I " I


J ,













© !999 Rosalind Krauss

Atfirst I thought 1 could simply draw «line under the word medium, bury it/ike so much critical toxic waste, and walk away]rom it into a UJorld oj lexicalfreedom. "Medium" samed too contaminated, too ideologically, tao dogmatically, 100 discur ... stveiy loaded.

I wondered if I could make use of Stanley Cavell's automatism, the term he had appropriated to attack the do~(ble problem of addressillgfilm as a (relatively) new medium and oj bringing into focus what seemed to hhn unExplained about' modernistpailltillg. r The iuord "automatism" captured Jor him the sense in which part of film - the part that depends on the mechanics of a camera - is automatic; it also plugged into the Surrealist use of "automatism" as an unconscious njlex (a dangerous allrHioll, but a useJl4! one, as we will see); and it contained tlrepossible connotative reJerel'lce to "autonomy," in the sense of the vesultan! work's freedom from its makei'.

Like the notion of medium or genre within more traditional contexts Jar art, an automatism wotdd involve the relationship beiuieen a technical (or material) support !llld tlrr convention: Tllilll II,IIidl (I parlin-dar ,grnrr opmllrs or orliCH/alrr or works 011 that support. What "automatism" thrusts into the foregror,md oj this traditional definition of "medium," however, is the concept of improvisation, oj the need to take chances in theJace of a medium now cut free frO III thegr'larantees

Any copy of rhi, book issued by the publisher as a paperback is sold subjecr to the condiuon rhar it shall norby way of trade or otherwise be lent, resold, hiredout or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding Dr cover other tiTan that In which ir is published and without a similar condinon inclu.ding these words being imposed on a subsequent purchaser.

The Walter Ncurarh Memorial Lectures, up to 1992, were given at. Birkbcck College, University of London, whose Governors and Master most generously sponsored them for twenty-tour years.

First pubhshed in paperback In the United Kingdom in 1.000

by Thames & Hudson Ltd, !81A High Holborn, London WC[V 7QX

All Rlglm Reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced or transmitted 111 any Ior m or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy. recording or any other information storage and retrieval system, without prior pcnni~5.'nn in wrillug li·o~n dw rLlhl'~ht·t.

Bruish Library Catalogulng,ill,Publication Data

A catalogue rcrnrd for this book is available fmlll the British Library [SBN °'50°'281.07'2

Pruned and bound In [tall'


aJ artistic ttaditio«. It is this SCIISC aJ the il1lprorn'satory that welcomes tlic I{lord's associations with "psychic automatism J); but the automatic riflex here is not so much all unconscious olle as it is s')/11erllill.~ like tlie expressive jreedom that improllistltiilll always contained, as the relation betw(,fI1 the technical ground oj a genre rll/d its giueu COIIVCHtiol1s opmed rip a space jar release - the way the jugue makes it possible, jor example, to improvise complex marriages between its voices. The conueutions ill question need not be as strict as those of a fugue or a sonnet; they might be exceedillgly loose or schematic. BHt without them there would be 110 possibility 4jrl~eill<e the success ()J'jailJlre oj SIIch improvisation. Expressiveness I/Iorlld have 110 goal, sa 10 speok» The attraction of Cavell's example Jar lI1e was its insistence all the interna! plurality oj any givett medium, of the impossibility of thinking oj air aesthetic mediI/ill as nothing 111 0 re than an unworked physical support. That such a dcjinition of the medirnll as mere physical object, in all its reductiueness and drive toward re!fica/iOlI, had become COl1ll1lon currencr ill the art world, and that the name C{CIJICllt CrcCllberg fwd bee» attached to this defil1ition so tlrat,jrollJ tire '60S on, to litter the lUord "medium II meant invoking "Greenberg, J) was the problem I faced.! hldeed, so pervasive was this drive to "Creenbergize II the word that historically previous approaches /0 its dcjinition were IlOW stripped oj their own cOlllplexity, Mal/rice Denis 's jalllolis 1890 dietulII a.UOHt the pictorial medium - "It is well to rellle/llber that a pictrm - before being a battle horse, a l1ude woman, or some anecdot: - is essentially a plane mrface cOlJered with colors assembled in a certain order II - uias not» beill~~ read, for example, as merely pres(lgill<~ all essentialist reduction oj painting to "flatness, JJ That this is not Darts's point, that he is illStead desai/JiriK the layered, complex rdatiollShip that we could call a recursive Structure - a structure, that is, some of the elements of which will produce





the ruies th~/gcllrratr the structure itself - was (and is) j~rst , , . ignored, Hrrther, that this recursive structure is something made, rather than sOlllctiringgivCfl, is what is latent in the traditional connection of "medium JJ to matters of technioue, as when the arts were divided up within the Academy into ateliers representing the different mediums - painting, sculpture, architecture - in order to be taught.4

Thus, if I have decided iIJ the end to retain the word "medium, JJ it is because for all the misul1derslarldings and abuses attached to it, tlris is the term t/rat opms onto the disCHrsivefield that I want to address. This is true at the historical level in that the fate of this concept serllls to brlong clzronologically to thr rise oj a critical post ... modernism (institutional critique, site specificity) that in its turn has produced its own problematic aftermath (the intemationa] phmomenon of installation art). It seemed, that is, that only "lI'lediul1I II would face onto this turn oj events. Alldat a lexical level, it is the word "medium" and not something like "automatism," that brings the issue of "spec!ficity" in its wake - as in tire designation "niedirnn ... specificity. JJ AlthOt~gh this is another, Hlifortrmately loaded concept - abusively recast as a Jorm of objectification or l'e!ficatiol1, since a mediun: is purportedly made specific by being reduced to nothing brJt its manifest physical properties - it is (in its non/abusively defined form) nonetheless intrinsic to any discussion oj how the conventions layered into a mediun: might fUl1ctiol1. For the nature oj a recursive structure is that it must be able, at least in pari, to specify itself.

Stuck, therefore, with the .word "rnediull'l, " 1 must thrust it equally 011 my reader in the reflectiolls that follow, I hope, however, that this note in the Jorm of a preface will halJe gained me some distance between the word itself, with its long history offtside the recent battles over "[armalism,' and the assumptions about the term's corruption and collapse that those battles gmcl'ated.


r, 2 Marcel Broodtliaers, front (abolle) and back (lefl) covers of Studio lnteruational, October 1974.

'~3 TI ill X


,.,t" :;;0.' .-..,_ j- .. ~ ...

With ~hc CIIlIIY t'birvI)Y"Ilt'~ "f Ih~ m.ucriulist, I3ro"Jlh;lcr.~ .uu icip.ucd, as early as the mid" 960S, the complete transformation of artistic production into a branch of the culture industry, a phenomenon which we only now recoglll ze,

Benjamin Buchlohi

~ A cover, devised by Marcel Broodthaers for a 1974 issue of Studio Inter-

,. national, will serve as the introduction to what I have [0 say here. It is a rebus that spells out FIN E A RTS, with the picture of the cagle supplyi ng the last letter of "fine" and that of the ass functioning as the first one of "arts.?> If we adopt the commonly held view that the eagle symbolizes nobility, height, imperious reach, and so forth, chen its relationship to the fineness of the fine arts seems perfectly obvious. And if the :l.SS is presumed, through the same kind of intellectual reflex, to present the lowliness of a beast of burden, then its connection to the arts is not that of the eagle's unifying movement - the separate arcs raised up or subsumed under the synthetic, larger idea of Art _:_ but rather, the stupe/ fying particularity of individual techniques, of everything that embeds practice in the tedium of its making: "Dumb like a painter," they say.

But we can also read the rebus as an eclipse of the appropriate letter of the given word, and so arrive, somewhat suggestively, at FIN ARTS, or the end of art.? and this in turn would open onto a specific way that Broodthaers ofien used the eagle, and th us onto a particular narrative about the end of art, or - reading his rebus more carefully - the end of the arts.

There was, indeed, a narrative about chis end co which Eroodrhacrs was especially sensitive in the late 1960s and early '70S. This was the story of a militantly reductive modernism that, by narrowing painting to what was announced as the medium's essence - namely flatness - had so contracted it tbat, suddenly, refracted by the prism of theory,


t I

it had emerged fi-mn the other side of the lens not simply upside down but transformed iutoits opposite. If, the story goes, Frank Stella's black canvases showed what painting would look like once materialized as u nrclievedly Rat ~ their su pposcd essence understood as nothing more than an inertly physical feature - they announced to Donald Judd that painting had now become an object just like any other three-dirncnsional thing. Further, he reasoned, with nothing any longer differen~ tialing painting from sculpture, [he distinctness of either as separate mediums was over. The name that Judd gave to the hybrids that would form out of this collapse was "Specific Objects."

It was Joseph Kosutl: who quickly saw that the correct term for this paradoxical outcome of the modernist reduction was not spccijic but genna/.8 For if modernism was probing painting for its essence - for what made it specific as a medium - that logic taken to its extreme had turned paiming inside out and had emptied it into the generic category oC Art: art-at-large, or art-in-general, And not«, Kosuth maintained, the omologicallabor of the modernist artist was to define the essence of Art itself: "Being an artist now means to question the nature of art," he stated. "If one is questioning the nature of painting, am cannot be questioning the nature of art. That's because the word art is general and the word pail/fillg is specific."

It was Kosutb's further contention that the definitions of art, which works would now make, might merely take the form of statements and thus rarefy the physical object into the conceptual condit jon of language. But these statements, though he saw them resonating with the logical finality of an analytical proposition, would nonetheless be an and not, say, philosophy. Their linguistic form would merely signal the transcendence oC the particular, sensuous conrcnr of a given an, like painting or photography, and the subsumption of each by that higher aesthetic unity - An itself - of which anyone is only a partial embodiment.

Conceptual art's further claim was that by purifying art of its mate; rial dross, and by producing it as a mode of theory-about-art, its own


3 Joseph Kusuth, /ltt as Idra as ldrn, [!I(>7.

4 Joseph Kosuth, Seventh bwem:Rnlioll (Art as Idea as Idea). [969.

practice had escaped the commodity form in which paintings and sculptures inevitably participated as they were forced to compete in a market for art that increasingly looked just like any orhcr.Tn this declaration was folded yet another paradox of recent modernist history. The specific mediums - painting, sculpture, drawing - had vested their claims to purity in being autonomous, which is to say that in their declaration of being about nothing but their own essence, they were necessarily disengaged from everything outside their frames. The paradox was that this autonomy had proved chimerical, and that abstract art's very modes of production- its paintings being executed in serial runs, for example - seemed to carry the imprint of the industrially produced commodity object, internalizing within the field of the work its own status as interchangeable and thus as pure exchange value. By abandoning this pretense to artistic autonorn y, and by willingly assuming varrous forms and sites~· the mass-distributed printed book, for example, or the public billboard - Conceptual art saw itself securing a higher purity for Art, so that in Aowing through the channels of commodity distri bution it would not only adopt any form it needed but would, by a kind of homeopathic defense, escape the effects of the market itself



]:"1 to


(I~/,) Mnrrcl Brnndrhacrs. MU.'riml rf M"dalJ Art, En,e1rr DC!,,1}'(IIICI!I (Da"id-[II,erer-Wierlz~C",!}'brt). 1968. (',7 (0[,""1' nlllll'l~e"l) Marccl Broodrliaers, Mllrrlllrl oj Modem Art, Engles Drpavtment, Jr)tf"Cm(liry SU(iQII, 1968-9.

Although by 1972 Broodthaers had ended 1115 four,year enterprise called the "Museum of Modern Art, Eagles Department" - a sequence of works by which, in producing the activities of the Museum's twelve sections, he operated what he once referred to as a fictitious museum - it is clear that one of the targets of that project carries over onto the Studio lnternaiiono! cover. Having explained, a few years before, that for him there was what he called an "identity of the cagle as idea and of art as idea," Broodthaers's eagle functioned more often than not as an emblem for Conceptual art.? And in this cover then, the triumph of the eagle announces not the end of Art but the termination of the individual arts as medium-specific; and it does so by enacting the form that this loss of specificity will now take.

On the one hand, the eagle itself will be folded into (he hybrid or intermedin condition of the rebus, in which not only language and image but high and low and any other oppositional pairing one can think of will freely mix, But on the other hand, this particular combina[ion is not entirely random. It is specific to the' site on which it occurs, which here is the cover of [hat organ of the market, an an magazine, where the image of the eagle does not escape the operations of the market




I:~ DE


8 Marcel Broodrbacrs, MWCllm oj Modem Arl, Eagles Deparunn«, DO(l(I1IPHlar), Section, 1969.


filtl' rflt'bri!, l}",,~~,{q.it [Q_"rfion,,('trJir rommt' plJhUci'ti pOr.'F It prod.IJil arrilliQllt'" 't' pi'"~)d!dr ertisl{ql/t! /Qfl"rioI1I'NUli c'mni'I'Tt plibli(1,.1- pour' I~ Tilimr: J(W! I~qut'l ,II

nr nt.

a n\' 4u~I' d',,"r"-r i!.!p.r1('~ q!/1' ret eRrl J"IOff J,'qw'jrrr, ...



dnt k..ulUfiotriJrh( Jh~orir! lu: tlie'" .filr Wt'rbung [lir daJ' kU'mlt'riJrhrProdlrkl/itrr.k.iiorJ/"tn. wit dr;u 'diIlJ'lltritch~ Produk.-,Immtr 'IC'hon ~/J k'ublll1l {IiI' dos Re~lmt /lmb/oR'-tlt, un ter dtm (I trtrlullr.

E, tr,br kt"'rit'1'I "ndif;!"'.f1 RlIum aJs di~,Jt A;.ticfll. d~twfol,t tiC, " ..

Fiir ate RidHithit

Marcel Broodtbaees

9 Martel Brcodrhacrs, frail! cover of hllCrJlmlllioWIl, Fall 1974.


an "rr!sric: Jhr!or), will b.eo {UrlCriolllnl for tlti' p'r-,iuir." product 111 /ht sr.rml' MlQ,' Qi fir, lIT,i'J/it: product ilull's /imn"()tlil1g dJ Qd· i'C'i'"I(Jing {rH' 'hI' rllir Im.cJltt H'hldl ir is prQ~!I~rd

Thorr( ..... m br no Ol/rrr spa(!!' mon rhis ... ,,,...... arr::ordin, ru which ",ft, ,.,

For rnpy' conform

served by th~ press. Accordingly, it becomes a fi:lrm of advcrtisi I1g or promotion, now promoting Conceptual art. Broodthaers made this clear in the announcement he drew up as his cover design for the magao" zine interjunktioncn, at about the same time: "View," it reads. "according to which an artistic theory will function for the artistic product in the same way as the artistic product itself functions as adverrising for the order under which it is produced. There will be no other space than this view according to which, etc .... [signed] Broodrhaers.?'> The redoubling of an as theory, then, delivers art (and most particularly the art for which it is the theory) to exactly those sites whose function is promotion, and does so without what might be called a critical remainder.

And it docs so without a formal remainder, as well. In the inter ... media loss of specificity to which the eagle su bmits the individual arts, the bird's privilege is itself scattered into a multiplicity of site, - each of them now termed "specific" - in which the installations that are constructed will comment, oftcn critically, on the operating conditions of the site itself. To this end, they will have recourse to every material support one can imagine, from pictures to words to video to readymade objects to films. But every material support, including the site itself - whether art magazine, dealer's fair booth, or museum gallery - will now be leveled, reduced to a system of pure equivalency by the homogenizing principle 'Of commodification, the operation of pure exchange value from which nothing can escape and [or which everything is transparcm to the underlying market value for which it is a sign. This reductionwas given manic form by Broodthaers as he affixed "figure" labels to random sets of objects, effecting their equivalence through the tags that assign them as either "Fig. I," "Fig .. 2," "Fig. 0," or "Fig. I2." In the Film Section of his museum, not only did he stick these labels onto mundane objects such as mirrors, pipes, and docks, but the movie screen itself was riddled with figure numbers as well, so that everything in the film pro~ jected onto it - from Chaplin's image to the Palais Royale in Brussels - now entered this compendium of Broodthaers's "Fig.''s.


Lt OJ (b.,- Lt
flCI !II t r,.', rlCD
0 ebJ- OJ OJ
rl~ '" II~ • ,,".II;J
r'.l 0
EJJ (] Lt
'I~. 5 rl'.S r1G.1 r.~. 2 , GEORGIiS SMIO("L

,. il ~d~.:,~:~~.'ll. " *

, , ,

10 (opposite, lop lift) Marcel llrooJthacrs, Liurttllblcau, 1969-70.

II (opposite, lop righl) Marcel Broodrhscrs, unrirlcd, 1966.

Il (opposite; bOllam) Marcel Broodrhacrs, Muscum oj MDatrn Arl, EaglN Departmcnt, Film Section, [97'1 -2. Broodthaers holding Sadoul's L'lJlvfI!i!ol! all Cmiwa.

I J (top lift) Marccl Broodthacr s, MII!ellm oj Modem Arl, Eagles Departlllc'lIi. Film Sect/Gil" 1.971-2. Painted scrccn m outer room.

[4 ("bour lift) Marcel Broodrhaers, Mummr.oj Modem Arl, Eagles DeparlfllCllt, Fil", Sea/on, 19-71-2.

15 (aboue) Marcel Broodrhacrs, Briisscl TeN, 1971.

16 (werleaj) Marcel Broodthacrs, Un Voyage'; Waterloo (Napolroll t769- r 969),1969.

111 [he "<('{'(i,lff dl'." r:(~lIrc·.i (rlil' Fd//l'jr('"1 (/11' ()/(~,'«('Ifl' (,I ,Ii(' Present}, mounted by his fictional museum, Broodrhacrs f;lDlOlISly submitted more thnu tlucc hundred di(fe('m( e~p;lcs ro this principle nf leveling. In this way. the eagle itself, no longcr a figure of nobility, becomes a sign of [he figure, the mark- that is - of pure exchange. Yct in this there is a further paradox that Broodrhaers himself did not live to see. For the eaglc princi pie, wh ich simultaneously implodes the idea of an aesthetic medium and turns everything equally into a readymade that collapses the diffcrence between the aesthetic and the commodified, has allowed [he cagle to soar above the ru bble and to achieve hegemony once again.':

Twenty-five years later, all over the world, in every biennial and at every art fair, the cagle principle functions as the new Academy. Whether it calls itself installation art or institutional critique, the international spread of the mixed/media installation has become ubiquitous. Triumphantly dcclaring that we now inhabit a post-medium age, the post-medium condition of this form traces its lineage, of course, not so much to Joseph Kosuth as to Marcel Broodthacrs.

17 (lp) Marcel Broodrhacrs, MIISCIIIII <1 Madl''''' Arr, E".~lr; DCpoll'IIIlfIIl, Seaic» des Fis."1'fl (The Eal'r FOIJIIIIV O!(('",.mr I"~ thr I'mTlI1 j, 11)72. View or rhe installation at the Stadrlischc Kunsrhallc, DUsseldorf.

18 (avour) Marcel Broodlh"nl, derail or MIIsrlllll oj ModUli Arl, Ea,~1n DeparllJlml, Sectio» dcs F(p'''rrl (The Ea.elr frOIl! litc OI(p'oCCIlc 10 Ilrc Present], 11)72.


::-;-:"-=-=':'-_:-.~::': - : - . - - - -

....... ~--.- ...... _. - --

~;::: ':.. .

J, '1 . f MIlIr/1li1 of Modrm /I n,

M ·1 Llrooddl~crs, lI<.:l.11 ~ Il _ ('

22 (oJiJiIISilr mill ab,)!Ir) arcc _ I t. II r O/i~omle 10 thr Present], 197 _.

19,20,2[, , ' J Pi ures (Thr fa,~ r)/'(l1II I ,

Easles Drpartnwn«, 5, 1/1011 rs .~


At about the same time when Broodthacrs was producing this mcdrtatiou 011 the cagle principle, another development, with undoubtedly wider reach, had entered the world of art to shatter the nation of medium-specificity in its awn way. This was the porrapak -a lightweight, cheap video camera and monitor - and thus the advent of video into JH pracrice, something that demands yet another narrative.

It I~ a story that could be told from the point of view of AlldlOlogy Film Archives, a screening roorn m New York's Soho, wherein the late 'Gas and early '70S a collection of artists, film ... makers, and composers b,ltlicl"cli llit,lil ;J!rLr 11igh! to view till' rcpntOl'y or modernist lilm put together by J onas Mekas and projected in an unvarying cycle, a corpus that consisted of Soviet and French avant-gardc cinema, the British silent documentary, early versions of American Independent. film, as well as Chaplin and Keaton movies.!- The artists who sat in the darb ness or that theater, the wingchair ... like seats of which were designed to cut off any peripheral vision so that every drop of attention would be locuscd on the screen itself, artists such as Richard Serra, Robert Smithson, or Carl Andre, could be said to be united around their deep hostility to Clement Greenberg's rigid version of modernism with irs doctrine of Harness. Yet if they were gathered in Anthology Film Archives in the first place it meant that they were committed modernists nonetheless. for Anthology both fed i[1[O and promoted the current work of structuralist film-makers such as Michael Snow or Hollis Fra111 pIon or Paul Sharits, its screenings providing the discursive ground within which this group of yOtll1g artists could imagine their way into a kind of film that, focused 011 the nature of the cinematic medium itself would be modernist to its core.

N ow, the rich satisf.1ctionsof thinking about film's specificity at that JUllcture derived fi'om the medium's aggregatc condition, one that led a slightly later generation of theorists to define its support with the com-

13 Michael SilO"', {;!;'tl/CICil,~tll, 1907.

pound idea of the "apparatus" - the medium or support (or film being neither the celluloid strip of the images, nor the camera that filmed them, nor the projector that brings them (Q life in motion, nor the beam of light that relays them to the screen, nor that screen itself, but all of these taken together, including [he audience's position caught between the source of tbe light behind it and the image projected before its eyes." Structuralist film set itself the project of producing the unity or this diversified support iu a single, sustained experience in which the utter inrcrdepcndeuce of all these things would itself be revealed as a model of how the viewer is intentionally connected [0 his or her world, The pans of the apparatus would be like things that cannot touch 011 each other without themselves being touched; and this interdependence would figure forth the mutual emergence of a viewer and a field of vision as a trajectory through which the sense of sight touches on what touches back. Michael Snow's Wavcleflgth, a 4yminute, single, almost uninterrupted zoom,. captures the intensity of this research into how to forge the union of such a trajectory into something both immediate and obvious, In its striving to articulate what Mcrlcau-Ponty had termed the preobjccrivc, and thus abstract, nature of this connection, such a link could be called a "phenomenological vector." '4

For Richard Serra, one or Anthology's denizens, a work like Wave ...

Imgtlr would have performed a dou blc function. On the one hand,



Sllll\\'\ lilm rn.utx il~clr .IS plIrl' Itorizlllll.d lhrllsl, sucl: Ih.11 irs iucx - orable forward movement is able to create the abstract spatial metaphor for film's relation to time, now essentializcd as the dramatic mode of sus ... pcusc.» Serra's own drive to make sculpture a condition of something like a phcnornenologrcal vector, itself the experience of horizomaliry, won Id thus have found aesthetic confirmation in vVllvelmgtl!.1 (, But more than this, ill Structuralist film itself Serra would have found support for a 1lL'\\'ly l'l)llccivcd idea of an acsrlicric medium, one that, like film's, could not be understood as reductive but again, like film's, was thor' oughly modcrnisr.

Serra's reformulated idea of what an aesthetic medium might be partie: pared in his gencration's newly WOll understanding of Jackson Pollock and a notion that if Pollock had progressed beyond the easel picture, as Clement Greenberg had claimed, it was not to make bigger and Ratter paintings.'> Rather, it was to rotate his work om of the dimension of the pictorial object altogether and, by placing his canvases on the Hom, to transform the whole project of art fi'om making objects, ill their increasingly reified fi:ml1, to arricularing the vectors that connect objects to SLl bjccrs. 18 III understanding this vector as the horizontal field of an event, Serra's problem was to try to find in the inner logic of events themselves the expressive possibilities or conventions that would articu ... late this field as a medium. For, in order to sustai n artistic practice, a medium must be a supporting structure, gcnerative of a set of convenrions, SOIne of which, in assuming the medium itself as their subject, will be wholly "specific" to it, thus producing an experience of tlicir own necessity.'?

for the purposes of the argument here it is not necessary to know exactly hovv Snr,l went ahout this.'O SlIfTict' it to S;1Y rh;ll Serr:l drew these conventions from the logic of the event of the work's making, when that event is understood as a form o( series, not in the sense of starn ping out identical casts as in industrial production, but in that of the difTerential condition of periodic or wavelike Hux in which separate


24 Richard Serra, Caslill.~, 1969 9'.

sets of serial repetitions converge on a given point. The important thing is that Serra experienced and articulated the medium in which he saw himself to be working as aggregative and thus distinct. from the material properties of a merely physical objectlike support; and, nonetheless, he viewed himself as modernist. The example of independent, struc ... ruralist film - itself a matter of a composite su pporr, yet nonetheless modernist - confirmed him in this.

At this juncture it is important, however, to make a little detour into the history or ofTicial, rcciucrivist modernism itself, ;1I1d to correct the record as it had been written by Judd's logic of specific objects. for like Serra's, Greenberg's view of Pollock had also led him eventually to jet' rison the materialist, purely reductive notion of the medium. Once he saw the modernist logic lcading to the point where, as he put it,


25 (lr(I) Kenneth Noland, installation or C"arsr Shad,wl and Siria illliJC A Iltire t:nllllccich Collery.

"the obscr~ance of merely the two [constitutive conventions or norms of painting - Hamcss and the deli nutation of Harness - 1 is enough to create an object which can be experienced as a picture," he dissolved that object in the Huid of what he first called "opticaliry" and then named "color field.">: Which is to say that no sooner had Greenberg seemed to isolate the essence of painting in Harness than he swung the axis of the field ninety degrees to the actual picture surface to place all the im port of painting on the vector that connects viewer and object. In this he seemed to shift from tbe first norm - Harness - to the second - the delimitation of Harness - and (0 give this latter a reading that was not that of the bounding edge of the physical object but rather the projective resonance of the optical field itself - what in "Modernist Painting" he had called the "optical third dimension" created by "the very first mark on a canvas (which] destroys its literal and utter Harness. "22 This was the resonance be imputed to the effulgence of pure color as he spoke of it, nor only as disembodied and rlicrcforc purely optical, but also "as a thing [hat opcns and expands the picture plane.">' "Opricalicy" was thus an entirely abstract, schcmarizcd version of the link that traditional perspective had formerly established between viewer and object, but one that now transcends the real parameters of measurable, physical space to express the purely projective powers of a preobjective level of sight: "vision jtself."~4

The most serious issue for painting now was to understand not its objective features, such as the Harness of the material surface, but its specific mode of address, and to make this the source of a set of new conventions - or what Michael Fried called "a new art.">s One such convention emerged as the sense of the oblique generated by fields that seemed always [Q be rotating away liol11 the plane of the wall and into depth, a perspectival rush of Sur(;lCCS that caused critics like Leo Steinberg to speak of rhcir sense of speed: what he called the visual efficiency of the man in a hurry.z6 Another derived from the serialityboth internal to the works and to their production - to which the colorfield painters uniformly resorted.


T\111S it could he arp;llcd that in the 'oos, "opricaliry" W;lS also serving as more than just a feature of art; it had became a /IIcdirll11 of art. As such it was also ;)ggrcgative, ;))1 ;)fliom to what was officially Linder, stood as the rcductivist logic of modernism - a logic and doctrine attnburcd to this day to Greenberg himself Neither Greenberg nor Fried theorized colorfield painting as a new medium, however; they spoke of it only as a new possibility [or abstract painting.v Nor was process art - the term under which Serra's early work was addressed;degllatcly theorized. And certainly the bet that in both cases the specificity of a medium was being maintained even though it would now have to be seen as internally differentiated - on the order of the lilmic modcl r - was not theorized either. For in the case of that latter model, the impulse was to try to sublate the internal differences within the filmic apparams into a single, indivisible, experiential unit that would serve as an ontological metaphor, a figure - like the 45,minute zoom - for the essence of the whole .. In 1972, structuralist film's selfdescription, as 1 have said, was modernist,

Into this situation there entered the porrapak, and its relcvisual effect was to shatter the modernist dream. In the beginning, as artists began to make video works, they used video as a technologically updated can, tinuation of the mode of address organized by the new attention to the phenomenological, although it was a perverse version of this "since the form it took was decidedly narcissistic: artists endlessly talking to themselves. oS To my knowledge only Serra himself immediately aCI knowledged that video was in fact television, which means a broadcast medium, one that splinters spatial continuity into remote sites of transmission and reception. His Television Delivers People (1973) - a message dispbycd in a continuous crawl+- and Prisoner's Ditrnuvo (1974) were ve rsions of this.

It is this spatial separation, coupled widi the temporal simultaneity of insranraneous broadcast, that has led certain theorists to try to locate the essence of television in its use as closed-circuit surveillance. But


27 Richard Serra, Trlrllisioll Deliocrs Prop/c, 1'.173.

the fact of the matter 15 that television and video seem Hydra-headed, existing in endlessly diverse forms, spaces, and temporalities Ulr which no single instance seems to provide a formal unity for the whole.IY This is what Sam Weber has called television's "constitutive hetcrogencitj;" adding that "what is perhaps most difficult to keep 111 mind are the ways in which what we call television also and above all differs from itself"3O

If modernist theory found itself defeated by such heterogeneity - which prevented it from conceptualizing video as a medium - modernist, structuralist film was routed by video's instant SLlCCl:% as a practiCl:. hll", even if video bad a distinct technical support - its own apparatus, so to speak - it occupied a kind of discursive chaos, a heterogeneity of activities that could not be theorized as coherent or conceived of as having something like an essence or unifying core) I Like the cagle principle,

3 I

32 33
~ ~
1, il l'r'1l-1.1i1l1cd 11K t'I1d,lIlH·,l;llIll<sl'n·itlciIY. [l1lhe ;lgl' pC Icil'v;si()l1, sn it broadcast, we inhabit a post .. medium condition,

The third narrative, which I will set out with considerably more dispatch, concerns the resonance between the post-medium position and poststructuralism. For during [his same late}6os/carly,'7os moment, deconstruction began famously attacking what it derisively referred to as the "law of genre," or the aesthetic autonomy supposedly ensured by the pictorial frame, J" From the theory of grammacology to that of the parcrgon, ] acgues Derrida built demonstration afrer demonstration to show that the idea of an interior set apart from, or uncontaminated by. an exterior was a chimera, a metaphysical fiction. Whether it be the interior of the work of ;HI as opposed ro its context, or the interiority of a lived moment of experience as opposed to its repetition in memory or via written signs, what deconstruction was engaged in dismantling was the idea of the proper, both in the sense of the self r identical- as in "vision is what's proper to the visual arts" - and 111 the sense of the clean or pureas in "abstraction purifies painting of all those things, like narrative or sculptural space, that are not proper to it." That nothing could be constituted as pure interiority or self-identitj; that this purity was always already invaded by an outside, indeed, could itself only be constituted th rough tlre very introjection of that outside, was the argument mounted to scuttle the supposed autonomy of the aesthetic experience, or the pOSI siblc purity of an artistic medium, or the presumed separateness of a f!.ivrll intellectual discipline. Theself-identical was revealed ;1S, and thus

dissolved Into, the self-ditfercnt. .

In the university this, along with other poststructuralist analyses, such as those of Michel Foucault, proved a powerful argument for an end to the separation of academic faculties within distinct branches of

kllOWbl)!,l', :lllti rlrus a powcrfl Ii SII ppOll ft)J'i Ilterdisci pl i Il'lrity./\ lld outside the academy, ill the art wnrld where alHonomy ;lIld rlic 11011011 that [here was sOlllcthill~ prnptr or specific to :l medium were ;dready under attack this gave :1 glittering theoretical pedigree to prall ices or rampant impurity -like Fluxus or Situarionist detOj.II'/·Icfllflir (subversive appropriation) - that had long since been underway,

In the late I 9605 and early '70S, Marcel Broodrhacrs appeared to be the knight errant of all this. In being a fantastic feat of institutional dftoHJ'lTef11ent, his "Museum of Modern An" also seemed to constitute the ultimate implosion of medium-specificity And even as it did $0, it appeared to be setting forth the theoretical basis of its own project. As we have seen, for example, the affixing of figure numbers to a miscellany of objects operated as both a parody of curatorial practice and an empty, ing out of the very meaning of classification. Accordingly, the figures functioned as a set of meta-captions whose operation was theoretical. Broodthacrs himself commented: ''A theory of rhc figures would serve only to give an image of a theory. But the Fig. as a theory of the imagd'B

Yet if Broodthaers can be seen to be moving within the poststruc, ruralist circle of theory. we must also remember his deep ambivalence about theory itself: Wc must recall the statement from l!1tfljrmktiorwi in which theories ar-e reduced to, or perhaps revealed as, nothing more than "advertising for the order under which [they are] produced," According to this condemnation, any theory; even if it is issued as a critique of the culture industry, will end up only as a form of promotion for that very industry. In this way, the ultimate master of dClolnllemell! turns out to be capitalism itself, which can appropriate and re program anything to serve its own ends. Thus, if Broodrhacrs did not live to see the absol lite confirma rinn of Iris cnt i rely pessimistic "View," he had nonetheless predicted both the eventual complicity between theory and the culture industry and the ultimate absorption of "institutional critique" by exactly the institutions of global marketing on which such "critique" depends for its success and its support.

Tlus iC;lds lIS, however, to another story. For if capitalism is the master of detvr/mcl/wII, absorbing evcry avanr-gardc protcst in its path and turning it to its own account, Broodthacrs - by some ultimate turn of the screw - was in a strange kind of mimetic relationship to this. To put it simply, there is a way in which he conducted a form of dCtorlrtlCI1JC1lf on himself.

Acknowledging this in the press release issued during the 1972 Docurncnta, where the final sections of his Museum (now renamed the "Museum of Old Master An [Art Ancien], zorh-Century Callery:

Eagles Department") were installed, namely the sections of promotion and public relations, Brcodthacrs speaks of the "contradictory interviews" he had given on the subject of his museum fictions. if Indeed, Broodrhacrs's best critics have been alert to the peculiar inconsistencies that mine both the artist's explanations of his work and the unfolding ol the work itself Benjamin Buchloh has written, for example: "If any' thing, it. would be his persistent sense of contradictions that could be called the most prominent feature in Eroodrhacrs's thoughts and starernents and, of course, in his work. ",5

At one point Buchloh sees this as a species of bfa,gllr, a willful, tonguc<in,chec:k form of double negation in which a petrified language acts to mimic the present-day reification of speech itself at the hands of the consciousness industry. To this effect, he gUNes a Broodthacrs text called "My Rhetoric," in which the artist writes: "I, I say I; I, I say 1. I, the Mussels King. You say YOLl. I tautologizc, I 'can it.' I sociologize. I manifestly manifest .... ," and so 011.16

Douglas Crimp has also fastened all this feature of contradiction, which Brolldlhacrs sometimes called his own "bad Elth," as when he explained his decision in the early 19605 to stop being a poet and start being an artist. The reaSOI1, he wrote, was that since he hadn't rhe money to collect the art objects he loved, be decided to create them instead: to become a creator, then, by default oC not being able to be a collector.i?



z8 Marcel Brocdthacrs, MIlSefllI1 oj M"drrn Art, Eagles Departmcilr, SceriQ.1l PIiMidrf,1972.


., .

MIISlj,~ d' ar! moderne



.'.. :.~ .~ .~ .11

19, ~O, 3 t , )2

Marcel Brood[hacr .

s, ,MII)(Il/illIl M J

U ,>Orll! An Ell {

, J rr DCI'M/III 011 S .»:

, cction [J'lblicir" .

• ,1972.


~,~ ... I.:~




HI rlr[



In .1 crrt.un sense, the whole of the museum ficnons, ill which Uroodthacrs is installed as director, enact the collecting function. But Broodtlucrs also distinguishes this public form of collection fi·om a perSO[1.1I nne ill a work called 1'v1<1 CO//CeljVII, a work given a special aura of privacy and inwardness by the presence, within its assembly of images, of tile pirrurc or Sccpilallc Mallannc. Focusing 011 this distinction between pu blic and private, or institutional and personal, Crimp .1ddrcssL's IJrllodthaers's odd privileging of the personal collector through the lens of Walter Benjamin's analysis of such a nineteenth, century collector as a positive countcrtypc not only to the bourgeois COIlSU]l1er but also to the contemporary private collector who now operates on the pattern of commodity consumption. Against the consumer who is driven to amass objects either to display them as capital or to use them up, the true collector, Benjamin says, liberates "things from the bondage of urilitv." What is decisive ill the act of collecting, he goes on, is "that rhe object be dissociated from all irs original functions in order [0 enter into the closest possible relationship with its equivalents, This is the diametric opposite of use, and stands under the curious category of com plctcncss. "38

Un tcxrc de Marcel Broodrhacrs it propos de M" C ollatiou

This [ext was wriurn by (he ,)fli'll" accolllpally ].;[a C"I/roi"/1 (m I',~\r 62 j~Jr /ll/mlalhm).

Ivfa Collection eSI unc piece cornposcc dc deux volcrs donr chaquc (1ce est exploitee. Dans lc premier volct comportant des documents d'cxpositions auxqucllcs j'ai flU participer est inscrce uric page du catalogue de la Ioirc de Cologne '7I rcproduisaru Its photos des memes documents. Lesecond volct de Mo Cvilraiou CII mile d'un porrrair du plJetc eurcpeen Slrf,h;\lH: M.II"'!"!,," <'II quijc vo,s [c [ond.ucur de l'art cOillcrnporalll. "Un coup de des jarnnis n'abolira lc hamel." M" C"l/ccli,ul CIt l!];C piCCCDU le SYSlemc mmologique est utilise POll! sirucr lcs licux d'cxposiriuu. (Ellc aurait done plus

de sons qU'lII1C collection de iimbres-postes). Lc catalogue de '~

b prtscJHc exposition sera tltllise couunc detail pour COnst;IU.N

unc piece d'art [umrc lcmoigllam des expositions auxquelles

j'ai p~[[icipc dcpuis 1\l7r.

I ~ 1'1··1;:'~::

II __ 'J t ro ••


S·.i~l I.-~u'~n~ Mnk~··~"ljjr 1',1\,1 dll,l

~I I''''II~~~'~'' ~~I~n"~'~ 1 .... 1 .~., D'I_~(~lrI

1,,: r,.,~n~il j~ 'h t- ~~"L!L "u'"'~,,~ ~II~H

I ~r,~;,,'!'.~,,~.~~ .~

II., ~n",III~" .. ~ "tr~13C~~

.------_._----- ---,



f I





,:' ;:;


9 .()





, I,

II (top) Marccl Broodrhacrs, M« Collection, 1971. Front view, 34 (abovr) Marcel Broodrhacrs, Ma CO//WiOIl,1971, Back. VIew.

· ... - .... - . - --.--.- .. ---------------~

11:1 CollC'~t1r~m

... 0'.1 11 aot quostion ~Pun oontra't.

cou-re jo :l"1~a.r~ donn c c t-to collection qui est nUBs! un

ch oLx pa.r.ni. lila cutuj.ognea u t ar-t UO cec dernicres aIU1.€eSI o·lle uc cOlls"'t;it'.lG'rni t ,Pes un re(l.tl:;'-mad~ ue.Lcn In tradition.

I1aia, e.t lion accep-te que 1.0 r&praBentr:dion de eon art e.p~)orte UJl changemerrt de senn!non-llEms., ~llB EJerait nlors U!~ r-cudy-eaade d ' una forma no~velltt I Wl r-eudy-coadc buroque ,

C'O' ready-made duu.t eux oqu..ivl3.lldrllit dono 8" un objet d'art doueeux, COf;l."leni.: vcnurc Le dgute s1 celu1-ci n',a pns de quaL; te artistique car-tadne? D' autre par t , je npnrrztqws

n! ai pno 1e front ue G'psOul.er E'.U' "Ila ColLectionll I baec ~ ~(][Q(Q. qu I cvoo l' [U'&l'Ht I'oeol to jc poU)';raie eouln..ger in miBQre qui ~~vi t aux Indo" au encore me payer une r6vo1ution

1110\1':lnt-6~.u .. de , Un cou tr-n t , WI bon contl'ut 0119 t1)'''tll'oit

XlI: d I ilfi'EdrSB en confonnant men 1nto1'3t D.UJ!: uBa~B "ta.bU.,

Pour- taus r-ence Lgneuerrt a, a t cdr-e aacr- a ....

"loi, je dcsire percevbfr- un impot (dec dxottG D: u'aut6"\U'7) sur lea pu.:b1icatioD.5, 8111 alan tl,'"ou:va, qUi :r-aprodui.ro.lont om. dcclo.ra tion o t 18B J.roa~e" ue ootts page du catalogue

de In faira. do Colo(,71v 71 .

. ~~

I .~~ • (9) rt. Brood bhner-a

( 1/ Toutefoic, 8i quelque ",·hot.ur t""nit onooa-e 0. l'o~B~dor

\( .t 'objet p)ty"ique do "1·1." Cclloction'~' .le pl;"ix an sera.1t elora

~ .. ~eln1. de U'Hl .rl ccncc Lencc (Prt.x a debnttt'e) ~


35 T)"f'C"TllIC11 text 011 Ma Collection by Broodrhacrs (rer pa<~r 62 for tranrlation).

Here, the cllLlivalCilcy principle dlat levels ubjects to tile measure of their exchange value, and which Broodrlncrs seems to nrr.rck ill the application of" Fig." numbers within the Fil11l Src(;o/'l of his museum, is valorized in the situation of the personal collection. This Grnlldthacl's also seems to acknowledge, in that the "Fig." numbers captioning the images in Ma Collection could be seen as working (0 form the new relationships forged by the "true" collccror.w These relationships, which Benjamin calls a "magic circle," allow each object to exfoliate i[1[O so many sites of memory. "Collecting," he says, "is a form of practical memory and, among the profane manifestations of 'proximity,' the most convincing one." 40

This structure in which two opposing forms of equivalence can COflve.rge in the object - that of exchange and that of "proximity" - IS a dialectical condition in which everything within capitalism - every object, every technological process, every social type - is understood as invested with a double valence: negative and positive, like an object and its shadow, or a perception and its after<image. This is what links type to cOl1ntertype, or, in the case of the commodity, produces what lknja111in called "the ambivalence between its utopian and its cynical element."!'

That the cynical element gains the upper hand over the course of time goes without saying. But Benjamin believed that at the birth of a given social form or technological process the utopian dimension was present and, furthermore, that it is precisely at the moment of the obsolescence of that technology that it once more releases this dimension, like the last gleam of a dying star. For obsolescence, the very law of commodity production, both frees the outmoded object from the grip of utility and reveals the hollow promise of that lawy

I3roodthacr~'s decp attraction to the f(ml1s or till: outmoded has been remarked upon by his various critics. His system of references focuses mainl yon the nineteenth century, be they to the Ingres and Courbcts in thefirst manifestation of his museum, or to the example of Baudelaire and Mallarrne for his books and exhibitions, or to the panorama and the

,0 M.m·d nrn"dth~n" Ullja/"dil/ d'llil!fl', ! 974.

wintei garden as his models for social spaces. In fact, as Benjamin Buchloh has commented, this "altogether dated aura of nineteenth, century bourgeois culture that many of his works seem to bring to mind nuglu easily seduce the viewer into dismissing his work as being obviously obsolete and not at all concerned with the presuppositions of contern porary art. "4)

But what Crimp is sllggestingis that the power that Walter Ben, jamin invested in the outmoded should be acknowledged in Broodth:lcr.,'s usc of it - as in his assumption of the !()l"Ill of the "true" collector. This was a power that Benjamin hoped his own prospecting in the historical grounds of nineteenth-century forms would be able to release. \Vriting of his own Paris Arcades project, he said: "We are here constructing an alarm clock that awakens the kitsch of the past century into 're-collection.' "44 That Benjamin's archaeology was retrospective was a (unction of the fact that he believed its view could open up only from the site of obsolescence. As he remarked: "Only in extinction is the [true] collector com prchended." 45


The true collector, however, was not the only outmoded figure to whom Eroodrhacrs was attracted. Another was dut' of thefilm,maker from the early moments of cinema when, as with the Lumiere Brothers or with D. W Griffith's and Chaplin's stock-company operations (such as

Biograph or S. and A.), movie production was entirely artisanal, As Broodthacrs began to make films III earnest in TC)(i7 and into the early '70S, he cast his own production in precisely this mold. He imitated the gestures of the silent-movie comic actors, particularly Buster Keaton, capturing the amazing sense they radiated of dogged persistence in the face of endless adversity. And he replicated the prJmltIve look of early cinema with its uneven exposures spliced together and its Aickering gait.

That the kind of spontaneous activity represented in this model would be rendered obsolete by the indusrnalizarion of cinema at the hands of the big studios in Hollywood and Europe was an issue for just that structuralist film being made in the late 19605 in the context of Anthology Film Archives and shown annually at the Expwmemal Film Festival at Knokkc-le-Zoute, on the Belgian coast, an event that Broodthacrs twice artendcd.s« The demonstration [hat it was possible to defy the system and to make film single-handedly, on practically no

,I ~ __ A

" _ .... ;:Ji;:

:t~.-'- ,


. r _ ... .:tiii .

37 Marcel Broodtliacrs, l » plui«, 1\16<).




.. , '

• I l J -

~ ~ " ,



" J , .. ,/

38 Marcel Broodrhaers, Crci Ilr )"Cl'air par Ifllr pipr, 11)69 '71.

budget, and Crom the scraps and discards of old stock, as exemplified at Knok kc by the Americans and the Canadians, undoubtedly reinforced Ercodthacrs's earlier experiments in film. But though many of the Americans saw th is defiance of Hollywood as a progrcssive, avanr-garde move, the opportunity for a modernist concentration of the disparate, ness of the Hollywood production into the single, structural vector that would reveal the nature of film itself, Eroodthacrs read it retrogressively, a return [0 the prall/esse de bonheur enfolded in cinema's beginnings.

In so parting company with structuralist film's modernism, Brocdthans was not denying film a's a medium. He was, rather, understanding this mcriiun: in the light of the openness promised by early film, an openllCSS woven imo the very mesh of the imagc, as the flickering irrcsolution of the illusion of movement produced the experience of sight itself as dilated: a phenomenological mixture of presence and absence, immediacy and distance. If the medium of primitive film resisted strucrural closure ill this SCllSC, it allowed Broodrhacrs to sec what the srrucruralists did not: that the filmic apparatus presents us with a medium whose specificity is to be found in its condition as se1Dd.iffering. It is aggrcgative, a matter of interlocking supports and layered conventions. The structuralists strove to construct the ultimate synecdoche for film


"itscW' monon bot]: reduced to and summarized ill the ultimate camera movement (Snow's zoom), or filmic illusion typified in the Ricker film's dissection or the persistence of vision (Paul SllJrits's work) ~ OI1C which, like ally totalizing symbolic form, would bc unitary; Broodthacrs honored the diffen:ntlal condition of film: its inextricable relation between sirnulranciry and sequence, its layering of sound or text over linage.

As Benjamin had predicted, nothing brings the promise encoded at the birth of a technological form to light as effectively as the fall into obsolescence of its final stages of development. A nd the telcvisual p~f; tapak that killed American Independent Cinema was just this dcclaranon of film's obsolescence.


If I am pursuing the example of Marcel Broodrhacrs in the context of the post-medium condition, it is because he stands at, and thus stands for, what r would like to sec as the "complex" of this condition. For Broodthaers, the presumed spokesman for interrnedia and the end of the arts, nonetheless wove for his work an internal lining that has to be called redemptive. r am taking this notion of redemption from Walter Benjamin.whose idea of the countcrtype ~ as the dialectical after-image of a social role now rcificd and corrupted under capitalism ~ seems to operate over part of Broodrhaers's activities as collector. And fiirrhcr, the analysis of photography that Benjamin constructed can be seen to slide over Eroodthaers's practice of film.

At first this may seem counrcrvinruiuvc, [or like Broodthacrs, Dell' jamin is famous for a deconstructive attitude toward the very idea of a medium. To this end he used photography not only as a form that erodes its OWl! specificity - since it forces the visualimage into dependence on a written caption ~ but as a tool to attack the idea of specificity for all the


.ut s. 'Ilux is [,C(".\lISC ph()[ll)!,r.q,hy's xr.uus ,IS ,I IllUltlple, ;1 lillll'[iull of mechanical reproduction, restructures the condition of the other arts. A~:111 example, Benjamin explained rliar "to an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes [he work of art designed for repro..ducibility," And what follows from this is that, becoming prey to the law of commodification, the separate work of art, as well as the separate mediums of an, enter the condition of general equivalency, thereby lOSing the uniqueness of the work - what Bcnjamin called its "aura" - as well as the specificity of its medium.

Inn [u from being an undiluted celebration of this state of aff..1irs, Benjamin's contemplation of photography was also cast in the mold of his retrospective attitude, which is to say his sense that, as a fossil of its binh, the outmoded stage of a given technological form might betray the redemptive obverse of that technology itself: In the case of phowgraphy this other promise was encoded in the amateur, non~professionalized character of its earliest, pre/commercialized practice, as artists and writers such as Julia Margaret Cameron, Victor Hugo, and Octavius Hill took pictures of their friends. It also had to do with the length of the pose exacted by their work, during which there was a possibility of h L1 manizing the gaze, which is to say, of the 5U bject's escaping his or her OWIl objectification at the hands of the rnachine.P

The refuge that Broodthaers took in a practice of primitive cinema betrays this same thought of the redemptive possibilities encoded at the birth of a given technical support. And it is this thought that I would like one to see as acting on all of Brcodrhaers's production as, like a raking light shining at a strange angle over a surface, it brings into relief all en~ircly new topographical structure, If I do not have space EO give .lIlydlillp, like ,\ l'iil! dcrnonstr.u iou nf this here, I would nevertheless suggest that the filmic model is a su bsct of ~ larger contemplation ab~ut the nature of the medium conducted through the guise of what I think functioned as the master medium for Broodrhaers, namely fiction itself, as when Broodthaers referred to his museum as "a fiction," For fiction

;dw;IYs sccll1~ lu h.ivc C(lillailll:d a revelatory aspect for him; ashe said of the difICrence between official 11l1lSClIms and his own: "a fiuion allows us to gr:lSp reality and at the same time what it hides."1X

What is at issue in the coutcxr of a medium, however, is not just tll is possibility of exploiting the fictional to unmask reality's lies, but of producing an analysis of fiction itself in relation to a specific structure of experience. And it was just this structure of a spatial "behind" or layer/ ing that was for him a metaphor for the condition of absence that is at the heart of fiction.

That the novel as the technical support through which fiction was conventionalized during the nineteenth century was of particular interest to Broodrhaers emerges 110tjU5t in his statements, like the one he pro, nounced in reference to the "Theory of Figures" exhibition - where he sees the objects bearing "Fig," numbers as "taking on an illustrative character referring to a kind of novel about society. "49 It also takes on physical shape in relation to his own practice of producing work in the fOTm of books.

One of these, Charles Bmidclaire, Jf hais le mouuement qUI dtplace les lignes (1913), is a specific engagement with the revelatory power of the novel. For in its peculiar dilation of a Baudelaire poem, the book's 1l0V/ elized, sequential form is made not only to expose as sclf~ddusory the romantic belief in poetry as a form of total immediacy - a collapse of the difference between subject and object - but also to open that immediacy to its real temporal destiny, in which the subject can never become identical with himself Based on Baudelaire's cady poem "La Eeautc," where subjective immediacy is given voice by a sculpture vaunting the way its own self-sufficiency and simultaneous presence is able to symbolizc the infillity uC a perfect whole C"Je suis belle, l) mortcls! COLl1me Ull reve de pierre"), the book sets its sights on emptying aut this very notion of simultaneity.

Printing the poem in its entirety on the first page, which is marked "Fig. 1," Brocdrhaers singles out in red the line of verse through which



~"'r'_'H""'~"~"''''~~~ I ~,+_lo_.",~",,~ _,,~.

'~h_' ._ ... ,< .

" .... -.,-~.--,- ,---

, ---- ...... -.~ ~ .....

~:~:::_:-:.::.':~~.';:.-~ .. '-'-

~.- .. -~ ... , ...•.. , ........ -~-.

,~, :7.;., . I.;: 0/ .'1/ 'v .t;~ • ./.,.-,
,;:>:;,,:, ;{;.'~ Jnr-NI.It:I.!1eJI/ /((~. ct0t::ce. ~ ;In'''d
. ;;'r ,~n :/_;n /.f {"
'~'rV '/,f, /.;, .:>;;.,- ,/,;, i; ~~ Edition HO~5m1nn Hamburg 197)

39 (abul'r) Marcel Eroodthacrs, Chavies BCUldelairr.Je iiois If JJ/OllVeI1lC111 qui deplner Irs /(~lIes, t 973, Cover,

40,4 t, 42 (rl'l),'si(I') Marcel Broodrhacrs, Clwlrs Baliddail·r.Jr hats tc 1II01lllCIIJel/i <J"" dip/a,,· ler ligllfs, 1973. Page, 1,2 and], 4 and 5·

/. ...

,?_;, .~;, ~, ~ r/ J.;. ~;/ ~; . . /
, '/;~, . A,_/ ".,." 'y 1..,- ,y
.'/;;', /;, 1.;', ,~,f'/ i;_. -:1' "'t-, 0/ <'

l IN COl Jll IX. J)i"';<; .11\I·dl\I.~ N·i\IIOI.IIU\ 1.1: 111\.'i,\IW


43 (n:(II/) Marrcl Bruodrhacrs, (I,I (""I' dr drs j'HII."is /I ~1/"'lir,,lr ililsard. ill/'W. 1969. Cover.

44 (OI'!,OJilr) Marcd oroodd'acrs, UII ("liP drdh,iom"is I!;,{,o!ha It haMra. flll~.~r, 196<). l'.1gr 32. L\nH"lth:lns's "variaut" "11 Mallarrnc's poem, rendering rliclincs of verse Ilnil1ldli~ihk. d1nch)' Ir:1!l'(;ll1l\'

[hl' t,~ .. l~C·S Illltl _\ SCI n!" IIll~tgi.'S.

,"'1'11 ~ ~ .........• ~" .... "

P ..... " .. ~ n ~,.,.., •• u ~

--- .. ~~ ---- - ... __ .. _-

the sculpture defies any temporal dilation of its perfect form, the one that reads, "I hale (he movement that sh ifts the lines." Throughout the fol~ lowing pages of the book, however, Broodthacrs proceeds toward just this shift or displacement, as the verse itself becomes layercd into the movement of its own vanishing horizon, with each of its words consigned to the bottom of a single page.

It could be objected that, with this revision of Baudelaire's poem, Broodrhaers is simply following the example of Mallarme's Un (OHP de Ib-, .i 11 which the words of the title ("U n cou p de des jamais n' abolira le hasard") are similarly extended along the bottom of several pages, the text of the poem Itself made radically spatial by the irregularity and dis, persal of irs lines Oil every page, sometimes even running across the gutter of the book, to transform the verses into something like an image. The ;ngl1lllcnr fi)1' this parallelism might be funhcr supported by the sprinkling of "fig." numbers on the upper parr of the pages of Broodrhaers's Baudelaire, acknowledging theway UII COIlP de drs trans" forms the seq uential condition of writing into the simultaneous realm of seemg in a move to which Broodthaers frequently referred. "Mallarrne is

at the source of modern art," he would explain. "He unwittingly invented modern space."s('

But Brcodrhacrs's own understanding of Mallarrnc's strategy runs counter to what the Baudrlaii'c book performs, First, the very condition of Broodthaers's "Fig." notation insists 011 the incomplete, or fragmentary status of the word, irs resistance to the pass! bility of the image's ever being fully (self-Ipresent: as his question "But the Fig. as a theory of the image:" suggests, the "fig." theorizes the image into the self,deferring and displacing status of fictiol1Y In this sense, the "Fig." questions rather than imitates the calligrammaric status of Mallarmc's pages. And second, the way sequenrialization works in the Baudelaire opposes its operations ill Mallarrnc. For iu Un coup de Ib, the slow unfurling of the title along the bottom of the poem's pages serves more like a continuous pedal point, or like the harmonic suspensions that serve [0 transtorm the diachronic Row of musical sound into the heart-stopping illusion of (he synchron IC space of a single chord that we hear, for example, in Debussy; That the dilation we are made to experience in the Baudelaire is something else again 1S reenforced by being restaged in the film that


Bl"l1ndlh.1Cl"S conceived in the S;1Il1C YC;ll', II r1)Y'l~(' (III /11(' NI1flJr Sea, in which once again the gestalt of the image is narrativized (see pagesS4-S)'

Casting its cinematic voyage in the form of a "book," the film's UUl'rly st.uic shots (each lasting about ten seconds) alternate intcrtitlcs, beginning with "PAGE r " and running to "PAGE 15," with motionless images of boats. These begin with a photograph of a distant, solitary yacht, seen four times as one progresses from page one [0 page four, and then shif to .1 nineteenth-century painting of a fishing fleet under sail, which over successive "pages" is shown in VarIOUS details.

The first of these, in performing the radical leap from thc fun marine scene, with its schooners and longboats; to a giant close-up of the weave of the canvas, cedes by rhc next "page" to such a ncar view of the double billow of the main sail that it takes on the look of an abstract painting, only in tum, after the announcement of the following "page," to yield to another view of canvas weave that parades as a kind of radical mono; chrome, This progression might suggest that the narrative summoned by the "book" is an an-historical one, telescoping onto three successive pages the story of modernism's exchange of the deep space necessary to visual narrative for an increasingly flattened surface that 110W refers only to its own parameters, the "reality" of the world supplanted by the reality of the picrorialgivens.v BUt by the next "page," the monochrome detail again retreats (0 a full;view of the schooner, as in successive moves Broodthacrs scrambles the account of a modernist progression.

What we are offered in its place IS the experience of a passage between several surfaces, in a layering that draws an analogy between the stacked pages of a book and the additive condition of even the most monochrome of canvases, which, however objectified it might be, must nonetheless JPply paint overirs lInderlying Sllppnrt. Indeed, :lS rhc honk's "'pages" unfurl, this voyage appears to be one of a search for the work's origins, such an "origin" being suspended equally between the material; ity of the work's canvas flatbed (the modernist "origin") and the .image projected on that opaque surface as the index of the viewer's originating

desire to ()pell up allY given moment of experience to something beyond itself (reality as "origin"), In both encompassing and enacting such desire, fiction is, then, the acknowledgment of this very incompleteness, It is the form that an unappeasable lack of self-sufficiency takes as it sets off in a search for its own beginnings or its own destiny as a way of imagining the possibility of achieving wholeness. It is the impossible attempt to transform succession into stasis, or a chain of parts into a whole.

The modernist story that yielded the supposed "triumph" of the monochrome believed that it had produced this totalization in an object that was utterly coextensive with its own origins: surface and support in an indivisible unity; the medium of painting so reduced to zero that nothing was left but an object. Broodthaers's recourse to fiction tells of the impossibility of this story in the enactment of a kind of layering that can itself stand for, or allegorize, theselDdifferential condition of mediums themselves.

When Brocdrhacrs refers to the novel in 1m definition of a "Theory of Figures," he speaks of the complexity he hopes to have achieved with the commonplace objects like pipes and mirrors that "illustrate" this work. "I would never have obtained this kind of complexity," he says, "with technological objects, whose singleness condemns the mind to monomania: minimal art, robot, corrrpurer.''»

In such a remark is folded two components of the argument r have been pursuing in this meditation on the medium. First, that the speerficity of mediums, even modernist ones, must be. understood as differen, tial, self;differing, and thus as a layering of conventions never simply collapsed into the physicality of their support. "Singleness," as Broodthaers says, "condemns the mind to monomania. "54 Second, that iris precisely the onset of higher orders of tccllllOlogy "robot, com, puter" - which allows us, by rendering older techniques outmoded, to grasp the inner complexity of the mediums those techniques support, In Broodthaers's hands, fiction itself became such a medium, such a form of differential specificity.


45 Marcel Broodrh~crs, A JI"y"P ,)(/ rhr Nent! Sra, 1971-4-


Fredric j.uncson ch:lr:lcterizcs posrmodcnury as the total saturation of cultural space by the image, whether at the bands of advertising, com/ munications media, or cyberspace. This complete image/permeatioll of social and daily life means, he says, that aesthetic experience is now everywhere. in an expansion of culture that has not only made the notion of an individual work of art wholly problematic, but has also emptied out the very concept of aesthetic autonomy. In this state in which "everything is now fully translated into the visible and the culturally f.lmiliar; [including all critiques of this situation], ... aesthetic attention," he says, "finds itself transferred (0 the life of perception as such." This is what he calls a "new life of postmodern sensation," in which "the perceptual system of late capitalism" experiences everythiilg from shopping to all forms of leisure as aesthetic, thereby rendering anything that could be called J properly aesthetic sphere ... obsoletc.»

One description of art within this regime of post modern sensation is that it mimics just this leeching of the aesthetic out into the social field in general. Within this situation, however, there are a few contemporary artists who have decided not [0 follow this practice, who have decided, that is, not to engage in the international fashion of installation and intermedia work, in which art essentially finds itself cornplicit with a global izntion of the image in the service of capital. These same arnsts have also resisted, as impossible, the retreat into etiolated forms of the traditional mediums - such as painting and sculpture. Instead, artists such as James Coleman or William Kcntridgc have embraced the idea of difrerential specificity, which is to say the medium as such, which they understand they will !lOW have (0 reinvent or rcarticlilatcY The example of Marcel Broodthaers, which I have been presenting here, bas

been fLlndamental to this task.

1 . Si.11111,'Y f:avdl, TIl( U{,,/.I 1/II'/IInl (C:U!f..-

bridcc Mass' 1-1 d U .

C'i' ',,, ,1rV;U I1Ivcnuy Press, 1"1)71).

1'1'.101 I R.

~. 11'1 ,hi:; rq!,ard, sec Sianky (:.n~dlJ uMII,~i(:

DIScomposed." in Mlisl W, Mra" Whal W, S '

( , ~.

New York: Scribner's. 1969), pp. 199-<02.

3 This problem is furlher conlplicaled by the very need 10 bracket ofT Greenberg's name with the usc (l SGtn':"'1umcs ill the_. W;}y I have JDlH: ill Ihls sCI1l'.cncc so as to indicarc ['hat this ['('ading of his ~)\I/Il Usc or rhc w(lrd "medium" involved (and involves] -1 Slr;lngc mjsundcrsralldin~., nile Ih.u I "JJrn, below (,ec 1'1" l7 30).

4 Throughout rhis text 1 will U5e ""dill"', as rhc phJr;J.1 or jllrrli,wt ill order [0 avoid a CUll fusion with lIIedia, whichI am reserving for ,he lcchnologies of ccmrnumcanon ind.ca-cd by thar laucr rcrrn.

5 Benjamin H. 0 13ucl,lol, "I I d

. .' • n TO uClory

Non: Ito,lhe special ilmoddlJcrs issue I." O{f(lbrr.

"0. 4' (1'011 1987), p. S. I.lClljamill lluchlo"'s em, Hal role ill rhc criocal rcccprion of Brorxirhacrs", work" Iholullroldcd in the early '70' is obvious ill

Ihemallyci.al. f .,. . .

• 1011$ D us WflUllg rh:u OCCUr

da~ughoLlt this essay • as ill irs re[crcllcc 10 his nur .. IUfll.lg ncrivirics as :\Il editor and publisher in con~lcc{Jon with his journal iJJtrrfiwktiottru. Herr III npposirion (0 rlns statement pbccJ as :111 cpi. graph to who, f~llows, J wanr ro stare my own grm, "~dclo Benjamin Buchloh fcr rhc gcncrosiry of hi,· ~dlll1gl.1css ~[O read chis text in manuscript and (0 dls~us,s It wirl: me, in (he open exchange o( appro .. barion :1lld th.sagrccll1t'lll thai makes J··I I

.. • _. 1.1 ogut' wn 1

him comlSttlllly so ch~lIcllgi"g and ,·11 . .

• • • _', n 1I0Illl.11Ing.

o S",dl[l fntrbMiillllll/, v,IL 1::;:8 (.()clObcl' 1!)74). The bock cover is also by UroodeiJ."LI. I( i.1 • lllIXIII~l' !~f tlu- snuu- kind pf ("hildn:Il'.;, ~11I11Jl'el

lesson dISCI (Z ror zebra H r I w r

, tor iorsc, ror

walch: wi,l, Ihe appropriate picture 0" each disc) and dIS" beari"g lcucrs only. Under the grid or these diles, Brood,h.,,, has penned; "cleme"" du

discours IlC pCUYCIH scrvi I'· f:

I r an unc au:c

d orlhogriphe cachcc vaur un (romage .... This


Il:kf\ 10 two a~pt:(_I'S of 'm uwu work. On {he our h"'ll;. ill'crf<>r"" 0 rilr "" d,,· 1_.1 1'<11".1111' r.,blc,,!' rhc ("X and the Crow ti,,, h"J served B"",d"lJcH fm his exhibition and film L, C.rb'all ,I /, "liard (1967). On the other, i, allude, 10 Ihr 'ypo ill ehe· nunounccrncnr for his exhibition "Court-Circuir' (1967), ill which the rypcscncrs Jer, out Ihe "h" in Broodd,acrs and the a"i" ,dd.-d the lcucr ")' h.1I1d. ",elcuy tuilling Ihe mistake uno an autographic work or morkel.blc ObJlTI or, ill French ,),ng ''jriU'1CI1/' (money). • I

_ M_Y ;'Inrl1(iOll \\,;1,\ fir'a drawn !I) rhi~ cover. and HI p~r~,cul" play all words, by Bell]'mln Buchloh II, his rmporram essay "M.1rccl13roodlhorrs: AIlegMic~ of Ihe Avanr-Cardc," A fiforlllll , vel, X VII I (May (980), p. l7.

8 For the prcscnrarion and theorizanon or rh.s Iransfc>rmaooll from specific 10 gener-al, 'iCC Thlcrry de Duvc. K.,t' I1Jlff Otic/tamp (Cambndgl', Ma".:

MIT Press, 1990), panicularly Ihe chapter "The Monochrome and the Blank Canvas."

9 llrood,h;)cn's CXpl.1mHirm apf}c<1.r, in /V!jrsCIII1I, Ihc two-volume cl.[aIugllc of (he cxhrbirion "Der Adler vorn Oligoz"" lns Hcurc" (Dli"dJorf S"J!i,chc Kunsrhal!e, 1972). vol. 2, ". 19. I" Ih~ drnf of a text apparcurly ."~drc,,,d 10 .Iurgcn H',,,en., I.lroo.~"lOers played wi,h the conccprual.sts claim 10 rhcory" and [heir ambirion ro bmi[ :UI to apodicric SI;1.(CnH:I1IS rhar would produce its "definition":


MlI.~C:lIm .11111, r prnmr: ~ tunc I .uu II I~: E,1glc

Thou ar r the E'g!e

I Ic ."rlH·I':aKll·

We arc rltc Eagle

You arc the Eagle

Thl:)' arc cruel and indolent im,lIigcnl ,nd impulsive like lions, like rernorsc.Iikc



II ~ Imj r'1rPI!:/I,'lIr II, 11,',. I I (I,d I I ~r;.~ i. n~\·t'1. I u-n ~ ,.111111) Lhrrhl\lh. cduor ,11l~1 publisher of this avanth,1rde jn~rrll:d, l"IHlUIllHinIP..:J lilt.: o-ver rronl BrlIOl'hf,.lcr" ,1;' \\"dl;H ,1I1nther work ~',lrrh(" lssue:;l ti)m ~n'!I,lIh~ cdlcli "Sl',IIlL'I.'," 111 \\'Illch ,I 11rlithHI'i. i11 0\'1 r 'iCH'CIIITlg (_'oml~illl)!, or ;1 "short." ;r urws brtudC;JSI', .lnd ~l fiill~lellg['h rc;uun: I~ ver OUI tlHllll~h I'ir,lil'li 111l.1gCS. "S~:,1I1<:(''' \\':15 bracketed b)' ;1 p.ur {,r lIl1.1grs of palm trees, under which rhc r.li~tinn ul\,I(i~lIlt' \'r)!~~;lk" announrcc Brf'lodt ... h,'l'I~'fi f;'lt!,C\\I1II1If, h'll\~ Ill" the S.ITlll' n,IIlH', II \\',IS Buchl"h who tr;H1~IJIl:d I3rllot.hh;Jt:r~\ cover (CXI. "A,'IS," 1111" 1:1l~lish III mllahor uion with Ihe ;tl'll'l. O'IC"C .lg.ll1l, my aucnrion ro {his hulc-know» work woi ak nrd b), Bllchl"l1, ill "Broodrhacrs:

A 1Iq~(1r1c~ ~~r '!11>= A\";l[H~C,1rdr,'!! l1p. cir., pp. 57 ~. II Uy Ctlil1il1~ IIH- term "eagle principle" lor th.'ll PUI III' 13w{){ldl.lcrs\; uvc or the eagle rhar critiques CllllCq~lll,ll ;\1'1 ;ll1d rhuv " CL'TI;1111 HIrLl nr ~\'('JHS wnluu rhc hIHl)l), l,r i'OS(\\',)r art, 1 am trying to dl~I;"~lII,h dlls rrom Ihe full ""gc of \\'h~1 1)1'llI'llhll,I(,TlO rur.un rbc ~',I.~1r hi .Il~dr(·s~, whirl! 11\'\ 111(11.1)" IIldlh,ln lhl' "IIIItIl'.d dmh'llSlllll or tlH.' ~j'mbt'l and n-ote sr"eclnc.llly, within I3roodrhacrs's Furl~l~c.1I\ l'!111tn:f, ~I~ 1~~'I'l1h'.Hlnll .11,d ex plpn,lIinll by 1:"""'11.

I! For ~ dllCUSli(JlI of Anthology Film Archive" ICC Anncnc Michelsen. "Gllo;i, and Icnnoclasm: A Case SlCld)' of Cincphili,," Ocr"brr, "0. Sll\ViIHCf (998), pp. j-r8.

! l Sec J.,L. nwdr)', "Th,' Arp,rllU>," Clllllr!'" Oil .. ! .,t,I, 111'. I ~ ['-J('('); ,lIll~ Trn.'sJ de L;tlHr(ls :illd S(lTh~11 Hc,lIh (rds:). Tlu" ctrl(lHtlli( Apl'l1rrHIO' (Lond,,",: ~1.1(:,,"Ii:1I1, 19~a).

l4 lvL1I1ricr j\1("rlraLl~Poll()'. Pilf1JlII'lOfI1Jv._C}, (1J Prr((I"i,''', rr.1m_ C·nl111 Snllth (l("lndlll1: ROlIllcdp,(' ,tl1d r.:.q~,ln 1~:1\I1. 1 vr.~~). The ;<i"\."llon Iitll,J "Til..: n,,,ly" .1delr«'", Ihe inlCm1l11lCCledllc5s of Ihe I'\'.~y"~ '·I,.Ic}.. .. ,111.1 "r~IlIl'" \\'1111111 ,I S)''i.lnn p," dH' ml'IIIW~~',\ ~)j lllL'W Il'l,nhln)lH}\~, Thql', i;;,\.·cn prc~ ol'jrcril.llly by Ihe 51';1ce of Ihe bod)', Ihus fUllclion

• 11.1 l'rimmdi.lll1h,Jel fi" me.ll1ing ilself Tbe body ,.15 dll~ 1,'renl'Jl·ClI\·t: Sl't'Lllld or all expericllce or d~(' rel,lIedl1e" "f "['.iCClS i, Ihl' Ii", "world" explored l~r P/lrn\·wfl1ll/.~O .~r [1(U(I'(1I1/1.

l'i ,\ 11 I ll'!h' f',Jl,d'L-L .. on wrnc-s: "/\ ~ dll' C.ln!!'!'.1 CUIHltlllCS 10 I1lDVI' m::;1Jlly It.irw;lrd, building ., fl.'ll"jOIl ,hal gnrwli ill dirl'tc ratiD In tl.c reduction of t,lw iield,w(' n.:rll~nlzc, with some $\lrpr~~a'" Ihl)Sl' 1101'121U15 .IS ddlllillg rhc L:UII({)urS. (II' u.tr r.uivc, ol tll;,.1 nnrrarivc [orm animated by Ji'i[l'lldetl [em po ... r:lliry, (lUning upon cognincn, towards. revelation. \Vaiiins ~_lr au issue, we arc 'suspended' towards resolution .. ,. Snow, ill reintroducing l,'Xpcc(iuioll .;'LS the core .. ~f til ru [orrn, redefines ~pa(.'e itS bei n,!!; .... \_-sSL'lUi.llly ',1 ll'flll'\lr.ll,llitillll.' VOllhllg IhL' him ,l thr metaphoric proclivity \l IHOIlI,ij.!,t'! Snow crc.ucd ,1 ~r,'l1d metaphor for n,ur:1.lIvt..:fi.lrlll. I' ("TnIVord Snow: l',rI I," I'lrU;"'III11, vol, IX (Julle 1~71), PI'.ll Z.

I (i Scrrrt SpC;tk5 or th~ impl1rI.1IH,:~ of Michad Snow's work fi)f him ill Anncuc Michelson. Richard Serra. and Clara \Vc)'cr~r"r, "The Films of l{iclurd Serra: All lnrcr vicw;" OdLI{Jcr, 110. 10 (1:;1111979).

17 111.a series or essays ill the I:HC 19405 Greenbeq~ ('nllll("i;lIl'.~ t1li~ idl';l I,r rlic ~:nd ~ll',I:;,d p.lin(..- 11Ig_ ,lIId d",: \\PCllll'g llf PU,_'lIill· .. m,lklllb In ,,,",elhillg "beyond" i r, Sec "The Crisis "r the 1':,I:s.r1 ~'irlllrr" (J\pril l~),p~) ,111.1 "TII~' 1~~I,h- l1r Narur« ill Modern l'ailllil1g" (1949). ill (;11'1111'111 GI'<'ClIbrrg, The C"llecl,d EHOY' a",/ Critkism, vol. 1, cd.john O'Bri~11 (Chicago aud London: Univcrli.y of Chicago Press, 1986), pp. 224 and 27l-4; 'iCC ;tho ·i\rncrican .. Typc Painting" (1955), Clmlrlil GrrmIJr~.~., 1)1'. cil., vol. l, p. 235·

l:-l ~Il ,H1,1Iyzillf, lht linL's 1,( i'lll'lltiOIl Iha( COlllleCI il 5ubjeci 10 his wnrlJ~ Sanrc spl':lks /lO! tJll~y of che n'riJ.'rt1cily nr ~'nilHs or virw ,he vc:Clor [hal cmillcrlS my body as my pnill! d' view 011 ch;n~s wid, Ih:H J.SPCCI which f1l;1rks niH IIll' Ih1illll1r Vll'W or th~ls.r Ihilll!;S Ol1111Y body lll\l .\lSI) or tiJm,t' m(JVt~l11(,lm dHOlIp,h Ihe world which ,HC lily ';-'"11 II( .11'PII'I"'I.lling If. dlH\I'gh j,l.ty ';,r ex:ulipl ..... "S~'\HI," '11(' WrIll'S. "is a fn.'L:' Ir;lIlsti)rm"~ {iOIl or (hl' \Vorrl~ly cnviroilmrnl illto ('he: SlIppOrl~ ing d<."l1lt'1l[ or the ;'!cciotl. This f:rci TlI.,kcs if crcmivc like ;arf. The CII'Virollmt~ilI 11111}' be.1 lic,:ld ur snow .,. 10 sec il is i1lrt';tdy {O pms("ss il. Ir rcprrscllLs pure cXIl'riori[y, radical sp;ui;tii[y; irs undifTcrcmiJrioll.

1I~ 1111!IHIIOllY •. llItl II~ whilrnr_~~ tu.t 11 rfi.·\! lIit' nbsnlurc lludity of substance; il is rbc in .. j(sdr which ;, 1111ly i11,j"d(. ... Wh,1I I wi.11t i, Ih.1I rill' in-itself might be ;J. sorr or emanation Dr myself while sull r..:m;tillillg ill .... it:iclC (_)II": W;l,IlIS [0 \10 SOIllt:liJillb IIlIl IIr snow' 10 impose ;1 leJl'lIl Oil it which adheres so deeply 10 rhc mancr tI'JI rhc nvaucr ~p,'<ars 10 exist fllf rhc sake "f the lorm .... To ,ki is, beyond skill, rapidilY, pb)" J way of P"" sl's~in~ this field. I ;1n1 dnillr;, snnH:lhin~!n It. Uy my .1l'IIVlly I .1111 thallbil1g the maucr .llld lIu:alling of tilt SI\OW. " (Jen IV IJ;11i IS;, r I rt-, lkli~~ .IIld N!I(;'i'~C/lf':(\! 11',111'. Hazel E. nar11eS I New York: Washinglon Square Press, (9)61. pp. 742-l). The concepl of the "phcllollH.':l1ologic;J1 vector" is precisely t:l1g:lg(d wirh Ihis idea of au acriviry or organizarion and cOIIIll'"Cliol1lhrough which a subject cng;rgcs wilh;} worfd ;IS 11H::lIling(ul.

I:; 1 have explored rlus i~:'wc ill ;\ s(:rics of i.:~r;;jy~: "' ... And Tllt'll Turn AVI;ry~' All Ess;ty 1I11 james Coleman," O(/o/,cr, 110. 81 (Summer 1997), pp. " J3; 1!1~t'iIIVl'IHiil~ Ihe Ml'diulll," (:I'i(i~rd 111,/'1;')'. IIIL .'.) (\VIIlIl'r !!J!JY), pp . .?x!) ~u)~ ;lIId "T'[rc Crisis or the Easel Picture," (ordKI)01Jng 1\1 the ,~rnmd VllilillH' nr IIH' j.u-ksun j 'ullock r.lr.dol~IIL'1 Till' MLlS c 1I1l1 qf Modl'rIl An) New York.

20 Such all ollaly,is is undertaken ill rhc discus siou of Sere" 01 tile end of my "The Crisis of rhc Easel Picture," op, cit.

21 Se< "LIIlIi, ~1Il1 Nolal1d" (19(,0) and ''fIuer Abmae. L:xpreSli,,"i,m" (19ii"), ill Clrlll'" 1 G,,·tJl"t(~, "1" cil.. vol. 4, PI" 97 ~lId Ill.

Zl "Mmkrl1isll'aiIHil1g," ibid., p. yo.

!l "Lilli" Olnd Nol;1I1d," Ibid., 1'. 97.

!4 Thlnry de Olive's ,Ccounl of Grcl'I1bng's rl';l({inn [0 Millllllalism's tr:ll1Slllllf;Jtlnn of mod..l'nl.is(. Ij Hat(ll'Ss~' i,lln till.: 1111 III m.: I I rt)1lI l' (:~! tlvas 1;1 kl'1l 0.1 0 kind of readyl11Jdl' 'l'es Greenberg oO;.lIcioll' 1I1!~ I11lllit'l'IW':11l .'lId nnhl':ll-jllg I;UII1.rll\llI. rite" latIn U(ltlJ::, :111 cx(;1 usjvc: CUllcern fur IIIL: ;1l:Slhctlc as. Ihe l'xe.rci,e of judgmcn" or ta'ie (ill dThc MOllO' chrome :1I1d the ilbl1k Canv:ls," op. tiL. p. 22.2.) . This, or cOllrSt, ;Icrords wirh Grcl'l1ucrg's sdr~ 'description III his POSld 962 writings s1.Kh as "Compl,illls of ~" An Cri.ic" (Jll'tjOrtllll

It )t'I[~I,t'I 11)(!71)_ Wfl,J! rlll\ I'l'.nllll!-; ,urn\" however, is the W:ly Greenberg uudrr srocd rhc C,lfl.'gllry of uprrc.llity .I~ ,I \lIl'Pllt r f~1I pr.icucv. Ollld !I1l1,1 d1l111gh he never "Y'lhi, J medium. And wlnu (his 111<.,'.1115 III turn IS ih.u Gf(.'l'llhrrp.'~ own "IIlUdCTIlISm" is morr complex rhan cirhcr he arricnl.ucs or Judd and company wanred 10 understand, or de Duvc acknowledges. The quesuon of opricaliry as ~ phenomenological vector is further developed ill m)' "Tlte Cmi, of the !:o1t!IJIClllr.c." LIp. CII.

.!5 111 rd,lfhlll In uuv \'l'I's'1I111 1'1'" ~LIl"" H\t.ltlOll, hied writes Iha. this would allow somcrlung "powcrful enough 1'1) gl'lIC'ralc new convcnunns, a new arr' (MicllJd Fried, "Sh.ipc ns l'ur m," in A "f "lid O{y'r<l/woJ [Chicago and London: ChicJ~h Univrrsity Press, 1998J, P: 88).

Zv Leo Sleillbcrg, Ol/'rr Critma (Nc\\, York:

()xj~}rd Ulllvrn;jlY Prl:"~, [1)72), p. 79.

Z7 Cavell's usc or the n-rm .1UtcwMlirw to suggcst the idea of a medium .15 a ~l!ppOn fi:lr practice opens 111' Ihe hl'~innil\J!, or \IH'" ,I rI~I:?Hrl:lIlnil. J'nr cxnmple, 1\ SL.:C'i rill' rc.auo: brtwrvn :t gl'Vl'll "nurornansm" :I lid [he (cum Ii'> dcvclopmnu would I"h :~~ IIl"tT~~:\I'Ily ~nl,d In u.uurc, l'~l1ll mrurln-t of rhl' series being a new I 1lS(;1 ncr Qf the rlll'dlUJ1lllSdf (TIre HIo"ld Viewed, op. C;I., PP' IOl-4).

28 Sec my I'Vid(',1 and N,HClSSISrll;" O(li_I{}(F'~ 110. I (Spring '976).

Z9 St:lllky Covdl Il'l'ks 111 h.e'\tl' !III' 1I1IIIy Ihmugh tcl<:v~sion'5 O1;w:ri;d baH5, JS ":1, rurrem or SII1lulral1COU5 {"veil[ receplion!" ilnd J ronn of per .. ccplion specific to II, which he CJII, "mOI1ll0flll!;" (sec Slallley C~vdl, "The l'ar1 "f Teb'lIiO!l," 111 Vir/"o Cllllllrt: A Crili,'al /wJr<l(eMi"", cd. John H"nhardl (Rm:i1c'lcr, N. Y.: VlIlIol SlI1dltl WOIk, .':,!wp. 1986)_ Other ;1LH.'mpr~ I(J ,HOCU];-,tc Ihe Sf~('r!~ {icilY of lelevislon and/or vidcI1111c1udc: J.lIl1: Feller, "TIn' (:1111( rpl pI' I.I\'\' 'Ji·I(·vl\llln: {)P11I1IJgy ,j\ Ideology." 111 /{'J1",di,~~ 'JrI,'I"""II: errl"./ Appr"nd"" cd. E. Ann K,plon (Fredcnck, Md.:

University i'ublic"lioll< of Amcr;t" 1981): M,ry Alln Doane. "h1formaliol1, Crisis, ;:md C;}rJ'i.lro~ prw/' in Lo .. ~icH1 Trlrl1irion: Essl1}'S ill Cultllral Crill'" dflll, cd. I'olrlcia Mcilcllc"mp (Blooml11gtol1:


I mh.11l:t ll!l1n'r;;;lIY I'rcss, I vvo): Fredric .1;lH1C:';.IHi! "\'10.1<'.1," JI.I,"m,1d"HiIi'" I if It~( {:r,lIuI,.11 I.,:(ic ,1 LaIC COI"I.I",,, I Durh,m, N.C,; Duke I hlivcr<i,y l'rcss, 1991).

to ~.HI1lH·1 \'\·d,t"I. "Trlrvi ... ron. Sn .. Hld Sn'n'Il,!' In A·taB A1fd/~wrliL j·j1rm, n'rfmir~, hkJi(j (Pasadcn«, C~I!I.; Slwfnrd llllll'crllly I'm" '996), p. '10.

t 1 Frnlrl~' .J.lmC~l'lll nlI1111H,'IUY; on ihis rn-is~:I11I."l" \If Video 10 modcrrust rhcoriz auon JI1 his "Transfor marious II rhc lrnagcin PosmlOdcrl1hy!"i~1 TIll' e,I/'ll/Iii 7iH.1 ,'''''d(i r(,/ II'm1",o. ~~n thr H1fl'1l(lc/rm. ly8J'1998(Lo!ldon: verso, I 99'S),

Jl Sec jacqucv Dcrnda "The Law or Genre," CIJI'/', no. 7 \ ,,)~ol.

II Tim, ""cri6cd 011 an urujtlcd work or 197i-4, i, i"df.1 mlll!,l" statement. The r,nllmlf counccrs {l,lli]( ~"'bk t'tnl(·q,~lc'.5 J\lublr Jl'scriplioll 0(' rhe \1,'riY theories arc themselves porou:i- 10 cam .. moditir-auon and of duo f.:lCllha! (he substitution or I.nguage fm {h. "hr,i,,1 object docs nor proleel or! rmm this. condiuon tiLher. Ihu rhe second serncnce ]5' r<lf [e ss Iltg<L'(iVt :Ji1d opens onto rhc redemptive r(,~~~iI~d,[]o- [\l"l.'\Hd whirl; !lw "Fig." II~ ,I new (Yl'~~ of Jm,s, - a f"gnlClll dm par iicipates wholly in nenhcr 1~1'f!;l].lg(' 11Ilr ifrlll ml~h[ gesture. This is suggested by lilt: tole ol [he I' l:lg." in Mt1 Colln:liol1 and the book CI""I" B."drlairr.j' Iwi.' "IIIOIiI''''lmr qlli d'l'ia" irs 1(,,,'" borh discussed below I am 'Xlr<mel~ gr.Hcflll 10 Bmj,min Buchloh [or his ,ugges,iori! ,boul Ihc comple:<i,y of Brood,h",,", "Theory of Figutes" .nd Ih< allegorical ,I,IUS or thi:s.nO!ion widlirl hi:; work

J4 Pre" telr'Ie for "Mu,ec d' An Modern., Dcp.nemenl dc, Aigb, Seellon, An Modern. e' ['ubliei!'" (Kmcl, 1972), reprimed in Manrl Bri1L'rddrarrI, ex-h. (,II. (P:ulS: J~u <.lc P.l-urnc~ 199.t), f~' 127·

l5 Bmj,mi" H. D. Buchlob, "M,r",1 Broodv h,n,: A IIc~orio, or rho AV'\I"G"rde," op. cit., 1'·\·'·

10 Ibid., 1" H·

17 For Ih" "bumel1[ abOUl BraQddlaers', rd.:uiolt 10 Ihe BCIl.pmilli~n figure of [hoC colbxlOr. ,ee Douglas Crimp, "Thi, II NOI a Museum or Art," in Marrel B","dl/lII(rr, exh. c.t. (Minne>polis:


Walker An Center, f9~~), 1'1" 71 ')1. Llrnmh, lun:;'s Co,:'pI.1I1.UlI11l .rl.ouc b":ClIUIWh.1 "ere.nor" L,s from hl~ c:isay "Co-rune du bcurrc d;H1$ HIl sandwich." ,Pl!rmtr(lIll(iS, IHI. )"1 fi! (December ! t)h, )_, tIl" '!~J _~ (~t .rs t"i(L'~1 ill (:1'1111 ~\ 111" L' u., p. 71 . 3.8 W,iler Llelij.min, Das PaH~~",'Wr,k (Fral1K> r"l1 am M,1i1l: Suhrkamp 1931), vo. I, I'· '77, .l~ Cill"d III CriIH~\ IIp. cu., p, 72.

39 The "fig.''' numbers in M. Collcctio» ",C ror once consecutive, unlike rhc random character th.u Bn}llI.:hh;lers narucs as the ptim:ipk of nurnb-ering in rhc "Sections dC5 Figureslt cxhibiuon ("The Eagle from the Oligocene to the Prcsenr"), or the .ie,wry qmli,y of the 'prll1kli!lgnr"Fig, r ," "Fig. 2," "Fig. A," ere.

40 Ibid., p. 7J.

4L Tlus is liom \x..'il~u:r lknj;}I!!Ul, Clllldl")' Emldc'" /ai,,· A Lyric Poer ill II" Er. of Higll Copilali,m, trans. Harry Zclm (London: New Lcf Books, 197]), p. 165, as cited in Crimp, ap. cir., P< 80.

4' Sec SUS"" Buck-Morss, Till Dialectics (II Sf('''.~_· IMallr"r 'Bl',~/flllllf1 I1IU{ {frr A nmiff Pr~ircl (C;unbrici.ge"M:",.: MIT Press, 1\189), 1'1"· ~4 t 5 .. 4l Benj'min H, D. Buchlch, "Formalism and Hi~I'-()rici{y CI,.mgill~ CllllCCP(~ In Amcric.;lll and European Art since 1945!" in Euwpe i'lI (iIt' Sri/rutin: Arprrrlaj .RUmr Art! cxh. Cal. (Chicago:

The An lnsrimrc of Chic.go, t977), p.98.

44 Walter Benjamin, Oaf PaSIag'''' W"k, op. cu., p. 271, as cired in Crimp, ap. CiL, p.7],

45 W.lter Benjamin, "Unpacking My Libwy" (19Jl)t ill llhmliua!ir)//I, tr.aI1~. Harry Zahn (N:cw York: Schock,n Books, 1909), p. 67,

46 Although Broadd,.<r, had nndc IWO c.rli" films, La Clrf de /norlo,(r (19)7) and L, Ch"ul dr III. .~;lIr,"lia" (1959) ~ ,he fi"l, a Ihrowb.ck '0 early "experimen,.I" cineOl" such os Loger, a.llrl mham'q~u~ the second, a tompib[~on film using existing doclInlcm,:r.ry film sources - it waS III 1967. \ .. ·ill~ 1.1' {:Mlw.wtrlrrmatril, tll.lll3rotn!~ll"~l"r-:i beg.!I' '!o work illlCnsivcly in film and Secm' to have gained acce,l:S [0 his own relalian (0 experimentation III rhis medium. This w~s ('he same year dIal Michael Snow's WOI,r/"'gf/' WOIl firsr prize .1 Ibe Knokke Exp<rimonlal film Fw;v,]. J.cque.; Lcdou", who

((ulllllt·d the Foaiv;d. wn s till' h(';'Id or rlw 1~C)y;ll l.'llm Arciiivcs ill UrtIS::>Ci.s, which luncuoucd ,;1$ ;r_ n:p.Il~}lOry or Ihe same typr or rillcl1l;uic rcprrlnry privileged by A mhology him A rchivcs.

III his l"S5.ly "Lc Cinema Expl'rinH:mall'lln lablcs de La Fonrainc. L. raison du plus Iort," written ill rclnriot (0 his cxhibirion "Le Corbcau <I lc 1{<"~rJ," Broodrhncrs describes SI10W" film in some derail. He then puts ii in relation (0 Euro ... pcan "structuralist film," particularly Sdbsrsr/"'i,,r by Ihc Germ", film'miker Luc Mornn-artz (Moml Br'INlth.m: Ciil(",a, Barcelona: Tapics foundation, 1997. pp. 60-1; my [hank, '0 Maria Gilisscn rOt c"JiiJlg Illy anenrion ro this reference and 10 MmnmarIz.)

47 \V.lIcr Llenpmill, "A SI"'r! Hi'lory "r Ph", tography," ill. "0", Way 51",( alld Orher W,ifillgl, tram. Edmund jcphro« and Kingsley Shorter [London: New Len Books, (979), fat a fimhcr discussion. sec my !.'Reinventing the Medium." op. cir.

48 Press reieJ5t lor uMu:s.ce d'An Modcruc, Dc-p;\rIC_nlCl!(- J{'s A iglcs, Sccnons An Modcruc ['I Publicirc" (Kassel, 1971), rcprirucc ill Mil ",I HrclOdIlMn'.I". 191)1,np.ci!., ~\ l2.7.

49 Marcel Broodlh.cn, aficr an iuicrvicw by lrrna Lcliccr, "Ten Thousand franc Reward," Oaoecr, 110. 4' (Fali1987), p. 4l.

'so From the catalogue lcr "MTL,DTH," quoted ill A nne !lorimeJ, "Tht Exhibition at Ihe MTL Gallery", Brussels, March II'-April 10, 1970,''' Ooobl'r, 110.42 (fall :(087), p. 110.

S I Sec 110le ll. ,1 bDvo.

52 The ""rlllC scelle roocage ill A Voy.tr.II Ihe Nord! Sr. is laken partly lrom the m;lSl« of a SOlne, who, ea,licr fi! m, Alm/YIe 0'111' p,illillre, bUl reedited with the pagc .. numbcr in!cnidcs and 'the pholO'"

gr:lpldc ~~dWL' of ~,liH~II;l(,! ~;Ihll hy Bn,)~I(hh.H:r'j._ l.u an interview conducted -OIl rhc ocr'asion of Bnuuhhncr s's I r'_}73 cxhibrtH~D Il his iJ/("Mr), Poi"t .. ;'~~I, in which Amdysr J'rmr Pri.i!furr W;t'i screened, Llellj.mill Buchloh and Michael Oppirz ques, uoncd ilte ani" about the film. In his questions 10 lkn-nddlO1cr~. Buchluh assumes rhn: dlC film I~ .:1.11 alle.gory or modcr nism, one rhar OIulyz" and a uacks j,S self-certainties: "Your way of ironically ,epe.ting the painterly gCl!U"" of reduction rind annihilation in film ~ do nOl rhc "me obsolete and t'('/(lrrtd/OIrC principles dClCrmlllt' your DWIl ;l11.11'lsis of. paiming as well:" Broodchacrs's rcplies ro this arc ,ingularly rcsisranr: "I, ,I" tool of analysis really ,ulTie;o!'1 fot 'working's" he .isks a: aile point. A, anruhcr, he seems in nbjEfl Hi the i~r;'l Ihil.l Iur:, film deals, a, Buchloh insists, "wirl: rbe problem of painting." "NO! With painting " a problem," he ,ays, "but wid, painting as a subject. Ir rhcrc IS [n your opinion a problem 01' painting, I claim 10 have treated 11" film which we Joe speaking about in • style rha: trJllsff>lm, rhis problem." (Mom! Broodrlwrs: Cill''''", ap. cir., pp. 2 ]0--1).

II is my view (hat when Brccdthacrs uses the I,\iw'd SIIly'ra ;H he JiIl'S abovr "pt1I1)!"IIlg, a s .J. subject" ~ he is ofl."n pOln!ing nor to any,n.ing like "subjccr .. rnauer" or content, but (0 ihc issue 01 rhc medium.

s] Marcel Broodlha'r>, "l"Cll Thousaud F.,1I1C< llewarJ," op. cit., p. 43,

54 Ibid.

ss fredric Jame,on, Tltf CIIIIIlI'"IY,,,,,, op. eil'., pp. 1]0"'12.

56 111 prevlou, c>!,ys, cited above (110" 19). 1 h,wc discussed Ihe work "f J .me.1 Colemall ,nd Jeff Wall in thi, regud. I" ~ ,ubscqucm study I will loeu, all 11,.( of \'\fJIIIOm KcJ1tridgc,


A text by Marcel 1:3 rood rhacrs 011 M" Collraion


M;ln·I,.'1 Hl'l I(llfl han!'!, fHlIlI cover or Stili/iii }II/rrHliticu1l1/. L)C(l)OCr 1:)74. Cmlrh:sy of Sill die) /"II'rrrntiiJ"Il/.

MorCl·1 13m(1dd 1.1 ers, back cover "r SIIIdi" IIIlrm"li",,,,I, October 1974. C,,\lrIcsy or SIIIdio /nfentaliom"_

JOSl'pll Knsuch. Art as Jdr., il5 IIIrl') I C;67. Panel 011 'rncauing'. Ii) A RS. NY and DACS, London

" (,I t .-,llIn //,'11 j, .1 work l'>lI11ptlsrd "," iw» 1,.11lrh. both sides "I' which .uc tlsnl. \Vithin Ihe firs! pancl. wllt.lining documents from exhibitions at which [ have been able to exhibit, there is inserted J page (roOl the catalogue of the Cologne r.·ur of '71 with photo> of these s.nnc dccurncn.s. The second panel of Ma Coller/ioll is adorned with a porn'all of the Europcan pOl'l Stcphane Mallarrnc, whom [ consider 10 be the founder of contemporary ,HI. "Lin nH'I' ell' ,ksjalll:tis u'abolirn le hnsard." M" C(l/la/i,,"is a work in which the tautological SYSlenl is used 10 contcxtualizc the exhibition sites, (It would therefore have 111mc 11iCallin!; rliau J qJnlp collccuou.) The Glialogll~ Dr Ihe preSCilI cxhibiti'lll will be I"t,d as ,\ ,1,·[.\il to 1l1,1kc up ~l luturc work l1r all aucsring In the shows at which l havc exhibited smcc 1971.

Jo,eph Kosutli, S"I!,',,/h 1IIIIrIII:~I!li"" (llel ur Idi'" <1J' Idea), I ~69. Outdoor billbo:Lrd installation. tti A RS, NY and DACS, London 2000.

'l M.II'rd Hllllldlhal"f'i, MII,ITUIIl 4 N/rldrrll Iht. 1:.;!~lrs D'p"r/lllfl1l (Dauid~I"gref· Wirm:- COllrbrl), IY(iS. PJim uu vncuum-Iorrncd )Jl:mir. 3.12/1 X 47'A indll·s.llht)tor~)Cilisscl1.

6 MarcL:1 13 roodrhacrs, MI(JrIIW 11 Nf[lrlrrn Ari, E!C/n [)rparllllcllt, lyth"CfIl!Ury Srttic», Brussels, 19(iR C;. Phntlll~·)Ciljsscll.

7 Marcel Broodthacrs, ,\t/US{'lflll oI Mmll,,.11 AI". E~~lrs Drl'l1Ill1lrnl, 1!Jlb,Cmlilry Sruic», Iirusscls. 1')('8 9. Photo (u Cilisscn.

Marcel llrood,h,crs. MlIlrulil oj Mod,m Art, E~~/('J Dl'/JartmrJll, DowIJIl'lIlary Sr((illll) 19(,9. Pho- 10I1H>IHagc. J>llOIU(i) Gilisscu,

9 Moree! Broodrhacrs, rrolll cover "r 1,1t1'li""/.:'

(i(lnNI, F:111197Ij. Courtesy ur IlIi!'rjiw/..·/;m/{'1I.

10 MJ IT<:I liroodrlucis, Livr« laMrar" ~ 9(j1)-70. 1'.11111 ~ltl V;JCUUIlI,.rOrI1lCU plastic, B 1/. x 47'1. inches. Photo Dcgobcn,

II Marcel BrooJdlJCr.s, unruled, 1900. Reproduccd ill Artjimllll. May 1980. Councsy of /1r([OI"ll'II. 12 Marcel IJ.rnodth;1.crs, MlfI(1I1II of Monrrn /~rll EI!~lrJ DrjN,rIIW'I/(, Filili Smion, 197/' 2. Broodr ... hans holdjll~ lip Sod""I" book. I'lwlO"J Romcro. 11 M.ir<·d Brl~lIthh.H'rs! Mr'll'wo ..[ N/r1llrrn 111'1. J:·.!~/n /.)rp.'I"JIfII'lIt, Fillll Sl'ffiiJl1l 1~71 2. Palmed screen ill OJIlCf room. Photo (i.j Cilisscn.

14 M:1rcri I3wt) .. hhaers, /VI,'II'WI' .1 J\1~dr/'ll II,." 1_;_:(J.~/n l)q'fltllllflli. Fi/III Strri"}I, I !J7J 2, Photo .. moI1tJ£/ showing broodrhacr s in iJn: IlIn-c.:r room. 1'1",,,, I( '111ernd JOII.en.


Translau.u: ofrcxr on p~gr 40

M;Hccl Broodthacr> Ma C"I/Wr,lll

... \Vhcrl' a cnnt r.rrt isar issue.

'I '1

'I Ie



SlIlcr ! Jlipcar in this collection, which is also a selection from amollg the all calalogucs of the past several years, il docs not constitute a traditional rcadymadc,

]3tH, if one accepts rhat rhc representation of my an carries with it a change of scnscjnon-scnsc, it would then be a new form of readY111ade,;l baroque rcadYllladc.

This dubious rcadymade would therefore be equivalent 10 a dubious work of an. HDW [0 nl.Hk"1 d"l1bt il" i, dues not have a clear artistic gU;lliry! Moreover, ! do not have the nerve to SPCClIi;)tc on M" Ceilectio«, although with the TllUIlCY received I could relieve the misery rhat ravages the Indies, or even finance an avanr-gardc revolution. A contract, a good contract would get me out of trouble by aligning l11y interests with established customs. For furtherinformation. please contact .,.

Personally, ! would like to receive a lax (a royallY,) all the publicatious, if there arc any, 111.11 rCl'nidllCcd Ill)' decbratil1ll and the illla~<~s [rnm this pap;c of the catal()~\I<' of Ihe C"lllSlll·711:\l1'.

However, should anyonc still wish [0 own the physical objc'ct of Ma Collcctio», then rhc f'ricr wlluld be IIf' 1,1 my conscience (Price Ilcgmiabk).

c M. Broocthacrs


'\ M"cd I 1",,,<1 d ",'''. Hrrllfr"/iii II, 1')71. Film frame. Photoll"Giliss.cll.

16 Marcel Broodrhacrs, U" I,{'ya~, Ii Walerla,' (N"p.lfD"'769 '969). I 9(,9. Film rrame,. I'holO {) Cilisscn,

'7 Marcel Broodrhacrs, MIIUII'" .; /vr"d'rII ArI, Eat.!es Dcpartmmt, Section des Fig"'" (DrI' Ad/rr 1'0111 O/(~"zQi' bis HMc), 197~. Sladmche Kunsihallc, I )li~\l·llllll'r. 1'1l',)!n IL" (;lii'\l'l1.

IS Marcel Broodrhaers, Mmclllil oj Mod,,,, ArI, Eli~/rs Dep.,.(lIIml, 5""'>11 de; F,("rri. 197'. Sl5dlischeKunsd1allc, Dii5Scldorr.l'holo 1; Cilisscn.

II) M:1f(d 13moJt],;u:r\, /VllfH""H (If MOtif'" I1rf, Ea~clrJ Orporllllrnt, Sat{~.111 a{'J' FigJII'('s. 1971. Sndriscbe Kunsthallc. Dusseldorf !'hn'o"~ Gili'.'CIl,

20 Marcel broodrhacrs. MII,e"III "J M"dr", ArI, E~~/{,I Drl'(U'("'l'ul, SrailLIl drr F(~urfJ-, 197~. S!adtis .. eire Kuusthall«, Dusseldorf Phom (~. Ci'rvscn.

21 Marcel 13rooddl:tt.:rs, t\I!Jurlfm of A1.1arrJl Arc, Ei~glrs Drpartnunt, Srrtion drs F~€'frl'~, r97l. StJdtl5~ "he Kunsrl-allc, Dusscldcrf.Phoro 'j Cilivscn.

22. Marcel IhOQdth<1t'r.s, M'IIJ.I'III11 l:( MI,drl'l' Arl, E".~lrs DevorlHlml, SrrrlOlll drr .F(~IIm, 1972. Sr.idrischc Kunsrhallc, Dusseldorf Photo [./ CIIISScn.

:'3 Michael Suuw, l·f~lf'('II'II .. ~rll. lyC!]. Film fr.lIl1l'.

Courtcsv or Michael Snow.

21 Richard Sur;'!, (.'alfin,~, Ij)o:; ~!. Lead casriug, Approx. 4 X lOO X lOO inclu«. Temporary iI1Sl;1lbtIOIl. Whirn~y Mu')cllm or American An. New York City, 1969. l'horo <;_, Estate of Peter Moore/DACS, London/VACA, New York zoco. Courtesy of Richard Scr ra.

l5 Kenneth Noland. iustnllauon or CM'l" Siwdlllll and 51 ,ill ill rlic Andre Enrm.C'ri,h CJlkry. (,'J Kenneth NobndjDACS, LOlldDn/VAGA, Nn v York 2:rIOti.

26 Kenneth Nclnnd, Ad", 1967. Acrylic 011 canvas. 24 X 96 inches. 'I,:' Kenneth Nnlolld/DACS, Lundull/VACA, New York zooo.

"l Richard Serra, "[drlmioll Delivers I''''ple, 1973, Video srill. Councsy or I~ ichard Serra.

· ... ~ t'\,'.lrn-l l\n'I'LIrII.lrr~. 11"11'(11111 II{ iH.·.lrru .'1"/, E~(k. l)~'}"lfr"'!'''f, Sr,rh1n JluM'drt. \V.lllllwm.lbl,'~lf 1971 ex-iibmcu. Pho!O'vCilisscn.

29 Mucci Brntld[h,1crs. 1\1,W'rmr (If A1(l({rrll Art, F.~d(' 1)(1',11/11'0", ."\(1/1111/ nll·b.;,;. \'\',dllllPIU,,,.!,t·l,r 1972 exh,b""",.l'hoIOif" Cilissen.

30 MiITcr1 Bronddl,H:rs, A1ufrlllll 1 M(ldrm Art, E".~/() i)(f,Ir{III(IH. Sfftillll Pub/hi/f. \V;dII11QIH.llg,C of 1972 exhibition. Photo '<:: Gilisscn.

~ I M;1rC'tI Brmnhhncrs, MIIUHI/I d Jt.1.,l'irn, Art. E,t~lr.f D1'I'rn'(mmr, Srllil'II Pub/ifile. \Vall montage 01" 197' cxhibuion. Photo te; Cilimn.

p l\1arcc1 BroodlhilcfS, A111SrtHli &J M(ldrrJI Art. E'I.~/(j LJfl'lutmrm, S[",;,111 P"bH..,·'i. \Vr,111110111dgc ur 1972 cxhibuion. I'holC ~" Gilisscn.

II t.1,Hn'1 nr,\,~~hh;H'n, lUll C,d/U!I.IlI, 1<)71 I'hoh:'gr'li,hs ,IIlJ dnCtllll(Jl[S. Frl111i view. 1'I101o!!-) Cilissc».

H M,u(cl B!{iOddu.l'rs, Mfl Coilraiv«, 1971'. Phorographs and documrms. Back ,'icw. Phoio © Cilis\cll.

,\ Mor"l 13modd".tfs, [txt on M" Colltctio«, 1 ':)'7 I, Phoro \~1\ Gili5.stll.

J(o Marcel llroodth."s, UII _i,,,dill lit,,,,,, 1974· Ftl rn sull. 1'11PCO.p-l Yves Ccvacrr,

\7 M,It\·d I\l'tlt'llllliH'fl'. J." 1"";(' 11)(\1). EIIII lr.unc. Pltotc l,Ij Gllis.sell.

J 8 Marcel Broodrhaers, Cr<i '" m.il par "'If pipe, 1969'71. Film frame. ['hotorOCili.\srn .

. \') M.un'l Hnllllhh.lns, (:1'.1(/1'1 l!;1l1l{diIllT. JI' I,.,h 1'"10'"""''''( qui deplore Irs 1i)!lIrs, '973. B,,,,k cover. ['holD «, Cilisscil.

40 Marcel Bruudthucrs. CI",,/rs 13m,dd"irr. Jr hoit lr mOIlIl",,,"1 qui dipl." Irr ligl/f!, 1973. !'''gc 1.1 !'hOIO (0 Cilisscn.

4t MIHCd Broodrhacrs, CIUlrf{'I BlwdrJ'1irf.jr ju~;; Ir "''''111''"'''( qllidfpl4a Irs !t~l/rs, [97). Page, 2 and ). PhOIO © Cilisscn.

4" Ma red 13modd];lcrs, C Iwh 13,,,,,Ir/,!il"f. J' It,!i, Ir "'''"'''IIIr111 qlli dip/.a If! "~",s, I 97l· Pages 4 and 5· Plwt"l("i c,,;lissrl1,

4 J Marcel Un,uJthacrs, U" <""lip ,If drs jiliMis ,,'ab,,/,ro It iI.sard. /m •• ~t, 1969. Book. From cover. Wide Whi,e Space C.lby, Anrwcrp: Caleric Michael Werner, Cologne. photo 10 Cilisscn.

44 Marcel Broodrhaers, UII {Otlp <If dis jamais 11'0/"'/;'·0 Ir ha!ard. /II"W, 19(,9· nook. Poge ]2. 1'11OtO 10 Gilisscn.

45 Marcel Broodlhacrs, A Vo)'a.~r 'iii II" Nort/, Srn, 1973-4, Film (ramcs.l'holo(i'IGili,,,·,,.


The Master of the'S~int Barrhclomew



. )~ith.34 illustration» :'

:f· t~~~~ i :


lfi ....:;;~" _-" "~'. ,':.


.t . ELDERFIELD'· ;;:: ,.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful