<<

The Introduction of in Europe (1966-1969):

network, changing conditions, museum exposure

Student: Binkie Bloemheuvel Student number: 10178678

Supervisor: Dr. M.I.D. van Rijsingen Second reader: Dr. G.M. Langfeld

Date: 17-08-2017

MA thesis: Research Master Art Studies (Arts and Culture) University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

“As you set out for Ithaka hope your road is a long one, full of adventure, full of discovery.” C.P. Cavafy

I would first like to thank my supervisor Dr. Miriam van Rijsingen for her remarkable support and advice throughout the writing process of this thesis. The excursion was a significant eye-opener for the rest of my studies. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction and encouraging me to pursue new research opportunities throughout my studies. Furthermore, I would also like to thank Dr. Gregor Langfeld for showing me the potential of a socio-historical approach and helping me to apply this method throughout my studies.

This thesis was only possible with the support of my family: Hiske and Ruud, Kaayk and Jan, Karel, Elly, Bianka and Tom. Three historians and one mathematician in particular deserve special thank yous. Elsbeth Dekker, thank you for all of your great advice and help thoughtout this thesis journey and your belief that Ithaca was always near, or at least somewhere in sight. I hope to return this wonderful favor during your future research projects. Julia Mullié, thank you so much for your generous advice and to many years of sharing the same research interests and discussing them in great depth. Marte Rijsdijk, thank you for being there throughout my masters program to many years of mutual support and assistance. Ideles Kaandorp, thank you for always checking on me; I’m very grateful that this research journey started in Londen last year.

2

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………4-9

Chapter 1: Nauman’s first two European exhibitions: networks, informative actions, and organizational structures

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10-37

Chapter 2: changing conditions and practice within one particular momentum………………………………… 38- 62.

Chapter 3: Group show mania, Nauman’s exposure in an European museum context in 1969………………….. 63-76

Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 77-79.

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………80-85

Archives………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ..86-87

3

Introduction:

My bachelor thesis concerned the introduction of minimal art in Europe between 1964 and 1968. During research on this topic my attention was drawn to several prominent art historians who had already acknowledged the radical shifts illustrated by the introduction of American artists associated with and in Western Europe at the end of the 1960s. In particular the art historians Sophie Richard and Phyllis Tuchman. They focused on new interactions and transatlantic exchanges between European networks of gallery-owners, curators, and museum professionals and the emergence of a new generation of American artists involved in conceptual artistic practices. In the historical context of the 1960s and 1970s, their research brought to light the network of actors and the changing conditions which had rendered possible the first transatlantic introductions. A study by art scholar Sophie Richard, entitled Unconcealed. The International Network of Conceptual Artists 1967-1977 Dealers, Exhibitions and Public Collections (2009), discusses the network behind conceptual art during the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s in Europe. Richard focused mainly on the support and dealing network of conceptual art and its international exchange.1 Richard’s study was influential to my research in the sense that it brought my awareness to the potential significance of researching the network behind these introductions. Furthermore, her study illustrated how through small networks new transatlantic exchanges were made possible at the end of the 1960’s in Europe. She highlighted how the introduction of artists working on the other side of the Atlantic were established and how these connections led to their first solo exhibitions in Europe. Richard carried out research in several archives of the support system of minimal and conceptual art and raised my interest in the potential of a socio-historical approach towards the introduction of American artists in Europe in the 1960’s. Several other art historians have discussed the shifting conditions and practices that made these introductions possible at the end of the 1960s.2 In 1970, for example, art critic Phyllis Tuchman published her article ‘American art in Germany the History of a Phenomenon’ in the prominent journal Artforum, in which she discussed the enormous acceptance and appreciation of contemporary American art in West Germany. Her article is often understood as a lament towards the missed opportunities of American cultural politics on

1 Richard’s definition of the label ‘Conceptual art’ is closely connected to the network that brought these artists together, Richard has defined the movement as follows: ‘It covers artists who (...) exhibited in the same dealer galleries and museums, but who were producing different kind of works: for example Joseph Kosuth (Conceptual art), Sol LeWitt (Minimal art), Richard Long (Land Art) and ().’ Please see: Richard 2009: 38. 2 Next to Tuchman, 1970 and Kölle, 2005 see also: Feldman, 2003. 4

American contemporary art to an American audience.3 Interestingly enough, however, Tuchman already historized a new gallery practice, which was established by a younger generation of West German private gallery owners in 1967. She argued that art dealer Konrad Fischer (among others) in Düsseldorf changed the conditions of the gallery world. Artists categorized as ‘environmentalists and conceptualists’ were traveling from the to Germany in order to work on site in Fischer’s gallery. Their practice allowed the design and installation of exhibitions in his gallery space while the artists remained in the gallery for discussion. 4 Tuchman made a first attempt to contextualize that West Germany - and to a larger extend Europe – during this time became a place where art was produced and interpreted instead of only collected and exhibited. In this way, she described a radical shift in which artists, not their artworks, traveled to Europe.5 The examination of these shifting parameters and new gallery practices in the 1960s only recently became the subject of several prominent art-historical studies.6 Recent studies include Brigitte Kölle’s dissertation, entitled ‘Die Kunst des Ausstellens. Untersuchungen zum Werk des Künstlers und Kunstvermittlers Konrad Lueg/Fischer (1939-1996)’ (2005), which showed that art dealer Konrad Fischer played a key role in systematically extending invitations to American artists to travel to Germany, including figures such as Carl Andre, Sol LeWitt, Fred Sandback, Richard Artschwager, Bruce Nauman, and Robert Smithson. In her dissertation she contends that this process ultimately established a new method of presentation. The studies of both Tuchman and Kölle have enlightened my own understanding of this era by arguing in favor of the significant impact made by these first transatlantic exchanges in relation to Fischer’s gallery. Within this particular historical moment, artists were literally introduced into a new artistic community with a new set of artistic possibilities on the other side of the Atlantic.7 In this thesis, I will closely examine the introduction of notable American artist Bruce Nauman (Fort Wayne, , 1941) to the European art scene at the end of the 1960s. Although Nauman was part of these radical introductory changes, the details of his individual introduction on the scene have yet to be researched in depth. Three aspects of Nauman’s introduction in Europe in particular demand further research, and I will elaborate why to my understanding each of these aspects present new research opportunities.

3 In 2016, art historian Catherine Dossin for example elaborated that Tuchman’s article also functioned as a warning for the American art scene. Dossin stated: ‘the tone of the article was ambiguous: on the one hand it revealed pleasure and pride vis-à-vis the German enthusiasm for American art; but, on the other, it hinted on some uneasiness about the disappearance of the American artistic patrimony.’ Please see: Dossin 2015: 216- 217. 4 Tuchman 1970: 58- 69. 5 Germer and Bernard. ‘Beyond and . German-American Exchange in the Visual Arts’ in Junker, ed, vol. 2 2004: 379. 6 For an overview of these studies see: Richard 2009: 34. 7 Kölle 2005: 190. 5

Three aspects: 1. Network In the summer of 1968, Nauman was invited to travel to Europe in order to participate in 4 as well as to put on an exhibition at the Konrad Fischer Gallery. To date, little research has been conducted on Nauman’s inclusion and the network behind his first exhibitions in Europe. In the case of the fourth Documenta, there is no art-historical literature illuminating Nauman’s inclusion in at the event.8 Although Richard’s study carefully analyzed transatlantic correspondence found in Fischer’s gallery archives, she elaborated on the introduction of ten artists at the gallery and therefore did not research Nauman’s introduction and inclusion at the gallery by extension.9 Another interesting element of Nauman’s introduction in Europe is the fact that he worked on the West Coast, in contrast to the majority of conceptual artists in America which were situated on the opposite coast. This contrast ultimately begs the question of how Nauman became embedded early on in the network of European gallery owners and museum directors who advocated for the conceptual , and how they could have encountered Nauman’s work in the first place. These knowledge gaps leave room for new research opportunities dedicated to the network that facilitated Nauman’s introduction, as well as the way in which the artist’s inclusion in these events was made possible in Europe.

2. Changing conditions In her dissertation, art historian Brigitte Kölle was the first to elaborate on the creation of Nauman’s first site- specific installation Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer (1968) in the Fischer gallery during his first trip to Europe in 1968. Although Kölle expands on the changing conditions of the gallery as working space and the changing practices of both Fischer and Nauman, she did not conduct in-depth research into the conditions that gave Nauman a new set of artistic possibilities during his three-week long stay in Europe. Kölle instead concentrated mainly on a theoretical framework contextualizing the parallels between Nauman’s installation and Beckett’s 1958 play Krapp’s Last Tape.10 This creates the opportunity to look closer at these changing conditions and practices within a single framework, that of Nauman’s activities during his first three-week stay in Europe in 1968. Furthermore, this allows for the opportunity to investigate Nauman’s installation Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer (1968) in relation to this historical context.

3. Museum exposure Nauman frequently participated in museum group shows in Europe throughout 1969. However, art historical literature has often overlooked Nauman’s inclusion in these exhibitions. For example, the catalogue A Rose Has

8 The catalog Documenta-Dokumente (1972) and the more recent study 4. Documenta: internationale Ausstellung, eine fotografische Rekonstruktion (2007) have included Nauman on the list of participants but do not reflect on Nauman’s inclusion, nor the presentation of his work at the fourth Documenta. 9 At that time, Fischer’s gallery archive was kept private. Richard 2009: 74-75. 10 Kölle 2005: 143- 150. 6

No Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s (2007) as well as monograph Bruce Nauman: The True Artist (2014) have only elaborated extensively on Nauman’s exposure and recognition in the United States. Nauman’s exposure in these group shows are important for the introduction of the artist in Europe and can address the way in which Nauman was categorized and how his art was perceived in Europe within a museum context.

Method: the archive as source:

A section of this thesis also introduces a new approach to investigating the introduction of Nauman in Europe. Chapter one and two in particular introduce the archive as an important source for reconstructing the artist's introduction. Richard showed that transatlantic correspondences in the late 1960s are valuable archival sources in reconstructing the network behind an introduction. Because in era with no digital communication possibilities and limited travel opportunities, telephone conversations were often too expensive and the most common way to communicate was via mail.11 These correspondences have been preserved in the archives of various museums, galleries, and collectors. I first encountered the term ‘informative actions’ in an essay by Lara Conte entitled ‘From Arte Povera più azioni povere to When Attitudes Become Form. 1968-69. Mario Merz’s work in group shows and his first international connections’ (2011). Conte only briefly used the term to describe the acquisition of information concerning new art trends in artistic practice occurring at the end of the 1960s.12 The term struck me initially due to its ability to pin down the subject of this transatlantic correspondence and the desire for information about American art within a particular network. In this thesis I introduce the term not only to define the act of sharing and acquiring information but also to illustrate how certain actors provided information to each other regarding new artistic trends. In my opinion, the term also highlights how information on art developed on the other side of the Atlantic and is actively sought due to a lack thereof in Europe. Mapping these informative actions via transatlantic correspondence gives valuable insights into a network of transatlantic contacts and moreover, illustrates how such a network came into being. In chapter one and two I frequently cite the archive as source. In 1967, Jean Leering became chief of the selection of American sculpture and painting at Documenta 4 while at the same time being director at the Van Abbemuseum. As a result, the exhibition archive at the Van Abbemuseum holds transatlantic letter correspondences concerned with the organization of the Documenta 4. These documents, when considered alongside the transatlantic correspondences of exhibitions concerned with the organization of American art

11 Dorothee Fischer, in conversation with the author, Düsseldorf, Germany, 3 March 2014. 12 Please see: Conte, Lara. ‘From Arte Povera più azioni povere to When Attitudes Become Form. 1968-69. Mario Merz’s work in group shows and his first international connections.’ 18 October 2011. Henry Moore Institute Online Papers and Proceedings.12 March 2017 < www.henry-moore.org/hmi>

7

tendencies at the Van Abbemuseum, will be an important source in the reconstruction of a network. Recently, the archive of Fischer’s gallery has been digitized at the Zentralarchiv für deutsche und internationale Kunstmarktforschung (ZADIK) in and has been available to researchers in 2016. Somewhat earlier in 2012, the private archive of Fischer's main contact in the United States, Kasper König, was also made accessible to the public through the ZADIK.13 These archives will be used as sources of reconstruction for piecing back together the network behind Nauman’s introduction.

Taking the above in consideration, this thesis poses the following research question: ‘What new insight can be gained from research on the introduction of Bruce Nauman in Europe between 1966 and 1969, when focusing on three aspects in particular: network, changing conditions, and museum exposure? In addition, this thesis will investigate the potential of archival research in addressing this question.’

Each chapter in this thesis will research and question one of these three different aspects in depth from a socio-historical approach: Chapter one reconstructs the network behind Nauman’s introduction in Europe in 1968 and the various organizational structures which made this possible. Therefore, the archive is in this case used as an important source. In order to expose the network of actors that brought Nauman to light in Europe as well as to reconstruct how the artist was included in this event, I will analyze transatlantic correspondence in the archives of the organizers of Nauman’s first exhibitions. In particular, these figures will include Jean Leering (1934-2005) of the Documenta 4, and art dealer Konrad Fischer (1939-1996) of the Fischer Gallery. Moreover, comparing and combining these archives will allow me to shed new insight on how these transatlantic networks functioned and how new organizational structures were introduced.14

13 In 2015, the archive of the Konrad Fischer Gallery was donated to the Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf. Only recently the archive is made accessible. I have consulted the digital archive at the Zentralarchiv für deutsche und internationale Kunstmarktforschung (ZADIK) in Cologne and not the physical documents at the museum in the Bibliothek der Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen in Düsseldorf, because it gave me the opportunity to also included the archive of Kasper König. The archive of the Fischer gallery is digitized as: Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Schenkung. Zentralarchiv für deutsche und internationale Kunstmarktforschung, ZADIK Köln, G 96. Kasper König archive is digitized as: Archiv Kasper König Zentralarchiv für deutsche und internationale Kunstmarktforschung, ZADIK, Köln, G 20. 14 An important element in the context of this research is that archival documentation of ‘Documenta 4’ has not often been consulted for research. The RKD (Nederlands Instituut voor Kunstgeschiedenis) holds one master thesis concerned with the organization of Documenta 4 and the role of Jean Leering, however this thesis does not elaborate on the inclusion of artists in the event. Please see: Rensma, H. 'Jean Leering en de "documenta" 4'. MA thesis. University of Utrecht, 2001. Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie (RKD), Den Haag, Archief Jean Leering (0325), inv.nr. 736. 8

Chapter two highlights changing conditions in the case of one particular historical moment. In this section, I will elaborate on the ways in which art dealer Konrad Fischer created new conditions for the gallery and even changed his practice as an art dealer. At the same time, I will discuss how Nauman redefined the conditions of his art practice and why it is interesting to reconsider this first transatlantic exchange within the development of this shifting practice. Nauman’s first site-specific work, entitled Six Sound Problems (1968) having been created for Fischer’s gallery space, will be an important case study to examine with respect to these changes. Chapter three presents an inventory of Nauman’s exposure in a European museum context in the year of 1969. I will explain in this chapter how these group shows can be valuable to reconsider in relation to the introduction of Nauman in Europe.

9

Chapter one: Nauman’s first two European exhibitions: networks, informative actions, and organizational structures

American artist Bruce Nauman was introduced with two exhibitions in Europe during the summer of 1968; the fourth Documenta in Kassel, held from the 27th of June until the 6th of September, and a solo-exhibition held at the gallery of Konrad Fischer in Düsseldorf from the 10th of July until the 8th of August. I will analyze transatlantic correspondences in the archives of two people who were involved in organizing the previously mentioned events: Jean Leering (1934-2005) - the Dutch director of the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven and the chief of the selection American sculpture and painting at Documenta 4 - and the German art dealer Konrad Fischer (1939-1996). Transatlantic correspondence in the late 1960s is interesting in relation to reconstructing an introduction process. It shows the act of gathering information regarding new artistic tendencies: the process of exchanging addresses and contacts and the process of setting up a provisional list of interesting artists. In short, they highlight informative actions. I use the term ‘informative actions’ not only to define the act of sharing and acquiring information but also to illustrate how actors provide information and inform each other about new artistic tendencies.15 In my opinion the term also highlights how information on art from the other side of the Atlantic is actively sought in Europe due of a lack of information. The need for information and the way in which information is shared on new art tendencies must be contextualized in an era with no digital communication possibilities and limited travel opportunities; telephone conversations were often too expensive and the most common way to communicate was via mail.16 To reconstruct how Leering could have encountered Nauman and how Nauman was included in the fourth Documenta, I will analyze archival documentation that can give insight into Leering’s visits to the United States between 1965-1968, his encounter with new American art tendencies, and the establishment of his own transatlantic network. I will focus on exhibition documentation concerning the organization of the following exhibitions: Kunst-Licht-Kunst (September 1966), Kompas III: after 1945 from New York (October 1967) Kompas IV: West-Coast U.S.A (preparations started in March 1968) and archival documentation concerned with the organization of Documenta 4 (1966-1968) - part of the Van Abbemuseum archive in Eindhoven. To reconstruct how information was shared and how Nauman’s exhibition was organized at Fischer’s gallery, I will analyze the correspondence found in the archive of the Konrad Fischer Gallery and the personal archive of Fischer’s main contact in New York: Kaspar König, these archives are nowadays part of the The Zentralarchiv für deutsche und internationale Kunstmarktforschung, (ZADIK) in Cologne. In this way this

15 I first encountered the term informative actions in Lara Conte’s essay: ‘From Arte Povera più azioni povere to When Attitudes Become Form. 1968-69. Mario Merz’s work in group shows and his first international connections.’ (2011). Please see: Conte, Lara. ‘From Arte Povera più azioni povere to When Attitudes Become Form. 1968-69. Mario Merz’s work in group shows and his first international connections.’ 18 October 2011. Henry Moore Institute Online Papers and Proceedings.12 March 2017 < www.henry-moore.org/hmi> 16 Dorothee Fischer, in conversation with the author, Düsseldorf, Germany, 3 March 2014. 10

chapter highlights how both Leering and Fischer could have known Nauman and how Nauman’s inclusion in these exhibitions was made possible and therefore places the following research questions central: which actors in the networks of Leering and Fischer played an important role in introducing Nauman in Europe? Furthermore, how was Nauman included in his first two European exhibitions?

Informative actions I:

Travelling abroad Leering’s first trip to New York: new transatlantic contacts

In 1964 Jean Leering became director of the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven. During his first meeting with the supervisory board of the museum that same year, Leering stated that his focus as a director was on contemporary art from the 1960s. His main interests included new tendencies in painting, sculpture, architecture, and historical avant-garde art practices of the twenties 17 With this departure point in mind, Leering prepared the September 1966 exhibition Kunst-Licht-Kunst, which focused on the use of light as artistic medium.18 For this occasion Leering travelled to New York for the first time from December 9-23, 1965. The purpose of this trip was to find contemporary artists on the other side of the Atlantic who were also working with artificial light. Before going to New York only the American artist Frank Malina had been selected. However, after Leering’s research trip an entirely different and innovative list of artists was assembled, including Dan Flavin and Robert Morris.19 A document titled ‘Impressions gathered by J. Leering on artists using artificial light, during his visit to the U.S.A in December 1965’ shows that Leering encountered at least thirty potential participants for the exhibition, some of which included , Stephen Antonakos, Robert Indiana, Robert Smithson, and Trova.20 In the United States at the end of 1965, Leering had established new contacts who had informed him about these artists and accompanied him to some of the studio visits. These contacts were the American art dealer Richard Bellamy and the German Kasper König, both of whom Leering had encountered in New York. West-German art dealer Alfred Schmela – who was also in New York that December and had been an important

17 Pingen 2005: 222. Feldman 2003: 721-724. 18 This exhibition was organized in conjunction with the seventy-five anniversary of the Philips Electrical Company in Eindhoven, please see: Pingen 2005: 230. 19 The selection process is now captured in the archive, see: ‘Plan tentoonstelling Kunst-Licht-Kunst’ and ‘Impressions gathered by J. Leering on artists using artificial light, during his visit to the U.S.A in December 1965. ‘Van Abbemuseum Eindhoven (hereafter VAM),Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 163. Leering stated on 24 June 1966 : ‘In this exhibition we should like to show a work of Robert Morris, that I have seen in New York in December. Mr. Morris let me know, that this work, a composition of two horizontal fiberglass arches with a light intersection is now in your possession and he believes you are lending it to the , Minneapolis, early this fall.’ Letter from Leering to the Dwan Gallery. 24 June 1966. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 162. 20 Brendes 1999: 69. See also: ‘Impressions gathered by J. Leering on artists using artificial light, during his visit to the U.S.A in December 1965.’ VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 163. 11

contact for Leering during his first year as a director - had connected Leering to Kaspar König; Schmela and König had known each other previously from the Düsseldorf art scene. Furthermore, the connection between Bellamy and Leering was established through König.21 Richard Bellamy became an important contact for a selected group of European curators and dealers whom despite having traveled to New York to discover Pop art, had actually discovered a much younger generation of artists through Bellamy. The section of art historian Stella Baum, in fact, entitled ‘Die Frühen Jahre: Gespräche mit Galeristen’ in Kunstforum (1989) shows how both West-German art dealers and Rolf Ricke encountered the work of Flavin, Judd, Baer, and De Maria, through Bellamy, at the Green Gallery in New York in 1965.22 When König arrived in New York in 1965 to explore the possibilities of working in the New York art world he saw Bellamy as his desirable new employer. In the spring of 1965, however, the Green Gallery closed after five years of existence because the funding from collector Robert Scull had dried up and Bellamy became active instead at the Noah Goldowsky Gallery. 23 Kaspar König recalled in 2007: ‘1965 bin ich nach New York gekommen. Ich hatte vorher in London gearbeitet und dort studiert, und wollte das gleiche in New York tun. Dafür hoffte ich, einen Teilzeit-Job bei Richard Bellamy zu bekommen, dessen Green Gallery bei meiner Ankunft jedoch geschlossen war. Mit seiner Firma war der Mann pleite, hatte aber sicher die interessanteste Galerie zu der Zeit in New York (…).’ 24 In the second half of the 1960s Bellamy’s Goldowsky Gallery and ’s Castelli Gallery - situated only four blocks from each other – became: ‘the go-to places for European

21 Leering elaborated in an unpublished interview with Paula Feldman the following: ‘Dick Bellamy, whom I met through Kaspar König. He was a friend of Alfred Schmela, who had a gallery in Düsseldorf, and with whom I had very good contacts. Schmela was at the same time in New York as I was.’ Please see: ‘Conceptinterview door Paula Feldman over Jean Leerings tentoonstellingen van Amerikaanse kunst en van constructivistische kunst; met bijlagen okt 2002’ Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie (hereafter RKD), Den Haag, Archief Jean Leering (0325), inv.nr.740. 22 Baum 1989: 251 23 Glueck, Grace. ‘Robert Scull, Prominent Collector of Pop-art.’ 3 January 1986 . 21 March 2017 Art historian Catherine Dossin elaborated on König’s early career the following: Starting in 1963 König interned at Zwirner’s gallery, witnessing the arrival of American Pop-art in West-Germany firsthand (...). In 1964 König went to London to pursue his training at the gallery of Robert Fraser, with whom Zwirner collaborated. At the end of the year, König had the opportunity to transport two Picabia paintings to New York. Please see: Dossin 2015: 197. 24 König, Kaspar. ‘Kaspar König: 40 Jahre Richard Artschwager – Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten Laudatio auf Richard Artschwager aus Anlass der Verleihung des Roswitha-Haftmann-Preises 2007.’ roswithahaftmann- stiftung.com. 18-2-2017 http://www.roswithahaftmann-stiftung.com/de/preistraeger/2007_laudatio_ra.htm Translation: ‘In 1965 I came to New York. I had previously worked in London and studied there, and wanted to do the same in New York. I hoped to get a part-time job from Richard Bellamy, however upon my arrival the Green Gallery was closed. His company went broke, but certainly he had the most interesting gallery at the time in New York (...).’

12

curators.’25 In retrospect Leering would declare that Bellamy did in fact maintain significant influence in his exhibition program.26 As per Bellamy's suggestion, Leering and König saw Flavin’s exhibition at the Kornblee Gallery in New York and thereafter went to visit Flavin at his studio.27 This encounter led to Flavin’s inclusion in the Kunst-Licht-Kunst exhibition and eventually to Flavin’s installment of the site-specific environment Green Crossing Green (Homage to Mondrian who lacked Green) in Eindhoven.28 The archival documentation of the Kunst-Licht-Kunst exhibition shows how the informative actions of both König and Bellamy were present during the organization of the exhibition. The archival correspondence illustrates the way in which Leering and König communicated with one another about the making possible of Flavin’s first trip to Europe.29 Remarkably, the name of Bruce Nauman is mentioned for the first time in this same exhibition documentation, in a correspondence between Leering and Bellamy. In June 1966, Leering referred to a previous letter: ‘On May 10, 1966, we wrote the following letter: “In December 1965 I talked with you about the possibilities for the exhibition Kunst-licht-Kunst (artificial light as creative tool), to be held form from September 24th till December 4th next). You named the artist Nauman in Los Anglos [Los Angeles], who you said made important work in this field. Could you send me some documentation and/ or his address? ‘ Till now we did not get any answer. Please would you be so kind as to give us any information concerning the above mentioned?”30

Interestingly enough, the date of the letter coincides with the opening of Nauman’s first one-man show at the Nicholas Wilder Gallery in Los Angeles, which was held from May 10th to June 2nd, 1966. This gallery exhibition was established just before Nauman received his Master degree in June. Nauman reflected on introducing his work on this occasion as follows: ‘(…) I hadn’t had any particular encouragement outside of the school. Nobody had even seen the work. It was strange.’31 In addition, Nauman concluded that it was through Wilder that Bellamy had seen his artworks, stating: ‘Nicholas [Wilder] had the first show and let see who came

25 Stein 2016: 236. 26 Please see: Pingen 2005: footnote 19. 27 Leering has stated: Dick Bellamy suggested me to go and see Flavin’s exhibition at the Kornblee Gallery. So, in the company of Kaspar König I did, and we made an appointment to look him up in his studio, somewhat outside New York.’ Please see: ‘Conceptinterview door Paula Feldman over Jean Leerings tentoonstellingen van Amerikaanse kunst en van constructivistische kunst; met bijlagen okt 2002’ RKD, Den Haag, Archief Jean Leering (0325), inv.nr.740. 28 Feldman 2003: 721-724. 29 It seems that the Van Abbemuseum and the Zwirner gallery in Cologne shared the cost for Flavin’s travels abroad. Letter from König to Leering. 30 June 1966. VAM Beheersarchief 1936-1979 inv.nr. 17. Leering on March 17, 1966 to Flavin: ‘As I told you already during my visit last December, we like to invite you for making such a room with light bars, as you did in the Green Gallery, last year.’ Letter from Leering to Dan Flavin, 17 March 1966. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 163. 30 Letter from Jean Leering to Dick Bellamy, 15 June 1966. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 162. 31 Kraynak ed. 2002: 242. 13

through (…) Dick Bellamy was on the West-Coast and came up and saw the work, also through Nick [Wilder].’32 There seems to be no further documentation to contextualize this first reference to Nauman and in the end Nauman would not be included in the Kunst-Licht-Kunst exhibition. In fact, it is no longer possible to reconstruct in-depth to which works or tendencies Bellamy had referred.33

Nauman’s first solo exhibition in Los Angeles in 1966 emphasized sculpture and included, among others, the following works: (Eye-level) piece (an abstract object made out of cardboard), Shelf Sinking into the Wall with Copper-Painted Plaster Casts of the Spaces Underneath (1966), (consisting of two plaster casts lying casually on the floor after they seemed to have dropped from underneath the hollows of a sloppy shelf), Platform Made Up of the Space between Two Rectilinear Boxes on the Floor (1966) (an atypical shaped platform lying on the floor), and Device to Hold a box at a Slight Angle (1966) (geometric structure made out of fiberglass). Nauman would later elaborate the reason for which he designated these illustrative titles when he stated that wanted: ‘(…) somehow to give it a reason or meaning’ and to allude to their conceptual process.34 For example, the title Platform Made Up of the Space between Two Rectilinear Boxes on the Floor (1966) promised to capture the space between two separated illusory boxes and resulted in a sculptural, oddly shaped platform, representing this negative space made out of fiberglass. The title Device to Hold a box at a Slight angle (1966) suggested to be a functional device with which bodily interaction was needed to complete its supposed function, but in fact didn’t have an actual function at all. 35 Also present in the exhibition were Nauman’s fiberglass works created between 1965 and 1966, which he made at the same time, referred in scale and in the way they lent and hung against the wall; to actions of the human body.36 What these early had in common is that they showed traces of their casting processes and emphasized unpolished and fragile materials, thereby not only subverting traditional techniques typically associated with sculpture - and the rigid manufacturing processes of minimalism - but also Nauman’s own fascination with the process of making art.

32 Kraynak ed. 2002: 250. 33 Art historian Dirk Luckow has stated that at the end of 1965, Leering and König possibly could have heard about the artists Bruce Nauman through Bellamy, Luckow elaborated: ‘Noch wahrscheinlicher ist aber ein Zeitpunkt in 1965. König befand sich regelmäßigem Austausch mit dem New Yorker Kunsthändler Dick Bellamy, der in New York die Green Gallery leitete und auch Morris vertrat. Bellamy selbst verfügte über gute kontakten zu Wilder und Wusste laut Leering schon Ende 1965 von Nauman.’ Please see: Luckow 1998: 169. 34Kraynak ed. 2002: 236. A Rose Has No Teeth: Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 197. 35 Benezra, Neal. ‘Surveying Nauman’ in Bruce Nauman 1994:19. And A Rose Has No Teeth: Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s: 197. 36 Van Bruggen 1988: 12. 14

The summer of 1966

Later in the summer of 1966, Nauman showed his work, Plaster Cast based on Neon-Templates (1966) in a group show organized by Bellamy at the Noah Goldowsky Gallery in New York. It was the first time that Nauman’s work had appeared in an exhibition on the East Coast.37 That same summer – as both memorized by König and Nauman - König visited Nauman on the West Coast shortly after the artist moved to San Francisco. This was the first time that Nauman was in touch with a representative from the European art world.38 König recalled that Wilder and Bellamy established his introduction to Nauman’s art, stating: ‘Bellamy introduced me to a colleague of his, Nick Wilder, and it was through him that I saw drawings of Nauman in Los Angeles [for the first time]. And subsequently I visited him in San Francisco. It became quite clear that his background was physics and contemporary music (Cage etc.)’39 König also recalled that since Nauman was nervous because his wife was expecting a child, he wanted König to stay for quite some time in his studio.40 An important contact and exchange was established. I will show later that this meeting between Nauman and König was extremely significant in terms of Nauman’s acquaintance with gallery-owner Konrad Fischer. At the same time, König remained an important facilitator for Jean Leering’s transatlantic network and exhibition program.

Information on artists working on the West-Coast: archival documentation of the Kompas exhibitions The archival documentation of the Kompas exhibitions organized between 1967 and 1969 at the Van Abbemuseum further explains how Leering became informed about artists working on the West Coast and furthermore, introduces the notion of an artistic separation between New York and California. Correspondence for the preparations of Leering’s second trip to the United States on May the 23th in 1967 for the organization of Kompas III exhibition shows that Leering relied on his New York contacts Bellamy and König to conduct groundwork for his exhibition program. Leering wrote at the end of April to both König and Bellamy and asked them to send comments in response to his provisional list of artists, mention important private and public collections in the United States, to introduce him at the mentioned collections, and to meet and organize visits together upon his arrival in New York.41 During the organization of the third Kompas exhibition, the decision was made to focus solely on New York as a coherent and artistic center, meaning that only New York galleries

37 Plagens 2014: 66. In New York in the autumn of 1966, Naman was included in the famous exhibition: ‘Eccentric Abstraction’ curated by Lucy Lippard. 38 See: Smolik. Noemi. An American in Dusseldorf. 4.08. 2011. 14-03-2017. 39 Kaspar König. Personal email to the author. 6 March 2017. 40 Kaspar König. Personal email to the author. 6 March 2017. 41 The ‘Kompas III’ exhibition started of as collaboration between Paul Wember (Haus Lange in Krefeld) and Jean Leering. Next to König and Bellamy also the Dutchman Jan van der Marck, then working at the Walker art Center in Minneapolis seemed to have been a valuable contact in the United States.’ Please see: Pingen 2003: 235. Letter from Leering to Bellamy, 24 April 1967. Archief Van Abbemuseum Eindhoven VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 184. 15

were approached for cooperation and loans to the exhibition. 42 Nevertheless, Leering’s East Coast connections introduced him yet again in May of 1967 to artists working on the West Coast. König wrote, for instance, on the 9th of May 1967: ‘Mr. Bellamy has just returned from a trip to California. We came together on the weekend to exchange ideas about Kompas III. He will send you his comments shortly.’43 In addition, König introduced new names from the West-Coast: ‘Bell and McCracken both of artists from California would end this show with extremely resolved pieces,(….) I’m looking forward to your arrival in N.Y. where we will have time to discuss the collaboration in detail.’ 44 The artistic scene on the West Coast would soon become a separate focal point for the fourth Kompas exhibition for which preparations had begun in March 1968. Only one year later in April 1969, in fact, Leering would visit California for the first time. Similarly to the preparations for the exhibitions Kunst-Licht-Kunst and Kompas III, Leering would again rely on the assistance of gallery owners and his selected group of informants for the groundwork and selection of this fourth Kompas exhibition. Besides the involvement of New York galleries such as that of Castelli, who also represented Nauman, California-based galleries were now being approached for documentation and suggestions including: Irving Blum, Nicholas Wilder, and curator John Coplans of the Pasadena Art Museum in Los Angeles.45 For example, Leering wrote on the 21st of March 1968 to Nicholas Wilder: ‘I am going around with a vague idea of making eventually a 4th Kompas-show, devoted to the Westcoast. It would be much help to make more concrete decisions if I would have more documentary material, (except for ARTFORUM). Would it be possible for you to give me a detailed information about publications in this field?’ 46 The notion of artistic separation between New York and California is also present in the reflections of European curators, critics, and museum directors that would visit the West Coast between 1966 and 1968. For instance, König’s recollections substantiated this characterization when he stated that: ‘(…) Even though „Artforum“ originally came from the West Coast, after it had moved to it seemed to look down on the West Coast and some New York hardcore minimalists looked down upon artists like Nauman as Bay area Neo Dada.’47 Although Artforum seemed to have polarized West and East Coast artists in a competitive and negative way, American art magazines like Artforum were important for the introduction of American artists to Europeans - as Leering mentioned in his request to Wilder. Nauman, for instance, was

42 Such as: the Andre Emmerich Gallery, the Kornblee,Gallery, and the Leo Castelli Gallery. 43 Letter from Konig to Leering, 9 May 1967. VAM,Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 184. 44 Letter from Konig to Leering, 9 May 1967. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 184. 45 Pingen 2005: 275. Letter from Leering to Nicholas Wilder, 26 February 1969. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 223. John Coplans curator at the Pasadena Art Museum played an important role in making a selection and introducing Leering to the area, Coplans wrote in April 1968: ‘The best thing of all would be for you to come out here. I will be pleased to render you any assistance I can and I am fairly certain that the Board of Trustees of this museum will be pleased to assist in various ways in the organization if such an exhibition. Letter from Coplans to Leering, 4 April 1968. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 223. inv.nr. 223. 46 Letter from Leering to Wilder, 21 March 1968. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 199. 47 Kaspar König. Personal email to the author. 6 March 2017. 16

included for the first time in articles that focused on the West Coast as a regional area, such as: ‘The Way-Out West: interviews with 4 San Francisco Artists’, published in the summer of 1967. Director at the Stedelijk Museum, Edy de Wilde, commented in 1978 on the fragmented artistic landscape of the West Coast: ‘Different from New York the Californian artists live and work far from each other and more individualistically.’ 48 A letter in the archive of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam dates this encounter with Californian artists as having taken place in May of 1968, when De Wilde wrote to John Coplans - the same Californian contact as mentioned earlier - ‘The most interesting artists I met in San Francisco are in my opinion Voulkos, Nauman and Conner.’49 Nauman himself, in fact, reflected on the different reception of East versus West Coast art in an interview following his first solo show at the Castelli Gallery in New York in February 1968. Nauman stated in The New York Times: ‘On the East Coast, you see, it’s OK to be an artist. People go to shows and collect your work. On the West Coast, no one buys art. Only artists go to openings. You get out of school and you have a studio and you sit around and drink coffee.’50

East Coast exposure: an eclectic first overview in 1968

Nauman’s first solo exhibition in New York was held at the Leo Castelli Gallery from the 27th of January until 17th of February in 1968. The exhibition catalogue lists forty-four works representing both a relatively large and eclectic overview of Nauman’s oeuvre between 1965 and 1968. The exhibition presented artworks concerned with new media such as neon, photography, and film, alongside Nauman’s device sculptures and fiberglass works previously shown at his 1966 Los Angeles exhibition. For example, his 1968 New York exhibition showed Neon Templates on the Left Half of My Body (1967), a work based on the measurement of the artist’s body, resulting in a stack of seven neon arches of varying shapes and sizes. The work itself was presented with the electrical wires and transformer still visible.51 For the neon work My Last Name Exaggerated Fourteen Times (1967) (fig.1) Nauman expanded the letters of his name to the point that they were illegible. Although minimal in form, both neon works referred to the subject of the artist, thereby rejecting pure objectivity.52 Also presented in the Castelli Gallery was Nauman’s Moore series, in which Nauman makes a reference to the

48 ‘Sep 1979, Bijdrage E. de Wilde ’ Archive Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam (hereafter SMA), correspondentie directeur E. de Wilde. Year 1978, folder 2767. 49 ‘I should like to express once more my deep gratitude to you for the warm hospitality you extended to me. Whiteout your help and your willingness to show me around in Los Angeles my stay would not have been very successful. (…) Los Angeles was quite a surprise to me. The most interesting artist I met in San Francisco are in my opinion Voulkos, Nauman and Conner.’ Letter from E. de Wilde to John Coplans, May 27, 1968. Archive SMA Correspondentie directeur E. de Wilde. Year 1963-1970, folder 2754. 50 Glueck, Grace. ‘A Form (Or Two) Is Born.’ The New York Times 18. 02. 1968 51 Plagens 2014: 70. 52 A Rose Has No Teeth: Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007:125. Bruce Nauman: Topological Gardens 2009: 70. 17

resentment of a younger generation of artists towards British sculptor Henry Moore. The sculpture Henry Moore Bound to Fail (1967), for instance, depicts this struggle by casting the backside of a bound torso in wax, in this way portraying the sculptor also as literally bound.53 Nauman also showed photographs that metaphorically trapped Moore’s spirit. Both Henry Moore Trap #1 and #2, depict a swirl of lines made by a flashlight in a darkroom in a time-lapse exposure resulting in a seated figure.54 Photographs of the Castelli exhibition also include other works such as a series of photographs visualizing absurd puns such as Waxing Hot (1967), in which the artist is literally waxing the letters of the word ‘HOT’, as well as Self-Portrait as A Fountain (1967), in which Nauman depicts himself as a fountain not only as a reference to Duchamp’s radical 1917 ready-made but also to his own ironic statement The True Artist Is an Amazing Luminous Fountain.55

fig. 1. Installation view of the exhibition ‘Bruce Nauman’ Leo Castelli, New York 27 January – 17 February, 1968. Source photo: Bruce Nauman 1993: 24.

53 A Rose Has No Teeth: Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 49. 54 Plagens 2014: 50 and A Rose Has No Teeth: Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007:125 55 Exhibition documentation also shows that one of Nauman’s early film works was shown at the exhibition. Please see: Brundage 1994: n.p. 18

Documenting the Documenta: the Van Abbemuseum archive as source

In the Summer of 1966, Professor Arnold Bode - Founder of Documenta and exhibition manager of exhibitions I, II, III and IV – together with Heinrich Stünke, a member of the Organizing Committee, asked Leering to take part in the Documenta-Rat by becoming one of its twenty-five members. After the death of Albert Schulze Vellinghausen (Head of the Painting Committee) and the sudden death of his successor Arnold Rüdlinger (Director Kunsthalle Basel), Leering himself became Chief of the Painting Committee (Arbeitsausschuss Malerei), the selector of American sculpture, and a participant in the Arbeitsausschuss Ambiente section of 1967.56 As a result, Leering was suddenly faced with the organization of the American selection at Documenta 4. This established the opportunity for Leering to make his third trip to New York from December 4-22,1967.57 The archival documentation of the fourth Documenta available at the Van Abbemuseum offers insight into the American selection procedure. A report written on the 8th of January 1968, for instance, entitled ‘Bericht über die Reise nach USA der Herren Leering, Stünke und Vowinckel vom 5. bis 20. Dezember 1967 (Leering bis 22.12.67). Auswahl für die Ausstellung: documenta IV’ adequately sums up which galleries and artist studios were visited for the provisional selection of seventy American artists. A report by Leering made in February of 1968 sheds light on his selection process, showing that many artworks were included in the event through the help of New York art dealers. Both documents give an overview of Documenta’s mediating partners in New York and it becomes clear that throughout the organizational arrangements of the Documenta Leering would rely on the assistance and information of American galleries; most of which were often already part of his own New York network. 58 A large fraction of the twenty-one studio visits made in December of 1967 were based on Leering’s various contacts and selection of American artists through his own exhibition program at the Van Abbemuseum.59 In addition to these reports, the extensive correspondence maintained between January and May emphasizes the involvement of American art dealers as negotiators, agents, and advisors regarding the American selection. Among others, these figures included John Weber and of the Dwan Gallery,

56 Pingen 2005: 267. 57 Leering was accompanied by his fellow council members Hein Stünke and Andreas Vowinckel. 58 ‘Bericht über die Reise nach USA der Herren Leering, Stünke und Vowinckel vom 5. bis 20. Dezember 1967 (Leering bis 22.12.67). Auswahl für die Ausstellung: documenta IV’ VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 196. 59 Leering had already encountered: Chryssa, Dan Flavin and Ben Berns during the organization of the ‘Kunst- Licht-Kunst’ exhibition. Artists: Arakawa, Christo, Indiana had a solo show at the Van Abbemuseum in 1966. The artists: Larry Poons, Barnett Newman, , Roy Lichtenstein, , Robert Morris and George Segal were previously selected for the ‘Kompas III’ exhibition. However, in 1967 there were also some new encounters: Richard Anuszkiewicz, Bill Jenssen, Mark Di Suvero (studio visit together with Bellamy), (studio visit together with Fischbach), Hans Haacke, Brice Marden, Michael Steiner and Tom Wesselmann.’ ‘Bericht über die Reise nach USA der Herren Leering, Stünke und Vowinckel vom 5. bis 20. Dezember 1967 (Leering bis 22.12.67). Auswahl für die Ausstellung: documenta IV’ VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 196. 19

Arnold Glimcher of Pace Gallery, Dick Bellamy of Noah Goldowsky Gallery, Leo Castelli of Leo Castelli Gallery, Donald Droll of Fischbach Gallery, Sidney Janis of the Sidney Janis Gallery, Robert Elkon of Robert Elkon Gallery, and André Emmerich of André Emmerich Gallery. 60 The report ‘Bericht über die Reise nach USA’ places Leo Castelli in New York on the 21st of December as a ‘Gesprächspartner’ for Nauman’s selection. This document states that: “Castelli hat Leering, Nauman für documenta vorgeschlagen (Ausstellung im Februar 1968 bei Castelli). Castelli schickt Fotos und Unterlagen. Anfragen und Informationen durch Castelli bzw. Leering. Nauman soll vorgeschlagen werden.”61 Leering has retrospectively emphasized in several interviews that he had the privilege to see a shipment of works for Nauman’s first exhibition at Leo Castelli gallery in a depot owned by art collector Philip Johnson in New York.62 Leering concluded that the newest of the new should be part of the Documenta selection, of which Nauman was seen as a valuable representation. Besides, Nauman’s name had already been mentioned by Bellamy during the preparations of the Kunst-Licht-Kunst exhibition in 1966.63 Leering decided that Nauman indeed must be included in Documenta 4.

Several interviews, one anecdote

When analyzing several interviews with Leering having taken place between 1973 and 2003 concerning the American art selection at the fourth Documenta, it is remarkable that one anecdote related to Nauman’s introduction on the Documenta constantly resurfaces. This particular anecdote explains that during the Documenta-Rat meeting in which the selection of Documenta artworks had to be finalized, the majority of the Documenta council seemed against Nauman’s inclusion.64 Leering considered this statement a breaking point.65

60 Please see all the correspondence in: VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 199. 61 ‘Bericht über die Reise nach USA der Herren Leering, Stünke und Vowinckel vom 5. bis 20. Dezember 1967 (Leering bis 22.12.67). Auswahl für die Ausstellung: documenta IV’ VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 196. 62 Leering emphasized in a German interview in 1991 the following: ‘ Im Januar 1968 war Nauman überhaupt das erste Mal an der Ostküste gezeigt bei Leo Castelli. Ich hatte bereits längere Zeit von ihm gehört. Ich habe dann die Werke im Depot von Philip Johnson gesehen. Ich war sehr enthusiastisch darüber, auch beeinflusst durch einen Mann wie Dick Bellamy. Der eigentlich von der Westküste an die Ostküste gekommen war. Dann habe ich sehr dafür plädiert als das >Neueste von Neuen, das auch in der documenta zu zeigen.’ See: Luckow 1998: 161. 63 Luckow 1998: 161. 64 Luckow 1998: 161. Berndes 1999: 71 65 In an unpublished interview between Jean Leering and Hans Janssen, Leering responded: ‘(…). Eind ’67 lag de keuze vast en begin ’68 werd de uiteindelijke afstemming gemaakt. Bruce Nauman bijvoorbeeld was een breekpunt omdat er door te krijgen heb ik ze wel onder druk moeten zetten. Daar kwam bij dat ik had kunnen regelen dat het transport van haven New York naar haven Hamburg gratis was, via een regeling met de Atlantic Container Line. Die zaten in Stockholm, in Amsterdam en in Rotterdam. Zo konden Pontus Hulten, Sandberg en de Wilde ervan gebruik maken.’ Concept interview door Hans Janssen met aantekeningen van Jean Leering over Daan van Golden en zijn presentatie tijdens de Documenta in 1968;met bijlage jan 2003 RKD, Den Haag, Archief Jean Leering (0325), inv.nr.739. 20

In a Dutch interview with art historian Diana Franssen in 1999 he emphasized that he felt responsible for a newer tendency, to the point that he even threatened to withdraw from the Documenta-Rat should Nauman be excluded. Leering explained in 1999 that ‘In de beslissende documentaraad vergadering haalde hij bij de eerste stemming echter geen meerderheid. Maar voor mij was zijn vertegenwoordiging een kardinaal punt, waaraan ik mijn verdere inzet bij de ‘documenta’ als voorwaarde verbond. Hij kwam er!’66 In the catalogue for the fourth Documenta, Leering explains his enthusiasm for Nauman’s work from a formalistic point of view, particularly pointing out Nauman’s new approach to materiality.67 Furthermore, in a 1973 interview with Hein Reedijk in the Dutch magazine Museum Journal, he stated that he saw the work Neon Templates on the Left Half of My Body (1966) as a reaction against the objectivity of Minimal art.68

Procedures and agreements in 1968

Exploring the documentation of the American art selection for the Documenta 4 provides insights regarding the exchange of information between galleries, Leering, and the Documenta-Rat. On the first of March 1968, Nicholas Wilder wrote in response to one of Leering’s previous letters (no longer part of the archive): ‘I was delighted to hear from Leo Castelli of your intention to include Bruce Nauman and Ron Davis in the Documenta. (…). The selection of specific works for Nauman and Davis will be arranged through Leo in that Nauman is doing some specific works for your show while Davis’ will come from my show last fall and I never know what to anticipate from Nauman.’69 The agreement of Nauman installing specific works for the event does not appear in further archival documentation. 70 Requesting information about American trends remains a recurring pattern. For example, Leering wrote to Wilder on March 21: ‘(…) It would be fine, if we would receive catalogues, photographs, and further documentation on Nauman and Ron Davis for making a selection. (I have Leo’s Nauman-catalogue). And

66 Translation quote: ‘In the decisive Documenta Rat meeting, he didn’t get the majority of votes. However to me his presence was of cardinal importance, I threatened to withdraw if Nauman was excluded. He was included in the end!’ Berndes 1999: 71. 67 4. documenta Katalog 1 1968: XIX. 68Reedijk 1973: 155. The Documenta-Rat Protocol of the 19 th of January 1968 indeed stated: ‘Den Empfehlungen des USA-Komitees folgt der Rat bei: Artschwager, Bladen, Di Suvero, Diller, Naumann, Sol LeWitt. See: ‘Der Sitzung des Documenta Rates am 19.1.1968.’ VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989. inv.nr. 196. 69Letter from Wilder to Leering, 1 March 1968. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv. nr. 199. 70 In this same letter Wilder also introduces and John McCracken for a possible last-minute inclusions in the Documenta selection, referring to the possibility of combining their European tours with the event in Kassel, Wilder stated: ‘Fortunately no shipping problem is involved with his work for he carries the projectors with him and Rudolf [Zwirner] intends to have him flown to Cologne in early June. He is even considering designing some pieces while in Germany to take advantage of technical opportunities open to him there.’ And concerning McCracken, Wilder wrote: (…)‘McCracken is also showing at Ileana’s this May and plans to be in Europe during that show and would be available to help with any necessary installation.’ Letter from Wilder to Leering, 1 March 1968. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 199. 21

Leering requests further information: ‘I fear James Turrell, John McCracken will not be shown in Kassel this time. We also must spare artists for the 5th Documenta! Personally I do not know the work of Turell; do you have some documentation? Anyhow we will see it at Zwirner’s in June.’71 On that same date in March 1968, Leering also wrote to Bellamy: ‘(…) I am sorry for Michael Steiner, but a.o. by financial reasons we had to make a choice, and I am quite happy that Jo Bear, Walter de Maria, Bruce Nauman etc. came through. One serious question: could you give me your opinion about Robert Irwin? I cannot judge for I saw one picture.’72 Inviting the artist to the exhibition space seems highly important when analyzing the correspondence between John Weber (Dwan Gallery) and the Documenta-Rat. The ability of artists to install their own artworks on site seemed to have been the most important condition for their inclusion in the event. Artists such as Flavin, LeWitt, and Andre, for instance, often combined inspecting the site in Kassel with their participation in other European shows, such as the group exhibition Minimal art held at The Gemeentemuseum in The Hague in March, 1968. Installation agreements for the artists are often arranged through their gallery, as evidenced by a letter from John Weber to Documenta secretary Jürgen Harten, in which Weber states that: ‘As you already been advised, Mr. Carl Andre will be in the during the month of March and will pay a visit to Kassel to look over the proposed site for his large outdoor sculpture.’ (…) ‘I would suggest that the Documenta be responsible for his return to Germany, perhaps in early June, to construct the piece.’ (…) ‘ I have not as yet had chance to show your plans to Mr. Flavin, but I anticipate no problem here as he will be in Germany in March and will be meeting with the electrical consultant and looking over the various rooms. (…) it will not be possible to exhibit ‘Roxy’s’ unless Kienholz comes over to set it up. (…) It is really quite important, though, that Kienholz, like the other artists, be there to set up this piece, as without his being there the work will not be a reality.’73 Art historian Sophie Richard has also explained that: ‘Documenta 4 coincided with solo exhibitions of American Conceptual artists in Europe. Dealers took advantage of the artists visiting Europe to arrange showings in their gallery.’74

Selection Nauman Castelli facilitated the Documenta for the following artists: Artschwager, Davis, Higgins, Johns, Judd, Lichtenstein, Morris, Nauman, Poons, Rauschenberg. Rosenquist, Stella, and Warhol.75 The selection process of Nauman’s works can be pieced together through the correspondence between Leering and Castelli. It becomes

71 Letter from Leering to Wilder, 21 March 1968. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 199. 72 Letter from Leering to Bellamy, 21 March 1968. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 199. 73 A letter from John Weber to Jürgen Harten, documenta secretary 23 February 1968. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 199. 74 Richard 2009:74. 75 See: ‘Bericht über die Reise nach USA der Herren Leering, Stünke und Vowinckel vom 5. bis 20. Dezember 1967 (Leering bis 22.12.67). Auswahl für die Ausstellung: documenta IV’ VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936- 1989 inv.nr. 196. 22

clear that the works included in the Documenta catalogue are selected from Nauman’s first solo show at the Leo Castelli Gallery in 1968. In fact, Castelli wrote somewhere between March and April: ‘enclosed please find the catalogue of Bruce Nauman. Works that have been circled are the choices for the exhibition. The only photographs other than the ones in the catalogue which are available are enclosed.’76 The selection of numbers in this letter, which include 10, 13, 16, 18, 22, 28, 35, 38, and 42, correspond with the numbers in Nauman’s Castelli catalogue. If we compare these works with the works listed in the Documenta catalogue only the numbers: 18, Abstraction Based on the ‘Self Sinking into the Wall with Casts, 16, Untiteld 1965, a work made out of latex and rubber and 28: Impressions of the Knees of Five Famous Artists (1966), are excluded from the final Documenta catalogue selection. Leering wrote to Castelli on April 11, 1968: “ I agree with your choice, I wonder however if Nr. 18 could be changed in Nr. 17, Nr. 28 into Nr. 26 and Nr. 38 into Nr. 40,”77 meaning that Leering preferred to show Shelf Sinking into the Wall with Copper Painted Plaster Casts of the Space Underneath (no. 17, 1966), Neon Templates of the Left Half of My Body Taken at Ten Inch Intervals (no. 26, 1966), and Composite Photo of Two Messes on the Studio Floor (no. 40, 1967) rather than Abstraction Based on the ‘Self Sinking into the Wall with Casts (1966), Impressions of the Knees of Five Famous Artists (1966), and Henry Moore Trap # 2 (1967). It seems, however, that only a selected group of works was available. On April 24th, Castelli wrote Jürgen Harten, Documenta secretary, the following: ‘Mr. Leering had asked me for a few substitutions. I tried to satisfy him, but I was not successful. Therefore the following numbers in my Nauman catalogue are the ones that are definitely available: 10, 13, 18, 22, 35, 38 (loan forms enclosed) and 42.’78 Apart from number 18, these numbers all correspond with the artworks mentioned in the catalogue. In the end, the catalogue for the fourth Documenta listed the following six works: Untitled, fiberglass, (1965). Untitled, (1966), Device to Hold a Box at a slight Angle, (1966), My Last Name Exaggerated Fourteen Times Vertically (1967), Henry Moore Trap nr. 2 (1967) and Henry Moore, bound to Fail (1967).79

76 ‘Artists (and their works) to participate in Documenta IV exhibition, represented by Leo Castelli Gallery.’, date unknown. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv. 199. 77 Letter from Leering to Castelli, 11 April 1968. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 199. 78 Letter from Castelli to Jürgen Harten. 24 April 1968. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 199. These numbers correspond with the following artworks: 10. Untitled. 1965. Fiberglass, 96 x 28 x 18 inch Nicholas Wilder. 13. Untiteld. 1965. Latex rubber with cloth backing, 72 x 15 x 2 inch Nicholas Wilder Gallery. 18. Abstraction Based on the ‘Self Sinking into the Wall with Casts. 1966. Fiberglass, 90’ x 12 x 12 inch Charles Cowles. 22. Device to Hold a Box at a Slight Angle 1966. Fiberglass, 37 x 26 x 20 inch Nicholas Wilder. 35. Henry Moore Bound to Fail, (back view).1967. Wax over plaster ( 26 x 24 x3 ½ inch) Collection: Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Helman. 38. Henry Moore Trap #2.1967, Photograph. Collection Leo Castelli. 42. My Last Name Exaggerated Fourteen Times Vertically. 1967, neon tubing. Collection: Philip Johnson. Please see: Bruce Nauman 1968: unnumbered pages. 79 Originally listed in the Documenta catalogue as: 1. Untitled 1965. (gewelltes Fiberglas), 224 x 71 x 46 cm, Nicholas Wilder Gallery Los Angeles. 2. Untitled. 1966 (Latex-Gummi mit Stoff), 183 x 38 x 5 cm, Nicholas Wilder Gallery, Los Angeles. 3. Device to Hold a Box at a Slight Angle, 1966, 94 x 66x 73 cm, David Withney, New York. 4. My Last Name Exaggerated Fourteen Times Vertically, 1967. Neonröhren. 160 x 84 cm. Philip Johnson, New York. 5. Henry Moore Trap Nr. 2. 1967. Photographien. 170 x 120 cm. Leo Castelli Gallery, 23

The Documenta a chaotic event:

The fourth Documenta opened in Kassel five days after the , on June 27th, 1968. In Venice, students –among others - had been protesting the Biennale because they considered the event a capitalist and largely commercial venture which lacked true social engagement. Their protest slogan was described in the German press as ‘die biennale ist nicht Kultur, die biennale ist ein Geschäft’80 As a result, the Venice Biennale could only open under police protection.81 Although far less escalated than the 1968 Biennale debates, criticism towards the political and organizational structure of the Documenta played a major role from the beginning of the event onwards. Moreover, it is important to consider these two events within the context of a politically charged era of social unrest. Headlines in the year of 1968 appearing in the months leading up to these exhibitions were marked by the Prague Spring, the Vietnam war, emergency laws, and student revolts. At the same time in the artworld, established exhibition institutions were being called into question.82 In this framework the Documenta 4 exhibition catalogue opened with a statement of organizer Arnold Bode: ‘This Documenta does not belong to the Establishment either - in our opinion. Its importance is probably due to the fact that it does not exist as an established institution.’83 Nevertheless, when analyzing the reception documentation of the fourth Documenta, four critical reflections constantly reappear.84In fact, after carrying out archival research on the ways in which the fourth Documenta had been historicized since 1968, art historian Martin Engler concluded the following: ‘In fact, the entire exhibition (…) seems, unjustly, to have gone down in art history less for its themes and its art than for the (art-) political flak and debates that started up during the run-up.’85 Looking indeed closer at the reception history, archival documentation of the fourth Documenta found at the Van Abbemuseum, and several interviews with Jean Leering, one can conclude that the critique on the chaotic organizational structure of the event has overshadowed the individual positions of the included artworks.

New York. 6. Henry Moore, Bound to Fall, Rückseite 1967. Wachs auf Gips, 66 x 61 x 9 cm. Mr. und Mrs. Joseph Helman, St. Louis. See: 4. Documenta: 206-207. In addition numbers 1. & 2. in the 4. Documenta catalogue correspond with the following works in in the Castelli Catalogue: 10. Untitled, 1965. Fiberglass, 96’ x 28’ x18 inch. Collection Nicolas Wilder. 13. Untitled, 1965-1966. Latex rubber with cloth backing 72’ x 15’ x 2’ inch (approx.) Collection: Nicholas Wilder Gallery. Please see: Bruce Nauman 1968: unnumbered pages. 80 Jappe, Georg. ‘Die kühlste documenta, die es je gab. Schafft die Askese des Künstlers eine Konsumkunst?’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 06.07. 1968. Translation: ‘The biennale is not culture, the biennale is a business' 81 Engler. Martin. ‘Twilight of the Gods. Documenta in Times of Change.’ In: 50 years documenta 1955-2005 2005: 238. 82 50 years documenta 1955-2005 2005: 109, 232. 83 As translated in 50 years documenta 1955-2005 2005: 232. 84 I analysed press clippings of the fourth Documenta that can be consulted online at the Documenta archiv Mediencluster and in addition I consulted all the press clippings within Jean Leerings personal archive now housed at the RKD. See: Mediencluster, dokumenta archive. documentaarchiv.de. 05-03-2017 and RKD, Den Haag, Archief Jean Leering (0325), inv.nr.710. 85 50 years documenta 1955-2005 2005: 233. 24

For example, the reception history highlights a protest action at the press conference occurring only one day before the opening lead by artists , Jörg Immendorff, Friedrich Heubach, and Chris Reinecke, in relation to the exclusion of Fluxus practices by the Documenta-Rat. 86 Secondly, newspaper clippings show an extensive debate on the dominant American selection consisting of fifty-one artists, which covered one third of the Documenta selection and led to nicknaming the event: ‘Documenta Americana.’ In addition, anti- American statements appeared, such as: ‘What else remains for the artists of a nation which wages such a criminal war as that in Vietnam but to produce minimal art?’87 The West German representation consisting of seventeen artists was seen as a scarcity and Europeans questioned why American art trends such as minimal art, Pop art, and post-painterly abstraction were so extensively celebrated.88 In addition, the influence of American art dealers on the American art section was mocked while the selection process of the Documenta- Rat was questioned. For example, German art historian Robert Kudielka concluded in Studio International in July 1968 that the lack of originality in the American section was due to the influence of American dealers, he wondered:, ‘What else can be expected of a jury which has to send representatives abroad to visit gallery owners and go through the visitors’ book to find out what is actually ?’ 89 Even New York Times American art critic Grace Glueck wrote on the July 14th, 1968: ‘(…) Documenta’s opening made it seem for a few mad days as if the entire New York art scene has shifted there.’90 Thirdly, they cover the chaotic organizational structure marked by the absence of artworks at the opening, transport problems, and art installment difficulties. For example, a dock employees strikes caused transport problems and during the opening days of the event a lot of works still had to be installed on the spot. Grace Glueck wrote in The New York Times on the 7th of July that: ‘(…) many works had not arrived, including a shipment of sculptures that got stuck somewhere in Belgium. The lack of technical organization was such that despite the efforts of artists and dealers who pitched in to help, a number of exhibits are still not

86 For example Dieter Westecker writes on the 4th of July in 1968 the following: ‘Wie schillernd und vielseitig Düsseldorfs Kunstleben ist, demonstrierten gleich am ersten Tag die in Kassel inzwischen berühmt-berüchtigt gewordenen beiden Düsseldorfer Künstler Jörg Immendorf und seine Frau Chris Reinecke. Sie können für sich in Anspruch nehmen, daß sie die internationale Pressekonferenz zusammen mit dem Kölner Maler Wolf Vostell im Honig ausrutschen ließen. Ein etwas zweifelhafter Ruhm.’ See: Westecker. Dieter. ‘An allen Ecken Düsseldorfer. Vertreter der Kunststadt überall auf der 4. Documenta in Kassel.’ Düsseldorfer Nachrichten Düsseldorf 4.07.1968. Unknown. ‘Aktion Honig’ Düsseldorfer Nachrichten Düsseldorf. 09.07.1968. 87 Morris, Lynda. Landmark Exhibitions Issue, Unconcealment. Tate Paper issue 12, 2009. Tate.org.uk. 23-04- 2014 88 Georg Jappe wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about a group of French artists that threatened to withdraw from the exhibition because of the dominant American selection. Georg Jappe wrote on the 6th of June in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung : ‘ (…) die französischen Künstler mit einem Manifest zu allen ihren europäischen Kollegen zogen, sie sollten sich wegen des amerikanischen Übergewichts von der documenta zurückziehen.’ Jappe, Georg. ‘Die kühlste documenta, die es je gab. Schafft die Askese des Künstlers eine Konsumkunst?’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 06.07.1968. 89 Kudielka 1968: 29-32. 90 Glueck Grace. Art Notes. ‘More from the Documenta Front.’ The New York Times. 14.07.1968. 25

on display.’91 Kudielka concluded in the September 1968 issue of Studio International: ‘Right up to midnight on the day before the official opening, the band of critics was hard at work looking for what the catalogue had promised. What they found was hardly what they expected- mainly artists hanging their own pictures, gallery owners looking at their fledglings, and a few workmen, confused by the Babylonian welter of tongues, drinking their beers.’92 Fourthly, they emphasized the controversy of a new exhibition formula that was dedicated only to showing contemporary art, or at least, art created in the past four years. This sole focus on contemporary artists was summarized in the Documenta slogan ‘die jüngste, die es je gab.’93 This concentration on newness, innovation, and the very latest in art, eventually, however, led to the resignation of some members of the Documenta-Rat who had argued for a more traditional selection of established and ‘substantial’ artists who had seemingly better fit within the context of the previous Documenta exhibitions.94 Leering admitted to having had major issues with the installation of artworks, for example, in an interview in 1999 in which he explained to have found a felt sculpture by Robert Morris in a garbage can at the Fridericianum after a cleaning team – thinking it was trash – had thrown it away.95 Another example of this was Barnett Newman’s painting Voice of Fire (1967) which was damaged due to mishandling of the unpacking of the artwork by art handlers.96 These examples are by no means exceptional, as two hundred damage claims were filed in total- today still evident through the enormous pile of paperwork found in the Van Abbemuseum archive. Leering problematized the lack of professionalism on the installment of artworks during a gathering of the Documenta-Rat where he held exhibition manager Arnold Bode responsible. The ‘Protokoll der Sitzung des Organisations Ausschusses am 9. August 1968’ presented a letter in which Leering stated: ‘In diesem Brief wird

91 Glueck, Grace. ‘Art Notes. Documenta: It Beats the Biennale.’ The New York Times. 07.07.1968. 92 Frank Whitford and Robert Kudielka 1968: 76 93 50 years documenta 1955-2005 2005: 232. 94 Werner Schmalenbach and Fritz Winter withdrew from the Documenta-Rat. See: Plunien, Eo. ‘documenta Gespräch mit Werner Schmalenbach.’ Die Welt. 26-10-1967. And Unknown. ‘Die Kunst vom Montag ist Am Dienstag vergessen.’ Der Spiegel. 13.11.1967. Glueck writes in 1968: ‘An even bigger source of controversy among Documenta’s 25-man council of museum directors and art society heads has been to abandon the “retrospective” shows of earlier that served as a bridge between art of the recent past and brand new works. Documenta III for instance had a show of 36 ‘distinguished” artists including Henry Moore, Max Ernst, Jean Arp and Ben Nicholson plus a drawing exhibition that started with Cezanne. The controversy led to the resignation of Dr. Werner Schmalenbach, director of Hamburg’s Museum of , who feels that the present show stresses “novelty” over the work of more substantial artists and laments its “dogmatically minimal and op point of view.” Please see: Glueck, Grace. ‘Art Notes. Documenta: It Beats the Biennale.’ The New York Times. 07.7.1968. 95 Berndes 1999, ed .: 71. 96 Newman explained disturbingly to the Documenta secretary- Jürgen Harten in 1968: ‘I am still deeply disturbed by the lack of care given my painting. As you know, I was given to feel that my presence in Documenta was important to the Committee and especially to Dr. Leering and I was assured that every precaution would be taken to take care of my work. However, it turned out that the opposite is the case.’ See: Letter from Barnett Newman to Jürgen Harten, 5 August 1968. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 201. 26

Kritik an zahlreichen Mängeln der Planung und der Durchführung der Aufbauarbeiten der 4. Documenta geübt. Es wird festgestellt daß die Verantwortung für diese den Ruf der documenta schädigenden und unnötige Kosten verursachenden Mängel in erster Linie den Ausstellungsleiter trifft [Arnold Bode].’ 97 As a result, it was recommended that Documenta founder Arnold Bode would withdraw from the Rat. Even two years after the Documenta, some of the damage claims were still unsettled. At this point, Leering expressed his frustration to gallerist André Emmerich, writing: ‘I am sorry to say that you were not right, when you stated in your letter: “your undoubted influence on the Documenta.” And this is just the reason why I refused to cooperate once again with them: they made the profit of our advice, relations, and position in the preparational part of the organisation, but finally we discovered we had no real power at all to handle things as it should be done.’98

Zooming in: how is Nauman documented in the Documenta exhibition history?

Having been only twenty-seven at the time of its opening, Nauman (1941) was among the three youngest participants at the Documenta. If you contextualize Nauman within the American selection of new sculptural and environmental trends at the Documenta, which included artists such as ‘Larry Bell (1939), Robert Irwin (1928), Edward Kienholz (1927) ‘Robert Morris (1931), (1928), Sol LeWitt (1928) Carl Andre (1935) and Walter De Maria (1935) as well as artists working with the medium of neon light, such as Chryssa (1933) and Dan Flavin (1933), it indeed shows that he was part of a younger generation.99 While also taking into consideration that it was Nauman’s first show in Europe, one could conclude that he was perhaps one of the few artists who literally embodied the promising slogan: ‘the youngest Documenta ever.’ It is remarkable that upon analyzing the reception history of the Documenta, Nauman is cited in only one article published in a regional newspaper, the Hamburger Abendblatt on June the 28th 1968. This fragment stated the following: ‘Tag und Nacht wird noch gewerkelt, wird gepinselt und montiert. Einige ausländische Künstler drohten, wie man hört, aus Protest gegen eine unvollkommene Organisation kurz vor der Eröffnung ihren Rückzug an. Sie sind, bis auf M. Reysse [Martial Raysse] geblieben. Der Amerikaner Bruce Nauman hat seine Sachen verpackt an die Wand gelehnt, mit einer handschriftlichen Note versehen. Der Franzose Cesar packte seine monumentale Pop-Daumen gestern Mittag unlustig wieder in die Plastiktüten. Einigen

97 Translation: In this letter, criticism is voiced about numerous shortcomings in the planning and implementation of the 4th Documenta. It is noted that the responsibility for these deficiencies are demaging to the reputation of the documenta and causing unnecessary costs, this is primarily the responsibility of the exhibition manager [Arnold Bode].‘Protokoll der Sitzung des Organisations Ausschusses am 9. August 1968’ VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 196. 98 Pingen 2005: 269. 99 Next to the Swiss artists Markus Raetz (1941) and Francesco Mariotti (1943). See: Luckow 1998: 160. 27

Improvisationen und Basteleien zuzuschauen hat seinen eignen Reiz.’100 Although this fragment fits perfectly within the aforementioned chaotic context and suggests that Nauman somehow was involved with the installment of his work, there are no comments as to what exactly was exhibited. The digitalized image library in Kassel shows four photographed works: Henry Moore Bound to Fail, Henry Moore Trap nr. 2., My Last Name Exaggerated Fourteen Times Vertically, and Device to Hold a Box at a slight Angle. All of these photographs show a close-up of the work and therefore do not contextualize the works within the exhibition space or show how they were installed. Interestingly enough, there is no literature that historicizes Nauman’s work within the fourth Documenta. The catalogue Documenta-Dokumente (1972) as well as the more recent study 4. Documenta: internationale Ausstellung, eine fotografische Rekonstruktion (2007) each include Nauman in the list of participants, yet do not reflect on the position of his artworks at the event. In a Dutch interview between Jean Leering and Hein Reedijk in 1973, the Nauman’s works exhibited at the Documenta are simply described as having included a neon and fiberglass. In retrospect, a different selection of artworks seem to have been present at the event. Art historian Dick Luckow wrote in 1998: ‘(…) auf their Documenta gezeigten vier Arbeiten von Nauman, Device to Hold a Box at a Slight Angle, My Last Name Exaggerated Fourteen Times Vertically, Light Trap for Henry Moore, No.2 und Henry Moore Bound to Fail (back view).101 In addition, the catalogue A Rose has no Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960s (2007) cites the same grouping of works but adds a new work to the selection, notably, Wax impressions of the knees of Five famous Artists (1966).102 More remarkably, oral history offers a diverse perspective on the possible selection of Nauman at the fourth Documenta. Peter Plagens recalled in 2014: ‘(…) I was driven by the collector Isi Fiscman [Isi Fiszman] in that tiny Triumph roadster, to the quintennial mega-exhibition Documenta IV in Kassel, Germany. There I saw those Eleven Color Photographs by a young American artist of whom I’d also never heard, Bruce Nauman. They were, as noted in my ‘ introduction’, what I saw as silly visual puns: a set of drill bits in a wooden base, entitled Drill Team, the artist’s hand spreading jam on pieces of white bread spelling out ‘WORDS’ and called My Words; and the artists himself, looking like an American undergraduate in maths and science major, applying wax to the painted wooden letters H, O and T - the photograph given the painfully obvious appellation Waxing Hot. I also gazed in semi-bewilderment at another photographs of the same artist, nude form the waist

100 Hoffmann, Theodor Paul. ‘Keine Feier ohne Schreier. Eröffnung der 4.documenta in Kassel vom ,, Kontrastprogramm” überwuchert.’ Hamburger Abendblatt. 28.06.1968. Translation: ‘Day and night there is still being worked, painted and assembled. Some foreign artists threatened, as one hears, to withdraw from the event, in protest of the imperfect organization shortly before the opening. They stayed with the exeption of Martial Raysse. The American Bruce Nauman has his stuff wrapped, leaning against the wall provided with a handwritten note. The Frenchman Cesar grabbed his monumental pop thumbs yesterday afternoon and unhappily put them back into the plastic bags. To look at some of these improvisations and craft has its own charm.' 101 Luckow 1998: 228. The archive holds only one loan form which inscribes: ‘Nauman, Bruce. Henry Moore, Bound to Fail. (Backview), 1967. Wax over Plaster, 66 cm x 61 cm x 9 cm. Mr. Joseph Helman’. See: VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 201. 102A Rose Has No Teeth; Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 206. 28

up and his arms out and bent at the elbow in the manner of someone gesturing his innocence, spitting out of a stream of water. The photograph was called Self Portrait as a Fountain.’103 Furthermore, conceptual art dealer Anny de Decker recalled in that same year: ‘Nauman was still quite young at the time of Documenta 1968, with drawings in a space that required a key for entry, only one visitor at a time allowed in. After a few days the room was just completely locked, because this agreement hadn’t been kept to.’104 The question if Nauman made works on site or included new works last minute as reflected in the oral history still remains unanswered by archival documentation and reception history.

103 Peter Plagens 2014: 90. 104 Conceptual Art 2014: 15. 29

The Documenta selection according to archival documentation: fig.2. Untitled (1965) 224 x 71 x 46 cm. 2. Untitled (1966) 183 x 38 x 5 cm. 3. Device to Hold a Box at a Slight Angle, (1966) 94 x 66x 73 cm. 4. Henry Moore Trap Nr. 2. (1967). 170 x 120 cm. 5. My Last Name Exaggerated Fourteen Times Vertically, (1967) 160 x 84 cm.. 6. Henry Moore, Bound to Fall (1967). 66 x 61 x 9 cm. Scource : Bruce Nauman. [exh.cat] New York: Leo Castelli Gallery, 1968.

30

2. Informative actions II:

Konrad Fischer’s gallery:

The Documenta was seemingly an important event for the exhibition and furthermore, introduction, of American art in Europe, particularly with respect to the invitations to American artists to come to Europe for the installation of their works. Nevertheless - as I will show - Nauman would come to Europe in the summer of 1968 due to his solo exhibition at the Konrad Fischer Gallery. This invitation was extended by gallery owner Konrad Fischer in collaboration with his main contact in New York, Kaspar König. Analyzing the way in which Fischer was introduced to Nauman’s work is yet another example of informative actions. At the same time, analyzing the archival documentation of both Fischer and König at the Zentralarchiv für deutsche und internationale Kunstmarktforschung in Cologne reveals the way in which a transatlantic network rendered possible new exchanges, including Nauman’s first European solo exhibition on July 10, 1968. Konrad Lueg-Fischer had originally broken into the art scene as an artist himself. His first solo show was held in July of 1964 at Alfred Schmela in Düsseldorf.105 Later in 1967 he participated in two important exhibitions in Europe which underlined new conceptual and minimal practices. These exhibitions included Serielle Formationen (June 1967) and Dies alles Herzchen wird einmal Dir gehören, the latter an art event having taken place in September of 1967. These exhibitions were both organized by Paul Maenz and Peter Roehr. Because Maenz had worked in New York between 1966 and 1967, the Serielle Formationen exhibition included for the first time in Europe the works of American artists such as Carl Andre, Donald Judd, Sol LeWitt, and . After Fischer’s brief encounter with these artworks from the other side of the Atlantic and also having seen several small reproductions in art magazines. As well as establishing new contacts with European artists such as Dibbets, Long and Charlotte Posenenske at the Dies alles Herzchen wird einmal Dir gehören event- Fischer opened his own gallery.106 Initially, art dealer Alfred Schmela had invited Fischer to manage a new branch of his gallery created for young artists, but Fischer decided to establish his own gallery with the help of Kaspar König, who became an important contact in New York for approaching American artists. Dorothee Fischer recalled the relationship between Fischer and König as follows: ‘Kasper König, was the one we knew from here. Before he was in New York, he was always visiting the Art academy in Dusseldorf not as a student but as a visitor. He was around in the art scene.’107 As I will explain, Fischer wanted to both introduce and promote a new kind of art by establishing a new dealing exhibition program. In doing so, however, Fischer established his own connections to

105 Kölle 2007: 28. 106 Richard 2009: 55. 107 Dorothee Fischer, in conversation with the author, Düsseldorf, Germany, 3 March 2014. 31

the United States, bypassing the American dealer monopoly by contacting the artists directly or by using his trusted contact König.108

‘Primary Leute’ a new dealing exhibition program

Fischer’s first letters to Kasper König from the summer of 1967 are concerned with exchanging ideas for the opening of the dealer gallery in Düsseldorf and therefore tell us something about the establishment of its new dealing exhibition program. Just as Leering’s early exhibition documentation suggests, the process of exchanging an assembled list of potentially interesting artists for new exhibition programs are recurring patterns in the correspondence between Fischer and König taking place from the summer of 1967 throughout the year of 1968. The very first letter concerned with the establishment of the gallery concept is dated July 8,1967, and shows Fischer contacting König to help him approach artists in the United States for his new gallery.109 At the beginning of July, for instance, Fischer wrote to König: ‘(...) ich habe große Dinge vor. Für diese großen Dinge brauche ich aber ganz dringend Deine Hilfe. Ich mache eine Galerie auf. Im September. (...).’ 110 The letter further explains Fischer’s interest in the establishment of a progressive gallery which would become actively involved in the promotion of young artists. Fischer’s first choice for the opening seemed to have been artist Robert Morris. In this first letter to König, however, Fischer also shared a list of other interesting artists for the gallery, including: Carl Andre, Donald Judd, Sol LeWitt, Agnes Martin and Ronald Bladen. In addition, König was also encouraged to mention new artist’s names for the gallery. Fischer wrote: ‘(...) Du wirst sicher auch noch einige gute, junge Leute dort kennen, deren Name mir hier noch nicht bekannt ist und die ich hier ausstellen könnte. Es wäre wunderbar, wenn ich, wie gesagt, meine Galerie mit Bob Morris eröffnen könnte. (...).’111 In a second letter to König dated July 20, 1967, Fischer again connects his aspiration of opening a progressive gallery to the possibility of introducing a new category of American artists in Germany: ’Ich glaube daß es in der Augenblicklichen Situation hier genau das richtige wäre mit guten „Primary“-Leute anzufangen.’112 The term Primary in this case refers to Primary Structures, the title of an important exhibition

108 Germer and Bernard. ‘Beyond Painting and Sculpture. German-American Exchange in the Visual Arts’ in Junker, ed, vol. 2 2004: 381. 109 Richard 2009: 57. 110 Letter from Fischer to Kaspar König, 8 July 1967. Archiv Kaspar König Zentralarchiv für deutsche und internationale Kunstmarktforschung, Cologne (hereafter ZADIK) G20 IV, 2, 03, 1R. '(...) I’m planning great things. For these great things, however, I urgently need your help. I open a gallery. In September. (...). 111 Letter from Fischer to Kaspar König, 8 July 1967. Archiv Kaspar König ZADIK G20 IV, 2, 03, 1R. Translation: '(...) You will surely also know some good young people there whose name I am not yet aware of and who I could exhibit here. It would be wonderful if I could, as I said, open my gallery with Bob Morris. (...). ' 112 Letter from Fischer to Kaspar König, the 20 July 1967. Archiv Kaspar König ZADIK G20, IV, 2, 04, 1R. Translation: 'I think that it would be exactly the right thing in this present situation to start with good ' primary ' people.'

32

that had contributed to the introduction of Minimal art held at the Jewish Museum in April 1966 in New York in which most of Fischer’s desirable artists for the gallery program were included.

The artist must be present: new exchanges

The actual list of artists that would establish a work in the gallery would be slightly different than Fischer’s initial program. The gallery would open with an exhibition of artist Carl Andre in October 1967 – his first European solo exhibition - followed by a dual show of Hanne Darboven and Charlotte Posenenske in December, and thereafter a solo show of Sol LeWitt, who had his first solo-show in Europe in January of 1968. The early correspondence with artists shows how they became intermediaries as well. Particularly with respect to an introduction to the artistic landscape in New York, both Carl Andre and Sol LeWitt seemed to have exercised significant influence on the exhibition program.113 In addition, further reflection on the outset of the first exhibitions in the gallery, which included Carl Andre, Hanne Darboven and Charlotte Posenenske, Sol LeWitt, Blinky Palermo, Reiner Ruthenbeck, Fred Sandback, Richard Artschwager, Bruce Nauman, Jan Dibbets, and Richard Long, shows that Fischer was programming both European and American artists from the start. Art scholar Lynda Morris retrospectively explained that a new understanding of international art emerged in Europe in that: ‘There was a sudden shift around 1967 from “international”- meaning American artists in Europe - to “international”, meaning equality between American artists and European artists.’114 However, Bruce Nauman has also emphasized that it was a meeting point for Americans whom were divided by two different scenes occurring on two different Coasts. Nauman stated at one point: ‘Actually I met Carl [Andre] here [in Düsseldorf] and Sol [Lewitt]. I never met them in the States.’115 These encounters and exchanges were established through new organizational structures and arrangements with the artists. In 2007, Nauman explained Fischer’s new introductory method in the following manner: ‘(…) Konrad had the idea of bringing artists over rather than to ship work from the States. He had no money and shipping was very expensive. And I think Konrad preferred it.’ 116 At the same time, a new conceptual approach towards art had simultaneously made this possible, in that the small, corridor space in Fischer’s gallery soon became an artistic working space where the artworks themselves were created, or artworks were executed in a metal work firm in in the Dutch village of Bergeyk.117 This new approach of

113 Kaper König stated that some New York minimalists looked down upon artists like Nauman as Bay area Neo Dada. In an interview with Kölle he reflected: ‘Sol LeWitt exerted great programmatic influence, as did Carl Andre. At the time, they were extremely skeptical of Bruce Nauman, they deemed his art to be Californian Neo Dad, funny stuff. It was all about the program! It was supposed to be undiluted.’ See: Kölle 2007: 86. 114 Morris, Lynda. ‘Introduction to the Conference’ in New Research into Conceptualism in Europe, Dispatch 144. Norwich Gallery, Norwich School of Art and Design, 2005, unnumbered pages. 115 Kölle 2007: 184. 116 Kolle 2007: 189. 117Unconcealed 2009: 57. 33

inviting the artists to work at the gallery instead of transporting their artworks was illustrated by the recurring element of using the plane ticket as an organizational strategy. For example, Carl Andre wrote in October 1967: “ (…) Sol [LeWitt] said he is willing to go to Düsseldorf to make a show for you if you send him a ticket. Could you send a Lufthansa Ticket to Sol LeWitt? He then will fly to Germany. I told him about the good working space and works at Nebato in Bergeyk, Holland, near the Vissers.’118 In the case of Nauman, König suggested to Fischer in 1968: ‘Wenn eben möglich würde ich Bruce eine Flugkarte schicken, Bitte schreibt mir und Bruce, wegen dieser Angelegenheit, sobald wie möglich. (...)’.119 Lynda Morris pointed out in the study Unconcealed (2009) that this new working method contributed to the success of conceptual art, stating that: ‘The early success of Conceptual art was based on the co- ordination of European tours for US artists. Galleries shared expenses and also in some cases shared the commissions on sales. This idea appears to have been developed by Konrad Fischer in Düsseldorf with Heiner Friedrich in Munich and John Weber at the Dwan Gallery in New York.’120 Indeed, LeWitt’s travel costs would be shared with West-German art dealers Heiner Friedrich and Brüno Bischofberger.121 Fischer would not go to the United States until April 1968, but would first establish his own international network in Düsseldorf. Again, Friedrich shared the costs for Fischer’s first trip overseas in order to also profit from the potential new contacts established abroad.122 In 2014, I asked Dorothee Fischer if Konrad Fischer had already encountered Nauman in New York in April of 1968, to which she answered: ‘No, I don’t think so. I don’t know how he met him initially but he did know about his work, because Bruce had an exhibition at Castelli. And then Kasper [König] visited Bruce in Los Angeles. When they were in New York I think they talked about this, but I’m not sure when they first met. I think we met him for the first time when he came to Dusseldorf to do the exhibition. It was a very radical show with tape and sound pieces.’123

‘Take some ideas with you (…) to Germany’

At the end of May in 1968 Fischer wrote in his first letter to Bruce Nauman: ‘It would be very nice, if you take some ideas for pieces with you to Germany [and in addition Fischer loosely notated above this sentence]: I think

118 Letter from Carl Andre to Konrad Fischer, 28 October 1967. Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Schenkung, ZADIK, A96, V, 1A, 10, 2. 119 Letter from König to Fischer, the date of the letter is situated between the 10 or 15 of January 1968. Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Schenkung. ZADIK A 96, IV, 1C, 163, 2. Translation: When possible, I would like to send Bruce a flight ticket, please write me and Bruce about this, as soon as possible. (...) .’ 120 Richard 2009: 27. 121 Richard 2009: 62. 122 Richard 2009: 65. 123 Dorothee Fischer, in conversation with the author, Düsseldorf, Germany, 3 March 2014. 34

you will do them here (…)’. 124 Although it seems that this is the first time that Fischer approached the artist directly, some correspondence – five letters in total - between Nauman and König, as well as Fischer and König, shows that Nauman’s invitation to create a work on the spot in Düsseldorf had been conceived somewhat earlier. Not surprisingly, - due to his previous encounter with Nauman in San Francisco - it was König who approached Nauman to come over to the Düsseldorf gallery.125 In fact, the earliest correspondence in the archive already anticipated Nauman’s concept for the space in Düsseldorf. On February 1, 1968 Nauman wrote to König: ‘I would like to do the space in Düsseldorf –anytime you can fit it in o.k. I have only to get a passport. I teach school until June so I can take only a week or two off at a time, however I have in mind sound only -walking and violin playing tape loops at each end of the room- My [unreadable] is only about 10 words someone must help me arrange for equipment, etc. there. Let me know what comes of it.’126 A letter written only one month later at the beginning of March from Fischer to König shows how the pair exchanged visual documentation such as slides, photographs, and catalogues concerning both American and European artists.127 For example, on March 2nd Fischer wrote to König that he had become enthusiastic about Nauman after viewing the catalogue of his Castelli exhibition, stating: „Vielen Dank für den Bruce Nauman Katalog, ich denke er ist ein ganz Großer Künstler.“128 The negotiation of the arrangements for the ticket and date for the opening of Nauman’s exhibition seems to be handled through König. Correspondence between König and Fischer shows, for example, that König had asked Fischer to contact Nauman and arrange a plane ticket. The dates of these letters are, however, undocumented: ‘Wenn eben möglich würde ich Bruce eine Flugkarte schicken. (...) Glaube man sollte Nauman Priorität geben da er schon vor langer zeit zugesagt hat und zeitlich begrenzte Möglichkeiten hat’).’129 A letter from Nauman perhaps explains the reason for priority. Nauman wrote to König on May 11, 1968, just two months prior to the opening: ‘I have not yet heard from Konrad Fischer. Does he still expect me there in June? Shall I write him at the gallery address in Düsseldorf?’130 Interestingly enough, the single letter concerned with the establishment of the exhibition arrangements between Nauman and Fischer is also the first mail exchange between Nauman and Fischer. On the 28th of May

124 Letter from Konrad Fischer to Bruce Nauman, 28 May 1968. Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Schenkung. ZADIK, A96, V, 1B, 151, 2. 125 Letter from Nauman to König, 1 February 1968. Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Schenkung, ZADIK A96, IV, 1C, 164, 1. 126 Letter from Nauman to König, 1 February 1968. Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Schenkung. ZADIK A96, IV, 1C, 164, 1. 127 Letter from Fischer to König, 2 March 1968. Archiv Kaspar König ZADIK G20, IV, 2, 20, 1V. 128 Letter from Fischer to König, 2 March 1968. Archiv Kaspar König. ZADIK G20, IV, 2, 20, 1V. Translation: ‘Thank you for the Bruce Nauman catalogue, I think he is a very great artist. " 129 Letter from König to Fischer 10 or 15 of January 1968. Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Schenkung, ZADIK A96, IV, 1C, 163, 3. Translation: ‘‘When possible, I would like to send Bruce a flight ticket, I believe that one should give Nauman priority as he has long ago agreed and has limited possibilities.’

130 Letter from Nauman to König, 11 May 1968. Archiv Kaspar König. ZADIK G20, IV, 2, 21,1R. 35

Fischer wrote in broken English: ‘This is the first time you have get a word from me. But I think we had a good connection via my friend Kaspar. (…) I would be very glad and proud if you came to Düsseldorf and I know that many people are interested in your work. I want to send you 21 days ticket Calif.-Düsseldorf- Calif. with this ticket you can start to New York, if you want, at the 21 of June, but you cannot go over the Atlantic before the 24 of June. But I think that is a good time to come, for you can then go with me to the ‘documenta’ opening (27-26). I have booked a place in a hotel for you. (…). It would be very nice if you take some ideas for pieces with you to Germany [I think you will do them here], so that I can sell some pieces of yours. Excuse me I’m not only thinking in selling, but I think it is good if you earn some money here, and my too, for the ticket is very expensive for me.’131

Two introductions one network:

Coming back to the questions: which actors in the networks of Leering and Fischer played an important role in introducing Nauman in Europe? And how was Nauman included in his first two European exhibitions?

The focus on two separate introductions underscores the repeated – and desirable – request and need for information regarding the appearance of new American art tendencies during the 1960s. Both Leering and Fischer sought out and relied on information regarding a younger generation of American artists from a selective group of contacts on the other side of the Atlantic. Analyzing, mapping, and comparing transatlantic correspondence spread throughout several archives, including the Van Abbemuseum museum in Eindhoven, the archival documentation of the Fischer gallery, and the personal archive of his main contact in New York, Kasper König at the ZADIK in Cologne reveals that one small network of the same actors provided information about Nauman to Fischer and Leering. For instance, Bellamy informed both Leering and König about Nauman’s work in the mid-1960s. In 1966, König visited Nauman on the West Coast and informed Fischer about the artists for the exhibition program of his private gallery almost a one and a half year later. In 1967, König became a key contact for the establishment of the Fischer’s exhibition program and approaching American artists on the other side of the Atlantic. At the same time, König and Bellamy were important contacts for keeping Leering up-to-date and mentioning interesting artists working on both coasts for their selection and eventual introduction into his exhibition program. Although there seemed to be a greater interest in artistic developments on the West Coast in Europe in the midst of the events of 1968, Leering encountered Nauman’s physical works through Nauman’s exhibition at the Castelli gallery in New York the same year. Leering frequently traveled to New York between 1965 and

131 Letter from Konrad Fischer to Bruce Nauman, 28 May 1968. Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Schenkung, ZADIK A96, V, 1B, 151, 1. And: Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, ZADIK A96, V, 1B, 151, 2. 36

1968, where New York art dealers in particular signified an important influence on the American selection of his exhibition program of the fourth Documenta. Archival correspondence show the constant request for new artists and trends while at the same time emphasizing enormous trust in the advisory role of these galleries. For example, Leering negotiated with Castelli for the selection of Nauman at the Documenta, and archival documentation points out that a selection was made from of the works exposed at his first solo exhibition in New York. Although Castelli mediated on the selection of Nauman’s work at the fourth Documenta, Nauman was seen as the newest of the new, and his inclusion even had to be defended by Leering for the Documenta- Rat. What remains interesting is that this notion in particular of the ‘new’ in relation to Documenta’s exhibition history, though overshadowed by chaos and critique, has often contributed to a lack of information about the context and the position of Nauman's work at the fourth Documenta. At the time, little was written in the press about his participation in the Documenta. In 1967, Konrad Fischer developed a new introductory method, a fact substantiated by the archival correspondence found at the ZADIK, in which the airplane became a medium not to distribute the artworks, but rather, the artists themselves. This new organizational structure was made possible by a new generation of artists often associated with minimal and conceptual art whose work emphasized artistic concepts and processes. By approaching artists often via König or directly, Fischer surpassed an already established gallery system while at the same time insisting on the presence of the artists established on an international level, and even creating a meeting point between American East and West Coast artists, as American artists became mediators for the gallery as well. Nauman was invited not to bring physical artworks to Germany, but most importantly, his ideas. This invitation established new exchanges and opportunities for the artist, which eventually included his first European solo exhibition as well as the creation of a specific artwork for the gallery space.

37

Chapter two: changing conditions and practice within one particular momentum

Konrad Fischer disrupted the traditional relationship between studio and gallery by introducing a new presentation method in 1967 in which he invited the artist to create a work on-site in his odd gallery space. Nauman’s artistic practice between 1966 and 1968 has often been associated with the leitmotif of the artist studio, as art historians have frequently pointed out the way in which Nauman used his studio as site, topic, set, and departure point in questioning the purpose of the artist and the conditions of making art. However, few art historians have investigated the following possibility: what if the gallery is approached as a studio and the studio is suddenly on the move, situated on the other side of the Atlantic.132 I will show how Fischer and Nauman both questioned the relationship between studio and gallery in their practice and the ways in which they both anticipated challenging the conditions of the traditional gallery. In addition, I will show why it is significant to reconsider Nauman’s first transatlantic exchange in relation to his own artistic practice. In doing so, Nauman’s activity and productivity during his first three week stay in Europe in 1968 is placed central. In 1970 American art historian Phyllis Tuchman published the article ‘American Art in Germany: The history of a Phenomenon,’ in the prominent journal, Artforum. In this article, Tuchman noted: ‘that many American artists were traveling to Germany and left some of their best efforts behind.’133 More specifically, she highlighted the widespread acceptance and appreciation of American art, including that of movements such as Pop art, Neo dada and Minimalism, as a newly established historical phenomena. In doing so, she explored several factors that had made these introductions possible in Europe, such as the efforts of various collectors, galleries, and museums. One of the aspects Tuchman explored was a new gallery practice that had emerged in 1967 and 1968 which had been established by a younger generation of West German, private gallery owners. Tuchman highlighted the activities of Düsseldorf gallerist Konrad Fischer, Rolf Ricke - an art dealer who had worked originally in Kassel but who had moved to Cologne in 1968 - and the Munich art dealer Heiner Friedrich. In contrast to the recent institutionalization of Pop art in Germany occurring throughout the 1960s, this new gallery practice introduced a fundamental shift and thus a totally new development in West Germany. West Germany was no longer a place in which American contemporary art was being frequently collected and

132 Art historian only briefly highlighted the changing condition from studio to gallery in which Nauman’s work Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer (1968) was created, however instead she has highlighted the parallels between Nauman’s installation and Beckett’s play Krapp’s Last Tape (1958). See Van Bruggen 1988: 232-233. Art historian Brigitte Kölle has elaborated on the installation Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer (1968) in relation to the context of Fischer’s gallery space, however her research did not include Nauman’s three week stay in Germany; the momentum of his activity and productivity in Europe in 1968. Kölle 2005: 143- 150. 133 Tuchman 1970: 61 58- 69. 38

exhibited, but had become a site where such art was produced and interpreted.134 In 1970, Tuchman explained how Konrad Fischer played a leading role in this new phenomenon, stating:

‘One young Dusseldorf painter, wanting to know more about the process of art, chose to open a gallery to accomplish this. He was Konrad Fischer since his inaugural exhibition in October 1967, his program has indeed educated the art community. The principal reason for this is that his artists come in person from America, England, and other German cities to specially design or install exhibitions in his tiny gallery space (…). His artists principally object makers, environmentalists, and conceptualists, are available for discussions and they are there during their shows. (…) Rolf Ricke’s operations, since his move to Cologne from Kassel in early 1968, have in some ways, been familiar to Fischer’s. His artists arrive from America to work in Germany (with formal materials at hand).’135

In 2005, Brigitte Kölle stated in her dissertation ‘Die Kunst des Ausstellens. Untersuchungen zum Werk des Künstlers und Kunstvermittlers Konrad Lueg/Fischer (1939-1996)’ that Fischer was the first to use this different exhibition type systematically in Europe.136 Both König and Fischer had avoided the term ‘gallery’ because it implied a solely commercial interest. Thus, the gallery was named: ‘Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer’ implying its function as more than merely selling art.137 Kölle highlights that Fischer’s curatorial premise at the end of the 1960’s emphasized that the dealer should become involved in the creation of the artwork made for the gallery space. According to Kölle this marked a structural shift in the relationship between artist and dealer, and above all, redefined the exhibition space as a place of production, instead of merely a place of presentation.’138 In retrospect, art historians have often approached Fischer’s gallery space at the end of the 1960s as resembling a workshop or laboratory, a place for the testing and redefining of the gallery space itself. In other words, it had become the direct opposite of a conventional commercial gallery in which art was hung in neat, horizontal arrangements up on the walls. 139 This new interplay between the gallery as place of production, the

134 Germer and Bernard. ‘Beyond Painting and Sculpture. German-American Exchange in the Visual Arts’ in Junker, ed, vol. 2 2004: 379. 135 Tuchman 1970: 61, 58- 69. 136 Kölle 2005: 190. 137 ‘Kasper König und die Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer’ in: ‘Kaspar König, The Formative Years 2014: 61. 138 Kölle 2005: 190. 139 Kölle has stated in her dissertation on the experimental nature of the gallery the following: ‘Sieht man sich Installations Fotos von Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer an, so wird deutlich, dass es sich hier weniger um einzelne Werke handelt als vielmehr um unwiederbringlich verloren gegangene Raumsituationen.’ Abgrenzung zu Museumsausstellungen hat Konrad Fischer seine Ausstellungsräume als Experimentierfeld Verstanden, in dem Künstler und Künstlerinnen Neues und Ungesichertes erproben und der Öffentlichkeit präsentieren konnten.' Please see: Kölle 2005: 134. Rudi Fuchs concluded in 2011: ‘This was its character: not so much a gallery as a laboratory or a workshop whose proprietor or manager had no intention of enforcing a specific style. Naturally Konrad and Dorothee felt an involvement with the kind of art being made and exhibited in their spaces. If there was any kind of artistic programme, its keynote was curiosity: having to wait until what was 39

artist as participant, and of course, the gallery-owner, was made possible by a new kind of art that anticipated elements such as space and temporality. This realization was evidenced by works that were made on or for the gallery site, giving way to a new type of artist that endorsed experimentation and an investigative attitude. At the very least, these artists were concerned with the discovery of new criteria for artistic practice. 140 In retrospect, a certain formula or set of criteria for making a particular installation possible at Fischer’s gallery seems to have often been linked to sheer practicality. For instance, artists were required to stay a minimum of three weeks in order to get the cheapest airline ticket possible. In addition, the gallery became a place to install artworks as well as a meeting point. The artist’s stayed at Fischer’s home in the attic above his apartment on the Poststraße in Düsseldorf.141 Kölle even made the analogy between Fischer’s working methods and an artist-in-residence program, as artists were literally introduced to a new artistic community with a new set of possibilities. 142 In 1997, Harald Szeemann stated that Nauman’s crazy, daily-changing sound installation – an anarchistic work - could only have been possible at Fischer’s gallery in the summer of 1968. He later stated, for example, ‘Unvergesslich, sind denn auch alle die Werke Naumans, die man bei Koni [Konrad Fischer] sehen konnte, darunter die irre, täglich wechselnde Toninstallation vom Sommer 1968 mit den Geräuschen des in der Neubrückstraße herumgehenden, ball-und violinespielenden Künstlers. Ein radikales und poetisch- anarchistisches Fluxuswerk, damals nur bei Koni möglich.’ 143 During Nauman’s three-week stay at Fischer, the accumulation of these new conditions in relation to his own artistic practice resulted in a new opportunity: his first site-specific installation in a public setting.144

Nauman’s practice between 1965 and 1968

To arrive at a better understanding of Nauman’s installation at Fischer’s gallery in the summer of 1968, it is important to elaborate on several of the concepts Nauman was exploring between 1965 and 1968. In this period, Nauman was constantly engaged with the notion of finding new formulations for artistic practice; the artist was often like a researcher identifying problems.145 Nauman’s early works are concerned with the most fundamental eventually to be seen or to be created.’ Please see: With a Probability of Being Seen: Dorothee and Konrad Fischer, Archives of an Attitude 2011: 16-17. 140 With a Probability of Being Seen: Dorothee and Konrad Fischer, Archives of an Attitude 2011: 16. 141 Kölle 2005: 124. 142 Kölle 2005: 124. 143 With a Probability of Being Seen: Dorothee and Konrad Fischer, Archives of an Attitude 2011: 107. The quote is translated in the catalogue as follows: ‘Also unforgettable were all the works by Nauman that could be seen at Koni’s, including the crazy, daily-changing sound installation of summer 1968 in which the artist could be heared walking around in the Neubrückstrasse playing ball and violin. A radical and poetically anarchist Fluxus piece that was possible only at Koni’s at the time.’ 144 Simon, Joan. Hear here. 10 October 2004. frieze.com 20 May 2017 < https://frieze.com/article/hear-here> 145 Benezra, Neal. ‘Surveying Nauman’ in Morgan, ed. 2002: 117. Auping, Michael. ‘Metacommunicator.’ In: Bruce Nauman- Raw Materials 2004: 9. 40

questions related to art and artistic practice, including: what is art and what is the function and role of the artist, and ‘why does anyone become an artist and what does an artist do?’146 Nauman’s oeuvre evolved from the mid- sixties onwards through multiple approaches in which he constantly used different materials and various media such as neon, holography, video, recorded sound, photography, drawing, and live . In his early sculptures made between 1965 and 1967, Nauman attempted to question the ontology of art itself by placing the underlying ideas and processes of artistic practice central, thereby rejecting traditionally formal conditions. In simpler terms, Nauman explored ideas behind objects or created objects that stood for ideas. His sculptural inventions were concerned with de-skilling traditional sculptural elements. Often these projects resulted in capturing the negative space between objects, highlighting the process of casting, and referring to elements beyond the formal qualities of sculpture such as bodily position, performative actions, and various conceptual elements.147 For example, Nauman clearly communicated the importance of a conceptual element when discussing Wax Impressions of the Knees of Five Famous Artists (1966) a work consisting of five marks of his own knee. The title, however, led the viewer to believe that they were separate imprints of the knees of five famous artists. He concluded later that the idea behind the work was: ‘(…) trying to make the thing itself less important to look at.’148 It was this same conceptual element which had confronted him during an earlier stage with the problem of ‘how to make the thing less important’. 149 At the same time, from 1966 onwards Nauman explored the meaning and the structure of language by materializing language, absurdity and linguistic nonsense in drawings, neon and sculpture. Moreover, Nauman often shifted and played around with the meaning of language in word plays, anagrams, palindromes and visual puns.150 Determining the essence of being an artist led Nauman to his famous artistic experiments and investigations in his own practice including documenting, recording and manipulating his actions in photography, film, video, and sound from the mid-sixties onwards. These works were often concerned with ordinary activities or uncomfortable exercises driven by conceptual formats such as duration, task, and repetition. Initially, many of these investigations were conceived as performance ideas. According to Nauman, however, no museum was interested in showing them.151 Instead, Nauman used his studio as an interesting platform. Thus the studio supplied the subject, structure, and space for these artistic experiments.152

146 Michele de Angelus. ‘Interview with Bruce Nauman, May 27 and May 30, 1980. In: Kraynak, ed 2005: 231. 147 Van Bruggen 1988: 9-10. 148 Joe Raffaele and Elizabeth Parker. ‘The Way-out West: Interviews with Four San Francisco Artists, 1967 (Fall, 1966) In: Kraynak, ed 2005: 106. 149 Livingstone, Jane. ‘Bruce Nauman.’ In: Bruce Nauman works from 1965 to 1972 1972: 16. 150 Rondeau 1999: 38. 151 Simon, Joan. Hear here. 10 October 2004. frieze.com 20 May 2017 < https://frieze.com/article/hear-here> Lorraine Sciarra. ‘Bruce Nauman, January,1972.’ In: Kraynak, ed 2005: 162. 152 Bruce Nauman: Topological garden 2009: 104. 41

The concept of the studio: ‘art is what the artist does, just sitting around in the studio’

Nauman approached the studio not only as a place where the artist is engaged with a particular creative process, but also a pre-condition for artistic production. More precisely, for Nauman the studio became a condition for defining any form of activity as an artistic act. Thus the emphasis shifted from art as product to art as activity. 153 After his graduation at UC Davis, California in May of 1966, Nauman was forced to encounter his new studio as space to investigate and map out his own activity as a result of a lack of materials and money.154 In 1966 Nauman made a radical decision in his studio in San Francisco, understood from his statement: ‘I was an artist and I was in the studio, then whatever I was doing in the studio must be art. And what I was in fact doing was drinking coffee and pacing the floor. It became a question then of how to structure those activities into being art, or some kind of cohesive unit that could be made available to people. (…).155 Nauman concluded in a firm statement: ‘(…) art is what the artist does, just sitting around in the studio.’156 Nauman’s photographic series Flour Arrangements (1966-1967) could be approached as a transitional work between his static sculptures and his studio films in which the artist’s activities within the studio became the subject of his work.157 Nauman explained, that in this specific work he took everything out of his studio in order to arrange a heap of flour on the floor. This became his main activity for a period of one month, during which he had to come up with a different composition each day. This resulted in a selection of photographs that depict the remnants of his previous activity.’158 However, the centrality of activity as both subject and object is most clearly present in his Studio films from 1967 and 1968. Art historian Coosje van Bruggen has located the conception of the following films to a studio in Mill Valley, California in the winter of 1967-1968. These works include ‘Playing a Note on the Violin While I Walk around the Studio,’ ‘Bouncing Two Balls between the Floor and the Ceiling with changing Rhythms,’ ‘Walking in an Exaggerated Manner Around the Perimeter of a Square,’ and ‘Dance or Exercise on the Perimeter of a Square’. 159 In each of these ten minute films Nauman performed the exact actions described in each title and recorded them straightforwardly, without any real narrative or storyline, as a way of

153 Patrick van Rossem. ‘Performing the impossibility of painting and the near-impossibility of sculpture. Creativity, inhibition and doubt as performed in the photography, video and film art of Bruce Nauman.’ In: Van Damme, ed. 2009: 190. And: AC: Bruce Nauman “Mapping the Studio I (Fat chance ) 2003: 7. 154 MaryJo Marks. ‘Seeing through the studio.’ In: Davidts, Wouter and Kim Paice, eds. 2009: 94. 155 Michael R. Taylor. ‘Mapping the Studio, Changing the field.’ in: Bruce Nauman: Topological garden 2009:52. 156 Work Ethic 2003: 101 157 Van Bruggen, Coosje. ‘Sounddance’ in Morgan, ed. 2002: 46. 158 Nauman approached the work Flour Arrangements (1966) as a test to see if he really was a professional artist. See Sharp, Willoughby. Nauman Interview, 1970. In: Kraynak, ed 2005: 119. 159 Van Bruggen 1988: 19. 42

investigating the development of certain activities over time and questioning how one can exhaust this system.160 Nauman later explained that: ‘(…) A lot of the films were about dance or exercise problems or repeated movements, as were the . You have the repeated actions, and at the same time, over a long period of time you have mistakes or at least a chance, changes and you get tired and all kinds of things happen, so there’s a certain tension that you can exploit once you begin to understand how these things function.’161 For instance, in Playing a Note on the Violin While I Walk around the Studio Nauman did not know how to play the violin. However, he set himself the task to play the instrument while exploring the parameters of his studio space. Nauman elaborated on this tension when he stated that: ‘[In] the violin film I played the violin as long as I could. I don’t know to play the violin, so it was hard, playing on all four strings as fast as I could for as long as I could (…).162 His exercises in the Studio-films often produced sounds such as a certain rhythm produced by the balls striking the floor, the changing tones of the violin, or the loud footsteps of the artist while he paced. In this way his body was not only both object and subject, but also an instrument. Art historian Janet Kraynak therefore argued that his studio films are as much sonic works of art as they are visual.163 In addition, art historian Michael Auping has argued that Nauman still remained a sculptor in his approach: ‘Nauman has always defined himself as a sculptor; and as such, spatial issues are paramount in his thinking.’164 Nauman’s sculpture, performance and films are all concerned with the question: how to position within space? This element of space is also present in his exploration of the topography - the shape and features - of his studio in his films and photographs.165 In three of his Studio Films, for instance, Nauman plays a game with the space of the studio and with his presence within this space by walking out of the camera frame. In Playing a note on the Violin While I Walk around the Studio (1968), the viewer is often left only with a shot of the studio wall while at the same time still hearing the sound of footsteps and a violin.166 Space and sound become elements that pointed to the studio space both literally and metaphorically as a place of artistic production.

160 Nauman elaborated on the reason why he was recording his films straightforward, the following: ‘All the people using film that I knew in the Bay Area were making movies, stories and abstract work. I was just doing straightforward recording of an activity’ as quoted in: Schimmel, Paul. ‘Pay Attention.’ See: Bruce Nauman 1994: 73. 161 Michele de Angelus. ‘Interview with Bruce Nauman, May 27 and May 30, 1980. In: Kraynak, ed 2005: 247. 162 Van Bruggen 1988: 228. 163 Work Ethic 2003: 127. 164 Auping, Michael. ‘Metacommunicator.’ In: Bruce Nauman- Raw Materials 2004: 11. 165 Patrick van Rossem. ‘Performing the impossibility of painting and the near-impossibility of sculpture. Creativity, inhibition and doubt as performed in the photography, video and film art of Bruce Nauman.’ In: Van Damme, ed. 2009: 189. 166Collection Stedelijk Museum. Stedelijk.nl. 6 May 2017 Sharp, Willoughby. Nauman Interview, 1970. In: Kraynak, ed 2005: 148. AC: Bruce Nauman “Mapping the Studio I (Fat chance John Cage) 2003: 7. 43

fig. 3. Bruce Nauman. Playing a note on the Violin While I Walk around the Studio. 1968. Source: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.

On-going activities: the element of duration

Next to exploring the element of space, Nauman’s 16mm Studio Films further investigated the structuring of time. Turning to film, Nauman explored the notion of duration, a characteristic inherent to the medium itself. In fact, his reel length films were meant to be shown in loops. Nauman once stated that his original intention: ‘was to run the films as loops, because they have to do with on-going activity.’167 Although for Nauman the loop was a way to emphasize a never ending activity, he was only able to make artworks within a time span of sixty minutes which could be repeated continuously in a loop with the medium of video. For the viewer in the gallery, these works would be endless.168 Introducing the medium of video in 1968, artworks such as: Bouncing in the Corner, No.1 (1968) Stamping in the Studio (1968), Violin Turned D.E.A.D (1969) were conceived in the autumn of 1968 after his installation at the Fischer gallery.169 The duration of the 16 mm films were often determined by psychological or physical fatigue as a way of playing out his own exercises and activities and exhausting his own possibilities.170 Art historian Robert C. Morgan has since highlighted that ‘(…) duration can also be confrontational just as an object, artifact, or

167 Sharp, Willoughby. Nauman Interview, 1970. In: Kraynak, ed 2005: 124. 168 Hegarty 2015: 33. 169 Art historian Coosje van Bruggen has stated the following: During the winter of 1968- 1969, Nauman lived temporarily in New York; while there he make several hour-long black-and-white videotapes: ‘Bouncing in the corner No.1, and no. 2. Lip Sync, Revolving Upside Down and Pacing Upside Down. Van Bruggen also (…) locates the conception of Stamping in the Studio in New York. See: Van Bruggen 1988: 232-234. 170 Davidts, Wouter and Kim Paice, eds. 2009: 98. 44

construction can exist in a reduction of its own space.’171 According to art historian Paul Schimmel, the element of exhaustion is key in terms of Nauman’s ability to engage with the viewer. For example, Schimmel contends that:‘(…) Nauman opts for a more consistent repetition, ruthless droning that can wear us down; we are receptive in our exhaustion. A tension set up that engages the viewer, but is never resolved.’172 Duration as the endless looping of activity and sound was a way for Nauman to interact with the viewer while at the same time repeating an isolated physical gesture, thereby questioning the nature of time itself.173

Fischer’s gallery space as essential element: between exhibition place and place of artistic production

From the very start Fischer approached the private gallery as a site for experimentation, and by extension, the opposite of a public museum space. For example, in his first letter to König in July 1967 Fischer stated that there were endless possibilities for artistic experiment in his gallery space. While still anticipating the possibility of organizing an exhibition with Robert Morris, he stated that: ‘Alles ist möglich. Ich könnte etwas nach seinem Plan hier bauen lassen. Man könnte aber auch zum Beispiel Sand in die Galerie fahren lassen, wo Bob [Morris] dann was formt. Das sollen keine Vorschläge, sondern nur Beispiele für Möglichkeiten sein (…).’174 Fischer’s gallery space was only eleven meters long and three meters wide and was situated between the Kunsthalle and Kunstakademie on the Neubrückstrasse in Düsseldorf. The gallery space was a former gateway for coaches and horses to get to the backside of the old building in the Altstadt. Fischer transformed the corridor into an exhibition space by installing two large glass doors on both sides of the outdoor gate.175 In 1989 Fischer recalled that his gallery space was often conceived as unusual and odd. Fischer stated: ‘Alle sagten: Um Gottes Willen! Ein Torbogen!'176

171 Morgan, Robert. ‘ Bruce Nauman; An Introductory Survey.’ in Morgan, ed. 2002:13. 172Full quote: ‘Simple actions repeated endlessly and with no sense of beginning or end provided Nauman with means to force the viewer into his process, his “loop.” Denying the viewer the usual building of involvement and subsequent cathartic release.’ See: Schimmel, Paul. ‘Pay Attention.’ See: Bruce Nauman 1994: 73. Nauman’s interest in the questions: how to structure time and how to structure activity are often related to traditions that go beyond the visual arts, such as contemporary dance and music. Among others: composer: John Cage and dancers and performers: and are seen as important references. Please see: Bruce Nauman: Topological garden 2009: 80 173 Anti-illusion: procedures/materials 1969: 37. 174 Letter from Konrad Fischer to Kaspar König. 8 July 1967. Archiv Kaspar König, ZADIK G20, IV, 2, 03, 1R. Translation: 'Everything is possible. I could have something built according to his plan here. One could, however, also let sand drive into the gallery where Bob [Morris] will make something out of. This should not be any suggestions, but only examples of possibilities (...).' Fischer stated in 1994: ‘Insofern ich keine Museumsausstellungen mache, können die Künstler experimentieren, denn eine Galerie ist relativ privat.’ Please see: Jocks 1994: 402 . 175 Dorothee Fischer, in conversation with the author, Düsseldorf, Germany, 3 March 2014. 176 Baum 1989: 279. Translation: ‘They all said, For God's sake! An archway!’ 45

A second letter from Fischer to König – now present in the ZADIK archive – from July 20, 1967 emphasizes the idea that artworks by American artists had to be produced in Düsseldorf from a construction plan. Fischer stated: ‘Ich möchte zu Anfang, wie gesagt: Leute wie Andre, LeWitt, Morris etc. zeigen. Ich denke mir das so: Die Künstler schicken mir einen Entwurf und eine Konstruktionszeichnung der Arbeiten, die in einer Einzelausstellung gezeigt werden sollen. Die lasse ich in Düsseldorf herstellen.’177 This first thought on production possibilities became an important formula for the gallery, as artworks were often executed somewhere else while the gallery covered manufacturing costs.178 Nevertheless, the conditions of the odd exhibition space made available to the artists became often an essential element for the establishment of their artwork. This influence can be exemplified already by the first work realized in Fischer’s gallery space, a work by American artist Carl Andre. Though Andre had tested the new introduction and production formula of the gallery in advance, he was forced to conclude upon his arrival that his original idea was no longer sufficient. Instead, a new sculpture had to be realized which would be adaptable to the gallery space. Reflecting on this occurrence, the artist later stated that ‘The plan for my show which I had mailed in advance was ripped up soon after I arrived. Never again would I even pretend to make up sculpture in my head.’ 179 Andre clearly states in a letter to König from October of 1967 that the last-minute change of plans clearly marked the need to see the gallery space, or, in other words, ‘to go to the place of the exhibition.’180 In October 1967, the Fischer’s gallery opened with a floor sculpture by Andre entitled 5 x 20 Altstadt Rectangle (1967, Dusseldorf, 2.5 x 10 meters). This work was adapted to the proportions of the gallery space by covering the floor completely with large manufactured squares of hot rolled steel. However, it left most of the gallery visitors with the question: ‘Where are the art works, if the gallery is empty?’181 In this way, the work demanded the presence of the viewer by walking on the artwork; emphasizing on the experience of the space; subverting the traditional values of sculpture.182 The artist preceding Andre often made a conscious reference to the strange height, width, and depth of the rectangular gallery space. For instance, LeWitt stated at the end of

177 Letter from Konrad Fischer to Kaspar König, 20 July 1967, Archiv Kaspar König, ZADIK. Reprinted in: ‘Kasper König und die Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer’ in: ‘Kaspar König, The Formative Years 2014: 61. Translation: ‘I would like to at the beginning, as I said: show people like LeWitt, Morris, etc. I think: the artists will send me a design and a technical drawing of the works, which are to be shown in the exhibition. I'll have them built in Düsseldorf.' 178 Unconcealed 2009: footnote 57. 179 Galerie mit Bleistift Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer, Düsseldorf Oktober 1967-Oktober 1992 1993: n.p. 180 Letter from Carl Andre to Kaspar König. 15 October 1967. Archiv Kaspar König. ZADIK. Reprinted in: ‘Kasper König und die Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer’ in: ‘Kaspar König, The Formative Years 2014: 62 181 Andre elaborated on the experience of most visitors when encountering his work as follows: ‘Most visitors thought the gallery is empty (…) to most people, empty walls meant an empty gallery.’ Please see: Meyer, ed. 2005: 119. 182 Van den Bosch 2000: 28. 46

November, ‘‘I would make the work specially for the gallery- but they could be send elsewhere if necessary.’183 This resulted in LeWitt filling the entire length of the gallery with his minimal work Cubes with Hidden Cubes (1967). Although the aforementioned letter drafted in February of 1968 from Nauman to König related to the possibility of creating a ‘sound piece’, Nauman would later explain that he had worked on some of the concepts ‘but…hadn’t conceived it as a unit.’184 The artist recalled bringing his violin with him and recording all the sounds in the gallery; putting the tapes together at the site’185 For Nauman, the Fischer Gallery was a working space in its most literal form, even resembling, perhaps, a studio. Later in 2001, Nauman elaborated in conversation with art historian Brigitte Kölle on the similarities between the lay-out of the gallery space and that of an artist studio. During this conversation, he stated that: ‘American galleries in that time — before everybody moved downtown and had big loft spaces—were smaller, were in houses. They were refined and clean and neat and had carpet on the floor. And this [Fischer's space] was so much more, just like being in a studio.’186 Also in February 1968, Lucy Lippard and John Chandler wrote their now-canonical article ‘The Dematerialization of art’, asserting that the studio had been granted a new significance. They described this shift: ‘As more and more work is designed in the studio, but executed elsewhere by professional craftsman, as the object becomes merely the end product, a number of artists are losing interest in the physical evolution of the work of art. The studio is again becoming a study.’187 They emphasized that the studio was a place for intellectual labor instead of manual practice, a place where ideas were born not executed. Andre and LeWitt have been considered post-studio artists purely because they executed their ideas elsewhere. This notion of the artworks as result, however, as merely an ‘end product’, is somewhat problematic. For example, in the case of Fischer’s gallery it can be interpreted that these artists were operating within the specific space, the materials at hand and details in production, and that these elements played an essential role in the physical evolution as well as ideological conception of the works. More remarkably even in the case of Nauman is that his work paradoxically preserved the relationship between the work and its place of production as the place were activity is carried out. This suggests that Nauman’s artistic process remained traceable throughout the length of the exhibition, eventually becoming the very subject of his installation.

183 Thomas Kellein, ‘ It was all through Konrad.’ in: With a Probability of Being Seen: Dorothee and Konrad Fischer, Archives of an Attitude 2011:108. 184 Kolle 2007: 182. 185 Kolle 2007: 182. 186 Kölle 2007: 189. 187 Lippard 1997: 40. 47

Installing some ideas: Six Sound problems for Konrad Fischer (1968)

The installation made by Nauman for his opening at the Fischer gallery (on the 10th of July), titled 6 day week−6 sound problems for Konrad Fischer can be approached as Nauman’s first sound installation in a public setting after having experimented with recorded sound in his own studio.188 However, this time the galley space became a place of production. Just as in the case of his Studio Films, the space was again a tool, topic, and setting at once, in which he executed, recorded and questioned his own activity.189 Over a period of six weeks Fischer’s gallery functioned as a setting in which a tape-recorder and its medium-specific elements – the non-objectified element of sound and the visual materiality of sound tape – played an important role. The installation consisted of six sound tapes, and every day a different tape was played in a loop on a tape-recorder placed on a small stool just off the center of the gallery. The tape-recorder seemed to have been positioned against the opposite wall from the gallery desk (for the exact placement of the tape- recorder see figures 5. and 6.). Five of the six sound-tapes were made visible through Nauman’s installation method, in which he would cut the physical tape into variable lengths and thread the tape loop ‘at one end through the recorder and at the other loosely wound around a pencil’. 190 Over a five day period the position of the chair changed each day, therefore the materiality of the sound tape transformed into a spatial element. On the sixth day, the tape was played on both reels of the apparatus, only using the loop inherent to the medium itself.191 While reacting to the particular space and time of the gallery, Nauman’s installation became as site- specific as it was time-specific. 192 For his installation, Nauman recorded six different sounds on tape that had to be re-played over a six day period. As a result, each day featured the recording of a different activity that could be both seen and heard by the visitor.193 Some of the ongoing activities central to his Studio films, such as ‘playing the violin’, ‘walking’, and ‘bouncing two balls’ were also present in Nauman’s installation at Fischer’s gallery. However the condition in which they were carried out and recorded shifted from studio to gallery and from film to tape-recorder. The outcome of this approach resulted in six separate site-specific sounds attached to a time- specific weekly schedule: ‘Mondays: walking in the gallery, Tuesdays: bouncing two balls in the gallery, Wednesdays violin sounds in the gallery, Thursdays walking and bouncing balls, Fridays walking and violin sounds and Saturday violin sounds and bouncing balls.’194 From Monday to Saturday, the traces of

188 Nauman stated about the exposure of sound in Six Sounds for Konrad Fischer: ‘The first one I did, the one I think is the first piece, is Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer [1968] (…) See: Simon, Joan. Hear here. 10 October 2004. frieze.com 20 May 2017 < https://frieze.com/article/hear-here> 189 Van Damme, ed. 2009: 189. 190 Van Bruggen 1988: 233. 191 ‘Joan Simon. Beckett and Nauman’ in: - Bruce Nauman 2000: 23. 192 O'Neill, ed. 2007: 66. 193 Van Bruggen 1988: 233. 194 Galerie mit Bleistift Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer, Düsseldorf Oktober 1967-Oktober 1992 1993:21. The invitation card for Nauman’s gallery exposition highlights these sounds as carried out in the gallery. 48

Nauman’s activities in the gallery could be heard on endless loop, thus could be approached as on-going.195 The invitation card for Nauman’s gallery exposition, which was comparable to a Fluxus score in which events were written down in brief verbal notations and instructions, reproduced Nauman’s handwritten weekly timetable in order to make the audience aware of the variable sounds and his former production process in the gallery. In addition, this highlighted the performative task Nauman had set himself earlier in the gallery. (fig.4.)

fig. 4. Invitation card Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer, 1968. Galerie Konrad Fischer Düsseldorf.

Interestingly the exhibition catalogue Cloud & Crystal (2016) shows a little card on which Nauman still highlights the concept of the studio. The card shows: 1. Monday walking in the Studio, 2. Tuesday: Bouncing two balls in the studio, Wednesday: Violin sounds in the studio, Thursdays walking with violin sounds, Friday: walking with bouncing balls. Saturday: Bouncing balls with with violin sounds See: Cloud & Chrystal 2016: 76. 195 Art historians have paralleled Nauman’s investigation in the object of the tape-recorder and re-playing his recorded activity in the gallery with Beckett’s play Krapp’s Last Tape (1958). In this monologue Krapp interrupts, speeds forward, rewinds and comments on his own past experiences recorded on a tape-recorder; while sitting on a chair behind a table with a tape-recorder. Coosje van Bruggen (1988) Joan Simon (2000) and Brigitte Kölle (2005) have addressed parallels between Six Sound problems for Konrad Fischer (1968) and Beckett’s play Krapp’s Last Tape (1958). For example Simon pointed out that both Krapp and Nauman show an interest in the apparatus of the tape-recorder; both had the urge to manipulate and control this machine and thus the concept of memory existing in time and space. (see; ‘Joan Simon. Beckett and Nauman’ in: Samuel Beckett - Bruce Nauman 2000: 23.) Kölle stated that both Krapp and Nauman were exposing evidence of human activity in a constant circulation of the past; they both showed that reflections on time are closely connected to human presence and existence.’ (see: Kölle 2005: 149.) Although Nauman indeed invoked Beckett’s influence in 1968 in two works: Beckett diagram II, and in a video work Slow Angle Walk (Beckett Walk), he stated in relation to Six Sound problems for Konrad Fischer that he was not particularly influenced by Beckett's play: ‘ no, not by that. I didn’t know about that.’(See: Kolle 2007: 182). 49

fig. 5. Installation drawing for Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer (1968). (49 x 63.5 cm) Source photo: Bruce Nauman. Werke aus belgischen, deutschen und niederländische Sammlungen 2000: 49.

Furthermore, Nauman’s installation drawing (fig.5.), which according to Kölle was shown in the exhibition space, highlights the way in which the sound tape loops would vary each day in direction and length, moving the chair in different directions across the parameters of the format of the peculiar gallery space.196 On Tuesdays and Thursdays visitors would encounter sound loops that would block and divide the small corridor space diagonally-however on Tuesday the diagonal loop was much larger in length because the sound tape had to bridge a much wider distance to the chair on the opposite of the room. On Wednesdays visitors would see the loop divide the space vertically, as the chair was placed facing the direct opposite of the wall where the tape- recorder was situated. On Mondays and Fridays the sound tapes were situated horizontally along the gallery wall; however again, because the tape-recorder was placed out of center, both loops of recording tape would stretch from the position of the tape-recorder to the chair at end of the gallery space in variable lengths.197 In the

196 Kölle, 2005: 144. 197 A Letter from Konrad Fischer to Kasper König, 27.8.1968. Archiv Kasper König. ZADIK G20, IV, 2, 24, 1R. Reprinted in: ‘Kasper König und die Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer’ in: ‘Kaspar König, The Formative Years 2014: 72. 50

archive at the ZADIK there is a letter dated from the end of July, in which Fischer explains to König the spatial element of Nauman’s installation in order to inform König on the other side of the Atlantic on the outcome of Nauman’s activity in the gallery. Again, this letter shows a small drawing of the space in which the different positions of the sound tape loops are illustrated.198 What can be interpreted from this is that over a period of six days Nauman was creating a radiating pattern and changing the physical layout of the space. In addition to attracting his audience to the space by playing traces of his own performance in a loop, the element of the loop itself became a sculptural element in which each new daily layout initiated a new spatial experience.199

Changing relationships within one particular momentum for artist, gallery-owner and audience

The momentum of Nauman’s three week stay in Germany, while the installation was on view for a six-week period, changed the practice of the presentation and involvement for artist, gallerist, and audience. Nauman incorporated several elements in the installation at Fischer’s gallery that had been present in his investigative attitude described at the beginning of this chapter, such as investigating the potential of conceptual formats such as duration and repetition in a fixed setting and engaging the viewer with the concept of time and space by highlighting repetitive actions in a certain format. Furthermore, Nauman exposed the viewer to a production process, identifying or setting up a problem as central starting point for his artwork. There was, however, one particular new aspect in Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer; Nauman had withdrawn from view, as he was both physically and visibly absent and his activity remained only traceable by sound. This time, Nauman was not reflecting on his presence in the studio as a fundamentally artistic act, but rather, his visual and physical absence in the gallery became an important artistic element in its own right. The gallery owner, or at least someone present in the gallery space, became responsible for the shifting elements in the installation by specific instructions defined by the premise of time, including the opening hours of the gallery 6 days a week. This peculiar, alienating effect of ongoing, looming, daily-changing sounds is something the gallery owner was seemingly forced to endure the longest, as Nauman wrote to Fischer at the end of July, 1968, ‘I hope you are not driven mad by the sounds yet (…).’200 Yet most of all, the viewer was exposed in the corridor shaped gallery to the traces and remnants of Nauman’s presence and activity by recorded sound, while at the same time being confronted with the spatial conditions of the gallery divided by the loops of sound tape. This suggests that in Fischer’s gallery Nauman highlighted the ambiguity between seeing and hearing what happened in the space while as a visitor being equally present. Just as in most of his works, Nauman did not directly communicate to his audience a solution to

198 A Letter from Konrad Fischer to Kasper König, 27.8.1968. Archiv Kasper König ZADIK G20, IV, 2, 24, 1R. Reprinted in: ‘Kasper König und die Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer’ in: ‘Kaspar König,The Formative Years 2014: 72. 199 Simon, Joan. Hear here. 10 October 2004. frieze.com 20 May 2017 < https://frieze.com/article/hear-here> 200 Letter from Bruce Nauman to Konrad Fischer 22.7.1968. Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Schenkung, ZADIK: A96, V, 1B, 149, V. 51

this tension.201 In Six Sound problems for Konrad Fischer, for instance, Nauman’s experimental investigation in the conditions and definition of medium, space, and activity suddenly become the direct problem of the gallery visitor. In this case, the viewer is left with the issue of how to relate and identify the two changing elements of sound in the peculiar gallery space. At the same time, this also granted a new significance for Fischer’s gallery by making the space, even for only a short period, one which was constantly under construction.

The corridor as an intriguing space

The odd layout of the corridor at the gallery not only gave structure to Nauman’s installation, but also actively intrigued the artist throughout its creation.[fig.2.] Nauman’s search for arranging the loops and dividing the space is present in the installation sketch, which illustrates that the gallery space is drawn twice in search for the right position of the loops. The first drawing is the mirrored image of the final installment. Fischer’s front desk is situated on the other side of the gallery wall and the tape loops are depicted in the exact opposite of their final setting, however this drawing is crossed out with pencil and the final installment is depicted in the rectangular sketch underneath. At the same time, the fact that Nauman is reacting to the architecture of Fisher’s space is present in the changing elements in the actual installation, in that the loops eventually went every day in a different direction. Nauman’s engagement with investigating the gallery space was also confirmed by artist Jan Dibbets, whose exhibition opened a week after Nauman’s on August 15, 1968.202 Just like the other artists Dibbets, stayed at Fischer’s attic throughout the preparations of his exhibition and was faced with the sparse interior of the attic consisting of only a bed, a table, and one chair.203 The artist who had last been present in the room was Bruce Nauman, and Dibbets uncovered a large roll of paper consisting of between 25 or 40 drawings by Nauman in a wastebasket under the table. Dibbets recalled that each of the drawings were connected to the installation at Fischer’s gallery and depicted how the threads of the sound tape could run throughout the length of that space. The drawings uncovered a search for how to present the work in the space and that remarkably at the end of this process only one drawing remained, as the others were thrown away.204 In 2011, Nauman recalled his productivity at Fischer’s attic, describing his stay as follows: ‘I stayed in a little attic apartment Konrad had, he gave me a little pile of paper, and I probably made some drawings (…).205 In 2007, Nauman stated that there was a certain working ethos: ‘Bruce, here is some paper and some pencils. You should make some drawings. Don’t just sit there!206 Later he recalled that it had been ‘lots of drawings.’207

201 Van Bruggen 1988: 233. 202 Galerie mit Bleistift Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer, Düsseldorf Oktober 1967-Oktober 1992 1993: n.p. 203 Jan Dibbets, in conversation with the author, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2 June 2017. 204 Jan Dibbets, in conversation with the author, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2 June 2017. 205 See: Smolik. Noemi. An American in Dusseldorf. 4.08. 2011. 14-03-2017. 206 Kölle 2007: 188. 52

For Nauman the gallery was an interesting platform, and remarkably the architectural setting: space and shape of the corridor remained a central element in Nauman’s installations in the following years of his artistic career. It is equally valuable to reconsider Nauman’s introduction to the gallery space with respect to the question of whether Nauman’s interest for the corridor as architectural object was endorsed by the odd shape of the gallery in Düsseldorf and furthermore, if this space could have possibly been the beginning of further investigations in the architectural setting of the corridor. This is not yet addressed in art-historical literature. The possibility that this first transatlantic exchange also made a mark on the development of Nauman’s own artistic practice, is significant to reconsider. After his installation at Fischer’s gallery during the winter of 1968-1969, Nauman created a corridor with abnormal measurements (6 meters long, 2.5 meters high and 0,5 meters width) as a set for his video work Walk with Contrapposto (1968-1969).208 Nauman took into account the ways in which he could navigate himself to the end of the narrow corridor. In order to get through, for instance, Nauman clasped his hands behind his neck, and swung his hips from side to side in an exaggerated manner. At the same time, these movements required to reach the end of the space presented both a mental and physical challenge.209 More importantly, the set of the corridor would later become an architectural installation in its own right. In May of 1969, Nauman presented the exhibition Anti Illusion: Procedure/ Materials (Whitney Museum of American Art, 1969), which included this corridor as performance area. This sculpture fused his sculptural and performance activities into a single architectural object. In this architectural installation, Nauman controlled the situation and performative actions of his audience by exposing and inviting them to the limited and cramped space of the corridor. 210 Just as in Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer, the corridor was a performance area in which Nauman was absent. Furthermore, the corridor itself was an architectural element, as it stimulated the viewer’s own awareness of the surrounding space and used its specific shape to manipulate the experience of the viewer.211 Nauman’s architectural corridor installations between 1968 and the late 1970s were often conceived as temporary exhibits, with their dimensions determined in precise construction drawings adapted for a particular exhibition setting.212 From this point onwards, the corridor space was re-staged and constantly exhibited in museums and galleries.

207Plagens 2014: 92. 208 A Rose Has No Teeth; Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 94. 209 A Rose Has No Teeth; Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 88. 210 Benezra, Neal. ‘Surveying Nauman’ in Bruce Nauman 1994: 26. 211 Bruce Nauman: Topological garden 2009: 75.. 212 Blume 2010: 74 53

fig. 6. Installation photo of Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer. Konrad Fischer Galerie. Source photo : Bruce Nauman. Werke aus belgischen, deutschen und niederländische Sammlungen 2000: 48

54

Doing some work: studies for sculptures and sculptural projects:

fig. 7. Left: Bruce Nauman. Untitled (Study for Unfinished Sculpture) Inscribed: “(five stacks high): 5. Steel block, 4. Steel block pressed between my palms, 2. Steel block pressed between two steel blocks. 1. Steel block.” 1968. Right: Untitled (Study for Unfinished Sculpture) Inscribed: ‘Cubic foot of steel pressed between my palms/ Cubic foot of steel/ Cubic foot of steel pressed between 2 Cubics of steel/ cubic foot of steel/’ The right corner marked: 850 kg.’ 1968. Source: Van Bruggen 1988: 176-177.

As highlighted already in the first chapter, Fischer explicitly asked Nauman to ‘bring some ideas’ to Düsseldorf in order to execute them in Europe.213 In 1988, art historian Coosje van Bruggen reflected on three drawings Nauman made in the attic of Fischer’s apartment. These drawings, all entitled Study for Unfinished Sculpture (and dedicated to Konrad and Dorothee Fischer), served as proposals for heavy ‘Stack Pieces’, works made up of steel plates stacked on each other. What they had in common was the fact that they were never executed, they were drawn with a pencil on paper and they indicated the potential of becoming incredibly heavy. The first of the three drawings, for instance, was inscribed with the instructions: ‘Cubic foot of steel pressed between my palms/ Cubic foot of steel/ Cubic foot of steel pressed between 2 Cubics of steel/ cubic foot of steel/’ The right corner marked: 850 kg’ (fig. 7).214 Art historians have noted that Nauman suggested his own involvement in the minimal shaped construction, particularly by highlighting the sentence: ‘pressed between my

213 Letter from Konrad Fischer to Bruce Nauman, the 28th of May 1968. Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer ZADIK, A096, V001B, 0150, 001. 214 Van Bruggen 1988: 176. 55

palms’ - stating that ‘the artist’s handling had somehow compressed the steel from its cubic shape.’215 The second drawing features the instructions ‘Plain steel plate/ steel plate squeezed between my palms / some (soft) things from my pockets/ photo of 2 balls/ photo of my violin/ photo of my face/ several 60 cm sq x 3 cm thick steel plates with things between them/ each plate 122 kg’.216 Interestingly enough, this drawing refers also to elements of the work Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer, including a photo of two balls and a photo of his violin. In short: traces of his own activity and existence, memorabilia of his own presence at one particular momentum, however only by labeling the viewer knew what was possibly hidden. Lastly, the third drawing shows the inscription: ‘(five stacks high): 5. Steel block, 4. Steel block pressed between my palms, 2. Steel block pressed between two steel blocks. 1. Steel block.’ This inscription referred to his own involvement in pressing one of the steel plates between the sandwiched industrial blocks - adding a subjective view. One could argue that this works directly opposes the nature of a work like Donald Judd’s Stacks from 1967, which evoked a rigidly objective industrial appearance, avoiding any connotations with outside objects, including, even, the involvement of the artist as their creator.217 Sol LeWitt even went so far as to state during the 1968 Documenta that his work was a reaction against the subjective, claiming that ‘subjective involvement implies a certain kind of ego involvement.’218 While Nauman himself was unable to execute these sculptures with his own hands, he added an element belying a purely minimal intent: he included and referred to previous remnants of his own artistic involvement. Paradoxically, just as in Six Sound Problems for Konrad Fischer, these proposals referred to both presence and absence, withdrawal and engagement in artistic production.219

The guarantee of selling and executing some ideas: Nebato, Bergeyk, 1968

A third component of the Fischer gallery to which Nauman was introduced was the guarantee of selling and executing ideas. Along with the establishment of a new exhibition program and the development of site-specific works there was another important factor for Fischer’s new gallery, namely, the support and emergence of a small group of devoted art collectors and a younger generation of museum directors. In 1971, Fischer stated: 'What’s important for me is not how to sell things but how to get information across to those who are interested, so that in due course the artists I represent get somewhere, and people say, ‘Fischer got the right man.’ I think the usual dealer’s attitude, neglecting anything that has nothing to do with sales, is absolutely wrong. I see myself as an art agent; this is a long-term job (…).’220 Fischer, further, stated in 1971 on his support system:

215 Bruce Nauman. Drawings 1965-1986 1986: 20. 216 Van Bruggen 1988: 177. 217 Hopkins 2000: 135-136. 218 (Documenta 4. Directed by Jef Cornelis), 2012. 219 AC: Bruce Nauman “Mapping the Studio I (Fat chance John Cage) 2003: 25. 220 Jappe 1971: 71. (68-71) 56

‘The first collectors were a Dutch couple, the Vissers (…).’221 Indeed, from their first encounter at Fischer gallery, the Dutch collector couple Mia and Martin Visser as well as Martin’s brother Geert-Jan Visser often on the side-lines, guaranteed to buy and to execute ideas. This combination made possible through their close ties with a local construction and metalwork firm in Bergeyk known as Nebato, which was supervised by Dick van der Net.’222 Martin Visser, himself an interior designer, used to work together with Van der Net to create his own designs.223 There is only one article written in 1969 by Jean Leering and Wies Leering- van Moorsel for Dutch magazine Museumjournaal entitled ‘Kunst maken in Bergeyk,’ which maps out the productivity and activities of American artists at Nebato between the years of 1967 and 1969. The other source for a certain momentum of productivity and activities at Nebato are, of course, the artworks themselves. In 1969, according to Leering and Van Moorsel, Nebato deserved the attention of a wider public due to its unique involvement with the production of American art. 224 The authors emphasized that the workshop of Nebato had become a meeting point for the exchange of ideas between contemporary artists, dealers, and collectors. Leering and Van Moorsel’s article reprinted an agenda of artists having been involved with this collaboration between October 1967 and January 1969. They highlighted which projects were commissioned by the Vissers’ and by dealers such as Fischer, Heiner Friedrich, Leo Castelli, and Ileana Sonnabend, as well as the artists themselves, including (among others), Andre, LeWitt, Morris, Walter de Maria, Smithson,225 The conception of this collaboration was closely related to an encounter in Fischer’s gallery space. In 1967, the Vissers commissioned Carl Andre to create a new work for their home after having had met him in person in Düsseldorf. This was the first time that Nebato was implemented for the execution of artworks.226 The resulting artwork, entitled Square Piece (1967) was eventually sold through Fischer’s gallery.227 This established new possibilities, namely that the works shown at Fischer’s second exhibition of Sol LeWitt were produced at Nebato. The agenda illustrates that artists in Fischer’s gallery often came in the company with Fischer to the steel firm. Somewhat later, a professional partnership between Mia Visser and Dick van der Net was established under the name Edition Bergeyk, for which Mia Visser became an intermediary between artists and the steel company, often herself arranging instructions and (trans-Atlantic)

221 Jappe 1971: 71. (68-71) 222 Van den Bosch 2000: 20. 223 Leering and Leering-Van Moorsel 1969: 80-85. 224 Leering and Leering-Van Moorsel 1969: 80-85. The authors elaborated on an economic reason for this phenomenon, which was primarily that the work of American artist’s could be shown on European exhibitions such as Documenta IV and Fischer’s Prospect exhibitions without their characteristically high transportation costs. However, they were also produced often for American art exhibitions such as ‘The Art of the Real’ in 1968 at the . Paula Feldman Sankoff. ‘ Martin and Mia Visser: Made in Bergeijk.’ In: Martin Visser, verzamelaar, ontwerper, vrije geest 2012: 21. 225 Leering and Leering-Van Moorsel 1969: 80-85. 226 Leering and Leering-Van Moorsel 1969: 80-85. 227 Three Blind Mice 1968: 26. 57

transports.228 Sol LeWitt took advantage of this new production possibility most often, as he would outsource the production of numerous projects to Nebato from December 1967 to September 1968. The third American artist visiting the workshop was, Robert Morris, he would discuss in February of 1968 the execution of several works for the Van Abbemuseum and the Documenta in Bergeyk.229 Lastly, the fourth encounter with an American artist is described in the documentation as ‘July 1968, Bruce Nauman with K, Fischer in Bergeyk.’ The only remaining evidence of this visit is a small photograph in which Nauman is depicted with his back to the camera.230 According to art historian Paula van den Bosch it was even a necessity that Fischer, as a gallerist, endeavored to obtain guarantees for purchases in order to enable Nauman to come to Germany in the summer of 1968.231 The Vissers saw a handful of dealers and museum professionals as their trusted advisors. These figures included, among others, Alfred Schmela, Konrad Fischer, Anny de Decker, and Jean Leering.232 The archival documentation of The Visser collection (now part of the Kröller Müller Museum) gives insight into the purchasing procedure of these collectors. Martin, Mia, and Geert-Jan Visser bought twenty-two works, mostly working drawings, by Nauman between the years of 1968 and 1983. Of these twenty-two works, twenty were acquired through the Fischer gallery.233 In 1968, Mia and Martin Visser acquired four of Nauman’s working drawings through Fischer, of which Nebato executed three works in steel after the summer of 1968. These works included Study for First Poem Piece from 1968 (executed as First Poem Piece; 1.5 x 152.5 x 152.5, 230kg), Study for First Poem Piece from 1968 (an unrealized plan for a sound version of First Poem Piece –as mentioned above), Drawing for: Thick Mirror with Hole in Center placed Face down on a Steel Plate, Hole kept filled with Water, signed for Martin and Mia Visser, Bruce Nauman, Düsseldorf 1968 (executed as: Tick Mirror (face down) on steel plate 3 x 120 x 120 cm, 250 kg,).234 Geert-Jan Visser acquired one drawing through Fischer, namely, Space under my Steel chair in Düsseldorf, signed ‘Bruce Nauman, Düsseldorf 1968, for Geertjan Visser’ (this work was

228 Paula Feldman Sankoff. ‘ Martin and Mia Visser: Made in Bergeijk.’In: Martin Visser, verzamelaar, ontwerper, vrije geest 2012: 21. 229 Leering and Leering-Van Moorsel 1969: 80-85. 230 Leering and Leering-Van Moorsel 1969: 80-85. 231 Van den Bosch 2000: 280 232 Leering- director at the Van Abbemuseum- and the Visser’s were good friends; the Visser’s first American purchase was a work by Dan Flavin after Leering described Flavin’s work -after his first trip to New York in 1965. This trip was as discussed in the previous chapter. Van den Bosch 2000: 9. According to art historian Paula van den Bosch the Dutch collectors Martin and Mia Vissers encountered the work of Nauman through an article in Artforum titled: ‘The Art of Bruce Nauman’ (December 1967), which they read in the spring of 1968. Please see: Van den Bosch 2000: 278. 233 518 Collectie Visser (KMM) Kröller Müller Museum Archive, 110 dossier: 488. 518 Collectie Visser, (KMM) 110 dossier: 486. And please see: Little Arena: Drawings and Sculptures from the Collection Adri, Martin and Geertjan Visser 1984: 106. 234 Van den Bosch 2000: 280-285. 58

executed by Nebato in concrete as A Cast of the space under my chair, 45 x 39 x 37 cm, 500 kg).235 The last two drawings intended for Nebato were signed for Dick van der Net by Bruce Nauman in Düsseldorf in 1968. The first sculpture proposal was titled Two Blocks of Lead Driven Apart By A Steel Wedge (the physical sculpture is hard to locate, art historian Paula van den Bosch has argued that because of its weight and price only one of the plates could be executed in steel). A similar drawing is titled: Steel Wedge Forced between a Steel Plate and a Lead Wedge (1968) (this work was possible executed by Nebato as: Untitled (wedge), 5 x 60.9x 60.9 cm).236 Art historian Paula van den Bosch argued that after these five works, the collaboration between Nauman and the Vissers at Nebato came to an end.237 The five projects for Nebato in 1968 are often approached either within a continuum of Nauman’s own investigative attitude, or that their construction is conceived in an earlier stage of his career. For example, the working drawing Study for First Poem Piece, is signed ‘San Francisco/ Düsseldorf’ hereby emphasizing the notion of the continuum. Space under my Steel chair in Düsseldorf is dated 1965-1968, because Nauman had executed this idea already in 1966 when he plastered the space under his chair in a provisional version.238 This time, however, the work was based on the ordinary object of a chair, which was part of the interior of Fischer’s attic were Nauman was staying in 1968.239 Although at first these sculptural projects may seems entirely dissimilar, these sculpture projects all, in fact, challenge the standardized and mechanical appearance of the object by facing the beholder with linguistic, performative, or hidden elements of information and evidence as precisely prescribed by the artist. The outcome of these drawings as objects – though unsupervised by the artist - can only be comprehended conceptually. It is this very discrepancy between the information preceding these sculptures and their final state as objects which defines their meaning.240

235 518 Collectie Visser (KMM) Kröller Müller Museum Archive, 110 dossier: 488. (KMM) 518 Collectie Visser, Kröller Müller Museum Archive 110 dossier: 486. 236 Two Block of Lead Driven Apart by a Steel Wedge (1968) became in 1986, part of the Visser Collection. Please see: Van den Bosch 2000: 286. The drawing: Steel Wedge Forced between a Steel Plate and a Lead Wedge (1968) is highlighted in: Bruce Nauman: Drawings, Zeichnungen 1965-1986 1986: n.p. the sculpture Untitled (wedge) matches the drawing and was sold to collector Wolfgang Hahn. Please see: Overzichtstentoonstelling: Bruce Nauman 1973: 89. 237 Van den Bosch 2000: 278. 238Van den Bosch 2000: 280. 239 The working drawing for Space under my Steel chair in Düsseldorf, 1968, shows a square minimal block, with exact measurements on the sidelines of the sketch. The artwork was based on the ordinary object of a chair, that was part of the interior of Fischer’s attic were Nauman was staying in 1968. In 1980, Nauman recalled: ‘One of the pieces I did the first time I was in Germany was a piece called A Cast of the Space Under My chair. It was the chair I had in the apartment I was staying in. I was doing some work for Konrad Fischer. It was a chair that was made after the war, it was all made out of steel, very square, just straight sides and braces underneath. And when we made the cast of the space underneath, it had this very strange - a little concrete castle, kind of - it was very strange to have this title, which was a description of what the thing was in relation to the visual, the object, which took on sort of a character of it’s own. It didn’t read as the space under my chair, but was a little toy castle. So those things of thought were very interesting. Kraynak, ed 2005: 253. 240 Just before going to Europe, Nauman had outsourced the execution of a steel sculpture, this sculpture titled: Dark (1968) consisted of minimal square steel block of 10 x 122 x 122 cm and weighed 1000 kg, On the bottom of the work, Nauman inscribed the word Dark. However, because of it’s enormous weight, the viewer could 59

As Tuchman highlighted in the article ‘American Art in Germany: The history of a Phenomenon’, which was quoted at the beginning of this chapter, there was both widespread acceptance and appreciation of American art in Europe. This was be demonstrated by the interests of the Vissers and the various projects of Nebato, yet they were not the only collectors increasingly intrigued by Nauman’s work. The ZADIK archive holds a letter written from art collector di Biumo to Konrad Fischer one day before the opening of Nauman’s exhibition on July 9th, 1968. In this letter, Panza announces that he is interested in Nauman and inquires which artworks were available for sale.241 In the following period between 1968 and 1969, Panza acquired forty of Nauman’s works.242 In the mid-1970s, he bought projects for various installations, sometimes only in the form of a plan. Interestingly enough, his name is also present in archival documentation at the Van Abbemuseum having to do with his acquisition of Nauman’s early Corridor installation which had been shown at the museum in 1969.243

impossible verify this information, Dark could only be fully comprehended conceptually. Please see: A Rose Has No Teeth; Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 205. 241 Brief from Panza di Biumo to Konrad Fischer. 9.7. 1968. Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, ZADIK A096, IV, 1D, 237. 242 Please see ‘Database 5: The Panza Collection at the Guggenheim Museum, New York.’ In: Richard 2009: 319. This database shows that Panza often acquired work from Nauman through dealers: Leo Castelli, Ileana Sonnabend and Konrad Fischer. Castelli stated about the new approach of Panza: ‘Beyond any doubt the most fervent and extraordinary collector I ever came across is Count Panza of . When he gets involved with an artist, he buys en masse.’ Please see: Dossin 2015: 214. 243 Letter from Leering to Panza, 19 May 1970. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 223.

60

30th of June, Bergeijk 1968: from left to right: Mia Visser, Martijn Visser, Dorothée Fischer, Sol LeWitt, Geert van der Net, Martin Visser, Bruce Nauman. Source: Kunst Maken in Bergeijk,” Museumjournaal 14 , no. 2 (April 1969 ): 83.

Coming back to the question central in this chapter: what if the gallery is a studio and the studio is situated on the other side of the Atlantic?

On many levels, Fischer ultimately created an unconventional gallery. He not only introduced a new exhibition program which for the first time included a new generation of conceptual artists, but he also literally established an unconventional gallery space by turning what had previously been a former gateway into a true exhibition space. First inviting the artists to the exhibition space in 1967 as a way of redefining the space as a place of production rather than merely presentation, what Fischer rendered at his gallery was at the time truly a new phenomenon. This radical change illustrates a reaction to artists occupied with the discovery of new criteria for art-making, and more importantly even, artists whom redefined the gallery space by using it for the realization

61

of their artwork. In the case of the Fischer gallery, the odd space could not simply be ignored. Therefore, I have highlighted that artists showing at Fischer's gallery were not merely presenting an end-product, but were often actively engaged with the specific space of the gallery. For Nauman, Fischer’s new conditions - in relation to his own artistic practice- resulted the opportunity of realizing his first site-specific installation in a public setting, and therefore, also a new way to use the gallery. In 1966, the space of Nauman’s studio became a condition for defining any form of activity into an artistic act. In 1967, Nauman’s studio films showed a radical shift from art as product to art as activity by using the studio as a platform to explore duration, physical exercises, and the space itself. Nauman stated that Fischer’s gallery space resembled a studio. In his installation Six Sound Problems (1968) Nauman placed emphasis on the gallery as place of production by exposing viewers to the traces of his previous artistic process that had taken place in the same space. Nauman’s first site-specific installation can be highlighted as a key example of the changing practices and relationships occurring between artist, gallery-owner, and audience. Nauman’s installation reacted to the particular space and time of the gallery and could be regarded as site- specific as well as time-specific. At the same time, the installation introduced a new ambiguity concerned with the presence and absence of the artist. This time, the viewer was charged with the problematizing of what happened in the space while the space itself was under construction. Furthermore, the question of whether Nauman’s encounter in Germany with the strange corridor space left a mark on his own artistic practice remains significant to consider. I have addressed the value of reconsidering this first transatlantic exchange, notably, it cannot be ignored that it was only after having shown at the Fischer gallery that Nauman began to create his own architectural corridor settings. Following the momentum of a three week trip in the summer of 1968 shows that there was more productivity and activity. This time, however, it was located outside the gallery space. Fischer could add an ingredient to his formula in addition to requesting ideas from the artists themselves, as it turned out that a small group of collectors was devoted to the execution and purchasing of these ideas. Nauman was introduced to Nebato at Bergeyk and there he executed at least six projects. These artworks again highlighted discrepancies in terms of presence and absence and withdrawal and engagement in artistic production and are only completed by a conceptual process.

62

Chapter three: Group show mania, Nauman’s exposure in an European museum context in 1969

In the winter of 1968 Nauman recorded himself yelling, growling, and whispering the sentence: “GET OUT OF MY MIND GET OUT OF THIS ROOM… get out of my mind get out of this room...”244 These recorded sounds were created specifically to be played in an installation featuring an empty square room with hidden speakers. The installation, which was entitled Get Out of My Mind, Get Out of This Room (1968), created a paradox in which the architectural space invites for entry while the recorded comments demand expulsion. Thus, Nauman’s audience is confronted with a psychological response of uneasiness, and these conflicting sensations become the key subject of the artwork.245 In January 1969, the installation was shown at Nauman’s solo exhibition at the Nicholas Wilder Gallery in Los Angeles.246 Later in 2004, Nauman stated that the conception of the artwork was connected to the feeling of being tired of demands after doing a lot of solo and group shows in the United States and Europe. On these topics, he expressed his feelings as follows: ‘I felt like there was a lot of pressure. I had the show at Leo’s [Leo Castelli Gallery], and a show before that in 1968 with Konrad Fischer and then I was in a lot of group shows in New York and Europe. I felt like over that winter of 1968–9 everything I thought of got used up. (...) I wanted to move, and a lot of that piece was connected to that feeling I had of being devoured.’247 For Nauman, the year of 1969 was one of extremes. On the one hand he was working freely in the isolated private sphere of the studio, yet on the other he was experiencing a high volume of demands in the public sphere of galleries and museums on both side of the Atlantic.248 From the winter of 1968-1969 until May 1969, Nauman briefly worked in a studio in Southampton in New York.249 It was here where Nauman started to experiment with the medium of video and conceived at least ten video works.250 During that same winter, preparations for public events began. Nauman had two solo exhibitions, first of which was held at the Nicholas Wilder gallery in Los Angeles at the beginning of 1969, and the second of which opened at the Leo Castelli

244 Krayak 2005: 2. 245 Bruce Nauman: Topological garden 2009: 103. 246 A Rose Has No Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007:209. 247 Simon, Joan. Hear here. 10 October 2004. frieze.com 20 May 2017 < https://frieze.com/article/hear-here> 248 Chris Dercon, ‘Keep Taking It Apart: A conversation with Bruce Nauman’, in: Janet Kraynak (red.), Please Pay Attention Please: Bruce Nauman’s Words. Writings and Interviews, Massachusetts 2003, p. 309. 249 In the fall of 1968 Nauman received an Individual Artist fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts. Nauman was offered to use the summerhouse of Paul Waldman and Roy Lichtenstein in Southampton. Please see: A Rose Has No Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 88. 250 Nauman created the the following video’s: Bouncing in the Corner no.1, Bouncing in the Corner no. 2. Revolving Upside Down, Slow Angle Walk (Beckett Walk) and Stamping in the Studio Please see: Peter Plagens 2014: 106. 63

gallery in New York at the end of May. Both exhibitions focused on sound and new media.251 In May 1969, Nauman was part of the group exhibition ‘Anti-Illusion: Procedures/ Materials’ held at the Whitney Museum of Modern Art in New York. Around the same time, he was included in the exhibition ‘Nine Young Artists: Theodoron Awards’ held at the Guggenheim Museum.252 Recently, the catalogue A Rose Has No Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s (2007) and the monograph Bruce Nauman: The True Artist (2014) have elaborated extensively on Nauman’s exposure and recognition in the United States. However, both studies have only briefly discussed Nauman’s inclusion in European group exhibitions at the end of the 1960s. 253 Because Nauman’s inclusion in European group shows in 1969 has never been researched in one overview, this chapter highlights Nauman’s specific inclusion in the following group exhibitions: Op Losse Schroeven: Situaties en Cryptostructuren (Square Pegs in Round Holes) at the Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam in March, the simultaneously running exhibition When Attitude Becomes Form at Kunsthalle Bern, Konzeption-Conception in Düsseldorf in October, and lastly, Kompas IV: Westkust USA at the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven the same month. Taking into account that group shows tell us something about exposure, categorization, and to which practices Nauman’s works was aligned in Europe at the end of the 1960’s. This chapter questions: what can an inventory of these group-shows tells us about Nauman’s introduction in Europe?

Nauman and ‘the new’:

The two exhibitions Op Losse Schroeven: Situaties en Cryptostructuren (Square Pegs in Round Holes) organized by Wim Beeren at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, and Live In Your Head: When Attitude Becomes Form: Works - Concepts - Processes - Situations – Information organized by Harald Szeemann at the Kunsthalle in Bern, developed in parallel to one another. Both exhibitions included many of the same artists, and the two shows opened within one week from each other in March 1969. Moreover both curators aimed to

251 Nauman’s exhibition at the Nicholas Wilder Gallery held in Los Angeles in January 1969 showed - among other works - the following: First Hologram Series: Making Faces (A-K) (1968), Get Out of My Mind Get Out of This Room (1968) and Studio Aids II (1968) and the video Manipulating a Fluorescent Tube (1969). The exhibition Bruce Nauman: Holograms, Videotapes, and Other Works held at the Leo Castelli Gallery in New York from May until June in 1969 showed Lighted Performance Box (1969), Second Hologram Series: Full Figure Poses (A-J) (1969) and videos. Please see: A Rose Has No Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 193- 213. 252 The exhibition: Anti-Illusion: Procedures/ Materials held at the Whitney Museum of Modern Art in New York in May 1969 showed the following works: Performance Corridor (1968) at the same time Nauman performed his work: Extended Time Piece (1969). The exhibition: Nine Young Artists: Theodoron Award held at the Guggenheim museum in New York in May 1969 showed: A Cubic Foot of Steel Pressed Between My Palms (1968), Studio Aids (1968) and Dead Center (1969). Please see: A Rose Has No Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 193- 213. 253 Plagens briefly elaborates on Nauman’s introduction in Europe in his chapter ‘American Abroad’, however he does not elaborate on Nauman’s exposure in European museum exhibitions. Please see Peter Plagens 2014: 90-92. The catalogue A Rose Has No Teeth: Bruce Nauman in the 1960s 2007: 2. 64

use the museum space as a platform to bring artworks together which were at the time seen as radically ‘new.’ Both exhibitions aimed to group and contrast artists working on both sides of the Atlantic, who rejected the traditional art object and challenged the relationship between idea and execution. Most often, these artists had collectively abandoned painting. 254 Simultaneously, labels such as ‘Anti-Form’ (coined by artist Robert Morris, April 1968), ‘Micro-emotive art’ (coined by artist and critic , September 1968) ‘Arte Povera’ (coined by art critic in 1967), ‘Earth art’ (artist Robert Smithson coined the term Earthworks in 1967), and ‘Concept art’ (although the term is not claimed by anyone, LeWitt published his famous text Paragraphs on Conceptual art in June 1967) indicate that artists were heading in a new direction at the end of the 1960s.255 In this way, both exhibitions represented the international geographical reach from California to Vienna. 256 From the start of 1968 onwards, Nauman participated in several projects signalling new international art trends. One of the people who attempted to label these new tendencies was Italian Piero Gilardi. Gilardi had joined the Sonnabend gallery in 1967. This gave him the opportunity to travel to the United States for several months, in which he visited both the East and West Coast in 1967.257 At the end of the 1960s, Gilardi stopped making art and instead made an attempt to bridge the gap between the American and Western European artists he had encountered. His findings were published in art magazines such as Arts Magazine, , Pianeta Fresco, and Museumjournaal. 258 One of Gilardi’s articles in particular, entitled ‘Primary Energy and the “Microemotive Artists (1968)’ tried to introduce a common term to describe the work originating from artists on both sides of the Atlantic. Giraldi introduced the term ‘micro-emotive art’ to group art that aimed to visualize mental processes. The term ‘Primary energy’ was introduced as the opposite of ‘Primary structures’, and it was with this term that Gilardi tried to point out a new subjective approach rejecting the static minimal art. He tried to grasp a type of art that can be retrospectively associated with the notion of conceptual art. 259 According to

254 Participating artists in ‘Op Losse Schroeven’: Carl Andre, , , , Bill Bollinger, Pier Paolo Calzolari, Walter de Maria, Jan Dibbets, Ger van Elk, Rafael Ferrer, Barry Flanagan, Mike Heizer, Douglas Huebler, Paolo Icaro, Neil Jenny, Olle Kaks, , Richard Long, Mario Merz, Robert Morris, Bruce Nauman, Dennis Oppenheim, Panamarenko, Emilio Prini, Reiner Ruthenbeck, Robert Ryman, Alan Saret, , Robert Smithson, , Frank Viner, and . All the artists in ‘Op Losse Schroeven’ with the exception of: Marisa Metz and Olle Kaks also appeared at ‘When Attitude Becomes Form’. In addition ‘When Attitude Becomes Form’ included the following artists: Richard Artschwager, Thomas Berg, Robert Barry, , Alighiero e Boetti, Michael Buthe, Paul Cotton, Hanne Darboven, , Alain Jacquet, , Edward Kienholz, , Joseph Kosuth, , Sol LeWitt, Claes Oldenburg, , Markus Raetz, Allen Ruppenberg, Fred Sandback, Sarkis, Jean- Frédéric Schnyder, Richard Tuttle, Franz Erhard Walther and William T. Wiley. 255 Galimberti 2013: 435. 256 When Attitude Becomes Form. Bern 1969 /Venice 2013 2013: 469. See also: Rattemeyer, ed. 2010: 14. 257 Dossin 2015: 199. 258 Galimberti 2013: 434. 259 Schumacher 2009: 131-132. 65

Gilardi, Nauman and artists such as Merz, Long, Dibbets, Morris, Irving, Sonnier, and Van Elk shared a similar energy.260 The fact that Nauman’s work intersected with a group of artists working in a new artistic direction is no coincidence. Already in 1966, had Nauman explored language, gestures, and created objects with a conceptual element. Above all, he had already often confronted the viewer with the process of making art. In 1968 - as highlighted in the previous chapters - Nauman was included in Fischer’s gallery exhibition program, which had already established an international platform in 1967. A ten day event entitled Prospect 68: Internationale Vorschau auf die Kunst in den Galerien der Avantgarde held at the Kunsthalle in Düsseldorf created a second international meeting point and was co-organized by Fischer in September 1968. 261 This event became a podium for a conglomerate of like-minded gallerists, collectors, and curators from both sides of the Atlantic. 262 Although the artworks included in the event were represented by a select group of commercial galleries, Prospect 1968 promoted a newer generation of artists from both sides of the Atlantic, including, for example (among others), Anselmo, Boetti, Walter de Maria, Marcel Broodthaers, Mario Merz, Beuys, Robert Morris, Blinky Palermo, and Nauman.263 At Prospect ‘68, gallerist Ileana Sonnabend presented Nauman’s 1967 neon work, My Last Name Exaggerated Fourteen Times Vertically. As chapter two highlighted, the year of 1968 witnessed a new generation of American artists in European private galleries, while the gallery was simultaneously turned into a studio, construction site, and meeting point, a transition of major significance for such internationalization.264 The year of 1969 was marked by group shows in which American and European artists were juxtaposed within the museum exhibition. Yet again in these cases, artistic production would coincide with the context of the exhibition, as artworks were

260 Galimberti 2013: 434. Schumacher 2009: 131-132. 261 The event was organized in collaboration with gallerist Hans Strelow, See: Kölle 2005: 51. 262 Galerist included in the event: Konrad Fischer (Düsseldorf), Anny de Decker and Bernd Lohaus (Wide White Space, Antwerp), Heiner Friedrich (Munich/Cologne), Geert van Beijeren and Adriaan van Ravesteijn (Art & Project, Amsterdam), Nicholas Logsdail (Lisson Gallery, London), Gian Enzo Sperone (), Ileana Sonnabend, Yvon Lambert (both Paris), Paul Maenz (Cologne) and Fernand Spillemaeckers (MTL, Brussels). Please see: Morris, Lynda. ‘Dealing in History II: Why has the exhibition ‘Prospect 68’ been overlooked?’ 24 Februari 2014. frieze.com. 21-06-2017. 263 Art historian Lynda Morris described the exhibition as the first Conceptual art exhibition in Europe. Artists included in the event were: Giovanni Anselmo, Joseph Beuys, , René Brô, Marcel Broodthaers, Pier Paolo Calzolari, Christo, Ad Dekkers, Walter de Maria, Gerald Laing, David Lamelas, John Latham, Bernd Lohaus, Mario Merz, Robert Morris, Bruce Nauman, Blinky Palermo, Panamarenko, Reiner Ruthenbeck, Bernar Venet and Gilberto Zorio. Please see: Morris, Lynda. ‘Dealing in History II: Why has the exhibition ‘Prospect 68’ been overlooked?’ 24 Februari 2014. frieze.com. 21-06-2017. 264 Art historian Thomas Kellein has pointed out the following: ‘Fischer institutionalised a structure that was extraordinary effective because it also has a direct and immediate influence on ground-breaking exhibitions at major institutions, such as the March 1969 “ Live in your Head, when attitude becomes form” at the Kunsthalle Bern. Please see Thomas Kellein: ‘It was all through Konrad’ in: With a Probability of Being Seen: Dorothee and Konrad Fischer, Archives of an Attitude 2011: 109. 66

created especially for the exhibition space. The museum space became both a studio and meeting point for North American and European artists in Europe.265 The exhibition Op Losse Schroeven brought together thirty-four different artists, of which eighteen were American. In addition, half of the sixty-nine participants of When Attitude Becomes Form were originally from the United States. Both exhibitions introduced a great many American artists for the first time within a European museum context. Szeemann and Beeren often relied on the information of Europeans such as: artist Jan Dibbets, artist turned critic Piero Gilardi and gallery-owners Konrad Fischer and Rolf Ricke for their international selection. Through this network of artists and private gallery owners in Europe, which had established earlier - as highlighted in the previous chapters- both curators could have encountered Nauman’s work. With a preconceived list of information both curators travelled to the United States. In December 1968, Nauman’s inclusion in both exhibitions was finalized.266 Because only early-career artworks of Nauman were shown at both exhibitions, there are no traces of him working in situ on either locations. In this case it could be that the preparations for his two solo exhibitions in the United States had taken up his time.267 For Nauman, however, it meant a relatively large representation within European institutions for the first time. 268 The exhibition Op Losse Schroeven, for example, exhibited five of his works, while When Attitude Becomes Form showed four. These exhibitions are significant to consider when understanding the way in which Nauman’s art was perceived at the end of the 1960s.

Op Losse Schroeven: Situaties en Cryptostructuren (Square Pegs in Round Holes) Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, March 15 –April 1969:

On the ground floor of the Stedelijk Museum’s West Wing, twelve galleries were filled with the work of forty- three artists. Outside the museum, several artists executed art projects. In the gallery inside the museum next to

265 Please see: Irene Calderoni, ‘Creating Shows: Some Notes on Exhibition Aesthetics at the End of the Sixties’ in: O’Neill, ed. 2007: 65. 266 On the difference of Giraldi’s organizational role in Op Losse Schroeven and When Attitude Becomes Form. Please see: Galimberti 2013: 436. On Fischer’s advisory role on When Attitude Becomes Form, see: Richard 2009: 81, 89-91. Christian Rattemeyer’s anthology ‘Exhibiting the New Art ‘Op Losse Schroeven’ and ‘When Attitude Becomes form’ 1969’ (2010), shows that Nauman was included from December 1968 onwards in both exhibition concepts. Please see Rattemeyer, ed. 2010: 106- 125. And Rattemeyer, ed. 2010: 172- 188. In addition this anthology has republished Szeemann organizational diary which states that Szemann and Nauman had contact in New York. The diary notes on the 13th of December, the following: ‘ Long discussion with Bruce Nauman. He differentiates clearly between ‘ private and public’ pieces. The exhibition must have both of these dimensions.’ See: Rattemeyer, ed. 2010:178. 267 Nauman recalled in retrospect: ‘(...) I don’t think I met him [Harald Szeemann] when he invited me in 1969 for the exhibition ‘When Attitudes Become Form’ at the Kunsthalle Bern. I don't think I even came for the show. But there was a correspondence, and then I sent stuff. Later, I met him quite often.’ Please see: Smolik. Noemi. ‘An American in Dusseldorf.’ 4.08. 2011. 14-03-2017. 268 Williams 2000: 152. 67

the gallery in which Nauman’s work was displayed, were works by Joseph Beuys, , Panamarenko, and Walter De Maria, all within a relatively spacious presentation. Nauman’s First Poem Piece (1968) which had been created the previous year in Bergeijk was installed in the doorway of the adjoined gallery space. It functioned as a prelude to the eighth gallery, which was dedicated solely to Nauman’s work.269 Just as the previous gallery, Nauman’s exhibition room had a clean and spacious presentation. Attached to the walls of the gallery space was the neon work My Name As Though It Were Written on The Surface Of The Moon (1968), while a second work from the collection of Martin and Mia Visser, Thick Mirror on a Steel Plate (1968) was installed on the floor.270 The third work presented was entitled Steel Channel Piece (1968).271 Even more interestingly, Op Losse Schroeven also showed for the first time Nauman’s Studio Films. The works ‘Playing a note On The Violin While I walk Around the Studio (1967-1968) Bouncing Two Balls Between the Floor and the Ceiling (1967-1968), Walking in An Exaggerated Manner Around the Perimeter of A Square (1967), and Dance or Exercise On The Perimeter of A Square (1967) were projected on a white wall on the opposite of the gallery entrance. 272 However, the reception of the exhibition often only highlights Nauman’s use of neon as new and artistically innovative medium. In contrast, reviews also portrayed a contrasting response in which My Name as Though it Were Written on the Surface of the Moon (1968) was described as a shockingly narcissistic work, forcing one to wonder why an artist was interested in portraying his own name.273 Beeren maintained an academic approach, art historian Rattemeyer has since described his method as follows: ‘Beeren sought to observe changes in materials, contexts and fabrication process, and to develop a new term classification for these observations.’ 274 Beeren’s attempt to classify the ‘new’ is well represented in the catalogue in which Beeren tried to capture aspects of the works in a sequential and ordered manner. For

269 This eighth gallery was situated next to a corner gallery which showed works of Richard Serra, Keith Sonnier and Bill Bollinger. Rattemeyer also pointed out that Beeren’s exhibition structure developed relatively late in the exhibition process. The mixing of artists in the final exhibition plan was not present from the start; for instance Beeren played with the idea of geographically define the galleries form European to American; his idea was to place in three rooms the works of: Walter de Maria, Robert Morris, Frank Lincoln Viner, Bruce Nauman, Serra, Sonnier, Bollinger and Saret. The set-up for the galleries changed eventually to more international juxtapositions. Rattemeyer, ed. 2010: 31. 270 Rattemeyer, ed. 2010: 86-87 271 For documentation on the installation, please see: Rattemeyer, ed. 2010: 88-89. Steel channel piece had been shown earlier in December at the at the exhibition: ‘Nine at Castelli’ and was on loan by the Castelli Gallery. Op Losse Schroeven 1969: 21. 272 My Name As Though It Were Written on The Surface Of The Moon (1968) and the Studio Films were on loan by the Sonnabend Galerie. Op Losse Schroeven 1969: 21. 273 Newspaper articles such as: Blotkamp, Carel. ‘Het Dilemma van Losse Schroeven’. 12.4. 1969., Bolten, J. ‘Kunst Op Losse Schroeven in Amsterdams Stedelijk Museum. PS van de Week, Parool. 29.03.1969. relate Nauman to the medium of neon or illustrate his neonwork in their article. For comments on the neon work as an act of narcissism please see: Juffermans, Jan. Kunst op nog lossere schroeven. de nieuwe linie, 22. 03.1969. Beeren did not addressed Nauman’s filmworks in the exhibition catalogue. 274 Rattemeyer, ed. 2010: 17. 68

example, he used certain categorical ideologies to describe trends, including terms such as ‘change as a formative principle’, ‘contrast between material and experience’, ‘form and surroundings’, and ‘art and actions’.275 Beeren did not explain these categories, but rather, named several works as examples for each. ‘Change as a formative principle’ included works by Long, Zorio, Boezem, Dibbets, Bollinger, Ferrer, Smithson, and Nauman, highlighting how processes outside artworks changed their formal qualities. Nauman’s 1968 work Thick Mirror on a Steel Plate captured a rusting process between a mirror and a steel plate pierced by a hole filled with water, and was therefore classified as a work engaged with process instead of the static conditions of art.276 Under the caption ‘Contrast between material and experience’ appeared neon works by Merz, Serra, and Nauman. In this same category, Nauman’s work Steel Channel Piece (1968) was included, a work consisting of a speaker attached to an iron slab emitting the sound of iron, because it established a discrepancy between form and content. However, Beeren’s attempt to caption certain processes in objective sequences seemed to fail when it came to a subjective statement. Beeren concluded that Nauman as an artist preceded many others and that Nauman was a ‘Brilliant and a shockingly innovative figure’.277 This acknowledgement is also traceable in the fact that immediately after the exhibition, the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam acquired Nauman’s neon work My Name as Though it Were Written on the Surface of the Moon (1968)278 Richard’s study Unconcealed (2009) has shown that this was among the earliest acquisitions of Nauman by a European museum.279

Live in Your Head: When Attitude Becomes Form: Works-Concepts-Processes-Situations- Information. Kunsthalle Bern, March 22 - April 27, 1969.

In comparison to the spacious layout of Op Losse Schroeven, the exhibition When Attitudes Become Form was much more chaotic and rich in the juxtaposition of artists and artworks within the museum galleries and furthermore, had more participants working on-site. Against the wall of the Kunsthall’s grand hall Richard Serra’s splash of molten lead and Belts series (1966-1967) were presented. On the right side of this hall, two smaller rooms were packed with juxtaposed artworks. In addition, Barry Flanagan’s Two Space Rope Sculpture (1967) connected these galleries.280 The first part of the gallery contained a selection of works by artists of an older generation which Szeemann claimed to have been influential predecessors for the ‘new’. These artists included Joseph Beuys, Claes Oldenburg, and Edward Kienholz. The second gallery then concentrated on a

275 In & Out of Amsterdam: Travels in Conceptual Art, 1960–1976 2009: 38. 276 Rattemeyer, ed. 2010: 17. 277 Rattemeyer, ed. 2010: 123. 278 See ‘Database 6’ in: Richard 2009: 319. 279 Richard 2009: 280 When Attitude Becomes Form. Bern 1969 /Venice 2013 2013: 412. 69

younger generation, and included Nauman, Morris, Mario Merz, and Alighiero Boetti.281 Nauman’s works located on the right wall of this room included Neon Templates of the Left Half of My Body Taken at a Ten Inch Interval (1967), while next to this work a fiberglass work titled Untitled (1965) (this work was probably also present at the fourth Documenta) was installed. In front of this artwork, Collection of Various Flexible Materials Separated by Layers of Grease with Holes of the Size of My Waist (1966) was situated on the floor, while attached next to this was the fiberglass work Plaster Cast Based on Neon Templates (1966).282 Nauman’s work was exhibited in close proximity to the other artists in the space, common denominators in these rooms could have been the use of non-rigid materials and the subjectivity of the artist.283 An example of this was the work Neon Templates of the Left Half of My Body Taken at a Ten Inch Interval (1967), which was placed diagonally to Alighiero Boetti’s Io che prendo il sole a Torino il 19 gennaio 1969 (1969). In each of these works, both artists referred to measurements of their body as formative components. Nauman’s Collection of Various Flexible Materials Separated by Layers of Grease with Holes of the Size of My Waist (1966) was made out of felt, fat, and rubber, and could have been associated with Morris’ Felt piece (1968) in the same gallery as well as with Beuys’ Wärmeplastik (1969), which was made out of thirty-two layers of felt, situated on the other end of the gallery. 284 Particularly interesting are the artistic analogies and juxtapositions rendered in the exhibition space at When Attitude Becomes Form. Placing Nauman’s work directly in relation to that of Beuys and the Arte povera artists are artistic analogies only established by European curators and critics throughout the 1960’s. Nauman recalled that Europeans often associated his work with that of Beuys’. For example, König himself had mentioned this artistic relationship when he first encountered Nauman in 1966. Later in 1969, Jean Leering would again highlight these similarities while contextualizing Nauman’s art.285 Furthermore, Beuys later stated himself in a 1969 interview with that of all the artists who had participated in When Attitude Becomes Form, he had felt closest to Nauman. 286 Both artists, however, have always agreed that they do not share a similar artistic intent.287

281 When Attitude Becomes Form. Bern 1969 /Venice 2013 2013: 479 282 When Attitude Becomes Form. Bern 1969 /Venice 2013 2013: 576. 283 When Attitude Becomes Form. Bern 1969 /Venice 2013 2013:480. 284 When Attitude Becomes Form. Bern 1969 /Venice 2013 2013:480. 285 See both: Luckow 1997: 168-1970. And: Kompas 4: Westkust U.S.A 1969: 12. 286 Sharp, Willoughby . ‘An Interview with Joseph Beuys’ in: Torres 2009: 42. 287 Nauman stated in 2004: ‘It was interesting to see the variety in the way Beuys used materials. But the logical thinking that he worked on was much harder for me to understand – he made a career of developing complex ideas and was always working with ideas, which wasn’t the way I worked. I appreciated his approach, but it didn’t expand the way I thought about things’. See: Smolik. Noemi. ‘An American in Dusseldorf.’ 4.08. 2011. 14-03-2017. Beuys stated in 1969: ‘I find it hard to define because I don’t know his inner intentions. I place great importance on inner intentions. I don’t know anything about nauman’s thought processes (...)’ Sharp, Willoughby . ‘An Interview with Joseph Beuys’ in: Torres 2009: 42. 70

The understanding of Nauman’s work in relation to Arte Povera and conceptual art was also expressed in 1969 by Italian art critic Germano Celant. In 1967, Arte povera had included exclusively Italian artists and was characterized by Celant - who coined the term - as a regional movement. However, only one year later it had become a distinctly international phenomenon characterized by artists using non-traditional materials and the importance of artistic process over the final product.288 In 1969, Celant felt encouraged to include both Western European and American artists in his 1969 anthology titled, Arte Povera: Conceptual, Actual or Impossible art.289 Nauman’s work The True Artist Helps The World by Revealing Mystic Truths Window or Wall Sign (1967), was placed on the back cover of the book and included reproductions of his work. Nauman was represented in the anthology by works that had been shown previously in Europe, including a sheet for 6- day week- 6 sound problems (shown at Fischer’s gallery in 1968), My Name as Though it Were Written on the Surface of the Moon (shown at ‘Op Losse Schroeven’ in 1969), and My Last Name Exaggerated Fourteen Times Vertically (shown at the Documenta 4. in 1968)290 Because these connections were made only in Europe, the artistic associations between Beuys, Nauman, and Arte Povera (Beuys and Arte Povera were relatively unknown in the United States at the end of the 1960s) are still often highlighted by American art historians as an explanation for Nauman’s relatively swift acceptance across Europe.291

Konzeption - Conception: documentations of to-day’s art tendency. Städtischen Museum Leverkusen Schloss Morsbroich, October: 24 - November 23, 1969.

In Europe at the end of the 1960s Nauman exhibited at both dealer-galleries and museums group shows, including for instance, prominent exhibitions such as Op Losse Schroeven and When Attitude Becomes Form, which aligned the same international selection of artists within the exhibition. Retrospectively, this generation was associated with the label of ‘conceptual art’.292 At the end of 1969, Konrad Fischer, in collaboration with museum director Rolf Wedewer of the Städtischen Museum Leverkusen, curated a museum exhibition that brought together over forty artists. This time, however, the exhibition explicitly mentioned the term ‘conceptual art’ not only to emphasize the presence of a new generation of artists with similar visions, but also to highlight a general shift in artistic practice. As co-organizer, Wedewer stated in the catalogue that ‘Conceptual art is nicht

288 Art historian Richard J. Williams has elaborated that this shift from regional to international was quite radical. Please see: Williams 2000: 146. 289 Williams 2000: 147. 290 Also shown in the anthology were the works: Keilstück (1968) and From Hand to Mouth (1967). Please see: Ars Povera, studio, wasmuth, tübingen 1969: 90-95. The anthology included reproductions of: Maria. Pistoletto, Kaltenbach, Long, Merz, Beuys, Hesse, Heizer, Van Elk, Kounellis, Weiner, Fabro, Nauman, Kosuth, Dibbets, Anselmo, Barry, Calzolari, Flanagan, Smithson, Paolini, Ruthenbeck, Sonnier, Penone, Haacke, Zorio, Morris and Boezem. 291 A Rose Has No Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 98. Please see ‘Neal Benezra. ‘Surveying Nauman’ in: Bruce Nauman 1994: 30. 292 Richard 2009: 90. 71

nur die Bezeichnung einer der jüngsten und auch wohl zugleich radikalsten Kunstrichtungen, vielmehr deutet diese Formel darüber hinaus eine allgemeinen Wandel der Kunst und mithin des Kunstbegriffs.’293 The exhibition ultimately highlighted a radical approach to emphasize the artistic concept far more than its execution. The most significant example of this shift can be seen in the fact that the exhibition consisted of no material objects, but rather, merely documentation, instructions, and documentary photographs related to artistic concepts.294 Nauman’s inclusion was a performance instruction entitled Untitled Performance Project for Leverküssen (1969). These instructions outlined that the performer was faced with a physical and mental task to be completed within a 30-minute time frame. In a room that would be cleared out by the museum guards, the performer was made to avoid any contact with his audience standing in the doorway, while at the same time walking slowly around the room in a slight crouch with his hands clasped between his neck.295

Outdated categorization, however new works on display: Kompas IV: West-Coast USA, Van Abbemuseum Eindhoven, November 21 1969 - January 4 1970.

In Europe in 1969, Nauman’s works were often included in museum exhibitions, which focused on and aligned with new conceptual and material approaches towards art as an international and generational phenomenon. Other exhibitions still categorized Nauman as an artist from the West Coast area, often using his own presence as reason for which to emphasize the new potential of the West Coast as an artistic center.296 Jean Leering, in fact, organized the exhibition Kompas IV: Westkunst U.S.A, which opened at the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven in November 1969. This exhibition displayed for the first time in Europe a survey of artistic developments on the West Coast, focusing on San Francisco and Los Angeles as new and dynamic artistic centers. In the exhibition catalogue, Leering justified that it was a necessity to focus on the West Coast in that he expected that this area - and in particular, Los Angeles - to equal the position of New York as new artistic center by the 1970s.297 To illustrate this assumption Leering created five categories by which he organized the work of nineteen artists. The term ‘Abstract expressionism’ categorized an older generation of artists including Clyfford Still, Frank Lobdell, Richard Diebenkorn and Hassel Smith. Other categories such as ‘Ceramics’, including Peter Voulkos, Manson, Kenneth Price, ‘Assemblage’ including Kienholz, Conner, and William, ‘Light’, including Irwin, Wheeler,‘New Media’, including Bell, Kauffman, McCracken, and Nauman, and finally, ‘Pop-

293 Wedewer, Rolf and Konrad Fischer 1969: n.p. 294 Kölle 2007: 46. 295 Wedewer, Rolf and Konrad Fischer 1969: n.p. According to the catalogue A Rose Has No Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s the performance was executed by Jochen Chruschwitz. A Rose Has No Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s 2007: 212. 296 Nauman would be aligned in this categorization as West-Coast artists several times. For instance the exhibition: West-Coast 1945-1969, organized by John Coplans at the Pasadena Art Museum in November 1969, shows a similar concept. 297 Kompas 4: Westkust U.S.A 1969: 5. 72

image’, including Bengston, Ruscha, and Thiebaud, included a younger generation. In this way, new media (which included Nauman) and were addressed for the first time in the exhibition format in favour of traditional mediums such as painting and sculpture.298 Preparations for Kompas IV were initiated in March of 1968. As discussed in the previous chapter, Leering was informed about artistic tendencies on the West Coast during the preparations for the Documenta and thereby noticed an artistic separation between the two American coasts. However, one and half years later, art critics no longer found this region particularly new or exciting. In fact, it even seemed problematic and out- dated to the younger generation of artists.299 In 1969, artists Ron Davis and James Turrell, for instance, no longer wanted to be associated with this regional departure point.300 Although Nauman had been artistically productive and educated on the West Coast, it seemed impossible to categorize Nauman’s art within Leering’s own classification system for the region. Nauman’s works shown at the exhibition included a neon sign, several videos, holograms series, and a performance corridor. Due to his video works, Nauman was presented within the category of new media. However, in the exhibition catalogue Leering drew parallels between Nauman and his former UC Davis teacher William T. Wiley within the category of assemblage. Furthermore, Leering even added a third category in which Nauman’s work could be included as a result of his hologram series. With these works in mind, Nauman could be linked to the category of artists working with light.301 Although Leering maintained his own categories, many artists, and especially Nauman due to his both conceptual and material approach, outgrew these narrow classifications long before 1969. What remains significant in the context of this exhibition is that Nauman introduced new works to a European audience, as by 1969 videos, holograms, and corridors had each become staples in his artistic practice. Each of these characteristic mediums were presented at the exhibition in Eindhoven. Nauman’s inclusion in the Kompas IV exhibition - where the artist showed new media works to a European audience for the first time - has never been discussed in art-historical literature. In order to analyse this occurrence, I turned to archival documentation found in the Van Abbemuseum archive. In December 1969, Nauman had his second solo exhibition in Europe at the gallery of Ileana Sonnabend in Paris, where he showed Holograms (1968) as well as the installation Sound Breaking Wall (1969). This occasion, when taking into account the Kompas IV exhibition, brought Nauman for the second time to Europe at the end of October.302 Archival correspondence between

298 Pingen 2005: 275. 299 On the out-dated exhibition program, please see: Tegenbosch, Lambert. ‘Kompas-IV, een saaie afknapper.’ de Volkskrant, 15.12.1969 and Frenken, Ton. ‘De Pech van de vierde ‘Kompas’.’ Eindhovens Dagblad, 20.12.1969. I 300 Pingen 2005: 276. 301 Kompas 4: Westkust U.S.A 1969: 12. 302 Bruce Nauman: Versuchsanordnungen Werke 1965-1994 1994: 98-99. 73

Leering and Nauman from May until October 1969 illustrate that Nauman came to Eindhoven to install his work on-site.303 Leering encountered Nauman in New York in May 1969. Interestingly enough, the first correspondence confirming Nauman’s inclusion in the exhibition dates from the 20th of May parallels Nauman’s first presentation of the performance corridor installation at the Anti- Illusion: Procedures/ Materials exhibition in in New York having occurred the same year.304 In Eindhoven, Nauman created a similar corridor measuring 6 meters in length by 0,5 meters width and almost 2,5 meters high.305 The Kompas IV exhibition also showed Nauman’s neon sign entitled The True Artist Helps The World by Revealing Mystic Truths Window or Wall Sign 1967, in which he ironically questions the role of the artists in society.306 The catalogue of the Kompas IV exhibition also shows six holograms, and archival documentation identifies these works as Nauman’s Making Faces and Full-Figure Poses series. These holograms were projected on glass using a light projector, showing Nauman examining the elasticity of his face and putting his body in distressing poses; the projections were covered in a green tone.307 While the catalogue also states that the exhibition showed video works, archival documentation and insurance documents do not provide any information as to what exactly was shown. Only two years later, these videos are vaguely characterized in the magazine Museumjournaal merely as those ‘on which he gave a performance.’308 The archival documentation introduces the possibility that Nauman’s video works were not compatible with European video equipment, and that there is therefore a possibility that these works were produced in Europe.309 Before traveling to Eindhoven, Nauman wrote at the end of October that: ‘We can then see about when and where the Videotapes are to be made and discuss any other problems you may be having

303 A letter from Nauman to Leering, 23 October 1969, VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 223. 304 A letter from Leering to Nauman, May 20th 1969. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 223. 305 Archival documents show how the construction of the corridor was made possible. Please see: Letter from Nauman to Leering, 23 October 1969. Notably this artwork is only mentioned once in the reception documentation and is negatively associated with leaving no impression on the viewer. Please see: . Unknown. ‘Kompas 4.’ De Groene Amsterdammer, 13.12.1969. 306 Kompas 4: Westkust U.S.A 1969: n.p. 307 ’Letter from Leering to Leo Castelli, 17 July 1969. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 222. 308 Reedijk 1973: 154. 309 Art dealer Leo Castelli wrote to Leering: ‘Nauman will have to make some new ones in Europe, since the existing ones cannot be used on European equipment; of course, he’ll be there in time to do the job. Please see: a letter from Leo Castelli to Jean Leering, 27 June 1969. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 222. In addition: Leering mediated with a Dutch film production company in Hilvarenbeek and proposed to gallery owner Ileana Sonnabend, that Nauman could make videotapes for her show in Eindhoven, Leering stated: ‘He could make here videotapes for your show too, If you wish. Please see: A letter from Leering to mister O. Verschoof, owner of Safari Filmproductie N.V. in Hilvarenbeek, 14 Augustus 1969. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 223. 74

with the installation.’310 The last letter concerning the videotapes was written in December and describes that the museum was unable to rent both the recording device and camera, and that the museum had therefore decided to buy the equipment.311 This message contributes to the assumption that Nauman had created the videotapes on the spot. Nauman’s video works were thereby exposed in Europe for the first time. The newness of this introduction is equally apparent in the fact that the reception illustrates that the green holograms are often mistaken for Nauman’s video works.312 These new media works, however, were not celebrated, as the reception reviews included ironic comments about the artist engaging in the act of navel-gazing. Furthermore, the holograms were described as dull. Ultimately, due to the eclectic representation of Nauman’s works and his vague categorization within the exhibition, critics were unable to pin down the artist’s intentions as of 1969.313 At the end of 1972, Nauman’s first retrospective was established in the United States. This exhibition was organized by Jane Livingston of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and of the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. This first solo exhibition in a major museum was dedicated to the first eight years of Nauman’s career, particularly highlighting the years between 1965 and 1972. The exhibition particularly emphasized thirty-three drawings and prints, thirty sculptures, twenty-two photographs and ten video works of the artist. Five years after Nauman’s first introduction in 1968, the exhibition travelled to Europe in 1973; first to the Kunsthalle Bern in Switzerland, then the Städtische Kunsthalle in Düsseldorf, then the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven, and finally to the Palazzo Reale in Milan. This moment marks the conclusion of his introduction in Europe.

What can an inventory of these group-shows in 1969 tells us about Nauman’s introduction in Europe?

In retrospect, these group shows illustrate a significant understanding regarding Nauman’s exposure in Europe as well as the artistic practices and generation to which Nauman’s works were aligned at the end of the 1960s. The exhibitions Op Losse Schroeven, When Attitude Becomes Form and Konzeption - Conception have shown how Nauman’s work intersected and was aligned within a new international and generational phenomenon. Also interesting to point out is that through a network established earlier Nauman appeared in several exhibitions that promoted the new. ‘Prospect 1968’ and ‘Konzeption - Conception’ often categorized as the first exhibitions of conceptual art, were both organized by Konrad Fischer, whom as the previous chapters have shown played an

310 A letter from Nauman to Jean Leering, 23 October 1969. VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 223. 311 A letter from J. Bremer, conservator to Dr. Thiemann. 1 Dezember, 1969, VAM Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989 inv.nr. 223 312 On this confusing introduction of Nauman’s new media works, please see: Tegenbosch, Lambert. ‘Kompas- IV, een saaie afknapper.’ Volkskrant, 15.12.1969. and’ Beek, Marius van.‘Kompas 4 in Eindhoven, Fascinerende kunst van de Westkunst.’, De Tijd, 06.12.1969. 313 For these negative comments please see: Coumans, Willem K. ‘Vierde Kompas aan de Muffe Kant.’ Het Vrije Volk, 20.12.1969. and Unknown. ‘Kompas 4.’ De Groene Amsterdammer, 13.12.1969. 75

important role in introducing the artist in Europe. At the same time, Leering previously described as an important organizer for the fourth Documenta, also presented Nauman in a group show in 1969. Although Nauman was not present to install his work at Op Losse Schroeven and When Attitude Becomes Form’. Op Losse Schroeven can illustrate that Nauman’s work was acquisitioned within a European museum context very early on. ‘When Attitude Becomes Form’ pointed to artistic analogies between Nauman, Beuys and Arte Povera that were acknowledged only in Europe. Kompas IV, showed his new media works for the first time in Europe. Only one year after Nauman’s introduction in Europe, these shows underscored a strong interest in Nauman’s work.

76

Conclusion

This thesis has aimed to single out three aspects of Bruce Nauman’s introduction in Europe between 1966 and 1969, addressing in particular the role of the network, the establishment of changing conditions and art practices, and the frequency of museum exposure. This attempt was addressed within the framework of the following research question: ‘What new insight can be gained from research on the introduction of Bruce Nauman in Europe between 1966 and 1969, when focusing on three aspects in particular: network, changing conditions, and museum exposure? In addition, this thesis will investigate the potential of archival research in addressing this question.

This thesis introduced the term ‘informative actions’ in order to underscore the subject of archival transatlantic correspondence at the end of the 1960s. Transatlantic correspondence found in the archives of the Van Abbemuseum and the ZADIK were used as means to reconstruct the network which played a major role in the introduction of Bruce Nauman. In order to reveal this network these informative actions were mapped, analyzed, and compared. With respect to Nauman’s introduction in Europe, it was the archival documentation of Jean Leering and Konrad Fischer having to do with the organization of the Documenta 4 and Nauman’s solo- exhibition in 1968 which exposed the network of middlemen who had provided information about the artist. These findings therefore illustrate the way in which a network was formed and moreover, how it functioned at the end of the 1960s. For example, the overlap of actors who rendered Nauman’s introduction possible illustrate the small-scale and exclusive nature of the networks which established these transatlantic introductions in addition to illuminating how they operated. At the same time, this research has shown that there was an enormous degree of trust placed in the information received from the main actors in the network. Although Nauman’s introduction was central to this thesis, other interesting insights were also uncovered. Transatlantic correspondence from the Van Abbemuseum archive, for example, exposed insights into Leering’s frequent travels to New York, the establishment of his own network, and his trust in the New York art dealer system. Transatlantic correspondence in Fischer’s archive emphasized how he extended invitations in the United States via his contact Kaspar König and furthermore, greatly relied on König’s knowledge of the art scene in the United States due to a lack of information in Europe. The archival materials in both König’s and Fischer gallery archive point to new organizational structures and arrangements. They support the fact of the following new introductory method: the recurring request and need for a plane-ticket in order to make this introduction possible. In Nauman’s case this is well-exemplified with the request for the artist to bring his ideas rather than his art. Furthermore, these first transatlantic exchanges established new ways of acquiring information, in that the artist himself became an important source for gallery owner Konrad Fischer. Archival documentation from the Van Abbemuseum concerning the Documenta turned out to be a valuable source for getting new insights into the selection process of the large American representation at the

77

Documenta 4 as well as the mediating role and the exchange of information between Leering and the New York art dealer system. The archive at the Van Abbemuseum provides information about the selection of Nauman’s work. However zooming in into details about which artworks of Nauman precisely were shown, brought some unclarities to light that need to be addressed with further research. On the one hand, the archival documentation of the fourth Documenta concerned with Nauman’s inclusion, clearly points out that a selection was made from works exposed at Nauman’s first solo exhibition in New York. In contrast, however, oral history introduces a total different perspective of what was shown at this event. These notions, in relation to the lack of information about the context and the position of Nauman's work at the fourth Documenta, introduces an interesting discrepancy between two methods for reconstructing history: primary sources and oral history. The second aspect central in this research concerned the changing conditions in Europe developed at the end of the 1960s that made such an introduction possible. The new set of criteria at stake during this period included namely the transition of the art gallery as a site of production, evidenced by the travels of specific artists whom were invited to create work on-site and were therefore offered new possibilities during their stay at Fischer’s gallery. This research has examined Nauman’s three-week stay in Germany by extension and has argued in favor of a reconsideration of Nauman’s first site-specific installation. Overall, the installation can be seen as a key work for the changing relationships and practices at play between artist, gallery owner, and audience. Yet another important insight in Nauman’s introduction is that this thesis has addressed the way in which Nauman was actively engaged with the conditions and layout of the odd exhibition space. The artist’s fascination with the space was illustrated not only by the daily changing spatial experience created in the installation at Fischer’s gallery, but also by his interest in the spatial layout itself. Until now, art historians have overlooked this insight. Nauman’s encounter in Germany with the strange corridor space maintains a significant relationship with Nauman’s creation of his architectural corridor settings. Although both Tuchman in 1970 and Kölle in 2005 suggested that transatlantic exchanges had a significant impact on the American artist by literally being placed into new surroundings, this claim lacked more extensive elaboration. Therefore, there is still the potential to reconsidering this possibility. This research has not only highlighted the new interplay between these new conditions and Nauman’s own practices, but moreover, has addressed the value of acknowledging the consequences of the changing conditions and the new opportunities at the end of the 1960s. Another important element to be acknowledged is that the artist was not only confronted with taking his ideas to the gallery space, but equally with the possibility of executing and selling his ideas in Europe. The cooperation with the steel company Nebato, for instance, resulted in the creation of several sculptures. The information on this subject, however, is limited, and would therefore be an interesting research subject for further study. Nauman’s exposure in European group ultimately illustrates the recognition of the artist only one year following his introduction in Europe. At is at the same time, this exposure and recognition is closely connected

78

to the notion of the network. There seems to be an overlap between the organizers of these shows and the network that introduced him. In 1969, Nauman was often aligned within a new international and generational phenomenon, and from then on the attention on Nauman would never cease. Throughout this thesis, I have emphasized that the networks and conditions that made these transatlantic introductions and exchanges possible are particularly significant to explore while focusing on a single artist in order to trace his individual trajectory. At the same time, this thesis has equally established the significance of the extant archival information available on this subject; moreover this thesis actively communicates the potentials of the archive when examining these first transatlantic exchanges at the end of the 1960’s. Therefore it also addresses that still much is to be explored through archival research.

79

Bibliography:

A Rose Has No Teeth. Bruce Nauman in the 1960’s. [exh.cat] Berkeley: The University of California, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, 2007.

A: AC: Bruce Nauman .Mapping the Studio I (Fat chance John Cage) [exh.cat] Cologne: Museum Ludwig, 2003.

Anti-illusion: procedures/materials. [exh.cat] New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1969.

Archive in Motion 50 Jahre/Years Documenta 1955-2005. [exh.cat] Kassel: Kunsthalle Fridericianum, 2005.

Baum, Stella. ‘Die Frühen Jahre. Gespräche mit Galeristen.’ Kunstforum International, vol. 104 (November- December 1989): 215-294.

Berndes, Christiane, ed. Een collectie is ook maar een mens: Edy de Wilde, Jean Leering, Rudi Fuchs, Jan Debbaut over verzamelen. Eindhoven: Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum, 1999.

Blume, Eugen. Bruce Nauman Live or Die. Köln: Dumont Buchverlag Gmbh, 2010

Bruce Nauman. [exh.cat] New York: Leo Castelli Gallery, 1968.

Bruce Nauman. [exh.cat] Minneapolis: Walker Art Center, 1994.

Bruce Nauman. Drawings 1965-1986. [exh.cat] Basel: Museum fur Gegenwartskunst Basel, 1986.

Bruce Nauman : work from 1965 to 1972. [exh..cat.] Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1972.

Bruce Nauman: werk van negentienvijfenzestig tot negentientweeënzeventig. [exh..cat.] Eindhoven: Van Abbemuseum, 1973.

Bruce Nauman: Raw Materials. [exh.cat] London: , 2004.

Bruce Nauman: Topological garden. [exh.cat] Venice: U.S. Pavilion at the Giardini della Biennale, 2009.

Bruce Nauman: Versuchsanordnungen Werke 1965-1994. [exh.cat] Hamburg: Hamburger Kunsthalle, 1994.

Bruce Nauman. Werke aus belgischen, deutschen und niederländische Sammlungen [exh.cat] Duisburg : Wilhelm-Lehmbruck-Museum, 2000.

Brundage, Susan. Bruce Nauman 25 years Leo Castelli. New York: Rizzoli, 1994.

Celant, Germano. Ars Povera. Tübingen: studio wasmuth Tübingen, 1969.

Cloud and Crystal. The Dorothee and Konrad Fischer Collection. [exh.cat] Düsseldorf: Kunstsammlung Nordhein Westfalen, 2016. 80

Conceptual Art. [exh.cat] Knokke: Galerie Ronny Van de Velde, 2014.

Davidts, Wouter and Kim Paice, eds. The Fall of The Studio: Artists at Work. Amsterdam:Valiz, 2009.

Documenta 4 Katalog 1 and 2. [exh.cat] Kassel: Galerie an der Schönen Aussicht, Museum Fridericianum, Orangerie im Auepark, 1968.

Documenta 4. Directed by Jef Cornelis. 1968. DVD. Le Magasin, Centre National d'Art Contemporain, Grenoble, and Argos–Center for Art and Media, Brussels, 2012.

Dossin, Catherine. The Rise and Fall of American Art - 1940s–1980s. A Geopolitics of Western Art Worlds. Burlington: Ashgate, 2015

Feldman, Paula. ‘Dan Flavin: ‘Site-specific Installations in the Netherlands.’ 1966-1968.’’ The Burlington Magazine, vol. 145, no. 1207. (October 2003): 721-734.

Galerie mit Bleistift Ausstellungen bei Konrad Fischer, Düsseldorf Oktober 1967- Oktober 1992. [exh.cat]. Bielefeld : Edition Marzona, 1993.

Galimberti, Jacopo. ‘A Third-worldist Art? Germano Celant Invention of Arte Povera.’ Art History, vol. 36, no. 2, (April 2013): 418–441.

Hegarty, Paul. Rumour and Radiation. Sound in . New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015.

Hopkins, David. After Modern Art 1945-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

In & Out of Amsterdam: Travels in Conceptual Art, 1960-1970. [exh.cat] New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2009.

Jappe, Georg. ‘Konrad Fischer interviewed by Georg Jappe.’ Studio International, vol. 181, no. 930 (February 1971): 68-71.

Jocks, Heinz -Norbert. ‘Einseitig muss man sein, damit etwas weitergeht. Heinz -Norbert Jocks sprach mit Konrad Fischer.’ Kunstforum International, vol.127 (September-October 1994): 402--404.

Junker, ed. The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War, 1945–1990: A Handbook, vol.2 (1945- 1968) Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Kaspar König, The Formative Years 2014. [exh.cat] Sediment, Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Kunsthandels, ZADIK, 23/24.

Kimpel, Harald, Karin Stengel. Documenta 4: Internationale Ausstellung, Eine fotografische Rekonstruktion. Bremen: Edition Temmen, 2007.

Kölle, Brigitte. Die Kunst des Ausstellens. Untersuchungen zum Werk des Künstlers und Kunstvermittlers Konrad Lueg / Fischer (1939--1996). PhD. Hildesheim: Universität Hildesheim. Unpublished PhD, 2005. 81

Kölle, Brigitte, ed. Okey Dokey Konrad Fischer. Cologne: Verlag der Buchhandlung Walter König, 2007.

Kompas 4: Westkunst U.S.A [exh.cat.] Eindhoven: Van Abbemuseum, 1969.

Kraynak, Janet. Please Pay Attention Please: Bruce Nauman's Words: Writings and Interviews. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 2005.

Kudielka, Robert. ‘Documenta IV: the german contribution.’ Studio International. vol. 176, no. 902. (July/ August 1968): 29-32

Leering, Jean and Wies Leering-van Moorsel, ‘Kunst Maken in Bergeijk,” Museumjournaal vol. 14, no. 2 (April 1969): 80-85.

Lippard, Lucy. Six Years: the Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Little Arena: Drawings and Sculptures from the Collection Adri, Martin and Geertjan Visser. [exh..cat.] Otterlo: Rijksmuseum Kröller-Müller, 1984.

Luckow, Dirk. Joseph Beuys und die amerikanische Anti Form-Kunst: Einfluss und Wechselwirkung zwischen Beuys und Morris, Hesse, Nauman, Serra. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1998.

Martin Visser, verzamelaar, ontwerper, vrije geest. [exh.cat] Maastricht: Bonnefanten Museum, 2012.

Morgan, C. Robert. ed. Bruce Nauman. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press., 2002.

Morris, Lynda. ‘Introduction to the Conference’ in New Research into Conceptualism in Europe, Dispatch 144. Norwich Gallery, Norwich School of Art and Design, 2005, unnumbered pages.

O'Neill, Paul, ed. Curating Subjects. London: open editions, 2007.

Op losse schroeven: situaties en cryptostructuren. [exh..cat.] Amsterdam: Stedelijk museum, 1969.

Plagens, Peter. Bruce Nauman: The True Artist. London: Phaidon, 2014.

Pingen, René. Dat museum is een Mijnheer. De geschiedenis van het Van Abbemuseum 1963-2003. PhD. De Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2005. Amsterdam: Artimo, 2005.

Prospect 68, Katalog-Zeitung zur Internationalen Vorschau auf die Kunst in den Galerien Der Avantgarde. [exh..cat.] Düsseldorf: Städtische Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, 1968.

Rattemeyer, ed. Exhibiting the New Art: 'Op Losse Schroeven' and 'When Attitudes Become Form' 1969. London: Afterall Books. 2010.

Reedijk, Hein. ‘Bruce Nauman: kunst voor navelstaarders?’ Museumjournaal, vol. 18, No. 4. (1973): 154-159.

82

Richard, Sophie. Unconcealed: The International Network of Conceptual Artist 1967-77: Dealers, Exhibitions and Public Collections. London: Ridinghouse, 2009.

Rodeau. James, E. ‘Second Poem Piece, 1969 by Bruce Nauman.’ Museum Studies. vol. 25, no. 1, (1999): 38-39.

Schumacher, Rogier. Neo-avant-garde in Nederland: ‘Museumjournaal’ als forum van een nieuw kunstbegrip 1961-1973. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010.

Stein, E. Judith. Eye of the Sixties: Richard Bellamy and the Transformation of Modern Art. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016.

Three Blind Mice. [exh.cat] Eindhoven: Van Abbemuseum, 1968.

Tuchman, Phyllis, ‘American Art in Germany, The History of an Phenomenon.’ Artforum, vol. 9, no. 3 (November 1970): 58-69.

Torres, Garcia Mario. 9 At Castelli. Instituto de cultura Puertorriqueña, 2009.

Van Bruggen, Coosje. Bruce Nauman. New York: Rizzoli, 1988.

Van den Bosch, Paula, red. The Collection Visser at the Kröller-Müller Museum. Otterlo: Stichting Kröller- Müller Museum, 2000.

Van Damme, Claire. ed. Behind or Beside You. Dynamische processen in de coulissen van de hedendaagse kunstschepping. Ghent: Academia Press, 2009.

Wedewer, Rolf and Konrad Fischer. Konzeption/ Conception, Dokumentation einer heutigen Kunstrichtung, documentation of today’s tendency. [exh.cat] Cologne and Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1969.

When Attitude Becomes Form. Bern 1969 /Venice. [exh.cat] Venice: Fondazione Prada, Ca’ Corner della Regina, 2013.

Whitford, Frank, Robert Kudielka, ‘Documenta 4: a critical review.’ Studio International, vol. 176, no. 903. (September 1968): 74-76.

Williams, Richard, J. After : Art in the United States and Europe, 1965-70. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000.

With a Probability of Being Seen: Dorothee and Konrad Fischer, Archives of an Attitude [exh.cat] Barcelona: Museu D'Art Contemporani de Barcelona, 2011.

Work Ethic [exh.cat] Baltimore: The , 2003.

Websites:

83

Collection Stedelijk Museum. Stedelijk.nl. 6 May 2017

Conte, Lara. ‘From Arte Povera più azioni povere to When Attitudes Become Form. 1968-69. Mario Merz’s work in group shows and his first international connections.’ 18 October 2011. Henry Moore Institute Online Papers and Proceedings.12 March 2017 < www.henry-moore.org/hmi>

Glueck, Grace. ‘Robert Scull, Prominent Collector of Pop-art.’ 3 January 1986 The New York Times. 21 March 2017

König, Kaspar. ‘Kapar Konig: 40 Jahre Richard Artschwager – Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten Laudatio auf Richard Artschwager aus Anlass der Verleihung des Roswitha-Haftmann-Preises 2007.’ roswithahaftmann- stiftung.com. 18-2-2017

Mediencluster, dokumenta archive. documentaarchiv.de. 05-03-2017

Morris, Lynda. Landmark Exhibitions Issue, Unconcealment. Tate Paper issue 12, 2009. Tate.org.uk. 23-04- 2014

Morris, Lynda. ‘Dealing in History II: Why has the exhibition ‘Prospect 68’ been overlooked?’ 24 Februari 2014. frieze.com. 21-06-2017.

Simon, Joan. Hear here. 10 October 2004. frieze.com 20 May 2017 < https://frieze.com/article/hear-here>

Smolik. Noemi. ‘An American in Dusseldorf.’ 4.08. 2011. 14-03-2017.

Personal Interviews and correspondences:

Jan Dibbets, in conversation with the author, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2 June 2017

Dorothee Fischer, in conversation with the author, Düsseldorf, Germany, 3 March 2014.

Kaspar König. Personal email to the author. 6 March 2017.

Press clippings:

-Documenta 4, 1968:

-Glueck, Grace. ‘A Form (Or Two) Is Born.’ The New York Times 18. 02. 1968 -Glueck Grace. Art Notes. ‘More from the Documenta Front.’ The New York Times. 14.07.1968. -Glueck, Grace. ‘Art Notes. Documenta: It Beats the Biennale.’ The New York Times. 07.07.1968.

84

-Hoffmann, Theodor Paul. ‘Keine Feier ohne Schreier. Eröffnung der 4.documenta in Kassel vom ,, - Kontrastprogramm” überwuchert.’ Hamburger Abendblatt. 28.06.1968. -Jappe, Georg. ‘Die kühlste documenta, die es je gab. Schafft die Askese des Künstlers eine Konsumkunst?’ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 06.07.1968. -Plunien, Eo. ‘documenta Gespräch mit Werner Schmalenbach.’ Die Welt. 26-10-1967. And Unknown. ‘Die - Kunst vom Montag ist Am Dienstag vergessen.’ Der Spiegel. 13.11.1967. -Unknown. ‘Aktion Honig’ Düsseldorfer Nachrichten Düsseldorf. 09.07.1968. -Westecker. Dieter. ‘An allen Ecken Düsseldorfer. Vertreter der Kunststadt überall auf der 4. Documenta in Kassel.’ Düsseldorfer Nachrichten Düsseldorf 4.07.1968.

Kompas 4, 1969:

-Beek, Marius van.‘Kompas 4 in Eindhoven, Fascinerende kunst van de Westkunst.’, De Tijd, 06.12.1969. -Coumans, Willem K. ‘Vierde Kompas aan de Muffe Kant.’ Het Vrije Volk, 20.12.1969. -Frenken, Ton. ‘De Pech van de vierde ‘Kompas’.’ Eindhovens Dagblad, 20.12.1969. -Tegenbosch, Lambert. ‘Kompas-IV, een saaie afknapper.’ Volkskrant, 15.12.1969. -Unknown. ‘Kompas 4.’ De Groene Amsterdammer, 13.12.1969.

Op Losse Schroeven 1969:

-Blotkamp, Carel. ‘Het Dilemma van Losse Schroeven’. 12.4. 1969. -Bolten, J. ‘Kunst Op Losse Schroeven in Amsterdams Stedelijk Museum. PS van de Week, Parool. 29.03.1969. - B, Pieter. ‘Op losse schroeven. Het Stedelijk hangt de was buiten.’ De Gooi en Eemlander. 29.03.1969. -Juffermans, Jan. Kunst op nog lossere schroeven. de nieuwe linie, 22. 03.1969. -Donia. Jan. Koolas met een grote K Televizier. no. 12. 22.3. 1969. - Unkown. ‘Modebeeld van de Kunst.’ Algmeen Handelsblad. 15.3.1969.

85

Archives:

Kröller Müller Museum (KMM), Otterlo, Archief Collectie Visser

Collectie Visser. 518 ,110 dossier, inv. 488.

Rijksbureau (RKD), Den Haag, Archief Jean Leering 1949-2005.

Conceptinterview door Paula Feldman over Jean Leerings tentoonstellingen van Amerikaanse kunst en van constructivistische kunst; met bijlagen okt 2002’ inv.nr. 740.

Rensma, H. 'Jean Leering en de "documenta" 4'. MA thesis. University of Utrecht, 2001. Rijksbureau, inv.nr. 736.

Van Abbemuseum (VAM), Einhoven, Tentoonstellingsarchief 1936-1989

I consulted correspondences in the following folders:

Kunst-Licht-Kunst, inv.nr. 161-165.

Kunst-Licht-Kunst. Correspondentie A t/m D inv.nr. 162. Kunst-Licht-Kunst. Correspondentie F t/m K. 1936-1989 inv.nr. 163.

4. Documenta Kassel 1968, inv.nr. 196-201.

4. Documenta Kassel, ’68, keuze kunstwerken/ protocollen diverse onderdelen. inv.nr. 196. 4. Documenta Kassel ’68. Correspondentie met galerien/ secretaris inv. 199. 4. Documenta Kassel ‚68, Verzekeringen/ schadegevallen, inv. 201.

Kompas 3 : Schilderkunst na 1945 uit New York, inv.nr. 182-185.

Kompas III: Schilderkunst na 1946 uit New York, Correspondentie H t/m N, inv.nr. 184.

Kompas 4 : Westkust U.S.A., inv. nr. 221-223.

Kompas IV: Westkunst. Correspondentie A t/m L.inv.nr. 222.

Kompas IV: Westkust. U.S.A. M t./m Z. inv.nr.: 223

Van Abbemuseum, (VAM), Eindhoven, Beheersarchief 1936- 1979 86

Incidentele particuliere correspondentie J. Leering, periode 1964-1969. inv.nr. 14.

Stedelijk Museum (SMA) Amsterdam, Museum archief

Correspondentie directeur E. de Wilde. Year 1978, folder 2767.

Correspondentie directeur E. de Wilde. Year 1963-1970, folder: 2754.

Zentralarchiv für deutsche und internationale Kunstmarktforschung (ZADIK), Cologne

Archiv Dorothee und Konrad Fischer, Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, Düsseldorf, Schenkung. Zentralarchiv für deutsche und internationale Kunstmarktforschung, ZADIK Köln, G 96.

Archiv Kasper König Zentralarchiv für deutsche und internationale Kunstmarktforschung, ZADIK, Köln, G20.

87