Light Years

Conceptual Art
and the
Photograph
1964–1977

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

The Unfixed Photograph Matthew S. Witkovsky .

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

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

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

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

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

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

it is left to settle or be resettled in entropic fashion by successive viewers. performer as indeterminate area in indeterminate reading. . and yet another to contemplate it in an exhibition or book (plates 98–100). Taking entropy to the level of a modus operandi. 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. in a book.” In the book version.43 Yet even if no one stepped onto it. reader as former of the performance (form as reading of the performance). These multipart constructions.” Placed on the wall. from the staid juxtaposition of small-format photographs and neatly written notes in the early 1970s.he considered what to do with them. as pixel. or even reverse swastikas in the series Human Bondage (1974). and others.” The “pile version” of Twelve Pictures carries a definite echo of “scatter pieces” by Robert Morris.” but also and importantly under your feet. deprived of any certain coherence or narrative order. at the London venue of Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form.” stated Adrian Piper straightforwardly. In this sense. in either case someone entering a “moving area. The importance of this variability and its attendant.” a notion that could well mean the potentially limitless terrain of circulating printed copies. Gilbert and George similarly began in 1972 to shape multiple small photographs into wall sculptures. reader as indeterminate area in indeterminate performance). ongoing interactivity between audience and performer becomes clear in considering the final presentation form. Again.” 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. he termed straightforwardly “pictures as performance of the performance” or “end of the performance. another to come across this confrontational character as a classified advertisement in the Village Voice.38 For his part. Photopath integrated the marks of time’s passage while protecting its original subject from normal wear and tear. .41 But the identity of Photopath was at once more and less literal than any Minimalist object. Photopath flaunted its fragility. the reader/viewer became a (new) performer or a (supplemental) audience. most intriguingly.” a simple stack of the unmounted prints: “Pile version: reader as rereader. and it deliberately recalled the Cuts and metal floor pieces by Carl Andre. .42 Once in place. the work as such is non-existent except when it functions as a medium of change between the artist and the viewer. on a wall. Victor Burgin exhibited Photopath (plate 27). reader as indeterminate performer in indeterminate area (performer as indeterminate reader in indeterminate area. Barry Le Va. work with photographs responds to work in sculpture. however. in this case the breakdown of temporal sequence and the consequently greater “scattering” of audiences for the work in its various guises. the very light rays that had helped bring Photopath into being would breach its surface and progressively cause it to fade. He determined that Twelve Pictures could exist in multiple versions: on a sheet.39 It is not that the precise exhibition format is unimportant—far from it—but that it cannot matter in any one. The sheet version. hypertrophically indexical at its inception. making the viewer into what Acconci called a “moving reader as performer. It was demonstratively bound to its referent in a way that would be theorized. a sober. who pioneered constellations of photographs as diminutive fetish objects in 1973 with Les Tortures volontaires (Voluntary Tortures). The analog becomes digital: the photograph as particle. in which industrial materials were distributed with an intent to maximize random occupation of the exhibition surface. her critique of plastic surgery (plate 95). the photographs could be continually reassembled for different audiences and in different forms. Walking on Photopath “was not the work’s raison d’être. and. in which case they reversed the terms of the performance. Richard Serra. “One reason for making and exhibiting a work. “is to induce a reaction or change in the viewer. Acconci has adopted a deliberate openness regarding the presentation of his photoworks over the years. Douglas Huebler provocatively left unspecified the ordering of any of his works for display. that in principle corresponds point for point with a preexisting reality. then print the photographs at life scale and set them back precisely over their source. then. fixed way. formed by the “touch” of light on photosensitive surfaces. as “indexical”: an imprint. In the fall of 1969. in recent years.” as Burgin has recently written. the “pile version. which could be taken (following Bochner) as a further dissolution of the modernist grid. the results have another resonance. also implied the possibility of dispersion and multiplicity within a single medium. from that very year. in a pile. Burgin’s instructions were brilliantly simple: to photograph a section of the exhibition floor. meanwhile.40 As with Acconci’s photo performance. From sheet to wall to printed page. But again. This strategy of photographic “piles” would be used to innovative effect by Annette Messager. and whose meanings issue from this fact of correspondence. the pictures could be mounted in a single row. meanwhile. the piece seemed not to index its referent but to exchange places with it. but its title and placement clearly invited the treads that Andre’s works were made to withstand. evidentiary mounting of the original prints accompanied by substantial written documentation (plates 21–23). . This work. stating only that a given number of images “will join with this statement to constitute the final form of the piece.”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. it “lived in your head. to an overlay of aphoristic remarks on prints mounted as separate panels within a single frame (circa 1980 and after). a piece he had first made two years earlier in a friend’s apartment. creating everything from their own monumentalized initials (plate 96) to wobbly projections of their drunkenness. is let loose. or. which Acconci mocked up as a grid on paper measuring ten and a half by fourteen inches (subsequently lost). 167). A ribbonlike work some sixty feet long was the result.

that the photograph (in its literal state). 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 .” Analog recording. . . In place of that rarefied and hermetic work had come new forms of abstraction. “Edenic” record of time’s passing: “This utopian character of denotation is considerably reinforced by the paradox . W i t kov s k y 23 . with its “myth of photographic ‘naturalness’. His emphasis on analogy steered that reading. . 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). “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). Conceptual Art investigated the problem of the analogon in an entirely “canny” way.” Summarizing the inaugural exhibition at the art space PS1 in New York. an achievement upon which Krauss built enormously. 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). became unfixed as imprints of the real. seems to constitute a message without a code. Krauss turned to writings by French semiotician and philosopher Roland Barthes. on canvases and photostats. When artists in the Conceptual era tested the properties and conventions of photographs themselves—perspective. Newer abstract painting and photography. sequencing. in which spatial immediacy was conjoined to temporal anteriority. Barthes argued. . it bears noting. for the photograph is never experienced as illusion.”44 Krauss’s two-part article. Krauss wrote of the participants that “their procedures were to exacerbate an aspect of the building’s physical presence. analysis of conventions and habits of mind. “Notes on the Index. . .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. in particular his essay of 1964. color. and framed by multiple textual devices. however. 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.” In the first part of her essay. “the photograph being an illogical conjunction between the here-now and the there-then. could thus be shown to be linked—in an argument against the use of “style” and “medium” as meaningful terms of art historical evaluation. though seemingly worlds apart.” Barthes described there the sense one has in looking at a photograph of a literal. But then the analogic transpositions turned inward.” To interpret photographs critically requires conjoining disparate signs. based not on glimpses of trauma or revelation but on a studied. if often witty. a guarantee of objectivity. “Rhetoric of the Image. In elaborating these insights. Presented in books and slides. 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. they added new formations to the vocabulary of art through analogy to established norms in other disciplines.47 And where Surrealism (and. who declared in 1977 that contemporary art “again and again chooses the terminology of the index.” had instituted a new form of human consciousness.48 What the Conceptual era further made manifest was the mutability of the photographic analog caught between image and object. a development that proceeded contemporaneously with market and museum attention to “artists using photography. which shared in their contingency a structural similarity to the photographic image. Barthes’s late writing on photography) considered reality to be a system of signs opened up by the irruptions of the uncanny.”45 In the second part. “rhetoric”—they made objects that. Barthes concluded.” published in the recently founded journal October. captioning. by virtue of its absolutely analogical nature. in courting the condition of “dumb facts” or approaching the “actual size” of their referents. in the context of discussions on Surrealism. and thereby to embed within it a perishable trace of their own. scale. stands as a milestone in the advance of photographic theory during the 1970s. 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. honest and open to the world. photographic images created the equivalent of neologisms in artistic practice.”46 Barthes led the way in reading photographs as instances of semiotic functioning. M at t h ew S . serially and singly.

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

London. the work approaches photographic documentation of the sort made by Hamish Fulton and Richard Long. 1981). 39.” Avalanche 1 (Fall 1970). 32. Annette Michelson is apparently the first writer to have deployed the term “indexicality”. October 3 (Summer 1977). Oppenheim.pag. “Moving Still: Mediating Yvonne Rainer’s Trio A. Ruscha had made a painting called Actual Size in 1962. 46. My thanks to Pierluigi and Valentina Pero for this information.” in Jasper Johns: An Allegory of Painting. “The Photographic Conditions of Surrealism. 31. a painter who had painted canvases that exactly matched the color of the walls on which they were hung. See Jeffrey Weiss. “Painting Bitten by a Man. 139–48. 30. for example. as one of four instruction pieces included in the London version of When Attitudes Become Form. “Notes on the Index. ed.. Burgin had proposed doing the same.usra. p. 37. 36. My thanks to Chrissie Iles and Barbara Heizer for information on this work. Long plucked daisies in an X shape from a field of grass in a London park to create a short path by removal. Surrealism equals “an experience of the real itself as sign. 48. An important rereading of that development is given in Laura Mulvey. trans. pp. in Bochner. Vito Acconci: Diary of a Body. pp. Out of Sight (MIT Press. 2008. Lunar orbiters relayed photographs throughout the second half of 1966 and early 1967. In a piece from 1969. Text. see also Patricia Fairchild. 47. see Carrie Lambert. 43. Carolyn Bailey Gill (Manchester University Press. My thanks to John Gossage for suggesting this reading. Information (Institute of Contemporary Arts. April–May 2011: “Photopath was intended as an object of contemplation. Concepts. 44. pp. 42–44.edu/resources/lunarorbiter/. the preoccupation with scale and measurement in (against) illusionistic representation is widespread in painting of the 1950s and 1960s. 269–73. University of Kansas. In the second part of this article Krauss described the work of Lucio Pozzi. p. Situations. this was in her essay “Robert Morris: An Aesthetic of Transgression.” in Robert Morris (Corcoran Gallery of Art. pp. 2008). 60–65. “The Index and the Uncanny. See Roland Barthes. 1969–1973 (Edizioni Charta. Works. p. October 4 (Fall 1977). February 15–March 31.titled My Name as though It Were Written on the Surface of the Moon. Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form. p. Processes. p. Music. Mel Bochner. 81.” October 89 (Summer 1999).” Rosalind Krauss. Stephen Heath (Hill and Wang. Rosalind Krauss. 1977). Krauss. Solar System and Rest Rooms: Writings and Interviews. Roland Barthes. 46.org/content/11388/. interview by Lizbeth Marano (1994). 2010). esp. ed. 17.” in Time and the Image. citation dated 1970. Harald Szeemann. Willoughby Sharp. 2006). 35. Interestingly. Smithson. pp. 2007). for example. p. 42. This and subsequent quotes are from Acconci Studio. “Notes on the Index: Seventies Art in America. 1996). On this show and its close counterpart at the Stedelijk Museum. n. diss. Bruce Nauman. pp. see www.. 1 of Out of Order. 1967–1987” (Ph. pp. 40. e-mail correspondence with the author. 34.lpi. M at t h ew S . 70. introduction by David Whitney (Leo Castelli Gallery. see slought. 33. An extended version of my remarks on Acconci can be found there as well. 172. 41. “Discussions with Heizer. 81. Carl Andre’s exhibition Cuts at the Virginia Dwan Gallery in 1967 featured pieces made of concrete capstones with slicelike removals. 1969). 1968).D. For image catalogs that link to individual survey pictures in black-and-white and to composite views. 32–33. 1969). 2–56. See. famously featuring a can of Spam as its unit of measure. Camera Lucida (Hill and Wang.” October 19 (Winter 1981). Adrian Piper. “Talking to Myself: The Ongoing Autobiography of an Art Object” (1970–73). Text. the installation of Power Fields: Explorations in the Work of Vito Acconci at the Slought Foundation. 1968–1992. However. 44. The phrase “message without a code” first appeared in Barthes’s essay “The Photographic Message” (1961) in Image. the real fractured by spacing. “Primal Acts of Construction/Destruction: The Art of Michael Heizer. W i t kov s k y 25 . see Christian Rattemeyer. Exhibiting the New Art: ‘Op losse schroeven’ and ‘When Attitudes Become Form’ 1969 (Afterall. in Selected Writings in Meta-Art. p. 25.” October 3 (Spring 1977). not an occasion for performance. Andre first showed his metal floor pieces that year as well. 1965–2007 (MIT Press. “Rhetoric of the Image” (1964) in Image. 102 n. 38. vol.” part 1.” In this sense. Victor Burgin. available at slought. 45. largely traceable to Jasper Johns’s use of rulers and body parts.org/content/11363/. 39–41. 197–98. Philadelphia. 35–40. pp. 2000). Music. 1955–1965 (National Gallery of Art/Yale University Press. 1993).