Defining Installation: Space, the artist and the audience

Installation as an art form is increasingly evident. As Archer (1994) says:

'The widespread adoption of installation as a method of art production has lead to a

situation which is fast coming to seem the conventional way to do things.’1

Any attempt to define installation is problematic due to the vast array of work that

appears to defy comparison. Encompassing a wide range of medium and material, site

and scale, concept and context it is easy to dismiss installation as “a soft term which

means everything and nothing.”2 Whilst the term installation is increasingly used, it’s

formal acceptance has been relatively recent. Reiss (2001) traces the usage of the term in

The Art Index and notes a direct relationship with Environment Art:

‘Not until volume 42, November 1993 to October 1994 does “installation” appear with an

actual listings of articles. At this point Environment ceases to be a category.’3

Attempts to place installation in a historical context adds to the difficulty in identifying a

clear definition. Links can be seen with Dada and Surrealism, Environment and

Happenings, Art Povera and Fluxus, – the list appears endless; the problem is in

distinguishing between characteristics that also relate to painting and sculpture and those

that relate specifically to the emergence of installation. Acceptance of installation as a

‘new’ art form must recognise that there are elements unique to it. It needs to occupy a

space filled neither by painting or sculpture – otherwise it becomes an alternative to

exhibition or a variation of an existing category rather than an art form in its own right.

1

The emergence of new media and the increasing use of mixed media challenge our

perception of art and how we categorise and display art works. Technical skill is no

longer used as a measure of talent and ‘concept’ has become increasingly important. The

narrative and figurative have been challenged and social and political issues are explored.

Use of a particular medium or material can no longer be used in definition of painting,

sculpture or installation as the use of any is increasingly acceptable – the found, the

fabricated, the ready-made are all legitimate along with the ‘hand’ made. These issues

have impacted all art forms as boundaries are increasingly blurred. Attempts to

distinguish installation from painting and sculpture means identifying aspects that are

peculiar to each category and those which differentiate them from each other. If

traditional definitions are applied: of painting as relating to the two-dimensional picture

plane and sculpture as the ‘object on the plinth’, then analysis of recent practice will

show that these definitions are still applicable – although more in terms of challenging

than confirming. Painting: dealing with issues relating to the two dimensional picture

plane such as disrupting the space, e.g. Fontana’s slashed paintings (Figure.1),

questioning the idea of the rectangular format, e.g. Stella’s shaped canvas (Figure.2) or

moving outside the ‘frame’ as with LeWitt’s wall drawings (Figure.3). Sculpture: dealing

with the movement of the object away from the plinth, questioning the nature and

perception of ‘the object’ e.g. Duchamp’s ‘readymades’ (Figure. 4.) and issues of surface,

form and scale as in Morris’s work (Figure 5). In order to define installation as an art

form it is necessary to first discount elements that also relate to painting or sculpture and

2

to distinguish between features that may be a part of a specific installation and those that

are relevant to all installation.

Installation art is often defined as temporary – which could equally be applied to

exhibition: both are installed for a period of time and then removed. Problems with

definition of installation are emphasised by the use in relation to exhibition. Kelly (1998)

writes:

‘The term installation is itself merely a formal designation – derived from curatorial

practice – that reveals little about the artwork it defines save for the fact that it has been

“installed” at a given site.”4

A clear distinction needs to be made between the installing of work and installation.

Suderburg (2000) explains this as follows:

‘ “To install” is a process that must take place each time an exhibition is mounted;

“installation is the art form that takes note of the perimeters of that space and

reconfigures it’5

Painting and sculpture are present in permanent collections in museums and art galleries

– so increasingly are installations. Whilst it may once have been true that installation

existed outside of traditional exhibition space and challenged the validity of formal

institutions this can longer be seen as true as it is increasingly shown by major museums

and art galleries. Donald Judd set up the Chinati Foundation in the early 1970’s

specifically to site installations permanently and challenge the notion of art as a portable

commodity. Many museums and galleries now purchase and permanently show

installation work. The private collection of Saatchi, on display at his new gallery in

3

London, includes installation. Painting and sculpture are also taken into non-gallery

spaces and historically, work that initially challenged the establishment, ultimately

becomes part of it. Often the material of installation is ephemeral and this is seen as a

sign of their temporality – however other art forms also use materials that degrade.

Therefore whilst temporality may be a feature of some installation it does not define work

as installation.

Installation is also regularly referred to as ‘site-specific’ - as if this is a defining factor.

Kaye (2000) states:

‘Site-specific work might articulate and define itself through properties, qualities or

meanings produced in specific relationships between an ‘object’ or ‘event’ and a position

it occupies.’6

This suggests the work must have a direct relationship to the site it occupies; it cannot be

placed elsewhere without losing its credibility. However this is not a situation exclusive

to installation. Serra’s sculpture Tilted Arc (Figure. 6) was site specific, as he wrote:

‘It is a site specific work and as such not to be relocated. To remove the work is to

destroy the work.’7

Louise Lawler writes:

‘A painting that has been removed in space and time from the situation for which it was

made no longer has the same references and functions. Whose work is it?’8

Public art works are usually site-specific but are not necessarily installation. Some

installation work – such as Kapoor’s Marsyas (Figure. 7) at Tate Modern9 – is difficult to

imagine anywhere else. Commissioned for Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall, it fits the huge

4

space so specifically that it could not be re-created elsewhere - unless the space it

occupies is also re-created. However, installation explicitly configured for one site has

been re-created and reconfigured in a different venue. Wilson’s 20/50 (Figure. 8) for

example has been shown at a number of different venues including it’s current,

permanent siting in Saatchi’s gallery; Anya Gallaccio’s Stroke (a chocolate covered

room) and Aspire (Figure. 9) were both ‘new versions’10 at the Ikon Gallery,

Birmingham, 14 April – 18 May 2003. As Reiss (2001) states:

‘Installation art is now routinely exhibited and collected by major museums. Individual

installations are created on more than one site. Exhibitions of Installation art travel from

one venue to another.”11

Whilst site can be discounted as a defining quality of all installation, there is obviously a

relationship between installation and space and it could be argued that it is space-specific.

Gallaccio’s Aspire, (Figure. 9) consists of chandeliers ‘suspended from the high vaulted

ceilings of a chapel-like space’12. The vaulted ceilings are present in the Ikon gallery, but

would not be present in identical form in another space. Re-creation has taken into

account the specific spaces of the gallery in determining where and how to show the

work. As Reiss says:

“Physical properties of the spaces – the raw unfinished “alternative” space or a pristine

white gallery – are enormously important in installations where the space becomes

integrated into the work.’13

5

Installation can be argued to configure space in a specific way and do so in relation to the

artist and the audience. This interaction between the space, the artist and the audience

appears to give installation the necessary distinction from other art forms. Possibly, most

important is the relationship between audience and space. O’Doherty (1976) concentrates

on the space of the gallery and encounters within it, but his observations can be related to

installation and space. He distinguishes between the ‘eye’ and the ‘spectator’, seeing the

‘eye’ as controlled; looking on and the ‘spectator’ as involved; taking part:

‘He balances; he tests; he is mystified, demystified. In time, the spectator stumbles

around between confusing roles: he is a cluster of motor reflexes, a dark-adapted

wanderer, the vivant in a tableau, an actor manqué, even a trigger of sound and light in a

space land-mined for art.’ 14

Many contemporary artists use the relationship between space and audience to define

their installation work. Gerz (2001) says:

‘...it still means getting away from the object, getting away from the pedestal, getting

away from a central place for sculpture. Actually installation means situating the viewer

in this central space. Installation is progress because it surrounds people and it’s closer to

any living space or any space of experience, interaction or sociability. In this way it is

stressing not only itself, as installation, but it stresses the fact there is a viewer.’15

Sabin (1993) states:

‘With installation the viewer is always implicated in the work whilst with objects they are

separate.’16

Kabov (1999) sees installation as removing the audience away from a position of safety:

6

‘Usually, the viewers who look at a painting have to see a large part of the wall beside it.

Or, when they look at a sculpture, they try to hold in their vision, first the works standing

next to it and second, the people on the right and left. In other words, viewers have to

remain in a safe zone of spectatorship.’17

Kosuth (1993) sees installation as emerging from art seeing itself as a signifying activity

rather than dealing with form and colour:

‘Such work constructs its own ‘event context’ for the experience of the viewer and in

doing so establishes the subjective role of the viewer within the signifying activity as part

of the viewers experience.’18

Kosuth goes on to argue that installation counters the move towards art as a commodity:

‘It is the movability of individual works (which are either actually or a stand-in for

painting and sculpture) which now imbued them with a kind of commodity aura. It is the

fixed-ness of installations which gives them an actual place in the world and permits that

process of signification to function over and above the commodity – reading which now

so effects our approach to other kinds of work.’

This again underlies the idea of installation as space-specific rather than site specific.

Whereas paintings and sculptures can be moved, stored, collected and still retain their

intrinsic qualities – installation only exists in the space in which it is viewed. Once

dismantled, in storage, or in transit the installation only exists as a number of disparate

elements, apparently unconnected. Whilst installations can be collected and displayed by

institutions or individuals, their nature means that they almost exclusively viewed in

places where there is public access rather than in private spaces – installation is not an art

7

form that lends itself to domestic environments and personal ownership. Viewing

involves a shared experience and an active decision to encounter.

Once we accept that installation involves work being space-specific and involving the

shared experience of an audience we can begin to trace a relevant historical context.

Environment Art and Happenings can be seen as precursors of contemporary installation

with their breaking of the boundary between work and audience. In 1958 Kaprow wrote

of his environments:

‘...we do not come to look at things. We simply enter, are surrounded, and become part of

what surrounds us.’19

Schwitters' Merzbau, (Figure.10) involves the whole of a configured space and the

body’s place within it20, Duchamp's Mile of String, (Figure. 11) questions the viewers

perspective, disrupting their view of the paintings and requiring them to also engage with

the space around the work. Although many movements have a relevance to the

emergence of installation Minimalism appears one of the most relevant. Minimalist

concerns with the ‘whole’ and the interaction between the work and the viewer:

‘..of particular significance was the focus on the relationship between the spectator – now

sometimes referred to as the beholder – and the work of art.’21,

challenged traditional ideas of perception and interaction with work. Fried (1967) argued

that Minimalism (which he refers to as “Literalist” art) rejected modernist painting and

sculpture:

‘Specifically, Literalist art conceives of itself as neither one nor the other; on the contrary

it is motivated by specific reservations, or worse, about both; and it aspires, perhaps not

8

exactly, or not immediately, to displace them, but in any case to establish as an

independent art on a footing with either’22

Frieds criticised minimalism because of its inherent theatricality:

‘...it is concerned with the actual circumstances in which the beholder encounters

literalist work.’

However, this is exactly what may be seen as central to any definition of installation.

Rosler (1991) states:

‘...the art that’s important now is a form of theater, and the one thing that means is that it

has to be the same space as the viewer.’23

Potts (2001) believes a distinction should be made between installation and actual theatre:

‘An installation, however, sets up rather different interactions with the viewer than a

theatrical performance on a stage. Even in the most modern theatres, the performance

takes place in a space set somewhere apart from the one where the spectators are

positioned.’24

He argues installation has more in common with cinema, although even this has

limitations:

‘With installation work, the actual boundaries of the space within which the object or

images or spatial dividers comprising it are placed are very much present for the viewer,

while with cinema the viewer is largely oblivious of the architectural surrounds.’

Therefore, whilst the nature of space and it’s relationship with the audience may vary

with individual installations, it can be seen that it is a different relationship to the one the

audience has with painting and sculpture or even theatre and cinema. In the latter the

audience looks at the work, they have a ‘separation’, in installation the audience and the

9

work is part of the same space. There is a relationship between space, audience and time

implicit in this definition.

If we accept the relationship between space and the audience in installation, it follows the

role of the artist also has relevance. In order for an audience to encounter a space in a

particular way, the artist needs to exercise some control over the orchestration of that

relationship. The space and any elements within the space have to be arranged in such a

way as to present the work in the manner the artist envisages. Whilst a curator, gallery

owner or exhibition organiser can, and often do, hang an exhibition without the artist(s)

present; an installation requires the artist to control the process of presentation;’ This may

be through notes, diagrams, photographs or the actual presence of the artist - it involves

an active participation. Even if siting appears random – this may not be the case. Anya

Gallaccio describes the installation of one of her works:

‘With the piece where I used a ton of oranges I had to individually remove each label.

When I initially threw them on the warehouse floor, where they were sited, they got dirty

so they had to be polished and carefully placed.’25

This relates to the making and presentation of the work– the labels were removed, the

oranges were thrown on the floor, they were picked up, individually cleaned and replaced

carefully. Gallaccio’s decision making continued as the work was sited. Presentation is an

integral part of the work. This does not necessarily mean that the artist has to be

physically present. Curtis (2003) states that:

10

‘Installation is a complicit recognition, largely undisputed, of the importance of

presentation. As many artworks now only exist only during their presentation, we might

suggest that installation is in fact, exhibition.’26

She argues that Private View, at the Bowes Museum (1996); an exhibition placing works

by thirty two artists within galleries which housed permanent collections, was assumed to

be installed by the artists themselves when in fact it had been done by curators, therefore:

‘... it pinpoints the fact that a job which a curator can do perfectly well has to such a large

extent been taken over by artists that it was a matter of surprise to an artist to see how

well a curator could manage.’

However, as can be seen from an example, Still Life – The Green House (Figure 12.) the

exhibition involved the artists responding to the spaces and objects of the permanent

collection. Their choice of reference determined where the work would be sited – the

involvement of the artist in the presentation of their work was implicit in the work itself.

The curator could not have placed the work on site successfully without the vital

information communicated from the artist on its placing.

Relationships between space, the artist and the audience should not be seen as identical in

every installation. The relationship may be implicit or explicit; the space may be

physically accessible or it may be obstructed; the artist may physically install the work or

they may communicate instructions in a variety of ways from a distance. Using this

relationship as the basis for defining installation leads to problems if the work has not

been experienced first hand. If the work hasn’t been witnessed, referencing relies on

documentation – on photographs, written or verbal accounts - on second-hand

11

experience. There are obvious problems implicit in this. Arguably, all artwork suffers this

problem – judgements are made from reproduction and the reality is very different -

however, unless one visits an installation, the physical experience as a member of the

audience, central to this definition, doesn’t exist. This relationship is often not recognised

in documentation. Reiss writes:

‘Ilya Kabov was perturbed that the museum staff had his installation, Mother and Son,

photographed without spectators for an exhibition cataloug. His feeling was that

spectators were integral to the piece and therefore should have been included.’27

Other examples illustrate this. The publicity photograph for Gallaccios Aspire (Figure. 9)

at the Ikon Gallery, had been taken showing both the candle chandeliers and the circles of

wax on the floor. What is not made clear from either the photograph or in the

accompanying literature is how they are hung. From the documentation an assumption is

made that they are hung from the ceiling at ‘normal’ height. In fact they are hung very

low and interaction involves a disruption of perception, a challenging of assumed

knowledge. The ‘vaulted ceilings’ of the room are not visible and impossible to ‘imagine’

without knowledge of the space. The very low lighting in the Rothko room at the Tate –

identified by the artist as vital, cannot be reproduced and the resulting spiritual

experience to which it contributes to cannot be felt. On-site it is impossible to see the

work in isolation; others intrude and surround. The relationship between canvas, space

and audience is intended, yet the work tends to be documented as individual paintings.

‘… the room in which they are shown has become for many a place of spiritual

experience, and a source of inspiration, very profound and personal in its effect.’28

12

The illustrations of Parker’s Cold Matter (Figure. 13.) and Hatoum’s Light Sentence

(Figure. 14) shows how the lighting throws shadows but doesn’t give the experience of

moving through and integrating with them – the shadows of the audience mingling with

the shadows of the work. Even if photographs were taken with an audience present, the

personal experience of becoming a part of the work would not be evoked. Documentation

can describe shape, form, colour and scale but cannot describe emotion and experience. A

universal experience does not exist. Installation can be seen as a shared public experience

– yet the individual personal experience will inevitably vary.

There are also problems in defining installation in relation to the artist. Accepting that the

artist has a central role in how the work is presented – and seeing this role as critical –

raises questions about the role of the artist after death. The interaction between artist and

work stops – even if the artist has left very clear instructions the work becomes static –

frozen in time - and any audience can never be quite sure that they are experiencing the

work as the artist intended. The artist/ audience relationship changes as the Tate Modern

exhibition of Eva Hesse demonstrates29. Much of Hesse’s work can be argued to be

installation. The fragile nature of the materials used and the disintegration of the work

however has meant that the presentation at the Tate restricted the interaction between the

art and the audience. Areas around the work were taped off, in some cases with guards to

make sure the barrier was respected. Every person who approached Untitled (Figure. 15)

had to be told to stay outside of the taped area – the natural inclination was to move

nearer.30 The Accession boxes (Figures. 16/17) were encased in perspex – presumably to

prevent people climbing in to them as happened in the ‘Options exhibition at Milwaukee

13

Art Center and the Chicago Museum of Contemporary Art in 1968 - the tendency was to

literally interact. The work was so damaged Hesse had to refabricate and rethread it31. At

the Tate show in 2002/3 the emphasis was on preservation rather than the experience of

the audience. Her death removed the option of recreation. Discussions have been

undertaken to decide whether to recreate her work so the audience can encounter them as

she intended. The discussion included people who knew Hesse well along with curators

and writers and the aim was ‘to get on record some remembrances of her attitude on the

issue of impermanence.’32 A comparison with impermanence of installation and of life

can be drawn. A paragraph by Lippard at the end of her book on Hesse says:

‘What is suprising is that she did not separate her sculpture from her life with more

clarity, did not seem at that point to think of her work as her memorial, did not attach her

great drive and ambition to its permanent place in the world after she had left it. It is as

though she had finally made her work for herself, that she had no picture of it after it was

gone, that it made no difference whether or not it remained intact forever, if she herself

could not survive to enjoy its triumphs; as though this were an acknowledgement of the

ultimate tie between art and life.’33

Installation art exists in a specific way whilst the artist is alive and able to make relevant

choices and decisions. Once the artist is no longer able to do this, installation must

become something else. The relationship between artist, audience and space becomes

impersonal and limited, relying on memory or imagination rather than experience and

emotion. There is a shift from the subjective to the objective.

14

15

In conclusion, any definition of installation should include the relationship between

space, artist and audience; more than this, is should be recognised as a very specific

relationship. There is an intimacy between artist and work, artist and audience and work

and audience. Central to this relationship is the individual’s personal physical encounter

of the work in the way the artist intends. Historians and Theorists can refer to

documentation to help trace a historical context for the work; categorise the artist’s place

within contemporary debate, deliberate over specific issues dealt with and critically

analyse the work. Re-creations can be made by third parties to represent the legacy of the

artist; giving rise to discussions about legitimacy, ownership and authorship. What

neither can do is intrude into the personal relationship inherent in installation art between

the artist, space and the individual member of the audience; and it is this relationship that

must lie at the core of any definition of installation.

16

1 Michael Archer in Installation Art, edited by Nicholas Oliveira, Nicola Oxley, and Michael Petry. 1994, p. 30 2 Penelope Curtis, Old spaces for New, AN magazine, February 2003, p. 22 3 Julie Reiss in From Margin to Center:The Spaces of Installation, 2001, p. xii 4 Michael Kelly (ed.) in Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, Vol 2, 1998, p.503 5 Erika Suderburg (ed.) in Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art, 2000, p. 4 6 Nick Kaye in Site Specific Art: Performance, Place and Documentation, 2000, p. 1 7 Letter to director of the Art-in-Architecture program of the General Services Administration in Washington in One Place after Another by Miwon Kwon, in Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art edited by Erika Suderburg, 2000, p. 39 8 Louise Lawler in Women artists in the 20th and 21st Century, 2001, p.300 9 Anish Kapoor, Marsyas, 3rd Unilever commission for Tate Modern Turbine Hall, London. 9 October 2002 – 6 April 2003. 10 Information leaflet for Anya Gallaccio exhibition at the Ikon Gallery, Birmingham, 4 April – 18 May, 2003 11 Julie Reiss in From Margin to Center: The Spaces of Installation, 2001, p. 156 12 Information leaflet for Anya Gallaccio exhibition at the Ikon Gallery, Birmingham, 4 April – 18 May, 2003 13 Julie Reiss in From Margin to Center:The Spaces of Installation, 2001, 14 Brian O’Doherty in Inside the White Cube, 1999, p. 41 15 Jochen Gerz, interviewed by Simon Baker, 2001 in Oxford art journal On Installation, Vol 24, No. 2 2001, pp. 25 - 50 16 Andrew Sabin, Sea of Sun in Art and Design, Installation Art, Vol 8, 5/6 May-June 1993, p. 89 17 Interview with Ilya Kabov, About Installation, Art Journal, winter 1999 18 Joseph Kosuth, Art and Design, Installation Art, Vol 8, 5/6 May-June 1993, p. 95 19Exhibition at the Hansa Gallery in New York, from Notes on the Creation of a Total Art, in The Somnambulist’s Story: Installation and the Tableau by Briony Fer, Oxford art journal On Installation, Vol. 24, No. 2 2001, pp. 75 - 92 20 This may well be an exception to the premise that installation work needs to be ‘public’ 21 Julie Reiss in From Margin to Center:The Spaces of Installation, 2001, p. 50 22 Michael Fried, Art and Objecthood, Artforum, June 1967 in Minimalism, edited by Gregory Battcock, 1995, p. 117,- 125 23 Martha Rosler, 1991 in Modernism by Charles Harrison, 1997, p. 75 24 Alex Potts, Installation and Sculpture in Oxford art journal On Installation, Vol 24, No. 2 2001, pp. 5 - 24 25 Anya Gallaccio in Art and Design, Installation Art, Vol 8, 5/6 May-June 1993 p.87 26 Penelope Curtis, Old spaces for new art, AN magazine, February 2003, pp. 23 - 25 27 Julie Reiss in From Margin to Center: The Spaces of Installation, 2001, p. xvii. 28 Alan Bowness in preface to Mark Rothko, Tate Gallery, revised edition, 1996, p.9 29 Eva Hesse, Tate Modern, London. 13 November 2002 – 9 March 2003 30 Observed over 15 minute period on 25th February 2003, Tate Modern, London. 31 Lucy Lippard in Eva Hesse, 1976, p. 103 32 Roundtable discussion, November 2000 in New York, edited by Chad Coerver in Eva Hesse, edited by Elisabeth Sussman, 2001, pp. 295 - 310 33 Lucy Lippard in Eva Hesse, 1976, p.210

17

Bibliography

Batchelor, D. (1997) Minimalism. London: Tate Gallery

Battcock, G. (ed.) (1995) Minimal Art: a critical anthology. California: University of

California Press

Bird, J. (2001) On Installation, Oxford Art Journal. 24, 2.

Curtis, P. Old spaces for new art. A-N magazine. February 2003, 22 - 25

Duncan, C. (1995) Civilizing Rituals inside Public Art Museums. London: Routledge

Farrel, A. (ed.) (1997) Blurring the Boundaries: Installation Art 1969 – 1996. Seattle:

Marquand Books

Fineberg, J. (2000) Art since 1940: strategies of being. 2nd edition. London: Laurence

King Publishing

Gallaccio, A. (2002) Beat, exhibition catalogue. Tate Britain, London: 16 September

2002 – 26 January 2003

Grosenick, U. (ed.) (2001) Women Artists in the 20th and 21st Century. Germany:

Taschen.

Harrison, C. (1997) Modernism. London: Tate Gallery Publishing

Hodges, N. (ed.) (1993) Installation Art. Art and Design. 8, 5/6, May – June.

Kabov, I. (1999) About Installation (Interview). Art Journal. Winter 1999 [online]

Kapoor, A. (2002) Marsyus, exhibition catalogue. Tate Modern, London: 9 October 2002

– 6 April 2003

Kaye, N. (2000) Site Specific Art: Performance, Place and Documentation. London:

Routledge

18

Kelly, M. (ed.) (1998) Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, Volume 2. New York: Oxford

University Press

Krauss, R. (1977) Passages in Modern Sculpture. United States: The Viking Press

Lippard, L. (1976) Eva Hesse. New York: New York University Press

Meyer, J. (2000) Minimalism. London: Phaidon

O’Doherty B. (1999) Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space.

California: University of California Press

Oliveira, N., Oxley, N., Petry, M. (1994) Installation Art. London: Thames and Hudson

Reiss, J.H. (2001) From Margin to Center: The Spaces of Installation Art. Massachusetts:

MIT press

Rothko, M. (1996) Mark Rothko, exhibition catalogue (revised edition). Tate Gallery,

London: 17 June – 1 September 1987.

Strehovac, J. (2000) Atmospheres of extraordinary in installation art. Journal of Art

Research and Critical Curating. November 2000 (3). [online]

Strickland, E. (2000) Minimalism: Origins. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

Suderburg, E. (ed.) (2000) Space, Site, Intervention: Situating Installation Art.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

Sussman, E. (ed.) (2001) Eva Hesse, exhibition catalogue. Tate Modern, London: 13

November 2002 – 9 March 2003