The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England

conceptuaI art and the politics of publicity

alexander alberro
chapter seven
the siegelaub idea
Artists have finally been accepted as idea men and not merely as craftsmen with poetic thoughts.
-Seth Siegelaub. 1969
1
Is it so surprising that in a time when postindustrial ephemeralization is rampant, when inror
mation bits are speedier and more important than heavy matter or face-to-face contact, when we
are bombarded with message units, when time is so precious it almost has become a substance,
when space is at a premium, when history forces us to dematerialize, that artists everywtlere
should come up with Conceptual Art? Conceptual Art is a symptom of globalism and it is the
first-Surrealism almost was-really international art style.
-John Perreault, 1971'
Even before the "January 5-31. 1969" show closed, Siegelaub was planning several more pub
lic exhibitions that employed the infrastructure of publicity as medium and problematized
the rraditional boundaries of artistic production.' He increasingly came to realize the enor
mous implications of the art produced in tandem with the practice of presentation he orig
~
inated. Not only were the new modes of artistic production, presentation, and distribution
~
capable of expanding the work's audience, but according to Siegelaub they also rendered
~
"the idea of individual ownership of works of art" a "passe condition," in many cases "totally ..

impossible" since "the experience" of an art presented through the infrastructure of public '"
" (;
ity and display "is everybody's immediately." Recall that his advert in ArtfOrum for the Hue
'"
~
bier show, in its role as documentation, already constituted a fragment of the work, and
therefore whoever possessed the journal had a stake in the artist's production; similarly, ;:
..

..
Barry's Inert Gas was publicly accessible through a telephone answering service in Los An
~
:l.
geles. By harnessing the distribution medium, Siegelaub made an unlimited viewership a
real possibility. S This condition, in which art became unpreceden tedly uncircumscribed and =c
'"
mobile, put pressure on structures such as the gallery network that hierarchize through in
~
~ "
clusion and exclusion. "Now," Siegelaub observed in the spring of 1969, an artist does not
~
a
"have to be involved in a gallery or be uptight about not having a gallery. [Whereas] before
~
it was a sign of shame. It doesn't make any fucking difference anymore.'"
Rather than a gallery in a particular fixed location, Siegelaub's site of exhibition
was as ephemeral as it was vast. "I broke down, like, what a gallery does. What is its func
tion' Its primary function is that it's a place for artists to put their work out. But it breaks
down to many aspects. . There's space, there's money, there's exposure or publicity, you
know, there are a number of things. And I've just, in a sense, eliminated space. My gallery is
the world novl" Of course, the work produced by the artists he represented facilitated this
conception of space, since one of the characteristics of a work presented in linguistic and
graphic terms as pages in catalogues and magazines was that it could be distributed "all
over the world very very quicklY"
Most significant for Siegelaub at the time was his belief that the ability to distrib
ute the new art as primary information made geographical "decenrralization" possible. ")
think New York is beginning to break down as a cen ter," he remarked in the summer of 1969.
"Not that there will be another city to replace it, but rather where any artist is will be the
center."' From Siegelaub's perspective, the deterritorializing properties of conceptual art lib
erated it not only from traditional institutional sites of display, but also from geographical
centers.'
o
In this sense, Siegelaub's metaphors of a shrinking world of complex connectivity
were of a piece with the infamous communications discourse propagated by Marshall
McLuhan and his followers, who exalted advances in telecommunications and their global
'"
'"
... message with delirious optimism. McLuhan's championing of th'e medium of communica
"'
tion over the contents of media messages, encapsulated in his formula "the medium is the
message; transferred meaning onto the medium itself through the technological structure.
The sign value of art became triumphant as art's use value (and exchange value) came to be
determined by its mode of distribution rather than its content. Not everyone celebrated the
potential of new media so uncritically, as is evident in the contemporaneous work of Hans
Magnus Enzensberger, who warned against the one-way communication of the media at
pains to exclude the possibility of response.
ll
Enzensberger's argument represents the oppo
site pole from MCLuhan's position, a critical standpoint to which Siegelaub would gradually
move in the following years.
Siegelaub's hyperbolic post-196B proclamations of global interconnectedness, of
the world as his gallery, have direct parallels in the consequences of the cybernetic and
informational revolutions for marketing and finance. The postindustrial ephemeralization"
of the 1960s and 1970s, in which mechanized technologies of communication were intensi
fied to the point that capital and informational transfers could be instantaneously effectu
ated around the globe from one national zone to another, dramatically announced a new
phase of globalization." From the instrumental point of view of advanced capitalism, what
was heralded was an increased functional proximity, in which deterritorialized spaces and
connecting corridors were created to ease the flow of capital (including its commodities and
personnel), and the time-space compression of connectivity was matched with a degree of
cultural compression."" The fact that conceptual art's method of production and Siege
laub's method of distribution were at one with globalization soon rendered both profoundly
economic, and integrated them into advanced capitalism's generalized commodity system.
But this fate was not initially evident.
INFORMATION AND PHANTASMAGORIA
In 1969 Siegelaub organized a series of shows characterized by greatly broadened exhibition
spaces and artworks that further decentered the relationship between primary and second
ary information. For "Joseph Kosuth, Robert Morris: sponsored by Bradford Junior College's
Laura Knott Gallery in March of that year, the primary information was presented in the
catalogue and the secondary information on the premises of the gallery space." This was an
extraordinary reversal of the usual format in which primary information is on view in the
exhibition space, and the catalogue is reserved for secondary information. It also indicated
a transformation of the very nature of the art represented. As Siegelaub explained in a No
vember 1969 interview, ~
"

a.
~
when art does not any longer depend upon its physical presence, when it has become an abstraction,
~
~
it is not distorted and altered by its representation in books and catalogues. It becomes PRIMARY
information; while the reproduction of conventional art in books or catalogues is necessarily ;
..

SECONDARY information. When information is PRIMARY, the catalogue can become the
exhibition. IS i
or
~
Yet, when we consider that Morris's piece at the "Joseph Kosuth, Robert Morris" show fea
"

00.
tured a rubber stamp on the paper towels in the restrooms-presumably, anyone who han ;;
C
dled a paper towel would thus possess the work-the possibility that something else was at
t7
play becomes real. By restricting the primary information to the catalogue, Siegelaub had
~
also limited and controlled the potential ownership of the work.
Another exhibition Siegelaub organized that year, "One Month," took the form of a
calendar of the month of March 1969, during which a day was assigned to each of the thirty_
one invited artists." As with "The Xerox Book," the information presented in the catalogue
was "primary" and there was no exhibition site or gallery to be visited." "You dontneed walls
I
to show ideas; Siegelaub explained to Art in America's David Shirey in the spring of 1969, ex
tolling the virtues of working with primary rather than more conventional secondary infor J
mation. 'People who have galleries can show their objects only in one place at a time. I'm not
limited. I can have my ideas in twenty different places at once. Ideas are faster than tedious
objects."" In other words, the new method of exhibition not only delimited the size of the au
dience, but also shifted the emphasis from objects to ideas. And according to Siegelaub, now
that the object had been eliminated and the art only existed as an idea, to become aware of
that idea was to possess it."
The implications of this new mode of art for the market were enormous, as evi
denced by Patricia Norvell 's somewhat puzzled observation during her early 1969 interview
with Siegelaub: "You can't make anyone pay for thinking about [artJ.""Siegelaub soon found
a solution to this obstacle, as the traces of these "thoughts" came to be offered for sale as
'"

'"
fetishistic substitutes for the "lost" objects. Here again, the parallels between this new art
'"
~ '"
and advertising (which sells ideas as fluidly as objects) are striking. for as Baudrillard shows
in For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, advanced capitalism relies on the construc
tion of sign values to establish the relative values of objects" With systems of thought and
signs (and not just material objects) reified and commodified. even priceless ness can con
tribute to the marketing of a product by increasing its desirability.
The distinction between primary and secondary information was also central to
the "Simon Fraser Exhibition" that Siegelaub organized at the gallery of Simon Fraser Uni
versity (SFU] in Vancouver for May and June of 1969." As he outlined the show to university
officials:
The exhibition will have no title.... The overall plan: 1. Print 1000 copies of the enclosed poster be
fore the exhibition opens, and distribute. 2. During 19 May and 19 June the work of each artist will
be introduced into the community at Simon Fraser. 3. (Towards) the end of the exhibition a catalog
of the exhibition (,what has happened') will be printed and distributed (approximately 12 pages
with photos-details to .fOllow) ."
What is striking about this "overall plan" is the equivalence it posits between the work and
its publicity. As he had done on several recent occasions, Siegelaub also organized a sympo
sium with the artists to coincide with the exhibition. In this case, however, he arranged for
the artists to communicate with each other and the audience by means of a telephone
hookup linking New York (Kosuth, Barry, LeWttt, Weiner, Huebler. and Siegelaub in the role
of moderator), Ottawa (Baxter) , and Vancouver Gocal critics and curators). This multicontext
electronic conversation was transmitted to an assembled audience over the public address
system in the SFU Theater." Telephones were also installed in the theater, and, following an
exchange between the artists. the audience was invited to participate in the discussion.
This use of technology to enhance communications not only indicates the consid
erable energy and creativity with which Siegelaub operated at the time, but also provides a
further example of media fetishization and points to a utopian belief that technology could
directly produce communication. This view had been held earlier by Walter Benjamin in di
alogue with Bertolt Brecht. and later by Enzensberger who, referring to Brecht's essay on the
potential use of radio. noted about mass media generally, "For the first time in history, the
..
media are making possible mass participation in a social and socialized productive process,
the practical means of which are in the hands of the masses themselves:'" However, En
~
zensberger continues, "in its present form equipment like television or film does not serve
~
communication but prevents it. It allows for no reciprocal action between transmitter and ..
"
e c e i v e r ~ " This inadequacy occurs not because of a lack of technology for a two-way flow of ."
CI.
(;
communication, but rather because the social structure of advanced capitalism prevents its
~
realization." According to Enzensberger, without a radical transformation of the basic eco
;
nomic system upon which Western society is based, the overarching unidirectional relation
..
;
..
ship of transmitter and receiver will not be altered regardless of how revolutionary and
~
a
potentially communicative the media. This was precisely the situation that confronted
Siegelaub. Although he had discovered the means by which to transmit and disseminate ~
..

art to a broader public, the commodity form was not abolished; the basic capitalist eco ;;;'
~
nomic structure remained in place and governed how the art market did business. Thus, to
~
0
return to a concrete example, though the Xerox Corporation's photocopy machine po
~
tentially provided an ideal means of aesthetic production. as Enzensberger woefully notes ,
"The technically most advanced electrostatic copying machine, which operates with ordi
nary paper-which cannot. that is to say, be supervised and is independent of suppliers-is
the property of a monopoly (Xerox) , on principle it is not sold but rented. The rates them
selves ensure that it does not get into the wrong hands:'" Which begins to explain why in the
end Siegelaub was ultimately denied access to the more advanced technology of Xerox
(which was reserved to serve more clearly corporate interests) and had to rely on a conven
tional printing press for his "Xerox Book" project.
In March of 1969 Siegelaub embarked on a show, "July. August, September 1969,"
that sought to extend over an even greater geographical scope, iterating "a certain interna
tional sensibility that [hej sensed among artists throughout the world" (fig. 7.1) ." Meta
phOrically alluding to the phenomenon of decentralization rapidly coming to characterize
modem life, the exhibition took place simultaneously in a number of geographical locations
widely separated from one another, but excluding New York City.JO Some of the works were
instantaneous, others only accessible part of the time, and yet others observable throughout
the length of the show and beyond. The trilingual exhibition catalogue was the only site
where the show was presented as a whole" According to Siegelaub, the multilingual text en
abled the show to transcend a limiting locality, furthering "global communications, rather
.... '"
;' :
,

than limited and limiting local distribution."" Globalization contributed to the catalogue's
function as a broad frame, marking the global bounds of the primary information presented
'(\0. in this international show.
r.

..,... .....t..... 10e "July, August, September 1969" show crystallized the key aspects ofSiegelaub's
../'" catalogueexhibitions. First, the exhibition catalogue was kept as disinterested and neutral .., '"

1'). ,./' 0
,:L- as possible. introductory comments were conspicuously absent. as were explanatory critical
'"
V ...... ..., [
essays. Second, the works were presented in an undiscriminating way, precluding hierarchy
among the artists. Each artist was allocated the same amount of space: two pages.1Oird, the ;]
..

thirtytwo pages were divided into two sections, one presenting "primary information" ("the
''""!i
a
.
.
work itselfj and the other "secondary information" about where and when the material el
.'
ements that supplemented that primary information could be seen during the show To :r
"
gether, the two sections functioned to delineate the parameters of the individual pieces

':i: '"
included in the exhibition, thereby making them more comprehensible to the public. in all

a
cases, however. the catalogue served to present the work throughout the world. By
. , "

the relationship and rendering the material in the catalogue primary information and that
J
,

.,. .
at the particular geographical sites secondary information, Siegelaub once again lifted artis 1
tic production from its hitherto close connection with physical locality and disseminated it !
,\
quickly and broadly. 10is method of distribution paralleled transformations in the dissemi
/
nation of information brought about by contemporary globalization."
f
,
Siegelaub's euphoria about information going back and forth quickly parallels
,:
}.
McLuhan's pronouncement of the "global village" in which "electric circuitry has overthrown
the regime of 'time' and 'space' and pours upon us instantly and continuously the concerns
of all other men."" Both envision a kind of cyberspace in which culture and. more directly for
Siegelaub, art have reached their ultimate dematerialization, as messages pass instanta
neously from one nodal point to another across the globe, the formal material world. In this
)1
transformation, with artworks become increasingly phanstasmagoric, existing primarily as
,
the dissemination of information, the possibility of devising concrete material structures I
capable of anchoring ownership seemed more than ever to be an impossibility
THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE FRAGMENT
G
By the end of 1969, the importance of Siegelaub's catalogues and the work they exhibited
was broadly acknowledged in North America and Europe. Articles in a wide array of news
Cover of July, August, September 1969, 1969
'"
'"
o papers and journals, including the New York Times, Studio International, New York, Mademoiselle,
'"
even the Financial Times, reported on the "January 5-31, 1969" exhibition" The rapidly grow
ing focus on Siegelaub's activities cUlminated in Vogue magazine selecting him as one of the
most likely to succeed in the upcoming decade.' By mid-1969, in one of the more startling
inversions of the mode of fabrication, exhibition, and distribution that Siegelaub had spear
headed, not only the totality of his practice but also the work it featured was discussed in the
popular press as "the Siegelaub idea." Mademoiselle reported that the "essence of the Siege
laub idea. . is: the idea is the work of art."" This led some to speculate that Siegelaub had
crossed the line and taken on the role of an artist-a role he refused to accept publicly."
The growing political dimension of Siegelaub's work was reinforced by the dis
paraging remarks of critics such as Barbara Rose who, in the summer of 1969, noted that "a
great deal of the new art cannot be bought, sold, owned or traded" in the conventional man
ner, and warned that "if one wanted to read a political message into recent American art, it
would be that this country is on the way to some form of socialism."" Placing Siegelaub's art
practice in the context of the protest movements of the late 1960s was neither inconsistent
nor far-fetched_ In 1969 Siegelaub became increasingly involved in the newfound commu
nity spirit of the Art Workers Coalition. In April of that year he began to contemplate ways in
which artists might receive more rights and exert greater control over their work. He openly
wondered during the interview with Norvell: "Why don't artists have a community of inter
est amongst themselves the way musicians have, an ASCAP (American Scciety of Com
posers, Authors, and Publishers] or some musicians' union. You know, whereas a man can
compose music and be relatively sure that when the music is played somewhere he gets
royalties on it."<O
Parallel , then, to the growing public if not financial success of the artists he repre
sented, Siegelaub found it imperative to develop an alternative structure to protect their
rights. Though his efforts addressed all artists generally. they were most relevant to the con
ceptual artists associated with him due to the special nature of their work. As his involve
ment in the AWC grew, Siegelaub's antagonism toward the status quo intensified, arid his
efforts to decentralize the art world took on a more explicitly political slant. We get a glimpse
of this in his comments to the curator Elayne Varian in a June 1969 interview conducted in
preparation for an article she was writing on new practices of dealing:
~
I'm involved with the Art Workers' Coalition, and I'm becoming very, very concerned about being
able to assist in whatever way I can to get artists together to be able to get more power in the com
~
munity over their art, over their life issues, and things of this nature. I'm very concerned with things iii"
~
like unions for artists. And I'm very concerned about the international aspects of what's going on, ~
~
that's why my catalogues, and all of my books in thefuture, will be in two or three languages."
."
Co
;
[
Co
At the same time, Siegelaub's conception of his function in the art world began to
change. He swiftly shifted from the role of a publicist promoting a small group of artists to a ;:
..

catalyst for organizing exhibitions, as he referred to himself in April 1969." By the end of the 3
a

year he divested himself of the artists even further, seeking to "push the interest of art rather
than pushing artists."" This transformation was not superficial but structural and systemic. ;;:
~
~
As he wrote in a letter of9 May 1969 requesting money from potential sponsors to underwrite iii'
~
his activities, iii"
g.
~
1 am presently re-orienting my function in the Art community from that of a so-called 'dealer
consultant' to that of simply a consultant'. .. 1have become interested in the broader communi
cations between artists around the world. . I am concerned about the artists being able to have
their work known no matter where they live- not just artists living in New York."
Here Siegelaub articulates an idea that would come to fruition only at the end of the century:
the global art world_
His success in fixing his new identity as "consultant" was debatable, since his cre
ative role in the art world was strong. Indeed when the organizers of "Prospect 69," Konrad
Fischer andJiirgen Harten, contacted Siegelaub inJune 1969 to ask whether he would include
the four artists he represented in their show, he responded by proposing thirteen artists
instead." Fischer and Harten ultimately rejected Siegelaub's expanded proposal, and, reluc
tantly, the latter agreed to present only the work of Barry, Huebler, Kosuth, and Weiner_" At
play were the struggle between the art world and market and the dehierarchizing practice of
Siegelaub. The market system demands individual representatives and artists, and it had al
ready recognized those associated with Siegelaub who had the most potential to succeed.
But in the late 1960s the novelty of Siegelaub's practice of presentation continued
unabated. For the "Prospect 69" show he presented the work of Barry. Huebler, Kosuth, and
~
-c

""'; /-:1

B
Pages lram Prospect 69, 1969
Weiner in the form of a series of self-interviews to appear in the exhibition catalogue, re
calling the Arthur R. Rose interviews that supplemented the "January 5-31,1969" exhibition

(fig. 7.2). Whereas the earlier interviews had served as secondary information publicizing the ;0

artists' work, they now functioned as primary information; the interviews were the work.

Each fragment, formerly incomplete and needing to direct its attention elsewhere, beyond it
...
[
(;
self, toward what was supposed to complete (and also abolish) it, now constituted a whole
artwork in its own right. In the process, publicity took on an "art" status. The tenuousness of
the fragment was superseded by this reconstitution of secondary information as primary.
..


THE ARTIST'S RESERVED RIGHTS

TRANSFER AND SALE AGREEMENT
".

0;
0
"Prospect 69" was the last exhibition in which Siegelaub exclusively presented the work of "
Barry, Huebler, Kosuth, and Weiner. Rather than representing the concerns of a small group
of artists, he now perceived his role to be to disseminate this new, experimental art as
and extensively as possible." Accordingly, in the twelve months following the summer of
1969, Siegelaub helped organize an unaffiliated series of what he referred to as "large, inclu
sive chaotic The egalitarian condition of these shows was unprecedented, as
they refused all normative limits previously governing the production and exhibition of art.
Any type of proposal demanded to be considered equal in value to any other, and the role of
artist was open to anyone regardless of aaining"
Not surprisingly, given the conaadictory nature of much of the highly innovative
art during this period, the opposite reading emerged at the same time. [n an April 1969 re
view of Siegelaub's "One Month" exhibition in The Nation, for instance, Lawrence Alloway
noted that such "aphoristic or propositional forms of art" integrated the fact that art was es
sentially"a aansmittable commodity" into their very form. According to Alloway, this made
it both more difficult and easier for the dealer to distribute the art. On the one hand, "as doc
uments or as irteducible presence, ... the galleries cannot do much to display such work
within the canon of authenticity which is their main source of But on the other hand,
since "the techniques by which art objects are sold can also be applied to the thoughts or the
services of the artist:' "handling coded information rather than precious things" leaves "the
system of distribution of art which the galleries represent ... baSically intact," and in fact
'"
'"
...
makes the dealer's job less expensive and more efficient. so Alloway thus echoes Kaprow's ob
'"
servation cited earlier that as art becomes more and more integrated with advertiSing, deal
ers will increasingly be able to manage the careers of the new artists.51 Concomitant with
easier and more efficient systems of distribution came an increased anxiety concerning
ownership and authorship. For though the artists themselves may have denied or questioned
traditional concepts of authorship, this did not arrest anxiety concerrilng authenticity
Siegelaub had developed a rather efficient means of retailing this art: as early as
1968 he had drawn up "the relevant documents to certify ownership" that would be trans
ferred to collectors to affirm their property" But as he became increasingly politicized in the
immediately following years, this marketing strategy was put in the service of protecting
artists' economic rights and control over their work, culminating in the Artist's Reserved
Rights Transfer and Sale Agreement (figs. 7.3-7.5).
Commencing in late 1969 and continuing for the better part of a year, Siegelaub
conducted exploratory conversations in the art world, particularly in New York but also in
Europe, and, with the help of New York lawyer Robert Projansky, drafted a contract that
would safeguard the interests of artists. In January 1971, this draft was photocopied and dis
tributed at no cost to five hundred people through art schools, universities, galleries, muse
ums, artists' bars, and Siegelaub's by now extensive mailing list, asking for their opinion"
Then, with the help of the replies received, the final form of the contract was prepared, along
with information about its use, and widely disseminated in a number of contexts and lan
guages" The contract first appeared in Studio International in April 1971, along with Siege
laub's explanatory preamble outlining how it was initially conceived and the practical details
of its current use. The instructions read: "1. To begin Xerox or offset a number of copies of
each page of the agreement The easily accessible Agreement, distributed as printed
matter in journals and magazines, was similar in form to much of the art Siegelaub had re
cently represented. Projansky's meticulous brief of the legal terms of the Agreemen t advised
artists who might be interested in employing it without incurring legal consultation fees. The
contract greatly expanded artists' ability to negotiate sales without relying on galleries or
other such intermediaries. Both comprehensible and accessible, Siegelaub and Projansky's
Agreement pushed the former's efforts to reform dominant art market practices. Now artists
could even control the financial aspects of their production.
Broadly speaking, then, the Agreement was a political project that provided the
groundwork for substantive artist empowerment. The hidden inequities and injustices it ad
Artist's agreement
FlU in date.
names and
addresses
of C'arties
Fill in data
iden1itylng
IheWork
Fill in price
ot value; strika
OUI one nOI
applicable
Fill In name,
address of
artist's agen!.
if any; slrike
oul one nol
appticOll>fe
Fill in !'tame.
address of
arll s!'s agent.
if any: strike
out on8 nol
applicable
AGREEMENT OF ORIGINAL TRANSFER OF WORK OF ART
This agreemenl made this dyof . 19__. by and
-----------_______-lChereinalter the "Artist"), mldingaJ

- _________________(h.rwlnan.t U. "Collector"), residng
.,L-___________________________
WITNESSETH: . .
WHEREAS tf'1e Artist haa creatad Ihal certain wortr. of art;
Titla: IdenlilicaUon . : _________
Oale: Matarial : ___________
OlmeMlons: Oescriptlon: _________
(hera/n.", "the Work"); .,d
to purchase the Work from
WHEREAS Collector and ArtIlt racognlze thai tN vatu. of It. Wor1t, unllk, IMt of an ordinary chan..,. I:!
and will be by ..ch and other wolil: 01 an the has crwat.d and will hereafter creal,: and
WHEREAS tt. partin expecl rha value at the Work 10 Inc,... here_fler: and
WHEREAS Cort.ctor II'd Anial, recognize thai It it tltting and proper thsl Arlil,\>artlcipate In any appred.
emi value which may tf'1ua b, craaled In th' Work: and . .
WHEHEAS the p.rtles wish the integrity and cl.rity of the Artlsrs ide.. and sta,lements in Ina Wort.: to tit
meintalned and sublectln Plrt fo the will or advice 01 !he creator of ttll Work,
NOW, THEREFORE, In con,iderallon 01 the foregOing pramisn and the mutual covenants nareinaller stt
torth and o!her valueJM consld....lione ... partiat herale 8gree ., follows:
PURCHAaI' AND SALE. ARTICLE oNE: TN Artilt hireby' sell. to CollectDr Ind Colkictor hereby
the Work tlom Artist ,ubjectlo ai' 1M covenants ntreln ...t tonh (for tf'Ie 01 ' .
racelpt or which It herwby acknowledged) (It the agreed valuation for tM PUrpGSH of tf'1is agreemenl 01
.. . ,
FUTUf'E TRANSFERS: ARTICLE rNO : Coflector rowenan" tMlln the evant Collector ,,...U !'WInntt,r sell
$l1..... t.-rant. bar1er. excrtanga. USlgn. lransfer, convey 0' alienate thI Work. in ITlllnne, whatlOeYer or
destroyed
.1
collector's transleree. with \tit
st ) within mlrty day. of ,u.::h transr..., CID
tribuUorl. or payment at Insurance proceeda. and Ihall
(bl PY' ,urn equal to "fteen pereant (15'%) 01 the Appreciated Value (as defined). if 1ITf.
payment 01 Insurance procnda (ArHat at the addrns SII
__ ___ __) within thirty day, at such transler, dlatributlon, OJ paytMnl of lnaurenct
procMds. . .
PRIC!JYALUI!.. ARnClE THREE: The "price or walue" \0 be ."UUed on mANSFER AGREE"MENT AND
RECORD shall be: .
. 0; exchanged lor 8v"uable cone/de"
tlorr; or "
Ie) !he tair marbl value 01 the Work HillS transferred In any other m ..u,er.
APPRECIATED YALUI!.. ARTICLE FOUR: "Appreciated Velue" of thI Work lor I,he purposes ollhis Agree
ment. shatl ba lhe inc",,,, II any, in U. walue or price 01 the Worle set forO! In current duly axecul8d
c::
filed TRANSFER AGREEMENT AND RECORO, aver 1M price or value sel lortn In ARTICLE ONE herlin
<a) In n. .....nt. current duly axecuted TRANSFER AGREEMENT ANO RECORD Is nOI. Ilmely flied.

equal to the actual market valua 01 !he Work at the time of tf'1e current Iramler or I' Ihi time
the discove..,. of such transfer,
G
Seth Siegeiaub and Robert Projansky, The Artist 's Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale
Agreement, 1971, as reprinted in Studio International, April 1971
Artist's agreement
TRANSFEREES TO RAnFY AOREEEMENT. ARTICLE FIVE: eoll,ctor hlreby covenants thai he will not
hereallAlr ,all, give, grant, barter, exchange. assign, transf'r, convey or ,Iianlte the Work. In any manne'
whatsoever or permit the Wor1t to pus by inhlrlt.nce or bequest or by operation of law to any person
'Aithove procuring such transferee' s f8tincalion and affirm_lion 01 all lhe terms 01 thiS! Agreement and
IrSnsl.ree', agreement 10 be bound h8rl1by 100 10 perform and fulfi ll aJl of che Collector's covenan!.s set
transferee's subscripl ion
S!nte QUI one PROVENANCE. ARTICLE SIX: Anist hertby covenants that (Artist) (Artlsl's agent for the purpose as set
oolappli eaOla forth In AAnCLE TWO) will maintain a ri le and nlcord of each and every transfer 01 the Work for ,*hich
TRANSFER AGREEMENT ANO RECORD 1'1.. been duly filed pursuant to ARTICLE TWO herein and will at
the request 01 the Collector or Collaetor's SlJCC8lSOr'1l in Inlerest, lUI fnat inlarest snllli appear, lumlsn in
writing a hlltory 01 the Woril; based upon. said records and upon notices of
proposad public exhibi tions and will certify In writing said provenance and hlttory and the .uthenticity 01
[he Work to Collector and his In Intamt, IIIId t Collector's rauonabt. request. to critics and
scholars. Said recordl ,hall be the sole property of the ArttsL
EXHIBtnON. ARTICLE SEVEN: Artist and Colleclor mUtually cownanl that
(.) Colieclor shaIl give Artist written notice 01 CoI!ecto(alntenUon to causa or permil l he Work to be
exhibited to the publ ic, ad'lisitIQ Artist 01 .It d.t.lIs 01 such proposed .xhlbltion whic.h shall have been
mada knOllfn to Collectof by tha axhibltor. Said notice shllIl given lor each luch exhibition prior to any
communication to the exhibitor or the publiC 01 CoIiKtOr'S Intention to c.use or permit the Work to be
axhlblted to the PUblic. Arti" shall torthw!th communIcate !O Collector and the exhibitor any and all edIIiee
or /'I:quests lhat he may hlNe regarding tha prapolld .xhibitlon of lhe Work. Collector shall nol catne or
p.""11 the Work 10 be exhlbfled to me public exc.pt upon compliance with the tI.rms 01 tht!; anlcl .
oul fbI (b) Colhtctcr st.1I not cause or pe""" any public exhlbillon of lhe Work except wilh the consenl 01
II no! reQul rea the ArUal to each lIuch .xhlbllion.
(c) Artl.I'1 lailure timely to respond tD Collector's Umely nqUc. thall be deemed. walyer of Art ist's
rights under this article, in respecl 10 such .xhibition and stWl operate ... cOAMnl to such exhibi tion
and to aU detaile thereof of which Artist a.wl h.... been gtvef1 Umely nodc:e. .
AAnITS POS8SSION. ARTICLE EIGHT: Arttat .nd Collector mutually eo-..nent thlt Al"\lst shall hay. the
right, upon .."riuen nolica and demand to Colleclor mllde not I.t.r thin 120 da.,.. prior to Ih. proposed
shipping dale therefor, to poaaesalon olth. Work for. period 00110 exceed lixly (80) deys solely lor the
purpose 01 exhibition of Ihe Work 10 the public al and by a pubtrc or non-9tOnt iNitituOon, at no expense
whellloever 10 Collector. Collector shall heve the rlghl 10 ...t"factory proof 01 .utfl:eienl inaurance and
prepaid lran.portaticn or lIatls'.ctory prao' of nn.nclal rnponsibil/ty there'or, Artist shall have the right
10 auch poaseulon 01 the Work for one period not to excelld sixty (80) dey very "ve (5)
NON-OESTRUC110N. ARTICLE NINE: Collector eovenantJ that Collector wtll not Intentionally destroy.
damage, alt.r, modify or change Ihe Work in 1liiy w.y whebOeYer.
RI!'.... RS. ARTICLE TEN: Colleclor coy.nants: Ihlt in the ...,ent 01 any damage to the Work. CoUKtor ahall
consult with Artist prior 10 the commencement 01 eny retlairs or ntSloraUon and if prtlcttcabl. Artltt shall
b. giy.n the opportunity 10 make IIny ntquirttd repairs or ...-slOration.
RENTS. ARTICLE ElEVEN: In the eYentthal Collector become to any monies u ",ni or olher
compensation for the use 01 the Work at public exhibition, the ColtllCtor shall pay e sum equal to one-hall
Sltrkecui one
ot said manias to (Anill) (Artisr. avent U 18110rth in ARTICLE TWO h.reln) within Ihlrty (30) day. 01 the
r(l18pp1i cab!e date when Collector shall become entitled to such monies.
R(PRODUC110N. ARTICLE TWELVE: Artist hereby marves all wh.tao....ef to eopy or reproduce
lhe Work.. Artillt shall nol unrtalON.bJy r"UM permission to reproduce the Work' in catalogues and the
lika incidental to public exhlblUon of the Wort.
NON-ASSIGNABIUTY. ARTICLE THIRTEEN; No rights creat.d In the Artist and for m. Artisl's benefil by
the of ,ihle Agreement lhBll be assignllble by Artilt during Ihe Artl,ra lifetime, except that nothing
herein contalned 'hall be construed .. a IImilallon on ArtisI'll rights_Undar any COPyright la'ill'S to which
the Work may be aubjecL
NOnCE. ARTICLE FOURTEEN: Artilf and Collector mutuany covenant that there shall be pe""anenlly
alii xed to the Work. NOTICE 01 the axtsl8nce 01 thia Agreemenl and that ownership, tranal,r, exhibition
end rtpl'OducUon 01 the Work a/'l: subjecl the con .... n8flts "'-rein, said NOTICE 10 be In the form 01 the
specimen hereunto annexed lind made a part 01 thi, AgrHment
SlrikeOUI (a) il
<a) Because the Work i. at SUch nature thai ib axlal.nce or essence is represented by docum,entttfon
l'<lIapplicable
or because documentation is deemed by Artlsi to be part 01 the Work, the pennanenl aNixing ot said
NOTICE to the documentation shall saUsfy the r&qulr.menta of this .artlcle.
TRANSFEREES BOUND, ARTICLE FIFTEEN; In the event the Work Il'I.all hereafter be IranslerrltCl or ol"'-r
wa hom C?lIeclOr or Collector's astate In any mann.r whalllo .... ." any tranafe .... liking the
Work With nollce 01 thll Agreement sl'\8Uln ''Jery respect be bOund aOO liable 10 perlO"" and fulfill each
and eyery covenant hereln as ' il such transle,ee had duly mad. and subacrlbed a property executed
TRANSFER AGREEMENT AND RECORD in .ccordance with ARTICLE TWO and ARTtCLE FIVE harein al
the time the Work was trantlerred to him or her.
G
Seth Siegelaub and Robert Projansky, The Artist's Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale
Agreement, 1971, as reprinted in Studio International, April 1971
Artist's agreement
.!XPtRAnON. ARTICLE SIXTEEN: Thia Agre.ment and the covenanls herein shall be binding upon lilt'
partie lhelr heirs, legatees, executors. administrators, assigns, tran!lferees and all other succ........
Intere" and the Collector' s eovenents do attach and run 'Nith the Work lind $hall be Dlnd/ng to and un
!
"
'
twenty-one (21) years after tI'Ie dealhs of Artlat and Artbl'a surviving spouse. II any . xcept th.al "
covenants: sellor!h in ARTICLE SEVEN, ARTICLE EIGHT and ARTICLE TEN her.in shall De binding
dUring the lif. of the Anlst .
WAlVE:RS NOT CONnNUINQ. ARTICLE SEVENTEEN: My waiver by al ther p. tTy 0' any proyision of If'Iit\
or of 11'1'1 right hereunder. shall nol deemed a continuing waiYe, and shall not praYl!nt or

menl by !ha oth.r p.rty shall not be conlruecl ss a waiyer or ntlinquishrnent ror Ihe future 01 any such t8rmI
or prOVisi ons. but the sam. shall continue i n lull forc. and atracl.
not be subject to amendment,
ATTORNEYS' FEES. ARTICLE NINETEEN: In the eyent tNit eil"'-r patty ahall hereaftar any action
upon any delault in perlonnanc. or oDservenc:a of any c:ov.nanl herein, the party aggrieYl!!l d may recovw
tauonable attorneys: I ... in addili<ln fa wl'\8l8yer nIImlldias mey be available 10 him or her.
IN WrntESS MiEREOF. the p.nle. ha"" "I their hands and seals to Ihis Agreement as of the dayMd
year IlllIt above. wriHen,
SPECIMEN - SPECIMEN ' . SPECIMEN
Fill NOTICE
In lull (Do not
remove from
NOTICE
original)
o-:n.llIhiP, Transfer. Exhlbiti on and ReprocluctJon 01
!hia Work of Art .nt subject to cO'l9nant:s lei forth In a (Anlsl)
dayol __,
;;;(j---_. ---_. __ .. (Collector)
the original 01 which ill on liIe with _
. at
SPECIMEN - SPECIMEN - SPECIMEN
Fill in ONLY;
TRANSFER AGREEMENT ANO RECORD
To;
Know 'Ie that _____
residing .1 ._ ._ .. __ __ _
flu !hll day tra:Mfe:rred all hbl righi , tide and Interest in Ihat cer1ain Work. or art known u :
data identifying nu.: Identilicatlon , :
the Work
Oal8: Material :
Dimensions: Description:
10 _ .____ . utl/dlngst ______ . __ __,
tranaletM. at the agreed prlee or ve4ue 01__ ._.. _ . Transferee, hareby
names 01 parties
expressly rati fles a.nd all1ms all the lannll 01 thai certain Agraement mlde by and beTWeen
'''beTWeen __
_____and .

on the __day of .19 ._. end.greet!O De bound thereby and to perlorm
and ful1ll1 all 01 Co{lector's covenant! sel lorth in said agr"manl.
Done Thla _ _ day 01 ___ ,19 _ ,
dale
at
(Do nol remove __---l
from angina')
G
Seth Siegelaub and Robert Projansky, The Artist's Reserved Rights Transfer and Sale
Agreement, 1971, as reprinted in Studio International, April 1971
co
dressed were commonly acknowledged throughout the an world, which usually protects the
'"
collector more than the artist. Siegelaub's explanatory preface clarified why, in the context
of the uprisings at Kent State and the VieO'lam War protests, a contractual approach was
considered more desirable than legislation. This route, Siegelaub wrote, involved "no organ
ization, no dues, no government agency, no meetings, no public registration, no nothing
just your [Le., the artist'sl will to use it."" Thus the Agreement circumvented gallery or
bureaucratic intervention, serving as a self-help document in line with the ethos of anti
institutional trends of the period, such as those crystallized in, for instance, the various edi
tions of The Whole Earth Catalogue.
The Agreement was designed to thwan the collector's inordinate amoWlt of 'con
trol" in the an world by giving the artist a number of rights, including the right to some of the
profits from resale or from any other form of commercial exploitation of the work (e.g., re
production, rentals) ." In addition, Siegelaub and Projansky made clear that the contract was
also appropriate for transfers of ownership by exchange or even gift, thereby protecting the
artist paning with a work without monetary recompense. The Agreement would be binding
on all future owners of the work (who were required to sign the legal agreement) and would
be in effect for the artist's lifetime. Upon the artist's death, the rights to the work would re
ven to the artist's heirs"
The most controversial aspect of the Agreement was the right of the artist to par
ticipate in, and to profit from, any increase in the work's sumptuary value. Although it ad
dressed many noneconomic rights, this aspect of the contract rapidly became the focus of
much harsh evaluation and criticism. Many dealers and artists felt that collectors would not
buy an if they could not control the right to use and sell it" Further criticism concerned the
effect of the lack of privacy on an collecting; the fact that collectors would be obliged to put
their name on the contract meant that traditionally Wldeclared cash flowing through the an
world would be recorded. Additionally, there was the flexibility of pricing. Atone point Siege
laub suggested that in cenain instances an artist might consider inflating the market value
of the anwork on the contract, since 'obviously, the higher the figure you put in, the better
the break the new owner is getting.""
Although Siegelaub and Projansky's timely effort capitalized on artists' growing re
sentment of an marketing conventions, it also reconceived these conventions in a way that
cOWltered the model of egalitarianism. Siegelaub was very precise about the physical rela
tionship between the anwork and the Agreement, and he stressed that the Notice concern
ing Ownership, Transfer, Exhibition and Reproduction of the Work of Art should always be
attached to the work' o According to his instructions, the Notice might be placed "on a
stretcher bar Wlder a sculpture base or wherever else it will be aesthetically invisible yet eas
ily findable. It should get a coat of clear polyurethane-or something like it-to protect it. It
won't hun to put several copies of the notice on a large work."" In other words, the Notice,
which basically fWlctioned as a bill of sale, would become pan of the work. In instances
where the an was immaterial and had no physical base, Siegelaub advised: "If your work has
no place on it for the Notice or your signature-in which case you should always use an an
cillary document which describes the work and which bears your signature and which must
always be transferred as a e g a l ) pan of the work-glue the NOTICE on the document"" The
Notice validated secondary information and materialized primary information. Note as well
that the Agreement made a correlation between "Notice" and "signature," and if authorship
of the new work was linked to copyright, the Notice functioned as a document indicating
copyright. In this transformation, the signature of the artist and its associative sign value
once again became the primary product. In the absence not only of iconicity but also of any
kind of discernible metaphor or allusion, the artist's signature now came to be what the work
signified. In the process, the attack carried out by conceptual an upon the cultural system
in the preceding years was negated. Regardless of how problematic its form, the work once
again entered the market through the signature of the producer. Drafted to protect the rights
of the artist, the contract fWlctioned to preserve exclusive ownership of the work. Thus
Siegelaub arrived at a concrete solution to his earlier queries of how to market ideas.
Although the Agreement, drafted to help destabilize the calcified an industry, may
have been politically progressive in its intention, it had the opposite effect, leading conceptual
an into what Uppard condemns as "the tyranny of a commodity status and market
orientation:' For the Agreement's precise limitations served to confine even work that existed
only as abstract idea or, alternately, only as widely dispersed documentation within its capi
tal relations, and thus insened conceptual art into the an market as a pure commodity or bill
of sale. The aura absent from conceptual art was thereby reintroduced in the auratization of
the signature. If conceptual an attacked the privileged nature of an and made the experience
of an collecting more practicable than ever before, Siegelaub's contract ensured that one facet
of the new an would not be so readily accessible-namely, the experience of ownership.
"
. ~
;0:
~
"
=
..,
a.
.,
a.
~
e
..
3
~
'"

~
~
;;
c:
0
~
'"
'"
o
....
With the success of the artists associated with him, Siegelaub gradually dropped
out of the picture and became a shadow (fig. 1.1). Just as the material object of art in some in
stances gave way to ephemeT<llity and pure concept, Siegelaub too became an idea: "the
Siegelaub idea." In less than a decade, his identity had shifted from gallery owner to dealer,
organizer, pUblicist, and catalyst Just as a catalyst may be necessary in a chemical process,
though it is disj unct from the final product, so too Siegelaub ceased to be involved in the early
1970s when conceptual an was legitimized as a bona fide an movement-but not before he
had succeeded in rupturing a number of the fundamental tenets of the an world, the rever
beT<ltions of which continue to be felt today.
notes
PART I the contradictions of conceptual art
1. Seth Siegelaub, in Michel Claum and Seth Siegelaub, "Lart conceptuel," Xxe ,;eele, 41 (December 1973);
reprinted in Alexander Alberro and Blake Stimson, eds., Conceptual Art; A Oitical Anthology (cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press, 1999), p. 289.
2. Allan Kaprow, "Should the Artist Become a Man at the World' , Art NrMS, 63,6 (October 1964); reprinted as
"The Artist as a Man of the World: in Jeff Kelley, ed., Essays on the Blurring ofArt and Life, Allan Kaprow(Berkeley, Uni
of california Press, 1994), pp. 47-48.
3. Barbara Rose, to Murder an Avant-Garde," Artforum, 4:3 (November 1965), p. 35; Alan Solomon, New
York, The NewArt Scene (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), p. 66.
mobile and involve flexible skills. More important, they are characterized in general by the central role played by' knowledge,
information, affect. and communicati on. In this sense many call the postindustrial economy an informational economy.M
4. John Murphy, President, Philip Morris Europe, in Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form, exh. cat.
(Bern, Kunsthalle Bern, 1969), n.p.
5. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (cambridge, Mass . Harvarll Univer>ily Press. 2000), p. 285, "The
process of p:lStmodernization or informatization has been demonstrated through the migration (rom Industry to service
jobs, a shiftithat has taken place in the dominant capitalist countries.. . . Services cover a wide range of activities from
health care, education, and finance to transportation, entertainment and advertising. The jabs for the mast part are highly