Kunstlicht · jrg. 31· 2010 nr. 3/4 · Beeldende kunst + architectuur

Wouter Davidts

Donald Judd and the lateral amplification of sculpture

Wouter Davidts is Professor of Modern and Contemporary Art at the VU University in Amsterdam. He is the author of Bouwen voor de kunst? Museumarchitectuur van Centre Pompidou tot Tate Modern (2006) and recently edited The Fall of the Studio: Artists at Work (2009, with Kim Paice) and CRACK: Koen van den Broek (2010). He curated the show Abstract USA 1958–1968. In the Galleries at the Rijksmuseum Twenthe in Enschede, which runs until 11 February 2011.

’9 In 1985. work no. Judd expressed his distrust of sheer size. continued with the purchase and renovation of several small to large buildings in and around town. They were. so he noted in 1977. he did not blink to state that ‘[s]mall is beautiful’ and that one never ought ‘to make anything […] bigger than necessary. if my own complex [of La Mansana de Chinati] is added. it is the largest. and expensive to move.’4 On the invitation card for the opening that was sent to all international guests.’10 . Judd penned down that ‘proportion and scale’ were qualities that were ‘very important’ to him.1 In a by now well-known passage Judd remarked that ‘[i]t takes a great deal of time and thought to install work carefully. not in storage. Even though the artist was creating some of the biggest art installations of the twentieth century. size. It all started with the acquisition and refurbishment of the 1870 castiron building on 101 Spring Street in SoHo in 1968. he stressed that the institution grew out of his personal concern to provide artworks with the best possible temporal and spatial conditions.’7 Yet at many occasions in his writings and during interviews. Big of SoHo’ and ‘The Man who Bought Marfa. the artist never felt obliged to defend the actual dimensions of his building and installation efforts. ‘What is unique about the installations. Somewhere.6 Due to this incremental accumulation of real-estate in New York and later in Marfa. Donald Judd went on to work in ‘real space’. a strict measure must exist for the art of this time and place. Most art is fragile and some should be placed and never moved again. 232.’ By carefully calibrating scale. 2000 When the artist Donald Judd issued a statement at the launch of the Chinati Foundation in Marfa.’3 Apart from the exemplary spatial precision and the temporal stability. the artist received such nicknames as ‘Mr. — Martin Creed. visible. and after having moved to the little town of Marfa in the South of Texas in 1971. objects.’ he argued.’5 The Chinati Foundation on the grounds of the former Fort Russell in Marfa was the most extensive in a series of building and installation projects that the artist Donald Judd initiated during his life. But instead of becoming a sculptor. complex. Judd also pointed out the exceptional size of the endeavor: ‘The Chinati Foundation […] is now one of the largest visible installations of contemporary art in the world. or even now. Texas in 1986. he was ‘working directly toward something new in both.’2 The Chinati Foundation was to provide a gauge for installing present-day artworks: ‘Somewhere a portion of contemporary art has to exist as an example of what the art and its context were meant to be. When it nears completion. ‘is not so much to be found in the scale and the magnitude of the whole. one year before the official opening of the Chinati Foundation. in order to permanently install his own work and that of a selected group of artists that he liked and admired. Big of SoHo’ to ‘The Man Who Bought Marfa’ Disgruntled by the illusory spatiality that lingered in even his most abstract paintings. however. using ‘a three-dimensional form that [is] neither painting nor sculpture.’ so future guests were told.’ The distinguishing feature was ‘the fact that here art is encountered in the context of its surrounding architectonic spaces and in a natural situation – and not isolated in a museological anthology. ‘In contrast to the prevailing regurgitated art and architecture. as befits Texas. he focused on the qualities of space itself.95 Wouter Davidts · From ‘Mr. just as the platinumiridium meter guarantees the tape measure. and environments.’ the whole world + the work = the whole world.’8 In the many essays that he wrote on the subject of art and architecture. he created works that actually inhibit ‘pictorial space as well as in sculptural space. ‘urgent and necessary. a text was printed that surprisingly put the acclaimed largeness of the project in perspective. Some work is too large. This should not always be thrown away.

Marfa. . 3/4 · Beeldende kunst + architectuur 1. Texas.96 Kunstlicht · jrg. The Chinati Foundation. 1982-1986. 31· 2010 nr. 100 Untitled Works in Mill Aluminum (interior view). Donald Judd.

Big of SoHo’ to ‘The Man Who Bought Marfa’ .97 Wouter Davidts · From ‘Mr.

structure and image.98 Kunstlicht · jrg.’ were in balance.’ Judd started the review. especially in case of Bontecou’s simple reliefs. immediate and exclusive’ and allowed the work to manifest itself ‘as an object in its own right. representational illusionism and thematic allusion that marked previous art. ‘thought of scale as fundamentally inherent in an object. ‘was one of the first to use a threedimensional form that was neither painting nor sculpture. Donald Judd. and ‘European’ paint- ing in particular. an artist that would later that year also prominently figure in his landmark essay ‘Specific Objects’. 1968. 31· 2010 nr. buildings and nature. if we are to believe the artist.’12 Instead of defining scale as public. untitled (Brass Box). as being constituted between the art object. the new work had ‘a larger internal scale and […] fewer parts.’18 The new scale. Donald Judd.15 ‘Lee Bontecou.’17 In order to abandon the ‘type of unification necessary for the representation of objects in space. but the launch of a new paradigm in terms of size and scale for the encounter between artworks. not so much the product of the artist’s ‘megalomania’ and privileged financial position and institutional power. albeit 3.’16 Bontecou’s reliefs signaled to Judd a vital departure from the compositional hierarchies. the scale. Judd thought of scale first and foremost as a built-in quality of the art object itself. the body of the viewer and the (architectural) context. that is. . Bontecou belonged to ‘a small number of Americans artists’ that had ‘developed a new scale. was ‘pragmatic.’ as a work with a power that was ‘remarkably single.’19 An object gave evidence of internal scale when ‘the three primary aspects.’ sculptor and friend David Rabinowitch recalled. 1968.13 ‘Don. La Mansana and the Chinati Foundation in Marfa then are. The subsequent installations in the 101 Spring Street Building in New York. untitled (Brass Box).’ Judd wrote.’14 A noteworthy example of Judd’s use of the idiosynchratic notion of ‘internal scale’ is to be found in his well-known 1965 review of the work of Lee Bontecou.11 Judd’s use of the notion of scale was based on one of his so-called ‘counterintuitive intuitions. 3/4 · Beeldende kunst + architectuur 2.

’ While he admitted that ‘the large size and fairly simple parts’ of paintings like Number 32.’ he stated.’25 .’ Judd concluded. Polarity then was constituted by the divergence between the particularity and the generality of a work.20 Polarization on its turn was a value of long standing for Judd. ‘are polarized rather than amalgated.99 Wouter Davidts · From ‘Mr.21 In his 1967 article on Pollock.’22 Judd realized that not a single part. 100 Untitled Works in Mill Aluminum (interior view). and the resulting experience of the general composition of the canvas as a whole on the other: ‘Everything is fairly independent and specific. Marfa. with the inherent proportional relation between the parts and the whole. Judd stressed that ‘the large size and the great scale of Abstract Expressionism’ were ‘not the same thing. almost paraphrasing the latter’s famous exclamation. In his 1983 essay ‘Abstract Expressionism’. The Chinati Foundation. that ‘scale is not dependent on size. or Anna’s Light by Barnett Newman ‘produced a great scale. ‘The elements and aspects of Pollock’s painting. let alone a fragment of a Pollock painting. 1982-1986.24 Polarization rather was correlated with the internal scale. Yet every single drip of paint nevertheless manifested itself as an sovereign and specific element.’23 Although Judd also held Pollock responsible for the introduction of a new size of painting. Big of SoHo’ to ‘The Man Who Bought Marfa’ 4. 1950 by Pollock. not a placid balance but a powerful ‘polarization’ of the latter ‘elements and qualities’ within the work as a whole. most clearly elaborated in his critical appraisals of the work of Jackson Pollock. Texas. Judd praised the painter’s works for the paradoxical combination of the lack of compositional hierarchy between the particular material marks of paint on the one hand. matched the powerful experience of the painting as a whole. Donald Judd. he did not consider a work’s degree of polarity to increase along with its size. that is.

into the actual space of an art installation. The works use the floor on which they are placed.’ Richard Shiff has rightly pointed out.’28 Yet this did not imply that the artist immediately converted to the medium of sculpture.100 Kunstlicht · jrg. color and surface). 100 Untitled Works in Mill Aluminum (exterior view). In this essay I would like to argue that it is precisely the acknowledgement of the dual nature of Judd’s work – the existence. Or put differently. that is. an abrupt cantilever from the wall or rise from the floor) so they could resolutely occupy space as three-dimensional entities. either vertically or horizontally. in particular with the residual spatial illusionism that continued to haunt all paintings. in pictorial space as well as in sculptural space’ – that provides us with a critical framework to assess the scale of his work in general.’ he noted in his essay ‘Specific Objects’. the spatial formation of Judd’s works remains fundamentally pictorial. but as well to the many shiny boxes in either brass or aluminum. these works were not intended to activate the space they dwelled in. light and proportion. was to work in the area in between both media: ‘Half or more of the best new work in the last few years has been neither painting nor sculpture.’27 Judd decided to work in the ‘three dimensions’ of ‘real space. as Robert Pincus Witten remarked in 1970 about one of Judd’s brass boxes. 31· 2010 nr.’30 Judd regarded space as one of the distinct qualities of his art. It became an active element rather than a passive container. This applies not only to the vertical wall stacks or the horizontal wall progressions. or the wall on which they are hung. no longer the homogenising background of a “picture”. ‘His space. Judd managed to arrive at the quality of polarization that he avidly wanted to achieve . as well as enclose.33 ‘Judd’s scale.’31 Judd granted objects a particular shape. he gradually grew disgruntled with the medium. 5. while Judd’s works indeed identify actual space as a constitutive aspect of an artwork – an element that they project into. His true artistic objective. as a backdrop.’ I contend. like a sculpture – they nevertheless continue to relate to that actual space in frontal fashion – like a painting. or. Marfa. and contain. put differently. 1982-1986. The Chinati Foundation. consists of the transposition of the polarity that he detected in an artwork. so the artist claimed in his last essay ‘Some Aspects of Color in General and Red and Black in Particular’. 3/4 · Beeldende kunst + architectuur Yet for Judd painting was not the most appropriate medium to achieve his artistic ambitions.’29 The very newness of his work. to be sensed along with shape. consisted in ‘developing space as a main aspect of art.26 ‘Anything on a surface. Yet while space turned into a vital constituent of the experience of works by Judd. from which they arise. as a surface from which they abruptly emerge. color. and the scale of his installation and building activities in particular. shape. The inherent scale that he discovered within the works of the aforementioned artists is transferred into space: it is spatialized.32 Even though space no longer acts as a homogenizing pictorial background. ‘in two spheres of being. even the most abstract works. the surfaces of which both reflect and merge with the floor on which they rest. While he started out as a painter of abstract works. so one could read in the opening sentence. Texas. and proportion (that is. ‘was a primary among equals. ‘has a space behind it. Donald Judd. materiality (that is. respectively a Pollock painting or a Bontecou relief.

space and time.38 Every context he chose to install his work in was marked by a certain degree of materiality and historicity.’ so he continued. The less reference to reality his works came to possess – Smithson once famously referred to Judd’s ‘pink plexiglass box’ as ‘a giant crystal from another planet’ – the more the backdrop had to be a marker of that very reality. to finally the industrial sheds of the Chinati Foundation in the vast natural landscape of Marfa. examined the relational difference between . ‘is in my relation to the natural world.34 The artist’s consecutive installations. the existence of everything and the space and time that is created by the existing things. Art emulates this creation or definition by also creating. From SoHo to Marfa. Judd moreover always stressed that all boxes were to be considered as individual works.39 Yet this urge was first and foremost driven by the gradual development of the artist’s works. the respective one hundred boxes remain comparatively small objects (img. it remains important to remember that he always started with existing buildings that he subsequently refurbished.35 The enlargement or ‘extension’ in the work of Judd was.’41 Judd’s installation practice. can be read as spatial renditions of the pictorial quality of polarization. If the architecture of the artist’s projects might give the impression of being tailor-made. vernacular architecture. over the assorted spaces within the walled garden of La Mansana. all the way out. wrongly called ‘objective’ and ‘impersonal’ […]. but did rather extend it sideways. in terms of both size and materiality. all of it. that is. however. ‘has the appearance it has.’ Yet ‘my first and largest interest. That activity. ‘laterally rather than vertically. Big of SoHo’ to ‘The Man Who Bought Marfa’ in his three-dimensional work via the medium and practice of installation.40 ‘My work. Judd continued to produce work that retained the body as a basic measure. 1-5). it was due to the multiplication of the units.101 Wouter Davidts · From ‘Mr.’36 The artist did not so much blow up his work vertically to tower over the viewer. I will argue here. It is significant that Judd in all of these cases did not create environments from scratch. on a small scale. All idealizing spatial and architectural strategies would end up putting the works on a pedestal again. Judd notoriously took pleasure in criticizing new architecture and applauding existing. Judd provided his abstract works with different yet utterly specific spatial backdrops. This interest includes my existence. While the one hundred untitled aluminum boxes in the Artillery Sheds at Fort Russell make up an undeniably vast installation. I would like to argue. is marked by a major difference between the change of the size of the works on the one hand and the change of the size of the settings on the other. which spanned a period of more than 25 years. Texas.37 The architectural contexts in which and the spatial backdrops against which Judd successively placed his work. Throughout his career.’ he once complained. a keen interest. did gradually grow bigger: there is a major leap in size from the interior of the Spring Street loft building in the urban fabric of New York. He was uninterested in a ‘neutral’ setting and wanted to provide his works with a ‘real’ backdrop. via the calibrated relationship between the scale of his works and the scale of the setting. If the work grew bigger. as Barbara Rose presciently remarked in 1968 in her article Blow Up – The Problem of Scale in Sculpture.

In his studio on the ground floor he frontally juxtaposed his own works with the life on the streets. the more polarized the installation as a whole could become. New York. 6). The more wordly the backdrop and the more abstract the work. pre- 7. The view at the city through the windows of his bedroom was framed by a work by Dan Flavin. and finally the vast stretch of landscape in the Artillery Sheds of the Chinati Foundation. each being marked by a different spatial regime.7).42 Judd already started this ‘practice’ in 101 Spring Street in SoHo. the domestic tranquility combined with the idyllic nature of the hortus conclusus of La Mansana de Chinati or The Block. however. ranging from the urban bustle of New York. Donald Judd. Judd consciously installed his works against different backdrops. SoHo. .43 Later he exchanged these paintings by a wall sculpture consisting of two small aluminum boxes. In two portraits of the artist in the ground floor workplace in the early 1970s. that we encounter in our daily existence in time and space. either natural or man-made. 31· 2010 nr. art and all other things material. 3/4 · Beeldende kunst + architectuur 6.102 Kunstlicht · jrg. Donald Judd. interior view of the bedroom of 101 Spring Street. The domestic spaces of the house and the enclosed space of the garden of The Block. SoHo. one can discern two of the artist’s early paintings mounted on the solid wall panes that alternate with the windows (img. New York. interior view of the ground floor studio space of 101 Spring Street. itself being a succession of frames of tubular light fixtures (img.

whether architectural or natural. they become wide and shallow buildings. the boundaries between these exhibition spaces and his living and working quarters were far from absolute. While the artist to a certain degree went as far as to blend his artworks with their everyday environment. that is. The Block (La Mansana de Chinati). yet the actual artworks never fully merge with their surroundings.46 By prioritizing the frontal view through the building instead of the internal view amidst the boxes. but the main axis is through the wide glass façade. La Mansana de Chinati somehow seems to have served as an intermediary stage between the domestic and exhibitionary conditions of respectively 101 Spring Street and The Chinati Foundation. but forced the works in an utterly balanced yet fundamentally contrasting relation with their setting. While Judd used both the large warehouse spaces in the south-west and the south-east buildings as galleries to present his works. as Joshua Shannon has convincingly argued. Judd’s subsequent installations in New York and Marfa may serve as prime examples of a fertile meeting between art and architecture. 8). 5). Instead of being long buildings. The result is a . facing at right angles to their length. 4).’ (img. 8. This sensation is the product of what David Raskin has termed Judd’s ‘aesthetics of disparity. Marfa. had inescapably entered into a mimetic relation.44 In each of these distinct contexts Judd never aimed at a synthesis. over The Block to The Chinati Foundation represents an ever further move away from the ‘workday world of industrial modernity and consumer culture’ with which Judd’s work. Judd highlighted the necessity to see both the interior space of the installation and the landscape together. that very context frames the works too. The most famous picture of the installation of the one hundred aluminum boxes in the artillery sheds in Marfa consists of the view along the axis of the artillery sheds (img. Texas. They remain to claim their difference. interior view of the living quarters of the East Building with view into South East Gallery. yet nevertheless distinct. through the wide shallow space inside and through the other glass façade. even between art and life. This succession of radically different settings from 101 Spring Street. The Judd Foundation. and in doing so he tested and put at stake the difference between the respective regimes of these very material objects and surroundings. Big of SoHo’ to ‘The Man Who Bought Marfa’ remarkable unity in which the different elements nevertheless stand out and retain their discrete character. that is.’45 Just as much the works – at times even literally – frame their context. Donald Judd. Judd himself however indicated that it was not the longitudinal view within but the perpendicular view through the building that was the most important: ‘The long parallel planes of the glass façade enclose a long flat space containing the long rows of pieces.’ an artistic enterprise that generates ‘complexity in the face of unity. as in a picture. sented the artist with a radically different backdrop than the loft building and the surrounding urban environment of New York (img.103 Wouter Davidts · From ‘Mr. The given axis of a building is through its length. he nevertheless frontally juxtaposed both with each other. Judd tried out the different levels of coexistence and juxtaposition between his works and the props of his private life. whether building or landscape.

It is via and through these buildings that we understand that the real backdrop for the one hundred aluminum boxes is not the architecture but the vast Texan landscape.’ I would like to argue. What matters to assess the scale of Judd’s work in general is the extent of polarization that results from the juxtaposition of the different elements.48 In every installation – being an at once spatial and temporal translation of Judd’s conception of a polarized entity that is marked by a balanced internal scale – neither the size of the works nor the size of the surroundings matter at first. to claim a proper spatial and temporal enclave to accommodate art and to test out its probable dimensions. I would like to argue. Contrasting indeed. is not so much to be found in the perfected conditions of presentation as they are to be situated in the realistic assessment of the relative dimensions of art’s place and status in the world. that is. since Judd was not involved in providing his art with an ideal setting.47 By taking control of the spatial installation of his own works the artist made sure that the latter were going to be viewed against that very material world that they want to differ from. albeit in such a fashion that both the difference and the partaking come ‘into the picture. In a present-day world and society where things are ever more directed towards total instrumentalization and rapid exchangeability. can only be critically assessed by ‘measuring’ the intense process of installation that went with it. in both temporal and spatial terms. serve as a solemn reminder of how small yet considerable art’s place in the world is. the well-proportioned balance between the artworks and the buildings – and the temporal consistency – that is. 31· 2010 nr. the greater the work’s comprehension of space. But more importantly. he indirectly confirmed the pictorial constitution of the installation as a whole.’ The scale of either Judd’s works or the institutional enterprise of the ‘Marfa fiefdom.104 Kunstlicht · jrg. the landscape as it is framed by the architecture. space and time. Judd once indicated. Judd’s installations. a place mediated by the practice of installation. The uniqueness of the different permanent installations by Judd is indeed ‘not so much to be found in the scale and the magnitude of the whole. 3/4 · Beeldende kunst + architectuur as both are framed through and by the building.’50 . domestic or exhibitionary. While the artillery sheds deliver the material framework for the individual works. It was a belief that the artist already voiced in 1985 when he most presciently remarked that ‘[it]'s a lot easier to make art than to finance and make the space that houses it.’49 But that didn’t prevent him. both in New York and Marfa. the aim to have that equilibrium tested by the course of time – created a model and a gauge. art is no more than ‘creating on a small scale. In doing so. yet fully partake in. that is. they first and foremost deliver the pictorial outline for the installation as a whole. as befits an artist. man-made or natural – in the respective installations. In comparison to all things produced and existing. The building not so much juxtaposes as it ‘pictures’ two worlds that could not be more distinct from each other: artificial on the one hand and natural on the other.’ but in the experience of a contrasting encounter between artworks and different types and magnitudes of ‘nature’ – urban or rural. He was rather testing out the viable spatial and temporal conditions to grant (his) artworks a meaningful place. Judd’s key statement that ‘[t]he greater the polarity of the elements in a work. Yet the model-quality of Judd’s installations.’ applies to the installations as a whole. private or public. The spatial precision – that is. time and existence. they involuntarily also reveal how difficult it is to safeguard and maintain that place.

(note 2). and to create an atmosphere which will lead to the making and exhibiting of art as an inherent part of life. (note 2). Münster 1989. in: D. 12 R. its quality as a whole. Architektur.’ D. Halifax 1975/2005.o. pp. 10 Idem. 13 In this regard Judd fundamentally differs from his contemporary and colleague Robert Morris. In the Galleries (1962).). Judd. 181-189 (187). in: Stockebrand 1989. as cited in Shiff 2004. Gardner. such as ‘greater immediacy. Bois. Heiner Friedrich and Philippa de Menil. pp. it purchases the bulk of Fort Russell. who in his landmark essay ‘Notes on Sculpture II’ of 1966 states that minimalist work resorted to larger size in order to avoid the private relationship towards small objects and to obtain a ‘public’ condition: ‘Much of the new sculpture makes a positive value of large size. D. pp. ‘Specific Objects’ (1965).). Judd. Texas. Articles. Marfa. ‘Donald Judd.’ Noland exemplifies the new tendencies in Abstract art towards material singularization of the art object that Judd himself avidly wanted to achieve in his work.cit. ‘The Ideal Museum: An Art Settlement in the Texas Desert’. 289. It is one of the necessary conditions of avoiding intimacy. 2010. In 1978 he enters into a dialogue with the founders of Dia Art Foundation.’ 6 Judd acquired the building in New York and the grounds and buildings of what was later to become La Mansana de Chinati as a private person. ‘Specific Objections’. Statement for the Chinati Foundation / La Fundación Chinati. pp. Wednesday 1 September 2004 21:45-22:30 (Radio 3). to establish a graphics workshop and a library for art and architecture. Donald Judd. 18 Ibid. op. Architecture / Architektur. Tate Modern. in: Judd 1975/2005. After financial decline in 1985. Serota (ed. Ibid. Judd. Donald Judd. pp. who otherwise only loses control over his work all too often. Donald Judd. Stockebrand (ed. Morris. Letters to the Editor. Flavin and Judd. ‘Lee Bontecou’ (1965). was interested in ‘[t] he thing as a whole. op. Complete Writings 1959 -1975. Y.cit.’ See D. 1986. Noever (ed. The research is part of a book-length project on size and scale of postwar art. Judd. as he would not much later write in Specific Objects. As cited in: R. London.A. The Writings of Robert Morris.105 Wouter Davidts · From ‘Mr. For the space of the room itself is a structuring factor both in its cubic shape and in terms of the kinds of compression different sized and proportioned rooms can effect upon the object-subject terms. Donald Judd: Architecture in Marfa. Radio Program. Fuchs. 29-61 (46). so he adds.). Beyond a certain size the object can overwhelm and the gigantic scale becomes the loaded term.). 9-10 (10). Statements. The rest of the card reads as follows: ‘Chinati moreover stands for the idea that the installation and exhibition of art must be supervised by the maker of it. op. a large warehouse in . Cambridge. making him work a single object without conspicuous parts. Marfa/New Haven.P. Texas. in: P.cit. Architecture / Architektur.cit (note 12).’ 15 Judd uses the term internal scale for the first time in the review of an exhibition of Kenneth Noland in Gallery Emmerich in 1962 (April 10-May 5) that starts with the famous sentence that ‘Noland is one of the best but not the best. In 1987 Dia Art Foundation transfers the ownership of the property and artworks in Marfa to the newly founded. architecture and art institutions. U.cit. op.cit.cit. Rabinowitch himself. Morris (ed. 178-180 (178). Basel 2007. see a. Dia Art Foundation is forced to abandon Judd’s project in Marfa. exh. While the Dia Art Foundation initially supports the realization of the one hundred aluminum boxes. Complete Writings 1975-1986. Stockebrand (ed. Flückiger. 9 Idem. the practicing artist. Aside from the works of Chamberlain. ‘SoHo: Brave New Bohemia’. as well as the Wool and Mohair building.cat. Ostfildern-Ruit/ Portchester 2003. Donald Judd. Judd. the latter structure for the installation of Chamberlain’s work. in: Judd 1975/2005. ARTnews 73 (1974) 4. pp. 2 3 4 5 Ibid. Massachusetts/London/New York 1993. the better it does. 7 P. 194199 (197). Continuous Project Altered Daily. P. The writings of Donald have been published in two separate editions: the aforementioned Complete Writings 1975-1986 and D. pp. Art and Architecture (1987). to realize a large-scale project in Marfa. 14 Rabinowitch. Shiff. (note 2). pp. 11-22 (15-16). In defense of my work. London 2004. in: Judd 1975/2005. 85-89. Wright. in: N. (note 6).). 19 Ibid. pp. […] If larger than body size is necessary to the establishment of the more public mode. the centre of Marfa. op. 2010. 16 D. in: Judd 1986. in: R. Judd. nevertheless it does not follow that the larger the object. pp. Chinati: The Vision of Donald Judd. Book Reviews. pp. Judd. Reports. op. Ostfildern-Ruit/ Portchester 2003. 17 Ibid. Noever (ed. nor is he the leader of the best group. (note 2). 110-114 (111). Judd.’ See R. op. 54-60 (57). 11 For a critique of Judd’s alleged megalomania. greater internal scale and further simplicity and so on. For a survey of the different architecture and installation projects I refer to: M. pp. 96-102 (102). public organisation of The Chinati Foundation/La Fundación Chinati. 196-203. ‘Notes on Sculpture II’ (1966). Gallery Reviews. in: Judd 1975/2005. Eindhoven. Artforum 42 (2004) 10. ‘saw it as a function of [the] conditions of observation. P. 20 Ibid. Most recently a lavishly illustrated book on the history of the Chinati Foundation was published by the foundation itself: M. 8 D. (note 2). The Man Who Bought Marfa. Safe from Birds’. continuous single surfaces.). BBC 3. 29-61 (46). 56-57. Chinati is planning to install works of other artists. Big of SoHo’ to ‘The Man Who Bought Marfa’ 1 A first version of this essay was delivered as a paper during the session The Age of Enlargement at the College Art Association (CAA) 98th Annual Conference in Chicago on February 13. Complaints. pp. This is a delicate situation.

9-10 (9): ‘The space surrounding my work is crucial to it: as much thought has gone into the installations as into a piece itself.’ See: D. which suggests an object or figure in its space. Robert Smithson: The Collected Writings. New York 2002. 31· 2010 nr. 98-99. pp. Donald Judd. Artforum 8 (1970) 10. in: Stockebrand 1989. on a base unit of somatic scale. 29-61 (50). Judd.). No wonder the artist admitted in 1977 that the practice of installation had become equally important as the work itself. pp.cit. ‘A sense of Proportion.’ 28 Idem. ignorantly or knowledgeably. op. pp. in: Judd 1986. London 2004. even though.cit.). This is the beginning of my concern for the surroundings of my work. in: R. p. Donald Judd.cat. 38 Judd promoted respect for existing architecture and tried to preserve the acquired buildings as much as possible. New York 1988. Tate Modern. D.’ In a late essay. op. ‘21 February 93’. pp. pp. 27 Judd 1965/1975. see T. 72-74. in: Judd 1975/2005. (note 5). A bad installation was simply detrimental to the work itself. (note 12). dir. 181. Judd.cit. pp. pp. Fuchs. op. D.cit. pp. ‘Horti conclusi’. 181-189 (182). (note 2).’ In the essay on the installation of the one hundred aluminum boxes. exh. 42 Descriptions of these respective building projects can be found in ‘101 Spring Street’. This determined the size and the scale of the works. pp.). (note 19).). ‘Fining it Down: Don Judd at Castelli’. 29 Idem. 31 Shiff 2004. 37 Donald Judd during interview in the film Donald Judd’s Marfa. Christopher Felver. (note 6).’ N.cit. London. 24-28 (27).D. op. 36 B. Tate Modern. Judd. as Nicholas Serota remarked at the time of the major 2004 retrospective in Tate Modern. wholeness and simplicity that have become common to almost all good work. ‘Art and Architecture’ (1983). Judd. by the meaning of the situation in which it is placed. op. 30 D. pp. in which these are clearer instances of a similar world. See also P. Judd (eds. since space is made. op.cat. 34 This might also explain why the Judd often got so upset by the presentations of his work by others in museums worldwide. (note 2). 40-41. Viladas. ‘Artillery Sheds’. 35 In contrast to many of his contemporaries. that is. Art in America 56 (1968) 4. ‘The Crystal Land’ (1966). almost always harmed. 99-110 (105). Further. p. 26 For an in-depth discussion of the early work of Judd. 43 See T.’ While he admits that initially the effort to preserve the work in appropriate spaces was ‘a concern second only to the invention of [his] work. Donald Judd. Köln 2002. 101. 40 R.cit. ‘Some Aspects of Color in General and Red and Black in Particular’. Christopher Felver. See also B. in: Judd 1986. 99-100. ‘Donald Judd: A Sense of Place’. Pace Wildenstein. op. pp. pp.the Problem of Scale in Sculpture’. and the works of art that they contain were planned together as much as possible. Donald Judd: 50 x 100 x 50.106 Kunstlicht · jrg. any work of art is harmed or helped. 37-48 (46). Kellein. as the artist stated himself in an interview (Donald Judd’s Marfa. Early Work 1955-1968. Flam (ed. 85-89. exh. many of the buildings that he acquired didn’t have any ‘interesting qualities at all. 41 D.’ From: D. in: N. pp. See D. Judd. pp. Donald Judd.cit. 145-159 (147). (note 2). pp. This can almost be considered objectively. Donald Judd.cat. Köln 2002. Large-Scale Works. ‘Jackson Pollock’ (1967). . 72-74. 32 They deliberately remained. New York 1993. 193-195 (195). in: R. Serota (ed. p. For a discussion of Judd’s conception of space in three-dimensional work and the alleged newness of his ‘invention’. but was made to go into those buildings and to always be there. 182. London 2004. 1998): ‘It is individual work and could be somewhere else. 33 R. 5-23. pp. See for example: Fuchs 2003. Serota (ed. pp. Judd reaffirms this concern: ‘Any work of art. London. his building and installation endeavors are nevertheless often described in such terms. Serota.’ 25 D. 3/4 · Beeldende kunst + architectuur 21 Shiff 2004. something in its surround. 48-50. Judd did not systematically proceed to make ever-larger work. see R. 123. Smithson. Haskell. Progressive Architecture 66 (1985) 4. for having created ‘the large scale. 102-109. purchased in 79. Donald Judd. pp. op. in: J. old or new.’ 39 While Judd notoriously disliked museums and often indicated that he did not want to imitate the institution.cit. Kellein. 80-91 (91). 22 D. (note 6). Judd uses a plural term: ‘The buildings. 9-13 (9). ‘Blow Up . Early Work 1955-1968. A walled compound in West Texas embodies sculptor Donald Judd's ideas about design’. The size and nature of the building were given. most of it was always based on a relatively small singular element. in: Stockebrand 1989. in: N. Texa. pp. Rose. Shiff. 7-9 (7). 24 Ibid. There is no neutral space. indifferently or intentionally. exh. Judd. ‘In defense of my work’.cit.’ he then indicates that ‘gradually the two concerns have joined and both tend toward architecture. 23 Ibid. 29-61 (50).cit. Judd (eds. ‘Abstract Expressionism’. ‘discrete objects within it. ‘A Space of One to One’. in: Noever 2003. Even the smallest single works of mine are affected. (note 6). Whereas some work might have taken up increasingly more space in galleries and museums and others were made for urban or natural sites. Berkeley 1996.). Judd. In this article Judd praised Pollock a. that is.o. 1998). 100 x 100 x 50. Texas (dir. such as Richard Serra or Claes Oldenburg. These are the simplest circumstances which all art must confront. 47-49 (48). spatially. op. New York. He found it objectionable that ‘anything spaced in a rectangle and on a plane suggests something in and on something else. (note 12). is harmed or helped by where it is placed. op. Pincus-Witten. and since meaning is made. ‘Mansana de Chinati’ and ‘Artillery Sheds’. Shiff. 18-19.

pp.107 Wouter Davidts · From ‘Mr.cit.). Massachusetts 2004. Marfa 2009. (note 41). New Haven 2009. Raskin. 45 D. ‘Specific Objections’. Shannon. 150-186. Bois. ‘Allegories of Boredom’. 37-48 (45). Texas (1985). pp. ‘Judd's Scale’. 51-75 (63). pp. 96-102 (100). 26-41 (35). op. pp. Judd. Stockebrand. Shiff (eds. in: Judd 1986. The Writings of Donald Judd. .cit.). See also J. Goldstein (ed. in: M. Artforum 42 (2004) 10. in: Judd 1986. pp. Judd. pp. Flatley. A Minimal Future? Art as Object 1958-1968. op. Cambridge. (note 2). pp.cit. Big of SoHo’ to ‘The Man Who Bought Marfa’ 44 J. 298 (198). R. 196-203. ‘Abstract Expressionism’. The Disappearance of Objects: New York Art and the Rise of the Postmodern City. 49 Judd 1983. pp. 47 D. 48 Y. 72-74 (73). op. Marfa.cit. (note 2). 50 D. op. 46 Judd 1989. (note 37). 24-28 (27). in: A.A.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful