ART AND OBJECTHOOD* byMichoel Friea

In this essly Michael Fri€d criticLe,, Minimat Art- or 6 he ca s ir."literalisC' lrt-for what he desoibes as its inhercnt theatricrlitv. At tlrqmF ume. Ie Jrgucs thdt tic modemisr !rt!. iactuding paining rr"l! ulpture.l,ave comc incrFasingly to depend for 6eir very conrjnua,r,on their ibility to d4par rh".be. Fried characteria rh; |-hqtrical ,,,rems ot a pgticular rebtion bcr$ een the beholdFr 6 $b/?ct and t1.,.wtk .it oqict- a rchtion tbat lales place in rime, rhat bs duratiu,,Wh6e6 defclting theatre e',raih deferringor suspending bot-h obiecthoo,t

Fried was born in t\'ew York City in 1939. }le took his B.A. arhinceton Udversity.md was a Rhodes Sc.holar at MertoD Colteg€, Or.f.rd. He is a ContrihurDs Edrtor tor Alrlorun. ud he organ;ed rt,TItr. Ahc can Paintcru exhibirion at the Fogg Arr Vuse;, HdN,.,,lUni\F6it). in 1985. Hc is curendy a Junio;-FeIow in rhe H.w3,,l

Edwards's toumals frequendy exploed and tested a meditation h.seldom allowcd to reach print; if all the world were annibilated, h{,wote . . . and a new world were freshly created, though it werc toexist in ev€ry particular in the sarne manner as this Eorl4 it llr'ouftlnot be the same. Ther€fore, becaue there is conriDuity, which istnne, it is ccrtain with me that tle world edsrs anew every mo-ment; tlat the existence of things every moment c€ases and is evcrymoment rcnewcd.' The abidiDg assunnce is that 'we ever). momentsee t}le same proof of a God as we should have seen if we had seenHim create thc rvorld at 6rst."-Perry l{iller, Ioruttun Ed.wads

IThe enterprise known variously as Minimal Art, ABC Arq PrirnaryStructues, and Spcciffc Objects is largely ideologcal. It seeks todeclare and occupy i position--, one that can be formulated in

r Reprinted from Artlrmrr, Iurc, 196'7.

ond Obiecthood 117

and in fact bas been Iormulat€d by some of its leading prac-If this distinguishes it from modemist paiDting and sculp-

on the one haad, it also marl$ an importast difierenc€ betweenArt----or, as I prefe. to call it, litetarit afi----and Pop or OP

on the other. From its inception, literalist aft Las amountd tomore tla! an episod€ in th€ history of taste. It belongs

to the bitory-almost ttre nattrdl history-of sensibility; andis not an isolated episode but tbe expression of a general and

cotrdition. Its seiousness is vouched for by the {act that itin relatiod both to modemist painting and modemist sculpture

literalist art defles or locat€s the positioD it aspnes to occupyis, I suggest, is what makes what it declares som-ething that

to be ca[ed a position.) Speciffcally, literalist art conceivetof itsef as neitbs on€ nor tle otherj on the conEary, it is mothat€d

!y speciGc reservations, or worse, about both; and it aspir€s, Perhapslot exacdy, or not immediately, to disPlace them, but in any cose

to establish itself as an ind€p€ndent art on fl footing $'itl either.The literalist case against painting rests mainly on two counts: the

ioral character of almost all painting; and the ubiquitousness,the virtuel iDescapability, of picto al illusion- In Donald

wher you start relating parts, in the ffIst Plac€, you'rc assumingyou have a vague rvhole-the rectangle of the canvas----and de6-nite pans, which is a[ soewed up, bccause you should heve adefnite il)hols end maybe no parts, or very few l

rThis Ms sald by Judd iD an int€triw with Btuce closer, edit€d bv LucvL r,ippard md published as 'Questions to Stella and Judd," At Neod, VollXV, No. t S6"t@bs 1966. The ItlrELr othibut€d in the pres€nt €ssov toJudd rnd Moris lEvc het taLeo trem tb& intewiN fr@ Judds 65av SDe-cGc Obiets. Attt fqrbook. No. 8. 1965, or fr@ Roberr Nlorb.s esvs.

"Not6 d Solpturc' @d "Note m soipturc, Patt 2," publish€d in Att'

,orn, vol IV, No. O, f€bmey 1966, snd Vol. 5, No. 2, Octobd 1966' re{Ec-

nve&- (1 hlG also tala ore lfut by Motis f!@ ihe ataloguc io the

lrhibitiotr -!:iaht Solpto^: tlF Ambieuous Imsge, held al the W,lker Art

Centd. Odob;FDce;bs 1966.r I 'hould add that in laving oul shat seos

to @ ihe posiHon ludd and Mord hotd in comon I }av€ ielored vdlouj

difieMc between th@. and hav€ ued eenain lennrls in contdts fo. ivhich

they may Dot hove bee! ilt€nd€d. Mor€ove., I lave not alwavs ildicated which

of thm achDlly soid d wt€ a pdtidlar phdse; lhe altenative vould have

be€n to litter the lext vith f@rnotcs.

liichoel Fried ll8

The more the sbape of the spport is emphasized, as in rcccrrlmodcmist painting, the tights the situation b€.Dmes:

The etements inside the rcctangle are broad and simple aDd correspond closely to the rcctangle. The shapes and su ac€ are onl)thosc that can occul plausibll' s'ithin and on a rettangular planc

The pars are ferv and so s"bordimlc lo unity rs Dot to be prrt\jn en ordinary sense. A pa'nting is rcarly an entity, one thing.and not tbe hdefiDable sum of a $oup of entities and rcferenccs.The one thing overpowe$ the earlier painting. It also establishr'sihe rect:tngte as a dcffnite {olm: it js no longcr a fairly neutiillimit. A form can be used only tu so many ways The rectau-gu)ar p)ane it given a life span. The simplicity required to enphasjze thc rectangle limits the anangements Possiblc lvithin iL

Pabting is here seen as an att oD the vcrge of exhausuon, one itr

which thc rangc of acceptabte solutions to a basic problem-how tir

org&nize the surfac€ of the pictuFis severely lcstricted The use ol

shaped rather tban rectangular supports can, frcm the literalist poilt

of view, merely prolong the agony. The obr-ious response b to 8i\(up working on a singl€ plane in favor of tlree dim€nsions. That,moreo\,cr. automaticallY

gcts rid of the problem of ilusionism and of literal space, sPace irr

and around marks and colors-rvhic.h is riddanc€ of one oI th.salient and most objectionable relics of Euopean art. The severallimits of printing are no longer Fesent. A vo.k can be as powcr-

fttl rs it can bc tlought to bc. Actual space is inirinsically morcpoNerful nnd spcciGc than paint oD a flat sudace.

The literrtist attitude toward sculpture is more ambiguorrs. Judd.for c'xuryrle, s€emi to think o{ what h€ calls Specific Objects as

somcthi g othcr thnn sculpture, while Robert Moris c'onceives ol

his own unmistrkably titeralist work as rcsuming rhe lapseil tradi-tion o{ Constructivist sculpture established by Tatlin, Rodchenko,Cabo, Pevsner, and Vantongerloo But this and other disagreementsare less impoltant thnD the viervs Judd and l{orris hold in commonAbove all thcy are opposed to sculpture that, like most painting' is

"made part by pnrt. by addition, composed" and in wbich 'specifc

elcments . . . separate from tbe $'hole, thus setting up relationships

9

tle rvorlc" (They would include the \r"ork of Dayid SmirhAnthony Carc uiler tlis description.) It is worth r€marki:rgthe 'part-hy-part" and "rclational" character of mo$t sculpture

Monis devotes considerable aftcnrion to 'lthe use of strung gestaltor of unitary-type foms to avoid divisiveness"; whilc Judd is chieflylnterested in the *ind of wholeness that can be achieved tbroueh therepetition of identical units. The order at work in his pieces.-os heonc€ remarked ot ltral in Stelta's sb'ipe paintings. "is simply order.like that of continuity, one t}ing after another." For both Judd andMords, however, the citical factm is srkp?. Morris's "unitary forms"lre polyLedrons tlat resist being grasped other than as a singleshape: the gestalt simply ir the'oonstan! knol'n shape." And shapeitsef 4 in his system, -the nost important sculptural value." Simi-larly, qeaking of his ow'n work, Judd has remarked that

rhe big Foblem is that anything that is not absolutely plain be-gils to have parts itr some *ay. The thing is to be able to workand do difierent things aad yet not break up the wholeness that apiece has. To me the piece with the br3ss and the ffve verticals iselnve allthat shaoe.

associated by ludd wit]l what he calls anthrcnomowhtcm: 'Atlrusts; a piece of iron follolvs a gesture; togethcr they form a

naturalistic and antlropomorphic image. The space corresponils."such 'multipart, infl€cted' sculpture Judd and Monis asset

values of *'holeness, singlen€ss, and indivisibility---o{ a work'sas nearly as possible, "one thing," a single "Specific Objecr."

sbape ie the object: at any mte, what secures the wholeness ofobject is the siDgleness of the shape. It is, I believ€, this empha-

sis on shape that acoDunts {or the impression, which numerous crit-ics have mentioned, ttrat Judd s and Moris's pieces arc hollou,

t lShape has also been cenhal to th€ most impotant painting of the

Past several years. In sev€ral recent essays2 I bave tried to show

"'Shape as Fom: rraDk srelai Ns painringr,,, Arrl@D, Vol, V, No. 3,ov@ba r968j "Jur6 Olftski," tbe @t losue iDrroduction ro an erhibition of

In; wqk at the Cd@m caltery, wshinsron, D.C., April-Jue, l967j and"Bolald Davis: sulhe dd m6id," A'rtoM, Vol. V, No. 8, April 1967.

120

ho{, in the wor} of:iotaDd, Olitski. and Sieltr. a conflict has gradu-

ally emcrged bcNeen shapc as a fundanrcntat property of objccl\and sLapc as a

'ncdiun of paintilg. Roughh, the success or frilurc

of a gi\€n painting has comc to depeDd on iis ability to hold orstamp itsel{ out or compel convntion as shape-tl)it, or somcho$ tostave oS or eludc the qucstion of *hethcr or rot it does so. Olitsli\early spray paiDtnrgs are the purcst erample of paintings that cithfrhold or fait to hold as shapcs; Nhilc in his more rccent pi.turcs, tt\rvell as in thc best of Noland's :rnd stelh's recent \rork, thc denran(]that a gilen pichre hold 1ls sh.rpe is staved ofi or eluded in variorr\rvays. \\4rat is at stakc in this confict is $hcthcr the paintings orobjccts in qucstion arc expericnced as paintnrgs or as objccts: arwhat deciclcs thejr idcntit) as |ditirtrg is thcir conlronting of thfdemand that thcy l,old as shaPes Othenvise drey are erlerienccd rsnothing ore than objc.is. This crn bc sun rcd up b)'saving thrtmodemist p^inting h.rs cone to 6nd it imperatir.c tbat it defeat orsuspend its own objecthood, rnd that the crucial factor jn this undcftaking is sliape, but shrpe that must belong to /tdinting-it must l!'pictolirl, not, or not merel),, litcral Whercrs litcralist art stakcsevcrything on shape as a given propert! of obiccts, if not, ind.o(].as a kind of obicct in its o$'t) right. Ir rspircs, not to defcat olsuspend its o$n obiecthood, but on the contrar)'to discover:rn(lpmject objectlrood as such.

In his essay lcccntness of Sclllphre" Cleme:rt Creenberg discusses thc cf(ict of p'cr€n.{], wl)ich, fronr thc start, has been associated with ljtcnlist $ork.3 This cornes up in conncction Nith thcsrcrk of Arno Truitt. m artist Creenberg bclicves anticipated t))('literalists ( h. crlls tldr \ Iinnn.lists ) :

Truiit s irt (li(l llirt with t}c look of non-alt, and her 1963 sho$was tbc firsl ir \lhiclr I roti(c'd ho$ this look corld confcr rlcfect of p,r'v,ir. Tlat prcseDcc as achicved through size $riacstheticrlh (\lnntous, I alrcadl' lncs'. That presence r\achieYed throruh thc lool' of non art slls likesise aestheticill\

3 PubLish.d nr tlr car,Ll,)(ur t,, the Los Anseles Count-w \'l$em of r\n 'rxl'ibition, .ADeriQn sculphtu oI ile Sixti6.,'lhc verb proiEf tu I hr!'jlrt urd it is trkrn fronr (irq)hrJrs sratement The osrensible aim of 1lr

Nlinimalhh is b lroject ol)j,ds N(l d,sembles of objoch th.t arc just nuds,

Anrhony Coro, Benni^st6h. 1964- $eel pdinted block. 3'4" x 13' x ll'. ln rhe.olrection of lules Olitski, Phorosrdph court€ry ot Andre Emmeri(h Golery, New

Anrhony Coro; Flox. 1966. Sreel poinred blue. 2'1" r 6'9" x 5'4". In the .ollectionol Mr. ond Mre, fienry Feiwe l. Photosroph.ou esy of Andre Emmerich Gollery,

d o.d Obiecihood ' t23

.\trxneo,,s. I did noi !et kDo(. T itt\ sculpturc had diis knrd ofpres.nc. bnt dnl not lrirle b.hind it- Th;rt scrlphrre could hkl€hchind it-jusi rs panrtiDs did t {ound oui only aftcr rcpcitedrc. luanr i , ln.e $j ih i \ lh in l l1 l \orks of ar t i Judds, \ lodsi ..\rdre s, Sienicr's, somc but rot dll of SmiihsoD s. sone but not dlol Le\\'iit's. \finnlal ld.irn.lso hidc behilrl pr.sencc xs sizc: Ithinl ol Bladcrr lthough I dm Dot su.c whethor lie is a certined\ l in iN) l is t l :1s \ . l l rs of \onic of thc:ut is is just ment ion.c l .

Itcvrcc c.lD be .o|fened l)! sizc or by the look of non art. Frrther-inrc. \'hrt DoD-nrt rn.rrns tocld), and hs n{:rnt for scveral ).cars.ir fxirl\ speci6.. ID "\fier ,\Lstrrct Evressionisn Creenberg*rotc thii r ltr.ichcd or t..le.l up .anvas alre,r.lrr e\ists as ,r pic,lrrre- though not necess.rrih as a .r,r.c.sst, oDe.! For that reison,

r,'thd r\hnr.{t li\tirer\iori. ," 1,1h rtrdridn,l, \ii vI, r_o.8. O.rober:5. lglil. !.ll) IlirD.'sigeii.D \l]nh thir hd been rrle. rErd\ r\ f.llo*r:

t'ul'J tle te\ln,g ,)f nb(L isn no.. Dd norr of ih€ .onrentjons .f iheIi .f prirl s i.trc ,l${r lhrn\olver t. be di.red\rbl.. nness.nri,l. llutro$ it li.,s L..n rnrblished, it \dnl,l icrn. thri rle rred!.iblc crier.c offirluriil .tri .oBnts i', Lut ttro .!.rtitltive ..rtr ertionJ or.omrr flarDessand rlir,lrlinritxhoD of nrbes\r rnd thrt rie obs-.rv.n(e of ntrolw tbesehro romx j\ ero',qh lo.reite rn ,[j,..t thrt.rn be e\!e.ier.ed r. a pi.,l!r.: l)rrs .i rtrel.li.d .r hctod{p .nv.s .]re!d) osins .s a licruelhutr{li r.t re(cstil:; rs r s,...sl,rl orc.

In its lrnul o'rtljrr rln n nrdonLt€dl! Lorre.r. Tl,,Jc ar., }o\'.yer,.errai.q'rilific.tlio.\ ll,rt.xn br Dr.le

'lo LrLrn \jrli, it n not quite.n.nql lo sar that r b..e crnvrs ia.:Lcd ro n$rI n ht inG\..'ril\" I $..0\sful pi.t'r.j n w.ul(i, I drnrk, b€ les of...\rgs.rrt'or r{r \x! ll,Jl it is not LorttinbllJ .it. lt nu} be .on.t rcd rhrtrrlurr.i(1rm\lan.es Dill,t ln .h rs to ndli" it. u.c\sfu] printinsi bur Js,[l(l rrrxr rl, , n). tl)rt r,, I'r!,r.n, ihe cnterprise ot Dannnis \vonld ]raven, (hnr{r \o.lrr\|n]llv tlit n.llrnrq n.rc thin thc nine Noul.l r.nlnr. (Ir\odd nrlrirc x hr Art,,n.r chrnge rhrD lhrt tl'rt !,rn,rin! hrs undercone lron\hn.l lo Nol.ftl, Oln\ki, rn,l Stdhl) \loreover, reenis w'nctling.s . paint-nrs in tl). \1trr thrt on. \e.\ Ll,e tnr'lrd-up Qnvas as a rDnnn,g, i.d }cingcorvinrcd llnl r rJnrtilul.r $ork.rn \tJd .omplison \rft! the DanrL.s of rhelJx\t Nh\r qmlit_v ir n.t ni doubt, rre rlt.setl'er diffenJ)t r\prricn.€s: it is,I \ art 1,, ..,) , rr thoLcl, u er\ {'n.thing compels .o.vi.Li.r 2s ro its (l!nlib,il is.. nw. thrf bniilly,tr ronrnully a printing. This susgrsts tliat llalles\rnd lhe delnnitrtion ot llrtn.s! .usht not to be thonght of rs rhe ir'ellu.ible.\icrc. df pi.tdial rlt but rrdrer rs \omctln,g litc t\e ni ,tdl .ontlitiarclot $,'\1h"1!s ])tir!: !..r ut a r,ln,rirsi ind dnt dr..ru.ial qu.\tion js not

: -' ":+:i:::::1966. Golvonized rreel . E.ch box,40" x {0" x !O" i '

Phorogtoph coudesy ol D*on Golle'v, Ne* York

"1I

I

11 4:1? r

Donold ludd, unr i t ledo lorol lensth oi 25'4"

Michoel Fried 121

as he r€ma*s in 'Recentress of SculPture," the 'look of lon_art s as

no longcr available to paintin8." Instead, 'tbe borderline between art

and non-art bad to be sought in t]te three-dimensioDal, where scub

truc was, and where everything material that was not art also was

Creflberg goas os to say:

The look of machinery is shunned norv because it does not go frr

enough towards tbe look of non-art, which is presumably arr'inerd look that ofieis thc eye a miBimum of "interesting" inci_

aent-udike the nachinc look, which is arty by comparison ( and

whcn I thinl of Tmguely I vould agree witl thi!). Still' no

matter how simple the object may be, there remain tle telations

and interelatioDs of surface, cotrtour, etrd spatial int€rval Mini-

rnal worts are readable as art, as almost an)'thing is today-iD_cluditrg a door, a table, or a blank sbcet of pap€r. . . . Yet it would

seen that a kisd of art oearcr the condition of non_art could not

be etrvisaEed or idcated at tiis momeDt.

what ih@ midn l dd, so to sp@I, lDds onditios ar.' but raths sbnt.

at a siv@ mondq is @Psble of @np€lliDg @ ictio!, of suc.€€ding a pan't_

ing- This is Dot to sy that paiDti,g fu! to *.D€; it ,5 !o clai6 tlat thrr

e-xn{Fi.e. rhat *hi.h coinpdt @'victil,Fjs legetv dete@ilcd bv' aD'l

ihe.€Ior6 chang6 @tilully io retMse to, the vltal work of the reeDt pan'

The scD@ oi Dliltirs is oot somdthiDg ireducible Raihd, the tasL of tlr'

modmist paiotq G to dis@q those @veDtions that' nt E givcn o@etl

zlotu a( i,oabl. of BlablDhitg }is wol's idodtv 6 P.intios'cErb|;aDorc.chs lhis p6iti@ when he sd& Ar it rdls to Ee, Ne\

mn, Rolhlo, and Still lave $dg the lellditici$ of Elod.dist Dainting n'

a nN ilnA bon simDly by @ntiouing it io its old ooe. The qu6tion nN a'lcJ

$bush rhet art is ro lo"ger *hrt ortitutcs att, or tle art of psilting' r\

sch-btrt what inedDcibly mstitutes goo, alt s $ch Or rathq, what h th'

ulbnale source of valuo or quolitv i! an?' But I *ould argrre that what mo(l'

€mnm hd\ mennt is tltlt lhe two qucstiorwhat @n5titut6 'hc

an ot Drnrtinc? ,,sd vh con\tilutA ced p"intiog?-." no loneer sepedbler tle 6r'l

Ai"*nn-^. o, incra\inrlv rend\ to dis.pp€.r' into the s@nd (I am 'no*i". r*i"s B.u. het. with the v6sio. of nodehisn put foMrd in nr

Tbee Anarican PanncB.)For eole on thc oture of qscnce aDd cowondon i! the Eod@ist arr'

sm ny A.ays oD sl"llJ r',J OliL'ki nentiood .bove, 6 well s Slanlev Cav'll_\lsj; Dh@bpo.cn. ind neioind6i to cnti6 of thlt e$v' to b' FUI'X.hed as oan oi a 'vmno.iun

bv the U!iv.6tv of Pitlsburgh PB in a v"l

-".otiti"a e'r. trinrf"r,i nriieia C"vdl s Dies will als lppcar io LxJ

We M.ot What We Sdr?, n b@! of his 6savs to be poblish€d in the ndr

Arr ond Obi€cthood 125

lte meaning in ttris contcxt o{ "the condition of non-art" is what Ihave bem cslliDg obiecthood. It is as tlough objectlood alone can,ln ihe present cicumstances, secure somethinds identity, if not asnon-aft, at least as neitber painting aor sculpture; or as though.awork of art-more accurately! a *'ork of modemist painting orfculPture- were in som e essential respe& not an obieca.

'Itere is, in aDy case, a sba4) contrast between the literalist es-o{ ob jecthood-almost, it seems, as an alt in its own dght-

modemist painting's self-imposed imperative riat it defeat orruryend it! o1ral objectlood tbrough the medium of shape. In {act,ftorn the perq:ective of rec€nt modemist painting, the literalist posi-flon evinc€! a sensibility not simply alien but antithetical to its own:as though, from that p€Epective, the demanAs of art and the condi-tioDs of obiecthood are in drrect coLflict.

Here the question arfucs: What is it abour objecthood 6 pmiectedand hnostatized by the literalists that makes it, if only from theper*)ective of rec€nt modemist painting, antithetical to art?

answer I want to propose is this: the lite.alist espusal of ob-amounts to nothing other than a plea lor a ne*' genre of

; and theeEe is now the neeation of art.Literalist sensibility is theatrical because, to begin with, it is con-

witb the actual circrnnstances in vhich the beholder en-literalist work, Morris makes this explicit. Whereas in pre-

art 'what is to be had from the work is located stricdy rritiin" the experience of litenlist art is of atr obiect in u sihtatton-that, virtually by deGniti on, indudes the beholdet:

The better new work takes relationships out of the wo* andnek€s them a function of space, light, and the viewer's ffeld ofvision. The obiect is but one of the terms in the newer aestletic.It ii in some rl,ey more reflcxive because onet arvareness of one-self existing iD the sarne space as tlre work is sEonge. than inprevious work, with its many intemal relatioDships. One i5 moreaware than befoie that he himself is establishing relationship ashe alDreh€n& the obiect fiom various positions and under vary-bg conditioB of light ena spatial context.

Michoel Fried 126

Monis belicrcs tlat iliis a\rarcncss is hciglrtcncd by "thc shengd) ('1

the constant, knorvn shape, the gestalt," agaiDst which thc appc,!ance o{ t}ie piece Irom difierent ponns of vje\\' is constantly bcir{compared. It is intcDsiffed also b)' thc l.rrge scale of much litcrnliil

TLe artareness of scale is a furction o{ tl)e comparison nrx(l,between ihat constaDt, oDe's body size, and the ol)J'ect. Spr(,betveen thc sobject and thc object n inplied in such 8 con)pili

The larger the object the nore Fc uc forced to leep our distatt,,

It is this necessary, ge.tter dist.rnce of the objcct iD spacc fm',,oru bodies, nr order thai it be seen at dl, tbat structurcs tl!nonperonal or public modc llnich IIoris tdlocatcsl. IIo\\eu'lit is just this distancc bctlveen object and subject that creat( s Imore extended situation, becaNe phrsical participrtion becoDr(*

Th€ theatricalit-v of \lorris's notion of thc "nonpersonal or publi,

mode seems obvious: tlre largeness of thc piccc. in contunction lri(llits nonrclational, unitary character, dir.m.sj t}c bcholder-not jtFl

phlrically but pslchicallr. It n, one might s.ry, prccisel)' this distrrtring that ,ll?}.s the bcholde. a subject and the piece in question . .an objcct. But it docs not follo( thrt tlte l:uger the picce thc mor'securely its -publii' character is cstablished; on the contrxr!, 'ln

yond a ceta size the object can orcnYhcln and dte gigantic sc!I,'becomes the loaded term." Uoffis \\'ants to achiel€ prcsen.tthrougl oLiectlrood. \'Lich .equircs a certanr Idgeness of scnl(.nther dian through size alone. But he is ako avarc tiat this distinction is aDl.thnrg but Lard and hst:

For the space of th. roon itself is a stnich'.ing factor both in it\crrbic shape and in t.'nDs of the kind of conrprcssion diferertsizcd and prcportioned room can efiect upon the object-subjc.ltems- That ihe sp.rcc of thc room bccomes of such importan(,does not mean drNt .rn cnlironnrental sihration is being estal)lished. The tot.rl spacc is LopeftrlJy altcrcd ir ccrtain desired wn!'

Ad ond Obiedh@d 127

Ly lh. prescn, F ot dre objc.r t r is nor.ontro c, l int t ,e,cn\ .o lrrnrg ordi rc. t hy _.n igg,. l j r tc ot ntr i . ( t \ or Ly si ,mc \h ,ping olrDc spacc \rrro,rndjnA t],e \ ieq "r.

'lhe obtect, not the behotder, must remain the center or Locus of ther i lua, ioo but the \ i fuar ioo i t -e[ belona, i o t_LF b.hotder _ir r" / , i rsnuatron. Or $ \ tol i \ . l rx\ I , mrr l ,ed. . t $i , t , to . , r ,ph1\ i7. rh"rf lungs rr . in a:pdcF wir l , onc.ef mttr" , t t ,dn.. . l r j rJ l ] one is in ast,a. , sum(n,ndrd L\ t l , rng.. \g.r in. d, , . is no ct ,aror hrr t l d isr in, ,rrcn h.t !v.Fn rhc tso siatcs of igairs: onF is. ,Jtcr al l . a/u,1, rur_rotrnded by things. Brt rhe thirgs thar llre litcralist works of artfDusr som€how confront tbe be.hotdcr_thcy must, one might al_Ir :ost

rr) . b. .r l . r .ed ni , ' iu ir in h's spx, c Lur in his u1ly. Nonc i , r lh is,

indicatcs _a lack of interest in the obiecr itsetf. tsnt th. concerns

norv are tor nrore conrrot of. . . thc enrire sftuatior. Controt isn.cc(\rn it.dn vr.iabhs of objecr tighL space. bod\ . arc ro f,,nc.non. re ohic, l h.6 nor hcmr,, . Iess imporlJnt. t t his , , ,erclybecome lcss self nnporranr.

I t is- . I t l fk. rrorth remarhne rhar - the cnrrre sihrahon- mexnslac

y rhat.: /4 ol_ n .iD,tuL]ing, ir se.rns. Gp b.hotderi ,o.r,/lhcrc is norhing sirhin hls 6eld , , i v is ion_ norhing $.t hc rut;snoteol in Jny $2] th. .r . 0s i r \ .Fre. dc, lares i rs i rc lF\anc" ro thesrruanon. and th.rctore ro lhe.\p.r i rDie in .rupsr ion. on thc.on_trary. ror somebinq to Irc fe, , .ei \ , d dt aU is lor i t ta L,F f . r . ts i \cd |r \pan o[ thrt ( i ruat ion. E\cryr] ing (ouol\_not.F pad ot rh^ obj.cr,Dur as p€rt or the si iu.r t ion in $ hrch i ls obi*r lhood n e.r .bl i \hFd

"xJon whn h th. ' roLiFcthood jrr t .Jst pa, l tvdppend.

Furlhcrmor. the pmspn,. ol l i tFHl i \ t art . \hi .h CrpFnbcrg $.,5 r t , .nr( t lo andlvr. is bai . . y I thc:rb- ic.r t p0F,1 or qu*Irv_ r t ind olst?g, pres€ncc. k is a function, not just of the ofrt.,,riu*o" atra,oren. pvcn rggrA. iFni $ of l i l . ral isr wo, l . bur ot th. cp., . i " l (om.pircr ly thal thrt wor( c\ lods trom lhe behotder.som"rhi ;g is rHi. l tohav. pr.s.nce wh.n i r dcmdrdr lhrL t l r . bchotdcr r- t . l t ;nro nc_count, that he take it reno dy-and when tlic fdnllrent of that

124

denand consists sinrply in bcing .rrarc of it and, so to speak, ji

acting accordingly. (Certain modcs of scriousncss are closed to thebeholderby tle work itself, r'.e.. those establishcd by thc ffncst painfing and sculpture of the recent past. But, of coursc, llote arc hardl!nodcs of scnousncss in shi.h nrosi pcople feel at home, or ihat the!cvcn ffnd tolcrablc.) Here aganr the eriperience of being distancedby the Nork nr qucstion sccrns crucjal, thc beholder knorvs himsdlto stand in aD indcterminatc, opcn-cndcd-and rrne$cting-reltttion dr flrlrlcc-t to dre nnp:rssne obicct on tbe (all or lloor. In fact.bcing dhtanced by such objects is ot. I suggcst, cntircly unlil,bcing distrnccd, or croNded. by the silent prcscncc of another Pe,-sonr the cxpericncc of coming upon literalist objccts unevcctcdl)-for cxamplc, in somc*hat d:rkencd rooms-caD be strongly, i{momentarilv, disquieting in tust this \\'ay.

There are tbree matu retrsons $h.r thh is so. First, thc size olmuch literalist {o*, As \lorris's remarks irnpl}, mmpares fairJ'clorcty $ith that of thc human body. In this contcrt Tony Sinitll \replics to q(estions about his six-foot cubc. Dir,. rre highly sugge.

Q: Iihy didnl you 'nakc

it ltrgcr so that it $ould loom orer t|,

l: I \!as not making a monument.Q: nren shy didnt.,-ou m:rke it smiller so that the obscr(c'could see o\er the tor)?,{: I sas ot,nalnrg an objcct.i

One \aI of drscribing shat Snrith lfrr m.rking might be so'nethnnlikc a surrogatc pcrson-thrt is, a kind of st.rtr". (This reading 6nil'support in the crr)tion to a photograph of another of Smith's piccc\.Tftr Blat t tjor. publishtd h the December 1967 issue of Artlortitr.

',1shicli Samlrcl \\'{itstif. Jr., presunably*idr th€ artist s sanction. ol'sened, Onc'carr tc thc h!o-b) fours undcr thc piece, \'hich keep ilfrom appeartug likc rr(l)jtcdure or a monumcnt, and set it ofi ir.sculpturc." Thc t\\o b\.fours nre. in e{ect, a rudimentary p?desrriland thcrcbv rcinlorcc tlc statuelike qualty of the piece. ) Secotrrlthe entities or beings cncouDtcred in €reryda,v e\perience in ten,s

. Quotdi by ltoris rs tl)c epigr.Dh to hG Notcs on S.Lrlpture, lart 2 '

lhrt most closel], approach the lit€.alisr ideals of thc noffelationnt,lhe unitary and the vholistic arc orier persons. Snnitarly, tlc titernllst prcdilection for syrnmetry, and in seneral for a kind;f order that"is simply ordcr . . . one thing aJter anorher,,' is rooted, not. as JuddM.ems to.bclier,'e, in new phitosophicat and scientific pnnciples,whatev-er hc takes these to be, bur in ,atnre. .Lnd thfd, *e apparcnt hollos'r1css of rrost liteirlist lvork-the quatiry of having an/mirte-is alrnost blatantly anthropomorphic. It is, as numemuscommentato$ have rcmarkd approviDgl],, ns rhough rhe work inquestjon has an inncr, evcn se$ct, Iife-an eficct that is perhapsnade most e\dicir in \lonis's Unlftt".t ( 1965 $6), a large rirgtiietorm in t\ro hatvei, with fluorescent tight gto,ving t-^ *itnn ,i *.narrow 8ap behlcer tnc t*o. In rhc same spirit Tony Smith hassr id. i m intercst(J in rhe inrrutrhi l i ty and myrertousness of rhelhing. s Hc h,r. .rlqo hF"n qlored rs sryin$.

\torc dnd nrorc I've become interestcd m ptlcmaoc strLrctures_In these, llll oI the material is in rension. But it is the character ofthe fonrr that .rppeals to nrc. Thc Lionorptric forms that res rfrom the constnrctioD have i.lr.amlikc qurliry for mc, at leastIike Nb.rt is srid to be a fairly .ommon t).pc of Amedcan

Smiths intered in pnoumaric structues may seem surpnsing, bur itis consistenr both lvith his own rvork anrl wittr literaiist s;ibilitySenerally. Pncumatic structures can be describccl ;rs holov witb av€ngeance-the fact rhat they are not ..obdumte,

sotid masses"(ltloris) b.ing nlJtrr?r/ on instcad of taken for granted. And irreveah somethirg, I think, about what holowness means in literalistart th.r t the lorm: r l , i t r .sul t rr , bn,norphic.-

I am suggcsting, then, that a kind of latent or hiddcn naturaljsm,indeed anlhropomorphisn\ lics rt tle core of literattst theory aodpraclice. The .oncept of presence all but says as mrrch, tiroughrarely so nakcdly as in Tony Smith's statemenr, -I didnt think;f

^ ' ! ' : ,ot l , rhe.] torF Fr iahph rrn..r ty quured. cI . r , iFm,.nr{ b} I .onysmrlh hrvc brel lrlen frrm SJmuel W"q.t.rn. J, r. -T,Ilrns in Tuny Sm,rh,:,Arrt tur', Vol. v. No. .1. Dec@brr 1966.

An ond Obiecthood 't29

130

them [i.e., thc sculptures he 'ahvays" made] as scrlptues but r{gesences of a sort." The latency or hiddenness of th€ anthroPl,morphism has bccn such that the literalists ttremsclves have, as $r.havc seen, felt frec to chanctedze the modemist art they oppor..e.g., the sculpture of Dartd Smith and Anthony Caro, as anthmp,,moryhic< chiracterization *'hose teeth, imaginary to bcgin i!itl,.Lave jrrst been pulled. By thc same token, however, {hat is !$ror11with lit€ralist work is not $at jt h antluopomorphic but that tlrmeaning and, equally, the hiddenncss of its anthropomorphisn ar,.incurably theatrical. (Not aI Literalist art hides or marks its anth('pmorphism; the u'<rk of lesser ffgures like Steincr s'elrs anthropomorphism oD its sleeve. ) The crucial disti^ction that I an ptoposnr:so tar is betlDcen $otk tlnt is frndanentallg theatical ond :trotkthat ir nor. It is theatricality that, whate!€r thc diferences bchvc.,'drcm, links artists like Bladen and Cmsvenor,? both of rvbom bar,.auowed gigantic scale [to become] the loaded tem" (Monis'with odrer, morc rcstrained fgurcs like Judd, llolris, ADdre, Il,Gac*en, Lewitt and- despite thc ske o{ some of his pieces-TorrrSmith.s And it is in the intercst, though not evlicitly in thc nam€. ,,1theatre that literalist ideoloey reiects both modemist painting nxl.at least iD the hands of its most distinguished recent pracdttunr.\modemilt sculpture.

In this conn€ction Tony Smitht dcscnptioo of a car ride takcn .nnight on tlle New Jerscy Tumpike before it rvas ffnished rnakrcompclling reading:

\l7ben I Nas teaching at Coopcr Union itr tle Grst year or t$o (,1the lifties, sorirconc told me ho* I could get onto tbe unffnishr,lNe$ Jersey Turnpike. I took three students and &ove fron,so'nclvhere in thc llfe;rdows to Nes' Brunswick. It was a drll

rli the c.taloluc tr, lnst sprins's Primary Stncturcs cxhilttion at thc lc\nhLlNeu, Bladen \rok, Ho$ do you m.ke rhe i'snlc rhe outlid€? ard Cn^veDor, I dor'i \vDt mt *ork to be thoueht of ar 'large sculpture,' thet rnideai th.t operrtc in thc slace bchveeD lloor Dd eiln,s." The r.levancc ,,1these stdtdots to wlrt I harc.ddtrced d evid.ncc for ihe thdtn.{lit\.,,1Iil"!..lnt $pL.) nn l !r.r.r'e @m\ obvious.

r lt i. tl@tdc-rlity, loo. that links all tiee artists to otld ffeua d dislaftl,.as Kaprc\!, cdEll, Rrnschentrrs, Oldobd& Flavin, Snithe., Kienlot.Scgrl, S.lm, ChnJto, KrNma . . - thc Iist 6uld go on indefnitely.

ond Obie.thood l3 l

night and tlere w€re no lighs or sboulder markers, lines, r3ilings,or anything at all exc€pt the alark pavemcnt moving through tb€landscape of the Bats, rimmed by hills in the distalce, but punc-tuated by stacks, towers, fumes, and colored lights, This drivewas a revealing experience. The road and mtch o{ the landscapewas atificial, and let it couldnl be called a rvork of srt. On theother hand, it did somethiog {or me that art had never done. Atfrst I didnt loow what it was, but its eFect was to libente meIrom many of the viervs I had had about art. It seemed that therehad been a reality therc that had not had any expression in art.

The experience on tle road was something mapped out but trotsociall!' rec{gnized. I thought to myself, it ought to be clear that'sthe end of art .Vost paintiDg looks pietty pictorial after tlat.There is no way you can fram€ it, you just have to expedence it.Later I discovered som€ abmdoned ai$tdps in Europe-aban-doned works, Surealist landscapes, something thrt bad Dothingto do with any function, created *'orlds without haditioD. Altifi-cial landscape without cultural ge.€dent began to dawn on me.There is a drill ground in Nuremberg la€€ cnough to accom-modate two million men. Tbe entire ffcld is €nclosed with highembanlments and towers. Th€ condete approach is three sixteen-inch steps, one above th€ other stretching for r mile o! so.

se€ms to have beea revealed to Smith tbat nislt was theial nature of painting----€ven, one might say, the convention

of art. And this Smith seems to hav€ understood not as layingihe ess€trc€ of art, but as announcing itr end- In comparbon&e unmarke4 unlit, all but unstructured tumpike-more ple

, *,ith the tumpike as ereenenced fmm within tle car, travel-lng on it-art appean to have struck Srnith as rlmost absurdly small("Atl art today is an art of postage starnps," he has said), ckcum-scribe4 .onventional. . . . There rvas, he seems to have felt, no wayto'frame" his ex?erienc€ on the roa4 that is, no way to make senseof it in terms of art, to make .,rf of it, at least as art then rvas.nather'you just have to e{peri€nce it"-as it hd?rpant, as it merelyb. (The experience alon, is what matters.) There is no suggestionthat this is problematic i$ any way. The experience is clearly re-garded by Smith as wholy acctssible to everyone, not iust in priDci-

Robe Modll Unlirled, 1965. Grdy tiberstoss wirh lisht, 24' x 96,, dionelelIn lhe colledion of the Dwon Golle.y. phor.srdph coudesy of tea c.nelti Goltery,

Jules Oliiski; surso ,5, 1t67. Aluminun poiored vith ocrrtic resin. tO, x ,14,In lhe colleclion oJ Robe Rowon. Pholosroph coudesy of Andre Ehmerich Ga

Tony Smnh: e slocl sox. 1963_65Pointed wood. 2%,x 3,, phoiosr.ph

i";k'Y 'r Fi"hb".h G"lr",v, N".

Michoel Fried 134

ple but in fact, and the question of lehethcr or not one has realh,rdl it does not arise- That this appeals to Smit! can be seen from hNpraisc of Le Corbusier as 'more a€ilabld' than Michelangelo: '"Th,dircct and primitive ei?cricnce of thc High Court Buildhg xrChandigarh is likc thc Pueblos of the Sou$\rest under a fantasti,overhanging clifi. It's something e\eryone can understand." It is. Ithink, hardly necessary to add that thc availability of Dodemist artis not of this kind. and that the riqhtness or relevance of on.sconviction about speciffc modemist s'ork, a conviction that begnr{and cnds in onc's expe.ience of the work itself, is always opcn n,

But what oar Smidl's e)ipericDce or the tumpilc? Or to put th,.sane question another way. if t}lc hrrnpike, airstrips, and drillgound arc not works of:rt, shat ore the],? What, indeed, if notempty, or 'abandoned. sitrotions? And \rhat leas Smith's cxpcrience if not the expcrience of rvhlt I have been calling tftealrc: It isas though the tumpike, airstrips, and drill ground reveal the th€airical character oI literatst art, only ilithout the object, that is, 1ri|horlthe att itself-as though the obiect is nccded only witlin x roon"(or, perhaps, jD any circumstaDces less cxtreme than tbese). In cachof the above cases the object js, so to spcak, r"plrrs{/by something,for eriample, on thc tumpike b) tle mnstant onnlsh of t}lc road, thlsimultaneous rcccssion of ne$ reachcs of dark pavement illumnredby the onrushing headlights, thc scnse of the turnpike iLself as sonrthing enormous, abardoned, derclict, sristing for Smith alone an(lfor those in the car with hiln. . . . This last poht b important. On throne hand, the tumpike, ai$trips, and drill gound belong to no onc:on the olher, tbc sitDrtion c*abtishcd by Snith's presen.€ is in earllcase fclt by him to be ftir. Nloreolcr, in each case being able to goon and on indefinitrlr is of the essencc. \\/hat replaces the object-s}lat does thc sa'nc job of distancing or isolating thc beholder, ofrnaking him a sul)iect, that tbc olject did jn the closed roont isabove oll the erdlssncss. or obicctlessness, of the approach or onrush or perspectn(. It is thr cvlicihre$s, that is to say, the sherr

I The (oncelt of r roon n, mostly clandcsiinely, imDoitant to liicirlist artald thco.y, ln fact, it crn olten lc substihrted for rhe word 'irEce" in thelatrer: $merhi.g is sanl ro be in or s!{ce if it is in the sdc

'@a sith Dc

{and if it is pla.ed s. d)at I can harilly fril to Dotice ii).

Ad ond Obiecth@d 135

p.rsistence, with whictr the experience prcscnts itself ^s

directed athim from outside (on the tumpike from outside tbe.dt) thnt simul-t$neously males llim a subjcct-makes hi]n subicct-and establ;shesthe experience itself as something like thrt of an object, or rather, ofobiecthood. No sonder tr{olris's spcculations about hov to put liternlist work outdoors remair str.rng+ in.oclusive:

Why not put thc work ouklools rnd frdhcr change the terms? .4.real need exists to allow this nc\1 stcp to becone prrtical. Arch;tecturalh dpsigred stulpturc courls nk sol lhe Jl|s(cr nor is theplacement of *'ork outsidc cubic archite.tDral forms ldeally, it isa space, without arcbit.chrre as background and rcferencc, thatvould give diferent tenns to vork with

Untcrs the pieces are sct doNn in . Nholl}' nah|ral contcxt, andMorris does not sccm to be advocating this, somc sort of artiGciall)ut not quite Architcctural setting must be constructed trVhatSmith's remarks seem to suggesl is that the more effective-meaningefiectivc ns fhedlrc-tie setting is madc, the morc superfluous thervorks thenNelves become.

Smitn"s accomt of his expe ence on the tumpikc bears \sitness totheatris profound hostitity to thc arts, and discloses, precisely in theabsencc of the object md in *hat takes its place, what might beca ed the tbeatricalitJ, of objccthood. By the same tokeD, however,the imperrtive drat modemist Finttng defeat or suspend its obtcct-hood is at boftom thc impcratile that it.Irf"ar or susPend tlreure.And thrs means that there is ir s'ar going on between thcatre andmodemist p;Linting, behseen the theatrical and thc pictorial-n warthat, despitc thc literalists' explicit reiection of modemist paintingand sculpture, is not basicauy a Datter of program and ideology butof s?ericnce, conviction, sensibitity. (For example, it wns a ptrticrLlar expcrienc€ that engend€rc.l Smith's conviction that painting infact, that the arts as such verc ffnishcd. )

The starbess snd apparent ineconcihbility of this connict issometlring nerv. 1 remarked earlier that objecthood has become anissue for modemist painting only vitlin the past several years. This,however, is not to sry t\at beforc tlc Prcsent siturtion came into

136

being, paintings, or sculptures {or that ,naiter, stnply te,e obie(t\.It would, I think, be closcr to thc truth to say tbtrt they sttrplU $1'rr'not.1o Tlle dsk, e!c.n thc possibility, of sccing \lorks of a]t as rollring more tban objects did not exjst. That this possibjlity began toprcscnt itsett around 1960 \'as lnrgely tbe result of dcvclopmcnl\\rithin modemist painting. Roughly, the more nearly assimilablc l,)objects certain advanced painting h.rd comc to seem, the lnore t|,entire history of paint'Dg sincc \{mct could bc urderstood-delusn'e\'. I believe as consistn,g in the progressive (though ullimately inadcquatc) revelation of its cssenti:l objecthood,tl and tl!more urgcnt bccarne the need for Drodcrnist painiing to make (\plicit its coDventioml speci6call), its /ridfolidl-esscnce by defo.lling or suspe.ndiDg its o$r objccthood through the tnedium of shrp,The view of tnodemist pairting as teDding to\yard obiccthood i'implicit in Judds rDrnrk, The ne$ [i.e.. literalist] sork obliourhresembles sculptuc more than it does painting, but it i\ nearer L)painting'j and it is in tlis \'ie\I that literalist seDsibility in gcncral Igrounded. Literalist sensibiliry is, therefore, .r response to the tarrdevelopnents tlat havc ldgely compelled nrodcmist pAinting 1,,mdo its obiecthood-more precjsely, the sanre dcvclopments r.,Jl.Iiffercntlq,n\at is, n th€atricd tem$. br l sensibility a/r.o.Iv thcrlIical, alrcady (to say th€ worst ) corruptcd or pencrted b! tic)tf,

t Sianlc)_ Cavell ias r.n.rled in senina! tl.t to. (nnt in ihe Criii.rxr '4Jrzlg,cnt a $ork of a.t is

'ot in obicci. I sill ia}. rhis oppornnrilv to r,

lndrledse 6e facr rhat s.itloot numcro$ .onvosations sith Cilcll duri,the prst fcs r?a6, and Ni$oui \\Ial I hale learled frotu him in colrrc\ lllsemn,rr\, ifu prcspnt essar-and rot it alone\onld hat br.n n,okcn.l'|,I $rnr ,lso lo c\pr.ss hl gntitude antl indcbtqlncss to the comDoscr J,'l 'Harbison, \rho, toFeilFr \nl his $ifc, rh. violnist no*nary lltrb'son. l'.'

sien me \'!ateve. nriiirln,, inio modem music I lEve hail, both for thlt i',tjrtion aDd {or ndrerous sishls bearins oD dre subjmt of thn essay.

' 1 One (ay of d€soibnrs this vieN misht be to ey that it dr.$s som.thi''

likc r false infer€nce fron lle fact th.t thc incrersingl) cxplicit aLdnoslr,lme]t of tlc litcral charrct(,r of the sutpod has b{u..ntral to thc dereli,l,melt of moder sr tannn,g: mn€l!, that litenlness ,s rrcft is an irti\tic \'.r1,.of supreme importa!.€. In shape as Fon I argued thrt tljs iifcrur{lblind to ccnain vital .on\nlerations: nnd implicd that liter.lncss-more r)i,cisclt, thc litcralness of the suppo -n. vrluc only oitlnr modctnist !.i,rnrg, and tio oDly bcclnse it hrs bccn ,,d./e onc by lhe listoD of t}it eln

Snnilrrly, what has cornpclled modcnist painting to dcfeat or sus_pcnd its oll.n objccthood is not jusr developments inrernal to itselJ,hut th. same general, cnveloping, nfecrious thcatricality rhat cor_rupted literalist sensibility in ihe Arst ptace and in the gnp oI whichllrc developmeDts in quesiion-and modernist pajnting in general_orc s€en as nothing more than .rn uncompelhrg and presencetesskind of thcatre. It rras the nced to break the fingers of this grip thatnrad€ objccthood an isstre for modemist painring.

Objcctbood has also become an iss;c for modcrnist scutpture.]'his is ttue dcspite thc fact that sculpture, bei,g three dimcnsionat,i{.semblcs Loth ordinarv objccts and lfteratist work in a wav thatprinting docs ot- .\lnost ten yees ago Clemenr creenbergstmmcd up \r+at hc saw as the cmergencc of a nerv sculprural"$tyle," Nhose master is undoubtcdly Dlrlid Smith, in the fo ;wine

To render srbstance entircly optic.al, and form, wllerher pictonat,sculphrral, or architechral, as an intcgrat part of anbicnt space_thjs brirss anti-ith$ionism firll circle. Insterd of the il ion 6fthings, we rre now ollcred rhc iltusion of modatitics: nanet),., thatmattcr is incorporeal, \yeighdess, aDd exists onry opticaly- lik€ amiirgc.rl

Since 1960 dis development has been crried to a succession ofclimaxcs by the English scutptor ,{nrhony Caro, r,hose Nork is far

'nore sp"c'f.zlly resisrant to bcins seen in term of objecthood than

that of David Smith. ,{ chaJacte*ric sculpture by Caro consists, Iwirnt to say, in the mrrturl and nakcd lufr?posriion of the l_beaDs,girders, cylinders, lengths of piping, sheer metal, aDCl grill that itconrprises rathcr than in the .ompound obl.ct ttiat they composc.The mutual infcction of one element by another, rath;r tha; theidcntity of er.h, is shat is cmcial-though of course atte ng theidentity o{ any elemcnt rvould be at least as drasric as attcring itsplaclment. (The ideniity of each element mattels in some\!}af thcsame way as the fact that it is an arm, or rhis aml, that makes aparticular gcsture; or as the fact thlt it is rhrr word or rtis note andnot snothcr rh/t o.curs in I part iculr FlacF in a scnt, n, .c orDrclody. ) Thc individur l . l .nrFnr. t - . ' ro" , igr i f icrncc on onc rn-

'tr Th. \ew Sc.ulpturc,' Ar, nd Crftzr,, Boston, lg(jt, p. 14.!.

A.t ond Obiecihood 137

Arr ond Obie<thood r39Michoel Fr ied 138

othcr prcciscly by virtuc of thcir jutaposition: it is in this scDso. ilscnsc nrcxtricably involvrd wiih the conccpt of mcaDing, lhat cl('r\thing in Carot art that is worth looking at is in its syntax. Caro\conccntration upon syntax anrounts, iir Greenbergt view, to "r!lemphasis o abstmdless, on mdical unlikeness to nature."'3 ,{D(lCreenberg goes on to rcmark, No other sculptor lras gone as furfrom thc structrral logic of ordinarl ponderrblc thnrgs." It is q'orilicmphasizing, ho\\,ever- that lhis is a {unction of norc than the lo\!.ness, opelness, pan-by-patness, absence of enclosing pro0les arxlcenters of interest. unperpicuolrsress, etc., of Caros sculpturcs.Rather they defeit, or anay, objec$ood b1, initating, not gestu(\exactly, but the efi.d., of gestuei like c€ rin Drusic and poetr\'.they arc posscsscd by the laoslcdge of thc hurnan body and hor.in irnumcra]r]e $a)'s and moods, it niakcs mcanbg. It is as thoucirCaro's sculptures esseDtialize mcaningfL,lncss as such-as though thcpossibilit-v of neani'rg $hat tle say and do alore makcs his sculp.ture possible. ll tlis, it n hardly necessary to add, makes Carot arla fountainhead of aDtjtitemlist nnd ,rntitheairical sensibility.

Therc is another, morc gcneral res?ect in Nhich oLjecthood hrsbe.r'mc an issuc for the most mbitious recent modenist sculpturand that is in regard to color. This is a large and dimcult sub,ccl.rrhich I cannot hope to do nore than touch on hcrc.rl Bnefl!.honever, color has become problernatic for modemist sculpture, notbecause one senses thlt it has been rpplted, but bccause the color ofa €!i1en sculptDre, \\nether applied or in the natural state of thcmateri.rl, is identical \\ith its surfacei and inasmuch as all objcctshavc su acc, arvacncss of the sculptrre's surface implies its obicct-hood thcrcbl thrcatcning to rlualif,v or mitigate the undermining

L3 lhi\ rnd tle follo\ing rem.rk irc taken {ron Greenbcrs's 6say, Anihon\Cdro, ,.{rts l./r}uo*, tio.8, 1965. Caros ftst stcp in this dncction, thc oh!).nrtion of th€ !c(lc!tx], secms iD retro\pcct to }ave h.cn motivrtcd rct by lled€sirc to p(scnt l,is ryork $ithout arfiffcial anh so nuch as bt tle need nlundernj!€ jts o|jeldrooil. llk work l.s revealed ihe eltent to Nhich melclt'pntting somethnrs on a ledestrl .ontra it in its objocthood; thonsh mqcl)(.moying the pcdestrl does not in itself undemine objcthood, N litcrrliir

rlsee Creerb€rs s Anrhony Cxro'and th€ l.st seclion of hy "Shape isFom for mor€, thoush not a great de.l morc, .bout color nr sculptlrc.

,,t objecthood achieved by opricalt, and, in Caro,s pieces, by theirsy'rtar as well. It is in this conncctioD, I believe, rhat a vcry recentxrrlpture, Banga, by Jules Olitski ought to be scen. Brng., consists,)t bctlveen fffteen and h'enq. metal h,bes, ren feet b;s a"d ofvrious diam€ters, placed upright, dveted togcther and then spLayccl$ith painr of diftcrent coloF; the doniinanr hue is yeltow to teuow_o'nng€, but the top and'icar" of the piece are sufirsed with a dccprcse, and close looking rcveah Aecks and cven thin trickles oI grccirond red as s'cll. n rather widc red band has bccn paintcd a;uncllho top of the piecc, \rhile a much ihinner ban.t in tlvo clifiercntl,lucs (one at the'flont" and another at the ..rcar,) circumscribesthc yery bottom. Obviously, Bungd relates fitiDately to Olitski'sspray painthgs, cspecialy those of tbe pasr ycar or so, in which hehrs workcd with paint and bmsh at or near the limits of the support.At thc sme t jm. i t !mo,rnls ro 'omFtbing t . r morc rhan,n ar im,prsirrpl) lo

' lakc ur " l ran' latp his pr inr ing\ into s, l r lpt ,rrF{. nrmr Iy.

rr attcmpt to estabhh surface-the sur{ace, so to speak, of ,rdnrfing-rs a mednrm o{ scu]pttre. The usc of tubes, each of which orcrces, incrcditrly, as /df-r}!at is, flat but /o11e.t-makes Bznga,s sur_frce rnore like that of a painting ihan 1ik€ that of an obiecr, ljkcF inting, .rDd unlike both ordinary objects aDd other s.utpture,,n,rsl is d/lsu ace. ,{nd of cou$e $hai dectares or esrrblishes thats'rrfacc is color, Olitski s sprayed color.

vtlAt this point I Fant to matc a claim rhat I cannot hopc to prove orstrbstantiate but that I believe ne\.erthetess to be nuc: lJi;., thatthcatre and theatricality are at ear todal,, not simply with modcrnistt)aiirting (or modemist painting and scutpture), but with arr Ass'rch-rrd to the ertent rhat thc difie.cnt arts can be described asD|odemist. 1\ith moderDist scnsibitity as such. This clain crn bcl,roken do$T into rhree propositions or thes€s:

lr Tl , sfr . , .s, tpnthe\u^ ol ol t t r ddr tn: , !n" i tu t .d\ i r ,el !to 'lcpcnd on Ih"ir abilitA to tlpl"dt ltratrc Tti\ i\ tFrtrtp\ Iowh.r;

'rore cvident than wirhin thearre itseu, rvherc tle necd to rteleat

N,hat I have been calling theatre has chiefly made itsclt felt as thenccd to establish a drasticalty ditrercnt rel;rtion to iis audience. (The

t40 Ad dnd Objecthood 141

relevaDt texts e, of couse, Brecht and \taud.li) For thcatre ld.

!n audicnce it e fs lor one in a \\'ay the other arts do noti irl

fact, this mor€ than an)'tling else js $nat noderDitt sensibilitl fin(ls

inhteraLle in theatrc generalt.Ilcrc it sliould bc rcmarked that

literalist afi, ioo, possesses an audience, t}ough a somc\rhat spccill

one: thai the beholdcr is confronted bv literalist Nork $ithiD .

situation ihat he eeeriences as hi, means lhat there is an importanl

seDse nr $'lrich the $ork in qrrestion exjsts for him olonr, c\.cn if h,

is not;rctually alonc witn $e work at tbe tinle lt mrv sccm Par']'doxical io chin] bolh that literalist scnsibjlit) tlsPircs to an ideal of

"somctliing cveryone can understand' (Snittr ) an.l that liic':'list rti

ad.lresscs itsclf to the bchokler aloDc. but the Parador is or)ly aPpaf-

ent. Som.onc has merely to enter tlle room in *hich a Iitcmlist Nork

has Leen p]accd io becorr that beloldcr- th.tt audicncc of onc-

.tlmost as though thc laork in qDcsiion has bccn uo,tnrg tor hnn

ADd nr.rsDuch as liteirlist rvork rJepends on the beholdcr. i{ hc(),L

plrtc Nithout hnn, it lur l,eeD vaiting for him And once bc is n) tht

room thr: \ork refuscs- obstinatclv. to let hiD alone-$hich is lo

sry, it refuses to stop confronting him, distancjng him, isolating hiD)

(Such isotati(n is not solitude an) more tlian such coDfrontation is

It is the olcrcoming o{ ihentre that nodernist scnsil,iliiy li ds

most cxatting and that it expedences as the halln)ark of high art iD

our time- There is, ho\\'e!er, onc art th:lt. b)' its tery nature, ?scdp's

theatrc eninely-thc mosies.ro This Lelps crplaijr \'ht molies nr

': l-h.,'e.d t. achicre i (\L r€l.tion to the sp€cturor' \Ii.h llrrcht feltrDd !l,ir! hr dis.rsred time and again ni hn \ntings on the.trc Nrt rot sim_

!l) tlre restrlt of !i\ \la^Lsm. O! die..ntlarr, his djsco\(4 ot Nlnrs s(rd'i,, hve t.c,' n, lrn tle d'nove.-\ oI slat riis .elarjon

'nisht be lik.' \h.t it

nisht Dexn: \\'tr.n I rcrd Il.Ns Crrrituf I undeAt@d m! phJ's li.tur:'ll'I \bl nr sc€ t}is bo,,t \nlcll cirdrlated lt Nisr'r of coursr that I foun(l t|id un.on!.nn^l\ \,itten | \Iolc Dilc of \lanist phrs: bnt this I'r \l'rxs,.s th. .nly srFctrtor f,r nrr pla,rs I d cvF come rcros\'' lBrcJn on Th'at'r'cditc(l cnd t[nshtc(l b J.]]n \lillctt, ^"e$ Iork- 1964. pp 23_24 )

liEu.th non rhc morns cscrpe tlc.tre is a b€autihrl qtrestion, rNl tlereis ro.lonl't |ut &rt I plc,r)nenology of rle cnrcDr that conccntrrted on th|iinilnrities rn.l di[.Jc,{.\ her\t€cn it a.d tbe thcihe-e g. th'r h the novi"stlc ..tds are .ot llilsi.xlly presetr, thc ilD self is proj({.d (eill trom us,thr screen is not .tD"ti"""",l

". a kinJ of object e\inins, so to \perk ib I

$eijfic tlysi.rl r€l.tn', 10 us, {t. \'odd be cdremcl,t rc\i(lirrg Crlcll

gdr€ral, including frankly appalting ones, are acceptabte to modcm,ist sensibility whercas all but the most successfut painrjng, sculpture,r'rusic, and poetrl.. is rot. Because cine 1a cscapes thcatre-auto-n'xti.ally, as it \rere-it provides a rvelcomc and rbsorbiDg refugc tos.nsibilities at war vith theatre and theatncatity. At the sarnc timc.l l ( automJric. qurrJnt.cd. l , r" . tFrol drc ret l lge more rccrrrrrcl l .lh. fact tllat whrt is provided is a rctuge {rom the(lhc and not ttlfi"rnph oi?r it, absorption not conviction means that the cinem ,cleD at its most experimental, is not a rnol"mist art.

2) Aft degenentes ae it approaches the co rlitiotr af theata,'I heatre is thc common denominator that biffls a larse and sccm-i'rgly disparate vaicty of activities to one another. and that distin-[rishes t]iose .rctivities Irom the radicalty ditrercnt enterpriscs ol thcrnodemist arts. Here as elsewhere the qrestion of valuc or level isrcntral. For example, .! failu.e to resister thc enormous difierencc inrluality betlvcen, sa]', the music oI Catcr and that of Cnee or bc-lNccn thr painl ings ol Iouir dnJ dm:c ol R:rusch"nt,ers mi.ans rh"ttl'e rcrl dislindions-lrehvceD music and rherrrc in rhe first inst.rncenDd behveen paintnrg sd theatre in the second-arc disolaced bvthc ijiusion Lbat the lrdriers bchlccn rhe ans are in r_hc oro".*, oirrumhlnrq iCage rnd Raus.henbcrg Leirg scnq ronccrtyl, as simi.l.tr) and that tle arts tlerrsetves are at Iajt slidins towards somelind of ffndl. implosi!e. hug.h Lle.irabte sy:orhc\ii.,, \vh{rr.rs in

nRiD, lDs (allcd ancntion, in .{nversarion, to the sort of rctuenbetury thntloes into giriDg ar ac.tut of a novie, and nore Esjc.illy ro rlc nuture ofrh di$.ulrr- rh-r ! , inrohFd inpi ! inr .u(h an x.mur,r

r;Ttis is the vie{ of Susu Sonrag, s,hosc various essiys. colleck\l j,AIJ.i6t lnteryrctation, Dount ro per}aps the pu.cst<eitanrly tle mo*.grcsious<,rpressio! of irhat I have ben callins thcatric.l scnlibiltv jnrccent criticism. In tlis sese ihev are indeed the ..casc shrdies for nn a$thetic.t r lhtury or my oM.pn. ib i l ly rhd. .h" rJ.F. lh, .o lo lF. In. , (hartu k,nt i ;p.sagc lliss Soltns contends:

An lc lay is J 'n

s knd of jn.rruTent. a. in. t r rner, l tur modtf l ing $n-\c 'uurn. \ \ and orE.," i / i , ! Dew moJ", . t ,qF:! i l ih. An, l th( means forpiJ! . i i ina rrr h"rF-been ra. l i , " l ly . (ended. . . . pdint+ no ton{er feelth,m.elv,s .odn.d lo env", .nd D..in., brr cmntov htln. nhor;srilbi\v"\..rnd bny.lc rirp.. rh,.ir ovn roorhbrushes nnd $ck". . : . An kin(or .onvcntionally acc€pred boundaria lave ihereby been chnllen{od: ,otj$r the one b€h{een &e sciendf,c" and the ,.litcriry

arustic,' cuiiures. or

I

l,ti.hoel F ied 112

fact the individual arts havc ncver been norc cr?licitly conccm(dwith thc conventions that constihrte dreir respective essences.

3) Tlrc concep.s ol q alitg anel aalue 'aruI to the enefi thttthese arc centrd to art, tlrc concept of utt itsery arc D.ea'1itt'!lnl, o,uholly nuaningful, on/v ivithin tie indil)iLlua! ads. What lies batwccn tft? a,ts is theatre. It is, I think, sigDiffcart that jn tl)eirvarious statcments the literalists hare largely avoided the issuc olvallre or quAlity at the same time as they ha\€ sho\m considcrabluncertainty as to whether or not what ihey are making is art li,dc$c be their entcrpnsc rs an atteDpt to establish a nzlf art clocsnot removc the unccrtaintyi at most it points to jts source. Jutldhimsclf has as nuch as Rctaovledged thc problematic clurncter ofthe literalist enterprise by his claim, A work needs only to be irteresting," For Judd. as for literalist sensjbilit,v gcnerally, all that mai-ters js whether or not a given wor]( is able .o elicit aDd sustain (his )interest. \Vhcreas Nithin the modernist arts nothing slmrt of ronui(tion-speciffcatly, thc conviction that a particular painting or scub'ture or poem or pic.c of music can or cannot support comparisorrwith past wo* within that art {'hose quality is not in doubt-mattcrs at all. (Literalist sork is oftcn condemncd \ehen it i\condcmncd-for being bonng. A tougher charge \rould be that it ismerely intcrcsting. )

The interest of a given work resides, ia Judd's !iew, both in ilsch^r.cter as a Fhole nnd in the sheer specfcitv o{ the matcridls olwhich it is mad€,

Most o{ the 1r'ork tuvolves ne\\-materials, either rccent inventionsor thiDgs not nsed beforc in art. . . . Vatedals vary greatly an(larc simDly nlateri:rls-Iomica, aluminum, cold-roled steel, plc)ii-glas, rcd and comoon brass, and so forth. They arc sp€ciffc. 1l

the one betwccD rrt" ard non-art ; but also mary stdblisheJ dislinctior's'it])jn the uanl{l oI (ltrre itself t!!t bex!@n fod and.6nteDt, the frilolous nrd t!r, sernus, lrd (a fayorite of literary irtelectu.ls) "high u(l"low' culium. ll)]). 996 97)

'lhc tru$ is thit tlc dkln!{ion b€t{Ten ihe hivolos and tlE serioue be.u!.mon ulseDt, dcn iLn,lrr,., e\€D da), and d,e enie4'ns.s of tle m.denist d''r.more purely motilaic(l l)v the t lt ned to perpetute the stand,rds anil uht*of rhc higl lrt ol the pisl.

A.t ond Obiecthood 113

th€I arc us.d dire.tlv. d,c} ue nrorc spccr6( Also. rtrcy arc usurl ly aggrFssne. Therc is M oLi.et iv i t ) ro r l ,e ol)d, ,r . r tc ide r i r) ot

Like tl€ shape of the obiecr, the nrateriats do nor reprcs€nt, signify,or allude to arything; rhe1, are rvhat thcy are .rnd nothing rrc_ -lndwhat th€y arc ii not, stricrty speaking, something that is grAspcct orhrtuitcd or rccognized once and tbr all. Rrthcr, thei'bdurate identitr' of a speciffc materirt, Iike rhe rvholcncx o{ theshape, is sinply stated or given or est:rLlished at tho vcry outset, ifnot before the outset; accordingly, $e expcrience oI lnth is one ofrDdlessn€ss, oI incxhaustibilitr., of being able to go on and on ler,llng, for example, the matcrial itself conlrort onc in dl its litcral_

'r(ss, its "objectivi!,,. its abseDcc oI anything bcyond itscu. In a

$nnihr lcin trIoris has written:

Charactefistic of a gestalt is rhat oncc ft is cstrblithcct all theinfomution about it, grd gestal! is cxhausted. (One does not,for example, seek the gestalt of a gesralt. ) . . . One is thcn bothfrce of the shape and bound to it. Free or relcased because of thecxhaustion of infomation about it, as $hapc, and bound to itbecause it remains constanrand nrdivisible.

Tle same note is struck by Tony Srnith in a statement the firstientenc€ of which I quoted earlicr:

Im intercstcd in the inscrurability and mysteiior$ness of thething. Something obvious on tle face of it (like a washing ma-chiDe or a pDmp) is of no futhcr interest. A Bcnningron earthen-s,are tar, for instanc€, Ilas subttcty oI color, largeness of form, ageneral suggestion of subsrancc, generosity, is calm and rcas-rrring---qualities that tlke ft be) ond pure utiliry. It continucs tonourish us tim€ and time again. We can,t sce it in a sccond, wocontinue to r€ad it. Therc is something absurd in thc fact th:r youcan go back to a cube in th€ s,rme way.

l,ikc Judd's Speciffc Objecrs and MoEis's gestalts or unitary forms,S'nitlis cube is dhdrs ot further interest; one nevcr feels ihat onehas come to the end of itj it is inexhaustible. It is inexhaustibte,

144

horvever, not because oI nny fullncss rldt is tlre inexhaustibility olart bui becausc thcrc is nothing lhcre io e\haust. lt is cndlcts thi\,\'ay a road might be: if it wcre circDlar, for eliample.

trndlcssncss, benrg able to go on nnd on. even ha\iog to go on an(lon, is central botl to the concept o{ inteJest and to that of objecibood. In fact, it seems to be tlr(i c\penencc tliat most deeply cricit, \literalist sensibilit), and that liicralist artists seek to objcctify in thcirwork-for exanplc, by tlc rcpetition of identical unjts (Judds oD|thing ,ft$ anodrei ), \lhich cnrries the nnplcatior tlnt $e units irlquestion could be multiplied a(/ i,,fnttrr,.15 Smittr s account of hi\experience on the un6nishcd turnfik. records that cxciteDent all hule\plicitl)'. Similarlv, lbrris's clrnn that in the best nerv rvork thcbeholder is made arvare thit "he hnDself is establishing rclationship:ns he apprchcnds thc objcct fronr various positiors aDd rndcr v.rr!.tng conclitions of light rnd spaiial context" amounts to the claiD th.rlthc bcholder is made aware of the endlessness aDd ine\haustibility l1not o{ the object itself at any rate of his er?edence of it. Thisax'areness is fur$er e\acerb.rted by whai might be called the tnclrsio,'rrss of his situation, that is, b!, the fact, rcDdkcd carlier, thaleverlthing he obsenes counts as Dart of that situation and hcnce isfelt to bear in some way that rennins undenned on his expc;ence olthc objcct.

Ilere finall,s I \rant to emphasize something that may alread\have become clear: the e)iperience in question persxts in firn", arr(ltle prcsentment oI endlessncss that, I barc bcen cliimiDg, is certtfulto liter.tlist dt and thcory is csscntiall-\'a prescntBent of cndless, {)lindcfinilc, (lrratron. Once ngain Smitht account of his night drnc isrclcvant, as well as his remark, "trVe can't see it [i.e., tbe jar and. b\implication, the cubel nr a second, Ne continue to read it." Monj\.too, bas stated erplicitly, The erperience of the rvork necessarillexists in time' thoug} it *ould make no difierence if hc bad Dot

rs Tlat is, drc ddkl nnrnxr of strch units in N giver licce n fch to bc .rl,trnry, nnd th€ pje.e itselt-despitc the Lteralist pr6€Dtation Nith sholi\lnfomFis s..n ns r frnsmL,rt oI. or (ut into, someihing infinitely hrg.r. lli\ ior of thc most importu,t dillcrenc$ bctrvccn lit.{alist rvork tnd mod.ir'nrpaintnrs, $|lich ha madc isclf r$poNible fo. ts phr;si€l timils as neler l),for.. Notadi and Olilsl,i s paintnrsr a.€ t\ro oblios, atrd dill€r€nt, cites n,

Don,t. It is il this conrcction, too. tllt ih€ importan€ of tle paint.\l brnn'Nound ihc bottom and th{, top of Olitslis sculpturc, Bdsa, tEcomc dr.r

'fhe litdalist prcoccupation with time-more prccisety, with thethtratkn,ol l l r . r l t t ieru., - is. t sugserr p,r .rd]smnti( * Iy rr , . . 1r;_. i r : rs ' l

! rsh Lhr"tre.or, trolr . rhe heholJ,r . 11Id r lcrehy j .otxtFsf i i rn. $idr lhc endlcrsn:s\ nor jusl ot obi , L thoorl I .ur ot r j r r . ; or . .sr l 'ough lhe scnsc $hich, at hol tom. rhFab_..rddres.es is x \ ,ncc otrcmpo-ralit)., oJ rime borh passir€ and to come, ntuItlnco1lsll 1q)_roaching drl recetlin{:, as if apprehended in ar inffnite pcrspccrive

. .rs Ttus prnoccunlion mr,Ls a protound diocrencc Lcnveenrrr .rat i \ t $ort ind moJcrn;( t p, nt ing l rnd s.ulprur. . l t r \ rs thoughoDcs erperiencc of rhe laftcr lz ro duation_.ot bccruse o"c ln//ca erpdiences a pichrre by Nolanrt or Olitski or A scutprurc byfrrvid Smith or Crro in no tn,r ar r lJ. bur f , . .nn. , , t coc, i n,on,, , rI . t , r uort i i tvtJ is t t l to l l . 'J rr , , ry ' .v. Tl js ish eot \culphrrc. l , \ t tFl l 'c ob! i ,nrs fa, r th.r t . b€ing rhrPc dimFr. ion., l , i r crn i r" ,c", r ,o,nrn infinite numbcr of points of vic.$,. One s expcrience of r Caro isnot incompletc, and onc's convicrion as to jts quality is not suspcnded, sinrph. btrruse one has secn ir only fio"r rvhcre o,re isxt.nding. \Ioreovcr. in thc grip of his best lyork one,s vielv o{ the

,- l l3: : .* l , u" l b"r$e.n.( !hrr , .essioD and \umc .eb , \per! f ,e or:.1l'ry,",1 "--l x. ,f rh,. 6,.r {.c,r i kind of D,tu'Jr metrpr;{ Jo, rr,,...'ua b p'aent n nu, h Suft rtnl rrJinbns , p.o . up |.hi,n.u, trh, T.n,rur,

l l { r , - : . , \ roreu\"! . t rmDu r i r \_ h,nire.e.r . ror. , . ,mpr-. r , rr , , , r . r"n,

: :1-:- , l i : : ' i pr. tut im,nr. memun. norJe,. . . r . .n. i ,nrLn rhc . \ ! r . . i ..nnmr o_ i i , , . l ,pr j ln.(s. i - tn,rr i r , i , t - . , " d-Fp , f t . i l ' h, ,h,A,r l err}r ; Jndim F" l j . r . " ib rh ( . , r . ,nJ ,e. * ,hF t"upr D-tp. r i .pU , , .1r i . t t re

" . .k ol

]lll l:"J:, ":- " ,i . \ r,(h drhr ,o Le nnrF.r. Bo,h ̂mpl.v :."",.,y ,r.,i i. ,i

l " ' , : , . , . . .9 In J{n.r . r - -emq,,dn. i - . omplFrc. I .nr t , r . .L4rt to i nmiIr Ja1 upoDorr ' / i r . r

^ l , 'bre. l . n, . ] , , - lUD"."11n. ot ut , ,F, , . \ jn S,rr iFl tbm

l : i : la"T"r , .pup.( . nr . . rR.^.r ' . .ndrrrh LrJ ru,replJy . ,nd i .orrrprq,y6 and p, FaF nr \ trdrior6_'l,e ,to-.1 ,nor Jn I rh" ..b.ir!tune(l xrrrffdJo Srr , . i t : ,o J. to t jhr . , t f n. rTuny Smir l l , r r $ l lo F?,r tu,dcs.nbedrhc.r iFrf lp. . . ! . 1! -S, ,nraLi{ t -n. l "c"p,* . ; 11; , n6n;.u

up b\ \,yrnc thal sum,rti{ se.\ibit\. n. ,n.,nif.{r,t in rt,.""1':'

**,", .,dnr\. .,d tndJnr .pu\ibdit! a,c bod, r/,"ar,nr?. I ,to norl l l l l " . l l , " ,_, ,

(o,r f ,h,rehtood.s q\hc rh,r L, tr LV, rrr . r . t r . rherrner. i r rl"::"j., )"*

tnar srd( tr,c Jhorp \hffr, turj.\ rJir J. drr: J !n,hpr.uou.ArJnn,c ol mlur sor rsr (1n b. , tc\ . r ib.d j . dr ,dbrdt ; , L iJcnnetr i \ sur., r l rsrrudprLF. otr thc,oi lnr hdnd. i n r , rhJp. nor r jdru,r l . iJ .n in. ,nc/ thr t

; l l { l* . . i f f ] " ' r"mpr" or J sun"dr: ' Idnd'c"pp \n ' rhc r i , r ,d rro,an

Ad ond Obiecrhood 145

144

sculpture is, so to speNk, ecltps"d L)'$e sculpture itself-$ hich it isplainly neaninglcss to spoak of as onl] pdr.rg' present. ) It is thiscontinuoLs and cntjrc prcscntn.ss, amounting, as it \eeie, to th(pcrpehral creation of itself, that oDe expcriences a.s a kind o{ inston.taneou$ness: as though if onl) one Nere iDffnitcly morc acute, rsinsle in6dtel)' brid{ iustant $ould be Iong enough to see crer}'thing, to e\perie ce the sork in all its dep$ and frlllness, to h,forever conrin.ed by it. (Hcrc it is $orth noting th^t t}le conccpt olinterest implics tcmporalitr in thc folm of continuing attention dircctcd at the objcct, \'hcrcas the conccpt o{ con\iction does not.) Iwant to claim that it is b) !irluc of thcir prcscntness and inst.rnt ).ousness that modernjst prrinting and sculpiure defeat thcatre. LLfact, I rnn tempted f,u belol)d n)' krowledge to suggcst that, fac(.(lwith the Decd to dclcat lhcairc, it is .ibove all to the condition .]painting rnd s.ulphrr('-thc coDclition, that is, of e)iisting iD,

'ndef(lof secrcting or constitutnrg, a continuous and perpetual p,ese,rl-that thc othcr coDk'Dporary nrodemjsi arts, most notably po.tr\and music, aspire.lt'

r" $'hat ihls neans nr €x.I art \ill natuollt be dille.cnt. Fo. cxafrpl..mnsics situation is espe.jdlly dil$cult in thrt mosic shares \ith ihe,i.e dr.@n\.c'tion, if I friy crll it thrt, of durdtioFa coNerrior ihat, I am srl.s€stins, lus it\.lf b.con. iD.r($hslr tle!rri..l. Besides, tbe ph]iicsl cn.unlstan@s of a con.elt clos.ly resenble rhose of a thealrical perfomnn.c. lt n.,\hlve b€en the deie f.r lonrething lile prcsenrness ti.t, ar ler\t io some .\tent, led Brccht t. adro.rt( a nonill$ioristi. tlatue, i! \rhich for e..'rrnpl,tlre stase lislitnrs vrl,l bc visible ro the audience, in nhich the dctoB \oul,lnot id€ltily $ith th. lhir.ctes th€r Dln,y but rathcr \rould slo\ rlrem fo!tl,.dnd jn \rhich t.mpohlity ilsclf \$onkl be prcse.icd h a neN w.y:

Just as the n.tor n. l{)hrer Ifls to pcNr.d€ the a,diencc tlr.t it is tlr'author's churct.r rnd rot }imself that is standins o! ihe stase, so .lso l,need .ot pr.ten(l lhit llc rlenrs takins place on tle stagc hrve never barrelea*ed. n.d rn,rN\ l,rppcDin! for the fi6t and only rim€. Schill.r\ di.tin.tion k ro lons.r vilidr tliflt the Ihn!)sodist ld ro b€r his material r'{holly in tle pist; tho mine his, as \rhoily here md now. rt should l),apDrurt all rl,ursh lis D€rfo.mance th.t er€n at tI€ stirt ind in th. nnlile he knors ho$ it .ndi nhd hr mast d,u\ miltain a calm indepeDd.n(rb.oughout.' I Ic narrt.s Ilc (ory of his charactd by yivid port rril, al\\ r\ .hno$nts more thrn it (lo.s rnd tr.nting nos' and 'hcre' .ot d a p€t.ltinade possibl. b lh. r,l.s of the sme but s mcthing to be disti!!$isl,r,lfrcm yesterdry and !,me other place, so I to make vjsible tle kuottjlltoseiher of ihe events. ( o. 194. )

Ari ond Obiecth@d t47

v lThis essay iyitl b€ read as an attack on ceiain artists (and critics)ltt)d as a defense of others. And of coursc it is true that the desire todistinguish between \r'hat is to me the authentic art of our time andother work, which, ivhatever rhc dedication. r,assion. and inrelli-g.nce ol ils creato^. s.pms to m. to share frtain ehararreristicsssociated here *ith the @nccpts of literalism and theatre, has

l.trgely motilated what I have wdften. In thcse last setrtences, howcver,I want to call attention to the utter pewasiveness the vitualuniversalig- {f the scnsibility or modc ot b€ing thar I luve char.rc,k.r izcd as.omrpted or pcrvened by thertre. \Vc re al l Ul .rat i rrs

'uostor all of ou livcs. Presentncss is srace.

lhrt jest {s t}e e$oscd lishtilg Br€c}t .dvocdtes l.s be.omc mer€ly a.otherk 'k l o l thqFrJ, ,avcnr ion r^rc, norcover. | } l1t . I rpn ! t .4 ," rmpojr , ln, l . D tn, Cr.FdJton ot l r "n l i , r suk, J: th, n, . lat tdHon \h$ of J, ,dd\rir cube pi€.c in the Dvan Callety sho$,s), it is not cleir $,!erler rhe hnn-,lling of time Brecht calls for is t.ntasount to .ut}entjc D.es.,ntn€ss. or mcrclvr , , . ,n. 'h,r Lnd of r , , . -

n. , i , . lo rhe !re.p, , rm,.nl " t uD. i . . , l t * rhnusi lil rvere some sort of litenlisr object. In poet.'. rle nccd for Dresentness mui_nrh i l \&lJ i - lh. l )n. p. ,m: rhrr i . i nr t ,_(r t rh" i rq, , , rp. , r . o"o r , , "un.nr.

For dr" t r . . ion. of de'r ' , r " lc \ rhr tn thrs (*") , "c CJ\F , F-nI on Bd.k-ttt\ Lnd Canp. Endinc rli. $c jng Crme, anJ thc A\oi,bn\F ot Love; Reading of Kirs If,ar, to be prblishcd in 6r We :\teaa Whar We Saq?