You are on page 1of 13

Light Years

Conceptual Art
and the

two screens. Executive Director Edited by Amy R. 1968 (plate 75). Amsterdam. First edition Printed in Italy Library of Congress Control Number: 2011940049 ISBN: 978-0-300-15971-4 Published by The Art Institute of Chicago 111 South Michigan Avenue Chicago. the Mondriaan Foundation. and Melinda and Paul Sullivan.O. 1971. Box 209040 New Haven. or any other information storage and retrieval system (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U. The outdoor screening of Andy Warhol’s Empire on December 9. . Distributed by Yale University Press 302 Temple Street P. 5 min. Director. Pages 56–57: Eleanor Antin. Throwing Three Balls in the Air to Get a Straight Line (Best of Thirty-Six Attempts). Donna and Howard Stone. New York City. and the Glenstone Foundation. 1973 (detail. or utilized in any form or by any means. Generous support is also provided by the Exhibitions Trust: Goldman Sachs. 2011. Robert V. Amsterdam. the Earl and Brenda Shapiro Foundation. © 2011 The Art Institute of Chicago All rights reserved. 100 Boots. Illinois 60603-6404 www.. Rockford. Stedelijk Museum. Throwing Three Balls in the Air to Get a Straight Line (Best of Thirty-Six Attempts). Kenneth and Anne Griffin. 1968. Thomas and Margot Pritzker. Voluntary Tortures (Les Tortures Volontaires).S. plate 44). Variable Piece #4. Guernsey. Pages 206–07: Annette Messager. 1972 (plate 95). No part of this publication may be reproduced.Light Years: Conceptual Art and the Photograph. Sharp. Portrait of Maria Gilissen with Tripod (Portrait de Maria Gilissen avec Statif). digital recording. Pages 162–63: Alighiero Boetti. Peltz and Maia Rigas Production by Sarah E. without prior written permission from the Publications Department of the Art Institute of Chicago. born 1941). 35 mm color film. 2012. 1964–1977 was published in conjunction with an exhibition organized by and presented at the Art Institute of Chicago from December 13. 1968 (plate 32).artic. Additional funding is provided by the Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation. Horizon III—Sea (Horizon III—Zee). plate 44). Pages 132–33: John Produced by the Publications Department of the Art Institute of Chicago. Major funding for this exhibition is generously provided by the Terra Foundation for American Art and the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. Endpapers: Jan Dibbets (Dutch. 1973 (detail. Photography Editor Separations by Professional Graphics. Connecticut 06520-9040 www. Album-Collection No. Back cover: John Baldessari. electronic or mechanical. Production Coordinator Photography research by Lauren Makholm. and Joseph Mohan. Pages 88–89: Douglas Huebler. Pages 14–15: Giulio Paolini. Additional funding is provided by Sotheby’s. Illinois Designed by Jena Sher Front cover: Marcel Broodthaers. is presented with a grant from the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts. Copyright Law). Major funding for the catalogue is generously provided by the Lannan Foundation. to March 11. 2011. Twins (Gemelli). transmitted. 1971–73 (plate 37). 18. including photocopy. 1967 (plate 17). Anna-logy (Anna-logia). except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages.yalebooks. 1966 (plate 15).

Witkovsky .The Unfixed Photograph Matthew S.

resurfacing only sporadically in the subsequent decades before a new conjunction of interests coalesced prior to 1970 that allowed photographs to be theorized and viewed as vanguard art. the transposition inherent to devices for analog capture creates other. Once photographs became accepted as contemporary art in their own right. as Kaja Silverman has argued with respect to the work of Gerhard Richter. slides. that “conceptual art’s essential achievements are either created in the form of photographs or are otherwise mediated by them. or institutional).” to agree that photography was critical to Conceptual Art and. Conceptual artists in the 1960s made books. but also all art and memory in the analog age.3 These involve above all the mutability and material presence of the photographic object. came unmoored. photography reproduces information point for point in a different dimension. Dada. a transformation of “authors” into “producers. in most cases unwittingly. Those liberating developments have profoundly widened the possibilities for contemporary art as a field without a medium. It was in the 1910s through the 1930s as well that photographs first found a niche in art museums and the art marketplace. an essential means of making intellectual or affective connections that is of pronounced importance to photography. subsequently.8 Writings on photography at the time dealt not only with its “medium specificity”—its origins and supposedly distinct identifying features—but also with questions of function and institutional positioning: debates over the document and the relation of image to caption. and many of which remain transparent until they are revealed as conventions (aesthetic. Krauss herself later proposed photography as exemplary of the “post-medium condition” in contemporary art. fascinated theorists of photography in the Conceptual era. they broke definitively with the ideal of fixation and preservation governing chemical photography. the term “medium” came into use around 1930 to help frame the first histories of photography as art.9 That intense ferment ceased by 1940. this problem of the analog was turned on photography itself. Circa 1930 T he Prehistory of an Expandable Medium Artists who turned to photography in the Conceptual era revived. furthermore.1 This essay proposes a timeline to explain the terms of that momentous shift. While such point-for-point transfer of information creates a motivated relation between input and output. photography definitively became a paradigmatic form of contemporary art. certainly can be read as an early instance of the artistic atavism so pronounced in recent years.10 The process took a number of years and. further. played against the simultaneous rise of television. The creation of singular images was in important instances displaced by serial or collective production.7 In a separate development.” as Walter Benjamin incisively observed at the time.6 Magazines soon became a chosen site of display.5 Like all forms of analog capture. to posit that in the Conceptual era of the 1960s and early 1970s. a historical situation in which artists treat all technical and material supports—Ektachrome slides and 16mm film. a vanguard alternative to the museum or gallery exhibition. The Primitivist adoption of photomontage and the photogram—a barbarous attack on the fine arts. and challenges to the notion of originality. foremost among them the artists themselves. leading on the one hand to an intense preoccupation with pictures at “actual size. but also oil paint and canvas—as technologies whose potential is fully realized only once they slide into obsolescence. among other discursive matters.2 The success in the 1980s and 1990s of postmodernist photography.” and of large-format “photographic paintings. and its potential as an analog for more established art forms in literature. It is. that also transposes the source according to 16 T h e U nf i x e d P h otogr a p h its own mechanical properties. linguistic. to apply the terms of semiotics. canvases. defined early on as “copies of copies” or “presence effected through absence. Analogy is a mode of comparison that involves identifying particular features of resemblance in an equation that has general validity. shuttling from the particular to the general and back again. arbitrary relations—some of which read as interference. and Constructivism all involved the elaboration of a new set of standards for art in which photographs and theories of photography played a major role. and sculpture (in Minimalism above all). made retrospectively by artist Jeff Wall. one year later. with the rise of largely better-known waves of “artists using photography”: 1977 was the year of the Pictures show at Artists Space that brought to light the work (not yet photographic) of Sherrie Levine and. But “analog” is not intended here primarily to evoke the unfashionable or outmoded.” however. initially involved photographic forms other than the standard gelatin silver print. Two crucially influential writings on photography—by Roland Barthes (1964) and Rosalind Krauss (1977)—bracket the present book in chronological terms and will be discussed at the conclusion to this essay. The end date of Light Years: Conceptual Art and the Photograph. particularly graduates of the Düsseldorf Kunstakademie. that would reappear with force in Conceptual Art.4 The Conceptual turn to photography.” has obscured issues raised in the earlier period covered by Light Years. auguring our present situation dominated by migratory pixels. fine camera skills. using a recording device to make the equation— an “equal sign. a leap to grand scale soon followed by many artists. precedents established nearly a half century earlier.” and on the other to an entropic dispersion of the work of art. This is not to say that conven- . more importantly. painting. One does not have to accept the polemical claim. and fine society all at once—was a hallmark of those historical avant-gardes in the period immediately following World War I. So was the turn to vernacular forms such as photojournalism and the amateur snapshot as sources of creative inspiration. 1964–1977 coincides. meanwhile. The artworks. Surrealism. Wall made his first muralsized prints.C onceptual Art has regularly been recognized for its pioneering involvement with photography. and magazine pieces before they commonly began to exhibit “straight” photographs. This mix of the motivated and arbitrary. with radical implications for the definition of art and its audiences. Cindy Sherman and Richard Prince.

including (from around 1960) ones with photographic imagery—and. however. Sigmar Polke. and other Photorealist painters also from that era). among others. the silk screens of Andy Warhol (from 1962).” that tag was a misnomer for what amounted to the development of a new set of material practices. exceptionally for the period. Yves Klein’s iconic trick photograph of 1960. Such works. for example. and they were dilapidated neon signs that were no longer in use. Circa 1960 Photography as Mass Medium A nearer historical precedent to photography in the Conceptual era was the engagement with mass media pictures that swelled during the 1950s and culminated in Pop Art. and therefore as giving a vital impetus for all art to range freely across disciplines. The Art Institute of Chicago. mount that down on something. however “flat” they initially appeared. p. the material and mechanical basis for mass media photography informed vanguard painting—just as it would inform Conceptual Art. prepared in 1962 and published in April 1963.12 1963 Ed Ruscha and the Analogic Image The authoring of photographic works as Conceptual Art finds one prototypical origin in the books of Ed Ruscha.”13 Curator Walter Hopps reported discovering combinatory objects in Ruscha’s studio in late 1961 that featured a mixture of book covers and the artist’s photographs mounted to canvas and framed by handpainted lettering. M at t h ew S . anonymous and available for poetic and critical reappraisal. 4. Market Sign. which had a kind of mystical connection to me somehow. Gelatin silver print. It is important to recognize the variability of forms as constitutive of photography qua contemporary art. born 1937). and for adopting “transposition” as a working method. then I’d transpose the photograph to something. and try to make that into something else.2010. Figure 1 Ed Ruscha (American. Richard Estes.” When artists did make photographs. Here. 1]. 137). a string of sixteen publications that began with Twentysix Gasoline Stations.14 Although Ruscha left off these works and did not present Sunset and Alvarado in any form during that period. the experiments are significant. W i t kov s k y 17 . Richard Artschwager.). and Vija Celmins. grounded in the mutability and anonymity of photographs. or even the numbing repetition of sheets coming off the printing press. future gift of the artist. 25. 80. Saut dans le vide (Leap into the Void). like those by Warhol and Rauschenberg. I drove by that place every day and looked at that sign. Ruscha had been taking his own photographs and.3 cm (10 × 8 in. More profoundly. I started photographing it. it is important to distinguish between artists’ general fascination with the photographic and the production of new photographs that became a feature of Conceptual Art. came close to exhibiting them. likewise illustrated a mock tabloid that Klein provocatively subtitled “Le journal d’un seul jour” (One-Day Newspaper) (fig. Although the latter movement was said from early on to be aiming at “dematerialization. To take one’s own photograph and “make that into something else. Earlier collages or assemblages. for example. by the proto-Pop Independent Group in London (founded 1952).4 × 20. Gerhard Richter. Sunset and Alvarado.” even while keeping the photograph intact. certainly helped gain acceptance for camera pictures as a basis for fine art. and the sign just sat at the top of this building [fig.” the dot screens and fiber grain in printed pages.tional prints mark the ultimate acceptance of photography as a contemporary art form—quite the contrary. likewise depended on the ubiquity of print media as an “image world. as in early Fluxus.11 Also germane to the beginnings of photoconceptualism in the mid-1960s were contemporaneous paintings and drawings from photographs (whether appropriated or original) by. to the glassy canvases of Robert Bechtle. both for introducing an artist’s original photographs—rather than found images—into a work of fine art. Whether it was the blur haunting camera images taken “from life. albeit in an importantly altered form: “I had taken photographs of a market sign on the corner of Alvarado and Sunset. The “assisted readymade” techniques of the Franco-Italian Affichistes—who removed accretions of torn billboards wholesale from the street. or Robert Rauschenberg in his Combines (from around 1954) reflect an understanding of photography as a pool of public imagery. showed an unexpected emphasis on the material qualities of photographic source imagery (in contrast. these paintings. they circulated them as ephemera in an alternative media stream. most famously. where the Burrito King is. was a novel procedure that would animate Ruscha’s photobooks as well. 1961.

populated by anonymous photographs. Agnes Denes invented a statistically driven obituary for the real. 145–60).” “34. business cards. It is important to see that Ruscha’s books did not expand the definition of sculpture directly. He died of a heart attack. and Bruce Nauman’s photographs.”17 Amassed in the hundreds. D. which. January 1967. HansPeter Feldmann and Christian Boltanski mixed their own photographs with found snapshots to create picture catalogues (Feldmann) and fictionalized histories (Boltanski). 36 Photographs and 12 Diagrams. in what is essentially a photobook spatialized for wall display (plate 93).” “9. certifying the existence of a provocatively random selection of “26. 1421965—a work that itself consisted of . achieved 1/10. these diminutive publications recalled—again in the mode of “transposition”—the heft of a stack by Donald Judd or the undifferentiated character of a Robert Morris column. Dan Graham’s slide projection Homes for America. Marcel Broodthaers. Archives of American Art. In Where’s Al? (1972). . 76). Anna Piva. . holding the magazine up to the camera page by page in eighty-four frames (pp. both first exhibited the same year that Twentysix Gasoline Stations appeared. particularly SelfPortrait as a Fountain. cremated remains of an unnamed individual. It also changed the relations between photography and painting. the first photowork by Mel Bochner.” Denes presented the work variously as sculpture and photographs (plate 59). Ruppersberg appears in a photo booth masked behind an issue of Rona Barrett’s Hollywood. In his “essay” for the present exhibition catalogue. and literature.19 18 Figure 2 Mel Bochner’s 36 Photographs and 12 Diagrams on view in Scale Models and Drawings at the Dwan Gallery. from filling stations to swimming pools. Across a variety of preoccupations. displaced authorial significance from the creation of individual images to what Benjamin Buchloh called the “administration” of archival information—but also to quasi-narrative constructions.” “some. This analogy precisely makes compelling the idea of the book as mobile sculpture.” T h e U nf i x e d P h otogr a p h 1966 Photoconceptualism Year Zero Four works from 1966 offer model pathways into what had become a nascent photoconceptual movement: the photocanvas Anna-logia (Anna-logy) by Giulio Paolini. Ruscha’s first published statements on his artistic sideline contain an oblique comment on Minimalism: “It is almost worth the money. plate 4)—serial photographs of a nude model advancing toward the viewer across an eight-foot span of peepholes—and the drive-by photocanvases of John Baldessari (1966–68). Ruppersberg played with the gossip columnist Barrett’s “Look at me” persona and her (gendered) authorial identity. Instead. deploying ideas of storytelling—absent any narrative cl0sure—across the media of film. Rather than suggesting structural similarities in a conventionally distinct form (the book as sculpture). including Giovanni Anselmo. producing photographs in and of the space of painting. while handling one of his very first photoemulsion pieces. He was unhappy and lonely more often than not.800 times when it mattered. managed to get his opinions across 184 times and was misunderstood 3. Dwan Gallery Records. and in 1989 made it into a book. Photocanvases proved attractive in 1965–69 to a variety of mostly European artists. 2. “to have the thrill of 400 exactly identical books stacked in front of you.000 of his dreams. The books.18 The goal of setting Minimalism or Pop in motion likewise animated the Muybridge boxes of Sol LeWitt (1964.” he told John Coplans in 1965. 17. Paolini had himself photographed from behind by his future wife. only one of the four listed was presented in the conventional art-photographic form of a single print. Baldessari. 9. like the plagiaristic title character in Jorge Luis Borges’s 1939 story “Pierre Menard. these pieces confirmed the self-reflexive attention in Conceptual Art to cameras as generators of analog images—although notably. which she called Human Dust: “He was an artist. Smithsonian Institution. Ruscha was proposing that objects in a “minor art” could function analogously to works of recent fine art. Clearly. the “stacks” could be dismantled and handled or carried around. as art historian Ken Allan has argued. made in 1973.” or “a few” examples of common and/or corporate structures or objects. invading subgenres of literature such as the paperback or commercial brochure permitted discourse at a distance. photocanvases created a scalar surrogate. Author of the Quixote. visual art. and Jan Dibbets (plates 66. in books from 1968–69 and later in installations (plates 86–92). In 1970.” he usurped through recopying. and palm trees. questions about authorial status are rendered as a humorous search for the artist by his friends. among other early instances of the Conceptual fascination with art on the move.15 Many artists would later take up these ideas to bring the forms of archive and narrative into surprising alignment. just as Ruscha’s books had done with respect to sculpture but according to a different type of analogic reasoning. In Anna-logy (plate 15). Washington.C.16 Allen Ruppersberg similarly used photographs to span the space of books and installations. as Judd or Morris (and several generations of avant-gardists before them) had done by importing previously unaccustomed materials onto sculpture’s conventionally accepted terrain.In these much-discussed works. this short-lived technique established an inroad for photography as a fine art before working with actual photographs had become readily accepted. Ruscha acted as a wayward notary. .

Maria Gilissen. 2. billboards. an equivalent of what Paolini in 1967 called “the figure of the painter . profiles. or left blank. and axonometric—of each of twelve isometric arrangements of wooden cubes. who would spend considerable time thinking about photography in the later 1960s. similarly incited reflection on the mediations of the camera apparatus (plate 9). . Silverman.”24 Mimicry. in those of his Proto-Investigations involving “one and three” versions of an object (first exhibited in 1967). The emphasis on reciprocity in many photoconceptual works goes against the understanding of photography as generating an endless regression of (self-)alienating representations or strengthening regimes of dominance and inequality. explicitly wished to transpose Minimalism into the realm of the photographic. for example in Press (1969). the project took forms that opened up unanticipated avenues for a work of art (plates 110. The suggestion of exact reversibility in these images—the animation of artworks as spectators and the concomitant repositioning of spectators as participants in the creation of the work of art—models the ideal analogic structure. equipped moreover with a real tripod to suggest that the space of painting. enlarged by photostat most often to the same size. Each version would analogize the other two. who gives this unity a redemptive cast. plate 5).”20 Paolini pursued this inversion of creative and spectatorial roles with brilliant con-cision the following year in Giovane che guarda Lorenzo Lotto (Young Man Watching Lorenzo Lotto). was the serial sculpture. and an ‘unfinished universality’ rather than a closed order. consists of three standard views—plan. and many further variations on the grid between 1966 and 1969 (plates 5–8). was deployed in other magazine pieces and related works around 1970 (including personal ads. 111 ).23 However. a four-by-four grid of various objects photographed under glass that is itself sandwiched at the corners by real C-clamps (plate 11). along with one photograph each of the numerical diagrams used to model these arrangements. A particular common object—saw.26 Bochner’s subsequent interrogation of what he called the “groundlessness” of photography. Michael Snow. and the photographs were commissioned for maximum neutrality and completeness of information. Graham. scale. an extreme form of analogic resemblance. that characterized much new art of the 1950s and early 1960s. And Joseph Kosuth invited a direct comparison of cognitive systems that proceeded. and lighting. in text works. The two white canvases between which the photopainting is sandwiched in Anna-logy function like quotation marks surrounding an absent phrase. moreover. whether in recordings of text. by analogy. . sound. part of a wave of interest in magazine pieces of which the first (with photographic illustrations) was Robert Smithson and Mel Bochner’s “The Domain of the Great Bear. meanwhile. repeatedly tested photography’s negotiation between phenomenology and linguistics. a lifesize reproduction of Lotto’s closely cropped. 2. Bochner’s recourse to photography. elevation. p. equality rather than hierarchy. door. now mediated through photography. New Jersey. the analogic relations favored in Conceptual Art—above all tautology in its many forms—were radically egalitarian in nature. complicate the promise of faithful and proportionate reproduction. The use of photographic works in Conceptual Art to foster reversible social relations is anti-authoritarian and suggests that a fundamental unity links disparate subject positions. in certain instances.) The work. promoting transformation rather than stasis. However.” or rhetoric of objectivity. measurement pieces.”22 When Dan Graham first presented Homes for America as a slide lecture in the December 1966 exhibition Projected Art at the short-lived Finch College in Manhattan. (The cognitive dissonance prompted by these pieces arises from the incom- M at t h ew S . argues that the correspondences established through analogy can “connect us to both ourselves and others.”21 Although analogy can just as easily establish a hierarchy between two or more elements. seven stacks to a side. in a circle that was importantly mediated through photography. clock. which created distortions of perspective. chair. A series of real or reproduced blank canvases in both works thus hold the painter’s unrealized creative potential infinitely in suspension. created by photographing trapezoidal shapes in real space from an oblique angle such that they appear as flat squares. and so forth—was presented in between a life-size photograph of that object in situ and a dictionary definition for that class of objects. 1965) in front of a primed but otherwise unpainted canvas (fig. all three elements were photographic (plate 61). Broodthaers made a photocanvas that pictures his partner. which Kaja Silverman describes as “reversible and democratizing. initially. Best known is its simultaneous publication in Arts Magazine. The work.the painter being photographed (on February 14. frontally facing Ritratto di giovane (Portrait of a Young Man) of 1506 (plate 16). in the act of photographing a presumptive spectator. 1967–69). W i t kov s k y 19 . he called it simply Project Transparencies: a set of perhaps twenty-one slides of housing developments photographed while commuting between New York City and his parents’ home in Westfield. is shared by creator and spectator alike (plate 17). as Scott Rothkopf and others have recounted. Bochner’s 36 Photographs and 12 Diagrams marks the first known showing of actual photographic prints in the context of vanguard fine art (fig. only heightened what he called “the illusion of literalism. In 1967 as well. whose body of work Correctie op het perspectief (Perspective Correction. lamp. a corresponding number of cubes was then stacked to form a three-dimensional object. (Each space in a seven-by-seven paper grid was filled with a number from 1 to 4. created in late 1966 in response to an exhibition invitation from dealer Virginia Dwan. and television and radio broadcasts) in a neo-Dada annexation of the mass media as an unwitting accomplice in the creation of new art. in search [of ] a suitable painting. marks a singularly persistent turn toward the photograph as a material and theoretical object.25 What came to interest Bochner was the “noise” or interference introduced by photography as a form of analog capture—those elements that. 165). His experiments were nevertheless soon joined by those of Jan Dibbets.” published in the journal Art Voices in September 1966: “an eight-page work of art masquerading as an article about the Hayden Planetarium. or image.

The photograph offered a third “mess” in its own right. for example. an ungainly ten-foot piece that disjointedly mapped the studio “terrain” as if in imitation of the lunar surveys then underway through the Apollo space program. they were not a serial or multipart creation (even though eleven of the resulting photographs were later issued as a portfolio) but individual pieces. T h e U nf i x e d P h ot ogr a p h . the punning pictures swallowed their captions. plate 14). no doubt. each deliberately fleeting. Castelli Gallery Archives. the attention Nauman accorded to photography radically changed the possibilities for photographs as contemporary art. 1968. Smithsonian Institution.27 He was impressed by Man Ray’s versatility and. Man Ray presented photographs provocatively as an endpoint or equivalent. In the exhibition. and debased.) An entirely different approach to materiality was opened up by Bruce Nauman’s photographs of 1966–67. which probably constitute the earliest examples of “straight photography” by an artist operating in the vanguard of painting and sculpture. Furthermore.patibility between an analogic comparison of partic-ulars—an object and its exact reproduction—and the inductive reasoning necessary to correlate any given object with the general definition for that class of objects. by the ways in which—entirely contrary to Bochner and others in Nauman’s own time—Man Ray used his camera to consume and regurgitate his own sculpture. this work hung alongside a panel. Nauman also turned to photography to make language and sculpture interchangeable. moreover. which announced its own originary presence as a conjoining of two anterior creations. such that the common Conceptual move to lay bare the coded nature of visual representation by expressing the codes directly as language was here accomplished instead by subsuming language within the image itself. Self-Portrait as a Fountain (1966. 3).28 Nauman did the same. formless. D. an adaptation of commercial photography more shocking even (in an art context) than Ruscha’s photobooks—clearly stood alone as finished works.C. in color. had seen a retrospective exhibition of the work of Man Ray in the fall of 1966 at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Several of these works were shown at Nauman’s debut exhibition with Leo Castelli in January 1968 (fig. New York.29 Reviving the precedent of visual puns by Man Ray and Marcel Duchamp. upon which Nauman had lettered 20 Figure 3 Bruce Nauman’s debut exhibition at the Leo Castelli Gallery. Washington. According to art historian Janine Mileaf. in his Dada years above all. which he used for the invitation card as well. in Composite Photo of Two Messes on the Studio Floor (plate 13).30 Here Nauman presented what would become his “signature” photograph. His photographs of farcically literal enactments of common expressions—printed. of sculptural arrangements that he variously “disappeared” (and later resurrected as multiples from an absent original). Archives of American Art. Nauman. rather than as a documentary record. as is known. January 27– February 17. originally made for a storefront window. Brief though it was.

take the audience (I’ll have their photographs in my possession).” The juxtaposition seems disappointingly to relegate the photograph (much smaller and placed in a corner) to the level of an illustration. as if by human oil and sweat. the “arrival” of photography as contemporary art interestingly brought this lack of fixity to bear on photographs themselves. 26). I can take the stage. As Conceptual Art entered its phase of apotheosis. the stage lights up. With sheer hyperbole.32 For Bochner. 1969 Apotheosis and Dispersion With Self-Portrait as a Fountain. at nine and eleven o’clock in the evening. On May 28. the frame is corroded. grids. for which he had anabolic lenses fabricated to minimize planar distortion. such investigations came out of skepticism regarding photography as verifiable truth. even though the physical size of a photograph and the size of what it depicts might be made to seem identical. magazines. no noise. could be understood as defamiliarizing that convention and thereby prompting a more categorical set of reflections: for example. Michael Heizer soon created a far different piece under the same title. dissimilar versions.33 His photoworks Actual Size (1968)—two photographs.”35 Using a variety of mechanisms. one isolating image and the other text as a visual field. assembling necklaces of collaged photographs from eight feet (plate 24) to eighteen feet long (Fotomuseum. One could. His Actual Size: Munich Depression (1969–70) was a mammoth. now at the Whitney Museum of American Art. the other his right hand. multiple-projector slide installation that meticulously adapted the dimensions of a spherical earthwork he had made outdoors in Munich to the cuboid volume of art spaces in New York. Gordon Matta-Clark. to make of photographs. as his further notes for the piece make clear: “I can use the flash to let them see. it was because it patently relied on so many other creative domains for its identity. Nauman. and he acknowledged photography as a physical experience: “I think certain photographs offer a precise way of seeing works. Winterthur) as he prepared the final slide version. plate 28). one showing the artist’s head and shoulder. Giuseppe Penone in particular tested life-size photography as a means of suggesting the interdependence between nature and its representation in art. what will fix its image in time and space? A slipperiness developed regarding the appearance of artworks. The standard argument that physical form held no importance for artists engaged in “dematerialization” cannot be reconciled with the artists’ self-reflexive attention to photographic properties. with each of the pictures framed in galvanized aluminum. and photostats—to what. among them the all-important questions of scale and sizing. stage lights out. as Acconci came to call the first of his many “photo exercises” in 1969– 70. literally. the artist used a camera to test power relations with his audience. first explored in Ruscha’s twenty-five-foot book Every Building on the Sunset Strip (1966. The performance results in 12 photographs.”36 After retrieving those photographs from a local store three months later—Acconci was indifferent to the prints at first. slides. It seems more correct to see variations in presentation form as a natural consequence of the material pressures put on photography by Conceptual artists. Acconci walked onstage and performed a piece that he described soon afterward in working notes: “House lights out. However. His multiple Untitled (plate 103) shows the artist’s forearm. Heizer made several studies for the slide piece. with no sound. one might say that uses of photography in Conceptual Art had reached their ultimate conclusion—but this would be to misread the drive toward multiplicity in that singular image.34 “[T]he experience of looking is constantly altered by physical factors. however. on the side “touched” by the image of his body. You can wait until you feel so inclined before you look at it and possibly experience to a greater depth whatever view you have been presented with. did not want to be bound to any notion of medium or continuity of practice. You can take a photograph into a clean white room. against an index of measurement placed in vinyl on the wall—suggest that. I press down the shutter: the flash-cube flashes. Two works from 1969. Ger van Elk. the surrogate projection undoubtedly made an overwhelming impression when it was shown at the Dia Foundation in 1970 and again at the Guggenheim International exhibition the following year.” This approach. the house lights up. Vito Acconci's Twelve Pictures and Victor Burgin’s Photopath. and if photography helped him especially to achieve that aim. on the dethronement of fine art achieved by repositioning a giant wall work as a subordinate element in the register of the photographic. again at actual size.31 Whereas most Conceptual uses of photography retained the caption function even when they invested it with irony. Occupying more than seven thousand square feet and reaching more than eighteen feet high. I step to my right. like Man Ray. reverse the equation and see this installation as a subversive monumentalization of the convention of photographic captioning. Starting from stage left. placed along the sides of a square photographic image. facing the audience and looking through a camera. the issue shifted from using photographs as a form of art by other means—canvases. Penone projected pictures of his chest or foot on plaster casts of those parts of his body. For another set of works. 1969. W i t kov s k y 21 . across the stage.” In Twelve Pictures.” Heizer noted at the time. and many others pursued the problem of “actual size” throughout the early 1970s (plates 20. the camera its necessary prop— M at t h ew S .“The True Artist Is an Amazing Luminous Fountain. Such projects seemed to ask: Can a photograph usurp its source to become a contingent part of the physical world. One thing to make of them was a hypostatized image at “actual size. proposed photographic images as forcefully mediated substitutes for the experience of space. give a particular sense of the stakes involved. inviting the viewer to reconstruct reality as a composite of image and object (plate 104). This is what interested him most immediately. and if so. in which the very same piece could exist in multiple. At each step. the Castelli presentation of these two works. the performance was the work. contradictory cognitive systems are in play.

41 But the identity of Photopath was at once more and less literal than any Minimalist object. . From sheet to wall to printed page. work with photographs responds to work in sculpture.” And randomness was brought to an extreme by Emilio Prini in his project to print two thousand automatically generated photographs yearly for a decade—a parody of market productivity that yielded unexhibitable masses of paper stacked on warehouse shelves (see p. stating only that a given number of images “will join with this statement to constitute the final form of the piece. But again. Taking entropy to the level of a modus operandi. The analog becomes digital: the photograph as particle. . Gilbert and George similarly began in 1972 to shape multiple small photographs into wall sculptures.42 Once in place. reader as former of the performance (form as reading of the performance). and yet another to contemplate it in an exhibition or book (plates 98–100). the pictures could be mounted in a single row. meanwhile. in which industrial materials were distributed with an intent to maximize random occupation of the exhibition surface. could not help but function as an ever-changing material object when analogized either to the floor on which it rested—without protective glazing or frame—or to the conventions of sculpture and photography as they existed in 1969. to an overlay of aphoristic remarks on prints mounted as separate panels within a single frame (circa 1980 and after). the reader/viewer became a (new) performer or a (supplemental) audience. reader as indeterminate performer in indeterminate area (performer as indeterminate reader in indeterminate area. The sheet version. In the fall of 1969. 167). formed by the “touch” of light on photosensitive surfaces. is let loose. fixed way. This strategy of photographic “piles” would be used to innovative effect by Annette Messager. in a book. it is left to settle or be resettled in entropic fashion by successive viewers. or. the results have another resonance. who pioneered constellations of photographs as diminutive fetish objects in 1973 with Les Tortures volontaires (Voluntary Tortures). that in principle corresponds point for point with a preexisting reality. but its title and placement clearly invited the treads that Andre’s works were made to withstand. in which case they reversed the terms of the performance. her critique of plastic surgery (plate 95). Richard Serra.” a simple stack of the unmounted prints: “Pile version: reader as rereader. the work as such is non-existent except when it functions as a medium of change between the artist and the viewer. he termed straightforwardly “pictures as performance of the performance” or “end of the performance. at the London venue of Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form. evidentiary mounting of the original prints accompanied by substantial written documentation (plates 21–23). and whose meanings issue from this fact of correspondence. from the staid juxtaposition of small-format photographs and neatly written notes in the early 1970s.” The “pile version” of Twelve Pictures carries a definite echo of “scatter pieces” by Robert Morris. in a pile.43 Yet even if no one stepped onto it.” Placed on the wall. reader as indeterminate area in indeterminate performance). in either case someone entering a “moving area. the photographs could be continually reassembled for different audiences and in different forms. This work. the piece seemed not to index its referent but to exchange places with it. it “lived in your head. creating everything from their own monumentalized initials (plate 96) to wobbly projections of their drunkenness. . Victor Burgin exhibited Photopath (plate 27). or even reverse swastikas in the series Human Bondage (1974). These multipart constructions. Barry Le Va. most intriguingly. and. A ribbonlike work some sixty feet long was the result. hypertrophically indexical at its inception. “is to induce a reaction or change in the viewer. Burgin’s instructions were brilliantly simple: to photograph a section of the exhibition floor. a piece he had first made two years earlier in a friend’s apartment. “One reason for making and exhibiting a work. from that very year. making the viewer into what Acconci called a “moving reader as performer. Again. a sober. in this case the breakdown of temporal sequence and the consequently greater “scattering” of audiences for the work in its various guises.” a notion that could well mean the potentially limitless terrain of circulating printed copies. Walking on Photopath “was not the work’s raison d’être. then.” as Burgin has recently written.39 It is not that the precise exhibition format is unimportant—far from it—but that it cannot matter in any one. on a wall. Douglas Huebler provocatively left unspecified the ordering of any of his works for display. the “pile version. which could be taken (following Bochner) as a further dissolution of the modernist grid. deprived of any certain coherence or narrative order.40 As with Acconci’s photo performance.38 For his part. In this sense. Photopath integrated the marks of time’s passage while protecting its original subject from normal wear and tear.” In the book version. as pixel. performer as indeterminate area in indeterminate reading. Acconci has adopted a deliberate openness regarding the presentation of his photoworks over the years.” but also and importantly under your feet. the very light rays that had helped bring Photopath into being would breach its surface and progressively cause it to fade. ongoing interactivity between audience and performer becomes clear in considering the final presentation form. also implied the possibility of dispersion and multiplicity within a single medium. and it deliberately recalled the Cuts and metal floor pieces by Carl Andre.”37 It is one thing to meet 22 T h e U nf i x e d P h ot ogr a p h Piper’s Mythic Being (1973–75) out on the street. and others. Photopath flaunted its fragility. The importance of this variability and its attendant. meanwhile. in recent years. however. It was demonstratively bound to its referent in a way that would be theorized. as “indexical”: an imprint. . another to come across this confrontational character as a classified advertisement in the Village Voice. He determined that Twelve Pictures could exist in multiple versions: on a sheet.” stated Adrian Piper straightforwardly. then print the photographs at life scale and set them back precisely over their source. which Acconci mocked up as a grid on paper measuring ten and a half by fourteen inches (subsequently lost).he considered what to do with them.

Krauss wrote of the participants that “their procedures were to exacerbate an aspect of the building’s physical presence. by virtue of its absolutely analogical nature. a guarantee of objectivity. captioning. which shared in their contingency a structural similarity to the photographic image. photographic images created the equivalent of neologisms in artistic practice. When artists in the Conceptual era tested the properties and conventions of photographs themselves—perspective.”44 Krauss’s two-part article.197 7–1964 From Index Back to Analogon The slavish doubling of reality undertaken by Burgin seems perfectly to anticipate the influential insights of art historian Rosalind Krauss.47 And where Surrealism (and. for the photograph is never experienced as illusion. Newer abstract painting and photography.” Analog recording. an achievement upon which Krauss built enormously.48 What the Conceptual era further made manifest was the mutability of the photographic analog caught between image and object. serially and singly. W i t kov s k y 23 . in which spatial immediacy was conjoined to temporal anteriority. seems to constitute a message without a code. It is thus at the level of this denoted message or message without code that the real unreality of the photograph can be fully understood . . stands as a milestone in the advance of photographic theory during the 1970s. In elaborating these insights. and thereby to embed within it a perishable trace of their own. . M at t h ew S . .”46 Barthes led the way in reading photographs as instances of semiotic functioning. color.” had instituted a new form of human consciousness. Barthes argued.” Summarizing the inaugural exhibition at the art space PS1 in New York. sequencing. and framed by multiple textual devices. . with its “myth of photographic ‘naturalness’. which freed artists from the mystifications of authorial mark-making and liberated their work from the truly dead-end obsession with “medium specificity” characteristic of abstract painting and sculpture in the initial postwar decades. in the context of discussions on Surrealism. based not on glimpses of trauma or revelation but on a studied. “the photograph being an illogical conjunction between the here-now and the there-then. “Rhetoric of the Image. who declared in 1977 that contemporary art “again and again chooses the terminology of the index. on canvases and photostats. Conceptual Art investigated the problem of the analogon in an entirely “canny” way. Presented in books and slides. But then the analogic transpositions turned inward. Barthes concluded. Krauss turned to writings by French semiotician and philosopher Roland Barthes. in courting the condition of “dumb facts” or approaching the “actual size” of their referents.” To interpret photographs critically requires conjoining disparate signs. Krauss argued that the increasing use of actual photographs in recent art was but a literal manifestation of artists’ awareness that photographic functioning held at its core no convention of style but instead the imprint of things in the world. . a development that proceeded contemporaneously with market and museum attention to “artists using photography. in particular his essay of 1964.”45 In the second part. “Edenic” record of time’s passing: “This utopian character of denotation is considerably reinforced by the paradox . Krauss praised “brute registration” as a means of clearing the air: what she called the “quasi-tautological” condition of a documentary image (a seemingly unaltered representation of a preexisting reality). it bears noting. could thus be shown to be linked—in an argument against the use of “style” and “medium” as meaningful terms of art historical evaluation. Barthes’s late writing on photography) considered reality to be a system of signs opened up by the irruptions of the uncanny. though seemingly worlds apart. that the photograph (in its literal state). became unfixed as imprints of the real.” In the first part of her essay. however. In place of that rarefied and hermetic work had come new forms of abstraction. “Notes on the Index. they added new formations to the vocabulary of art through analogy to established norms in other disciplines. “substitut[ing] the registration of sheer physical presence for the more highly articulated language of aesthetic conventions (and the kind of history which they encode). toward an awareness of transposition—the transformations that necessarily separate source from target in the sphere of mechanical reproduction— that would only emerge in the writings of Krauss and others some years later.” Barthes described there the sense one has in looking at a photograph of a literal. honest and open to the world.” published in the recently founded journal October. analysis of conventions and habits of mind. . His emphasis on analogy steered that reading. if often witty. in an active deconstruction of the alluringly continuous image surface: “[W]e are here dealing [in fact] with a normal system whose signs are drawn from a cultural code (even if the linking together of the elements of the sign appears more or less analogical). scale. “rhetoric”—they made objects that.

” 7. pp. A Rose Has No Teeth: Bruce Nauman in the 1960s (University of California Press. two key figures of the early Conceptual era. The Last Picture Show. Leave Any Information at the Signal. The artists studied in Light Years did largely discuss their work in generic and anonymous terms. 116–38. 242–43. pp.. p.” October 55 (Winter 1990). photographic situation. 13. 2008). 273–85.” October 15 (Winter 1980). 2. 14. and Stefan Gronert. “Giulio Paolini. 2008). “Conceptual Art. and Birgit Pelzer. 253. Christophe Cherix has detailed the thematics of Conceptual Art and displacement. pp. Newman.” Afterimage 26.” chap. 21. A Voyage On the North Sea: Art in the Age of the Post-Medium Condition (Thames and Hudson. L’École de Photographie de Dusseldorf: Photographies. 2009). Mel Bochner: Thought Made Visible. 2010). Among the steadily growing literature on photoconceptualism. Leave Any Information at the Signal. “Between Object and Image. a fact that has often been pointed out. Yale University Art Gallery. 1999). See “Greetings from Amsterdam. 1992. pp.. Friedemann Malsch. cited in Scott Rothkopf. “Circa 1930: Art History and the New Photography. 231. 2002).” Études Photographiques 23 (May 2009). “Marks of Indifference: Photography in. The tactic of staging one’s photo op is crucially important in contemporary art. 25. or as. 1997). John Gibson Gallery. Ibid. 2007). 94. Janine Mileaf. 2010). Mark Francis. 12. Douglas Crimp. See Lucy Soutter. (Blackwell Publishing. The Last Picture Show. It is not incidental that Krauss focuses her arguments on Coleman and Marcel Broodthaers. Dan Graham (Phaidon. The Last Picture Show: Artists Using Photography. For a discussion of “medium” and its introduction to photographic discourse. in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood. 28.” in Ruscha. 1999). ed. 13–22. 2002). 196. See on these points Friedrich Kittler. 10. Book of Dust: The Beginning and the End of Time and Thereafter (Visual Studies Workshop Press. “The Author as Producer” (1934). Stefan Gronert has pointed out that the European art world of the 1950s and 1960s was not dominated by the discourse of medium specificity that Beaumont Newhall championed in photography. 20. pp. 18. in Liliane Weissberg and Karen Beckman. p. 5–33. One of the first articulations of “rematerialization” in work of the 1960s appeared nearly thirty years later. Typewriter Camera. 1966–1976 (Camera Works. however. she claims. Conceptual Art. trans.” interview by Eric de Bruyn. serves fundamentally to allow us to heal rifts in our own identity and to bridge differences between ourselves and others. 344. pp. Art in Theory. p. 2009). Pages.” in Fogle. “Alternative Pictures: Conceptual Art and the Artistic Emancipation of Photography in Europe. New York.” “Dan Graham. Geoffrey WinthropYoung and Michael Wutz (Stanford University Press. Jeff Wall. 18. p. See “The Dematerialization of Art. There is much self-staging in the history of photography. “The Adventures of the Picture Form in the History of Photography” (1989). deemphasizing any object character. see Margaret Iversen and Diarmuid Costello. 8–10. 2004). eds. As an example. 3.. 11. 2 (February 1968). 493–99. 9. Hopps. 2. 6. 31–36. “Ed Ruscha. 63. p. that is. eds. 26. Leave Any Information at the Signal: Writings. Ken Allan. p. Graham devoted a couple of essays to photographic topics (including one on Eadweard Muybridge) in his self-published book End Moments (1969). p. in Fogle. 3 (September 2010). p. Mel Bochner Photographs. Interviews. 1966–1973 (Yale University Art Gallery. Die Moderne der Fotografie (Schaden. 17. see Herbert Molderings on the Dresden collector Kurt Kirchbach in Molderings. His first two films. “Photography by Other Means. Agnes Denes. 2009). 1989). “The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism. in Beatriz Colomina. “The Photographic Idea: Reconsidering Conceptual Photography. The turn to photojournalism and amateur snapshots as models for Conceptual Art is one of Wall’s main points in “Marks of Indifference. 2007). 2009). 5 (March–April 1999). 27. cited in Maddalena Disch. Walter Benjamin. John Coplans. “A Conversation. 1–16). and “Reinventing the Medium.” in Che fare? Arte Povera: The Historic Years. Rosalind Krauss. Lucy Lippard coined the term “dematerialization” with fellow critic John Chandler in 1968. 44. John Roberts. Gramophone. pp. Mel Bochner. See also Sasha M. 2 (Winter 1999). 2003). ed. p. 7 in Flesh of My Flesh (Stanford University Press.’” Artforum 45 (September 2006). 2001).” in Edward Ruscha. Mel Bochner. p. ed. 1995). 1962–1969: From the Aesthetics of Administration to the Critique of Institutions. 1960–1976 (Museum of Modern Art. and concerned photography specifically: David Green. pp. Nauman created a well-known piece in 1968 . See also Krauss. 14. Alexandra Schwartz (MIT Press. 114.” Critical Inquiry 25. pp. groundless. Witkovsky. pp. “Concerning Various Small Fires: Edward Ruscha Discusses His Perplexing Publications. 5. Analogy. 4. interview by Carla Lonzi. David Joselit. Film. Silverman elaborates in that book a compelling and much larger set of arguments regarding analogical understanding that can be addressed here only glancingly. 22. Kaja Silverman. Štep ̌ án Grygar.” Art International 12. 1966–1969 (Yale University Press. and it seems misleading to uphold photodocumentation and performances for the camera per se as innovations specific to the 1960s. Konceptuální ume ̌ní a fotografie (Akademie Múzických Umění.” Art Bulletin 92. 19. we should understand the world as a web of resemblances in which we are bound. pp. 2nd ed. and thanked photography curator Weston Naef for the inspiration to write the book. Bits. Rothkopf discusses this particular work and attendant period issues of literalism and seriality (pp. Who Have Known Each Other since the Early 1960s. 1961–2008 (Hazan. 114–19. p. 6. forthcoming). 1974–1984 (Metropolitan Museum of Art. “The Photo Pieces. The Pictures Generation. Pop Art and Spectatorship in 1960s Los Angeles. and Valentina Pero (Kehrer. 8–13. Collage (Palermo) 7 (May 1967).” October 81 (Summer 1997). see Michael Fried. Took Place on September 6. Silverman. Douglas Eklund. April 2008.” address. pp. Photography is in Silverman’s view not necessarily a means to generate representations— conventionally understood as deceitful. trans. 27. 5. 8. Flesh of My Flesh. see Matthew S. 168–221. Christiane Meyer-Stoll. See Gronert. 1900–2000: An Anthology 24 T h e U nf i x e d P h otogr a p h of Changing Ideas. “And Then Turn Away? An Essay on James Coleman. 24.” in In and Out of Amsterdam: Travels in Conceptual Art. Giulio Paolini. Sunset to Sunrise and Binocular Zoom (1969) were conceived in filmic and photographic versions as well (see plate 97).” in Richard Field. 315–16. or pallid—but a device that can give form to analogical correspondences. 1960–1982 (Walker Art Center. 316–17. “Captured Things: Man Ray’s Photographs of Objects. 289–305. For overviews of these artistic formations. 1970.” Creative Camera 340 (June/July 1996). Benjamin Buchloh.” in Ruscha. 23. 2003). with roots in the Conceptual era. “I wanted to do the same things that I saw in Minimal and Pop art in a flat. Anna Bostock. ed. Douglas Fogle.” in Reconsidering the Object of Art: 1965–1975. Feedback: Television against Democracy (MIT Press. 86–96. Constance Lewallen. 105–43. connections across a distance (the shift to digital matters little in this regard).Notes 1. 1995). 29. p. 16. pp. Photography After Conceptual Art (John Wiley and Sons. I wanted to re-do the modules of Larry Bell or Donald Judd as slide projections. Ann Goldstein and Anne Rorimer (Museum of Contemporary Art. p. Picture This! (University of Minnesota Press. 15. pp. Graham also held one of the earliest exhibitions in the circuit of vanguard art galleries to emphasize photography: Dan Graham: Some Photographic Projects (with a catalogue). Walter Hopps. Jean-François Chevrier. pp. “Secrets of the Domes: Mel Bochner on ‘The Domain of the Great Bear. nor did it witness the accompanying canonization of figures such as Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston. The Impossible Document: Photography and Conceptual Art in Britain. pp. Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before (Yale University Press. “A Conversation between Walter Hopps and Edward Ruscha.. Los Angeles.

35–40.” October 89 (Summer 1999).edu/resources/lunarorbiter/. Oppenheim. 60–65. Harald Szeemann. 172. Smithson. as one of four instruction pieces included in the London version of When Attitudes Become Form. For image catalogs that link to individual survey pictures in black-and-white and to composite views. “Rhetoric of the Image” (1964) in Image. pp. the installation of Power Fields: Explorations in the Work of Vito Acconci at the Slought Foundation. 1969).pag. 1965–2007 (MIT Press. “The Photographic Conditions of Surrealism. trans. 1996). University of Kansas. The phrase “message without a code” first appeared in Barthes’s essay “The Photographic Message” (1961) in Image. Carl Andre’s exhibition Cuts at the Virginia Dwan Gallery in 1967 featured pieces made of concrete capstones with slicelike removals. 102 n. pp. “The Index and the Uncanny. “Discussions with Heizer. Bruce Nauman. p. esp. 44. see Carrie Lambert. See. Information (Institute of Contemporary Arts. 39. Works. “Notes on the Index: Seventies Art in America. interview by Lizbeth Marano (1994).lpi. “Primal Acts of Construction/Destruction: The Art of Michael Heizer. 1981).. 2006). My thanks to Chrissie Iles and Barbara Heizer for information on this work. 81. 269–73. Music.” Avalanche 1 (Fall 1970). Vito Acconci: Diary of a Body. My thanks to John Gossage for suggesting this reading. 25. See Jeffrey Weiss. Text. introduction by David Whitney (Leo Castelli Gallery. 81.. 46.” In this sense. “Notes on the Index. in Selected Writings in Meta-Art. for example. In a piece from 1969. 46. 2– February 15–March 31. An important rereading of that development is given in Laura Mulvey.usra. Solar System and Rest Rooms: Writings and Interviews. vol. 2000). 1977). 1993). Processes. Willoughby Sharp. This and subsequent quotes are from Acconci Studio. W i t kov s k y 25 . pp. Camera Lucida (Hill and Wang.” October 19 (Winter 1981).” part 1. pp. p. for example. See Roland Barthes. 41. Concepts. 42–44. p. October 4 (Fall 1977). 2010).” October 3 (Spring 1977). p. a painter who had painted canvases that exactly matched the color of the walls on which they were hung. the work approaches photographic documentation of the sort made by Hamish Fulton and Richard Long. 34. 45. see www. 43. 40.D. 2007). largely traceable to Jasper Johns’s use of rulers and body parts. 2008. Burgin had proposed doing the same. not an occasion for performance. 1967–1987” (Ph. M at t h ew S . Text. diss. “Talking to Myself: The Ongoing Autobiography of an Art Object” (1970–73). 38. 32–33. London. 139–48. 48. April–May 2011: “Photopath was intended as an object of contemplation. October 3 (Summer 1977). 47. 33. Situations. pp. 37. e-mail correspondence with the author. Ruscha had made a painting called Actual Size in 1962.” in Jasper Johns: An Allegory of Painting. Stephen Heath (Hill and Wang. ed. famously featuring a can of Spam as its unit of measure. 197–98. 32. “Painting Bitten by a Man. this was in her essay “Robert Morris: An Aesthetic of Transgression. 30. 1968). in Bochner. available at slought. 1 of Out of Order. 2008). 1969). 44. see slought. Mel Bochner. ed.” Rosalind Krauss. Krauss.titled My Name as though It Were Written on the Surface of the Moon. An extended version of my remarks on Acconci can be found there as well. the preoccupation with scale and measurement in (against) illusionistic representation is widespread in painting of the 1950s and 1960s. Lunar orbiters relayed photographs throughout the second half of 1966 and early 1967. the real fractured by spacing. Out of Sight (MIT Press.” in Robert Morris (Corcoran Gallery of Art. Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form. Exhibiting the New Art: ‘Op losse schroeven’ and ‘When Attitudes Become Form’ 1969 (Afterall. see also Patricia Fairchild. Philadelphia. Long plucked daisies in an X shape from a field of grass in a London park to create a short path by removal. However. citation dated 1970. Carolyn Bailey Gill (Manchester University Press.” in Time and the Image. Andre first showed his metal floor pieces that year as well. 31. In the second part of this article Krauss described the work of Lucio Pozzi. p. 1955–1965 (National Gallery of Art/Yale University Press. Interestingly. 42. Victor Burgin. Rosalind Krauss. Adrian Piper. On this show and its close counterpart at the Stedelijk Museum. see Christian Rattemeyer. n. 17. pp. pp. 39–41. My thanks to Pierluigi and Valentina Pero for this information. Annette Michelson is apparently the first writer to have deployed the term “indexicality”. Surrealism equals “an experience of the real itself as sign. Roland Barthes. p. 70. 35. Music. 1969–1973 (Edizioni Charta. 1968–1992. p. 36. “Moving Still: Mediating Yvonne Rainer’s Trio A.