
fornia art ists who have had an infl uence on t he re-
gion or t he world , and have creat ed work that has
the character of the region as well as an individual
style . This sect ion of the publi cat ion functi ons like
an exhibit ion space where t he art ists were invited
to show whatever they wanted to represent t hem-
selves. (Vision, no. 1, p. 11. )
During t hi s post conceptual period, I t hought the
magazine would probably carry primari ly t ext s, pho-
t os, and documentation present ed as original works
of art. It seemed necessary, t herefore, to find a way to
produce a work which, in t he context of the maga-
zine, would embody and represent the material condi-
t ions of i t s presentat ion.
My reply to the letter inviting me to cont ribute to
the September i ssue of Vision magazine, dat ed Au-
gust 16, 1975, outl ined my proposal as foll ows:
Kat han Brown:
Thank you for your lett er concerning t he proposed
publ icati on of Vision. As I have mentioned to Tom
Mari oni, I would li ke to part icipate in your publica-
t ion. My cont rib ution will be to permanently adhere
the two facing pages of my presentation togethe r in
order to form one leaf. It is important t hat t he proper
adhesive be used so there is no wri nkl e or distorti on
over the page surface and edges are permanent ly
bonded. Possibl y a dry-mou nt techni que wil l solve
t his probl em. I am interested i n havi ng all t hree
edges line up edge to edge and have t hem conform
to t he regist ration of t he other pages in t he book.
I'm al so interested in having t he page numbers read
consecuti vely so t hose on my two pages might pos-
si bl y be lost. I leave it to your discr et ion to not prin t
the page numbers for my presentation. If you have
an index or tabl e of cont ents, I wi sh to be included.
If t here is any hitch or you have any questions, please
feel fr ee to cont act me directl y. Best wi shes for
Vision.
Sincerely,
Mi chael Asher
Even t hough only a very short t ime elapsed be-
tween t he proposal and t he product ion of the work, i t
was f i nished in a very sat isfying manner. Al l aspect s
of t he out li ne of the work gi ven in the letter were
real ized.
Gl ue was used t o bond t oget her the two 8 1J2
inch-by-Lzl inch pages all ocat ed for my cont ribut ion.
The edges of the pages were flu sh and t he front and
back surfaces of the two bonded pages were smoot h
and even. The two bonded pages formed one leaf which
differed in weight and thickness f rom al l of the other
leaves in the magazine. Stabi l ized in this way, the two
bonded pages did not easi ly fall to ei ther side when
the magazine was opened , but stood out from the
seam. When leaf ing t hrough t he magazine, t he in-
creased tangibility of the two bonded pages was dis-
t inct ly noticeable.
The work denied readers'lviewers' expecta tion of
text ual or visual informat ion. Si nce any representa-
t ion of t his order was with held , t he work' s increased
tangibili ty was set in oppositi on to the work's decreased

readabi l ity and perceptual presence.
The work fol lowed page 4 1 and preceded page
44. Only t he page numbers 42 and 43 and my name
were printed and they were prin ted in the same way
and in the same place as they were on all of the ot her
pages. Due to the adhesion of the two pages, how-
ever, t he print ing on the inside was almost unreadable.
My name was listed in t he table of contents and the
cont ribution was identi f ied as beginning on page 42.
The material presence of my work was context ual-
ized wit h t he vi sual and text ual represent at ions of the
two cont ributi ons by Douglas Wheel er and Bruce
Nauman (diagrams and a poem) preceding and fol low-
ing the bonded pages. By merging t hree di stinct ly dif -
ferent works, both visual ly and materia ll y, the viewer
was led to quest ion t he necessi ty of their usual pre-
sentat ion in isolat i on, since such a form of bracket ing
tends to indu ce a comparat i ve readi ng and cross-
referenci ng of the works. The bracketing of indi vidu-
alized works serves t o deny their st yli stic individual-
izat ion and isolat ion; t his in hope of consciously open-
ing up an inquiry into their hi stori cal relations and
cont radict ions.
The text ual and vi sual represent at ions of t he two
cont ributions that preceded and followed my work were
cross-referenced with my work and wi t h each ot her.
In t his manner i t became apparent that , as represen-
tati ons, t hey were abstracted from t heir ori ginal con-
text and intenti on in order to fi t int o the magazine
format. A material constructi on (in terms of the rnaga-
ztne format) , founded upon the mat erial el ements of
t he framework of t he presentati on, the work seemed
to deny its own stat us as representati on, and in doing
soalso questioned the representat ion of the other works
(i n terms of t he magazine format) .
At t he same t ime, t he work di d not escape from
being appropr iated by t he condit ions of the frame-
work into which it was inscr ibed, si milar t o t he way in
which it appropri ated t he work adjacent to i t t hrough
ccntext uetlzatton. it became subjec t to the cul t ural
recept ion of an aest het ic discourse which was exter- COlier of Vision Magazine, Volume 1, 1975.
109
,
-
nat to the magazine. It was all the more subject to
inevit able aesthet ic appropriation, since the work's
cl ai m to be a pure material presence and an essenti al
formal practi ce was cruci al to its funct ion of otsmen-
tling isolated formal material practice. Operating within
this tradit ional aesthetic pract ice, with an immedi-
ately apparent formal or material presence of it s own,
t he work reduced i tsel f to a histori cal device of
disjunction.
Through the denial of its own presence, the work
distanced itsel f from this pract ice while it simulta-
neously consti tuted i tself wit hin the discourse of artis-
tic production. The work therefore derived its meaning
from inscribing itself into the framework of formal mod-
ernist pract ice. The interpretation of this pract ice im-
posed meaning upon the work which caused it to be
perceived as a historical real ity; but at the same t ime,
as a discursive device. it became a f ict ion in it s at-
tempt at distancing itself from aest het ic product ion.
The work as an object of percept ion within the
display system of the magazine interrupted the di s-
play system materially. At the same time this rupture
revealed itself to be depende nt upon modernist
conventi ons, such as: withdrawal of perceptual infor-
mation, declaration as a designatory tool , transpar-
ency of material const ructi on, self- referentiali ty and
contextual ization. These strategies imbued the work
with the speci fic features of modernist art practice,
sel f-ref lectiveness. empi rical veri fi abi li ty, denial of
aesthethic il lusion, cri ti cal negativity and a claim for
autonomous existence.
110
Jbecontnbuttcn by Michael Asher to Vision MagaZi ne as to be
seen betweenpagesq t and 44. Photographsby LOUI se Lawler. M . _
I II
Via Los Angeles
Portland Center for the Visual Arts
Portland, Oregon
... ..... 1IaUlI .

... ..,OUA _ .
.... . _h ,..
. ..., bt .._ ot _ .
' '' ''0 h ... . ,..
_ e.. -... r....
_.._ .
Time-line sheet for f ight LIvely Arts teteveron program on
January 18. 1976. 1 p.rn.
... ("W'
4<l ( ",.,
. T !nO ,,,", ll'f.AO , tlISU't "" _ tlGTS, (I" '"
, ... ' . 1\ _ : ......... ..n _ " ' '''' '
- ........... XlIWI<
rr Kl Otl .
..... ..rlo ,...IM. . . ......
.... <"""",." ,,' _ro . _li_
Tho 1 , , ' ''' .
_" " ..
too Or<, ""'0_ "" .,."
tErrIers, n ru '"...
.I:Idi1I..D!<.J1 !loW 1.1..1.. At!.A
TV SPORTS OF THE WEEK
- ,-
recorded the ordinary act ivit ies that took place at t he
stat ion during a broadcast; personnel passing in and
out and interacti ng wit h those people on the job in
the master-control area.
The camera recorded the acti vity of one of the
seven production technicians who ran the master con-
trol s and lined up promos for pubtic-service announce-
ment s. This techni cian was watching the monit ors
while talking (audi ble to the viewer) to the technical
director and his assistant who were located in a booth
upstairs from the master-controt area. Equall y audi-
ble but not visible was a technician who set up tapes
of prerecorded commercials.
These technici ans are the heros behi nd the tele-
vision scene. But since there are no cuts or fades, no
close-ups or dramat ic angles, the visual codes used to
produce televison ficti on are not present and Ulti mately
the viewer, used to reading those codes, losesinterest.
While the technicians cont inue to implement recep-
tion for home viewing, they are not part of the nar-
rat i ve f icti on and therefore do not attai n visual
credibili ty for television delivery. The images of the
technici ans do not make good TV: there is nothing to
take seriously, no manipulation to obey or li festyle to
be bought. Viewing these images, t he audience real-
izes the degreeof mediation necessaryto t he produc-
tion and recept ion of TV images. The audience also
understands that the TVimage is an electronically gen-
erated depiction of real space on a flattened plane at
a reduce scale with light and sound representat ions
recorded by camera and sound equipment.
In the broadcast image the monitor to the left
showed color bars for color registrat ion. The middl e
monitor recorded the camera's own image. The moni-
tor on the right showed a constant fl ow of network
television, some of which was taped for viewing on
KGW later in the eveni ng.
I asked the stati on management to insert six thirty-
second breaks, the standard number or commercial
and public service announcements for a 3D-minute
program. Of the six breaks, two were spots for the
television station, one was commerci al for a savings
the publ ic would be informed and the audience would
not be alienated .
The commercial television stat ion KGW, the NBC
aff iliat e in Port land, agreed in pri nciple to produce
and broadcast the work proposal in the context of its
weekly cultural program" Eight lively Arts. " This half -
hour time slot determined the time frame for my work.
Mel Katz contact ed an indivi dual at KGW who
was able to interest the station in producing and broad-
casting the work. The programdirector was finally per-
suaded to approve the proposal , and, in December,
the station called me to discusscertain questions that
they considered problemat ic. Aft er the proposal was
approved the station sti ll attempted to postpone the
work because of what they beli eved to be the implica-
ti on of i ts use of " dead air t ime."
The master-control area in this television broad-
casti ng station kept track on a bank of monitors, of all
incomi ng and outgoing programmi ng, network, l ive,
tape or f ilm. It was also responsible for maintaining
the programming schedule and implement ing trans-
missions. The essent ial equipment of the master-
control area consisted of tape decks, fil m islands,
monitors, and switching panels for outgoing and in-
comi ng programming as well as a large storage area
for videotapes of advertising and spot s.
The dimensions of the master-control area were
65 feet by 3D feet. The wall s enclosed windowless
space, wi th the excepti on of one partial glass wall
facing the main corridor of the buildi ng. The corridor
behi nd the glass wal l provided access to two studios,
the master-control room, and the main stairwell lead-
ing to the offices on the second fl oor. A static televi-
sion camera was locked in place for the recording of
the activiti es in the master-control area and was able
to view about one t hird of the space. In the center of
t his area an audio pickup was installed to record the
sound f rom the broadcast activi t ies. A cl uster of
switches and monit ors was in the foreground of the
image picked up by the camera. The glass wall to the
left of the camera was in the background of the image
and through it one could see the corridor. The camera
Mel Katz of the Port land Center for the Visual Art s
invited me in the fall of 1975 to part icipate in an
exhi biti on of the work of six Los Angeles art ists. The
exhibit ion, curated by May Beebe and Mel Katz, in-
cluded the art ists Chris Burden, Bryan Hunt , Channa
HOr\.... itz, Allen Ruppersberg, and Alexis Smith. My con-
tribut ion to this exhibition was a 3D-mi nute t elevision
broadcast on January 19, 1976, at LOO P. M.
My proposal for t he 3D-minute television broad-
cast segment was as follows:
The television program I propose is intended to ut i-
li ze a half-hour of broadcast televi sion t ime, alter-
nat i ng l ive telev ision wi t h commercial breaks,
including ti tles and credi ts in t he structu re. I wish
to focus a camera wi th an audio pickup upon the
master control area of a television station. The cam-
era and audio pickup will record the usual studio
activit ies of the technici ans and equipmen t. It is
important that the people in the studio pursue their
tasks as they do normally. In this respect , t here is
no conscious attempt to direct the viewer's response.
Juxtaposed against this are commerci al breaks
which have been carefull y composed to direct the
audience's att ention upon a speci fic not ion or ob-
ject for a fifteen- or thirt y-second time span. The
commercial breaks also functi on to imposethe usual
progression of program format.
The program should be scheduled to int egrate wi th
other regular programming at t imes of the day when
it is not critical to consider the viewers' location or
what t hey might be doing. An announcement in the
newspaper is desirable so the program will not ap-
pear as a mysterious event and may easil y be re-
ferred to by the viewer.
A sl ight ly different version of this proposal was
displayed at the center for the duration of the exhibi-
t ion and functi oned as a descript ion of the work. This
display also indicated date, t ime and channel of
broadcast. The work was announced in spot-announce-
ments on television and in the local television guide
TV Review, as well as m the local newspaper, so that
JANUARY lnH
. .. w .. _.
. ow. .......
.....
12 IlMlIlUIB '"'T1lr 8ItoI .. K__
. ..... .-uI O'c-
_ ... Au B1J'1lL
12:30 2: 1llfCl1lllS.
] 1(1 ......
1:00 2 TW:1OC1 -
UTili LUS_
1:30 2: W.lW. IUIl-
SUll o
, "'"
UTlUI.U .
1:0 12 lIPLlllfl l
unu-
2, 00 I TlIfUI.'UU'
Th. "",10 bet, proo........
po" lor $ll;l., o<'n" , ""P
r::' ':...dl'.!r
10 UOIUII
IUIlSTfIl 11
IW'UI
12 SUlUln IUI DIlf
. ",,1>0 IUlIc4 11M' Ny" m .

Geft. J .D. C...-.
2:30 2 IIl*'IIfI M01'I
] l .RIlIE10
....
...."
""".
] :00 2 I'IOlll1l 0I'flI
....
1I."t111'*"IIII'
SUNDAY
1:30 1 ..TIllS-
6 WlUll.l1011J.
1M.
IU'I'lI.l un'

' :00 :z ftU11lIl
6 .TKaS 'IITI
..
........
WtTll51T
lOWnuo
9:30 1 WllClJCllS_
, PlK&IoISW8
.,.u
IWlIUIlli WlI.
.....
11 ow. .omn.
10;00 1 I/II lll IIlClS.
11Im
12 "' Of
t1S(Oftu.
10:10 2: DfYI.llI o
8 ' ItWP\l I_"
12 ITIS ..lnDl_
11:00 2: , uNPIn.
, SlIl'U IOWl X.
Mm nu: I'IUSo
12 l llll Y' 1l
Tnm..
11:10 .) JIlT.
11 :15 ) t4" U IW TI
11, 30 2 lUll: I 'fUll .
, ......
U: lIf'O(lI IllVS.
Sl.1!( D.l.T. ' '''''l ' d Y II
....... _'X'c.. "U......
n-!.Pf:. c..: a.. a. t _ .
__0- GeIl': a.. =. ......
11I l "UD.I." . JANI,IA.&l -
" .....Ilac , .-Co """'1ft':
nt,.I.,. ....
1
=::::= -J=
XGW.a.:mc 1.....,.
I(()U'. "
..1U..:!!!1
.. _ Ill tlltat I'flll6lWI
6:00 ' f6ITI tal
"",.
6:0S IClCIUl'ff llf'lS
""".
' ,IS
",,",,'
6:10 2: If'l. WIll'll5
"""". , ' l lSIS tw:t,, _
SMSIf 11'[.
6,Ul um_
.....
12 I1WS lllUl1.5.
1:00 2 MU1lt . 1.:
....
....
6 11IP/oCl_
lOT.' I:l IfIlTUUftlh
7::10 2: Ulnllll,
Wo'
, W4I' 1100 NT
en-
ftS*C* 0
1 ,00 2: eatS,,,,
.-.
,.Ir.un_
a ' lilU' l.O .
12 UTm1
......
Page hom TVPREVUE, Portland, Oregon for theweek of
Sunday. January 18th- January 24th, 1976. indIcating rne
1 p.m. l imeslot of MIChael Asher's televlsloo install ation,
112
113
r= ... =il
Groundplan of KGW1V Station, showing location of master
control. Courtesy01KGW, Portland, Oregon.

Detail of groundplan of master cont rol roomshowing camera
angleduring installat ion/ program. Drawrng by Michael Asher.
115
cept ion (monitor or TV set) , and are physiologically
perceived in identical ways. Therefore, it became clear
to me that t he tradit ional di st inction between actual
space and real t ime on the one hand, and representa-
ti on and recorded t ime on the ot her was no longer
functional in regard to t he product ion of television im-
agery. Furthermore, t he broadcast image could not be
broken down in terms of sel f-ret erent iality since t he
relat ionship between t il e real temporal and spati al locus
and its representat ion could, Ult imately, not be veri fied.
yet t he television image is considered t he most reliable
testi f ying device of any mode of visual representat ion.
At t he same t ime, however, the work was si tuat ed and
speci fied bot h t emporarily and spati ally in two di ffer-
ent contexts: in an i nsti tutional context (an exhibi t ion
groupi ng together art i sts whose works ori ginated in a
locat ion different from t hat of t he exhib iti on), and in
the context of a television t ransmissi on attra ct ing t he
largest American television audience of t he year: t he
live broadcast of t he " Superbowl."
Since the master-control sequences coul d not be
viewed as good t elevi sion, t hey coul d be di smissed by
the vi ewer as inconsequent ial fantasi es. In the frame-
work of tel evision, an inact ive image generates " dead
air" and is thought to produce an unreal viewing exper-
ience. On the ot her hand, whatever sel ls a product or
a l ifestyle appears t o be act ive and is t herefore con-
sidered a part of reality. The commercials and spots
f ulf il led t he viewers' expect at ions of t el evision reality,
and t herefore became domi nant compared t o t he
master-control sequences, ult imat ely becoming t he
prime content of t he program. By polarizing t he com-
merci als and spots wit h t he master-cont rol sequences,
til e programemphasized content over style, rather t han
mergi ng the two as is done i n regul ar programmi ng.
The usuall y lat ent dominance of the commercial s be-
came manifest and transparent in t hi s broadcast.
At the time of t he broadcast, I was at the st at ion
answering phone calls along wit h Mel Katz and t he two
KGW recept ionist s. Approximately 140 phone calls
were received during the program, indicating a wide
range of viewer responses. For example, one call came
bank, and three were publ ic service announcements,
one showi ng a t ravelogue of Oregon, the second an-
nouncing a local boat show, and the t hird promot ing
t he Head Start Program in Portland.
My original intention had been to produce the
work in real t ime. Two different camera angles were
tried in advance, offe ring an al ternate vi ew and giving
me some idea of what to expect during the live record-
ing and broadcast. I would have liked to conti nue to
examine different camera angles, but t he administ ra-
tion declined f urther experimentat ion.
Just before t he real time broadcast , t he program
director ref used t o ai r t he program li ve and instead
conf ront ed me with t he opt ion of ei ther using the pre-
recorded mat erial or cancelling t he broadcast of t he
work altoget her.
The explanation for t his decision revolved around
questi ons of cost, technicians avail abi li ty, and t he
stat ions' s obl igatio n to t he publ ic. Thi s response
seemed unusual in li ght of t he fact t hat I was enli st-
ing t he services of only those peopl e who were avai l-
abl e at t he t ime of t he broadcast , and wi t hi n the
parameters set up by t he stat ion. Neither was i t clear
What the program direct or meant by "obl igat ion to t he
public."
The recording i tself t urned out extremely well ,
however, perhaps because the technicians working in
t he mast er-cont rol area avoided appearing sel f-
conscious and did not att empt in any way to direct
viewer response. Before t he recording session, the tech-
ni ci ans were told t hat the tape woul d not be used for
broadcast. Short ly before the actual broadcast, how-
ever, the program direct or had to obtain their consent,
as I assumed he would.
Even t hough t he work appeared to be a fict ion, i t
had a paradoxicall y nat ural look about i t due to t he
absence of self-consci ousness. In my original plan, t he
self -consciousness of the participants might have con-
cealed their nat ural behavior, even though it was broad-
cast in real t ime. Both recorded and real-t ime broadcast
images are media ted techni call y in almost identi cal
ways t hrough the camera, tape, t ransmission, and re-
- .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
___J
-
-
-'
--
,
,.
I
I
I
I
i
,
I
,
:
,
I
i
,
I
I
!
l

,--
I
I
I
-
I
c.
KOW RAOIO Do TELEI,I1610N eUILDING
I
L
' "7=-
[
.
I
I
y .. -

.. ,

0= _ -""'"
,

-
I
Mr.:N
l
C B OOTt-!
STOR AGI':
d

I
-
,.
_.
..
FlRST Fl..OOR PLAN
-
I
j

,
-J
STO q....O
.
'.
-
,
.
.
i UP
-
F 1LM S TOR AGE qe;PA
F=
Ii
"
I
TUeC
117
ThIs wark made
possIIIe t1woup the
cooperation of
KGW-rv 8. Portland.
The National Endowment
for tM Arta. The
Me1rOPOltM Arts
COmnfIIIon Ind the
Orqon AnI eonwmston
,
t . ~ 'n .l',!".
) J
.-:;> - . ~ ,
. :. ( V ~ . ;
: ' , )/ } . -".",.
. f '/ ~ ~
.-
from a television technici an 246 mil es south of Port-
land who. thinking there was a faulty transmission,
called t he station to let us knowthat t here was a cam-
era in the master-control area. A number of other cal-
lers from the Portland area also communicated the
same observation, some of them noticably upset. An-
other group of callers thought they understood the
program and congrat ulated the station for this type
of programming. Most callers were satisfied t o hear
that the program was a work of art and did not carry
the conversation on from there. Some callers, how-
ever, asked for more detailed inf ormati on about my
activi ty as an artist and about the potent ial of a col-
laboration between broadcast television and the vi-
sual art s in the use of videotape. Bob Jackson, the
announcer of the broadcast, " Eight Lively Art s," in-
troduced and closed the program by informing the
audience of a foll ow-up di scussion of my work, which
actual ly occurred a week after the broadcast and was
paneled by three people and the announcer. Ouri ng
thedi scussion it becameevident that the panelistssaw
the work as a possible solici tation for part icipatory
television. Although this option was not excluded . as
an alternative it seemed diffi cult with t he current cen-
tralized television delivery system. It would also have
reduced the work to a simple proposal for a change of
programming of television and i t would have reduced
the problems inherent in the television delivery sys-
tem to a merely technical level.
This work was in part a response to a work by
Dan Graham. " YesterdayfToday," which I had seen
installed at the Otis Art Institute duri ng September-
October 1975. My work att empted to reintegrate video
technology into the mode of production from which i t
origi nated: television technology. It did so by reinte-
grating representat ion wit hin i t s social-inst ituti onal
origi ns and material elements of production.
12 st ills from the 30 min. teieveron program/ i nstall at ion
laken er vancus Intervals and representmg the di fferent types
of aCll OI'lsllmagery that were broadcast during tbrs period.
116
=
May 1-May 22, 1976
Floating Museum

Detail of landing andsteps.
Photograph by Michael Asher.
118
Lynn Hershman, curator of t he Floating Museum. In-
vited me to proposea work for the temporarymuseum
which was planned to be in operation from October
1975 through June 1976. The concept bet nnd this
"alternative" to the existingalternative spaces was to
set up a program without an architectural context of
its own, where admini strat ive structure would be re-
duced to a minimum, that would directly present pro-
jects by artists with support of public (tax) and pnvate
(taxdeductible) dollars. The ideawas to havean exhi-
bition area independent of anarchitectural sett ing and
institutional framework that would create a broader
cultural base for a larger audi ence. As the director
stated at the time: " One hundred seven members
joined by payinga tax-deducti ble fee. Their part icipa-
tion was the nucleus of a community collect ive that
not only exhibi ted art work but act uall y caused the
works to be made. By tapping into the resources of
the area it was possible to makeuseof publ ic spaces
in the community, from free television and radio t ime
to billboards to sandblasti ng equipment to paint ."!
Late in 1975, I agreed to participate in the Float-
ing Museumprogram, and I subsequentl y traveled to
San Francisco to inspect sitesfor a possible installation.
The most accessible sites were those belonging to
members of the museum, such as the Garden Mall
Shopson Sacramento Street, the Landor Corporation,
a public relations and advertisingcompany, or the KPI X
radio station. Eventually, I proposed a work for the
Garden Mall. Lynn Hershman approached t he tenants
of each of the fourteen shops in the mall and they
agreed to have the work installed. Architects Scott
Woodand David Robinson supplied me with six photo-
graphs of plans for the mall renovation, which ac-
quainted me furt her with the rnen's-constructton.
There had originally been three separate build-
ingson the site, which were renovated to forman inti-
mate mall. Two of the buildi ngs were adjacent to
Sacramento Street and were t hree stories high. The
three buildings formed a courtyard which was land-
scaped with trees and bushes. In order to make these
buil dings functi on as a shopping center, they were
-
connected by wooden pathways and stai rcases built
along thecourtyard wall s. Thestaircases. leading from
the ground-fl oor level to t he third storey, were inter-
rupted arbitrarily by landingsand changed direct ions
circuitously at every landing and level. The courtyard
and constructed pathwaysgave access to the various
shops in the mal l. At the same t ime, the staircases
and pathwaysfulfil led a distinctl y decorative funct ion.
The staircase and its rail ings wereof wood construc-
t ion wit h the treads painted gray or red, and the rail -
ings white. The two pieces of wood that formed the
tread of the steps were made of construction grade 2
foot-by-fi foot boards.
For this work I nailed to each tread (approximately
100 steps) two pieces of 2 toot-by-e foot Douglas f ir.
These two pieces of wood were of exactl y the same
sizeand material as the boards used to construct the
treads of the newstaircases during renovation. Unl ike
the existing treads, which had been paint eddi fferent
colors, these treads were left unpainted, and assuch,
created a visually unif ied effect. The difference be-
tween the renovation and my installation could be de-
tected if the staircase was viewed from the front or
fromthe side, since the unfinished edgeof my instal-
lation treads was clearly superimposed on and f lush
with the painted edge of the existing steps. All the
staircase landi ngs and the pathways were left unat-
tered, and werethus also juxtaposed to the unpainted
wood surfaces of my installation.
The juxtaposition of individual treads was quanti-
tatively enlarged in the juxtaposit ion of groups of un-
painted tr eads with t he pain ted surfaces of the
landings. This juxtaposit ion was further enlarged and
repeated in the combinati on of whole sequences of
unpainted treads with the extended surfaces of the
painted pathways. The work matched the given num-
ber of existi ng painted treads with an equal number
of unpainted treads. However, the unpainted wood was
only added to those surfaces used for ascending or
descendi ng, while the platforms and pat hways which
were used for horizontal movement were left unaltered.
While standing in the courtyard. the viewer could
look around and see the quant ity, distributi on, and
locationof the work's units as horizontally placed, dis-
crete sculptural elements or as varying levels of vert i-
cal and spati al distance. Theactual detai ls could only
be perceived from a fluctuat ing point of view by the
viewerJvisitor using thestairs, sincetheworkwas intri-
cately connected with thearchitectural function of it s
location.
At first it seemed that l he immaculate surface of
the newly applied, unfinished material deterred the
viewer' slvisitor's use of the stairs. But once footprints
had accumulated on the raw wood. use returned to
normal.
In spite of the addit ion to the tread, the height of
the steps in the staircases appeared to be consistent.
Percept ionof uniformheight was disrupted, however,
between sequences of steps. The last step leading up
to every landing and pathway appeared to be reduced
in height (by approximately 2 inches); whi te the first
step beyond every landing appeared to be increased
in height (by approximately 2 inches).
Unlike previous sculptural work, which had de-
fined itself as place, but which had essentially be-
come arbitrary in its placement , this work was deter-
mined entirely through its situational context . Unli ke
previous distributional sculpture, which had attempted
to defi ne itself according to a notion of perceptual
field rather than as a specif ic volume in space, but
which had in fact remained within the confinesof tra-
diti onal volumetric percepti on, the visual elements of
this work were localed in a totally decent ral ized 360-
degree arrangement wi thin a given archi tectural
context. Because the work' s structural ent irety was
always external to the viewer's perceptual field , the
work was defined at any given moment. in any frag-
mented part , by the viewer's random choice of direc-
tion within the archi tectural structure.
The constituent parts of thework were placed nei-
ther by chance nor random distribution. Nor were the
material elements amorphous or unprocessed, but
highly determined in their distribut ion and material
definition by the functi on of the structure as a whole
119
WOl kmgdrawmg of arcmtecturat renovation: Groundplan.
Drawing by lawrence Kenny.
llynn Hershman, The Floating Museum. Inc. onglnat texts and trans-
lations. ec. ctace Nicastro.
and t he specif ic uni ts of the structu re into which they

were inserted (stai rcase and step).
The transitional and forward movement fromone
step to the next si tuated t he viewers' stance on two
elevations simultaneously, at any given moment. This
was different from a t radit ional posit ion in front of or
on top of a Sculpt ural work. Thi s al ternat ion of posi-
t ions in relation to the work generated a unif ied visual
and bodily percept ion and locat ed t his percept ion in
thevisitors'lviewers' movement through thework, which
was integrated wit h the architectural st ructure.
Thi s work foregrounded the problems involved in
t he type of renovat ion that tr ies to recreat e historical
codes wi t hi n a contemporary archi tectural idiom, and,
in so doing, becomes a vi sual display system for indi-
vidualized consumpt i on. Thi s installation not only par-
all eled the method of hybrid architectura l renovation
(addition and superimposition), as it combined and
overlapped architect.ural elements to create a period
fi ct ion, but it also imi tated and revealed the actual
(material) elements and ult imate si mpli ci t y of this
transformat ion.
On May 22 , 1976, t he exhi bi tion ended. At that
t ime, my instal lation at t he Garden Mal l was disman-
tl ed and t he stairs were restored t o thei r origina l
condi tion.
/
-,
] [
:=U
h
r='-
0
J
''-
U1['
I-t
I
-- "
---'------- .,-..,
ro-
I ' "
" ,
~ L
I I " , "
, , , ' , "
~ ~ ...I ~ .
I-
-
Il lJJlJ
=
-J
Detail of staircaseand landingIn courtyard. Photograph by
Michael Asher.
120
PLAN
"
Inner courtyard opposmg street Side. Photograph by Edmund
Shea.
121
-:
/ /
f-=:3NEW 2 " X 6 'S
t: EX ISTING TREAD
I I I I I " I I I II
o 1
o
o
o
o
11 11 11 [.'"
~ ~
=
o
L
D
D
llS
W Q
T[
>
~
-- ~
w
L i ~
Detail of installationwithadditional stepconstructionon
eX1sI IJIgstaircase. Drawings by l awrence Kenny. 123
March 20-April 10, 1976
The C/ocktower
The Insti tute- for Art and Urban Resources, Inc.
New York, New York

, .
-
'i..." .." .....,,&

General vlewo! Clocktower building. Photograph by Michael
Asher.
The direct or of the Clocktower, Alanna Heiss. at t he
suggest ion of Kasper Koenig, invited me to do a one-
person exhi bition which was to open on March 20 and
last until April 10. The Clocktower, an alternative space
operated under the auspices of the Inst itut e for Art
and Urban Resources, a nonprofi t organization, is lo-
cated at 108 Leonard Street, at the corner of Broad-
way and occupi es the t hir teent h, fourteenth, and
fifteenth fl oors of the buil ding. Constructed in 1870,
the buildi ng's three top fl oors and a clocktower were
added in the 193 0s. The actual clocktower contains
a clock 12 feet in di ameter which can be read from all
four sides of the bui Iding.
Late in December 1975 and early in January
1976, I was in New York and had the opportunity to
see the space that would be available and to consider
a proposal that mi ght f unction for this parti cular
sett ing.
Because they were a later addi t ion to the buil d-
ing and were used for different purposes, the three
floors allocated for the exhi bition were of greatl y vary-
ing sizeand were detailed and f inished in signifi cantly
different ways. Unl ike most other museum and gal-
lery spaces, the interi or of this space was not very
well f inished and maintained and its wall surfaceswere
frequent ly interrupted by wi ndows, doors, heaters,
pillars, and moldings.
The interior dimensions of the thirteenth fl oor were
58 feet by 56 feet by 13 feet. There were eight win-
dows varying in size and proporti on from 5 feet by 2
feet high to 2 feet 6 inches by 18 inches. Al l wi ndow
frames began 8 feet 4 inchesabove the floor and were
set back in the wall wit h a bevel as part of the window
sill. Other visual characteristics of this fl oor included
five pill ars supporti ng the cei ling, plaster wall s, and a
parquet fl oor.
A hal lway entry/exit on the thirteenth fl oor led to
the exhibit ion space and, unl ike the fourt eent h and
fift eenth floors, here there were no doors opening to
the exterior porches and balcony of those floors. A
stairwell led from the thirteenth to the fourteenth floor.
The intenor dimensions of the fourteenth floor
\
t
\
l
1
,
I
Inner courtyard near street . Photograph by Michael Asher.

Detail of landing and steps. Photographs by Edmund Shea.
124
General view of the Clocklower.
125
127
1
-I
13t hfloor

I-
T"e

Vl..-' '-/' -- - eo....;
14th floor
==lDF==
l)I AECl OA'S
'=--:=
"0'"
o
o o
o
--1,-- --, r--=---=--...----- ;.-
II
1
I
1
,
I I
1

-.-
r;
north
15th floor
"00'
L:. ].,
... 8 0X
THE CLOCKTOWER
,
,.
Groundplan of the 13th, 14th. l Slh floorsand the clockworksof theClocktower.

NewYOfk. Courtesy: The lnstnut efOf Art and Urban Resources, N.V.C.
----
tntenor detail of clockworks.
PhOlograph by MIChael Ashe,.
three floors. The viewer would enter the exhib i ti on
space at a level where there were only windows, pass
through an area with doors and windows, and then
finally cli mb toa space which had only doors. My pro-
posal sti pulated that all exterior doors and windows
on all three fl oors be removed and kept in storage for
the length of the exhibi tion.
The intention was to enable viewers, once having
entered the interior of the installation, to find the exte-
riar to be as important to the work as the interior. So
that they would pay as much attention to the exterior
of the exhtbftcn space as they normally would to the
interior. Jwanted to merge interior and exterior con-
di tions, that is, exterior noise, ai r, light , and pollu-
tants with the condi tions exist ing in ti l e interior. I also
wanted viewers to be able to identi fy famil iar views,
north, south, east, and west, each view framed by the
windows in the interior and seen in its complete con-
text from t he balcony and porch.
The windows had, for the most part , been cov-
ered over wit h frosted glass and the doors had been
closed 10 the public, since, before this instal lation,
the space had been used as an exhi bi ton area insu-
lated from the world around it.
The exhibit ion was defined by the existi ng space
and was meant to take place wit hout distort ing or
changing the archi tectural integri ty of t he area in
any way.
Because of the horizontal and vert ical discont inu-
i ty of the three f loors I wanted to use the whole space
as an exhi bit ion area. I wanted t he verticali ty of the
spi ral staircase and the horizontali ty of the walkways
to deli neate pathways from which the viewer could
perceive the work: the material subtraction of stan-
dard archi tectural detai ls which had originall y been
fabricated and fastened in place in order to enclose
the space.
The viewer approached the work with the formal
cri teria att ached to t he notion of modermst art . This
included perceivi ng the total space as an instal lation.
modif icat ions wi thin that space, movement of light
across interior planes, cli mat ic condi tions (spring) on
were 31 feet by 31 feet , with a 22 foot 6 inch ceili ng
height. On either side of the room was a wi ndow set
one foot into the wall , measuring 4 feet by 3 feet.
Each window was located 11 feet 3 inches above the
floor and was horizontally centered. A 3 foot by 7 foot-4
inch door on the northwest side led to a 9 foot-wide
exterior porch which continued around the peri meter
of the fourteenth floor. The exterior wall s, from the
fourteenth floor on, were of Quarried stone, as was the
rail ing around the tourteenth-uoor porch. Representa-
tions of the American eagle, approximately 8 feet high,
were sculpted out of the same stone and placed at a
45 degree angle on top of each corner of the railing.
Also, on the east side of the porch, several steps led
to t he rooftop of t he rest of the bui lding. The interior
of the fourteenth-fJoor exhibi tion area was def ined by
brick wal ls, a cement fl oor, and steel -girder support s
which ran across the corners of the cei ling. There was
also a cast iron spiral staircase which led to the fi f-
teenth fl oor and the act ual clocktower above that f loor.
The interior dimensions of the fif teenth fl oor were
20 feet by 18 feet by 13 feet. There was one door in
the center of each wall which led to a balcony 7 feet
wide, with a wrought iron railing which surrounded
t he floor on its exteri or side. A 4- by-4 foot box con-
tained the pendulum and weights for the clock in the
tower above. The fl oor was covered in red t il e.
The interior dimensions of the clocktower i tself
were 18 feet by 18 feet, with a 16 foot 6 inch cei l ing.
The clocktower housed an elaborate gear mechanism
for the clock which was not running at the time of the
exhibition. The clock faces, which were madeof frosted
glass and featured metal roman numerals, were set
into each of the four tower wall s. Since the stai rcase
was designed to reach the clocktower through the f i f-
teent h fl oor, I left i t unencumbered and therefore had
to consider the clocktower as part of theexhibition area.
After consideri ng several ideas, I madea proposal
for a work that comprised the three top fl oors of the
building. The proposal took into consideration archi-
tectural details, such as doors and windows leading
to the exterior, which were part of the design on all
Illewlngwest toward the Clocktower fromroof of adto;OIng
bUlldmg. Photograph by Darnel Buren.
126
I
J

It' .ll .
,
'" 0 .. .,

, nlr-- -i.'
:-=r
-' ;
"

"'
. ,.

l
.

::...Jr
, ,.
1
:.... u

0
' 0-
iI

,

;1 [
J
-

,
IJ

rr.:
::JC C
I
'F
I Jl ..G
"r -c
I
l
,....
,
,
128 129
15th floor
South VIew of fifteenth-ll oor porch dunng mstananco.
Photographby Balthasar Burkhard.
VlewlOg north on flllee nth uocr during msteuaucn. Photo-
graph byDaniel Buren.
Vlewmgsouth on fift eenth floor durmg mstattanon. Photo-
graph by Daniel BUlen.
Viewing east on flfteenth floor Photograph byDame! Buren.
Vlewmgwest on fifteenth lloor. Photograph by Michael Asher.
North viewof fifteenth-floor porch during Installation.
Photograph by Balt hasar Burkhard.
14t h floor
South vrewot fourt eent h-floor porch during instal lation.
Photographby Balt hasar Burkhard.
Viewingwest on fourteenth lloaf. Photograph by Michael
Asher.
Viewingeast on fourteenth ll oor. Photograph by John Dent.
VIewingeast towardstaircaseon fourteenth floor. Photograph
by Michael Asher.
Detail of arctntectura! ornament of t he fourteenth floor porch.
Photograph by Daniel Buren.
Sout hviewof fourteenth-floor porch dunng i nstallation.
Photographby Balthasar Burkhard.
13th uoor
Wmdowdetail of thirt eenth floor, viewingsouth-west dunng
msteuenon. Photographby Balthasar Burkhard.
Thirteenth floor, viewing east toward ollice of exhibiti on space
duri ng mstettattcn. Photograph by Michael Asher.
North viewof installation III t hi rteenth floor exhibruonarea.
Installation vrewof thirteenth floor exfubmon area. Vlcwmg

north. Photographby HelenWink/Ct" .
132 133
-
Fceneenth-tccewmdcw-detail, viewmgsouthon Broadway.
Photograph by Daniel BUlen.
t he thirteent h, fourteenth, and f ifteent h floors, sounds

displaced f rom the street into t he exhibi ti on area, and
the result ing disjunction in the exhibiti on context.
Si nce there were no specifi c obj ects, from the inside
the install at ion fi rst appeared to be a tour path, guid-
ing viewers to inspect each di rect ion and level. From
t he outsi de the exhibi tion cont ai ner was a two story
architect ural addition funct ioning as a base for the
clock tower, which , prior to t his install ati on, had si m-
ply been an interior exhibi tion space.
If t he work was a metaphor for t he unfol ding of
visual experience, it was because that exhibition area
was mat eriall y and concretely defi ned as having been
actually opened to t he outer worl d. Yet from t he inside,
as well as the outside, the Clockt ower install at ion only
revealed the way in whi ch it was si t uated wi thin t he
reality of t he ci tyscape in cont rast to i ts former isola-
t ion as an exhibit ion space.
The t radit i onal way of viewing sculpt ure was pos-
si bly al tered in thi s inst all at ion si nce t he outsi de was
objecti f ied and integrated t hrough t he opening of t he
once hermet ical ly seal ed doors and windows. Viewers
were therefore unable to abst ract the exhibition space
and it s context ual surroundi ngs. And t hi s loss or re-
duct ion of t he abili ty to abst ract the install ation f rom
its surroundi ngs caused a cha nge in viewer sel t -
awareness wi thin t he i nst all at ion and possibly an
altered mode of percept ion of the surroundi ng architec-
ture. The viewer was thereby f reed from the perceptual
convent ion that had become rei t ied in the format of
recent museum and gallery installations.
It now seems t hat any means I used to effect a
decomposition (such as in this instal lation) , became
all t he more t he focus of object ifi cat ion. That is, the
installat ion objectif ied what had been used as a de-
obj ect ifying devi ce. The problem with thi s type of de-
composit ion was that the extent to which t he viewers'
mode of perception coul d be affected relied on, was
embedded in, object if ication itself. For example. in
t hi s case, an objecti vely determined sequence of ex-
ternal visual events had been juxtaposed with t he inte-
rior archi tect ural frame. This was manifested in the
way viewers would ascend the stai rcase, f reezing and
framing images of the city outside from within the
empty exhibition contai ner.
Mater ial subt raction and addi tion have become
interchangeable methods of working with in the dis-
course of art . Hist orical ly, the producer affect s the
aestheti c discourse by adding material const ructs that
are designed and designated for that di scourse (any
piece of manually worked bronze is automat ical ly reg-
istered as sculpt ure) or by subt racti ng such constructs
in a material negation designed to enter a material
discourse.
The designatory method includes element s in the
aesthet ic def inition of a work whi ch would not nor-
mall y be applied t o it s aest het ic di scourse. For the
purpose of this install at ion, designatory elements were
cl ai med and enl ist ed as determi nant s not only for t he
st ruct ure of t he work, but also for t he context of the
discou rse into which it was inserted (t he alternat ive
space, t he buil ding' s archit ect ure, the New York sky-
line, etc .) . Even t hose elements-in this instance the
wi ndows and doors- which had been removed thr ough
subtract ion became designatory in t heir absence. Sub-
tract ion became a mode of decl arat i on in t he work by
declaring what t he subt ract ive met hod had reveal ed.
The designatory met hod implies t he object i fi cation of
the elements it appropriates. But those elements are
inserted into a historical moment of di scourse where
both t he objecti f ication and t he discourse are cont in-
gent upon one another for deconst ruction.
135
\
Detatl view01north wall dUllng Install ation . photograph by
Hel en Wi nkler.
-"-
~ _
North viewof lhirteenlh -floorexhlbll tOO areadUring mstauancn.
Photograph by Balthasar Burkhard.
137
July 18-0ctober 16, 1976
Ambiente arte, dal futurismo ad oggi
Venice Biennale
Venice, Italy
Diagramct tne various install ati ons at t he Amolente Arte

Exhibition, Padiglione Cent rale Giardini di Castell o. July 18-
OCtober 16. 19 76. Courtesy; La Bi ennale di Venezia.
GUIOE TO THE AMBIENT I A RT EXHIBITION
t . D.epero. Panniliogi, TlI tl i n- Yakulov, Rodchllmko.
PUnl , lln 'l skv Oe Pi si s
2:. Kandi nsky. OiliV' S, Deill unay. VOlldemberge -Gilde-
wall. Burchilirl z. HUSlili r, Mond/ i an...an Ooesburg.
Tauber- A rp, Schlemmer , Gor in, Slu emi nsky
3. van Doesburg. Oadili-Messe, Ouchamp , Schwilters
4. Arp. Radice, Sarl ori, . Gorm, Ouc hamp, Ray, Surrea-
hSI .b hi bit io ns 1938!1!UVUW1, Poll ock. Fontana. Gall illo,
Kle,n, l<aprow
S. Nevelsc n, l<lein, Milinzonl , A rman, Segal , l<apr ow.
Oldenb urg, Ben, Walls
i . Chris lo, Oldenb urg. Paoli ni , Colombo. Schnet>"na n
ACC;II rdl , War hol , P,stoletl o
1. l nlormal ion 1966;1976
I , Palermo
t . Buren
to. Grili hilim
u . 6 euys
12: . rewm
13. Merl
14. Naumilin
I S. Kounelll s
16. Acco ncl
IT . Irwin
U. Nordman
t9. Wheel er
ttl . A sher
138
In late December 1975, I received an invitat ion to
parti cipate in a special exhibi tion whic h was organ-
ized and curated by Germano Celant in the context of
the Venice Biennale. to be held fromJuly 18 to Octo-
ber 16, 1976. I The Ambiente Arte Exhibit ion was
divided into two sections, one historical and the other
contemporary. The historical part suggested an on-
going cont i nui ty of environmental install ations in
twentieth-century art , whi le the contemporary section
would includeinstallations/works by artists as divergent
as Vito Acconci , Joseph Beuys, Daniel Buren, Dan
Graham, Robert Irwin, Jannis Kounel l is, Sol LeWi tt,
Mario Merz, Bruce Nauman, Maria Nordman, Pal ermo,
Doug Wheeler, and myself. By t he end of the foll ow-
ing March I knew t hat t he contemporary secti on of
the exhi bit ion was to focus on installation works which,
in one way or another, were supposed to relate to the
given archi tectural struct ure of the exhibition building,
the Ital ian Pavilion.
On April 1, 1976, I sent a proposal for a work to
Germano Celant and by rnid-Apr i! I had received floor
plans of the pavilion for more detail ed and specific
planning. At the t ime, my proposal read as foll ows:
As for my contribut ion to the Blerma!e, I have a
specific idea for a work in mind. This i s t o put to-
gether a lounge area in front of, or near an entry/exit
of the exhibi tion area. If, by any chance, lounge
areas have been designated for the pavili on, I would
li ke to develop them. My thinking of a lounge is a
comfor table place where visi tors may communicate
wit h one anot her on a social level . It shoul d be con-
duci ve to meeting and shari ng in a quiet and re-
laxed atmosphere. The idea will be comprised by
putt ing the lounge in a speci al ly constructed area
away from an entry/exit or immediate access areas
t o the pavi li on. Being funct ional, and very natural ,
i s important for the idea and the inquiry into i t.
At this point I am considering using sofas, chairs,
and lowtables. The designs should have someconti -
nui ty. Do you have any access to modern design or
insti tutional furnit ure which would be considered
indoor lounge furn i ture? I would like to keep the
design as simple as possible for each element. If it
is necessary, I would al so like to have access to
floor coveri ngs such as carpet or coco mat. I would
like the chairs and sofas to be at the same height
and the tables a li ttl e lower. If possible, I would li ke
to have access to natural dayl ight with a si mple
incandescent light ing to supplement dayl ight and
be used during the evenings. The amount of fumi-
ture and the way in which i t is arranged wil l be de-
pendent on the gi ven area. Thi s might be a good
t ime t o send f l oor plans and any ot her vi sual
informat ion, such as photos, which you think I might
need to further prepare.
In the contemporary section, each of the arti sts
had a separate space for hi s/her contributio n so that
each work was isolated from the works around i t. Indi -
vidual inst all at ions were connected by passageways.
I received and studied the floor plan and sawthat
an area had been set aside for a coffee bar. Germano
Celant 's proposal that I use a nearby space, adjacent
on the southside to an outdoor pat io east of the coff ee
bar, seemed acceptab le for my inst all ati on, which
would assume the func tions of a lounge. In a letter
dated Apri l 11, 1976, I replied 10 Germano CelanI
with the foll owing statements:
Next , I wish to inquire about the area on the fl oor
plan you have suggested for my use. Can the corri-
dor wall be removed or perhaps the f irst half be
removed? Is t he open space in front of t he building
and coff ee bar covered wi th a roof ? Is th is a pat io
area? Would it be possible to integrate the coffee
bar (i f i t is working) and the open space in front , i f
it is enclosed? Perhaps this would keep my contri -
bution to the Biennale more true to a lounge, wi th
insti tut ional or designers' furni ture in a lounge area,
rather t han a room . .. . I am st ill thinking that it is,
perhaps, best to keep the furni ture as casual and
simple as possible. An archi tect and a couple of
institut ions have been used for resource materials.
I am now looking for benches wi thout backs and
I
[J 6[J
c:
7
1:\ .'
I 1
W
17
.,._ -
:::::J ' H
9
10

15
I
19

11
0 2
"
20
.-J1LJ[J

12 13
"
"
, , ,
/ I
LJ
139
- -'-
140
some type of folding chai r, but I sti lt must see t he
Bi ennal e sit e before a selection can be made. I feel
t he furn i ture should defin i tely be of the country' s
ori gi n that is sponsoring t he exhi bi t ion in order to
signi fy certai n symbols and feeli ngs of t hat country.
Since t he pat io functioned as a main entry/exit , I
thought that it might be used as an outdoor area where
chairs f rom the proposed installation could be conve-
nientl y moved by t he vi si tors. The install at ion could
t hen f unct ion as an indoor lounge with access to a
garden pat io surrounded by landscaped areas where
visitors could rest , much like t hose found in muse-
ums and off ice and apartment buildings. The pat io
area formed on the sout h-east side an off-s et radi us
of 7.2 met ers on th e east -west axi s and 5.00 meters
on the north-south axis. At a height of 6.00 meter s an
overhang complet ely covered t he pat io and foll owed
it s perimeter.
On th e nort h side of t he area all ocated for my
installat ion, space had been designated for t he instal-
lat ion of a work by Douglas Wheeler and on t he west
side an area had been designated for t he work of Bruce
Nauman. The actual interi or install at ion area set aside
for my use measured 10.49 meters by 5.00 meters
by 8.38 meters. On t he north side of t he area was a
passageway of 2.72 meters high and 1.80 meters wide,
whi l e a second passage 2. 97 met ers high and 1. 67
meters wide led fr om thi s area into the pat io. A sky-
li ght in t he center of t he room- 9.03 meters by 3.00
meters, more than half the size of t he ceil ing- provided
natural l ight. I had t he wall s covered wit h stucco and
then painted white. The parquet fl oor was sanded and
t reated to highlight t he grain.
An original interior passageway t hat I had planned
to use after seeing t he phot ographs of the designated
area, had been closed off short ly before I arr ived. This
passageway was as necessary to my work as t he pas-
sageway to t he exterior si nce it guaranteed that view-
ers had access to and f rom my work and the adj acent
exhibit ion area. The passageway al so reinforced t he
f unct ion of my work as a lounge area for exhi bi t ion
visitors.
The curator and architect of t h exhibi t ion refused,
however, to have this passageway reopened, which de-
layed t he install ation of my work and resulted in a
seemingly unr esolvabl e conflict. From June 2 1 to July
2 1, 1976, I cont inued to work on thi s project in Ven-
ice (i nterrupted by several trips to di st ributors and man-
ufact urers in MinaI and Bologna in search of chairs
for t he installation), whle trying to resolve the impasse.
On July 18, the day of t he openi ng, seven art ists
- Dan Graham, Vito Acconci, Daniel Buren, Jannis
Kounell is, Mari a Nordman, Mar io Merz, and Palermo
- signed a pet i t ion which had been draughted by two
of t hem. It read as fol lows;
" Ambi ente" represents a very unique si t uat ion ,
where, fr om concept t o execut ion, art ists' propos-
als and t heir real izat ion have been devel oped in a
spi rit of open rapport between organizer and art ists,
and also between art i st s. The exhi bi t ion f unct ions
as a totality, altering or losing anyone work detract s
from every ot her work and sense of the original in-
tent for t he exhibit ion. For t hi s reason the signers
of t his st atement bel ieve that if the work of Michael
Asher cannot be executed exactly as he intends,
not only i s t his work lost, but t he purpose of t he
exhibit ion destroyed.
The pet it ion was present ed to t he curator and he
took not ice of it. I believe it was on the st rengt h of
th is pet it ion t hat two days before I left Venice, a pas-
sageway was f inal ly cut into t he northwest corner of
the area all ocated for my work. The passageway mea-
sured 4.27 meters high and 60 centi meters wi de. It
was cut through t he west wall , between my installa-
t ion area and that of Bruce Nauman's work. Its hei ght
was determined by t he height of t he cei li ng in Nau-
man' s install at ion area (where an add i t ional cei li ng
const ruction had been install ed at a lower level spe-
ci f ic to t he purpose of hi s work). Finally, t he passage-
way was stuccoed and f i nished l ike t he rest of my
install ation area.
I deci ded to use twenty- two folding stool s to cre-
Product Intcrmatlon on stool used in the install ation (front) .

Product information on stool used In install ation (back).
ate a seati ng area. The act ual stool model, which I
had seen in a number of It al ian design journals before
I left Venice, Cali forni a, was designed by J. Gammel -
gaard and was produced in Italy by Strutt ure d' interni of
Bologna, under license fr om Design Forum. Unfolded,
the stool was 57 centi met ers long. 46 cent imeters
wide and 40 cent imeters high . Chromi um- plated steel
wit h a nat ural canvas seat, t he stools could be easi ly
moved and visitor s coul d cl uster t hem in di ffe rent pat -
terns as t hey chose. I wanted the stools to be of de-
signer quality, the kind t hat might ordi nari ly be found
in a living room or lounge along wi t h ot her fi xt ures,
such as designer tables, chairs, and sofas, rather t han
si mple wooden ones with no parti cu l ar design or
funct ion. I decided t o use a light stool not only for
pract ical reasons, but al so as an alternat ive t o t he
usual, ponderous insti t ut ional seat ing arrangement s
which , in many instances, all ow for no variat ion in
physical points of vi ew.
I decided on the number twent y-two after meas-
uring t he avai lable seat ing area, in order to avoid over-
crowdi ng and t o all ow at th e same ti me for t he
comfortable arrangement of various sized groupi ngs.
The stools arrived from t he manufact urer before
t he interior passageway was constructed. Soon after
my depart ure, t hey were placed in the install ation area
when the passageway was completely fin ished.
Thi s wor k was speci fically design ed f or t he
Ambient e Arte Exhibi ti on at t he Venice Bier male, a
unique event with high visi tor att endance. The work
ceased to exist aft er Oct ober 16 , 19 76 , when th e
install at ion was dismantled and th e chairs wer e
dispersed.
The intent ion of t he Venice Bi ennale work was to
establi sh a relat ionship between a seati ng area and
i ts archit ectu ral sett i ng. This was in oppositi on to t he
exhibit ion theme which was not directl y concerned
wi th t he f unct ional el ement s of t he architect ural
context. Instead of focusing on an abstract not ion and
tradi t ion of archi tect urally related art , t he work shi fted
its intent ion to an actual archi tectural f unct ion wit hin
exhibition pract ice, such as the funct ionally neces-
141
I
sary lounge or seating area for visit ors. The work thereby
avoided being read as j ust anot her work wi t hi n t he
histori cal discourse of archi tecturally situated works.
The work attempted to indicate to what extent
tradit ional modes of aesthethic product ion (e.g.. paint -
ing and sculpture) took on architectural cl aims in cer-
tain envi ronmental works. At the same t ime, t he work
tr ied t o clari fy the extent t o which these archit ectural
clai ms aesthet icized and reif ied t he f uncti onal appear-
ance of archit ecture by depriving it of its use-val ue.
This work t herefore attempted to dislodge t he prob-
lem inherent in works which, having their source i n
color-f ield paint ing, ext racted a new aestheti c prac-
t ice f rom an archi tect ural t radi t ion that had suffered
from t he fallacy of assuming that social progress would
aut omat ical ly coincide wit h arch it ect ural funct ion and
aesthet ic practice. It is only through the work's essen-
tia l limitat ion as a f unct ional lounge or seati ng area in
this part icular exhibit ion context that it can redeem
itself , as aesthetic practi ce, f rom t hese fal se cl ai ms.
By being li mited to t his speci f ic exhibi t ion and
it s thematic and temporal frame, the work allowed for
an expl ici t subject-object relat ionship , whose uti li tar-
ian features were valid onl y wit hin t hat fr amework. As
a contextually bound, uni que instance of act ual use-
value, t hi s work denied, at the same t ime, the cl aim
for use-value as a universal conditi on or possibility
wi thi n art ist ic practice.
It was different , in this respect. from insta llati ons
which were disguised as archi tecture, but were actu-
all y made of props. These may have created t he im-
pression of a redi str ibut ion of arch itect ural space,
through the use of fal se wall s and light ing, to speci fy
and determine t he way in which the viewer should
perceive t he work. For t he same reason, these install a-
t ions may have displaced or destroyed elements t hat
were ori gi nall y integral to the architectural space. By
ignoring bot h t he archit ectural givens and funct ions
of t he space, and t he viewers' int eraction wi t h those
givens, t hese instal lat i ons extr acted funct ions from
arch it ectu re, and objectified t he viewers' experience
by overshadowing their percept ion of t he preexisting
142
archit ectura l context.
Furt hermore, thi s type of work did not respond to
the speci fic purposes of the archi tect ure, as exhibition
architect ure, but instead transf ormed it into a specta-
cl e in order to confi rm the ideological presuppositi ons
of t he exhi bit ion topi c. My work, on the other hand,
confi rmed t he exhi bit ion topic, by negating the topic's
valid ity in direct response both to the archit ect ural
situation where the exhi bi ti on was instal led, and to
t he viewers ' needs wi thin that sit uat ion.
Another type of work in the exhibit ion tr ied to
ani mate a given space wit h ali en elements or meted-
als t hat were abst ract in relat ion to their spat ial con-
text . But, paradoxicall y enough , t hese were perceived
as part icularl y concrete elements. The intense pres-
ence of these objec ts in the ir abstracted spaces was
the result of a t heat ri cal disjunct between t he exhi bi-
t ion's and the viewer's real ity. Whil e the architectural
inst all at ions pretended t hat the viewer 's experi ence
was exclusively determined by abst racting percep tual
elements from arch itectural condit ions (e.g., light ,
surfaces, volume, and color), the theatrical install a-
ti ons assert ed that only objects, independent of t heir
surrounding architect ural frame (as well as the ir his-
torical and soci al frames) coul d determine the experi-
ence of t he viewer.
In my work, the presence of the t heat rical prop,
and the illusion of the archi t ectu ral prop, were ex-
cl uded by foregrounding the object's potent ial use-
val ue . In spite of t he f act th at exhibi tion-value
was unavoidably imposed on t he objects wit hin my
work, they maintained t heir use-val ue as t heir primary
quality. The objects in t he theatr ical install at ions trans-
formed t heir potent ial use-val ue into exclusive exhibi -
t ion-value by suspending their potent ial functi on, thus
becoming a unique and moment ary i llusion in real i ty.
The met hodology of t he ready-made framed ob-
jects and abst ract ed them fr om their use-value to
imbue them wi th exhibit ion-value al one. The met hod-
ology of thi s work negated t hat , however, si nce the
objects of my installat ion retained t heir common use
inside t he exhibit ion. My work responded both to the
histori cal condi t ions and t o the present state of instal-

lat ion work. First of all , the context of t he exhi bit ion,
in all its ideological and concrete dimensions, deter-
mined the choice of objects and material s. These el e-
ments were defi ned by t heir use-value wi t hi n th is
situat ion. Simul taneousl y, by opposing both th e sus-
pension of use-value in the ready-made, and a strict
f unct ionali st red uct ion of t he obj ect i n an over-
determined use-val ue si t uat ion, t he design objects in
the work fun ct ioned as a quotat ion from the cont em-
porary vernacular. Furthermore, in cont radi st inct ion
to t he oth er inst all at ions in th e exhib ition, which
reaff irmed the distance between aut hor and audience,
thi s work emphasized the viewer's presence and needs.
The stools I had chosen were specifical ly ident if i-
able as designer objects. Yet the fact t hat they were
mass-produced and looked mass-produced all owed
them to be seen as mere raw material . I felt that t hey
could be seen as not hing more t han raw material, in
the same way tha t t he st ucco wall s or wooden floor
could be seen as raw material. To al l appearance. the
stools were auth ored and produced under condi t ions
which were external t o my work. The arti st' s determi-
nat ion of the material and formal elements of the work
was denied by t he appropriation of a given object from
cont emporary design vernacular. At the same t ime,
individual authorship was negat ed as a result of the
viewer' s potential use of the work. The negat ion of
authorship also quest ioned t he clai m to uniqueness
t hat tended to def ine th e architecturally related works
in the exhi bi tion. This claim was implicit in th eir
method of install at ion. Aut horship in my case con-
sisted of assuming responsibil ity for t he actual opera-
ti on of my work and for i ts insert ion with in t he gi ven
discourse; al though it did not involve defi ning mate-
ri al produ ct ion . That would have indivi duated the
auth or.
This work int roduced a mass-produced cultural
artifact into a unique high-art context in the same way
t hat unique obj ects of high cul t ure can enter the de-
sign vernacu lar and acquire t he sta t us of mass-
produced f unct ional objects.
While the appropriati on of a supposed high -art
obj ect and it s transformat ion into a commod ity are
taken for grant ed cul tural ly, the funct ional int egra-
t ion of a designer objecUcommodi ty into a supposed
high-art context seems to be very problemat ic, if not
culturally unacceptable. The concept of ut i li tarian prac-
ti ce is unacceptable within the tr adit ional def ini t ion
of high art . Since high-art practi ce conti nues to main-
tain the idea of an aut onomous, purposeless pract ice,
its conflic t wit h ut ilitarian pract ice cannot be resolved
by attempt ing to integrate uti li tar ian pract i ce wi t hin
hi gh art.
The funct ional and vernacular quotat ions within
t he work were not suff icient ly particularized to be im-
mediately located and identified within t he discourse
of high cul t ure. At th e same t ime, t hey were not
suff icientl y general i zed and anonymous to be auto-
mat icall y ident i fied as a f eature of popul ar cul t ure.
The hybri d of contemporary design seems to repre-
sent t he historical possibi lity of an integrat ion of aes-
t het i c practi ce wi t h ut ili tarian pr acti ce. Certa in
cont emporary arti sts seem to be increasingly attracted
to the supposed integration of ut i litarian design and
aest het ic production, si nce th is int egration would re-
solve the spli t between soci al- poli t ical pract ice and
aest het ic pract ice. In fact , rather t han resolving this
spli t , thi s int egrat ion actually fal sifies any political per-
spect ive since it shi fts t he art ist' s attention fr om t he
actual soci al condi ti ons to an exclu sive concern with
matters of design. This kind of ut ili tar ian pract ice gen-
erates and styli zes t he reification of soci al- political
goals. In this way, my work in Ambient e Arte att empted
to deal with t he moderni st trad it ion of high-art prac-
t ice whi ch is total ly isolated from the social-pol it ical
goals of a ut il it arian practice with in t he hi storical con-
text of an exhibi t ion.
Design language embod ies t he myth of individu-
ali ty in t he form of supposedl y funct ional , industriall y
produced commodit ies. The del iberate use of designer
stools, rat her than si mple funct ional objects, mirror s
the myth of indiv idual art i sti c production in t he aes-
thet i c real ity of t he work. Si nce t he designer stool s
143, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ... -----
--"" =r"
Viewof installation with enlry/exlt towardpane. Photographer
unknown.
Viewof Installati onwith passage toward other exhibi t ion
areas. Photographer unknov.....n.
Exterior of pauowith entry/exit tomstauancnareaat the
Pa(hgl ione Centrale. Photographby MIchael Asher
operated in the work as both a quotat ion f rom design
language and a funct ional object of use-value- one
seemingly negati ng the other- they became a model
which revealed t he degree of cont radict ion wi thin indi -
vidual aestheti c produc tion.
I CQn!wy to the ml orma\lOll given on page 20 10 t he catalogue Michael
Ashe! EXhibiti ons m Europe 1972- 1977. Stedetnk van Abbe Museum,
Emdheven. 1980. t he Venice ~ f l n a l e Amblente AIle u lubilron did not
open unhl July 18 and ended on cctooer 16, 1976.

Facsnmle of letter of support wrtnart ists' signatures.
144
,
145
RICHARD LONG
~ .. " ,
o 5 1011
Groundpfan of LAICAby Lawrence Kenny. o
o
DAVID ASKEVOLD
MICHAEL ASHER
~
'"
. ,
. 0
r ~
"'
L -.
0 0
0
148
the LAICA bookshop and t he open oHice area visible
at t he east end of the exhi bi t ion space. The area was
equipped with only a f ewchairs, a couch, and a table,
as wel l as a coff eemaker and whatever else would be
needed by the paid part icipan ts so that they would be
comfortable for their six hour dail y sti nt. The chai rs
and tables were placed so as to be easil y seen by vlsl -
tor s from the entry on t he north -east side.
In principle, the paid part icipants were expect ed
to be present for t he full six hours, but they did have
the option to l eave or interrupt t heir stay at any t ime
duri ng l he day. A time sheet recording t he hours that
t hey actua lly spent in the work was kept by t he secre-
tary. The paid parti cipan t s were free to pursue their
day-to-day activi t ies as usual in as much as t he con-
text of the si t uation would al low t hem to do so, Five
participants did such things as read and wri te, and
one of t hem edi ted a film. Not hing was required of
t he part ici pant s othe r t han their presence wit hin the
actual installati on area or withi n t he conf ines of t he
LAICA exhibi t ion space. Presence was temporari ly de-
f ined by arrival or depar t ure in the buil ding. The defi -
nition of presence was f lexible enough, however, to
encompass rel ocat ion of the couch for one afternoon
to a place outside t he glass curtai n wall , facing Olym-
pi c Boulevard, in a posit ion corresponding exactly to
it s previous placement inside the build ing.
The definit ion of presence also hinged on the paid
participants' percept ual and cogni t ive response to the
work, as well as their interact ion among themselves
and with visitors to the exhi bit ion. I chose part icipants
mostly by telephone, from a list I had drawn up f rom
suggestions, made by fri ends, acquaintances and ot her
people according to categories of professional activ-
ity. The activities ranged from housewife and student ,
to a very small number of professional s, such as art i st,
manufacturer of architect ural model s, arch itect , art
cri tic, and art dealer. Among the act ual part icipants
who f inal ly agreed to cooperat e were two art ists, sev-
eral st udents. an art Cri t ic, an alternat ive-space cura-
tor, two housewives, an art s-and-crafts inst ructor, and
a photographer. The number of act ual parti ci pants in-
creased through word of mouth , or by visi tors' di rect
response to the work as the exhi bi tion proceeded. The
composi t ion of each group differed from day to day
and generated a different dynamic and understand-
ing within t he group and inside the work. It some-
times happened that the group remained t he same
si nce new part icipant s were unavailable. It al so hap-
pened that all of the part icipants were unknown to
each ot her. On ot her occasions, some part icipants al -
ready knew one anot her, or all of t he parti cipants had
previously met out side the context of the work,
I did not attend t he work daily nor did I neces-
sarily stay for the full six hours when I visi ted the
exhibi ti on. Just as t he part icipants were und er no
obligat ion, so were the visi tors free to ei ther acknowl -
edge t he presence of the part ici pants by talking t o
them, or even joining them , or they could ignore t hem
alt ogether. The desks of t he staff were approximately
16 feet away f rom my work area, and both t he staff
and t he parti cipants could overhear and view each
others' activit ies t hroughout t he day. Thus an exchange
of observat ions and exper iences between sal aried
employees, working in the inst it ut ion, and paid partici -
pant s, working in the installat ion of my work, occurred
intermi ttent l y throughout the day. Unlike t he paid
employees and the paid part icipants, the visitors-the
third group capable of interact ion in thi s si tuat ion-
did not receive pecuniary compensation for their pres-
ence in the work.
It was suggest ed that all of the paid part icipa nt s
and the artist meet at the concl usion of the exhibit ion
to descr ibe coll ect ively their experiences in the work .
As indicat ive as this proposal might have been of a
sust ai ned int erest i n t he work, it seemed t otall y con-
t rary to its spi rit, si nce it implied that t he work was
dependent on my mediati on and presence, rather t han
independent of it. This obviously di d not prevent my
speaki ng with individual part icipant s duri ng and after
t he installation about how they perceived t he work, and
how t hey def ined themse lves in relat ion to it.
It was hoped that this installation would serve as
a model for a locus outside of academic, commerci al,
or pri vate social si tuations, where discussion and st udy
could take place, Thi s seemed a parti cu larl y pressing
need at the t ime for individuals who were either prac-
t ieing art ist s or directly concerned with the question
of contemporary art pract ice, but who-in t he vast
urban sprawl of contemporary Los Angeles-were fairl y
isolated in spite of their common int erests,
The st ructure of the work was not a collaborati on
between an art ist and paid part ici pant s, but the ere-
etten of the art ist alone, If t here was any collaboration
with in t he work, it was among t he pai d part icipants.
On t he ot her hand, the function of the work was deter-
mined by bot h the artist and the part ici pants; while
performing their funct ion wit hin t he defined st ruct ure,
parti cipant s act ed as indi vid uals or as a group in
coll aboration, modifyi ng their funct ion according to
t heir needs or the si tuation. For example, one part ici-
pant quest ioned t he li mi ts of the work, and whet her
t hey extended into his day-to-day existence in as much
as the compensation for the work enabled him to pay
for hi s food and housing, Another participant described
his understanding of the collaborative effort as follows:
I don' t reall y wish to 'evaluate' the work, since
doi ng so woul d tend to f ix it , concept ually; to render
it st atic. A good deal of aesthet ic producti on seems
intentional ly amenable to formal analysi s, but t he
applicat ion of that approach to work which is, by
nat ure, process rather than obj ect, seems ludi crous.
Nevertheless, a good deal of formal analysis is
object ionable primarily for its posit ivisti c restr ict ion
to what is-whereas we can devel op formal model s
of negative facts, as well . What fol lows, then , is a
model of a ' progressive' art , with whi ch Michael
Asher' s piece may be compared, cont rasted, and,
in some sense, evaluated. As against the escapism,
manipulat ion. and out right stupidity of mass culture;
in opposit ion to the el i tism and superf ici ali ty of so
much high cul t ure, we might hold out for an art
which (a) conta ins a moment of liberat i on, in which
the sensuous aspect s of human nature are devel -
oped (especi ally as concerns human relat ionships);
(b) cont ains a tel eological moment , i n which the
moment of liberation is, t hrough the attainment of
a cri tical distance, cont rasted with the steri l ity and
inhumanity of bourgeois exchange relations and t heir
cult ural reverberat ions; and (c) social ly organizes
the mediations (f orms) in such a way that the etten-
dant aesthet ic experience is co-det ermined by al l
part icipan ts. as a way of moving towards oblitera-
t ion of the dist inction between (i .e., synthesizing)
producer and consumer. ( Why thi s is progressive is
another exegesis which, unfortunately, space doesn't
permit.)
Does Asher's work sati sfy any of t hese require-
ment s?Whatever hi s intentions (which I won't pre-
sume to int ui t), I beli eve t hat i t does move in that
di rect ion, I've empirical evidence for the f irst point:
the occasions on which I was present were marked
by highly enjoyable di scussion and debat e, and
t hough our relat ions, as part i ci pant s, remained
mediated. t he individuals and not t he medi ations
seemed to predominat e. We confronted one anot her
as people, not as instrument s, Second, the work
was rife with moments of " critical distance. " (One
might say t hat t his was due to the people, not t he
piece, but the selection of participants was an aspect
of t he piece.) The t hi rd cri terion is more di fficult to
meet. and it i s perhaps here where t he work's con-
cessions to t he status-quo become more apparent.
Although we could determine the nature of our par-
t i cipat ion within t he piece , it s limi ts and defini t ion
were f undament all y under Asher' s control. Further,
it will be seen (appropriated?) as "Mi chael Asher' s
piece at LAICA, " not as a coll aborat ive endeavor
- and so forth . Nevertheless, these conclusions are
the result of an analysis nurtured by the work i tself ,
and the fact that one is able to become cri t ical of ,
and questi on, the basis of t hat work j ust might (in
it s impet us toward eventual transcendence of t he
given form) be its most progressive aspect.
Frederi ck Dolan
Los Angeles Inst itute of Contemporary Art ,
January 15-February 10, 1977.
149
Viewingeast in i nstallati on, showmggroup of paid participantsand visitors
in exhibi tionareaandsecretaryat work inoffice/bookstorearea.
Viewing west fromsecretary's desk i nto installati on area
toward west wall . Phofographs by Bob Smith.
150
A thi rd participant who withdrew aft er having col-
laborated for a short period of t ime, gave her reasons
in the foll owing lett er;
January 23, 1977
Dear Michael :
After spending approximately seven and a half
hours under your employment (i n conjunction wi th
the National Endowment for the Arts) and after seri-
ous thought about that situation, I fi nd i t necessary,
on several grounds, to termi nate my part ici pat ion
in your show at LAICA.
Knowing your penchant for documentation and
my inabi li ty to communicate concisely on a verbal
level, I thought it best that I state my posit ion in
writing.
Other partici pant s have indicated that payment
was problematic. I find that aspect of the work most
intriguing; money is as val id a basis for transact ion
as any structure facil itat ing social intercourse. Under
theseci rcumstances, such a financial arrangement
seems to act as a lubricating agent -between the
audi encelvi ewer, t he administrati on, yourself as
arti st/employer and the other part icipant s. To some
degree a simple contract ual agreement (ti me in ex-
change for wages hourly) assuages any gui lt or other
emotional complication that might arise froma more
conditional exchange i.e. friendship or volunteerism.
Such a si t uation also tends to mi nimize role con-
flicts that might occur between, let us say, students,
other art ists, tradesmen, administrators, etc. and
better pinpoints the implici t relationship between
the audience and att endents.
In the case of the LAICA show, however, the
pol itics are much more compli cated. Just what do
we have? My presumpt ion is that you were invited
to show new work by two co-curators, worki ng with
LAICA who were working with the Nati onal Endow-
ment of the Arts, who funded the event. I think about
your earli er work and wonder if the dynamics of the
above situati on might have been adequate fert ile
grounds for work; you have rejected that possibl ity
f or whatever reason.
" Social interaction," you say: big concept-
encompassi ng at the least. As a concept, social
interaction is inherently pomt less with in, shall we
say, a pointed structure. As a physical act uali zat ion,
in this case, such interaction seemed aggressive in
a convoluted kind of way.
Perhaps my response to this aggression is the
crux of my disturbed react ion to thi s work. (I might
interject here that I am ful ly cogni zant of the fact
that I am not out of this piece at this point-equally
as di sarming.) Being present at LAICA, I was aware
that I was someone else contextuall y; t hat I was
helplessly, hopelessly arting. I was art ing my lunch
and arting my coffee. The fact that nearly al l dis-
course (limi t ed as i t was) taking place was art-
referent ial was blackly humorous but not particularly
relevant. Social interaction = art discourse. Largest
common denominator. I' d rather be pointing some-
where else.
I regret that I am unable to take these various
thought s and synthesize them adequately. Perhaps
that is unnecessary.
With fond regards,
Sally
In moderni st aesthetic practice , the idea of col -
laboration seemsto compromise indi viduation, one of
the essential aesthetic principles held within this prac-
tice up to now. This work insist s upon the individual
artist's aut onomy as much as it insists upon the ne-
cessity of collaboration wi thi n social product ion as a
functional means and necessary condi tion for produc-
ing a work of art. In traditional modernist practice,
aesthetic product ion must evidence i t self as having
been individually conceived and real i zed so that the
spectacle of supposed primary inventi on can be read.
This work, however, resisted the traditional reading of
arti st ic practi ce by increasing the visitors' awareness
of the contradict ion between the author' s presence in
the definition of the work and the participant 's/viewer' s
social interaction in the reali zation of the work. The
idea of individua tion operates wi thin artistic practice
as a model refl ect ing socio-economic pract ice which,
as it seems, out of its own necessity, determines a
division of social funct ions and thereby categorizes,
strati fies, and isolates individuals in social production.
The division of these funct ions is visi bly embodied in
the work's constructi on of separate yet integrated
elements, ranging from t he author's pract ice to the
participant' s practice and from the presence of the
visitors to the presence of the admi nistration. Further-
more, this division of functions was cl early exempli -
fied and incorporated in my concept f or the design of
the catalogue cover and contents page, which distin-
guished insti tution , admi nist rator, and organizers of
the exhi bit ion (on the cover) from the producers of
the works in the exhibit ion (on the cont ents page).
By integrat ing these separate functions (author,
visi tor, part icipant, administrator) within the work, the
work remained free of the economic stratification in-
herent in the division of these functions.
Traditionally, art constructs such as paint ing and
sculpture have addressed the viewer through a process
of objecti ficat ion. Even works constructed in film and
video confront the viewer wit h objects of mediation,
and performance activities appear either to be objecti-
fied in theatri cal ity or mediated through their scul p-
tural obj ecti fications. The viewer may perceive a work
of art as embodying authorshi p t hrough an objecti fied
mediating device, so that the artist is considered in-
separable from the work, As long as the viewer can
identi fy the work wit h the author, a comfortable dis-
tance obt ains between the viewer and the work. If the
viewer perceives t he author wit hin the object, the ob-
ject is necessarily anthropomorphized. Yet, personi fi-
cat ion and objecti ficatio n prevent the viewer from
recognizing the work's cont i ngent relati onship to a
wider historical and social discourse. The integration
of the arti st wi th the object makes it possible to differ-
ent iat e the roles of author, viewer and mediator. In
thi s way, individuals responsible for delivery, mediation,
and recepti on can be easily identi fied and maintained
within a subject -obj ect relationshi p.
The LAICA installation, however, distanced work
and artist by appearing to rel ieve me of my responsi bil-
i ty as aut hor. Since the paid partici pants as subjects
mediated the work to the viewers and to themselves,
viewers were unable to personi fy or objectify them in
the work, nor could they distance themselves from
the work by means of these viewing conventions. But
if the viewers were to personifyl objecti fy the paid parti -
cipants in the work, it would probably involve trans-
forming them into eit her a reified theatr ical spectacle
or a reified aesthetic experience. This would instant ly
alienate the viewers from their presence as indi viduals.
In confronting this moment of alienation, the viewers
reali ze that in the conventi onal response to works of
art this process of reificat ion is deferred either to t he
object or t o the author. If the viewers real ize that their
aest hetic expectat ion and response is intri nsically
linked to this process of reif ication , they would also
suspect that this work requires a transformation of
their experience. This leaves them wi th t he responsi-
bil ity which, in traditi onal aesthetic pract ice and per-
ception, was deferred t o either aut hor or object.
Viewers would, therefore, real ize that ulti mat ely
the paid participants, the insti tutional staff, the arti st,
t he curators, and they themselves were operating in-
extricably within a collaborati ve effort. In a collabo-
rat ive work that seems to negate individuation, and
in which the focus is redirect ed both from the artist
and the object to the viewer as subject , the primacy
of invention, as a concept traditi onally necessary t o
aestheti c production, becomes disfunct ional . The de-
sire for a unique aesthetic experience thr ough arti sti c
invention is analogous to the desire to acquire indi vid-
uality in a producUcommodi ty. Artist ic invention tra-
dit ionall y deflect ed the viewers' desire from indi vidual
and social realit ies because i t seemed to promise a
unique experience that was synonymous wi th the myth
of individuali t y, originality, and innovation. In this way
the concept of invention prevented the viewers from
reflect ing their own individual and social real ities back
upon themselves.
151
152
The fulfi ll ment of these aesthet ic expectat ions
seems to result in the neglect of the viewers' actual
individual and social reality. Through loss of individ-
uality, the viewers attempt to invest each aesthet ic
const ruct with the invention that seems to al low them
to reacquire that indi viduality.
Some viewers might have fel t that the work re-
duced their experience to a posit ivist aff irmation of
thei r given moment ary real ity. This reducti on of expe-
rience in the work would imply a deprivat ion of arti st ic
and sensual pleasure, aestheti c ant icipa t ion, specu-
lat ive transgression, and a deni al of cri tica l analysis.
Such a reading of t he work was to be expected from
viewers whoapproachedthe workwith those traditional
aesthetic expectations. By negati ng thei r own presence
and insist ing instead upon the presence of aest het ic
objects, these viewers would have denied t heir own
percept ion of the work. Whether t he work was viewed
as a denial of aest het ic experience, or misperceived
as a sculptural installat ion, i t was a falsely attr ibuted
object status that suggested rei fication of both the
specific work of the paid part icipants and the author.
If t his semblance of reitication alienated the viewer
from the work, i t did so onl y in order t o all ow the
viewer to recognize the mechanisms of rei fication.
Modernist aesthetic tradit ion required that the
work of art be essenti ally wi thout purpose, t hat is,
free of any uti li tarian funct ion. And it had to convey
at the same time a sense of the highest facility and
craftsmanship; yet , paradoxically, It had to conceal
that ski ll in order to appear as if i t had been accom-
plished wi thout effort .
The work reveals paid, al ienated labor within a
structure that is expected to embody a model of un-
alienated labor. The work is therefore consistent in its
denial of the tradi tional expectations brought by the
viewer to the work of art . The work abandons its aes-
thet ic promi seof unal ienated labor and loses its com-
modity status, once considered to be the work's last
guarantee of independence. It seems to reaffurn the
condi tion of alienation and reification wit hin the aes-
thet ic structure i tsel f. But, In fact , i t exposes the to-
153
Vlewmgeast hamwest wall ctmstauaucn area toward pa-d
pernctoaots' table. Photographs by BobSmit h.
Vlewmg west mtc adjacent exmbmcneree.
tality of reificat ion that determi nes the conditions of
aest het ic product ion and distri bution.
By mimetical ly incorporati ng the presence of the
paid partici pants as the framing support of the work,
and their labor as the subject of the work, a nonhier-
archical si tuation was created which revealed the
condi tions of material reproduct ion t hat traditional
aesthetic struct ures had promised to conceal.
-
-
;
February 8-26, 1977
Morgan Thomas at Claire Copley Gallery Inc.
Claire Copley Gallery Inc. at Morgan Thomas
918 North La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, California
2919 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, California
Tu eSDAY THROUGH SATURDAY' 12 5 PM AND BY APPT 662-0000

fEIlRUAAY 8 THROUGH FESRUAltY 12, DANia WREN
peln',"" WI" fOlie
progressive work; the Morgan Thomas Gallery on the
other hand wasa gallery where young and lesser known
local artists were given an opportunity to exhibi t for
the fi rst time. The Claire Copley Gallery regularly ad-
vert ised i ts exhi bi t ions in a major art journal ; the Mor-
gan Thomas Gallery hardly ever advertised . In spite of
these di fferences, a substant ial number of people
within the community who were act ively interested in
the arts regularly visit ed and supported both gall eries,
and the art communtiy's adherence to the two galler-
ies was generally equal . Also, both gallery owners mu-
tually supported each other' s activi ties and programs.
Taking all of these diff erences int o account as
well as the gal leries' shared interest in my work, I sug-
gested to Claire Copley and Morgan Thomas that they
jointly and simult aneously install one of my works. I
further posed that they exchange their gallery spaces
for a regular exhibition period. The proposal sti pulated
that all regular day-to-day functions of both galleries,
incl udi ng the install at ion of works of art ists whom they
represented, would haveto be carried out in the other's
space. The proposal also sti pulated that t he art ist s
and works to be shown simul taneousl y were to be se-
lected by the gall ery owners and I did not have to be
informed of their choice. It was agreed as well that
the art ists exhibiting during thi s ti me would be in-
formed about my install ation. All obj ects necessary
for the continuat ion of regular gallery business (i. e. .
typewri ter, fi les, photographs, li brary, desks, and
chairs) would remain in place unless ei ther part did
not agree to the use of the other 's equipment duri ng
the exhi bi tion. Furthermore, t elephone calls would be
either forwarded by a telephone exchange service or,
during gallery hours, be direct ly forwarded by the gal-
lery owners or their secretaries. Obviously all other
secretarial act ivit ies woul d also be carried out in the
other gallery's space.
On November 20, 1976, , asked Claire Copley
whether she would be willing to consider the proposal
for her gallery. At first, she was reluctant to accept on
the grounds that her mtegrity as a dealer would not
allow her to exhibit artists' work i n a space other than
This work opened t wo days before the installation at
the Los Angeles Institute of Contemporary Art con-
cl uded. Some time in early November, I was asked.
almost simu lt aneously by two Los Angeles gallery
owners, to have an exhibi tion. Claire Copley, with whom
I had already exhibi ted in J974 (s. page 95 I, asked
me to do a second exhibit ion at the same locati on.
Morgan Thomas, who owned a gallery on Santa Mon-
ica Boulevard, invi ted me to show for the f irst t ime in
her space. The Claire Copley Gallery was sit uated at
streellevel on La Cienega Boulevard, an area where
most of the Los Angeles galleries were located. and
received a steady f low of gal lery visi tors. Morgan
Thomas was located in Santa Monica some twenty-
five minutes' drive away, on the far west side of Los
Angeles, on the second fl oor of a building on Santa
Monica Boul evard. This area of Santa Moni ca was
mainl y a small business di str ict. and had onl y a few
isolated art galleries and therefore comparabl y fewer
gallery visitors. Claire Copley's gall ery had beena com-
mercial storefront space, now transformed into a gal-
lery with a square footage of approximately three times
the size of the Morgan Thomas space which was a
former apartment , transformed into a relatively small
exhibit ion space. There were two signs ident ifying the
Claire Copley Gallery, one painted on the front win-
dow and another larger sign mount ed on the front of
the building; the Morgan Thomas space wasannounced
to the publ ic by a small inscri ption on the door of the
building. The works on exhibit ion at the Claire Copley
Gallery could be seen from the storefront window; the
Morgan Thomas space had three smal l windows on
the second fl oor that had been drywalled over to all ow
for more exhibi ti on wal l surface. The Claire Copley
Gallery showed East-Coast and European artists as fre-
quentl y as it showed West-Coast art ists, and most of
the work was hist orically associ ated wi th post -Minimal
and Conceptual art. Morgan Thomas exhibited predom-
inant ly local West-Coast works by artists who were pri-
marily painters and sculptors. It was generally believed
al the t ime that the Claire Copley Gallery was a place
that would take risks and that it was exhibi ting the most
Michael Asher
February 8, through 26, 1977,
Claire Copley Gallery Inc. at
Morgan Thomas, 2919 Santa
Monica Boulevard, Santa
Monica, California 90404,
telephone 828-4676
Michael Asher
February 8, through 26, 1977,
Morgan Thomas at Claire
Copley Gallery Inc. 918 North
La Cienega Boulevard, Los
Angeles, California 90069,
telephone 652-0900
Jomt announcement or tneClaue Copl eyf Morgan Thomas
Gallery for the Michael Asher mstattenoe Front and back
,
,
FEBRUARY 15 THROUGH FEBIWARY 19, ON KAWAU.

po" ..".
FEBRUARY 22 THROUGH FEIlRUAl!Y 26 WILLIAM LEAVITT
photog... plu
Announcement ol l he Morgan ThomasGallery extntnnons on
di splay att he Claire Copley Gall ery during the installat ionof
MIchael Asher's work In Febr uary 19 77.
Announcement of theElarreCopley Galleryextnbmons on
displayatthe MorganThomasGallerydunng {he installat ion
of Michael AsherIn February 1977.
MORGAN THOMAS AT 9'8 Id>RTH LA c.e"'EGA. lOS ANGELES. l I F O P ~ I
- FEBRUARY 1977 L ,
-
.
154 155
BUIldingon 2919 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica. CA.,
where the Morgan ThomasGall erywas located on the
__--I' second floor. Phot ograph byGary Kruger.
Facadeof the ClaireCopley Galleryon 918 North LaCrenega

Blvd., Los Angeles, CA. Photographsby Gary Kruger.
156
the one they had previously approved and been in-
volved with. By November 24, Claire Copley had ac-
cepted the proposal , however. On November 27, 1976,
I submi tted the same proposal to Morgan Thomas,
informing her of Claire Copley'Sagreement to the exhi-
bit ion project. Morgan Thomas accept edthe proposi-
ti on immediately, conti ngent on her being able to
synchronize her exhi bi tion schedule wit h the Copl ey
Gallery's. SUbsequent ly I met wit h both gallery own-
ers to clarify the project , its impl ications, and our mu-
tual responsibil ities. All stipulations of the proposal
were agreed to. A mutual ly acceptable exhi bition pe-
riod of three weeks was chosen. A press release was
formulat ed, and a joint announcement. to be designed
by myself , was accepted.
The announcement card was placed on the bull e-
ti n board at Morgan Thomas and on the Main desk at
Claire Copley to announce the exhi bi tion to visitors.
The galleri es also agreed to mail out announcement
cards for exhibi tions by other artists occurri ng during
my installat ion.
Both gallery owners, when actuall y exchanging
galleries on the Sunday and Monday prior to the exhi -
bition , did not consider i t necessry to accept my off er
of assistance since, ultimately, only a few objects had
to be moved.
Morgan Thomas opened an exhibit ion of Paul
Guerrero and Doug Metzl er on the same day my work
began. The second week she showed an exhibi t ion by
Peter Alexander and David Bungay, and the third week
an exhibition by James Hayward and Gary Kruger. Claire
Copley, during the same period, showed several works
by Daniel Buren the first week, post cards by On Kawara
the second week, and photographs by Wil liam Leavitt
the thi rd week. I was assured that all artists had agreed
to show si mult aneously with my exhibi tion.
During the exhibi tion each gallery had thr ee di f-
ferent groups of visi tors: First, those who, having seen
the announcement of my exhibi t ion, came to see the
galleries in their newsett ing; second, those who were
unaware of my work, but were acquainted with t he
galleries and their owners and had simply come in to
see an exhibit ion; and third, those who were Visiting
either gall ery for the first ti me, and were therefore
inti t iall y unaware of t he exchange.
Once the two gallery owners had act ually moved,
they had to spend some time trying to adapt to their
new situations and thei r slight ly altered day-to-day
operations. Each of them was confronted wi th the prob-
lem of installing an exhi bit ion in a space wi th whi ch
she had no previous experience.
Claire Copley adapted successfully in a practical
sense to the newgallery space. She took great care to
haveeach of the three exhi bi tions installed in order to
establish a contin ui ty of exhibition content and pre-
sentation that was consistent wi th her own gallery. Yet
personall y, as she ment ioned on several occasions,
she did not adapt as successfully since, for several
reasons she felt uncomfortable in the new locat ion.
First, because of its relat ive isolat ion from the visiti ng
publi c; second, because of the substanti al ly reduced
gallery space; and, third, because she felt awkward
about exhi biti ng artists' works in a locat ion different
from the one she had anticipated for them.
Morgan Thomas, on the other hand, seemed to
be more excit ed about being in the new gall ery envi-
ronment and she also seemed to particularly enjoy the
increased communication wit h the larger number of
visitors at the La Cienega Boulevard locati on. She cre-
ated a casual atmosphere in the gallery by moving the
off ice chairs into the exhibit ion area so that visit ors
could si t down and view the exhi bi tion in a relaxed
sett ing. She install ed the exhibit ions in the new gal-
lery space In a way that was similar to her usual style
of present ing art, and she seemed-to have no problem
adapti ng th is style to the new environment.
Having been asked by two gall eries at approxi-
mately the same t ime to do an exhibi t ion I was con-
fronted with the probl em of the tradit ional art-market
strategy of exhibiting one artist in two or more com-
mercial insti tut ions at the same t ime. Normall y, two
galleries implement a joi nt presentation to create the
il lusion of a certain degree of objective, historical ne-
cessity of one author's work. In this way, a gall ery at -
tempt s to increase a work's impact on the market. It
was usually understood that a double-gallery presenta-
tion could not be shared wit h any ot her art ist since
that would automaticall y decrease the presence and
impact of the work. In this instance, however, the si tu-
ation was different since both gallery owners had ini-
tially been unaware of the other's invit ation t o exhi bit
my work indivi dually. I therefore decided to return their
invitation and invite them myself to collaborate on this
particular exhibition project.
In contradistinction to the usual isolation that fol-
lows increased presence and impact in double-gallery
presentati ons, this simultaneousinstallation of my work
did not prohibit other artists from showi ng i n both
galleriesat the same time as my exhibit ion. The struc-
ture of this work did not , therefore, mater ially or for-
mally, in any way whatsoever, impose on or interfere
with the work of the other art ists exhibi ting concur-
rently with me. In a reverse sense, the work of the
ot her arti st s sharing the exhib it ion time and space
(whatever i ts materials or presentation format) could not
impose upon or interfere with the structure of my work.
However, since my work caused both a temporal
and spatial dislocati on of the works in the exhibit ion
(in its disjunct ion of t he galleries from their usual spa-
tial and operati ve frame), my work funct ioned as a
framing device. Paradoxically, this put both the other
exhi bitions in the two galleries and my single instal la-
tion, whic h exchanged and synt hesized those two
gal leries, into context.
Ult imately, all elements had to operate in rela-
t ion to each other in order to act ivate this work: the
individual work, the gallery as a functioning exhi bi-
t ion inst itut ion. the gal lery owners' collaboration, and
the indivi dual art ists' partic ipation in the exhi bi tion.
At the same ti me, the work asked for nothing more
than what everyartist would usually ask to have realized
i n the install ation of a work for exhibit ion. The exhibi -
tion by the other art ist s, j uxtaposed in the framework
of til e gallery spaces, were left intact. as convent ional
exhibitions by the framing device of my install ation.
The two gallery exhi bi tions displayed works de-
f ined traditi onally as commoditi es, with my work which
programmatically negated that status. By referring the
two gallery insti tutions back upon themselves and me-
diat ing their functi on- which normall y was to medi -
ate the objecUcommodity- t his work intervened in the
dominant distribution formof the work of art. Therefore,
in thi s installation, the two gal leries, as mediat ors of
obj ects, became the object of the work itself . Through
the device of disjuncti on and j uxtaposition, the work-
as much as it was intr insically a part of the actual
physical locati on and the commercial context in which
these two galleries operated - achieved a dimension
of structural autonomy that was intricately connected
at all point s with the determinant factors of its frame-
work. The sit uational aspect of thi s work, however,
was not primarily embodied in t he actual material ete-
ments of the context within which the work interfered.
But , since it interfered directly with the ideological
convent ion of commerci al exhi bi ti on practice, i t had
to abandon any mater ial manipulat ion whatsoever, in
favor of a pract ice that Ultimately had to be perceived
as social pract ice.
Inasmuch as any attempt at social practice within
aesthet ic practi ce seems to reject or ignore the speci-
ficity of formal and plast ic concerns, thi s installat ion
was inescapably reclaimed by the determining frame-
work of its cult ural conventi ons, such as the isolation
of the work in individual autonomy and its subsequent
appropriation by and relegati on to the aesthet ic dis-
course. These conventions alone, along wi th the rig-
idly formalized organi zati on of the daily act ivit ies in
the commerci al institutions within whi ch the work
operated, already guarant eed th e wor k' s formal
characteristics.
Commercial gall ery exhibiti on practi ce is involved
in the construction of indi vidual identi ties at various
levels which appear to be separate but are essentially
interwoven. The individual identi ty of arti sts and the
identity of their works as product s are as integral to
the gall ery practi ce as the indivi dual identi ty of the
gallery owners and the identity of their artis ti c pro-
grams which speci fy and different iate the various in-
157
11"
VteWlngeast In theMorgan Thomas GallerydurlngtheextllMIOIl .
Ondisplaya wolk of Daniel Buren.
VIewing the north-east comer In the Morgan Thomas Gallery
dunng t he exhibition. Ondl!>play a secondworkof Dame!
Buren.
Viewing east at the Claire Copley Gallery. Ondisplaya painting
by Raul Guerrero.
Viewingwest at t he ClaireCopley Gal lery. On display a scutp-
lure by Raul Guerrero. Photographs by Michael Asher.
1
158
sti tutional activities from and against each other. These
are paradoxically, as ind ivi dual identi ties, subjected
to t he abstract ing forces of t he market as t he ultimate
inst it ut ion.
Since contemporary practice confronts these cul -
tural conditions and has to inscri be it self within them,
t he si t uati onal f unct ion of my work excluded any par -
ticulari zat ion or individuali ty as essent ially cont radic-
tory to t he intentions of t he work. Therefore, t he work
could be exhi bi ted by potentia lly anyone who desi red
to do so.
In spi te of the fact that this work operated on a
di ff erent level of physi cal mat eriality (that of the ac-
t ual cult ural insti tuti on and it s functi ons rather that
the concrete material embod iment of those funct ions
in ind ividual material obj ect s), i t took as i ts point of
departure t he very speci f ic di fference of the inst i t u-
t ions' concret e exi st ence: the actual locat ions of t he
two galleri es.
Thi s shi ft from concrete physical part icularit y to
the abst ract generali ty of the social insti t uti on, neces-
si tated a new method of addressi ng the material giv-
ens of a si t uat ion. Comparing i t. for example, with my
earl i er installation at the Claire Copley Gall ery, this
work addressed a larger scale of physical givens and a
wider scope of social and cult ural condi ti ons by enlist-
ing two galleries in their totality of functi ons as socio-
cult ural insti t uti ons.
The work's scope ranged from the most minute
detail of exhibi tion pract ice (t he announcement card
functi oning as the sign of the exhibi t ion) t o t he total -
i ty of gallery f uncti ons in order to insi st on t he i nsti tu-
t ional nature of art ist ic product ion, di st ribut ion, and
recept ion.
My labor, as author, to def ine the work consisted
of t he organization and admini st rat ion of the gal lery
exchange. This work, therefore, suspended its own fur -
t her administrative hand ling and commodi fic ati on. I
administered a work which could not be subjected to
any ot her administrat ion but which contained in its
totalit y all admini strat ive labor performed by t he gal-
lery owners upon works of art (possi bly includ ing my
own) by other art ist s subjected to their administrat ion.
The quest ion arises as to whether my admini stra-
t ive labor could be consi dered as material production,
or, whether i t remained a si mple declarat i on in t he
manner of t he readymade within the discourse of aes-
thet ic pract ice al one.
The matena l transformat ion of SOCial pract ice- as
a condi tion of product ion-was generated by trus work
when t he gallenes actuall y exchanged locat ion and
property. As much as the struct ures of each gallery
were subjected Simultaneously to bot h admini st rati ve
declarat ion and material dislocat ion, t hey nevert he-
less remained- as dislocated and disjuncted element s
- operat i ve in their f uncti ons.
On the one hand , in i ts administrati ve def ini t ion,
the work inscribed itsel f as aest het ic pract ice into th e
ideological discourseof the prevail ing inst i tutional char-
act er of cult ural product ion. On t he ot her hand , the
work operated as an actual mater ial transformat ion of
t he production-d istributi on chain within contemporary
social pract ice.
The coll aboration in this work between t he au-
thor and the ot her arti sts as well as the gallery owners
and the visitor s is seemi ngly comparable to t he collab-
orat ive vent ure of the work at the Los Angeles Inst i-
tute of Contemporary Art (see p146).1t was t he group
of paid part ici pants and not t he direct or and staff who
played the prominent role in t he LAICAworki whereas
in t hi s work, th e gallery owners were of primary
importance. In the LAICA work I empl oyed paid
parti cipant s; in t his work I was empl oyed as an art i st.
Here the gallery owners, even though dislocat ed as a
resul t of my interventi on, found t heir own preexisting
st ruct ure and out of sheer necessit y, had to mainta in
the limited program of dail y insti tut ional functi ons.
In the LAICA work, the part icipants, even though em-
ployed and paid, could operate without limitati ons ac-
cording to t hei r own needs.
As this inst all ati on focused on inst itu tional con-
vent ions, it qualif ied as a si t uational work. Since t his
install at ion functi oned within a total ity of common con-
ventions whi ch are universally shared by commercial
1
galleries, it is conceivable that t his work could po-
t ent iall y operate With any two gal leri es in a si milar
si t uat ion.
As historical condi t ions change, i t becomes ques-
t ionabl ewhet her si t uat ional aest heticscan st iII be suc-
cessf ully appl i ed and remain operat ive. A situational
analysi s of the concrete embodiment of t he condi tions
framing aesthet ic pract ice, ei ther manifested in spe-
ci f ic el ements (e.g. , const ructed or movable gallery
wall s), or in si t uat ions (e.g., exhi bi t ion t hemes or in-
st i tu t ional part icularit ies). i s no longer capabl e of
adequately addressing t he uni versal condit ions of ab-
st raction with in which t he work of art has to exist.
Those condi t ions, even though th ey had been ad-
dressed concretely in past sit uational work t hat had
seemed tend ing toward soci al pract ice, in fact were
often ignored, t he degree to which a work remained
within the formal determinati ons of modernist high
art remained obscure. Si tuat ional aestheti cs also often
reproduced t he abstractions of the modernist traditi on,
includi ng that of the commodi ty stat us of the work
wtucb, by necessity, disconnect s itself from any si t ua-
t ional context ot her than the market.
This work' s concrete presence forced the univer-
sal abstraction out into the open reali ty of the market
and seemed to stri p the two gallery owners of the sys-
tem of ident ity references which had been theirs within
their gallery shel l.
By opening t he work's struct ure and assimilating
i t to the dimensions of uni versal abstraction, the work' s
material definition and formal manifestat ion had to
be reduced to t he admini strative act of an announce-
ment card design.
Very much to my surprise, several month s aft er
the concl usion of thi s exhibi ti on, both Clai re Copley
and Morgan Thomas decided to coll aborat e on a non-
prof it project in Los Angeles whi ch they called " Foun-
dat ion for Art Resour ces." This foundati on ini t iall y
decl ared as its goal t he raising and provi ding of funds
for contemporary artist ic practice independent of a
f ixed exhi bition space and schedul e.
159
c
----t_---------------

April 19-May 22, 1977
and Student EXhibition
Caltfor,:"a Institute of the Arts
1
D B
-
.... ...
Groundplan ol lhe Main Gall
the Arts. Drawing by Ih: eal.fOlnta Inst itute of
groundplan funch s e,_, . reproduclion of this
inSlallalJoo. ooedasan exhIbItiOn nand-cot during the
A
L
Michael Asher A hole throU<Jh the center of each hori zontal wall areas lA, B, C, 01between
the mezza ni ne and the mai n gallery
,
,
I
160
Fa cu lty
Exh i bi t i on
1977
e n ..
-
.......
St ud e nt
Exhibiti on
19 77
-.
..... ""'"
Facult y EXhibi t ion and Studenl EXhibi' ion Cet I
a ogues.
located at the horizontal and verti cal center of the
plane. The diameter of the holes was determined by
visibility from the furt hest possible viewpoint in the
gallery, from the south-east corner diagonall y to the
north side (approxi mately 130 feet). Using different
size paper dots as models, I chose the size that wasat
the threshold of my sight. Once I had decided on the
size, I dri lled the holes carefull y through the dry wall
faci ng.
A second element of my install ation , located in
the Faculty Exhibit ion on the mezzanine, was an 8 lJ2-
incn-by-Sdnch pad of paper which was congruent with
the format of the catalogue and showed the viewer a
diagram descri pt ion and ident ificati on of the work.
The pad was placed on a pedestal , approximately 4
feet hi gh, next to the wall near the stairwell and when
all the sheets had been t orn off , a new pad was put in
its place.
The work was either the smallest in the exhibition,
since the four holes put together could have been con-
tained in a 1 inch surface mark; or the largest. if the
four holes were viewed as ext endi ng across the entire
gall ery wi thin a space 99 f eet by 31 feet 8 inches.
In spit e of their being dri lled relati vel y deeply into
the mezzanine pl ane, the holes coul d have easi ly ap-
peared to be paint ed black dot s and only on close
inspect ion could the viewers identify them as actually
penetrating the plane 's surface. The minute holes
dril led into the frame of the main exhibition gall ery
mi ght have been lost t o t he viewer without the accom-
panying descripti on, yet, due to that contradict ion be-
tween architectural size frame and minute pictorial
mark, they could , once di scovered, be perceived as
predominant element s. In fact , the holes appeared to
be part icularly conspi cuous si nce they were not only
placed as focal points within an architectural perspec-
tive but met the viewer's eye along the main l ines of
the foot -traff ic in the gallery. The work functioned like
graf fit i in the sense that by marki ng an instant and
abstract sign i t point ed to overlooked space and staked
out it s own t errit ory.
Two separate but simi lar catalogues were printed,
one for the student and one for t he faculty exhibition,
containing phot ographic reproducti ons of most of the
work. Since I wanted my work to be installed onl y the
night before the opening and the catalogue had been
printed by then, a space in the catal ogue, all ocated
for information about my work, contained the fol low-
ing notice:
Michael Asher's installation is not reproducib le for
a contribution to the catalogue.
The boxed-in structure below the mezzanine floor
funct ioned as a frame separati ng the facul ty and stu-
dent exhibitions. Having spent the school year working
wi th both students and faculty, I decided to use this
structure as a framing devi ce between the two exhibi -
tions. So that my work would reflect my act ivi ty at the
school I wanted it to be located with in the cont ext of
both exhibi t ions.
Art instructors should have their work effectively
present ed and received out si de of th e academic
insti tut ion. A work that has been developed inside
the insti tution and i s employed as a teaching device
wilt , to my understanding, stand to loose it s essent ial
dialect ical relati on with realit y and therefore eventu-
all y suppresses student mot ivation. For thi s reason I
had originall y considered not part icipat ing in the fac-
ulty exhibit ion, but ultima tely I decided to cont rib-
ute in order to prove or disprove to myself the validity
of these observati ons.
Aft er seeing the entire exhibition and the place
my work had in it, my work seemed t o remain opera-
ti ve; but only wit hin the li mi t s of the exhibition's
specific condi tions, that is, as a statement about the
relat ionship between students and instruct ors in an
insti tuti onali zed art cont ext.
158
161
West viewctmstattanon. Detail.
North View.
South view.
East vrew.
West View. Photographs byGlnes GUIllen.
[IlI1II -
-
-
r.
162
-
t:l:
- ,
163
165
Parkposllion der zwetten wccne 11. bis 18. Jull
Parkhaus Geisbergweg , unterhalb des Reg.-
Prasfdenten 1-3. Entweder Platz: 62 c. Platt 5
" Installatio n Munster "
Standort:
19 verscmed ene Ptatze in und urn MOnster
Dur chfUhrung:
Dauer der Auss lell ung
Skulptur
Ausstell ung In MOnster 1977
3. Jun bl s 13. November
Vorhaben in Munster
ProJektberelctl
Michael Asher
1943 in l os Angeles geboren
teet In Veni ce, xentcmren
. fnsteueucn
Standort:
19 verscotecene Ptatze In und um Mun ster
Durchf uhrung:
Dauer dar Ausslellung
Vorhaben In Munsl er
Es hand el! slro hierbel um das Aufstellen ein ee
Caravans In und um Munster lii r die Dauer cleser
AussteUung, dIe sim eber 19 Wochen erstreckt.
Der Caravan (annahernd 4 m lang) wlrd Ieeen
Montag in der Nahe von Gebauden oder GrOnan.
teaen neu plazlert , wobet Insgesamt 19 verectue-
oene Standorle gewahlt wercen, Der Htnwel e auf
den Standort des Caravans und di e zen, wahrend
er dort zu fi nden rst. tst 1mFoyer des Museums zu
ernatten.
Parkposl ti on eer vterten Woche 25. 7. bts 1. 8.
Kiffe Pavill on, 'lo r der Parkuhr Nr. 1063
Es nancen slCh hierbei um das Autetenen elnes
Caravans in und urn Munster fur die Dauer dleser
Aussle llung, die slch uber 19 w ee-en erst reckt.
Der Caravan (annahernd 4 m lang) wlrd j eden
Montag In der Nahe von aeeaucen oder ercnen-
l agen neu plaztert . wobei Insges aml 19 verscnt e-
dene Stanoorte gewahlt werden. Der Hlnwels auf
den Standort des Caravans und die Zeit, wahrend
er dort zu finden ret, Ist im Foyer des Museums zu
er batten.
Skulptur
Aussl ell ung in Munster 1977
3. Jull bis 13. November
Projek tberelch
Michael Asher
1943 in l os Angel es geboren
lebt In Venice, Kauromten
Proje kt bereich
Mlctl ael Asher
1943 in l os Angeles geboren
lebtln Venice, Ketrtomt en
" Installati on Munster"
Standort :
19 verschledene Plalle In und urn Munster
Durctl fUhrung:
Daue r ocr Ausstett ung
Vor haben In Muns ler
Es handel! sidl hier bei urn das Auf stellen emee
Caravans In und um Munsl er lOr di e Dauer cteeer
Aussl ellung, die sich uber 19 Woctl en erst reckt.
Der Caravan (enoenemc 4 m lang) wird Jeden
Montag In ocr Ni!.he von eebauoen coe r e runen-
l agen neu plazlert, wobet insges amt 19 verecnle-
dene srenccrt e gewahlt warden. Der Hinweis auf
den Siandort des Caravans und die Zeit, wahrend
or dort l Ulinden ist. lst tm Foyer des Museums zu
erhalt en.
eerxsttuaucn der ersten Woche 3. bls 11. Jul/
Siegelkammer und Plerde.9asse
Parkposltion der drit ten w ocne 18. big 25. Juri
Alter Steinweq - Par kplatz der Fa. Hill
Skul ptur
Ausslellung In Munster 1977
3. Jull bls 13, November
Proj ektberelch
Mi chael Asher
1943 In Los Angeles gabor an
labl ln Venice, xeutcrnreo
" Install ation Muns ter "
Standort :
19 verscerecenePliilze In und urn Munster
Durchfuhrung:
Dauer der Ausstellung
Vorha ben In MOnsler
Es handel t si en hlerbel urn cas Autstenen elnee
Caravans In und um Munster lOr die Dauer dreser
Auss lellung, die slch uber 19 wee-en eretrecst.
Oar Caravan [annahemd 4 m lang) wird [eden
Montag In der Nane von eebsucen ocer Gril nan
l agen neu craerert, wobei insgesaml 19 verecnte-
dene St ancorte gewahl warden. Der Hinwei s auf
den Stencort des Caravans und die zett. wahrend
er dort zu flnden 1st, 1st 1mFoyer des Museums zu
erha1ten.
Skulptur
Aussl ell ung In Munster 19n
3. JulJ bts 13. November
Set of the fir st four exhi bi t ion hand-ouls whi ch were avail able at the fr ont
desk al the museum to! each of t he nineteen weeks of t he exhi bi t ion.

Catalogue page from the second volume (Projects) of the
exhibit ion cata logue skU/prUf, Munster 19 77 , showing
the first posi t ion of th e tra i ler on the right and the entrance of
the museum WIt h a scu l pture by Josef Albers on th e l eft.
Worki ng plan of Munster wi t h subur bs used for t he placement
of the various locati ons of the trail er during the exhi bi t ion,
July 3-November 13, 1977
Skulptur
Westfiilisches Landesmuseum
fUr Kunst undKulturgeschichte
Munster, West Germany
164
The "Skul ptur" exhibit ion, sponsored by the West-
falisc hes Landesmuseum, MUnster, West Germany,
was divided in two parts. The fi rst part, curated by
Klaus Bussmann, functi oned as a retrospect ive which
"Ieatureldl important stages in the development of
modern sculpt ure." , 1 The second part of the exhibition,
which was called " Project Section," was conceived
and organi zed by Kasper Koenig. The fol lowing art ists,
in addition t o myself, participated: Carl Andre, Jo-
seph Beuys, Donald Judd, Richard Long, Wal ter de
Maria, Bruce Nauman, ClaesOldenburg, Ulrich Rueck-
rfem. and Richard Serra. It was proposed t o the artists
t o either work with speci fic outdoor sites to which the
museum had access, or to suggest sitesthat could pos-
sibly be used for the installat ion of outdoor sculpture.
Substant ial funding for t he exhibit ion was al lo-
cated by the museum, the local city government , and
the provincial government. In addi tion to these sources,
funds were also avai lable for acquisi tion of outdoor
sculptural project s. Thesefunds derived from a law by
which the government was required to spend 2 percent
of the construct ion costs in the construct ion of all pub-
lic bui ldi ngs on visual art proj ect s. Therefore, it was
hoped that each outdoor inst al lation of the sculptures
in t he exhibit ion would alsobe of interest to the ci ty au-
thorities in regard to future acquisi tion of those works. I
In t he summer of 1976, I was invit ed to consider
participat ing in the " Project Section" of the "Skulptur"
exhibi t ion. In order to visit and inspect the exhi bi tion
grounds, I traveled to MUnster where I stayed from
July 27 to 31,1976. On September 1, 1976, I con-
firmed my partici pation in t he exhibition in a letter t o
Kasper Koenig and I started working on several pro-
posals for this project.
The setti ng of the exhi bition was a landscaped
park area i n MUnster, an early medieval city which
had preserved many of i ts origi nal planning feat ures
and historica l archi tectural detai ls. The ci ty itself was
nearby a lake and was surrounded by smaller villages,
farmland, and forests.
During the subsequent period of approximately
elevenmonths I submitted and discussed fourteen pro-
166
2
posals for possible contri butions to the "Skulptur"
exhi bi tion. All of them were ei ther discarded for t ech-
nical and f inancial reasons or turned out to be other-
wise unfeasi ble. In late June 1977 , I ret urned to
MUnster still assuming that I could bri ng a work to
fruition. At this t ime I submitted three more proposals,
one of which was f inally accepted. The proposal was
to have an ordi nary trail er relocat ed weekly i n and
around the city of MUnster. I decided upon ni neteen
various locati ons si nce the exhibi t ion lasted for nine-
teen weeks. Since the museum/exhibit ion was closed
on Mondays, on that day each week t he trailer would
be moved to its new locati on. Each week a pad of
differentl y colored leaf let announcements was placed
at t he front desk of the museum which noti fied Visi-
t ors to t he exhi bition where they could find t he trailer
in its current locat ion. I selected locations for the trailer
in both urban and suburban architectural and natural
sett ings, in existi ng parking spaces, or j ust off the
road. The locations were in all four direct ions (nort h,
sout h, east, and west) from the center of t he city but
were not consistently in anyone direct ion or particu-
lar pattern, since it was important to f ind locations
where the trail er would be seen in context. The trail er
was placed in what appeared to be perfectl y obvious
locat ions, in places where it might have appeared to
be slightly out of context , and in locat ions where it
would have been unl ikely t o appear altogether.
The method of placement was int ended to create
the impression that the trailer was an integral part of
its surroundi ngs, rather than an entity in or of itself. I
used areas that were zoned for commercial and indus-
trial purposesas well as parks, denselypopulated areas,
and areas with isolat ed indivi dual fami ly residences.
The trailer was located for the fi rst week of the exhibi-
tion across the street from t he front ent rance of the
museum in an alley leadi ng t o t he universi ty. The
trailer' s f inal and last locat ion during the last week of
the exhibit ion wasalso next to the university, but closer
to the museum. After the first week the trai ler was
located on the north side of the cat hedral in a parking
lot adjacent to an open mall , then in a parking place
3
in front of a car dealer, in a wealthy resident ial area;
next t o parks, then in an industrial complex, then next
to a canal, to a high-rise apartment building, and a
school; at the end of a dead-end street; next t o an
urban shopping mall in a parking lot, a church, a store,
and a t orn-down bu il di ng opposi te a number of
residences; in an empty lot , in a forest , in a large
open parking lot in the ci ty, in a parking lot in front of
the train station, and. second to last . in front of a bar.
In order to find a trai ler that would ful fill all the
requirement s of thi s partic ular installat ion, I bought a
catalogue contain ing most of t he current ly manufac-
t ured trai lers available in West Germany. The trailer
t hat I eventually selected wasnot so large t hat it would
dominate it s location. It was compact, its design well -
suited to i ts functi on, and recognizable asa West Ger-
man product rather t han unusual or foreign-looking.
The trailer was 4. 56-meters long, and was rented
from a trailer agency in MUnster for the duration of
the exhibition. When the trailer was moved to theabove
locations, the window curtains were closed and the
door was locked. The locat ions branched out from the
center of town (across the street from the museum) to
4.5 kilometers nort hwest of the ci ty, approximately 5
kilometers to t he northeast, and 2.5 kilometers to t he
west, 0.75 kilometers to the east, and 4. 5 kilometers
to t he south.
Complete sequential viewing of al l locations was
possible, but not a necessary requirement for t he
viewer's understanding of the work. I was informed
subsequent to the completion of the exhi bition t hat
people did in fact use the information sheet that I had
provided at the museum counter, as a source of infor-
mation to direct them to the actua l location of t he
trail er at that moment. I have no knowledgeof whether
anybody viewed the work in all its sequent ial place-
ments. I also do not know how many people, if any at
all, might have discovered the trail er at a particular
locati on and woul d have questioned its placement or
perceived i t as a work of art.
The sequential occurrence of one work by one
arti st provided an extended time frame for both viewer
4
and work as opposed to the exhibition, where several
works by various artists could be viewed in a condensed
t ime frame. As the work was relocat ed each week i t
demanded from t he potential viewer the added effort
of t ravel ing across town to see it. In opposit ion to the
other outdoor sculptural installations, however, whic h
could not relate travel distance to the specific int erac-
t ion of the viewer's presence, t he object. and the
location, this work, by changing locations withi n a wide
range of specific urban landscapes, set up a situa-
t ional relationship wit h the viewer, rather than being
simply specifically situated. The work therefore claimed
to be sit uational, not only in t erms of it s concept and
location but also in the way it expected t o be addressed
by t he viewer. By mult iplying cont ext as opposed to
maintaining any specific, singular context, the work
increased i ts sit uational speci ficity.
This work responded to the concept of the exhibi-
tion and the inherently static tradi tion of public out-
door sculpture that it conveyed. Once set in place
public outdoor sculpture cannot part ici pate in the per-
petually changing makeup of it s surroundings. Unli ke
the dominant practice of publi c outdoor sculpture, this
installat ion-due to it s temporal speci fic ity- di d not
remain identical to itself, nor did i t repeat itself in a
series of identica l objects arbitrari ly placed in various
spati al contexts.
In earlier process sculpture the viewer was con-
fronted wit h a final ized work, even i f its product ion
procedure became transparent. The viewer remained,
therefore, in an abstract and static relationship with the
concrete material and procedural change of the work.
Unl ikeearlier process-oriented sculpture, this work
derived it s temporal specif icity from the structure and
context of its location rather than from t he consti t u-
ent elements of its materials and product ion process.
The trailer as a funct ional object extended from
reali ty and, part ial ly suspended in function, evaded
the abstraction implied in a process work. This object
had, however. a doubl e referent to the context of the
exhibi tion as a work of outdoor scul pture and to the
real spatial and temporal context of its sequence of
167
5 6
7 8
placements outside the exhibition. Both contexts were
potent ial ly experienced by the viewer in real time and
space parallel to the exhibit ion framework. The viewer
was linked by actual temporal and spatial displace-
ment to the temporality and spatiali ty of the work.
Tradit ionally, public sculpt ural installat ions were
legitimized by the inherent features of the category
(out door sculpt ure) and those speci fic requirement s
of the commission. Publ ic sculpture could therefore
neither refl ect upon its very modeof existence nor on
its actual spatial placement. These tradit ions were so
much taken f or granted, that even the outdoor instal -
lat ions in this exhibition mai ntai ned the prior princi -
ples of public sculpture. The placement and context for
these scul ptural installations were arbi trarily derived
from criteria which are essenti ally those t hat applied
to the installat ion of indoor sculpt ure. By int ercon-
nect ing the category (public outdoor sculpture) wi th
the context (exhi bition-subject) and the placement (the
l it eral interaction between obj ect and architect ural
framework), thi s work found its legit imation in its con-
t ext and placement rather t han in its category or
commission. The t emporal and spatial mobility speci-
fi ed the work's funct ion and the viewer' s perception
of it as an installat ion that operated in an outdoor
context determined by t hat funciton. It could not be
reversed-unlike most other outdoor install ations in
thi s exhibition-back into the i nst it utional exhi bition
framework. As a result of its funct ion, the work as
sculptural object could not become a separate satel-
li t e of the exhi bi tion , but referred consistently to and
depended upon the subject of the exhib it ion. Byadd-
ing a dimension of temporal specifi ci ty t o the specifi c
placement of the work, the abstract and otten arbi-
trary not ion of place inherent in Minimal sculpt ure
- whether installed indoors or outdoors-clearly be-
came insuf ficient . My work while not being necessar-
ily specific to a particular place, it actively breaks down
int o a variety of cont extual relat ionships rather than
parti cularizing itself as a stati c structure, which even-
tually prohibit s contextualization.
Inevi tably an outdoor work must be on a larger
168
scale than sculptural works found in galleries or muse-
ums in order to identi fy itsel f in opposit ion to its archi-
tectural or natural setti ng, such as a plaza, mal l, or
landscape. and to speci f y itself as an artist ic produc-
tion, If the small-scale objects of sculpture seemt o be
protected within their discourse because they are con-
tained wi thin the institution, out door sculpt ural ob-
ject s seem t o contai n the insti tution in their scale to
aut horize their presence in publ ic space.
In addi t ion to the strategy of scale, ot her forms
of abstraction are necessary to validat e outdoor ob-
j ect s as high art ; for exa mple abstracti ng the object
by locat ing it wi thi n a spect acular cult ure-nature
polarization. Public out door sculpture must abstract
itself from the discourse of high cultural object s in
the instit ution as it must also distance i tself from the
discourse of low cul tural objects in everyday reality.
In my work at MOnster t he trail er as object was
extracted from the " low cultural" context of everyday
reality and common experience. By framing th is ob-
ject within the exhibition theme it was declared a sculp-
t ural object of high art. Through this transformation
into scul pture the work maintai ned the functi on and
sign of a trailer, thereby all owing it to refer t o its differ-
ent setti ngs wi thin t he landscape and the cityscape.
The trail er's declaration as a contributi on to an
exhibition of contemporary outdoor sculpture could
be ident i fied as possibly deriving from the tradit ion of
the readymade. But by being only partl y suspended
and/or dislocated from it s usual funct ion and place-
ment, this installation di d not fulfil l the traditional
criteria for a readymade. Lacking the necessary con-
textual transformation for that strategy, its presence
afforded both a purely funct ional understanding of It
as a recreat ional vehicle, and as the sculptural work
of an individual author.
The trai ler as the object of this instal lat ion re-
mained functi onal as was evidenced by it s mobi lity
during the period of the exhi bition. It s functi on as a
recreat ional vehicle is generally defined in opposition
to i ts funct ion as a ci ty dwell ing by a temporall y re-
stricted usage. It is therefore oft en vacant over ex-
tended periods of t ime and parked on side streets or
stored in city dwellings. Furthermore, it remained func-
tional in terms of its spatial context, since it was placed
in locat ions where it could very easily be set in opposi-
ti on to the readymade, whose spatial rupt ure and un-
expect ed presence fixed i n the museum frame is
essenti al to-its operati on. The functional character of
this object was fur ther evidenced by the fact that as a
piece of equi pment bound by rental agreement it was
dest ined t o return into i ts origi nal funct ional ci rcula-
t ion at the conclusion of the exhibit ion. At the same
t ime, to appropriate a mechani cal ly produced object
of common usage and to insert i t into an exhibi t ion
context seems t o be congruent wi th the readymade' s
method of appropriat ing an object and suspending it s
origi nal functi on.
Due to t he ext reme li mit at ions placed on the
work's operation within the problematic context of pub-
lic outdoor sculpture, or, even more precisely, in this
unique and part icular exhibiti on, t he work took on a
functi onal dimension which distinguished it from the
readyrnade's universal and t imeless existence.
The trail er inst all ation might also have appeared
as the result of a readymade strategy because of the
rupture that it introduced int o the stylisti c conven-
tions of post-Minimal outdoor sculpt ure in general and
even more so because of its unexpected presence in
the context of this exhibit ion in particular. The trailer
as a specif ic object of common use was essentially
neit her out of context nor was its funct ion abstracted
when perceived by the viewer. The trail er asa declared
sculptural object interrupted the existing viewing con-
ventions of outdoor post -Minimal sculpture in the con-
t ext of this exhibit ion in a manner simi lar to the
readymade. However, as it inserted it self into the dis-
course (of this speci fic exhibi tion and the phenome-
non of outdoor SCUlpture) and int erfered only within
the signi ficati on of the discourse, it di d not-quite
unl ike the readymade-take on aestheti c object sta-
tus and did not cont inue t o exist as a sculptural ob-
ject (it ceased to exist with the exhi bi t ion's closure).
The inst al lation of this work was dismantled aft er
the exhibi tion and the work's residual element s (i.e .
photographic reproduct ions) could be enl isted for the
documentat ion and mediat ion of the work. The trailer
as object was again used outside of the exhibiti on
context. This differed from both the conti nued exist -
ence of the appropriated object as a work of art as
well as from documentat ion which assumes object
status. This work was not individually fabricated or
manufactured to remain in existence, and it could not
therefore achi eve commodity status. For this tempo-
rall y and spatiall y context uali zed and limited act ivity
within the discourse of high art , I received an honorar-
ium as compensation.
Thi s work was conceived and realized for an exhi-
bition of contemporary outdoor sculpt ure. Theref ore
it seems useful to recall some of the typical conven-
tions and funct ions of the cat egory of public sculpture.
These range- most generally- from addressing, com-
memorating, and celebrat ing individuals to mirrori ng
coll ect ive experience. For these purposes individual
icons, symbols, and archi tectural elements were once
created from a st ock of individua l , regional , and
national cult ural and styli st ic convent ions for a pa-
tron class of aristocrats and their governments, and
subsequentl y, in the late eight eenth and nineteenth
centuries, for the newly instated representatives of the
bourgeoisie.
Contemporary public outdoor sculpt ure is corn-
missioned by government agencies as well as private
and corporate enterprise. In general i t draws on t he
highly particularized st yli st ic and procedural conven-
tions of modernist sculpture and in particular on the
characterist ic features of the work of an individual
arti st.
It displays the economic achievement s of govern-
mental or local inst itut ions or of corporat ions asa cul-
tural signal t o the community, and it f unct ions within
the community asa mark of ident ity and differentiation.
Contemporary outdoor sculpture testifies t o it s own
particular histori cal moment of production in order to
arrest or to embody that moment. As contemporary
sculpt ure it testi fies to the future ori entati on of its
169
9 10
II
12
patrons and their aff irmat ion of a tech nologicall y ori -
ented not ion of progress. Furthermore, it adds to the
landmarks of an urbancenter andassists visitors and
tourists in these urbancentersto orient themselves in
t he cityscape. In the gent ri f icati on of urban areas, the
presence of public sculpture as a sign of cult ural
(governmental or corporate) commitment to a particu-
lar area within a communi ty may attract .real -estate
speculat ion and enhance the property values of t hat
area. It presents a concret ized and monumental ized
form of ideol ogy to t he publ ic. It i s almost always lo-
cated in centralized plazas or parks where the individ-
ual can beaddressed by ideology as public individual.
Publi c monumental scul pt ure is hardly ever found in
resident ial neighborhoods.
Architect urally individualized artists' homes prom-
ising cult ural improvement in slum neighborhoods, as
well as privately installed museums for individual con-
temporary artists in gentri fied neighborhoods f unction
in a manner analogous to t hat of public monumental
sculpture; yet t heir speculative economic charact er is
more evident.
More recently, wi t h the advent of postmodernism,
architecture itsel f can assume the f unct ion of publi c
sculptural sign systems. It no longer draws from the
moderni st tradition and no longer empl oys it s sculp-
t ural convent ions, but it t reats these conventions as
availabl e historical stock to create an architectural
rather than sculpt ural spectacl e.
Asa monumental public example of pure and par-
ticularized unal ienated labor, the results of t his sculp-
tural pract ice are effecti vely legit imizing the universal
condit ions of ali enated labor. It diverts the vi ewer's
attent ion from the division of tabor and off ers a re-
treat of unalienated creati vity to the public. Asa uni que
indi vidual product ion it actually confront s publ ic space
- t he space of the col lect ive part icipation in the so-
cial product ion process-with it s own individuated
space. As a result of thi s conf rontat ion the publ ic does
not only perceive itself as practicing ali enat ed labor
and being (systemat ically) prevented from access to
unalienated tabor, but it understands t he imposi tion
170
of ind ividuated space onto the space of collective
product ion.
Publ ic sculpt ure, once installed in i ts def initive
outdoor setti ng, assumes the features of spati al sta-
bil ity and temporal perpetu ity. Abstract ed from bot h
it s ori ginal place with in t he discourse of scul pt ure-
its material locati on- as wel l as t he time of its con-
cept ion and real i zat ion, it becomes an arbi trary, but
monumental st ruct ure without expl icit references or
dedications. Its socia l and ideological function t here-
fore is to disperse an abstract notion of monumental -
it y. Anchored int o t he ground of pub lic space, t hat
noti on f unct ions as it s pedestal.
The installation at Munster was intended to f unc-
t ion as a negat ion of contemporary pub lic sculpt ure.
The trail er as a mass-produced object (in contradis-
tin ct ion to an indust rially produced uni que sculpt ure)
denied invention, special fabri cat ion, and the unique
existence that establish t he spectacle of individual
unal ienated labor in publ ic sculptural works. As an
industrial ly produced recreat ional vehi cle it emboo-
ied the spli t and unity between al ienated labor and
ali enated leisure t ime.
By changing the object of this sculptural installa-
tion regul arly to di ff erent locat ions throughout the ex-
hibi t ion period, thi s work resisted publ ic sculpture's
tradit ional cl aim to static perpetuity and i ts ideol ogi -
cal implicat ions.
This installat ion used the temporal and contex-
t ual body of an exhibition of outdoor sculpt ure as it s
mat erially speci f ic and t emporall y limited pedestal.
The work addressed t hose social spaces whi ch publ ic
sculpture refuses or neglects to address or those which
it wants to conceal. Instead of abstracting the viewers'
experience of real ity through an ideological address
in public cult ural spaces, the work suggested a con-
crete anal ysi s of indi vidual al ienati on where i t is most
solidly authored, in t he urban and suburban homes,
the fact ori es and urba n businesses and shoppi ng
centers. By drawing the viewers' attent ion to those
placement s in social space an imposi t ion through cul-
t ural presence was avoided.
.
The work actively opposed t he implicat ions inher-
ent in the economic st ruct ure of publi c outdoor sculp-
t ure by ill umi nati ng the ext raordinary material and
economic invest ment necessary for i t s construct ion
and install at ion, which goes far beyond the produc-
t ion costs of any ot her scul ptural mani festat ion. The
cost to install this work as a t emporary public outdoor
sculpt ure at Munst er amounted to a very mode st
monthl y rental charge. Since the work di d not imbue
its surroundi ngs wi t h the presence of cult ural and eco-
nomic achi evement. and si nce it did not al low for any
aesthet ic abst racti on from it s context , this instal la-
t ion al so did not f unct ion as a cult ural endorsement
for potential real-estat e speculation.
Thi s work did not part ici pate in the shi ft from
gallery commodi ty to government or corporate com-
mi ssion, which was deemed necessary for the pro-
duct ion of publi c out door sculpt ure. Such a shift had
occurred in t he mi d to late seventies when Minimal
and post -Minimal scul pture, for example, which had
ori ginall y been conceived and developed for gallery
and museum spaces, had saturated the mar ket for
private collectors and museum institutions.
An expansion into publ ic commissi ons seemed,
therefore, to be a l ogical step. It coul d be speculated
t hat the museum/exhibition of cont emporary outdoor
sculpture f unct ioned as a showcase/mediation agency
for local and regional governmental and corporate com-
missions. Due to its t emporal and spatial speci fic i ty
and its appearance as an indu strially produced ready-
made, my work at Munster did not part icipate in this
shi ft , nor was it available to t he exhibi t ion as show-
case/mediator for public acqu isition. Several works
from the exhibition were, in fact, as intended, acquired
and install ed permanent ly by the ci ty government.
When seen at its various locat ions by viewers who
were unawareof the exhibi tion context, the trai ler could
be readas an architectura l structure, standing for itself,
not represent ing anythi ng but i tsel f. Perceived with in
t he exhibi t ion context , however, the t rail er became an
indexical sign in the trad it ion of the readymade, whil e
simul taneously referring symbol ically to both t he dis-
course of sculpture and arch itecture. The indexical
reading of t he object prevented the viewer from recuc-
ing it t o a SCUl ptu ral or arch itectural ent i ty alone,
whereas the symbol i c reading prevented t he viewer
from reduci ng it t ot all y to a mute object. The obj ect
as both index and symbol was complemented by the
object as bot h scul ptural obj ect and archi tectu ral
st ructure. Being nei t her pure sculpture nor pure
archi tect ure, both leve ls of di scou rse const antl y
interact ed wi t h one another wi t hin the exhibit ion con-
text of sculpt ure/archi tecture. In t his way the object
with all the feat ures of archit ecture (a f unct ional ized,
human -scal e shell sui tabl e for dwell ing) and al l the
attribu tes of sculpt ure (a three-dimensional volumi-
nous container, to be seen in the round , attached to
t he ground by its own mass) attempted t o cross-
reference, superimpose, or place i ts separate inst itu-
t ional ized discourses upon one anot her. Insert ed into
the preci se limit s of the exhi bi tion context, yet de-
ni ed object st atus as either arch itect ure or scul pt ure,
thi s work- unl ike cert ain examples of post modernist
archi tecture- did not attempt a fal se, total synthesis
of sculptural and archi tectural signifiers.
As a concrete objec t the trail er could have been
seen as a scul ptural , archit ectural hybrid. In the exhi-
bi t ion context , however, i ts declarative met hod ne-
gated, in t he manner of an allegorical st atement , the
validity of both discourses- scul pture and architect ure.
A double negation, this work required that reif ied high-
cultural notions (public scul pt ure) be reintegrated into
the basic, underlyi ng soci al pract ice (archi tecture),
and t hat the reif icat ion within social practi ce be con-
f ronted with t he perspect ive of high art individuat ion.
By bracketi ng both , t he work tri ed to di smantle t he
not ions of a separate existence of " high" and " low"
cul tural practice. Therefore, the work quest ioned t he
historical legitimization of contemporary scul pt ure
which pretends to be disconnected from social pract ice,
as it also quest ioned t he legit imi zat ion of architec-
t ure which, by assembling past styli st ic conventi ons,
attempts to recupera te its failu re as social pract i ce.
IStatement Quoted f,om 11M! agreement subft'li lt ed by (he museum to par-
IIClpatmg artests on March 15. 19 77 .
I II
I
13
172
14
3. 7.- 11. 7. 1977 1 Spicgcl kummc r lind Pfcrdegassc
I I. 7.- 18. 7. 1977 2 Par khaus Geisbc rgwcg. unt crhal b des Rcgierungsprasidenten 1-3.
Entwcder Pla tz 62 odcr Pla tz 5
18. 7. -25. 7. 1977 3 Aller Stcinwcg- Parkptar z, vcr dcr Zlcgclmaucr mit dem Zeic hcn
'Stricker'
25. 7. - I. 8. 1977
Kiffc-Pavillon. vor der Parkuhr Nr.275 odcr Nr.274

I. 8. - 8. 8. 1977 5 Horstcr-Friedh of - Piusallee. Par ken auf dcr Horstcrsrranc zwischen
dcm Park und der Piusallec
8. 8.- 15. 8. 1977
Klcimann-Brnckc NT. 17. Par ken auf der gegcnnbcrlicgcnden

Straflcnscitc vor dcm Zaun des vcr tagcs.
15. 8.-22. 8. 1977 7 Donmund-Ems-Kanal . ca. 300 III nordfich dcr Konigsbcrger Stra lle a m
Rttgen-Ufer
22. 8.-29. 8. 1977 8 Kcnigsbet gcr Stral3c 133-135, zu parkcn vor dem Hoch hnus
29. R. - 5. 9. 1977 9 In dcr Nahc des Broderichwcg 36 od er nm Ende dcr Sac kgassc dcr
Sparkasscnschule
5. 9.- 12.9. 1977 10 Am Ende der Sackgasse ldcnbrockwcg in Kinderhaus in der Nabe des
Friedhofs
12.9.- 19. 9. 1977 II v orplatz Coerde-Mar kt ncben dcr Park uhr vor dcr Kondit orci
19. 9.- 26. 9.1977 12 v or dcm Lcbcnsmittclgcschart auf dem Kirchpla tz in Nienberge ostlich
der Altenberger St rano
26. 9.- 3. 10. 1977 13 An dcr Eckc Molt man nswcg - Holla ndst raflc zwischen MOnster lind
Gicvenbeck
3. 10. - 10. 10. I977
"
Ka ppcnbcrgerdamm - Dnsbergweg, ParkplatI. a n dcr Sudost- Ecke
10. 10.- 17.10. 1977 ' 5
Ncben dcm Wald a m Jcsuit crbr uck in der Nahe von Hnhnenbur g oder
nc rdflch der Hah ncnburgst rau c
17. 10.- 24.10. 1977
,.
Gcriclu ssrra be - Hindcnhurgplatz a uf dem gronen Pur kplat z urucr den
Bnumcn dcr w estseite
24.10.- 31. 10. 1977 17 Haupt bah uhof. a uf dcm Pa rkplatz vor der Pur kuhr Nr .351
31. 10.- 7. 11.1 977 18 Sonncnsrranc. ml hc Rln crsrrnllc. hal b auf dem Bur gersteig und halb
au f dcr St raJ3c
7. 11.- 14. 11. 1977 19 Gcrrnanlsnsches tnst itur . au f dem Par kplarz ur ner den Ba umcn und so
nah wic mogflch auf dcr Jchannisst raue und vor dcm Parkplatz
Spicgctkummer
15
Oates and locations 01trai ler i n MUnster duri ng the exhibition
"Sku lptur."
August3-August 29,1977
Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum
Eindhoven, Netherlands
Groundplan of t he Stedefijk Van Abbe Museum used asan
extnbition handout during the exhibi ti on indicating the areas
where the panels were removed for t he i nstal lat ion. The front
page gives a descript ion of the work. Court esy: Stedehjk Van
Abbe Museum.
"'..... ....
... . ~
.,...,"
... _ __... , .. ioU .. , '-'''
_"' ,,- ,,,,. - _.. ,..
_._ , _"'" ..,..
.... . ... . " ,. _ w ,-,_.. ' >-0 , " .. _ .." _ a-
1__1. ' _ " .. __ __ .. ,. _ "_ " '"
........ ...... _ ,__ , r- , _ _
... ......,...._.
._-, __ _.. _ ...
_ .." __,, .. _ 1. ' . ,_' '''.. ",,1 _
....... _, _ _1_.__
_.,. --"' .._ _.......
_ .-.. .-.0 _ 1 .. _
. _ . _ _ ''''''''' _ 1 ,
-..-.,---_ _- _..-
.... .... ..,,_ _ ' .
_ .. .u' _ _ _ . ..,. '" I, .-. __", _, m _n- _
Ia _ ' '''' __ " ...,. _ _,t _
-_ _ "._ .... ... ...-
., .-..
-- ..._._ - ..,.._...... .- -
,...-.. ...__.. -- .. --.. -
......__ . ~ _ ... _ .
.........._..-.,-_ _- " "
-.--,-_ ,_ ___...
_... _-__ .-._-
....... ...__..._ , --.... _.. ...
_.",..- ... __.... _.. .._... - ""'" ._.
.. J _ _ .'Uo "'_.w _ ' .' .
. ... . . .. _ ,_", _ .. --.... _ ,_. u _ . 11.... .. _ ..il . _ ... __ .....,.
_ _ _ .. ..,.. ,.. 7 _ _ ' .. _
.. ..'_1 _. ..- ..
_ _ _ .a. ....- .. _ ...
... ... _ ., .. '-L " " " _"
.'-----,--_.. __.- -_ ._.,....-. ___ -
-, -., _,_._ - .
__ ..1_. .-_ _.." ...
__ll _ '"' t .
Study phot ographs taken one
year before the act ual i nstall ation .
of the roof, and 5 meters from the floor to a glass
cei li ng functioning as a light diffuser suspended from
the roof. The roof contained skyli ghts and j ust above
the glass diffusers was a louvre construction which
directed light from the skyl ights through the ceili ng
into the galler ies. The louvres could be operated me-
chanically from the inside of each of the rooms, and
set at a different pitch t hroughout the day, although
they seemed to be generally left in one posit ion.
Between the translucent ceiling di ffusers and the
roof wasan att ic which not only contained the louvres,
but also air ducting, mechani cal equipment (electrical
wiring, alarm systems, etc.), and structural elements
of the building. The duct ing and electrical syst ems
were set back far enough around the perimet er of the
glass ceili ng to make room f or a maintenance path-
way. The glass cei ling in seven exhibit ion rooms con-
tained fift y-six glass panels each, whereas in t wo of
t he exhibi tion rooms the ceili ng held eighteen panels
only and in one room it cont ained seventy-t wo glass
panels. Alt ogether there were thi rty rows of glass pan-
els in the ceiling along the north/west-south/east axes.
The average diffuser panel was approximatel y 86 cen-
t imet ers by 86 centi meters. The panels rested on a
metal frame construction and they could be removed
for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The cei ling' s
l ight -diff using syst em augment ed t he architecture's
classical symmetry by direct ing the visit ors' patterns
of circulat ion.
The symmetrical layout of the museum was such
that four exhibition areas on the east side corresponded
to four areas of equal size on the west side, wi th two
separat e exhibi tion areas on the central axis of the
bui lding. On the east and west side t here were three
exhibition rooms which measured 8 by 12 meters each
and one exhibit ion room which measured 6 by 8
met ers. The entrance and hall way as well as t he ser-
vice areas were also laid out symmetrically. Wall sur-
faces were covered wit h beige jute cloth and the fl oor
was covered with dull gray li noleum. Each room was
separate and sel f-contained yet laid out so that there
was a speci fic viewing order. The archi tectural condl-
OnJuly 24, 1975, I received a letter from Rudi Fuchs,
t he director of the Van Abbemuseum, invi ti ng me to
partic ipate in an exhibition scheduled for the spri ng
of 1977. I agreed in principle to do a work for the
exhibi t ion in my reply of September 8 of that year,
with final commitment conti ngent on viewing the ac-
t ual exhibition space. In the meantime I asked that
ground plans and photographs be sent to me so that I
could get some idea of what the pre-existing area would
be. From July 23, 1976 to July 26, 1976, I visited
Eindhoven, saw the museum, and commi tted myself
t o making a proposal for the exhibi tion. whic h by then
had been more precisely scheduled for May/June of
1977. (Since it had been overlooked in the original
planning st age that the museum's work crew would
be on vacation at that t ime; the i nstallation had to be
reschedul ed for the month of August. )
Since Rudi Fuchs had only seen one of my works
(Document a V, 1972), my other work was descri bed
to him by several fellow art ists.
I had some knowledge through periodicals and
various sources of the museum's contemporary exhi bi-
ti on history, part icularly exhib ition s of Minimal art
which the museum had organized in the lat e sixti es.
The museum appeared to be the one major art inst it u-
t ion in Eindhoven, a ci ty which has an active art com-
munity beyond the museum i t sel f. And due t o the
excellence of the collection and the museum's exhibi-
tion program, it attracts a large number of visitors from
the surrounding communi ty, the major ci ties in Hoi -
land as well as from the borderi ng countries Belgium
and Germany.
Aft er visi t ing the museum i t became clear to me
that one of the museum's most prominent architec-
tural features, it s symmetr ical ground plan-one side
a mirror image of the opposite side- would be the
basisof my proposal for the exhibit ion and that it would
incorporate preexist ing architectural elements of the
buildi ng.
Interior dimensions of the museum building were
39.42 meters on the north-west/sout h-east axis,
approximat ely 7.20 meters from the f loor to the peak
11
, ..... ,
, .. ... 10
, . ... t
c . B ~ .
T
- .
, ,

,
,
' u '"
,
(
f-
l-
I-
I-
... "'" , II ,.. ,
'" 4
' ..... I
...... ~
174
175
I
t ions that I encountered are best described by Rudi
Fuchs, t he museum's director, in hi s brief history and
descript ion of t he museum:
The sit uation encountered by Michael Asher in
Eindhoven, in t he late spring of 1976, was that of a
museum. In terms of European cultural history, the
Van Abbemuseum is rather young. It was founded
in 1936, followi ng a substant ial gi ft from a local
indust rialist, Henri van Abbe, which paid for t he
buil di ng. The operati ng cost s of the museum were
to be carried by the municipality. At fi rst t he city
council , which was and sti ll i s t he museum's final
aut hority, hardl y knew what to do wi th t he inst it u-
t ion. The notion of a publ ic cult ural service was, at
t hat t ime, rather st range to the exclusively indus-
tr ial city of Eindhoven. Only aft er the war a long-
term program was developed: the museum should
show and coll ect works of modern and contempo-
rary art , that i s art produced aft er 1900, nationall y
as well as internat ionally.
The archi tect of t he buil ding, selected by Mr. van
Abbe himself , was someone noted for hi s Roman-
Cat holic churches i n a severe. neo-Romanesque
st yle, KrophoHer. And indeed, the museum he
desi gned, set upon an artif icial mount, certainly
looks like a sanctuary : high, closed wall s; a tower
abovet he entrance; heavy, bronze doors; stairs lead-
ing towards the ent rance, flanked by sculptures of
rearing horses. done in a fitting medievali st mode
by t he architect' s fri end, John Raedecker.
The symmet ry of t hese horses int roduces the sym-
metry of t he lay-out of t he rooms inside. Symmetry
is the absence of spat ial tension; insi de. therefore,
the museum is at complete rest. The gallery is quiet
and peaceful , an invi tat ion to contemplat ion. The
outsi de world is shut out. Two narrow, barred win-
dows only, on ei t her side, enable the visitor to look
out side. The light comes through a glass ceil ing un-
derneat h a glass roof . Thus, upon enteri ng t he mu-
seum, the outsi de world becomes a memory.
The museum is an idealist ic recept acl e: a sanctu-
176
Room 6. vrewmg south durmg exhrbrnnnwith patmlngsby
Richard Tuttle andAllanCharllon.
Room4. Viewingeast during exhibi tion.
Room5. vrewmgwest dUring eXhlbrtionWith remnants of a
former mstattanonby Dar ner Buren. Photographs by Hans
Brezen.
Room6, vieWing work. dunng extutnucn. Photograph by Hans

Biel en.
Room 4, viewingwest dunngexhibi tion. Photograph by Hans
Biezen.
Room5, vrewmg east. Photograph by Michael Asher.
ary for the art ist ic endeavours of man which, t hrough
the supreme act of imagi nat i on, reach beyond this
worl d and lead mankind to a better, more imagina-
tive exist ence. Thi s understandi ng of t he function
and meaning of art as t he other world, is Quietly
emphasized if one enters t he museum and goes
through t he galleries. Comi ng fromt he small parking-
lot in front , which used to be a f ormal garden, one
goes up t he steps, past the stone horses, looking
upwards to t he cent ral ent rance. Inside one f inds
oneself first in a small vesti bule. vaulted in red brick,
and t hen in a larger hall of severe architecture, diml y
li t t hrough the vaul ted cei ling and fittingly adorned
with tenacotta emblems, symboli zing Day and Night
and the Eternity of Art. From t he twil ight of t he l1 all
one then passes into brightl y i lluminat ed gallery
rooms, whit e wal ls and dull, grey fl oors. Entering
the museum is the passage from the world int o t he
det ached real m of mind and imaginati on. I
I had to take into account in my proposal an addi -
t ion to t he original build ing which was at t hat t ime in
t he planning stage si nce I did not want my install a-
t ion to interfere in any way with const ruction work once
it began.
Several proposals. all of t hem deal ing with the
symmet rical l ayout of t he build ing, were submitted.
The f inal proposal was accepted si nce i t responded to
the museum's archi tect ural condi tions and was in line
with t he museum's administrat ive policy. It was printed
on a letter-size sheet of paper and di st ributed in the
museum' s information brochures. Illustrat ed wi th a
ground plan, i t read as foll ows:
The Van Abbemuseum has been const ruct ed foll ow-
ing a formall y symmetrical ground pl an. The part of
the structure which I am most immediately interested
in is the glass cei ling below t he roof. It is composed
of t ranslucent glass panels installed throughout the
museum approximately five met ers above the fl oor
level. Si nce i t i s covered by a roof i t is not exposed
to t he exterior. but t he cei ling functi ons to diffuse
li ght t hroughout the indivi dual rooms.
177
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..""'-2----- - - - - - - - - - ----------
Section ol lhe StedehJ k Van Abbe Museum.
Courtesy: steoenle Van Abbe Museum.
"' OlE
.... ", _ oc lS . " ... . ld ''' 9s . " IS ' 0' " " 9
lh ' . c l , ..r . 1t, u IS
10 ,,, , ,,
. .. . . .. . " .... u . " I . 1
'-I>, .". t .. .. . " 9 .... . s
n
-r -.
,
_ ' I
I J::"
, - .
SEC TIO N A A
- ,
179
..
wl
r;
.-
,
"J,
I 1(
-

I
..J
-,
--' I
I

' L..-.., .
;
"' .
: l.' ;,....J
r
.
L
?---
I
' .1
, 1
I
I
-
r:
,.
" ,. j '
...j ' " _ .
,' h :
.
f I
.\
1
.-
f
I
I
1 C
-_.
..
,
- -
_. 1...
,
,
--
,..
... '
-
Groundpl an of the Steoetuk Van Abbe Museum. Eindhoven,
Netherlands. Courtesy: Ste<leli jk Van Abbe Museum.
I i[
I ..
I
--
I n
!- if-1
I
,,-
l!i....-"'._ "....
"'
J
,.
u/ , .
.-
In
1.- . -:
.-.
- --1
I

=
reassembled in the second stage of the install at ion.
The other half of t he install ati on. however. coul d be
viewed during t he exhibit ion the day t he work crew
began to reinstall all the panels that had been pre-
vi ously removed. The reinstallat ion of t he glass pan-
els signaled to t he vi ewer during t he actual exhibiti on
t ime not only the preparatory work necessary for an
exhibi t ion but t he labor necessary for deinstal lati on
and renovat ion subsequent to an exhibi ti on which is
normally concealed from publ ic view.
The renovation that was a result of sett ing up t he
work and t hat was necessary for setti ng up t he subse-
quent exhibiti on, became the exhibit ion'sown subj ect.
If exhibi tion preparation generall y resul ts in a com-
pl eted installat ion to be revealed at its openi ng, in
t his case t he completed " install at ion" (t he total re-
moval of the ceil ing di ff users) was already incomplete,
since t he exhibit ion i tsel f impli ed t he reinstal lat ion of
t he removed cei li ng el ements. In general exhibition
practi ce, t he openi ng marks t he shift from prepara-
t ion to maintenance. Preparati on and mai ntenance of
an exhi bition are part of an inst itut ional pract ice t hat
i s generall y not supposed to be seen by t he public,
t hey are considered to be separat e f rom the work in
t he exhib it ion. The process of exhibit ion preparat ion
performed before t he opening. resulted- as indeed
in any exhibit ion-in a first stage in which its own
display element s (the inst it ut ional and architectural
exhibit ion functions) were dismant led. Normal insti t u-
t ional exhibit ion preparat ion aims to conceal i tself in
order to foreground t he work of art . consist ing of such
operat ions as finishing wall s. adding display elements,
installi ng lighting fixt ures. and posi t ioning di splays
for opti mum effect.
As the preparat ion i s involved with i ts own con-
cealment, so is the work crew effecti ng t he preparat ion
who remain out of public vi ew once t he exhibi tion
has opened.
This instal lation focused on one of the key ele-
ment s in presentat ion pract ice- t he lighting of instal-
lat ion areas. In revert ing presentati on pract i ce back
to it s own key elements (before t he opening of t he
I propose that before t he exhibiti on opens on Au-
gust 3, all the gl ass ceiling panel s in rooms 1, 2, 3
and 4 plus all the glass ceili ng panels up to t he
center row in rooms 5 and 6-which means all the
glass panels in one half of the museum-shall be
removed which would leave rooms 10, 9, 8, 7 and
part of rooms 5 and 6 open for exhi bi tion . Starting
August 3 and working 4 hoursevery morningduring
each day of the work week, an exhib ition crew wi ll
replace t he ceiling panels. The original glass pan-
els will be replacedona northeast to sout hwest axis
f or 15 rows. The sequence of covering wi l l begin
from t he center row in rooms 5 and 6 and end at
thewest wall of rooms 1, 2, 3 and 4. Theend of the
exhibi t ion wi ll correspond wit h t he replacement of
the last row in room 1.2
Given t he symmetrically divided arrangement of
t he exhibition rooms and museum poli cy stipulati ng
t hat only one half of t he avai lable exhibi t ion space
could general ly be used for one art ist' s exhibi tion at a
t ime. I deci ded t hat divi di ng t he space int o two equal
but opposit e part s would be the struct uring device for
my work. Compl ementi ng t he spat ial division was a
temporal division requiring that only the f irst half (four
hours) of t he museum work crew' s eight- hour working
day (five days a week) be spent on the install ati on of
my work. Also. for the durat ion of my exhibit ion, t he
ot her half of the museum space would contain an in-
st all at i on of work from the museum' s permanent
collect ion. selected by the museum director who was
al so t he curator of my exhibit ion. By clearly di stin-
guishing and speci ficall y present ing the different par-
t ic ipant s (work cr ew. curator. art i st) t hat make an
exhibit ion possibl e at such an insti t ut ion, I wanted to
show how t hese necessary but separate funct ions are
equally essential for t he const it ut ion of a work.
Half of the actual install ation work was never seen
by the publ ic because the panel s had t o be removed
dur ing hours when the museum was closed to t he pub-
li c before t he exhibition opened. The di smantled dif-
fuser panels were stored in the atti c between cei l ing
and roof where they were st acked to be subsequently
178
180
exhibi tion), the installation negated the need for a com-
pleted presentat ion in favor of a process displaying
the funct ion of preparati on. At the same time, the
direct or was asked to use the preparation period to
present an exhibi tion in the other half of the museum
based on traditional di splay techniq ues for works from
the permanent coll ecti on. Both parallel , juxtaposed
preparation processes were opened t o the publi c at
t he same ti me.
The second stage of the instal lat ion began when
t he exhi bition was opened to the publi c and consisted
of the replacement of the diffu ser panels to t heir ongi-
nal posi tion in the cei li ng gri d. If the exhibition began
by removing elements determin ed by the architect ure
and their inst itut ional funct ion, the second stage of
the installat ion opened with the replacement of those
architectural elements. The replacement process that
would conceal the prior di smantling revealed how the
work had been fabricated. Also, the work crew and
the labor they expended effect ing thi s reconstr uction
were visibly present during half of the dail y exhibit ion
hours and were int egral to the installat ion.
Visi tors t o the museum on the morning of t he day
of the opening could have witnessed the beginning of
the reconstruct ion work, but the visi tors actuall y at-
tending the prel imi nary ceremonies could only know
from the descri pt ive informati on sheets that the re-
constructi on was already in progress. The first row of
diffusers, nearest t o the cent er of the museum, had
been part ially recovered by t he time of the off icial ex
hi bi tion opening later in the afternoon. This recon-
struction process lasted for twenty-six days and i ts
complet ion det ermi ned t he actual closure of the
exhibiti on. As the diff users were progressively replaced
from one workday t o the next , the install ation of the
work-and therefore the exhibition i tself-was in a
conti nual state of change in cl ear dist inct ion to the
exhibi tion in the other half of the museum which re-
malned a static display.
The materials that were necessary to construct
the work and the materials that were necessary to ex-
hibit the work became congruent in the same way the
Viewi ngdetail of ceilingconstructionandwall duringexhlblti on.
=
process of constructi ng t he work and the process of

exhibit ing the work were superi mposed on each other
to become identi cal. Necessaril y, therefore, on a tem-
poral axis, the work' s time of material construct ion as
well as its time of existence coinc ided with its act ual
exhi bit ion time and all threewere t erminated sirnulta-
neously. Since this installati on at it s conclusion rein-
tegrat ed itsel f t otally int o the existi ng architectura l
structu re and ceased to exist materiall y and visuall y
without leaving behind any residual elements of the
processes of construction and exhibit ion, it reverted
to exactl y the same material state of the archi t ectural
structure whose prior deconstruction had generated
the work's material existence.
The instal lation was present t o the viewer in a
palpabl y material way as well as in a purely concep-
tual strategy. The work's radical interference with given
archit ectural elements to produce a sculptural pres-
ence of various material s makes it superfic ial ly com-
parable to the sculptural appearanceof certain process
works; this applies as well to its alteration of light and
ambient sound conditi ons, i ts opening up of the exhi -
bit ion contai ner, its disassembl ing of element s in a
grid struct ure and their subsequent di stributi on within
the visual range of the installati on. The aff inity with
process works was further reflected in the progress of
thework crew'sdai ly alterations leading to final closure.
On the other hand, the work appeared as a purely con-
ceptual strategy since all of its material sculptural ele-
ments event ually mergedwit h the original archit ectural
funct ions of the museum structure.
Upon ent ering the rooms of the instal lation visi-
tors were aware of a noti ceable increase in lighting
intensity compared to light conditions in the other hal f
of the museum's exhibit ion rooms. The viewers were
also aware of a marked difference in t he quali ty of
sound. In t hose areas where t he ceiling had been re-
moved acoustics were more active and resonant. Since
those rooms were separated from the outsi de by only
one layer of glass roofing, out side noise entered more
easily and mixed with inside ambient noise. In t he
other half of t he museum the acoustics were far more
Cabinet 3, viewing westduring eeutntlcn. Photograph by
MIchael Asher.
18 1
Detail of cefling construct ion during exhibition . Photograph by
Gerhard Martini.
Room 6, viewingsouth towardentry/exit , dunng preparat ion of

installat ionat the Stedelijk Va nAbbe Museum. Photograph by
Hans Biezen.
compact and t he viewers fel t more l ike they were in
an isolated closed spat ial container. In this work the
light louvres for each exhi bi tion area were set per-
pendicular to the floor which gave the strongest over-
head light as well as the most di rect visual exposure
of the attic area above the ceiling.
Opening up the ceil ing in one half of the museum
drew the visi tor's attent ion to a spati al area normall y
concealed from view, but essent ial to the museum' s
funct ion. On a horizont al axis therefore, the viewer
might have been aware of a spati al demarcat ion sim-
ilar to the vertical division of the museum's ground
plan. Similar to the perceived difference in sound and
li ght in the two opposing halves of t he museum, t he
visitor was confront ed with the opposit ion between a
horizont all y open spatial contai ner empti ed of all ob-
j ect s yet giving visual access to its vert ical extension
and the mechanical funct ions i t contai ned, and a
sealed container precluding visual access t o function
as a stage for i ts contents.
It was possible to observethe instal lation's opera-
tion at any ti me during the exhibi tion i n both tempo-
ral halves of the work, both wit h and without t he
presence of the work crew. While the work crew actu-
ally operated the instal lation, nonoperational features
of the install ation were also apparent. The most con-
spicuous aspect of the installati on then became t he
presence of the workers- the sounds they generated
replacing the diffusers and talk ing wit h each other.
Their physical movements wereanalogous in their func-
ti on to viewers' movement s in the exhibition area. The
workers could be perceived by the viewers as actuall y
fabricati ng the work. Yet they were obviously not the
aut hors of the work, nor could they be perceived as
objects since they had their own worki ng procedure
wi thin the conf ines of the work.
Normally, all exhibit ions, and instal lat ion works
in part icular, conceal al ienated labor. The more spec-
tacular t he display and the more successful the cre-
ation of il lusion, the more theseworks have to conceal
the alienated labor that entered into their producti on
and exhibition. Therefore they inst itute on t he level of
182
display and exhibi tion practice an essentially aesthetic
claim, that the work of art excludes from it self and
negatesthe necessity of al ienation. This work incorpo-
rat ed alienated labor int o it s process of fabrication
and exhib ition which was publicly mani fest to the
viewer. By int roducing alienated labor into the frame-
work of a supposedly unalienated aesthetic product ion,
the product ion procedures as well as the displ ay proce-
dures that constitute the work's exhibition value were,
in t his case, no longer disconnected from each other
and were materially and visuall y accessible. The ques-
ti on arises whether the need t o introduce the viewer
to the presence of al ienation in the work' s display does
not result in a false aestheticization of al ienat ed labor
and whether it does not objecti fy the workers perform-
ing their task. The question is whether al ienat ed labor
exposed as a speci al task with in a work of art does not
imply aesthetici zed alienati on.
Appropr iat ion of a f unc tion necessary t o the
museum's dai ly existenceand exhibit ion pract ice would
have impli ed in fact an aestheticization of alienated
labor. However, a task bath invented and referring back
upon itself as function without actuall y performing that
funct ion (to display an object aesthetically) could not
truly be aesthet icized but only reveal the actual ce-
gree of hidden alienation wit hin exhibition practi ce.
IR.H. Fuchs, Michae l Asher, bhltHtlOnS In Europe 19721977. Eind-
hoven, Van Abbemuseum, 1980.
' Text 01handout available during theexhibition.
I
'II
I
I
October 9-November 20,1977
Fort Worth Art Museum
Fort Worth, Texas
In t he lat e spri ng of 1977, Marge Goldwat er, curator
of the Fort Worth Art Museum, visited me in Los Ange-
les to discuss t he possibil ity of my parti cipat ing in an
exhibi t ion, ent it led " Los Angeles in the Seventies."
In a letter dated June 14, 1977, I was off icially in-
vited to cont ri bute a work to thi s exhibi t ion whi ch in-
cl uded works by Mic hael Brewster, Guy de Cointet ,
Judy Fi skin, lloyd Hamral , Loren Madsen, Michael
McMillen, Eric Orr, and Roland Reiss. Conceived as a
t raveling exhibit ion of t he work of Sout hern California
arti sts, it was subsequentl y instal led at t he Joslyn Art
Museum in Omaha, Nebraska, from March 1 t o Apri l
15,1979. (see page 190) In t he summer of 1977, I
visit ed the Fort Worth Art Museum and started work-
ing on a proposal for the exhibi t ion.
Soon t hereafter, I submi tted a proposal which was
provi sional ly accepted by t he museum, cont i ngent on
t he approval of the ot her part ies involved in the project.
In addit ion to t he sponsoring insti tuti on, the Fort Worth
Art Museum, my proposal asked for the parti cipat i on
of two ot her museum insti t uti ons located in Fort Wort h.
These were the Kimbel l Art Museum and the Amon
Carter Museum of Western Art. Both museums were
located within the immediate neighborhood of the Fort
Worth Art Museum and were wi thi n several minutes'
walking distance.
The Fort Worth Art Museum is dedicated to the
coll ect ion and exhibit ion of twent ieth-century and con-
temporary art. The Kimbell Art Museum houses a sub-
stanti al collect ion of European painting and sculpt ure
prior to t he twent ieth cent ury as wel l as American art
of t hat period. The Amon Carter Museum of Western
Art houses a coll ecti on of ear ly ninet eent h- and
twent i eth-cent ury American art .
The Fort Worth Art Museum was originall y de-
signed by Herbert Bayer. An addit ion to the original
building was designed by Richard Oneslager. A sec-
ond addit ion was constructed by the regional architec-
t ural group Ford, Powell , and Carson in 1973. The
Kimbell Art Museum was designed and const ructed
by Louis L. Kahn and opened in 1972. The Amon
Carter Museum of Western Art was designed by Phi lip
lB4
Johnson and opened in 1961.
Because their coll ect ions and the archi tect ural
st ruct ures which house them differ so markedly, each
museum i s perceived in the communi ty as having a
separate ident i ty. Due however to its impressive col -
lect ion and its architectural merit , the Kimbell Art Mu-
seum is the major recipient of the community's interest
if not its revenue. The Amon Carter Museum with it s
recognized collec ti on of Western art of the Unit ed
Stat es and its architectural design by one of the bet-
ter known Ameri can archi tects, is considered in the
community as being of almost equal import ance. The
building and the contemporary coll ect ion of the Fort
Wort h Art Museum, on the ot her hand, has generally
been considered to be of a more modest standi ng within
the communi t y.
Yet all three museum inst i t uti ons clearly shared
certain functi ons, such as t he maintenance and stor-
age of t he coll ect ions, the mount ing and dismantl ing
of exhibi tio ns, shi ppi ng and receiving of loans for
exhi bit ions, and so on. These constant s were refl ect ed
materially in t he act ivit ies of t he service vehicles in
each museum' s parking area. They were also mani -
fested in t he daily presence during working hours of
private vehi cles in those same parking areas belong-
ing to admini strat ion and staff members who carried
out similar funct ions in each inst itut ion. The three
museums are located near a maj or i ntersection, ap-
proximat ely five minutes dri ving t ime from downtown
Fort Worth.
Al l three instituti ons had separate parking areas
for t heir visitor s as well as speci fic parking zones for
service and st aff vehi cl es which were locat ed behind
each museum. It was partly t hese most obvious condi -
t ions t hat determined t he st ruct ure of my proposal.
My proposal for t his exhibit ion suggested t hat from
November 14 to November 20 , t he last week of t he
exhibi ti on, all three museums would share a parking
lot for all t heir service and staff vehicles. This parking
lot , which was in the vicini ty but independent of al l
thr ee museums' servi ce parking areas, was cent ral to
t he main entrances of al l three museums and within a
-
Aerial view. Courtesy: Fort Worth Art Museum, Fort Worth.

Texas.
a. Locati on of serviceareaof the Fort Worth Art Museum.
b. Location 01serviceareaol the Amon Cart er Museum.
c. l ocati on of servicearea of the Kimbell Art Museum.
d. Central parking lot areaused for the installation.
IB5
. . . ~
the service and staff vehi cles parking in t he north-
east corner of the parking lot between t he Will Rogers
Col iseum and t he Forth Wort h Art Museum which had
been assigned as the common parking lone. Thi s in-
volved an addi tional two- or t hree-minute wal k to and
from t he parking lot for staff members to reach t heir
respect ive workplace. This meant t hat staff had to alot
at most an additi onal t hree minutes part icularly in t he
morning, i n order to arrive on t ime. The staff mem-
bers of t he three insti t ut ions did not necessarily arrive
or depart at exactly t he same t ime, as their lunch-
hour habi ts differed individual ly. Yet i t frequent ly hap-
pened t hat staff members and admini st rators of the
three inst i t uti ons encountered each ot her whil e park-
ing t heir cars in t he morning on arrival or when depart-
ing from t he parking lot after working hours. Some
members of t he diff erent inst itut ions actuall y met and
talked to each other in t he parki ng lot. The service
vehicl es of the t hree insti t ut ions arrived and departed
from the parking lot at various t imes during t he day or
were parked for periods of t ime in t hi s lot whi le not in
service.
I had deci ded to st ay in Fort Worth for at least t he
first two days of t he work's operation to be available
for any quest i ons or suggestions comi ng f rom t he
parti cipa nts. During thi s period i t seemed t o me t hat
almost all members of t he staff and admi nist rat ion of
t he t hree museum inst i t utions had deci ded t o act u-
ally foll owup on their commi tment to participat e. Some
of t he staff member s i nformed me tha t t hey had
changed t heir habi t of entering or leaving the buil ding
only through t he service ent ry/exit and that by using
the main ent rance they found they were paying more
attention to the presence of the collection in t he
museum. One curator, for example, t old me that she
normally entered the exhibi tion area only on t hose oc-
casions when she had curated the exhi bition herself,
whereas now she passed t hrough t he exhibit ion area
regularly before entering her off ice. Some of the staff
members also said t hat they had hardly ever taken t he
time to not ice what the main entrance of t he museum
looked l ike.
West View 01the tecaoeof theAmonCarler Museum. Photo-
graph by Michael Asher.
Sideviewof the Fort Worth Art Museum. PhOlograph by
Michael Ashef .
Frontal VIew01the Kimbell Art Museum. Photograph by
MIchael Asher.
few minutes walking distance. It wasunderstood that

the regular service act ivi ties such as loading and un-
loadi ng would be carried out by t he service vehicles
as usual in the respecti ve service areas of each rnu-
seum after which the vehicles would be parked in the
temporar il y defined common parki ng lone. A descrip-
t ion of the work was availab le to visi tors at the book-
stores of the three museums.
This proposal, which I submi tted in written form,
was first accepted by t he staff and administration of
t he Fort Worth Art Museum. All staff members at t he
Fort Wort h Art Museum volunteered to part icipate in
t he work for the durat ion of one week. I made a verbal
presentat ion of t he same proposal at t he lect ure t he-
ater of t he Kimbell Art Museum to inform t he st aff
and administrat ors of t he museum of my intenti ons
and ideas and t o invi te t hem to part ici pate. The com-
ment s t hat were made in t he discussion aft er t he pre-
sentation fu rt her revealed t he tack of any soci al
int eract ion between t he staff members of t he thr ee
insti t ut ions and questioned whether this proposal could
possibl y effect a change in the sit uati on. There were
quest ions about the spati al and t emporal l imit s of t he
work; for example, one person asked whet her on leav-
ing the parki ng lot in his car he was sti ll part icipat ing
in t he work. The museum photographer felt t he idea
should not be imposed on the staff but t hat the st aff
should i tself shape the proposal and decide whet her
i t was perti nent to them and whether their part ici pa-
t ion was reasonable or desirable. The general response
t o t his presentation was positive, and I subsequently
received a lett er from Richard Brown, director of the
Kimbell Art Museum, aff irming t he museum's sup-
port and collaborat ion wit h my project.
I approached a number of staff members and ad-
minist rators at t he Fort Wort h Art Museum and dis-
cussed t he proposal i ndivi duall y wi t h t hem. In a
communication to the curator of t he Fort Worth Art
Museum t hey confirmed t heir general part ici pation in
the project after t hey had learned about t he Kimbell
Art Museum' s part icipation.
As of November 14, the work began with most of
Amon carter Museum. Delivery areaand service entrance.
Courtesy; Fort Worth Art Museum.
KImbell Art Museum. Dehvery area and serviceentrance.
Courtesy; Fort Wort h Art Museum.
Fort WorthArt Museum. Deuveryareaand service entrance.
Courtesy: Fort Worth Art Museum.
186 187

VIewi ng east on parking lot durmg extubit ron toward Will
Rogers Memorial Hall .
I reali zed on the second day of the installat ion
that staff members werecl ustering their cars toget her
on the parking lot, whereas on t he first day it seemed
they had parked their cars in a completely random
order. It seemed that many staff members knew their
colleague'scarsthrough makeand model, and by iden-
ti fying thecars parked on the lot they seemed to learn
about their col leagues' partic i pat ion in the work.
Furthermore, they tended to become acquainted with
other colleagues first through recognition ottheir cars'
make and model in the temporari ly defined parking
lot .
The installation was completed on November 20,
when the staff members returned to their habit of en-
teri ng their museum building through the staff en-
trance and parking their vehicles in each museum's
service areas.
In thi s work I tri ed to deal wit h the notion of
coll aboration. Normally museumstaff members facili -
tate the staging of exhibitions by performing their vari-
ous functions and speci fic responsibi l ities which
remain hidden from t he viewer and are unrecorded in
any documentat ion that may exist; their activities are
obli terated by the work i tself and are therefore not
percei ved as essenti al to the work' s produ ct ion,
presentation, and recepti on. Yet by suggesti ng a slight,
nondi srupt ive alteration to the daily pattern of the
staff 's arri val and departure to and from the museum,
the work did not cl aim to be a partici patory work or a
group performance. Part icipation would have meant
that their daily work activi t ies be transformed into a
" performance" or become part of an exhibi t ion
spectacle. By focusing on the employee's transporta-
t ion vehicl e and i ts arrival and departure, the work
di rected viewers' attent ion to an essential object in
which alienated labor was materialized. It also pointed
out t he function of transportation to and from work
that t hat object actually performed, whereas actual
labor could not be perceived in the work i tself. Dem-
onstrating t he actual labor performance by which the
employees contributed to the maintenanceof the insti-
tut ion and i ts continued exhibition activi ties would
have meant aestheticizing al ienated labor. Subject -
188
Nort h vew 01parking lot dunng exhi bi tion wrth museum stal l
andservice vetncles. Photograph s by Mi chael Asher.
ing their labor to aesthet ic appropriation would have
al ienated thei r work a second time. In thi s regard, the
work was essent iall y di ff erent from the install ation at
Eindhoven where alienated labor had been integrated
in the fabrication of the work.
This work was defi ned by the construct ion of a
single meeting point which abolished temporaril y the
instrumental separation between the thr ee museum
institut ions and their employees' arrival and depar-
ture at those insti t utions. The work generated the fol-
lowing questions: Did the fact that employees of the
thr ee different inst itut ions complied with the work' s
proposal to temporarily abandon their normal aff iliation
wit h one institution (i nasmuch as it was embodied in
their daily patt ern of choosing the separate parking
lot) deprive them of their daily experience of secured
identity? Or, was their sense of identity increased by
the fact that this work made them real ize that the
instrumental separation of their individual insti tuti ons
had al ienated them from other individuals working in
similar positi ons in simil ar inst ituti ons?
The viewer could perceive this work through the
descript ion and definition of the work that existed for
the viewer as a handout in the bookstore/informati on
areas of all three museums; or as a material proce-
dure occurri ng i n a locat ion outsi de of t he t hree
museums. The material elements vi sibl e i n thi s
location, however, were not necessaril y part of the
work's procedure but existed also as separate ent it ies
outside the confines of the work's definit ion.
Both of these elements of the work were mut u-
ally dependent upon each other for readabili ty and
visibi l ity. The definiti on of the work funct ioned as an
intervent ion/operati on wit hin a support struct ure that
consisted of the behavioral everyday patterns of each
institution. This operation was integrated within the
support structure to such a degree that i t coalesced
with i t and lost it s own separate visi bility and identi ty
as a construction of visual meaning. Therefore. in-
stead of foregrounding or extrapolat ing element s from
a given support structure and integrat ing them into
an aesthetic structure, the work introduced procedural
change within the existing support structure i tself.
March 1-Apri/15, 1979

Joslyn Art Museum
Omaha, Nebraska
......
J OSLYN ART l\,t USEUI\ 1, Omaha. Nebraska
-
Postcardof the Joslyn Art Museum, Omaha. Nebraska. West

viewof the recede.
Postcardof the FcuntamCourt of the Joslyn Art Museum.
West vIew.
In late June 1978 I visited the Joslyn Art Museum in
Omaha, Nebraska, in order to prepare my contri bu-
tion to the second install ation of the travel ing exhibi-
ti on " Los Angeles in the Sevent ies." The Joslyn Art
museum was designedand constructed by the Omaha
architect s John and Alan McDonald from 1928 to
1931, a late twenties synthesis of neocl assical style
andArt Decoarchitectural ornamentati on. Theground
plan of the main floor of the museum is symmetrical
along it s east-west axis. but asymmetrical along its
shorter north-south axis. The plan shows a coreof f ive
areas that are connected but that do not funct ion as
themainexhibit ion space. Theseare fromeast towest:
the east entranceand lobby, the fountain court which
funct ions as a rest area for visitors, and the foyer, all
of which are approximately the same size; the large
concert hall , almost the same size as the f irst three
areas combined, and, finally, a smaller room, used as
a members room and not accessible to the general
public. On the north and sout h side along this core
there are five actual gallery spaces. Their east-west
spatial divisions, dimensions, and sequenceare iden-
t ical in both the north and south wing. Two ident ical
hallways that are also used for exhibiti on purposes
separate the exhi bition gallery on the north and the
southside from the east entrance, the fountai n court ,
and the foyer. The design of these hall ways reappears
behind the concert hall in the form of two small vesti-
bule areas which give access to the Joslyn Members
Room and are used asexhibition areas for the decora-
t ivearts. The north wing is used for temporary exhibi-
t ions, while the south wing houses the museum' s per-
manent collection of art that spans the fift eenth to
the twentieth century.
The " Los Angeles in the Seventi es' exhibi ti on
was planned for the north galleries on the main fl oor.
My proposal was to create a zone from the south wall
of the north galleries to the middle of the core mu-
seumspaces, extendingthe full lengthof the museum,
thus bisecting the core area into two zones of equal
size. It so happened that the two zones of the core
space were each approximately equal In WIdth to the
exhi bit iongalleries on the north and south sides. f rom
the northern zone all movable objects were removed,
such as paintings and sculpture, benches, ashtrays,
display cases, stands, bases, and fl ags. Only those
objects that were permanentl y installed or part of the
interior remained, such as built-in planters and plants,
heating elements, and light ing fixtures. The objects
that were removed were put into storage for the dura-
t ion of the exhibition and the zone remained empty
and unalt ered according to my instructions. My pro-
posal did not affect the galleries on the ground floor
or those on the second floor, but only those on the
main floor where the actual installation of the exhibi-
t ion " Los Angeles in the Seventies" was visibl e.
A descripti on/defini t ion of my installat ion and a
ground plan showing the locat ion of my work within
the museum was avai lable to the viewer at the main-
floor front desk in the east-entrance lobby and the
ground-f loor bookstore.
Upon enteri ng viewers found themselves in the
east-entrance lobby from which no objects had been
removed. As viewers moved on into the next room of
thecore zone, they entered the fountain court. Onthe
west side of the fountain court a pair of anci ent Chi-
nese Mingvaseswas normally displayed on solid stone
pedestals, and a pair of ancient Chinese sculptures
representing mythical animals was installed on identi -
cal pedestals on the east side of the fountain court .
There were also two benches and two ashtrays, each
symmetrically placed on the north and south side of
thecourt . Oneof each of these symmetrically displayed
elements in the fountain court was removed from the
north side according to my proposal. In the next room
of the core l one, the foyer, there were two glass dis-
play cases, symmetrically placed north and south, con-
taining small -scale ancient art ifacts. The one on the
nort h side. includi ng its contents. was removed and
placed i n storage. The systematic removal of all these
elements from the north side of the three core areas
establ ished a viewmg perspective that connected all
areas on an east-west axis that had been depleted of
movable objects. The areas on the south side were
19 1
JOS LY N ART MUSEUM
Joslyn Art Museum. Exhibit ionhandout. Shaded areaon
groundplan indicateszoneof removal .
Joslyn Art Museum. Exhibiti on handout. Description of
installation.
M AI N I l O Q Il
o C 8
- - - - - - - - -''-T(' mpo. u <y [ .. /" h " Io n '
f n lr tln c "
A ll e . l' n l \ "Jorl d
l
'
15 . 11 - '1Qlh ( r n lul ' '' \ - - ....:- ---
o.
C OU f I
"
:; ,J ]
-----'---Pel mu ,, " nl Co l lf' [ ' , o n
-
o
-
Ar t \
"The J oslyn Ar t HU8eUlll va. const ructed fo l lowing a ar-etrlcal ground pl an 80 that t he nor th
and l ourh aides mirror one anot he r i n inter ior 81ze, shape, and detail. At the same tt-e. the
perl.eter galleriea ve r e const ructed wi th coamon cent er l i ne to .trror each otber f rom t heLr
f ur t hea t extentl froa e. s t to wea r . Cont ained In t he middle I , t he ..in entrance f ount a1n '
cour t , foyer, conce r t hall, and Jos l yn r oom which t ogether fora an 888ymetrl cal f rom t he
eau to t he. vea t walla of t.he m1881.1111 . I _ particularl y ioterested in the r onal l ayout of the
muaeua and Lt a att en tion t o orna.ent a t l on and cons truct i on de t a i l .
"Gener al l y , t he ao ut he rn aallerie. are uaed f or the pe mnen t col lec tion . Fro- March 1 t o April
is, t he nor t hern aall eries vUl con t a.in the exhibition ' '1.oa M ae l e s in the seveeer e e", I t i .
t hi. exhi bi t i on I .. a part of . Yet . ,. cont r i bution t o t hb exhibition b no t in t be northern
aallerie . , but ad j acent t o thea. Tor the exhibition , 1 .. cr ea t ina a zona by an area
froa the nortbern vall o f the north hallvay t o t be centerl ine of t he auaella and u:tendina it
fl oor t o cetlinl . ! veryt hina which 11 aovab le f r a. t b b ar ea baa been put in atoraae Thill
arti facta or worka of art, om_ntation, benchea , c_ e. , a t an dl, ashtraya ,
HI CIiAEL ASHD
connect ed by t he presence of those symmetrical ly di s-

played objects. The viewer could therefore perceive
two adjacent zones throughout the core area of the
museum, one filled with object s, the other empt ied of
objects, within a biaxial , symmetr ical, neoclassical
archit ectural framework.
All graphics, prints, and flags displayed in the
north hallwaywere removed, with only the permanently
attached display paneling left in place. The south hall -
way, however- like the southern half of the core areas
- remained unt ouched and continued t o contain its
usual quantity of display elements, art objects and
medieval arti fact s. Decorat ive art objects were also
removed from the north vestibule, whereas simi lar ob-
jects in the south vestibule remai ned in place. As a
result of this bisect ion the northern zone of the rnu-
seum core areas was subjected to the same opera-
tions that were normally performed in the northern
gall eries for temporary exhibit ions, such as disman-
tli ng and removal, and reinstallation of art objects and
presentation devices. Whereas t he southern zone of
the core area remained static, as did the permanent
coll ecti on in the adjacent sout hern galler ies.
This was the first of my inst all at ions to subject
other works of art and their nonarchi tectural presenta-
t ional devices t o a material operation, in this i nstance
removal or withdrawal. In previous works the process
of removal had focused on the mat erial archi tectural
element s of presentat ion wi thin the gallery/museum
context (for example, the works at the r osen! Gall ery,
the Lcgsdait Gallery, and the Eindhoven Museum). Yet ,
the inst all at ions at the Stedelijk van Abbemuseum
Eindhoven and at the Claire Copley/Morgan Thomas
Galleries did have, in fact , implici t consequences for
the installat ion and display of other works of art. Fo-
cusing on an inst it uti on's actual art objects rather than
on it s presentational strategies seemed necessary in
my work in order to avoid i ts bei ng understood as a
formal aesthet ic, perceptive operation within a purely
archit ectural context.
This work responds to the archi tectural display
system that ali enates works of art by manipulating their
sense of origin. to the extent that they are perceived
as being materially out of cont ext. The abstracti on and
rigidity of the architect ural display system is further
revealed by the fact that obj ects of everyday use, wi th
no apparent cultu ral value, such as benches and
ashtrays. are subjected to the same ordering system
of symmetrical display within the museum structure.
Rather than interf ering with the actual object s.
thi s work intervenes within the insti tut ional conven-
tions that contain and display cult ural objects and ob-
ject sof everyday use interchangeably. revealing in what
way they are dispersed, displayed, and codi fied.
The work questi ons therefore whether the percep-
t ion of the viewer within an insti tut ional sit uat ion is
determi ned more by the modes of object display and
their dependence on the archi tectural condit ions of a
given structure, or by the discourse of abstracted and
alienated cul tural objects themselves.
Overleaf : Photographsof install ati on. All photographs
by Ruby Hagerbaumer.
192
193
Viewing west Iromentry/exit toward Wit herspoonl oyer.

Fountain Court. Southview.
viewmgnorth In Wi therspoon loyer.
East viewfrom Wit herspoon loyer towardenlry/eltil.
FountainCourt. North view.
VIewingsouth In WItherspoon loyer.
2
-
viewingeast towardentry/exit from fountain court.
Southhallway (Ancient World and Medieval), viewingwest.
Permanent collection. Viewing west.
Viewing west from Fountain Court to Wit herspoon loyer.
Nort h hallway (graphics), viewing west.
Temporaryextnbitions area. viewing wesl.
The Museum of Contemporary Art
Chicago, Illinois
197
I
I
Facadeof the Museumof Contemporary Art duri ngexhibition .
PhotographcourtesyTheMuseumof Contemporary Art, Chicago.
Facade of the Museumof Contemporary Art, Chicago wil h
panels in placeand work i n public storage. Photograph cour-
tesyThe Museumof ContemporaryArt, Chicago.
-
ing are derivative of what we may call t he hist ory of
the interrelat ionship of modernist architecture and art.
For example, t he diagonal webbing and gl ass seen in
relat ion to the perpendi cular claddi ng constitute a
reference to elements of Const ructi vism, which had
been absorbed and translated into formal abstract ions
by Internat i onal Styl e archit ecture. The aluminum
cl addi ng refers to Internat ional Style archit ectura l ele-
ment s, but , even more so, to the subsequen t int egra-
t ion of Construct ivist and Bauhaus elements in t he
idiom of Min imal scu lpture. Thi s is refl ected in t he
square-gri d patt ern as well as in t he flat, square metal
panel s and their text ured anodized f ini sh. Therefore
t he out er shell of the new facade billboards it self not
only as architecture but alsoas contemporarysculpture.
By juxtaposi ng elements of t hese two diff erent disci -
plines, it deprives both disciplines of t heir specifi c
meaning and f unct ion, and creates an ideological lan-
guage t hat conveys a message of a cu ltural not ion of
technocratic progress.
For my install at ion I proposed t hat the two hori -
zontal rows of al uminum panels on ei t her side of and
on t he same level as t he Bergman Gallery windows
should be removed from t he facade and placed on an
int eri or wall of the galle ry for t he durat ion of the
exhibit ion. The ten panels from the east side of the
bui lding and t he ei ght panels from the west side were
t o be arranged insi de i n the same f ormat ion and
sequence, but in a posit ion whi ch was not identi cal to
what t heir ext erior placement had been.
The east tower of t he museum had four panel s on
the street si de of t he facade and si x more panel s
wrapped around the all ey side of the tower. These t en
panel s were extended around in a sideways project ion
and placed sequent ially as a f lat plane on the interior
wall. The last two aluminum panels in each row were
only 38 inches wide , due to t he dept h of t he new
const ruct ion. These two panels lined up with the verti -
cal window mull ion of the east side of the gallery and
the rest of the panels extended 22 feet al ong the wall ,
from t he east toward the center of the gall ery wall.
The west tower had eight panel s on t he street
In July 1978, I visited t he Museum of Contemporary
Art in Chicago at the invit ation of Judit h Kirshner, it s
curator, to discuss plans for a forthcomingexhibit ion.
The museum was in the very early stages of being en-
tirely remodelled , so that it was difficult t o vi sual ize
what its future spat ial and archit ectu ral dimensions
would be. I therefore requested the archit ectural pl ans
to augment photographs I had taken of the exist ing
museum st ruct ure and the area surroundi ng it .
I t hen developed my concept for an install at ion
based on the design of Booth , Nagl e, and Hart ray,
the architectural firmthat had been commissioned to
redesign the museum. The plans called for an annex
to be built on t he museum's west side and a glassed-in
promenade-gall ery. which would bridge the new annex
t o t he east side of t he museum. The glassed-in st ruc-
ture, named t he Bergman Gallery, would f uncti on as
a showcase, so t hat t he art present ed insi de t he gal-
l ery would be visible f rom t he st reet. It would be
const ructed at second-story level , above and in f ront
of t he already existing bui lding, to create t he appear -
ance of a larger architect ural st ruct ure. My plans for
an installat ion were based on this new gallery structure,
whi ch was compl eted before the inst allat ion of my
work.
The Bergman Gallery i s 751/ 2 feet long, 13 feet
wide, and 19 feet from f loor to ceili ng. The plans in-
cluded an enti rely new design for t he f acade whi ch
was based on a 5lf2 foot square-grid patt ern, idiom-
at ic of t he Internat ional Styl e. The same grid pattern,
const ructed of glass and aluminum framin g, was ap-
pl ied to the facade of the Bergman Gall ery, wit h alu-
minu m panel cladd ing used to cover t he existi ng
museum facade on ei t her side. The alum inum panel s
appear to wrap around t he enti re building, but. much
like a prop in a Hol lywood movie set, t ermi nat e ap-
proximat ely 15 feet beyond the corner. Thi s appear-
ance of bei ng unfinished conveys the not ion of f uture
growt h and an interest in expanded museum activi t ies,
and lays t he groundwork for t he f ut ure st ages of con-
st ructi on included in the original design.
The al uminum cladding and archit ectural detai l -
196
198
side, the last two of which measured only 30 inches
in width in order to make room for a windowconstruc-
t ion running vertical ly along the facade. These eight
panels were also projected sideways and placed on
the gallery wall, beginning at a point 30 inches east
of the vert ical window mullion, to take into account
the absence of panel cladding on this part of the exte-
rior facade, extending 24 feet 9 inches towards the
center of the wall , leaving 30 feet of unused wall space
in between. Besides l ining up with the outer margin
at the first window mullion on an east-west axis, the
installation was also placed at the same height as the
windows; so that the bottom l ined up with the bott om
of the window-f rame and the top l ined up wit h it s top,
leaving 8 feet of empty wal l space above the panels.
In thei r new interior posit ion, the panels were lo-
cated t he same distance f rom the wall (21/ 4 inches)
as they had been in their original outdoor rel ief . For
t he purposes of t his installation, the channels hold-
ing the cladding to t he exterior walls had to be modified
in order to allow for the removal and replacement of
the panels. Identical channels were madeand attached
to the gallery wall in order to accept the cladding. The
entire work, both it s exterior and interior element s,
could be viewed from the street. The removal of the
cladding from the exterior revealed the painted ce-
ment block of the bui lding. It became apparent that
the al uminum cladding funct ioned as a ski n of orna-
mentat ion for the exterior.
Once these plates were placed on the wall swith in
the interior of the museum and were showcased be-
hind glass, they became subject to the percept ual
condition s that permit and determine an artwork' s
existence. Here the install ati on of the cladding pan-
els assured features that were idiomatic of Minimal ist
aesthetics; in particul ar, the modular grid systems and
the prefabricated industri al material element s. Al-
though the aluminum panels in the museum were
identi cal to those on the exterior, they were no longer
perceived as a symbolic expression of the museum's
expansion and future growth. Rather, they were per-
ceived as an autonomous scul pt ural phenomenon
withi n the modernist tradit ion.
Because of the assumpti on, within the modern-
ist tradit ion, that appl ied art is di ff erent from autono-
mous art , t he panels showcased i n the museum
appeared to have greater importance than the identi -
cal panels on the exterior wall , where the alumi num
cladding funct ioned only as a decorat ive element of
archit ectur e.
The display wall of the Bergman Gallery was con-
structed primarily as a neutral backdrop for large-
scale moderni st paint ing. In order to preserve i t s
formal ist discourse, Minimal sculpture also used the
supposedly neutral archi tect ural container as one of
its constit uent parts. Another cruci al concept at the
origi ns of Minimali st aestheti cs was the idea of the
relief as a transition from two-dimensional to three-
dimensional object s. In the work at the Museum of
Contemporary Art t hese formal and material elements
of Minimal aesthet ics were ut ilized and were then
returned, for the purpose of observation, to the inte-
rior architectural support struct ure from which they
had origi nated.
The work at the Museum of Contemporary Art
points to the condi ti ons in which archi tect ure and art,
as practices, havebecome irreconci lable. Stylistic simi-
larit ies may be the only manner in which these two
pract ices seem to cross-reference.
Because the historical differences between the
two pract ices had to be clarif ied, in this installat ion, I
attempt ed to li terall y deconstruct the elements of the
facade, thereby changi ng their meaning by negating
both their architectural and sculptural readings, which
the buildi ng had origi nally attempted to fuse. I contex-
tual ized t he sculpture to display the architect ure and
the archit ect ure to display the problems of scul pture.
Sculpture can be only momentaril y effect ive i f it
all ows its inherent contradi ctions and ambiguit ies to
become visible wit hin the present insti t utional and
cultural condi tions. Although the possibi li ty always ex-
ists that archi tecture could be infl uenced by art , its
integri ty is not based upon these influences but on Its
own capaci ty to functi on and to fulf il l needs.
Five months prior to the actual installati on, the

Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago agreed to
purchase the work for their permanent col lection. The
museum's goal of increasing it s permanent collecti on,
which finds its expression in the placement of the alu-
mi num cladding as exterior ornament , was addressed
by the install at ion of that cladding in the interior and
by the work's integration into the permanent collection.
This installat ion was meant to operate only until the
next phase of the museum's construction.The muse-
um's staff will decide when the installati on of the work
will be repeated. Each time i t wi ll be installed for two
months or t he length of a temporary exhibi tion.
The first installat ion of this work took place from
June 8 through August 12, 1979. After August 1.2,
1979, the aluminum panels were reinstall ed on t he
exterior of the buildi ng. Each time the aluminum pan-
els are replaced to their original exterior position, they
are being stored in full public view or, in ot her words,
in open storage. while the rest of the museum' s per-
manent collection remains inside and general ly inac-
cessible to publ ic view.
During the first install ation, Sol Lewitt chose to
do a wall drawing on the 30 feet of unused center wall
space between the east and west cl uster of installed
panels.
199
r
l
-
North elevation (facade of the Museum of Contemporary Art )
designating panel s to be removed. Drawing by Michael Asher .
c
T
I
I
l-
I
t
-
....-
I
.... -.-
_ ~
_ z';':. v,:
...
I
_.
.'
....
.
.. .-
..
~ ~
"
-.- , . ' .
_ H'
--'
"'.- 't::.-
1..:....----1- ,
'"
j
..'
East elevation. Drawing by Michael Asher.
Nort h elevation of facade. Drawingby Boot h, Nagle and Hart ray.
Courtesy: TheMuseumof Contemporary Arl, Chicago,
East tower of museum duri ng exhibition.
West tower of museum du nng exhi bi tion.
Photographsby Michael Asher.
200
20 1
----- --- - - - -
l
c
-----
~
I
l
1

-
.
,
___ .<6 ..-"-
_ -"--"#0_ _ .. _.....-
-_ .,- --
.... ....---_......
~
..~ .. _ _..
. ~ ' - .-.. -__-
--....-..-.-- -_.... ....---
-
ISOMETRl C Of TYPICAl.. PANEL1."_ -..=. _ _ ..-...) \
Gallery displaypanels. Elevation. Drawing by Booth. Nagle
andHartray. Courtesy: TheMuseumof ContemporaryArt.
Chicago.
Secnon throogh removable panels. Drawing by Booth, Nagle
andHartray. Courtesy: The Museumof Contemporary Art
Chicago.
202
b
sectionof secondfloor (BergmanGallery). Drawing byBooth,
NagleandHartray. Courtesy: The Museum01Contemporary
Art. ChICago.
Isometric of typical paneLDrawing by Booth, Nagle and
Hartray. Courtesy: TheMuseumof Contemporary Art , Chicago.
203
- - - - - - - - - "
DetaIl of mstauancn. Endof panels di splayed on theeast Side
of Bergman Gallery.
General viewdunngextnbmon. viewingwest.
&
Detail of msteuanco. End 01panelsdisplayed on thewest Side

of BergmanGallery.
General viewof instal lation at the Museumof Contemporary
Art, viewingeast. Photographs by MIchael Asher.
(
204
b
205
.
.
207
Allerton Building, whose main entrance is located on
Michigan Avenue. The work is by the French artist
Jean-Antoine Houdon, and is a life-size representa-
tion of George Washington. Houdon traveled to the
Unit ed States in 1785 to study his subject and, after
returningto France, he madetheoriginal marblesculp-
ture in 1788. Thework, which is nowat the Capit ol in
Richmond, Virginia, was intended to be a scul ptural
representation of the historical subject. The version
purchased by the Art Inst itute is a bronze replicawhich
was cast and acquired in 1917 and installed in 1925
at the Michigan Avenue entrance. The sculpture is
placed on a black granite pedestal which is 4 feet 9
inches highand 34 incheswide. Theground-floor level
of the Michigan Avenue facade is constructed with
five evenly spaced arches. Anarcade between two blind
arched openings leads to t he main entrance/exit doors
placed on either side of the arcade. The scul pture by
The exhibition at the Art Institute of Chicago was or-
ganized by A. James Speyer, Curator. and Anne
Rorimer, Associate Curator. both in the department of
20t hCentury Paint ingand Sculpture. Thiswas a group
exhibition with the following participants: Robert Barry,
Dan Graham, Michael Heizer, On Kawara, Sol Lewt tt .
Agnes Mart in, Bruce Nauman. Maria Nordman, All en
Ruppersberg, Edward Ruscha. Robert Ryman, Fred
Sandback, Richard Serra. Frank Stella, and Lawrence
Weiner.
After an initial visit to t he Arll nstitute in Decem-
ber 1978, todiscuss my participation in the exhibition,
I submitted three proposals. The fi rst two could not
bereali zed for " practical and logistical reasons" (Anne
Rori mer, preface to the Catalogue, 73rd American
Exhibi tion, The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago,
1979, p. 13). The third proposal was for a sculptural
work that normall y stood in front of the Art Instit ute's
CoIOI postcard 01the mstanauon In Gall ery
219 published by (he Art Institute of
Chicagoafter t he 73 rd Ameri can Exhibition.
h o t o ~ p h by Rusty Cul p. Courtesy 01The
Art Insti tute 01Ehlcagc,
73rd American Exhibition
The Art Insti tute of Chicago
Chicago, Illi nois
2
Viewing west m Bergman Gallerydunng exhtbmcn
Photographs by Michael Asher.
vrewmg east In Bergman Gallerydurmgexhlbllton.
206
2
"
-
Jean-Antoine Houdonwasoriginallylocated onthe cen-
ter axis of thecenter arch. Afewyears later, the sculp-
t ure was moved st raight forward , out from under the
arch, so that it would stand at the top of the steps
approaching t he Art Inst itute. I The late eighteenth-
cent ury sculpt ure has li ttl e or no stylistic reference to
the nee-Renai ssance facade, yet its placement at the
top of t he steps clearly breaks up t he classical order
of the facade. which in turn reinforces the sculpture's
decorat ive funct ion. It funct ions therefore as a monu-
ment. conveying a senseof national heritage in histon-
cal and aesthetic terms .
I proposed removing thesculpture fromits pedes-
tal and placing it in it s ori ginal historical context in an
eighteenth-cent ury per iod room, Gall ery 219 , with
paint ings and decorat ive art s. The grani te pedestal
was di smantled and put into storage. The scul pt ure
was placed in the center of Gallery 2 19, on a wooden
base which was identical in height and color to t he
ot her wooden bases in the gallery.
The European period gal leries on t he second floor
of the museum are arranged in chronological order.
Gallery 2 19 contained works from 1786 to 1795 (see
drawings a, b, c, and d). The gall ery is 15 feet high,
22 feet wide, and 26 feet 6 inches long; it has a glass
ceiling to diffuse light and a parquet floor . Us walls
were painted a gray-bl ue-green. The paintings in the
gallery were hung in the manner of an ei ghteent h cen-
tury salon. Objects of t he decorat ive art s, such as fur-
nitu re and si lver, were placed around t he perimeter of
the gallery. Once the sculpt ure of George Washi ngton
was instal led, i t became apparent that t he pat ina, re-
sult ing from the sculpture's having been outdoors for
many years, almost matched t he colors of the wall s.
The weathered outdoor look of the sculpt ure made it
appear out of place in a gall ery of well -mainta ined
indoor artifact s from t he same period.
As a decorative object disrupt ing t he museum's
exterior architectural continuity, t he scul pture had un-
dergone changes to i ts own surf ace. Once it was rein-
troduced into its ori ginal period context, however, it
disrupted t he conti nui ty of t he interior: in i ts outdoor
208
Frontal VIew 01MIchigan Avenue mamentranceWit h statue In
orrglnat location.
context the sculpt ure by Jean-Antoine Houdon seemed
to have had a different use or funct ion and had ac-
quired material features which nowconfl icted wi th its
setting as an object of hi gh art in a well-guarded mu-
seum interior. In t he interior, t he sculpt ure of Houdon
no longer had t he appearance of being a public monu-
ment , which it possessed while install ed on its granite
pedestal out side t he museum. St ripped of i ts monu-
mentali ty, it could be compared stylistic ally to other
art i fact s in Gallery 2 19 and coul d beobserved al most
exclusively in aesthet ic and art -historical terms. But
at the same ti me, it was hardl y possibl e to forget t hat,
iconographically, t he sculpt ure of George Washington
was a representati on of an American hero, di splayed
within a context of eighteenth-century European art.
In li ght of i ts former monumentality and its iconogra-
phy, t he work now questioned the viewer's percept ion
of hi story with in the abst ract ion of an art -histori cal
container. Was the sculpt ure, once it had been placed
in its historical selling, abstracted in a manner sim-
il ar to that of i ts former monumental setti ng? Can we
say that it was more adequately read, once it was ob-
served almost exclusively in stylist ic and aesthet ic
terms, within a fictiti ous assembly of hi stori cal
arti facts?
On t he nort h wall next to t he entrance, a Plexi-
glass box contained informati on sheets ident ifyi ng t he
install ation as my contri but ion to the 73 rd American
Exhibit ion, and direct ing viewers to the exhibit ion in
t he Morton Wing. Downstairs at the ent rance to the
exhi bition, anot her box contained inf ormation sheets
giving an ident ical definit ion of t he work, except that
i t di rected the visit or upstair s to Gallery 219.
The exhi bi t ion area in the Morton Wing was 18 feet
high by 49 feet wide by 193 feel long. A long open
gallery. it was divided by walts or part iti ons into sepa-
rat e areas to accommodate t he various install at ions.
The 73rd American Exhibit ion might best be con-
sidered a survey of the speci fic tendencies in art prac-
t ice during t he late sixties and early seventi es. The
exhibition was not conceivedaround a dominant theme,
but instead provided a kind of didact ic package, a
Looking down Adams Street frommainentrance With back

Viewof statue. Photographs by Michael Asher.
general overview of t he preceding decade.

The most direct route from the downstai rs gallery
to my installation in Gallery 2 19. was to walk up a
spiral staircaseand pass through three chronologically
ordered European period galleries. Thi s meant t hat
the walk was a short museum tour, a passage for t he
visitor, back and forth, between the works in t he Mor-
ton Wing and my work. It involved a kind of passage
t hrough history, in whi ch two di ff erent hi storical peri -
odswereconnected as well as disconnected. This made
it possible to either identify my work wi th t he 73rd
American Exhibit ion. or t he 73 rd American Exhibi -
tion wit h an archived unit in hi story.
Historical artworks are usual ly filed by the mu-
seum into an archive, thereby ext racti ng a bl ock of
historical t ime. Simul taneously, contemporary exhibi-
t ions have t he specific dynamics or presence that pre-
vents them from being read in a historic al context. It
became evident from my work at the exhi bi t ion, how-
ever, that contemporary works of art havedeveloped a
historical grammar. The exhibition requested a hi stori-
cal reading, while it contradicted the convention of
archiving works of art into stat ic blocks of ti me.
I became interested in iconography in order t o
see whether element s of t he past could be viewed as
essential characteri st ics of t he present. The contem-
porary work in the 73rd American Exhibiti on is as much
of a condit ioned iconographic structu re as the late
eighteenth-century period room. Moderni st art woul d
appear to be non-iconographic, but i t is act uall y en-
t renched in its own perceptual codes. The reject ion of
each set of past codes is initi ated by a generat ion of
art ist s, who creat e a new set of i conographic codes.
The influence t hat the rej ecti on of prior iconographic
st ructures exerts on subsequent codes symbolizes aes-
thetic progress.
Due to t he shift from representati onal to nonrep-
resentat ional modes, the modernist code stood for sci-
ent i fic and aest heti c progress, and was a symbol of
S?Cial progress. My installat ron in Gallery 2 19 ques-
tioned whether It is possi ble to usea hi storic code- in
this instance, that of the eighteen t h century- to ad-

vance a contemporary aesthet ic code.
Aesthet ic progress is not in i tself an abstract goal,
requiring uniqueness or innovat ion of the work of art ,
but is concretely bound to an aesthetic producti on
t hat is capable of revealing within art practice t he con-
tradictions in product ion, exhibi ti on, and di stribut ion,
contradict ions analogous to t hose outside the parame-
ters of the product ion of art.
In my early work, the materials I used were for-
mall y assembled to create a cohesive struct ure. This
led to t he stage where many of the materials were
i solated in order to di splay their pract ical funct ion.
Finall y, as in t he installati on at t he Art Institute and
at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago. the
work revealed t he iconographic si gni ficance of the
materials. Each stage di d not occur in isolation, how-
ever, but all t hree were integrated, with one st age or
anot her predomi nati ng at different t imes.
My deci sion to use eigh teent h-cent ury i cono-
graphic element s was part ly determined i n response
to the notion that avant -garde producti on is essent ial
to everycontemporary exhibi t ion. Thi s not ion has mo-
t ivated and l imited the tradit ional i dea of aesthetic
progress. I was al so infl uenced by the post-modernist
inqu iry which-rejecting t he modernist sl ance- in-
corporat es diff erent hist orical styl es and elements of
iconography into one manif estati on (e.g. , t he Interna-
t ional Style). Finally, situational aesthet ics, once ap-
plied to t he 73rd American Exhibition, opened up the
possibi li ty of integrat ing the Houdon sculpture into
my work. (Sit uat ional aest het ics here being defined
as an aestheti c system t hat j uxtaposes predetermin ed
elements occurring with in t he inst it utional framework,
t hat are recogni zable and ident i fiable to t he publ ic
because t hey are drawn from the institutiona l context
itself.)
In this work I was the aut hor of t he situation, not
of the elements . The given el ements remained a part
of t heir specifi c context and t he dynamics of t he sit ua-
t ion was a funct ion of the integrat ion of the predeter-
mi ned elements within the insti t ution. By using t he
given elements directl y and displ aying them in a model
209
I
I
I
f the Art Institute entrance at MIchIgan Avenue

Front steps 0, George Washington by jea n-AntOine Houdon
WI th statue anmversary celebrati on. Photograph by
dunng the[)o 11 Courtes, of the Art lnsntute of Chicago.
eourtney nne .
O\IlIlgthe stat ue hom the trent entrance as
Photograph by Court ney Donnell.
of The Art Institut e of Chicago.
Cleanlllg up alter removal of statue and baseat Michigan
Avenue entrance. Photograph by Courtney Donnel l. Courtesy
of The Artlnslltute of ctncego.
1
si tuat ion, the install ation served as a vehicle to ques-
tion and review the claims of past and exist ing tenden-
cies in art. The install at ion questi oned whether using
historical elements is the only way to analyse and over-
come the inherent probl ems of Modernism, or, whether
there are more progressive ways, through practice, to
transcend them.
Rather than appropriating historical data in a man-
ner of nostalgic reverence or decoration, post-modernist
practi ce coul d have appropriated history in the form
of an analysis of gi ven fact s. The Art Institute install a-
t ion ill ustrates the insufficiency of post -modernist
analysis, whosemethod only serves to objectify history.
This work was alsoa responseto some of my former
work, done during the late sixties and early seventies,
which was produced to fit within the whi te gallery con-
tainer. Tradi ti onally it had been modernist painting
that the viewer saw within the context of that con-
tainer, as i ts proper place of display. A new inter-
relati onship between viewer. scul ptural object. and
archi t ectural contai ner wascreated with the advent of
abstract Minimal and post-Minimal sculpture which
used the moderni st backdrops archi tecturally, similar
to the way painting had used the whi te wall as a two-
dimensional plane. Interestingly enough, these tend-
encies could mai ntai n the characteristi cs of their
genre against thi s backdrop only as long as they kept
to the proport ions to which they were confined by the
museum/gall ery space.
Once tt ns type of scul pture had increased in size
and scale to proport ions that could only exist and func-
tion out of doors, the amount of funding required often
exceeded what the indi vidual art collector could af -
ford to pay. The outdoor sett ing also made it possible
to perceive the work without its original modernist back-
drop and framework. As they developed, each of these
tendencies made the subtl e styli stic changes neces-
sary(procedures of production and installation) 10 order
to adapt to the needs and conventions of outdoor mon-
umental scul pture.
Large scale public sculpture could possrbly be
perceived as an extension of contemporary museum
210
sculpture or simply as a continuati on of decorative
outdoor sculpture. Or, monumental out door scul pture
could appear to be an individual product ion imposed
into a publi c or coll ective space, displaying i tself as a
kind of real estate venture, therebyretrieving the ground
space from the publi c's personal space, similar to the
way in which a pri vate buil ding appropriat es publi c
space.
The Houdon sculptureof Washington, even though
appropriated by t he museum as a monumental scul p-
ture for outdor decorative use, is not a large-scalescul p-
ture and was not , in i t s marble original. conceived for
outdoor monumental display. My use of the scul pture
was not an aut horial usage, but one intended to disen-
gage i t from i ts former appropriat ion. By disengaging
a monument from its inst itut ional appropriat ion and
placing it in its original historical context as sculpture,
the work responded to the act ivity of contemporary
monumental sculptural production whi ch had ongi -
nated in the museum space. Withdrawn from i t s exte-
rior di splay, Houdon's sculpture lost it s monumental
qual ities wit hin the publi c museum space.
Another possible context for the considerat ion of
issues derivi ng from the late sixti es and early seven-
ties and coinciden tal with the appearance of outdoor
monumental sculpture i s indoor sculpture developed
as a part of architecture. Architect s have adapted ma-
terial s such as chainlink and raw plywood, origi nally
used in scul ptural constructi on. for architectural orna-
ment or decorat ion. adopting an approach toward ma-
terials that is somewhat similar to that of arti sts working
almost ten years earl ier (e.g.. Bill Bollinger' s " Untitled
1968, " Raphael Ferrer' s "Chai n Li nk, " or Bruce
Nauman's " Double Steel Cage," 1974). Another ex-
ample would be the use of the grid system in the fa-
cade of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago
by Booth, Nagle, and Hartray, which clearly shows the
parall els and possrbte mtluence of the sculptural prac-
lice of Andre. Judd, and LeWi tt .
Modernism and the Idea of the avant -garde were
histoncally linked. Theavant-garde consisted of a seg-
ment of art ists who seemed t o work as separate
L
2 1 I
Groundplan for theinstallationof the73rd Amencan Exhibit ion.
Drawing byA. James Speyer. Courtesy: The Art Institute of
Chicago.
Detau of facadedesIgn or me Art tnstrtute ot Ctucegc. Onglnal
drawIngbyShepley, RutanandCoolidge. Courtesy; The Ryerson
l Ibraryat The Art Instrtuteof Chicago.
t
212
Facade of theArt Insti tuteof Ctucagc at MIchIgan Ave. and

AdamsStreet. Thisphotograph was reproduced as Michael
Asher's contnbuncn 10 the catalogueof the 73rd American
Exhlbll ion, 1979. Photograph by Rusty Culp. Courtesyof The
Art tnsnt uteof Ct ucago.
- - - - - - - - - - m .. _
.....---------------------
I
w
j
J
~
..
[ j
I
,..
..I
~ - .. , - _ . , , , - ~ -
- ......... ---
. ~ . ~ .
'f{
~
~ I .I "11- .. LL::.
"\
".
llI rrl.1'.,.....
'\
I'
"
-
,
..
-
/
J
j
-
r-aUiT""
_.2-
/'
~ ~ . ~
~ .,
~ r ~ ,........."", ,
L
II
.-
..
L
' .
-.
~ ~
I
4j ,
-I>
.'I
>
I
.. . ;
~
-
j ..""
.,
, r '1'
..
' . \"
~
,
1
r
73rdAmerican EXhibition.
sy: The Art Instituteof
ntete of Chicago. Ongmal
Jge. Courtesy: The Ryerson
0,
,
---
213
Instatlationof statue 50 Gallery 219. Photographs by MIchael
Asher.
&
Michigan Avenue facadeafter removal of statue.
Michigan Avenue facadeafter removal of statue. Photograph
taken fromAdams Street.
Ongmauccanonof statue. Patch of concrete indicatesformer
placement 01base.
216
217
---_... -_
... ..
--_.......
..
-_... -
- ---
..__..-
.. _--
..._._---
---
----
....._ .
_._---
.. .-----
----
---
- <-, ._----
:::.:.;::;::::,.::-.:;,:' -
_._---
._----
---_... -
.0-
0 -
.-
0 -
J
Mapol the
Galleries
The At l Inslilole
01Clll' " .'

..-
o -
0 ' - -
0 -
0 -
. - 1 r-

. hi '
:::- o. I
... .. .
. 6 ' , _
D
- I I,
, !j
I
j]i
Groundplan diagramcttne Mi chigan Avenueareaof the Art

Instituteof Chicagonrst and second floors. Indicated are,
on t he f irst fl oor, t he Mort on Wmg, the locat ion ol l he 73 rd
Amencan Exhlbincn, and on the second fl oor, Gall ery 2 19,
t he location of the Instal lat ion. Courtesyof The Art Instit ute of
Ct ucego.
c) Gallery 219. Sooth eievanon. Drawing byEric Ehattain.
d) Gallery 2 19. Westelevauon. Drawmg by Eric Chattam.
al Gallery2 19. North eievanon. Drawing by Eric Chatlain.
b) Gallery2 19. East elevali on. DraWing by Enc Chatlain.
f1

r----o
"
J
,.
;
I ,1'
a
'fi
111
tl -'
l--.
ih
218
D
0
D
D n
D
[I

I

,
[2
III

0
[J
QUO
1ft,

[
P"I -;_f?_ n

-
indivi duals. and who believed they were historically
autonomous, and who therefore t hought of thei r pro-
duct ion in singular and independent terms. The avant-
garde seemed to manif est itsel f in what was thought
to be the ult imate advanced production. My work re-
sponded to this tradit ion by creati ng a model in which
the physical installation wasdetached from the viewer's
not ion of contemporary aesthetics, while in fact the
install ation was an enti t y wi thi n a contemporary exhi-
bi t ion. Therefore it Quest ioned whether the features
of avant-garde producti on are a necessary prerequi site
for an insti tut ion to invite an arti st to part icipate in a
contemporary exhibi tion. If this is possibl e, then what
is the aesthetic and cultural impact of this type of
inverted j uxtaposition? A restorat ive positi on in art-
making always result s from t he art ist 's di stort ion of
history through aesthet ic t erms. This distort ion is a
manipulation of history by means of aesthetic elements.
This kind of artwork in fact uses history indirectl y,
without acknowledging its sources, but it incorporates
them, covertly creat ing a pretense to history. The indi-
rect use of history is accompl ished as a formal syn-
thesis, without underst anding the mot ivat ion for using
it. Thisaesthetic manipulation of historyalsoresponded
to the viewer's given incl ination and longing for his-
torical experience. If history is thereby falsified, it does
not only mean that a denial of history is operating, for
it alsocomplements and cont inues the ahistorical po-
sit ion of modernism.
My install at ion at the Art Inst itute of Chicago did
not only return the scul pt ure to its historical bound-
aries but equally so to its cul tural boundaries, both
historical and contemporary.
Comparative notes on the two instaflations in Chicago
Each of the install ations was pri maril y determined by
the respective institution's public orientation and goals
wit hin the communi ty. The Art Insti tute is committed
to the conservation and exhibition of histori c and con-
temporary artworks; whereas the Museum of Contem-
porary Art focuses exclusively on the coll ection and
exhibit ion of contemporary art . The structures of the
installations in both institutions resulted from a similar
methodological approach: both were dependent upon
historic and iconographic references which were de-
rived from each institut ion. The complementary struc-
tural element s in the two exhi bitions were installed
simul taneously and both used preexist ing ornamenta-
ti on and decorati on withd rawn from the exterior of t he
build ing and inserted int o the interior. Each instal-
lation generated three situat ions: the first was con-
sti tuted by the disclosure of exterior part s of the
archi tecture once the respective elements had been
withdrawn. The second situat ion was constit uted by
the addit ion of these element s to a given interior. The
th ird si t uat ion ref erred t o t he works' own hist oric
realit ies: in the one case an exhibi ti on-contribu tion
and in the other a col lect ion-contri buti on. Therefore
both historic realit ies did not exist in any way, except
within the inst itutiona l structures of an exhibition and
a coll ect ion. In both installation s, t he exterior decor-
at ive element s assumed the posit ion of aesthet ic ele-
ments in t heir interior placement. However, in each
sit uation the elements introduced into the interior con-
tradicted, if not falsified, the speci fic features of their
former exterior use. While i t seemed they would fit
perfectl y into the int erior context, once installed there
they conspicuously denied the false harmonization of
the particular cont radict ions whi ch they generated.
Both structures can be analysed as separate en-
tit ies, whereas they alsogenerate a comparative analy-
sis. The two install at ions are def ined by sculptural
and architectural components in order to create a mode
which is not cat egorized by any singular aesthet ic
discipl ine.
One ot the simi larities and, simult aneously, one
of the essenti al differences, between t he two works
was the fact that the structures of the installat ions
extracted historical elements which were separate from
the time-frames of the works t hemselves. Yet the ac-
tual elements were derived from ti me-frames 200 years
apart in history. The iconographic references at the
219
Gall ery 2 19. Install ation of the statue by Jean-Ant oine
Houdon In 18th century periodroom. Back view. Photograph
by Michael Asher.
=
I ,
220
Art Instit ute instal lati on were determi ned by my se-
lect ing an eighteent h century t ime-frame. Whereas at
the Museum of Contemporary Art, my selection of a
sixties modernist time-frame determined a nonrepre-
sentat ional iconography. The bronze cast at the Art
Inst itute, a copy of an 18t h century marble scul pture
which was used as architec tural decorat ion. was de-
signed by a scul ptor. while the decorative aluminium
claddi ng at the Museum of Contemporary Art was de-
signed by an archi tect . yet was possibly derived from
sculptural design. The actual manifestations situate
themselves between the works' conceptual decisions
and material elements which consti tute the installa-
ti on, disal lowing ei ther of them to function indepen-
dently within the analyt ical model.
With the advent of the works at the Art Inst it ute
and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, a
shi ft in t he way I structured elements became clear.
It result ed in the use of elements for t heir iconic and
iconographic references. It also meant a shi ft from
more formal ly determined elements (issues developed
in the late sixt ies) toward more si te-speci fi c context-
oriented elements. During the early seventies these
elements began to be used in order to emphasize or
reveal object s, functions, or activities within exhibi-
tion situati ons. In the later seventies, my work inte-
grated the propert ies result ing from these preceding
shift s wit h instit uti onall y determin ed element s and
functi ons which were clearly recognizable as having
been extracted from the institution.
In funct ioning as models, these works operate as
f ict ions. The possibi li ty that the work in the fut ure
would physicall y operate outside the given t ime and
insti tut ional site-structure is, in principle, excl uded.
If it should happen that this approach becomes for-
malized and ineff ective. another method would have
10 be adopted.
I Anne Rcermer. " Mic hael Asher: Recent WOIk ." IvtfofUm, Vol. XVII I. No. 8.
p. 46. Install at ion view of Gal iery 2 19 With statue by Houdon aft er
removal from Michi gan Avenue entrance. Photograph by Rusty
Cul p. Courtesy of The Art Inst it ut e of Chicago.
221
a
Exhibitions
1975 Otis Art Institute Gallery

Individual Exhibitions
Los Angeles. California
February 24March 9
1969 La Jolla Museumof Art
La Joll aCali fornia 1976 TheClocktower
November 7-December 31 NewYork. NewYork
March 20-April 10
1970 Gladys K. Montgomery Art Center at Pomona College The Floating Museum
Claremont , Calif ornia San Francisco, California
February 13-March 8 May I -May 22
1972 Market Street Program
Venice. California 1977 ClaireCopleyGallery Inc.
March 22-Apri 116 l os Angeles, Ca.
and MorganThomas Gallery,
Santa Monica. Ca.
1973 Gallery A402 February a-February26
California Insti tute of the Arts
Stedeli jk Van Abbemuseum
January 8-11
Ei ndhoven. Netherlands
Project , Inc.
August 3August 29
Boston, Massachusetts
August 18
1979 The Museum of Contemporary Art
Lisscn Gallery Chicago, Illi nois
London, England June 8-August 12
August za-septemter 16
Corpsde Garde
Heiner Friedrich Galerie Groningen, Net herlands
Koln, West Germany August 30
September e-September 28
Installat ion of work i n the coll ect ion of Stanley and
Galleria Tosell i ElyseGrinstein
Milan, Ital y Los Angeles. Ca .
September 13-0ctober 8
1974 Claire S. Copley Gallery Inc. 1982 Museum Haus Lange
Los Angeles, Cali fornia Krefeld, West Germany
September 21-0ctober 12 May 16-July 14
1974 Anna Leonowens Gallery
Nova Scot ia Collegeof Art and Design, 1983 The Museumof Contemporary Art
Halifax, Nova Scot ia LosAngeles, Ca.
October 7-Octcber 10 November tg- December 20
223
I
Group Exhibit ions
1967 Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Los Angeles. California
"I am Alive"
1968 Lytlon Gallery of Visual Art s
Los Angeles, Cali fornia
"Mini -Things"
January-February
Art Gall ery
University of California , San Diego
" NewWork/Southern Cal iforni a"
January 9-February 4
Portland Art Museum
Portland , Oregon
" West Coast Now"
February 9-March 6
1969 San Franci sco Art Inst it ute
San Franci sco. Cali fornia
1 8 6 ~ x 6 9 ~ x 11'2W' x 47' x 1PI ll;" x
29'8112- x 3 1' 90/16 "
April II -May 3
Newport Beach, Californi a
" The Appearing/Disappearing Image/Object "
Mary I1-June 28
Whitney Museum of American Art.
NewYork, NewYork
" Anti- Ill usion: Procedures/Mater ial s"
May 19-July 6
Pavil ion of the Seattle Art Museum
Seattl e. Washi ngton
"557087"
September 4-October 5
Kunst hall e Bern
Bern, Switzerland
" Plane und Projekte ats KunsUPlans and Projects
as Art "
224
November 8-December 7, 1969
Traveled to Akti onsraum I. Munchen. West-
Germany (November 19-December 11. 1969),
and as " Kunsller machen Plane, andereauch' to
Kunsl haus Hamburg. West-Germany, February
14-March 15. 1970
NewYork, New York
" Spaces"
1970 All en Art Museum
Oberl i n Coll ege, Oberli n. Ohio
" Art in the Mind"
April 17-May 12
1971 l os Angeles Counl y Museum of Art
l os Angeles, Cali fornia
" 24 Young Los Angeles Artist s"
May I I -July 4
1972 Documenta V
Kassel . West -Germany
June 30-October 8
Los Angeles County Museum of Art
l os Angeles. Cali forni a
" Ten Years of Contemporary Art Counci l
Acquisitions"
1973 New York Cultural Center
New York, New York
" 3Di nto 20: Drawi ngs for Scul pture"
January 19-March II
Pasadena Museum of Modern Art
Pasadena, Cal ifornia
" The Belly and Monte Fact or Family Collect ion"
Apri l 24-June 3
Gallery 167, University of Cali fornia
Irvine. Cal ifornia
" Recent Works"
May 14-18
-
1975 La Jolla Museum of Contemporary Art
The Art Institute of Chicago
La Joll a, Californi a
Chicago, Illinois
" University of Cali fornia, Irvine, 1965-75"
" 73rd American Exhi bi tion"
November Z-December 14
June 9-August 5
1976 Port land Center for the Visual Arts 1980 Parachut e
Portland. Oregon
Montreal , Quebec
" Via Los Angeles"
" Performance: Arts Plasti ques. t heatre. danse,
January 8February 8
musique. cinema d'aujourd ' hui "
San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
Universite du Quebec aMontreal
October 9- 11
" Paint ingand Sculpture i n Cali fornia: The Modern
1981 West kunst
Era"
Koln. West-Germany
September 3-November 21
" Heute"
La Bi ennate di Venezia
May 29-August 16
Venice. Italy
l os Angeles County Museum of Art
" Ambiente Arte'
Jul y 18-0ct ober 16
los Angeles, California
" Seventeen Artists in t he Sixties- The Museum
as Site: Sixteen Projects"
1977 l os Angeles Institute of Contemporary Art
July 16-0ctober 4
l os Angeles, California The Banff Centre for the Art s
"Michael Asher, David Askevold, Richard Long"
Banf f , Canada
January 15 February 10 " Vocat ionNacation"
California Insti tute of t he Arts
December 3-December 13
Val encia, California
" Faculty Exhi bition"
1982 Documenta 7.
April 19-May 22
Kassel , West-Germany
westfatisches Landesmuseum ft1r Kunst und
June 19-5eptember 28
Kulturgeschicht e
The Art Inst itut e of Chicago
Munster, West-Germany
Chicago, Il li nois
" Skulpt ur"
" 74th American Exhibit ion"
July a- November 13
June 8-August 1
The Fort Worth Art Museum
1983 The Banff Centre for t he Art s
Forth Wort h, Texas Banff , Canada
" los Angeles in the Seventi es" "Audio by Art ists"
October 9November 20 January 13-February 6
A Pierre et Marie (Part II),
1979 Joslyn Art Museum
Rue d'Ulm, Pari s, France, Summer 1983
Omaha, Nebraska
" l os Angeles in the Seventies"
March I -April 15
225
--
r
Bibliography
Indi vidual Exhibi tion Catalogues:
55 7.087- Seattle Art Center, edi ted by l ucy Lippard,
Seattle, 1969.
-
Spaces, edited by Jennifer Licht , The Museum of Modem

Art . New York, 1970.
Essays:
226
Mi chael Asher ; Exhibitions in Europe 1972- 1977: edited
by R.H. Fuchs, Stedelijk van Abbe Museum, Eindhoven,
1980.
Michel Asher and Daniel Buren, edit ed by Gerhard Storck,
Museum Haus Lange, Krefeld, 1982. .
Exhibi tion Catal ogues and Publications containing
references totheworkof Michael Asher orreproductions:
Ambiente A,te: Dal Fut urismo alia Body Art , ed ited by
Germanoceient. La Blennafedi Venezia. Venice 1977.
Anti-Illusion: Procedures- Materials, edited by James
Monte and Marcia Tucker, The Whitney Museum of Ameri-
can Art , NewYork, 1969, p. 11.
Art i n Los Angeles: The Museum asSite . edited by
Stephanie Barron and MauriceTuchman, TheLosAngeles
County Museum of Art. Los Angeles, 1981.
Art i n the Mind, edited by Athena Tache. Obertin College,
Oberl in, 1970.
Dan Graham: Video, Architecture, Televisi on, edi ted by
Benjamin H.D. Buchloh, The Pressof the Nova Scoti a
Col legeof Art and Design, Hali fax, 1979.
Documenta V, edi ted by Jean-Christophe Ammann and
Harald Szeemann. Kassel 1972, pp. 17.85- 86.
Documenta VII , Vol. I & II , edited by Saskla 8 0S, Kassel
1982. Vol. I, pp. 237-238, Vol. II , pp. 22-23.
Faculty Exhibition, Cal iforni a Institute of the Arts, School
of Art and Design. Valenci a, Ca., 1977.
I am Alive, l os AngelesCounty Museumof Art, l os
Angeles, 1967.
K()nstler machen Plane-andere sucn. Kunst haus
Hamburg, Hamburg, 1970.
LosAngeles i n the Seventies, edited by Marge Goldwater.
The Fort Worth Art Museum, Fort Worth. 1977 and The
Joslyn Art Museum, Joslyn, Omaha. 1979.
Michael Asher, David Askevofd, Richard Long, edited by
Bob Smit h with contri butions by Dori t eyer s. Frederick
Dolanand TomJimmerson, l osAngeles Inst ituteol Contem-
porary Art , Los Angeles, 1977.
Museums by Artists, edited by A. A. Bronson and Peggy
Gale. The Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, 1983.
Neon-Dekorationen, edit ed by Rudiger Schoettle, Muni ch
1978.
New Work: Southern Cali fornia , University of California
San Diego Art Gal lery, San Diego, 1968 .
Plane unaProjek te ets KunstlPfans and Projects as Art ,
KunsthaUe Bern, 1969.
Plans and Proj ects, Fi nch College, New York, 1973.
Performance: Textes et Documents, edited by Chantal
Pontbriand, Montreal . 198 1.
Prospect -Retrospect , edi ted by B.H.D. Buchl oh. Konrad
Fischer, R.H. Fuchs and John Matheson, Kunsthal le
Dusseldorf, DOsseldorf , 1976.
Six Years: the demateriafi zation of the artwork , edited by
lucy Lippard. New York, 1973. pp. 198- 199.
Skulplur- Pfoject Section, edited by Kasper Koenig and
Klaus Bussmann, Catalogue Introduction by Laztc Glazer,
westoheeuscnes Landesmuseum fOr Kunst-und Kultur-
gesct uchte. MOnster 1977.
-
Ten Years of Contemporary Art Council Exhibitions, Los
Angeles County Museum of Art, Bul letin Vol. XIX. No. 2, p.
41.
TheAppearingl Disappearing Image/Obj ect , Newport Har-
bor Art Museum, Newport, 1969.
The Betty and Monte Factof Family Collection, Pasadena
Museumof Art , Pasadena, 1973.
The 73 fd American Exhibition, edited by James A. Speyer
and Anne Rori mer. The Art Inst itute of Chicago. Chicago
1979.
The 74 th American Exhibition, edi ted by James A. Speyer
and Anne Rorimer , The Art Instituteof Chicago. Chi cago,
1982.
3D into 2D: Drawi ngs for Sculpture , The NewYork Cultural
Center, NewYork, 1973.
24 Young Los Angel es Artists, l os Angeles County Museum
of Art, l os Angeles, 1971.
Via Los Angeles, Port land Center for t he Visual Arts,
Port land. Ore. 1976.
Vocation-Vacat ion, edited by Brian MacNevin, The Walter
Phil li psGallery, The Banff Centre School of the Arts,
Banff, Alberta. 1983.
West Coast Now, Portland Art Museum, Portland, Oregon.
1968.
Westkunst-Art since 1939. Vol. 11, Heute, edited by Kasper
Koenig, waurat-Richartz Museum. K61n, 1981 n.p.
Buchloh, Benjamin H.D. " Context -Function-UseValue,,.
(1978) Exhibition Catalogue Michael Asher: Exhibi tions i n
Europe 1972 -1977, St edel ij k van Abbe Museum,
Eindhoven, 1980.
__, " Michael Asher and the concl usion of Modernist
Scul pt ure." l ecture del ivered at The Art Instit ute
of Chicago, November 7, 1979. Publ ished in
Performance, Exhi bit ion Catalogue. Montreat,
1981, and in
__. The Centennial lectures of t he Art Instit ute of
Chicago, eo. by Susan Rossen, The Art Instit ute of
Chicago, Chicago. 1983, and french version as
__, " Michael Asher et la conclusion de tascul pture
moderniste, in: Pensef rArt contemporai n. Rapports
et Documen ts de Ja Biennale de Paris, Vol. 3.
1980, pp. 169- 190.
__, All egorical Procedures: Appropriati on and Mon-
tage in Contemporary Art , Artfof um. Vol. XXI, No.
t , September 1982.
Celant , Germano, " Art e Ambientale Calitcmiana." Demus ,
Vol. 547. June 1975, p. 52.
__, " Art as the Experience of Experience." Casabella,
No. 40 2, 1975, p. 47.
__, " Minimal art, artearnbientatecafitornia, artepovera,
body erte." Exhibit ion CatalogueAmbi enle Art e,
La Biennale di Venezia, Venice, 1977.
Fuchs, R.H. " Eindhoven: Michael Asher: 1977." EXhibi-
tion Catalogue Michael Asher: Exhibitions in EUfope
19 72- 1977, Stedelijk van Abbe Museum, Eindhoven
1980.
227
228
Glozer, laszlo "Skul pturen fUr eine Stadt. " Exhibit ion
Catalogue Skulptur. west onanscneslandesmuseum,
Munster, 1977.
Morris. Robert "The Art of Existence: Three Extra-Visual
Artists' Works i n Progress." Artforum. Vol. IX, No. 5.
January 1971, pp. 28-33.
Munger, Barbara "M ichael Asher: An Environmental
Project. " Studio International, Vol. 180, No. 926, October
1970, pp. 160-162.
Ratcl iff, Carter " Adversary Spaces," Ar/orum, Vol . Xl , No.
2, October J972, pp. 40 ff .
Rorimer. Anne "M ichael Asher: Recent Work." Artforum,
Vol. XVII I, No. 8, April 1980, pp. 46- 50.
Storck. Gerhard " Michael Asher/Daniel Buren. " Exhibiti on
Catalogue, Michael Asher/Dani el Buren, Museum Haus
l ange, Krefeld, 1982.
Exhibition Reviews and Texts referring to Asher's
work:
Ant in, David. " It Reaches a Desert in Which Nothing Can
Be Perceived But Feel ing." Art News, Vol. 70, No. I,
March 1971, pp. 38-40, 66- 71.
Armstrong, l ois Dickert . " l os Angeles" . Art News, Vol.
68, No.4. Summer 1969, p. 74.
ATmstrong, Richard, " Heute-WestkunstCologne, " Art/orum.
Vol. XX, No. I, September 198 1, pp. 83- 86.
Ashton. Oore, " New York Commentary," Studio Interna-
ti onal , Vol . 179. No. 920, March 1970, p. 118.
Battcock, Gregory. " Politics of Space: Exhibit ion at the
Museum of Modern Art ," Artsmagazine Vol . 44 , No.4,
February 1970, pp. 40-43.
Barron, Stephanie, " The Museum as Site: Sixteen Projects,"
Art in Los Angeles. Exhibit ion Catalogue, The l os Angeles
County Museum of Art. l os Angeles. 1981 .
Bruggen, Coosjevan, "I n the mist things appear larger."
Exhibiti on catalogue Documenta VII , Vol . ' I. pp. ix-xii ,
Kassel 1982.
Buettner , S., " 6 loA. Art ists." Artweek, VoL VII, No. 5,
January3 1, 1976, p. 16.
Buchfoh. Benjamin H.D., " Westkunst- Moderni sm's
Restkunsl ?," Art Monthly . Vat. 50 , October 198 1,
pp. 3- 5.
__, idem in; Parachute, VoL 24 Fall 198 1. pp. J7- 21.
__, " Oocumenta VII: A Dictionary of Received Ideas, "
ocuoer,Vol. 22, Fall 1982, pp. 104- 126.
Burton, Scott . "Time on their Hands: Summer Exhi bit ions
at t he Whitney and t he Guggenheim" , Art News, Vol . 68,
No. 4, pp. 40-43.
Crichton, Fenella, "Londcn- Lisson Gallery," Art Interna-
tional , VoL 17, November 1973. p. 46.
Foote, Nancy, ..NewYork Reviews: Michael Asher - The
Clocktower, " Art /orum, Vol. XIV, No.1. , June 1976,
p.64.
Frank. Peter, " NewYork Reviews:- TheClocktowerGallery" .
Art News, Vol . 75, No. 7, September 1976, p. 122.
Garver, Thomas H. " los Angeles" , Arlforum , VoL VII I, No.
5, January J970, pp. 75-6.
Gianell i , Ida, " Michael Asher: van Abbemuseum Ei nd-
hoven. " Saman, estate 10, 1977.
Gl ueck, Grace, "Museum Beckoning Space Explorers.,.
New York Times. Friday. January 2, 1970.
-
Graevenitz, A. von, " Eindhoven: van Abbemuseum;
Aussteltung: Michael Asher, " Pantheon, Vol. 35 , October
1977, p. 367.
Graham, Dan, "Si gns," Art/arum, Vol. XIX, No. 8, April
1981, pp. 38-43.
__, " Not Post-Modernism," Art/orum, Vol. XX, No. 4
December 198 1, pp. 50-58.
Kibbins. Gary, "The Enduri ngof the Artsystem," Parachute,
Vol. XXIX, December 1982, pp. 4- 8.
Kirshner, Judit h, " The 74th American Exhi bit ion at the Art
Instit ute of Chicago," Artforum, Vol. XXI, No. 2, October
1982, pp. 74-76.
Kramer, Hi lton, " Partic ipating Est het ics" . NewYork Times,
Sunday. January II, 1970.
Leider, Phi l ip, " New York" , Artforum Vol . VI II. No. 6,
February 1970, p. 69
Mariani , Tom, " Out Front." Vision Magazine. Vol. I, Septem-
ber 1975, pp. 8- 11.
Marmer, Nancy, " los Angeles: Michael Asher-Claire Cop-
ley and Morgan ThomasGalleries," Artforum, Vol. XV, No.
9, May 1977, p. 74.
_, " Isms on the Rhine," Art i n Ameri ca. Vol . 69, No.
9, November 1981. pp. 112-123.
Plagens, Peter. " los Angeles: l osAngelesCounty Museum,"
Art/orum, Vol. X, No.2, October 1971, p. 87 .
__, " Maria Nordman." ArtforumVol . XII. No. 6, Febru-
ary 1974, pp. 40- 1.
__, " Michael Asher: the t hi ng of it is . . . , " Artforum,
Vol. X, No. 8, pp. 76-78.
_, " Michael Asher: Claire Copley Gal lery,,. Art forum,.
Vol. XIII , No.4, December 1974. pp. 83- 84.
_ , "Site Wars (Site Speci fic Work at the los Angeles
County Museum)," Art in America, Vol. 70, Janu-
ary 1982, pp. 92- 93.
Ratcli H, Carter, " NewYork letter : Spaces," Artlnt erna-
ti onal , Vol. 14, No. 2. February 1970, p. 78.
Rorimer, Anne, Int roduct ion, Exhibi tion The
74th American Exhibition, The Art Institute of Chicago,
Chicago. 1982.
Sharp, Willoughby, " NewDirect ions in Southern Cali for-
nian Sculpture," Artsmagazine, Vot. 44, No. 8. Summer
1970, pp. 35-38.
Shirey, David L., " Art in Space, " Newsweek, January 12,
1970.
Si ngermann, Howard, " Art in l os Angeles-los Angeles
County Museum, " Artforum, Vot. XX, No. 7. March 1982,
pp.75-77.
Tousley, Nancy, " last 01 artist 's t hree part project his most
complex," Calgary Herald . December 12, 1981.
Townsend-Gault . Charlotte. " Vocati on-Vacati on," Vanguard
Magazine, April 1982. pp. 22-25.
Tuyl. Gij s. " Skul ptuur: Horen, Zien en vceieo," Openbaar
Kunstbezit , Vat. XXIII, No. 3, June 1979, pp. 70-79.
Wallace, Ian. "Revisionism and its discontent s: " Vanguard
Magazine, Volume 10, No. 7, September 1981. pp. 12- 19.
Wasserman. Emily, " New York." Artforum Vol. VIII, No. 1.
September 1969 , p. 57.
Wilson, Will iam, " Work of 7 Artists in Newport Display,"
Los Angeles Times. May 1969.
Wortz, Mel i nda, " looking Inward: Claire Copley Gallery,
los Angeles," Art News, Vol . 73, December 1974.
pp. 60- 6 1.
Wortz, Meli nda, " Psychologic:a ' Mani pulat ion: Michael .
Asher, Morgan Thomas at Clai re Copley Gall ery, Inc. Claire
Copley Gallery Inc. at Morgan Thomas, l os Angeles," Art
News, Vol. 76, May 1977, p. 105.
229
THE NOVA SCOTIA SERIES

SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE CONTEMPORARYARTS
IUNttAIO LlnNlIl
TNI ..ICHnICTUI. OF
LUDWIG WITTGENS",N
7'" '' X /I" 128 PAGES
SJOoo a OIH
CLAlS OLDI NIURG
....w Nons
7'" If I , .. PAGeS
OUfOf HINI
YVONNI . .... N
WOIK 196173
7' /1" X I'" 304 PAGf S
$17,50 I'APfR 52J cocora
SIMONI FORTI
HANDIOOK IN MOTIO N
0 '" '' X9" IU PACES
SI2 00 P,,""1
Sn Vl lt l lCH
W RITINGS A'OUT MUSIC
7'1> . If 0" 80 I'AGl S
SO00 ,lIftt
DONALD JU DD
COMPLn t WRITINGS 19 59- 19 75
8 '1t" I; I I n 240 PAGES
$20 00 I'IJ'fIl 52800 a OI M
HA NS HAACK.
' ....MING AND BUNG f .AMI D
8" If 10" 105 PActS
$12 00 PAPU S2Q00 CIOTt '
MICHAn SNOW
COVI R TO COVI R
z- )( 11 " J60 PAGCS
SIj.C)OPN'U
P" UL. lMI U IOlDU,U
tCllTStWlllllNGS 1.42.195'
7"" X I "'/60 f'AGlS
$/200 I'mt S/7 soc or
DAN O HAM
VI DI O' CHITl CTURf _ U LI V' SION
7'" '' If I r-' 80 I'MiCS
$1200 f'A}'U $20.00 ClOTH
CARL ANDIlIHOLUS FRAMPTON
12 DIALOGUES 19 6 2-19 63
0" X I I'" 1)41'AGES
S2O.OOPAin $J O.OO0011-4
DANIn IURIN
US COUUURS, SCULPTURES
LIS FORMIS: PI INTURIS
0 " )( 12" lJ PACES
szacc OR ENGlISH)
MIN ING PHOTOO....PHS AND
OTHU JO' CTUl f:S
PHOTOO....PHS IT usue SHIDDIN
(SSAYS IT ALLAN SEKULA AND
DON MACGIUIV.AY
' 0 h" ,11 8'" '' 280i"IoGES
S2.5 00 ,.... ,fIt
MODERNISM ANDMODERNnT
IDITI D IY SlRGI GUIL.... UT
O" ,O" 2JOPAGES
SI j ,oo PAPfR
NOVA SCOTIA PAMPHLETS
MARtHA ROSlIR
3 WORKS
11"Xll"'1I'AGfS
Sl2j()I'AI'H
J INNY HOUIR
tRUISMS AND ESSAYS
" 11"11 8' 11" /5 41'1oGfS
SI5001'A/'f1
GERHARD RKHTER
121 Dn AILS FROM A PICtURE {HALIFAX 1' 711
1 h- 1 IOH ' o.s PAGES
ns cc PAPI
THE PRESS OF THE NOVA SCOTIA COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN
5163 DUKE STREET, HALI FAX, NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA, B3J 3J6
f
'I

Asher Michael Writings 1973 1983 On Works 1969 1979

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asher Michael Writings 1973 1983 On Works 1969 1979

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

'. .

Writings 1973- 1983 on Works 1969-1979

Vol umes 1-8 were edited by Kasper Koenig

Aprit ll-May 3, 1969

Edi tor's Note

Connie Lewal len

Detai l-view of t he install ation showing passageway and part I-

Axonomet'lc drawingoll he Charles E. Meyer Gall ery Ill us-

Viewof t he jnsteua ncn and me north-east entryl exit. Pbcto-

February 13-March 8, 1970

May 11-July 4, 1971

Elevat ion 01wall construct ion wi th exi st i ng partit ion wal l.

Compl ete groundplan of fourth floor of Ahmanson Building,

0' , , ' 5 lOll:.

June 30-0ctober 8, 1972

Cameravlewmgnorth mto hall way and

Inslallalion of glassSQuare onwall. Photographtakenafter

light from two overhead fluorescent l ight tubes.

vert ical surfaces. the walls.

Axonomelr icdrawingof the Heiner FriedrichGalleryby Maunzlo

Viewof gallery lobby durmg eeubmon.

Groundplan of the Franco Toselll Gallery. Drawing byJohnKnight.

Viewing east In Install ati on. Photographs byGiorgio Colombo.

September 21- 0 ctober 12, 1974

Vrewlng through gallery toward entry/ellil and street. Photo-

Anna LecnowensGallery, Nova Scoti a Collegeof Art and

tangibili ty was set in oppositi on to the work's decreased

... ..... 1IaUlI .

and t he specif ic uni ts of the structu re into which they

Inner courtyard near street . Photograph by Michael Asher.

Groundplan of the 13th, 14th. l Slh floorsand the clockworksof theClocktower.

Installation vrewof thirteenth floor exfubmon area. Vlcwmg

t he thirteent h, fourteenth, and f ifteent h floors, sounds

Diagramct tne various install ati ons at t he Amolente Arte

Product Intcrmatlon on stool used in the install ation (front) .

histori cal condi t ions and t o the present state of instal-

Tu eSDAY THROUGH SATURDAY' 12 5 PM AND BY APPT 662-0000

FEBRUARY 15 THROUGH FEBIWARY 19, ON KAWAU.

Facadeof the ClaireCopley Galleryon 918 North LaCrenega

Kiffc-Pavillon. vor der Parkuhr Nr.275 odcr Nr.274

Klcimann-Brnckc NT. 17. Par ken auf der gegcnnbcrlicgcnden

Room6, vieWing work. dunng extutnucn. Photograph by Hans

process of constructi ng t he work and the process of

Room 6, viewingsouth towardentry/exit , dunng preparat ion of

Aerial view. Courtesy: Fort Worth Art Museum, Fort Worth.

few minutes walking distance. It wasunderstood that

March 1-Apri/15, 1979

Postcardof the Joslyn Art Museum, Omaha. Nebraska. West

connect ed by t he presence of those symmetrical ly di s-

Viewing west Iromentry/exit toward Wit herspoonl oyer.

Five months prior to the actual installati on, the

Detail of msteuanco. End 01panelsdisplayed on thewest Side

Looking down Adams Street frommainentrance With back

general overview of t he preceding decade.

f the Art Institute entrance at MIchIgan Avenue

Facade of theArt Insti tuteof Ctucagc at MIchIgan Ave. and

Groundplan diagramcttne Mi chigan Avenueareaof the Art

1975 Otis Art Institute Gallery

Spaces, edited by Jennifer Licht , The Museum of Modem

THE NOVA SCOTIA SERIES

You might also like