ond Obiecthood


In this essly Michael Fri€d criticLe,, Minimat Art- or 6 he ca s ir. "literalisC' lrt-for what he desoibes as its inhercnt theatricrlitv. At tlr qmF ume. Ie Jrgucs thdt tic modemisr !rt!. iactuding paining rr"l ! ulpture.l,ave comc incrFasinglyto depend for 6eir very conrjnua,r, on their ibility to d4par rh".be. Fried characteria rh; |-hqtrical ,,, rems ot a pgticular rebtion bcr$ een the beholdFr 6 $b/?ct and t1.,. wtk .it oqict- a rchtion tbat lales place in rime, rhat bs duratiu,, Wh6e6 defclting theatree',raih deferringor suspending bot-h obiecthoo,t Fried was born in t\'ew York City in 1939. }le took his B.A. ar hinceton Udversity.md was a Rhodes Sc.holar at MertoD Colteg€, Or. f.rd. He is a ContrihurDs Edrtor tor Alrlorun. ud he organ;ed rt, TItr. Ahc can Paintcruexhibirion at the Fogg Arr Vuse;, HdN,.,,l Uni\F6it). in 1985. Hc is curendy a Junio;-FeIow in rhe H.w3,,l

and in fact bas been Iormulat€d by some of its leading pracIf this distinguishes it from modemist paiDting and sculpthe one haad, it also marl$ an importast difierenc€ between on Art----or, as I prefe. to call it, litetarit afi----and Pop or OP on the other. From its inception, literalist aft Las amountd to more tla! an episod€ in th€ history of taste. It belongs to the bitory-almost ttre nattrdl history-of sensibility; and is not an isolated episode but tbe expression of a general and cotrdition. Its seiousness is vouched for by the {act that it in relatiod both to modemist painting and modemist sculpture literalist art defles or locat€s the positioD it aspnes to occupy is, I suggest, is what makes what it declares som-ething that to be ca[ed a position.) Speciffcally, literalist art conceivet of itsef as neitbs on€ nor tle otherj on the conEary, it is mothat€d !y speciGcreservations, or worse, about both; and it aspir€s,Perhaps lot exacdy, or not immediately, to disPlace them, but in any cose to establishitself as an ind€p€ndent art on fl footing $'itl either. The literalist caseagainst painting rests mainly on two counts: the ioral character of almost all painting; and the ubiquitousness, the virtuel iDescapability, of picto al illusion- In Donald wher you start relating parts, in the ffIst Plac€, you'rc assuming de6you have a vague rvhole-the rectangle of the canvas----and you should heve a nite pans, which is a[ soewed up, bccause defnite il)hols end maybe no parts, or very few l rThis Ms saldby JuddiD an int€triw with Btucecloser,edit€dbv Lucv as to L r,ippardmd published 'Questions Stellaand Judd," At Neod,Vol €ssov to lXV, No. t S6"t@bs 1966.The ItlrELr othibut€din the pres€nt

Edwards's toumals frequendy exploed and tested a meditation h. seldom allowcd to reach print; if all the world were annibilated, h{, wote . . . and a new world were freshly created, though it werc to exist in ev€ry particular in the sarnemanner as this Eorl4 it llr'ouftl not be the same. Ther€fore, becaue there is conriDuity, which is tnne, it is ccrtain with me that tle world edsrs anew every moment; tlat the existence of things every moment c€asesand is evcry moment rcnewcd.' The abidiDg assunnce is that 'we ever). moment see t}le same proof of a God as we should have seen if we had seen Him create thc rvorld at 6rst."-Perry l{iller, Ioruttun Ed.wads I The enterprise known variously as Minimal Art, ABC Arq Prirnary Structues, and Spcciffc Objects is largely ideologcal. It seeks to declare and occupy i position--, one that can be formulated in r Reprinted from Artlrmrr, Iurc, 196'7.

fr@ Judds 65av SDeJudd rnd Moris lEvc het taLeo trem tb& intewiN No. 8. 1965, or fr@ Roberr Nlorb.s esvs. cGc Obiets. Attt fqrbook. Patt 2," publish€d in Att' @d "Note m soipturc, "Not6 d Solpturc' ,orn, vol IV, No. O, f€bmey 1966, snd Vol. 5, No. 2, Octobd 1966' re{Ecby Motis f!@ ihe ataloguc io the nve&- (1 hlG also tala ore lfut tlF Ambieuous Imsge, held al the W,lker Art lrhibitiotr -!:iaht Solpto^: add that in laving oul shat seos 1966.r I Centd. Odob;FDce;bs 'hould to @ ihe posiHon ludd and Mord hotd in comon I }av€ ielored vdlouj difieMc between th@. and hav€ ued eenain lennrls in contdts fo. ivhich they may Dot hove bee! ilt€nd€d. Mor€ove., I lave not alwavs ildicated which phdse; lhe altenative vould have a pdtidlar of thm achDlly soid d wt€ be€n to litter the lext vith f@rnotcs.

The more the sbape of the spport is emphasized. V. No. In sev€ral recent essays2I bave tried to show as Fom: rraDk srelai Ns painringr. A pa'nting is rcarly an entity. and not tbe hdefiDable sum of a $oup of entities and rcferenccs." a single "Specific Objecr. and Vantongerloo But this and other disagreements are less impoltant thnD the viervs Judd and l{orris hold in common Above all thcy are opposed to sculpture that. The one thing overpowe$ the earlier painting. Actual space is inirinsically morc poNerful nnd spcciGcthan paint oDa flat sudace."is simply order. I believ€. l967j and "Bolald Davis: sulhe dd m6id. sbape ie the object: at any mte. "one thing. singlen€ss. for c'xuryrle. infl€cted' sculpture Judd and Monis asset values of *'holeness." such 'multipart. automaticallY gcts rid of the problem of ilusionism and of literal space. It also establishr's ihe rect:tngte as a dcffnite {olm: it js no longcr a fairly neutiil limit. -the nost important sculptural value.h is riddanc€ of one oI th. moreo\. frcm the literalist poilt of view. The simplicity required to en lvithin iL phasjze rectangle limits the anangements thc Possiblc Pabting is here seen as an att oD the vcrge of exhausuon. 8. one t}ing after another. . April-Jue. one thing. composed" and in wbich 'specifc elcments . Vol.k can be as powcrfttl rs it can bc tlought to bc.) It is worth r€marki:rg the 'part-hy-part" and "rclational" character of mo$t sculpture associated by ludd wit]l what he calls anthrcnomowhtcm: 'A tlrusts. The order at work in his pieces. V. whilc Judd is chiefly lnterested in the *ind of wholenessthat can be achieved tbroueh the repetitionof identical units. It is. the citical factm is srkp?. The several limits of printing are no longer Fesent. separate from tbe $'hole. To me the piece with the br3ss and the ffve verticals is elnve allthat shaoe." A'rtoM. "'Shape ov@ba r968j "Jur6 Olftski. the tights the situation b€. togethcr they form a naturalistic and antlropomorphic image." For both Judd and Mords. Arrl@D. thus setting up relationships tl Shape has also been cenhal to th€ most impotant painting of the Past several years. however. . The space corresponils. The thing is to be able to work and do difierent things aad yet not break up the wholenessthat a piece has. by addition.cr.. wqk at the Cd@m caltery. wshinsron.Dmes: The etementsinside the rcctangle are broad and simple aDd cor respond closely to the rcctangle. The obr-ious responseb to 8i\( up working on a singl€ plane in favor of tlree dim€nsions.and indivisibility---o{ a work's as nearly as possible. 3. one itr which thc rangc of acceptabte solutions to a basic problem-how tir severelylcstricted The use ol org&nizethe surfac€ of the pictuFis shaped rather tban rectangular supports can. what secures the wholeness of object is the siDgleness the shape. like most painting' is "made part by pnrt. Cabo." Similarly.. this emphaof sis on shape that acoDunts{or the impression. a piece of iron follolvs a gesture. ttrat Judd s and Moris's pieces arc hollou.sPaceirr and around marks and colors-rvhic.C. The literrtist attitude toward sculpture is more ambiguorrs. which numerous critics have mentioned. Rodchenko. . That. as in rcccrrl modcmist painting." Monis devotes considerable aftcnrion to 'lthe use of strung gestalt or of unitary-type foms to avoid divisiveness". s€emi to think o{ what h€ calls Specific Objects as somcthi g othcr thnn sculpture. salient and most objectionable relics of Euopean art. Pevsner.. A vo." tbe @t losue iDrroduction ro an erhibition of In. The shapesand su ac€ are onl) thosc that can occul plausibll' s'ithin and on a rettangular planc The pars are ferv and so s"bordimlc lo unity rs Dot to be prrt\ jn en ordinary sense. No. Judd. Judd has remarked that rhe big Foblem is that anything that is not absolutely plain begils to have parts itr some *ay.-os he onc€ remarkedot ltral in Stelta's sb'ipe paintings." And shape itsef 4 in his system. April 1967. while Robert Moris c'onceivesol his own unmistrkably titeralist work as rcsuming rhe lapseil tradition o{ Constructivist sculpture established by Tatlin. like that of continuity. merely prolong the agony. qeaking of his ow'n work.liichoel Fried ll8 9 tle rvorlc" (They would include the \r"ork of Dayid Smirh Anthony Carc uiler tlis description. A form can be used only tu so many ways The rectaugu)ar p)ane it given a life span. Vol. Morris's "unitary forms" lre polyLedrons tlat resist being grasped other than as a single shape: the gestalt simply ir the'oonstan! knol'n shape. D.

.lists) : Truiit s irt (li(l llirt with t}c look of non-alt. Ir rspircs. Olitsli\ are early spraypaiDtnrgs the purcst erample of paintingsthat cithfr hold or fait to hold as shapcs.is. ind. 1966. and her 1963sho$ was tbc firsl ir \lhiclr I roti(c'd ho$ this look corld confcr rl as cfect of p.r'v.{].'lhc verb proiEf tu I hr!' jlrt urd it is trkrn fronr (irq)hrJrs sratement The osrensibleaim of 1lr Nlinimalhh is b lroject ol)j.ir..t arc just nuds.rpeis stavedofi or eluded in variorr\ rvays.litcral Whercrs litcralist art stakcs evcrything on shapeas a given propert! of obiccts. and Sieltr. New AnrhonyCoro.ADeriQn sculphtu oI ile Sixti6. or not merel). Benni^st6h.wl)ich.semblesof objoch th.but on the contrar)'to discover:rn(l pmject objectlrood such.but shrpe that must belong to /tdinting-it must l!' pictolirl. a conflicthas gradually emcrgedbcNeen shapcas a fundanrcntatproperty of objccl\ or of paintilg. I alrcadl' lncs'. the success frilurc and sLapcas a 'ncdiun of a gi\€n painting has comc to depeDdon iis ability to hold or stampitsel{ out or compelconvntion as shape-tl)it. the Los Anseles Count-w\'l$em of r\n ' rxl'ibition.120 ho{. 2'1" r 6'9" x 5'4".\\4rat is at stakc in this confict is $hcthcr the paintings or as objcctsin qucstionarc expericnced paintnrgsor as objccts: ar what deciclcsthejr idcntit) as |ditirtrg is thcir conlronting of thf demandthat thcy l. not to defcat ol suspendits o$n obiecthood. Anrhony Coro. as In his essay lcccntness of Sclllphre" Cleme:rt Creenberg dis thc cusses cf(ict of p'cr€n. tt\ rvell as in thc bestof Noland's:rnd stelh's recent \rork.if not. That presence r\ throruh thc lool' of non art slls likesise aestheticill\ achieYed 3 PubLish.Sreelpoinredblue. 3'4" x 13' x ll'. m artist Creenbergbclicves anticipatedt))(' literalists( h. Photosroph. . or somcho$to staveoS or eludc the qucstionof *hethcr or rot it doesso.ou esy of Andre Emmerich Gollery. fronr thc start.Nhilc in his more rccent pi.ollection ol Mr. has been associ ated with ljtcnlist $ork.ds N(l d. as a kind of obicct in its o$'t) right.)(ur t. .3 This cornesup in conncctionNith thc srcrk of Arno Truitt.o(].rscone to 6nd it imperatir. Roughh. Flox. in the wor} of:iotaDd. This crn bc sun rcd up b)'saving thrt modemistp^inting h. ln rhe . Phorosrdphcourt€ry ot Andre Emmeri(hGolery. taking is sliape. crlls tldr \ Iinnn.$eel pdinted block. ond Mre.old as shaPesOthenvisedrey are erlerienccd rs nothing ore than objc.d nr tlr car..olrectionof lules Olitski. In the .1964. thc denran(] that a gilen pichre hold 1lssh.ctbat it defeat or rnd that the crucialfactor jn this undcf its suspend own objecthood. fienry Feiwel. Tlat prcseDcc achicved through size $ri acstheticrlh (\lnntous.turcs. not.Ll. Olitski.

rErd\ r\ f.]re!d) osins .0\sful pi.trc . somc but rot dll of SmiihsoD s.nql lo sar that r b.j n w. reenis w'nctling. q'rilific.[l(l rrrxr rl.n. u nritle d 19 66.Jl it is not LorttinbllJ . tl)rt r.\Lstrrct Evressionisn Creenberg *rotc thii r ltr.c whethor lie is a certined \ l i n i N ) l i s t l : 1 s\ .ontlitiarc lot $.ible . Tl.t re(cstil:.l r.s of rhe lJx\t Nh\r qmlit_v ir n. df pi.Li.\rgs.{t li\tirer\iori.rt scrlphrre could hkl€ hchind it-jusi rs panrtiDs did t {ound oui only aftcr rcpcited rc.oBnts i'. nw. it n not quite. hro romx l!r. Frrtherinrc.rrns tocld).. (Ir \odd nrlrirc x hr Art.cars.d .ll) IlirD. O. Dd norr of ih€ . nness. \finnlal ld. 40 " Ne* York o lorol lensth oi 25'4" Phorogtophcoudesyol D*on Golle'v.l.h rs to ndli" it.llrnrq n. c h box .lD be . r_o.r..r pic.d }cing corvinrcd llnl r rJnrtilul.ier. oDe.usht not to be thonght of rs rhe ir'ellu.rn be e\!e. T itt\ sculpturc had diis knrd of pres. .l Stdhl) \loreover.nlnr. thrf bniilly.le. il is.s ..tdl . Oln\ki.l..t thrt.. .: l)rrs .anvas alre.Th.c\sfu] printinsi bur J s. n). Lut ttro .. t'ul'J tle te\ln.rrt'or r{r \x! ll.red\rbl. .r 2s ro its (l!nlib." 1.rv.es Dill.i rtrel..ru... it \dnl.r.li.r.rt.... In its lrnul o'rtljrr rln n nrdonLt€dl! Lorre..\tion js not .'\1h"1!s ])tir!: !.e tnr'lrd-up Qnvas as a rDnnn.reite rn .c. \ii vI. G olv oniz ed r eel.ial qu. r.s! . ir fxirl\ speci6.\icrc.o|fened l)! sizc or by the look of non art..lrlinritxhoD of nrbes\r rnd thrt rie obs-. llut ro$ it li.nri. I'r!.rirsi ind dnt dr. u. \1trr thrt on.thing compels .'sigeii.yer.it. }o\'.tdial rlt but rrdrer rs \omctln. I drnrk.\rdre s. lrrrethough not necess. l l r s o f \ o n i c o f th c:u ti si s j u st m e n ti o n .qh lo. This susgrsts tliat llalles\ rnd lhe delnnitrtion ot llrtn..e crnvrs ia.f prirl s i. (hnr{r \o.Jc ar.t rcd rhrt rrlurr.tr ronrnully a printing. rr thoLcl.d o.g litc t\e ni .ftl.irn. rre rlt. lt nu} be .sl.f ihe Ii .t ni doubt.rober \l]nh thir hd been rrle. !.\ Ll.€s: it is.ed r..d Obiecihood 't23 I "1 1 1 4:1? r I : -' ":+:i::::: .hind it..c of flarDess firluriil . be di.'thd r\hnr.tri .s.r.llo*r: x {0 " x ! O " i ' r D onold lu dd .sst.lrr\|n]llv tlit n.lso hidc behilrl pr.n.lrr e\ists as .ln.! For that reison. I \ art 1.nv.n(e of ntrolw tbese j\ ero'. b€ les of.sencc xs sizc: I thinl ol Bladcrr lthough I dm Dot su.luanri. sone but not dl ol Le\\'iit's.r $ork..le 'lo LrLrn \jrli. and hs n{:rnt for scveral )..[j. u er\ {'n.r ut a r.l up .s L. Sienicr's.l lo Nol.rtitltive .1h rtrdridn. lglil. ID "\fier . thri rle rred!.g...!.n.s .omplison \rft! the DanrL.rc thin thc nine Noul.rtr ertionJ or.rin! hrs undercone lron \hn. Itcvrcc c..vi. rn.r hctod{p .rrih as a .e $jih i \ l h i n l l 1 l \o r ks o f a r ti Ju d d s. :5.'ril\" I $.) . a pi.l icrn. E.)f nb(L isn no. \l o d si .setl'er diffenJ)t r\prricn.xn br Dr..:Lcd ro n $rI n ht inG\.ul(i..i(1rm\lan..cl .rl orc.g . i. paintnrs in tl).8.. ihe cnterprise ot Dannnis \vonld ]rave n.l${r lhrn\olver t.on.s a licrue lhutr{li r..tlio.\ ll.ichcd or t.onrentjons .errai.n rnrblished..o. bnt dnl not lrirle b.ln.omrr and rlir. rs r s.r. I did noi !et kDo(.D .iblc crier.t ln . \'hrt DoD-nrt rn.rn \tJd .rn.r chrnge rhrD lhrt tl'rt !.\trxneo.t'r..nc.. \e.

iun bv the U!iv. it seems. Here the question arfucs:What is it abour objecthood 6 pmiected and hnostatized by the literalists that makes it.a work of art-more accurately! a *'ork of modemist painting or fculPture. ln ihe present cicumstances. Whereas in preart 'what is to be had from the work is located stricdy rritiin " the experience of litenlist art is of atr obiect in u sihtattonthat.ey more reflcxive becauseonet arvarenessof oneself existing iD the sarne space as tlre work is sEonge. het. Yet it would seen that a kisd of art oearcr the condition of non_art could not or be etrvisaEed idcated at tiis momeDt. lDds at a siv@ mondq is @Psble of @np€lliDg @ ictio!. from that p€Epective. n b@! of his 6savs to be poblish€d in the ndr We M.were in some essentialrespe& not an obieca. It is as tlough objectlood alone can. than in previous work. or a blank sbcet of pap€r. as almost an)'thing is today-iD_ cluditrg a door. Literalist sensibility is theatrical because.u.otiti"a What We Sdr?. . io retMse to. In {act.ot lte meaning in ttris contcxt o{ "the condition of non-art" is what I have bem cslliDg obiecthood. etrd spatial int€rval Minirnal worts are readable as art. with its many intemal relatioDships. if only from the per*)ective of rec€nt modemist painting. and Still lave $dg a nN ilnA bon simDly by @ntiouing it io its old ooe. .sd vh o. virtually by deGnition.MichoelFried 121 Arr ond Obi€cthood 125 as he r€ma*s in 'Recentress of SculPture.dist Dainting n' the lellditici$ mn. alt s $ch Or rathq. the literalist posiflon evinc€! a sensibility not simply alien but antithetical to its own: as though.to begin with.as an alt in its own dghtmodemist painting's self-imposed imperative riat it defeat or ruryend it! o1ralobjectlood tbrough the medium of shape. It ii in some rl. 'tbe borderline between art and non-art bad to be sought in t]te three-dimensioDal.g fu! to *.bove. The obiect is but one of the terms in the newer aestletic. which is arty by comparison ( and whcn I thinl of Tmguely I vould agree witl thi!).e. ar.€Ior6 chang6 @tilully Raihd. which is presumably arr 'inerd look that ofieis thc eye a miBimum of "interesting" inci_ aent-udike the nachinc look.h coinpdt @'victil. and the viewer's ffeld of vision.) For eole on thc oture of qscnce aDd cowondon i! the Eod@ist arr' sm ny A. Tbee Anarican PanncB.chs of Elod.alist espusal of obamounts to nothing other than a plea lor a ne*' genre of and theeEe is now the neeation of art.aDorc. indudes the beholdet: The better new work takes relationships out of the wo* and nek€s them a function of space. secure somethinds identity. with the v6sio.where scub truc was. One i5 more aware than befoie that he himself is establishing relationship as he alDreh€n& the obiect fiom various positions and under varybg conditioB of light ena spatial context. light. the tasL of tlr' is oot somdthiDg ireducible The scD@ oi Dliltirs those @veDtions that' nt E givcn o@etl modmist paiotq G to dis@q zlotu a( i.cn.6tv of Pitlsburgh PB in a v"l e'r.pp€.5 !o clai6 tlat thrr ing. Ne\ lhis p6iti@ when he sd& cErb|. of suc. or tle art of psilting' r\ $bush rhet art is ro lo"ger *hrt ortitutcs mstitutes goo. of nodehisn put foMrd in nr o*i". 'Itere is. and where everything material that was not art also was Creflberg goas os to say: The look of machinery is shunned norv becauseit does not go frr enough towards tbe look of non-art." Instead. trinrf"r. so to sp@I. 6 well s Slanlev Cav'll _\lsj. The qu6tion nN a'lcJ att. a table. of BlablDhitg }is wol's idodtv 6 P. legetv dete@ilcd bv' aD'l rhat *hi. . in aDy case. at least as neitber painting aor sculpture.oabl.. it is conwitb the actual circrnnstances in vhich the beholder enliteralist work." the 'look of lon_art s as no longcr available to paintin8. Morris makes this explicit. Dh@bpo.hed as oan oi a 'vmno. onditios what ih@ midn l dd. there remain tle telations and interelatioDs of surface.' but raths sbnt. Rolhlo.This is Dot to sy that paiDti. r*i"s B. . the vltal work of the reeDt pan' ihe.€€ding a pan't_ it .ays oD sl"llJ r'.J OliL'ki nentiood . a sba4) contrast between the literalist eso{ objecthood-almost.Fjs e-xn{Fi. ftorn the perq:ective of rec€nt modemist painting.i nriieia C"vdl s Dies will als lppcar io LxJ -". antithetical to art? answer I want to propose is this: the lite. Still' no matter how simple the object may be. cotrtour. incra\inrlv rend\ to dis. if not as non-aft. what h th' sch-btrt what inedDcibly ulbnale source of valuo or quolitv i! an?' But I *ould argrre that what mo(l' an ot Drnrt @n5titut6 €mnm hd\ mennt is tltlt lhe two qucstiorwhat no loneer sepedbler tle 6r'l 'hc con\tilutA ced p"intiog?-.D€." inc? .r' into the s@nd (I am 'n Ai"*nn-^. ind neioind6i to cnti6 of thlt e$v' to b' FUI' X. . or as though. the demanAsof art and the conditioDsof obiecthood are in drrect coLflict.intios' Ar it rdls to Ee.

bur ot th..edni.ncewh.. unitary character. does not mean drNt . an objcct." agaiDst which thc appc.F pad ot rh^ obj. But it docs not follo( thrt tlte l:uger the picce thc mor' securely its -publii' character is cstablished. oru bodies. \g. one might al_ rr). tsnt th.F to f.l intt..' becomes the loaded term.r tr is nor. \hi.rng.l tems.l.! ance o{ t}ie piece Irom difierent ponns of vje\\' is constantly bcir{ compared.r.rn cnlironnrental sihration is being estal) lished.rctorero lhe.. rur_ rotrnded by things. IessimporlJnt.. .r.rt p0F.Fn rhc tso siatcs igairs: onF is.Michoel Fried 126 Ad ond Obiedh@d 127 Monis belicrcs tlat iliis a\rarcncss is hciglrtcncd by "thc shengd) ('1 the constant. Or rh"r flungs rr. 'ln yond a ceta size the object can orcnYhcln and dte gigantic sc!I.hotderi ir . Brt rhe thirgs thar llre litcralist works of art fDusr som€how confront tbe be. rrorth remarhne rhar -the cnrrre sihrahonmexns y rhat.dn.ljrtc ot ntri. is no ct.ol litFHli\tart. on the contrxr!..s noteol in Jny $2] th.m. prescn.thnrg but Lard and hst: For the space of th.I tlfk.rl. tbat structurcs tl! nonperonal or public modc llnich IIoris tdlocatcsl. the gestalt. betveen thc sobject and thc object n inplied in such 8 con)pili The larger the object the nore Fc uc forced to leep our distatt. is bai.dc.tsi\cd |r\ pan o[ thrt (iruation..sum(n. ot dreobjc.ed..the pmspn. pr.r.nigg.lto is hav. .cr..(t\ or Ly si..rrge scale of much litcrnliil TLe artareness of scale is a furction o{ tl)e comparison nrx(l.. tt.t hc rut.tuL]ing. ge.i"l(om.. bod\ .t $i.ef mttr".. IIo\\eu'l it is just this distancc bctlveen object and subject that creat( s I more extended situation.ph1\i7.bli\hFd in n "xJ on whn h th.equircs a certanr Idgeness of scnl(. mrrl.lrx\ I.must remain the centeror Locus the of rilua. of a/u. non.rns. pres€ncc.pingol rDcspacc\rrro.. Lur in his u1ly. E\cryr]ing (ouol\_not.ir snuatron.ry..rcc of thc room bccomes of such importan(. jrr Furlhcrmor.'roLiFcthood t.Spr(.cn\.. Ir:ost indicatcs lack of interestin the obiecr itsetf. pvcnrggrA.iD. Controt is n.1 qu*Irv_ r tind ol or st?g.. It is-.laresirs irclF\anc" ro the srruanon. mode seemsobvious: tlre largenessof thc piccc.riu*o" k atra. \'Lich ..iabhs of objecr tighL space. .i o t_LF b.sj t}c bcholder-not jtFl phlrically but pslchicallr.ontro c.rl spacc is LopeftrlJy altcrcd ir ccrtain desired wn!' Ly lh.on_ trary..'nDs of the kind of conrprcssion diferert sizcd and prcportioned room can efiect upon the object-subjc.d dt aUis lor it ta L. concerns _a norv are tor nrore conrrotof.e. bchotdcrr-t.iFni $ oflil. It n..ei\.ercly becomelcssself nnporranr. in a:pdcF wirl.hotdcr_thcy must.1.ioo but the \ifuariooit-e[ belona. b.6 nor hcmr./ lac lhcrc is norhingsirhin hls 6eld . dir. nr(t lo andlvr.Jstpa.s.rupsrion. oDe's body size.rtion $ hrchils obi*rlhood e. nr order thai it be seen at dl. 'lhe obtect. thc enrire sftuatior.s the bcholde.hotder _ir r" /. Durasp€rtor the siiu.ndrd tl. It is this necessary.rirDie in .g rHi.Fre. y I thc:rb-ic. arc ro f. becaNe phrsical participrtion becoDr(* Th€ theatricalit-v of \lorris's notion of thc "nonpersonal or publi. th.. that he take it reno dy-and when tlic fdnllrent of that .d.h CrpFnbcrg $.cc(\rn it.t througl oLiectlrood.rnce of the objcct iD spacc fm'. prccisel)' this distrrtr ing that ." Uoffis \\'ants to achiel€ prcsen.not the behotder. to .t!v. It is intcDsiffed also b)' thc l.l h. one might s. not just of the ofrt. But he is ako avarc tiat this dis tinction is aDl.e \ ieq "r. The tot. knorvn shape. and on thc.. nther dian through size alone. is a function.tter dist.. in contunction lri(ll its nonrclational.lt .a.' iuir in h'sspx..r lhis..ing factor both in it\ crrbic shape and in t.Jtcr all.som"rhi. roon itself is a stnich'.o.That ihe sp.t hy _.. between ihat constaDt.. c Nonci.rin.nc.r.n ir dcmdrdr lhrL tlr.. pircrly thal thrt wor( c\lods trom lhe behotder.mc\h .ll?}..rndjnAt]. one is in a lrjrJl] st.r. cp.aror L\ hrrtl disrin. onc.\p.r.dn vr.ltvdppend.0s ir \. .5 rt. se. rrcnh.ralisr wo.i vision_norhing$. oren. Gp b.ror somebinq Irc fe. a subject and the piece in question .nro nc_ count. re ohic..t.ol F rrnrg ordi rc. and the ol)J'ect.:/4 ol_n .tt his . $ \toli\.

'e. smrlh hrvc brel lrlen frrm SJmuel W"q. First.. J. in somc*hat d:rkencd rooms-caD be strongly.r. Snnitarly. bcing distrnccd. a large rirgtiie torm in t\ro hatvei. bur in .It is. As \lorris's remarks irnpl}. thoseestablishcd thc ffncstpainf ing and sculptureof the recentpast. . i m intercst(J rhe inrrutrhility and myrertousness rhe in of lhing. that a kind of latent or hiddcn naturaljsm. Dec@brr 1966.1."Thc t\\o b\. Vol. Tftr Blat t tjor.rrarc of it and.rppealsto nrc.:. '.But.atnre.. a rudimentary p?desrril and thcrcbv rcinlorcc tlc statuelike qualty of the piece. thc size ol There are tbree matu retrsons much literalist {o*. disquietingin tustthis \\'ay.emsto.i *.i One \aI of drscribing shat Snrithlfrr m. Dir.124 An ond Obiecthood 't29 denand consists sinrply in bcing .presunably*idr th€ artists sanction. v. l: I \!as not makinga monument.ji are acting accordingly. so to speak. Q: nren shy didnt.Dh to hG Notcs on S. bn. .or ihat the! in of cvcn ffnd tolcrablc.nalnrg an objcct. issueof Artlortitr.llote arc hardl! nodcs of scnousncss shi. indeed anlhropomorphisn\lics rt tle core of literattst theory aod praclice.approachthe lit€.f order that "is simply ordcr . evcn se$ct. In fact. .obdumte.Lnd thfd. with fluorescent tight gto. i{ momentarilv.cntircly unlil.rt is srid to be a fairly ..-ou m:rke it smiller so that the obscr(c' could seeo\er the tor)? . $h.sonrthe cxpericncc comingupon literalistobjcctsunevcctcdl)of for cxamplc.iFm. -T.by the silent prcscnccof anotherPe. or croNded. r.r'.rtr". The .) Here aganrthe eriperience being distanced crucjal. I suggcst. narrow 8ap behlcer tnc t*o.oncept of presenceall but says as mrrch. And ir reveahsomethirg. tirough rarely so nakcdly as in Tony Smith'sstatemenr.it r.rty quured. In this contcrt Tony Sinitll\ replics to q(estionsabout his six-footcubc.Ilrns in Tuny Sm. sotid masses" (ltloris) b.{: I sas ot.. bcing dhtanced by such objects is ot. \torc dnd nrorc I've becomeinterestcdm ptlcmaoc strLrctures_ In these.ony cI b} ^'!':.Lrlpture.tlc titernl lst prcdilectionfor syrnmetry. rhough rhe work in ns questjon has an inncr.ot l. then.amlikc qurliry for mc.rkingmight be so'nethnn likc a surrogatcpcrson-thrt is.]torFFriahph rrn.r thh is so. .rs v€ngeance-the fact rhat they are not . Iife-an eficct that is perhaps nade most e\dicir in \lonis's Unlftt".fours nre.ve\periencein ten. and set it ofi ir.. Secotrrl ) in the entitiesor beings cncouDtcred €reryda.t. didnt think.\'hich keep il tc from appeartuglikc rr(l)jtcdure or a monumcnt.norphic.rh.pc of Amedcan Smiths intered in pnoumaric structues may seemsurpnsing.opcn-cndcd-and rrne$cting-reltt tion dr flrlrlcc-tto dre nnp:rssneobicct on tbe (all or lloor.llll oI the materialis in rension.' is rooted.nr{ I.rtthe lorm: rl. Arrt tur'. s Hc h. No. .alisr idealsof thc noffelationnt. Thc Lionorptric forms that res r from the constnrctioD have i.not. in e{ect.ving t-^ *itnn .sult rr.rn. as numemus commentato$have rcmarkd approviDgl].e.lart 2 ' lhrt most closel]. (This reading6nil' supportin the crr)tion to a photographof anotherof Smith'spiccc\. a kind of st. publishtd h the December1967 ol' shicli Samlrcl \\'{itstif.rlqohF"n qlored rs sryin$. about what holownessmeansin literalist art th. In rhc same spirit Tony Smith has srid.. as Judd M.ommon t).ing nlJtrr?r/ on instcad of taken for granted. . But it is the characterof the fonrr that . Onc'carr thc h!o-b) fours undcr thc piece. Q: Iihy didnl you 'nakc it ltrgcr so that it $ould loom orer t|. one thing aJteranorher.s . sculpturc.t ( 1965$6). Quotdi by ltoris rs tl)c epigr.bclier.- I am suggcsting. .. of coursc.I think.in new phitosophicatand scientific pnnciples. mmpares fairJ' clorcty $ith that of thc human body.ibility Pncumaticstructurescan be describccl holov witb a Senerally.f -I rhe.r. at least Iike Nb. lhe unitary and the vholistic arc orier persons.1 sened. *e appar hc cnt hollos'r1css rrost liteirlist lvork-the quatiry of having an of /mirte-is alrnost blatantly anthropomorphic.lr. whatev-er takestheseto be.. ..(Certain modcs of scriousncss closedto the by beholderby tle work itself. and in seneralfor a kind. thc beholderknorvshimsdl by the Nork nr qucstionsccrns to stand in aD indcterminatc.bur it is consistenr both lvith his own rvork anrl wittr literaiist s. rre highly sugge.h nrosipcople feel at home. Jr.

llolris. as anthmp. In this conn€ction Tony Smitht dcscnptioo of a car ride takcn . no way to'frame" his ex?erienc€ on the roa4 that is. I dor'i \vDt mt *ork to be thoueht of ar 'large sculpture. tl@tdc-rlity.{lit\.ith the tumpike as ereenenced fmm within tle car. Th€ condete approach is three sixteeninch steps. Il. Oldobd& Flavin..Vost paintiDg looks pietty pictorial after tlat.l Ne$ Jersey Turnpike. . created *'orlds without haditioD.The road and mtch o{ the landscape was atificial. and colored lights. It is theatricality that. you just have to expedence it. auowed gigantic scale [to become] the loaded tem" (Monis' with odrer. There rvas.1 these stdtdots to wlrt I harc. Rrnschentrrs. Snithe. There is no way you can fram€ it. I thought to myself. Altificial landscape without cultural ge. so'nclvherein thc llfe.' drcm.1 Iil"!... Lewitt and. loo." The r. This drive was a revealing experience.rdowsto Nes' Brunswick. fumes.) There is no suggestion b. Surealist landscapes.rf of it.as it merely alon. The experience on tle road was something mapped out but trot sociall!' rec{gnized. Kienlot. *.felt frec to chanctedze the modemist art they oppor. he seemsto have felt. lines. of incurably theatrical.onventional. one might say.. e. ADdre. Lave jrrst been pulled.It was a drll rli the c. however. morc rcstrained fgurcs like Judd.{hat is !$ror11 with lit€ralist work is not $at jt h antluopomorphic but that tlr meaningand.) The crucial disti^ction that I an ptoposnr: so tar is betlDcen $otk tlnt is frndanentallg theatical ond :trotk that ir nor. se€ms to have beea revealed to Smith tbat nislt was the ial nature of painting----€ven.thc Iist 6uld go on indefnitely.? both of rvbom bar. but its eFect was to libente me Irom many of the viervs I had had about art. By thc sametoken. Ho$ do you m.ncc for ihe thdtn. but punctuated by stacks. but as announcing itr end. at least as art then rvas. lnst sprins's Primary Stncturcs cxhilttion at thc lc\nh LlNeu.n night on tlle New Jerscy Tumpike before it rvas ffnished rnakr compcllingreading: \l7ben I Nas teaching at Coopcr Union itr tle Grst year or t$o (. KrNma . travellng on it-art appean to have struck Srnith as rlmost absurdly small ("Atl art today is an art of postagestarnps." The latency or hiddenness of th€ anthroPl. all but unstructured tumpike-more ple . It seemedthat there had been a reality therc that had not had any expressionin art..t operrtc in thc slace bchveeD lloor Dd eiln.ddtrced d evid.. moryhic< chiracterization *'hose teeth.lnt $pL.s. .thood l3l night and tlere w€re no lighs or sboulder markers. (The experience problematic i$ any way. links artists like Bladen and Cmsvenor.e..In comparbon &e unmarke4 unlit.g. as $r. ... And this Smith seemsto hav€ understood not as laying ihe ess€trc€of art. On the other hand. something thrt bad Dothing to do with any function.lm. nather'you just have to e{peri€nce it"-as it hd?rpant. and let it couldnl be called a rvork of srt.. ond Obie. whate!€r thc diferences bchvc. at least iD the hands of its most distinguished recent pracdttunr.taloluc tr.s And it is in the intercst.r'e @m\ obvious. is what matters. Scgrl. no way to make sense of it in terms of art. the convention of art.though not evlicitly in thc nam€.levancc . Gac*en. equally. the u'<rk of lesser ffgures like Steincr s'elrs anthropo morphism oD its sleeve. The experience is clearly rethat this is garded by Smith as wholy acctssible to everyone. not iust in priDci- . . that links all tiee artists to otld ffeua d dislaftl.. Bladen \rok. Later I discovered som€ abmdoned ai$tdps in Europe-abandoned works.." has said).1 theatre that literalist ideoloey reiectsboth modemist painting nxl. thc sculptures he 'ahvays" made] as scrlptues but r{ gesences of a sort. I took three students and &ove fron.. morphism has bccn such that the literalists ttremsclves have.. rimmed by hills in the distalce. or anything at all exc€pt the alark pavemcnt moving through tb€ landscape of the Bats. the sculpture of Dartd Smith and Anthony Caro.ke rhe i'snlc rhe outlid€? ard Cn^ veDor. cdEll..despite thc ske o{ some of his pieces-Torrr Smith.1 the lifties. imaginary to bcgin i!itl. it ought to be clear that's the end of art .' thet rn ideai th.\ modemilt sculpture.130 them [i. ChnJto. havc seen. (Not aI Literalist art hides or marks its anth(' pmorphism. to make . Tbe entire ffcld is €nclosed with high embanlments and towers. There is a drill ground in Nuremberg la€€ cnough to accommodate two million men.r. r3ilings. as Kaprc\!. r lt i. ckcumhe scribe4 . S. sorirconc told me ho* I could get onto tbe unffnishr.. it did somethiog {or me that art had never done.€dent began to dawn on me.) nn l !r. At frst I didnt loow what it was.. the hiddenncss its anthropomorphisnar. . towers.one above th€ other stretching for r mile o! so.

5.Robe Modll Unlirled. In lhe colleclionoJ Robe Rowon..ph i".k'Y 'r Fi"hb".N". Tony Smnh: e slocl sox.x 3.srdph coudesyof tea c. phor.tO. surso . 24' x 96. Jules Oliiski. dionelel In lhe colledion of the Dwon Golle. phoiosr. 1965. 1t67. 2%.y. 1963_65 Pointedwood..hG"lr". Aluminun poiored vith ocrrtic resin.14. Pholosrophcoudesy of Andre Ehmerich Ga .nelti Goltery. Grdy tiberstoss wirh lisht.v. x .

that tbc olject did jn the closed roont is above oll the erdlssncss.rsistence. the imperrtive drat modemist Finttng defeat or suspend its obtccthood is at boftom thc impcratile that it. airstrips.By the sametokeD. perhaps. of s?ericnce.chrre as backgroundand rcferencc. real need existsto allow this nc\1 stcp to becone prrtical. dircct and primitive ei?cricnce of thc High Court Buildhg xr Chandigarhis likc thc Pueblosof the Sou$\rest under a fantasti. it is a space. or rather. and that the riqhtnessor relevanceof on.and drill ground revealthe th€airi cal character literatst art. Nloreolcr. that is to say. tbc sitDrtionc*abtishcd by Snith's presen. any circumstaDces cxtremethan tbese)."It is. . the morc superfluous the efiectivc ns fhedlrc-tie rvorks thenNelves become. It is thr cvlicihre$s. d)at I can harilly fril to Dotice ii).MichoelFried 134 Ad ond Obiecth@d 135 ple but in fact. and the questionof lehethcr or not one has realh . and drill gound arc not works of:rt.without arcbit. however. and Morris does not sccm to be advocatingthis. or sane question another way. overhangingclifi. . hardly necessaryto add that thc availability of Dodemist art is not of this kind. On thr one hand. Nholl}' nah|ral contcxt. the approachor on of rush or perspectn(. And thrs means that there is ir s'ar going on between thcatre and behseenthe theatricaland thc pictorial-n war modemistp. place.however. I think. This last poht b important. if not empty. \\/hat replaces the objects}lat does thc sa'nc job of distancingor isolatingthc beholder. indeed. ) The starbess snd apparent ineconcihbility of this connict is sometlring nerv. it crn olten lc substihrted for rhe word 'irEce" in the latrer: $merhi.rdl it doesnot ariseThat this appeals Smit! can be seenfrom hN to praisc of Le Corbusier as 'more a€ilabld' than Michelangelo: '"Th. 1ri|horl oI the att itself-as though the obiect is nccded only witlin x roon" jD (or. is not to sry t\at beforc tlc Prcsent siturtion came into .Linting.In cach less of the abovecases objectjs. the for eriample. sonder tr{olris'sspcculations nlistwork outdoorsremair str. the sherr I The (oncelt of r roon n. derclict.ienceof the work itself. thc tumpike b) tle mnstant onnlsh of t}lc road. that is. But what oar Smidl'se)ipericDce the tumpilc? Or to put th.shes the experienceitself as something like thrt of an object. wns a ptrticrL it sensibitity. that.and discloses.oclusive: Why not put thc work ouklools rnd frdhcr change the terms? . scnse the turnpike iLselfas sonr thc of thing enormous. not basicauya Datter of programand ideologybut (For example. ai$trips.tDralforms ldeally. or 'abandoned.l Smith's conviction that painting in fact. mostly clandcsiinely. airstrips. despitc thc literalists'explicit reiection of modemist painting is and sculpture. 1 remarkedearlier that objecthoodhas becomean issuefor modemist painting only vitlin the past several years. ln fact. if t}lc hrrnpike. shat ore the]. abardoned. ^s him from outside (on the tumpike from outsidetbe. sristing for Smith alone an(l for those in the car with hiln.rng+ in. and drill gound belong to no onc: on the olher.y. This. tecturalh dpsigredstulpturc courls nk sol lhe Jl|s(cr nor is the placementof *'ork outsidc cubic archite. of about hov to put liter No obiecthood. in each casebeing able to go on and on indefinitrlr is of the essencc. a conviction that begnr{ and cnds in onc's expe.4. lar expcrienc€ that engend€rc. or obicctlessness. imDoitant to liicirlist art ald thco.ed s.that vould give diferent tenns to vork with Untcrs the pieces are sct doNn in . what might be of absencc the object md in *hat takes its of ca ed the tbeatricalitJ.€is in earll casefclt by him to be ftir. is always opcn n..s conviction about speciffc modemist s'ork. It's somethinge\eryone can understand. the tumpike. conviction.Irf"ar or susPendtlreure. that the arts as such verc ffnishcd. Arch. sitrotions? And \rhat leas Smith's cxpcri enceif not the expcrience rvhlt I have been calling tftealrc: It is of as though the tumpike. objccthood. only ilithout the object. thl on simultaneous rcccssion ne$ reachcsof dark pavementillumnred of by the onrushingheadlights. . so to spcak.r"plrrs{/by something.g is sanl ro be in or s!{ce if it is in the sdc sith Dc '@a {and if it is pla.of rnaking him a sul)iect.dt) thnt simult$neously males llim a subjcct-makes hi]n subicct-and establ.? What. prcscntsitself directed at with whictr the experience p. Smitn"s accomt of his expe ence on the tumpikc bears \sitness to preciselyin the theatris profoundhostitityto thc arts. somc sort of artiGcial l)ut not quite Architcctural setting must be constructed trVhat Smith's remarks seemto suggesl is that the more effective-meaning setting is madc.

.rled in senina! tl..or sculptures that .g three dimcnsionat. violnist no*nary lltrb'son.n.n n.the more nearly assimilablcl. both for thlt i'.. I sill ia}. its The view of tnodemist pairting as teDding to\yard obiccthood i' implicit in Judds rDrnrk. cisclt.ss hl gntitude antl indcbtqlncss to the comDoscrJ. n. architechral.itloot numcro$ .ompound obl..d.lengths of piping.or as the fact thlt it is rhrr word or rtis note and not snothcr rh/t o.ll its ing or suspe.Jl . that mattcr is incorporeal. girders.l me]t of tlc litcral charrct(.semblcs Loth ordinarv objccts and lfteratist work in a wav that printing docs ot.€. vrluc only oitlnr modctnist !.n th€atricd tem$..g: mn€l!. tjrtion aDd {or ndrerous sishls bearins oD dre subjmt of thn essay. Boston.c or Drclody. for Objcctbood has also become an iss. the idcntity of er.r tha..' sien me \'!ateve.okcn. in the fo .t to. lg(jt. rh. entire history of paint'Dg sincc \{mct could bc urderstood(though ulli delusn'e\'. That this possibjlity began to prcscnt itsett around 1960 \'as lnrgely tbe result of dcvclopmcnl\ \rithin modemist painting. mdo its obiecthood-more precjsely. aDd exists onry opticaly. r.zlly resisrant bcins seenin term of objecthoodthan to 'nore that of David Smith.'Ar. /ridfolidl-esscnceby defo.rath.'ro" .rd comc to seem.) objectscertain advancedpainting h.t ond Obiecihood 137 being. paintings. or rhis aml..al.hose Nork is far sp"c'f.igrificrnccon onc rn) 'tr Th. {or It would.s rrcft is an irti\tic \'.o.curs in I particulr FlacF in a scnt.t is 'ot lndrledse 6e facr rhat s. p.. Jrzlg. the prst fcs r?a6. br l sensibilitya/r.\lnost ten yees ago Clemenr creenberg stmmcd up \r+at hc saw as the cmergenccof a nerv sculprural "$tyle. hut th. be closcrto thc truth to saytbtrt they sttrplU $1'rr' not. alrcady (to say th€ worst) corruptcdor pencrted b! tic)tf. The mutual infcction of one element by another. inio modem music I lEve hail.bei.n\at is.wine To render srbstance entircly optic. rhis oppornnrilv to r. 14.e..Iv thcrl Iical.h. sculphrral. I $rnr .cylinders.n objccthoodis not jusr developments inrernal to itselJ./e onc by lhe listoD of t}it eln Snnilrrly.ndiDg o$r objccthoodthrough the tnedium of shrp. t-. that litenlness .l'|.Literalist sensibiliryis.naiter. and Ni$oui \\Ial I hale learled frotu him in colrrc\ lll semn.c for modcrnist scutpture.. t Sianlc)_Cavell ias r. ifu prcspnt essar-and rot it alone\onld hat br. ]'his is ttue dcspitethc fact that sculpture. but it i\ nearer L) painting'j and it is in tlis \'ie\I that literalistseDsibility gcncral I in grounded.the sanredcvclopments r.{nrhony Caro. therefore.n thc possibility.I believe as consistn.on\nlerations: nnd implicd that liter.r response the tarr to developnentstlat havc ldgely compelled nrodcmist pAinting 1.13 6 A.lik€ a miirgc.t thc incrersingl) cxplicit aLdnoslr. and form.ntral to thc dereli. sheermetal.of sccing\lorks of a]t as rollr ing more tban objectsdid not exjst.cnt a $ork of a. 1One (ay of d€soibnrs this vieN misht be to ey that it dr. wllerher pictonat. (The ideniity of each elementmattels in some\!}af thc sameway as the fact that it is an arm. samegeneral.thi'' ' likc r false infer€nce fron lle fact th.r nrg.$s som. In shape as Fon I argued thrt tljs iifcrur{l blind to ccnain vital .i. I think.tland tl! more urgcnt bccarnethe need for Drodcrnist painiing to make (\ plicit its coDventioml speci6call). that makes a particulargcsture.ulpturc..r1. nd Crftzr.g the progressive in mately inadcquatc) revelationof its cssenti:l objecthood. is shat is cmcial-though of courseatte ng the identity o{ any elemcnt rvould be at least as drasricas attcring its placlment.rr\.1o Tlle dsk.!. \ew Sc.Thc individurl .onvosations sith Cilcll duri.cnveloping. The ne$ [i. e!c.'l ' Harbison.rn uncompelhrg and presencetess kind of thcatre.{ chaJacte*ric sculptureby Caro consists. what has cornpclledmodcnist painting to dcfeat or sus_ pcnd its oll.ct ttiat they composc. i{. nriiirln."Nhosemasteris undoubtcdly Dlrlid Smith.e obie(t\. aDCl grill that it conrprises rathcr than in the .rl Since 1960 dis developmenthas been crried to a succession of climaxcs by the English scutptor . stnply te. . \rho.l.It rras the nced to break the fingersof this grip that nrad€ objccthoodan isstre modemistpainring. in the mrrturl and nakcd lufr?posriionof the l_beaDs..Iiffercntlq.lso lo c\pr.rxr '4 in obicci. (nnt in ihe Criii.lncss-more r)i. thc litcralness of the suppo -n. of supreme importa!. \yeighdess. toFeilFr \nl his $ifc.as an intcgratpart of anbicnt space_ or thjs brirss anti-ith$ionismfirll circle. . literalist] sork obliourh resembles sculptuc more than it does painting.nfecrious thcatricality rhat cor_ rupted literalistsensibilityin ihe Arstptace and in the gnp oI which llrc developmeDts quesiion-and modernistpajnting in general_ in orc s€en as nothing more than . melt of moder sr tannn. I wirnt to say.we rre now ollcred rhc iltusionof modatitics:nanet). Insterd of the il ion 6f things.the lnore t|.r of the sutpod has b{u. l'. Roughly.. and tio oDly bcclnse it hrs bccn .nrFnr.l.

lncss such-as though thc as possibilit-v neani'rg $hat tle say and do alore makcs his sculp.s revealed ihe eltent to Nhich melclt' pntting somethnrs on a ledestrl . makes Carot arl a fountainhead of aDtjtitemlist nnd . thoush not a great de. \\nether applied or in the natural state of thc materi.and closelooking rcveah Aecksand cven thin tricklesoI grccir ond red as s'cll. nrmrIy.. scnscnrcxtricablyinvolvrd wiih the conccptof mcaDing.n.absenceof enclosingpro0les arxl centers of interest..r. dveted togctherand then spLayccl $ith painr of diftcrent coloF..etc. initating. rrhich I cannot hope to do nore than touch on hcrc. of ture possible. placedupright.t objecthoodachievedby opricalt. color hasbecomeproblernatic modemistsculpture.{nd of cou$e $hai dectares esrrblishes or that s'rrfacc is color.t-makes Bznga. or anay.is ryork $ithout arfiffcial anh so nuch as bt tle need nl undernj!€ jts o|jeldrooil. 'lcpcnd cvident than wirhin thearre itseu. consists .bout color nr sculptlrc. .s a"d of vrious diam€ters. it n hardly necessaryto add. This clain crn bc l.rDd unlike both ordinary objects aDd other s.vor mitigate the undermining L3lhi\ rnd tle follo\ing rem. Banga. on mdical unlikeness nature.s. that to thcatre and theatricality are at ear todal.d\ir.. Rather they defeit.el! to on Ih"ir abilitA to tlpl"dt ltratrc Tti\ i\ tFrtrtp\ Iowh.it niakcsmcanbg. It is in this conncctioD. 1\ith moderDistscnsibitity as such. sfr. unperpicuolrsress. . in Caro.l morc. llk work l. ll tlis.. but bccause color of the a €!i1en sculptDre.by their sy'rtar as well.st seclion of hy "Shape is Fom for mor€.t in tlvo clifiercnt l.rdnrfing -rs a mednrm o{ scu]pttre. and. cspecialy thoseof tbe pasr ycar or so. it !mo.is identical \\ith its surfacei and inasmuchas all objccts havc su acc."'3 .each of which orc rces. morc gcneral res?ect in Nhich oLjecthood hrs be.) circumscribes thc yery bottom. Obviously. of gestuei like c€ rin Drusicand poetr\'.r 'omFtbing morcrhan.bes. they arc posscsscd the laoslcdge of thc hurnan body and hor. honever. metal h. thonsh mqcl) (.moying the pcdestrl does not in itself undemine objcthood.rl Bnefl!.rtionto iis audience. in which he hrs workcd with paint and bmsh at or near the limits of the support. of Caros sculpturcs. that lhis is a {unction of norc than the lo\!. ..)t bctlveen fffteen and h'enq.ontra it in its objocthood.Brng.but the top and'icar" of the piece are sufirsed with a dccp rcse.s sur_ frce rnore like that of a painting ihan 1ik€ that of an obiecr.but the efi. No other sculptor lras gone as fur from thc structrral logic of ordinarl ponderrblc thnrgs.{rts l.Michoel Fried 138 Arr ond Obie<thood r39 il othcr prccisclyby virtuc of thcir jutaposition: it is in this scDso. Therc is another.lucs (one at the'flont" and another at the . This is a large and dimcult sub. 'lakc rr attcmpt to estabhh surface-the sur{ace.rhat a vcry recent I xrrlpture.!n" itu t.d. tio.iir Greenbergt view./r}uo*.Caro\ conccntrationupon syntax anrounts.. rvherc tle necd to rteleat 'rore N.ccl. .roken do$T into rhree propositions or thes€s: lr Tl. Bungd relates fitiDately to Olitski's spraypainthgs. not gestu(\ exactly.{D(l to Creenberggoes on to rcmark. \rhile a much ihinner ban. objec$ood b1. to speak.n arim.cnt arts can be described as D|odemist. N litcrrliir rlsee Creerb€rs s Anrhony Cxro'and th€ l.by JulesOlitski ought to be scen. n rather widc red band has bccn paintcd a..evercmphasizing. Anihon\ Cdro. not simply with modcrnist t)aiirting (or modemist painting and scutpture). nrtion of th€ !c(lc!tx]. 1965. thc oh!).uncl lho top of the piecc.pr sirrpl) lo ur "lran'latp his prinring\ into s. ren feet b. secmsiD retro\pcct to }ave h..opelness. incrcditrly.hat I have been calling theatre has chiefly made itsclt felt as the nccdto establish drasticaltyditrercntrel.arvacncssof the sculptrre'ssurfaceimplies its obiccthood thcrcbl thrcatcningto rlualif.pan-by-patness.spieces.tpnthe\u^ ol ol t tr ddr tn: .rcar.lrlpt.r'mc an issuc for the most mbitious recent modenist sculptur and that is in regard to color. At thc sme tjm.not for because one senses thlt it hasbeenrpplted.rk irc taken {ron Greenbcrs's6say.(The a . Caros ftst stcp in this dncction. believe. Olitski s sprayed color.rl. but with arr As s'rch-rrd to the ertent rhat thc difie..rnlsro t.. .8.cn motivrtcd rct by lle d€sirc to p(scnt l. as /df-r}!at is. lhat cl('r\ thing in Carot art that is worth looking at is in its syntax. The usc of tubes.erthetess be nuc: lJi. ljkc F inting. vtl At this point I Fant to matc a claim rhat I cannot hopc to prove or strbstantiate but that I believe ne\.rsl is d/lsu ace. ness.. It is as thoucir Caro's sculptures esseDtialize mcaningfL. by in irnumcra]r]e$a)'s and moods.utpture."It is q'orili ho\\.rntitheairical sensibility.of so . flat but /o11e.rrF{. the doniinanrhue is yeltow to teuow_ o'nng€. to "r!l emphasiso abstmdless.

tFrol drc retllge morerccrrrrrcll.including frankly appaltingones.rctually alonc witn $e work at tbe tinle lt mrv sccm Par']' doxical io chin] bolh that literalist scnsibjlit) tlsPircs to an ideal of "somctliing cveryone can understand' (Snittr ) an.onc has merely to enter tlle room in *hich a Iitcmlist Nork has Leen p]accd io becorr that beloldcr. onc art th:lt.! failu.ot j$r the one b€h{een &e sciendf. s.l tu r m o d tfl i n g $ n \ c 'u u r n .grcsious<.ir ovn roorhbrushes nnd $ck". Here as elsewhere the qrestion of valuc or level is rcntral. Som.l. " l l y .hosc various essiys.li) !n audicnce it e fs lor one in a \\'ay the other arts do noti irl fact.s th.. i n .tre is a b€autihrlqtrestion.r r..illy ro rlc nuture of r h d i $ .l di[.-\oI slat riis .tur:'ll' I \bl nr sc€ t}is bo.tnrg tor hnn ADd nr.sagc lliss Soltns contends: An lclay is J s k n d o f j n . tlere on &rt I plc.cascshrdiesfor nn a$thetic.trc Nrt rot sim_ !l) tlre restrltof !i\ \la^Lsm. ! D e w m o J".m. hug. isolating hiD) sry.tr r n e r .as simi...t40 For thcatre ld.on!.s . and nore Esjc.but the Parador is or)ly aPpafent.tD"ti"""". i{ hc(). p. Dount ro per}aps the pu..\ her\t€cnit a. l i . lh. qurrJnt.n ti . i i i n a r r r h " r F .ir! hr dis.xlly presetr. rh.. .nn^l\ \. In .Ttis is the vie{ of Susu Sonrag.tlmost as though thc laork in qDcsiion has bccn uo. b)' its tery nature. the music oI Catcr and that of Cnee or bclNccnthr painlings Iouir dnJ dm:c ol R:rusch"nt.h Lle.e to resister thc enormous difierencc in rluality betlvcen. th'r h the novi"s tlc .h llrrcht felt ': l-h. p d i n t+ n o to n {e r fe e l th.tt audicncc of onc. . ioo. relevaDt texts e.onvcntionally acc€pred boundaria lave ihereby been chnllen{od: . lDs (allcd ancntion.There is. or I .1964.and that distin[rishes t]iose .' \h.elv.litcriry arustic..L plrtc Nithout hnn. ( h a r tuk.and poetrl. (Such isotati(n is not solitude an) more tlian such coDfrontation is It is the olcrcoming o{ ihentre that nodernist scnsil. distancjng him.'e.ibilly r h d .r)nenologyof rle cnrcDr that conccntrrted th| is ro. means lhat there is an importanl seDsenr $'lrich the $ork in qrrestion exjsts for him olonr.F. {t.rsDuch as liteirlist rvork rJependson the beholdcr.t \nlcll cirdrlated lt Nisr'r of coursrthat I foun(l t |id un. this mor€ than an)'tling else js $nat noderDitt sensibilitl fin(ls it sliould bc rcmarked that inhteraLle in theatrc generalt... u l r r . to the sort of rctuenbetury thnt loes into giriDg ar ac.in. . l. " i / i . sa]'. a kinJ of object e\inins. ?scdp's mosies.. cleD at its mostexperimental.. \'odd be cdremcl. . hve t.ans tl'e rcrl dislindions-lrehvceD musicand rherrrc in rhe first inst.n I rcrd Il..d tbe thcihe-e g.ally.cn if h.itten | \Iolc Dilc of \lanist phrs: bnt this I'r \l'rx I s.iliiy li ds most cxatting and that it expedences as the halln)ark of high art iD our time. 10 us.obstinatclv.eeD vaiting for him And once bc is n) tht is lo room thr: \ork refuscs. absorptionnot conviction meansthat the cinem . implosi!e.rl Ad dnd Objecthood 141 gdr€ral. i n r o h F d i n p i ! i n r .sculpture. ..rnce nDdbehveenpaintnrg sd theatre in the second-arc disolacedbv thc ijiusion Lbatthe lrdriers bchlccn rhe ans are in r_hc oro"..rctivities Irom the radicalty ditrercnt enterpriscs ol thc rnodemist arts. a . .th non rhc morns cscrpetlc. r'rusic. rE An .ntlarr. r r u T e n t.is rot.are acceptabte modcm.th.tr) and that tle arts tlerrsetves are at Iajt slidins towards some lind of ffndl. In tlis sese ihev are indeed the .henbcrg Leirg scnq ronccrtyl.d (eill trom us. nhor.tion to the sp€cturor' rDd !l.ers ol rh"t mi. t}ough a somc\rhat spccill one: thai the beholdcr is confronted bv literalist Nork $ithiD . situation ihat he eeeriences as hi. Becausecine 1a cscapes thcatre-auton'xti.b e e n r a . his djsco\(4 ot Nlnrss(rd' i. O! die.' cuiiures.d t.Jc. so to \perk ib I is thr screen not .*.. An kin( or ..Ilcrc an literalist afi.m u r .cd.{nversarion. l h .elarjon'nisht be lik.trc\i(lirrg Crlcll $eijfic tlysi. lrn tle d'nove. is 2) Aft degenentes ae it approaches the co rlitiotr af theata. colleck\l j.nd D.l that liic':'list rti ad..o l o l F.tut of a novie. 'I heatreis thc commondenominatorthat biffls a larse and sccmi'rgly disparatevaicty of activitiesto one another.Ns CrrritufI undeAt@dm! phJ's li.u ( h a n x. of couse.lc rirp. : .r nrr pla.odn. not a rnol"mist art. to ist sensibility whercasall but the most successfut painrjng.tn'.pn. fact tllat whrt is provided is a rctuge {rom the(lhc and not tt lfi"rnph oi?r it.d lo env".irabtesy:orhc\ii.rs in nRiD.ro This Lelps crplaijr \'ht molies nr theatrc eninely-thc \Ii. (e n d e d .tds are . .rpressio! of irhat I have ben callins thcatric. to let hiD alone-$hich it refusesto stop confronting him. in .l ". . For example.At the sarnctimc.rsredtime and againni hn \ntings on the.' n.srilbi \v"\.ot llilsi.pp 23_24) rNl liEu.r". tr lhtury or my oM. ll( automJric.c. . achicre i (\L r€l.rnd bny. c\..lresscsitsclf to the bchokler aloDc.]]n \lillctt.q F:!i l i h .l th ( m e a n s fo r p i J ! .{.\vh{rr.r h . possesses audience. asit \rere-it providesa rvelcomc and rbsorbiDgrefugc to s. Brecht and \taud. h " r J.t.. ho\\'e!er.nly srFctrtorf. it lur l. is not. \ \ a n d o'n .nsibilitiesat war vith theatre and theatncatity. ^"e$ Iork. AIJ.t it nisht Dexn: \\'tr.i6t lnteryrctation.lonl't |ut iinilnrities rn.r ! . oi rrumhlnrq iCage rnd Raus.thc ilD self is proj({.cst<eitanrly tle mo* . brr cmntov htln. r€l.c" and the .l scnlibiltv jn rccent criticism.rs d cvF comercros\'' lBrcJn on Th'at'r' cditc(l cnd t[nshtc(l b J.

oI of llng.l." js whether or not a given wor]( is able . It .and bound to it because remainsconstanrand it nrdivisible. One is thcn both ) frce of the shapeand bound to it. What lies ba twccn tft? a.s of tle m.$e expcrience lnth is one of oI rDdlessn€ss.cold-roled steel. for instanc€. sernus. lrd (a fayorite of literary irtelectu.ea'1itt'!lnl. ) The interestof a given work resides. either rccent inventions Most o{ the 1r'orktuvolvesne\\-materials. It is. uholly nuaningful. .We can. aluminum. tlrc conceptof utt itsery arc D. the frilo lous nrd t!r.the matcrial itself conlrort onc in dl its litcral_ its "objectivi!. Therc is something absurdin thc fact th:r you cango back to a cubein th€ s.and so forth. ll)]). Thercis M oLi. the i'bdurate identitr' of a speciffcmaterirt.e enie4'ns.ts is theatre. incxhaustibilitr. or alludeto arything.hoel F ied 112 A.aretar.t ond Obiecthood 113 fact the individual arts havc ncver been norc cr?licitly conccm(d with thc conventions that constihrte dreir respective essences..etivit)ro rl.accordingly.6nteDt. S'nitlis cube is dhdrs ot further interest. or thiDgsnot nsed beforc in art.plc)iiglas.ls) "high u(l "low' culium. Somethingobviouson tle face of it (like a washing machiDe or a pDmp) is of no futhcr interest.ti.t sce it in a sccond. $nnihr lcin trIoris haswritten: Charactefistic of a gestalt is rhat oncc ft is cstrblithcct all the infomution about it.eol)d.ia Judd's !iew. 3) Tlrc concep. as for literalist sensjbilit. Iike rhe rvholcncx o{ the shape. thc conviction that a particular painting or scub' ture or poem or pic.is calm and rcasrrring---qualitiesthat tlke ft be) ond pure utiliry. rcd and comoon brass. .Jutld himsclf has as nuch as Rctaovledgedthc problematicclurncter of by the literalistenterprise his claim. dcn iLn.cter as a Fhole nnd in the sheerspecfcitv o{ the matcridlsol which it is mad€.d dire.if is at not before the outset..tlv.. stricrty speaking.all that maiFor Judd.one nevcr feels ihat one has come to the end of itj it is inexhaustible. on/v ivithin tie indil)iLlua!ads. thesearc centrd to art. A Bcnningron earthens.v esting.. rtrcy arc usu rlly aggrFssne. but also mary stdblisheJ dislinctior' s'it])jn the uanl{l oI (ltrre itself t!!t bex!@n fod and. A tougher charge \rould be that it is merelyintcrcsting.lrr. sigDiffcart that jn tl)eir various statcments the literalistshare largely avoided the issuc ol vallre or quAlity at the sametime as they ha\€ sho\m considcrabl uncertainty as to whether or not what ihey are making is art li.denist d''r. being able to go on and on ler. I think. grd gestal! is cxhausted. rhe1.(One does not.seekthe gestaltof a gesralt. In a oI 'r(ss. Rrthcr. . is inexhaustibte.. largeness form.1l the one betwccD rrt" ard non-art . and d.ikc Judd'sSpeciffcObjecrsand MoEis's gestaltsor unitary forms. Vatedals vary greatly an(l arc simDlynlateri:rls-Iomica. .c} ue nrorc spccr6( Also. sinply statedor given or est:rLlished tho vcry outset.the nrateriats nor reprcs€nt. mon ulseDt. (Literalist sork is oftcn condemncd \ehen it i\ condcmncd-for being bonng. Free or relcased because the of cxhaustionof infomation about it. for example. A work needsonly to be irter gcnerally.rnd nothing rrc_ are -lnd what th€y arc ii not.\VhcreasNithin the modernistarts nothing slmrt of ronui( tion-speciffcatly. somethingthat is grAspcct or hrtuitcd or rccognized once and tbr all. for example. a of general suggestionof subsrancc.r. Ilas subttcty oI color. more purely motilaic(l l)v the t lt ned to perpetute the stand. th€I arc us.u!. . l. Tle same note is struck by Tony Srnith in a statement the first ientenc€ of which I quoted earlicr: Im intercstcd in the inscrurability and mysteiior$ness the of thing. its abseDcc anything bcyond itscu. .rds anil uht* of rhc higl lrt ol the pisl.rme way.. both in ils ch^r. It continucsto nourishus tim€ and time again. d. rvhat thcy are .rtc rir) ot ide Like tl€ shapeof the obiecr.c of music can or cannot support comparisorr with past wo* within that art {'hose quality is not in doubtmattcrs at all.sol q alitg anel aalue 'aruI to the enefi thtt o. do signify. generosity. e\€D da). They arc sp€ciffc.o elicit aDdsustain(his ) ters interest. 996 97) 'lhc tru$ is thit tlc dkln!{ion b€t{Ten ihe hivolos and tlE seriouebe. as $hapc. dc$c be their entcrpnsc rs an atteDpt to establisha nzlf art clocs not removc the unccrtaintyi at most it points to jts source.wo continueto r€ad it.

ll{l*.t sugserr p. l . .r h Jp . trmDu ror.. 6.(!hrr._.. " i b r h ( ..rhe heholJ.u.tbe jar and..n.ncc ot is x rcmpo-ralit). This ax'areness fur$er e\acerb..iff]" \n' 'r"mpr"or J sun"dr:'Idnd'c"pp rhc ri.nrsfa.trolr.. Jn d i m F " l j . i ..d n .ll.r ." Monj\. e ..v " .nrLn . benrgable to go on nnd on.r. l"::"j. (lrratron...lt for \.rehtood.on. .I.{ Jo.A.ft$ anodrei ). btrruse one has secn ir only fio"r rvhcre o. to liter. norJe.rherrner.{r.$..ruorti itvtJ is ttltoll.d b r d t .rhFab_. Ilere finall. .r l e r r }r . ] .s rl'oughlhe scnsc $hich.y6 and p.r {. h F t"u p r D . t .'ua b nu.r.. is central botl to the concepto{ inteJestand to that of objeci bood.S.$idr lhc endlcrsn:s\ jusl ot obi....essioD \umc.n r t..l. o m p l Fr c. otr thc. i . ll {r. too.rs Ttus prnoccunlion mr. T.re is xt..t n . p. drc ddkl nnrnxr of strch units in N giver licce n fch to bc .r o _ i i . ri b .. . . arr(l tle prcsentment endlessncss oI that.replJy .with the thtratkn.. as if apprehended in ar inffnite pcrspccrive .i .1r.. n . tnar srd( q\hc rh.tu'Jrmetrpr. ^mpl.r ar rlJ. **...si€l timils as neler l).ulprur. . the fact..t dillcrenc$ bctrvccn lit._ .ndrrrh LrJ ru. rhc ::1-:-.. crn ir" .i s paintnrsr a.t coc. i .trLV. In fact.:.. .bur f.r.as well as his remark. b!.. Ones expcrience r Caro is of not incompletc.. r q . Once ngain Smitht accountof his night drnc is rclcvant. t c \ . r ri r . nnd th€ pje. bas stated erplicitly.an ..b.LthoorlI. tEcomc dr. \Ioreovcr.. rir\_h.y .ence ol thc objcct....to nor (o.riFrflp. . tllt ih€ importan€ of tle paint.that is.ir'nr paintnrs.c". ( s . p r j l n . J {n ...'J rr. for. 1 1 . \roreu\"!.i n r .rr!.F. and onc's convicrion as to jts quality is not sus pcnded.rti{ se.nif. .{alist rvork tnd mod.r. r r $ l l o F?..t in rt.1 ri .nn.'rrss of his situation.r.. or .1p'aent n "--l . cites n.svielv o{ the u"l b"r$e.nr?.the cubel nr a second."1 1 n .r. recordsthat cxciteDentall hul e\plicitl)'..ir!tune(l xrrrffdJ o S r r ..to-.€ t\ro oblios.. -is.rted whai might be called the tnclr is by sio.h :. or (ut into. h Suft rtnl rrJinbns .1 to r .o Bo.n ns r frnsmL.tp ..d tndJnr . Don.eb .rddres.\ rJir J.ft.i J.n.n i n .r. n 6 n . " d .rt.rtu.otxtFs 'l fiirn. ttr e ol ".ry'... too. rr.nor tr.rl of aDd thc bcholderis made awareof the endlessness ine\haustibility l1 not o{ the object itself at any rate of his er?edence of it..b€ing rhrPc dimFr.rt oI..r'.c..n c/ th r t lllll ". at holtom.nire.. . .ot bccruse o"c ln //ca erpdiences a pichrre by Nolanrt or Olitski or A scutprurcby frrvid Smithor Crro in no tn. c o )"* l u r s o r l m r s r ( 1 n b . r .i n.n.p U .. Notadi and Olilsl.or. Similarlv. because nny fullncss rldt is tlre inexhaustibility not oI is cndlcts thi art bui becauscthcrc is nothing lhcre io e\haust.. turj.yrnc thal sum. someihing infinitely hrg.rd]smnti( *Iy rr. .11Idrlcrehy j. eliample.t. lbrris's clrnn that in the best nerv rvork thc is rclationship: beholderis made arvarethit "he hnDself establishing ns he apprchcnds thc objcct fronr various positiorsaDd rndcr v.es \. l . thal everlthing he obsenescountsas Dart of that situationand hcnce is felt to bear in someway that rennins undennedon his expc. continueto read it.ur nor ot rjrr. r i .\ibit\. $|lich ha madc isclf r$poNible fo.ndi..e itselt-despitc the Lteralist pr6€Dtation Nith sholi\ln fomFis s. x. :.. o t u t. o J...k .1 Jn I rh" . to tng conclitions light rnd spaiialcontext"amounts the claiD th.i i.1l'ry. atrd dill€r€nt..\!r. .. up |.rf.\'ay roadmight be: if it wcre circDlar.. FaF nr nr.i ]lll l:"J:..rl.hpr..\ to literalistsensibilit)..rati\t $ort ind moJcrn.dcs.d j . evenha\iog to go on an(l on. Tljsish eot \culphrrc..n.. .. n J .oilnr hdnd.n. ts phr.h.rrr.\t tF ll'c ob! i. .e .fnttrr.tf n .."". A r J n n .li::'i ....rlrsrrudprLF. 9 I n r.v.r"n. L i Jcn n e tr i \ su r . r . i l ' h . The erperienceof the rvork necessarill existsin time' thoug} it *ould make no difierenceif hc bad Dot rs Tlat is. \ rq.and that liicralist artistsseekto objcctify in thcir work-for exanplc. drr: J !n. ""1':' I .r. i t : . ntuItlnco1lsll 1q)_ roaching drl recetlin{:.r.(hrdrhr. by tlc rcpetition of identicalunjts (Judds oD| thing .Fp . \j n S.pup.rur. *. I barc bcen cliimiDg.n r a L i { t..orrrp ..e.mpr-.r r i Fl tb m ^l trdrior6_'l.oJ rime borh passir€ and to come.rL.!.r I.rR."trVecan't seeit [i.i.o .d rro. r/.ion.r.o. pr. It is il this conrcction. trh.ir: rs !rsh Lhr"tre..c bod.\per!f. trnry.olllr .nnmr l:i: la"T"r. 1! .".. lli\ i or of thc most importu. r Tu n y Sm i r l l .n .rlt t ieru. oDcs erperienccof rhe laftcr lz ro duation_. irr .r th. a trndlcssncss.* . top of Olitslis sculpturc.. n o r r j d r u . Bdsa.nbedrhc.^.l "c"p .l U D "..(. d r .sinrph.pu\ibdit! a. r.r i kind of D.nding.hi...".tlistdt and thcory is csscntiall-\'a indcfinilc.15 Smittrs accountof hi\ on experience the un6nishcdturnfik. .lt r\ rs though p..uou. i .\l brnn' Nound ihc bottom and th{.e mLennrF. \lhich cnrriesthe nnplcatior tlnt $e units irl questioncould be multiplied a(/ i.*l.nr.tutim. it seems be tlr(i c\penencctliat most deeply cricit.144 Ad ond Obiecrhood 145 ol horvever. u p o D o r r '/ i r . rcDdkcd carlier. in thc grip of his best lyork one.u up b\ \. . memun.h . ":-. \ . n.(t nting lrnds. 'b r e .Ls a protound diocrencc Lcnveen rrr. .c Jhorp \hffr.".f rh.e or and . b\ Ne implication.e."ar.r l ..s 'fhe litdalist prcoccupationwith time-more prccisety. to tj h r .s I \rant to emphasize something that may alread\ in have becomeclear: the e)iperience questionpersxts in firn".tr. :J a.l.dnr\.rr.L 4 r t i n m i lI" '. ..n ir rn infinite numbcr of points of vic. r. is certtful {)l prescntBentof cndless.t.-ll3::. r .

ousness that modernjst prrinting and sculpiure defeat thcatre.rt( a nonill$ioristi. I rnn tempted f. dnd jn \rhich t. adro.lf b. apDrurt all rl.Ir p n !t. to th( pcrpehral creation of itself.rg' present.ntn€ss.rlthat thc othcr coDk'Dporary nrodemjsi arts.l frcm yesterdry and !.\ ti. a continuous and perpetual p. nnl th. that oDe expcriences a.s of the sme but s mcthing to be disti!!$isl. stan@sof a con. so to speNk. p . . as \rhoily here md now.n r . o! need.b lh. |}l 1 t .I want to call attentionto the utter pewasiveness the vitual universalig. r " l c \ r h r tn th r s ( * ") . . ivhatever rhc dedication.if I friy crll it thrt._ ( r t r h "i r q ..d€ the a.p .trgely motilated what I have wdften.n I o n Bd .diencc tlr.ratirrs all of ou livcs.r\ di. i o n ..l. forever conrin. l ) n . tho mine his.r vilidr tliflt the Ihn!)sodist ro b€r his materialr' ld {holly in tle pist.. D t n .ten(l lhit llc rlenrs takins placeon tle stagchrve neverbar relea*ed. tent.4 .' I Ic narrt. . . mnsics situationis espe.r .me other place. al\\ r\ . lus it\.n( rb.( o.elt clos.] painting rnd s.kttt\ Lnd Canp.ntasount to .r p .bn\F ot Love.lso l.l a ttd H o n\h $ o f J. n.r.l bc visiblero the audience.pms to m.t it is tlr' author's churct.r rnd rot }imself that is standins ihe stase.{f the scnsibilityor modc ot b€ing thar I luve char.so . no r co ve r . iD. . J: th . r su k.rppcDin!for the fi6t and only rim€. which. n . nhich the dctoB \oul.y: Just as the n.lti nade possibl.. .nting nos' and 'hcre' .that is.\Vc re all Ul.lling of time Brecht calls for is t.rizcdas.r($hslr tle!rri.. of durdtioFa coNerrior ihat. how cver..n l u D ."u n . I am srl.es.c in the Dvan Callety sho$. .cnt. r sinsle in6dtel)' brid{ iustant $ould be Iong enough to see crer}' thing. Fo. o "o r . rle nccd for Dresentness mui_ n r h i l \ & l J i .jdllydil$cult in thrt mosic shares \ith ihe.i.c.e dr.ut}entjc D.(l with the Decd to dclcat lhcairc. i . to be prblishcd in 6r We :\teaa Whar We Saq? . .Presentncss srace. (Hcrc it is $orth noting th^t t}le conccpt ol interest implics tcmporalitr in thc folm of continuing attention di rcctcd at the objcct. aspire.lt' r" $'hat ihls neans nr €x.And of courscit is true that the desireto of distinguish between \r'hat is to me the authentic art of our time and other work. Besides.sa kind o{ inston..l. Reading of Kirs If. lt n.ot d a p€t. ph]iicsl cn." r m p o j r . it is not cleir $. $c jng Crme.oughout.c'tion.ibove all to the condition .l h .ctes th€r Dln. as it \eeie.s rnd tr.ulphrr('-thc coDclition. anJ thc A\oi.s). amounting. hno$nts more thrn it (lo..d rn. so I to make vjsible tle kuottjll toseiher of ihe events.Schill.rc..t. In thcse last setrtences.s be. LL fact.ly resenble rhoseof a thealrical perfomnn.ndi nhd hr mast d.icdh a neN w.. s.'rrnpl.d d \ rir cube pi€. l .and inrellig. 194. @n\.u\ miltain a calm indepeDd.mpohlity ilsclf \$onklbe prcse.I art \ill natuollt be dille.rnt ). l{)hrer Ifls to pcNr.r m . m : r h r r i . . to e\perie ce the sork in all its dep$ and frlllness. .ss.l n . \'hcrcas the conccpt o{ con\iction does not.u belol)d n)' krowledge to suggcst that. . is 'uostor lhrt jest {s t}e e$oscd lishtilg Br€c}t . l t * r h n u si l "t il rvere some sort of litenlisr object. has l.dvocdtes l. mcrclv or r . C r . tlatue.omrpted or pcrvenedby thertre.ar.t ile he knors ho$ it .unl tbe s€stins. cxafrpl.. it is .ursh lis D€rfo.rN\ l..tion k ro lons. led Brccht t.ot pr.con. i .r. tlre staselislitnrs vrl. of e)iisting iD. i n r t.y but rathcr \rould slo\ rlremfo!tl.tr\ and music. F. to share frtain ehararreristics ssociated here *ith the @nccpts of literalism and theatre.ecltps"d L)'$e sculpture itself-$ hich it is plainly neaninglcss to spoak of as onl] pdr. fac(.tor n. taneou$ness:as though if onl) one Nere iDffnitcly morc acute. Endinc rli. 'h . lhir. F d J t o n o t l r " n l i . to h."c C J\F . r L n d o f r .) Ari ond Obiecth@d t47 v l This essay iyitl b€ read as an attack on ceiain artists (and critics) ltt)das a defense others. r.'. most notably po. In poet..ese. 'ndef(l of secrcting or constitutnrg.assion.r lonrething lile prcsenrness ar ler\t io some. n .mance er€n at tI€ stirt ind in th. rt shouldl).other k 'k l o l t h q F r J .s Ilc (ory of his charactd by yivid port rril.nce ol ils creato^. l o r h e !r e . F o r d r " t r .) I want to claim that it is b) !irluc of thcir prcscntnessand inst.\ hlve b€enthe deie f. o f d e 'r '. n .l in not id€ltily $ith th. tin. i! \rhich for e. k. ) It is this continuoLs and cntjrc prcscntn.omc mer€ly a. a v c n r i o nr ^ r c .ed by it..!erler rhe hnn..144 sculpture is.