Acknowledgments

This dissertation would not have been possible without the financial support of the Australian Government’s Australian Postgraduate Award, which was facilitated through The Australian National University. The fieldwork component of this research program, which was undertaken in the United States of America in 2010, was made feasible through a generous travel grant from The Australian National University’s College of Arts and Social Sciences. Participation in conferences and additional fieldwork performed in England and Germany in 2011 was realised through bursaries from The Australian National University’s Office of the Vice Chancellor and conference funding from the College of Arts and Social Sciences. Research facilities provided by the College of Arts and Social Sciences within the Australian National University ensured the completion of this research program.

I thank foremost the Chair of my Supervisory Panel, Dr Andrew Montana, for his critical insights and guidance over the course of my research program. His academic enthusiasm towards my research topic and exegetic questioning of my thesis drove me to set intellectual challenges and seek their theoretical and rigorous resolution. Professor Sasha Grishin, in his service as an advisor on my Supervisory Panel, provided sage advice at critical junctures in my research program, garnered from his vast experiences and to this I am greatly appreciative. I was fortunate enough to work with Mr Lee Cristofis, also an advisor on my Supervisory Panel, at the National Library of Australia where Lee was Curator of Dance collections. Lee’s passion and knowledge for dance benefitted my research immensely by broadening my own knowledge in this field.

Ms Elizabeth Zimmer was kind enough to impart her wisdom on dance, particularly as it related to my research focus, and invited me to accompany her to dance performances in New York City. Dr Neil Ramsay and Mr James Cheatley assisted in the proof reading of this thesis and for this I am thankful. The academic and administrative staff of the ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences and my former colleagues at the Australian War Memorial, were understanding and supportive throughout my research journey and for this I am grateful. Library staff at the National Gallery of Australia, the Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and New York University’s Fales Library provided assistance when I appreciatively researched their collections. Parish staff at the Judson Memorial Church also made me welcome when I visited. I thank Associate Professor Frances Joseph and the administrative staff at Colab in the Faculty of Design and Creative Technologies at the Auckland University of Technology. Colab provided me with a research space to complete the final stages of my dissertation to which I am entirely thankful.

Finally, I would like to make my enduring thanks be known to my family. My parents Cheryl Diggins and Glen Diggins for the unwavering support throughout this journey and my sisters Phillipa and Chloe. I thank the many friends, colleagues, and fellow PhD travellers that I have met along on the way. While this has been an academic and intellectual journey, it has also been one of immeasurable personal growth and development. At times, it would not have been realised if not for your care and support. Thank you.

Abstract

This thesis interrogates the common grouping of Donald Judd and Robert Morris within minimalism to renegotiate difference between their intervening strategies into modernist art and criticism. When minimalism emerged as an avant-gardist threat and discursive challenge to modernist art during the mid-1960s, many contemporary critics missed the conceptual differences at play between Judd and Morris’ practices. Instead dismissive critics emphasised commonage within the rejection of modernist theory and formalism their art and writings signified. This thesis re-evaluates this art historical pairing of Judd and Morris within modern art by mapping out dissonances and resonances across their aesthetics.

The primary contention of this thesis is that the conceptual dissimilarities between Judd and Morris’ minimalist practices extend from their formative artistic explorations. For Judd, this is painting and art criticism, while for Morris it is painting and dance. This thesis pursues a chronological examination of their respective paths towards minimalism and then comparatively analyses their minimalist practices from the early 1960s through to the end of that decade. The respective formal and philosophical problems Judd and Morris engaged with in their early transitory fields open to their conceptual dissonances between them at the site of the minimalism’s contest of the modernist canon.

Table of Contents

i. Introduction 1

i.1. Judd 3 i.2. Morris 7 i.3. Dissonance 11 i.4. Resonance 14

1. Modernist Painting and its Challenge 23

1.1. Painting as Modernist 24 1.2. The Theatre of Cage and Rauschenberg 31 1.3. The End of Modernist Painting 40

2. Movement through Painting 47

2.1. Problems in Painting 48 2.2. Judd’s Early Paintings 52 2.3. The question of Pollock 56 2.4. Painting and Bodies 60

3. Modern Dance and Minimalist Interventions 66

3.1. Modernism and the Dancing Body 67 3.2. Cunningham’s Dance in Space and Time 74 3.3. Movement and Nature 80 3.4. Early Objects, Early Dance 84 3.5. Movement towards the Postmodern 93

4. Objects and Sculpture 104

4.1. Painting to Objects 105 4.2. Judd at the Green Gallery 111 4.3. Sculpture in Grey, Dance in White 121 4.4. Critical receptions at the Green 128

5. Formalist Concerns: Gestalts and Seriality 134

5.1. Primary Structures 136 5.2. Form and Order 144

6. Formalist Concerns: Red and Grey 157

6.1. Colour 158 6.2. Materials and Methods of Facture 170

7. The Canon and Critical Afterthoughts 180

7.1. Canon and Contest 181 7.2. Rupture and Conceptual Fragments 192 7.3. Politics and Practice 200

ii. Conclusion 212 iii. Bibliography 225 iv. Appendix of Illustrations

Introduction

Donald Judd and Robert Morris occupy decisive roles in the contemporary contest of modern art’s canon played out in New York during the 1960s. The object-based works of these artists announce the art historical movement of minimalism and their critical literature fashions its aesthetic rationale. Minimalism’s discursive challenge of the canon sees the rejection of the most defining conditions of modernist art. Modernist critics, most notably Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg, and Michael Fried, prosecute Judd’s and Morris’s minimalist practices for transgressing artistic modernism. In turn, Judd’s and Morris’s practices compete and conflict against each other within this febrile atmosphere. This thesis interrogates Judd’s and Morris’s differing intercessions into the narrative of modernist art and examines the sites of dissonance between them. Modernist and dismissive accounts of minimalism often missed the dissonances operating between Judd’s and Morris’s practices. As such, their competition and their diverging aesthetic strategies were not always scrutinised adequately within modernist discourse. Greenberg’s ‘Recentness of Sculpture’ (1967) and Michael Fried’s ‘Art and Objecthood’ (1967) are key texts which obviate Judd’s and Morris’s conceptual disunity. Judd, below, delivered the following riposte in response to Fried’s approximation of he and Morris in Fried’s essay:

Fried’s article ‘Art and Objecthood’ in the 1967 summer issue of Artforum was stupid. He cross-referenced Bob Morris, Tony Smith and myself and argued against the mess. Smith’s statements and his work are contradictory to my own. Bob Morris’s Dada interests are very alien to me and there’s a lot in his dogmatic articles that I don’t like.

[…]

Fried is not careful and informed. His pedantic pseudo-philosophical analysis is the equivalent of Art News’s purple poetic prose of the late fifties.

1

That prose was only emotional recreation and Fried’s thinking is just formal analysis and both methods used exclusively are shit.1

As Judd makes clear above, critics like Fried, who were more intent on the deletion rather than consideration of minimalism, often missed the conflicting aspects within Judd’s and Morris’s aesthetics. This thesis studies the formalist and philosophical frameworks governing Judd’s and Morris’s respective art practices and contends the dissonances at play between them are rooted in their individual trajectories towards minimalism’s object. For Judd, this is through painting and art criticism, and for Morris, through painting and dance. It is the differing formal problems the artists engage in these earlier art practices that result in the oppositional theories they articulate for minimalism in the mid-1960s.

To support this argument this thesis conducts respective analyses on Judd’s and Morris’s artworks and writings from c.1955–1970. Within this chronology, Judd’s and Morris’s corresponding aesthetics are contextualised through biography and situated at the site of modernist art’s discursive rupture. The artistic works of Judd and Morris are further interrogated against the prevailing critical theories of the period, especially those of Greenberg, Fried, Rosenberg, and Rosalind Krauss. The theatrical practices of John Cage, Robert Rauschenberg, and Merce Cunningham are examined in their challenge of the dominant theories of artistic modernism in the 1950s; this thesis asserts that the collective and individual works of these three artists anticipate and resonate with minimalism in the 1960s. Similarly, the conceptual tributaries that deflect from minimalism in the late 1960s are questioned for their resonance with Judd or Morris’ principal minimalist concerns. It is at this historical juncture, at the end of the 1960s, when minimalism impacts upon the canon of modern art that Morris’s practices diverge through

1 Donald Judd, ‘Complaints: part 1’, Studio International, (April 1969), in: Donald Judd, Complete Writings 1959-1975: gallery reviews, book reviews, articles, letters to the editor, reports, statements, complaints (Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design), 198. 2 postminimalism and process art. This divergence signals the endpoint of the interrogative scope of this thesis.

Judd

Judd’s conceptual and formal progression from painting to what he terms ‘specific objects’ is central to this thesis. This move is driven by Judd’s philosophical concern with empiricism and sees his rejection of many of the aesthetic traditions of modernism that branch from rationalist thought. By tracking Judd’s move from painting to objects chronologically, his paintings are seen increasingly more and more object-like across time. Judd first abandons representational painting to work with simple geometric and abstracted forms, then mixes sand into the paint to build a rougher, more pronounced and tactile ground. In later stages of his painting, Judd inserts distinctive three-dimensional objects into the canvas. From here, lastly, Judd breaks from painting’s inherent two-dimensionality to create three-dimensional objects that jut from the wall or stand-alone on the floor. Scholarship on Judd’s paintings from his early period is relatively limited. Judd did not significantly exhibit any work after his 1957 exhibition of paintings at Panoras Gallery until 1963 at the Green Gallery when his move to objects was all but complete. The years between these two exhibitions are instructive to Judd’s transition from painting to objects and are populated with artworks that speak to this move. Yet without critical exposure at the time, there is scarce contemporaneous literature on Judd’s paintings from this period.

There are two valuable pieces of scholarship which have been beneficial in the analysis of the early Judd works undertaken in this thesis. Firstly, the 1975 catalogue raisonné on Judd, compiled by Brydon Smith with Roberta Smith’s accompanying essay on the artist. This monograph is a vital documentary resource

3 for addressing Judd’s works produced between 1960 and 1974.2 The documentation of works within this monograph enables analysis of the earliest objects and object-like paintings from Judd’s oeuvre that are otherwise unavailing. Roberta Smith’s essay on the artist exists as the first comprehensive biographical account on Judd, making it requisite reading for researchers of the artist. This publication was produced in conjunction with Judd’s retrospective held at the National Gallery of Canada in 1975. The omission of Judd’s paintings produced prior to 1960 in the catalogue is, however, notable. In Judd’s early paintings from the 1950s, the problematic and painterly concerns of realism, figuration, and illusionism are evident. Judd’s 1950s paintings do not sit well with his unbending call for specific objects in the 1960s and they were not considered for inclusion in this 1975 exhibition.

Judd’s earliest paintings were availed for critical analysis much more recently, specifically in an exhibition at the Kunsthalle Bielefeld in 2002. Thomas Kellein’s scholarship on Judd in relation to this exhibition presents a more complete survey of the artist’s painting practice.3 Kellein covers Judd’s artistic output over the time period 1955-1968, which incorporates Judd’s earliest paintings from his formative phase through to the specific objects of his principal minimalist period.4 Kellein’s study problematizes the view that Judd’s objects materialised self-assured in the early 1960s after a preliminary series of object-like paintings. This view is promulgated through most of the earlier, contemporary literature on Judd. What Kellein’s research demonstrates is that Judd’s painting practice extended for almost ten years before the first of his objects appeared. As such, the paintings

2 Brydon Smith, Donald Judd: a catalogue of the exhibition at the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, 24 May-6 July 1975: catalogue raisonné of paintings, objects, and wood- blocks, 1960-1974 (Ottawa: The Gallery for the Corporation of the National Museums of Canada, 1975). 3 Thomas Kellein, Donald Judd, 1955-1968 (New York: D.A.P., 2002). A catalogue of the exhibition ‘Donald Judd. The Early Work, 1955-1968’ from 5 May to 21 July 2002 in the Kunsthalle Bielefeld and from 31 January 2002 to 27 April 2003 in the Menil Collection, Houston. 4 Like the 1975 catalogue raisonné, Kellein’s study was produced to coincide with a 2002 exhibition at Kunsthalle Bielefeld, Germany, which showed Judd’s earliest paintings mostly for the first time. Although this exhibition occurred sometime after Judd’s death in 1994, Kellein states that the idea was hatched in discussions with the artist around 1992. Suggestibly, Judd’s own position on his objects’ relationship to painting softened with time. 4

Judd produced in this formative period are important to understanding how he arrived at minimalism. The formal problems Judd uncovers in two-dimensional painting led him to gradually reject the medium’s painterly conventions. This aligns the early part of Judd’s program with Greenberg’s reductionist modernism, though Judd pushed this self-analytical testing of medium to the point of its rupture.

Judd’s realisation of actual space and his engagement with physical forms are made manifest through his rejection of painting. The conditions of modernist painting are set out by Greenberg in his essay of the same name – ‘Modernist Painting’ (1965), which was republished from a lecture he gave five years prior.5 This thesis scrutinises the Judd and Greenberg dialectic and tracks this critical dialogue through the conceptual and formal developments seen in Judd’s own work. Viewed through his artworks, Judd’s repudiation of two-dimensional painting and his move to three-dimension objects bears a certain fatal logic towards Greenberg’s teleological narrative of modernism. This thesis gives considerable attention to Greenberg’s modernist theory as it is realised through the critic’s key essays, especially Greenberg’s writings on the primary painters of the New York School. Seen through the context of Greenbergian modernism, Judd pursues Greenberg’s criticism to its theoretical limits, subverts it, to then dismiss it in the mid-1960s. Hal Foster below suggests that Judd’s intervention into modernist art was not only a perverse agitation of Greenbergian theory, but was logically indebted to it as well:

Yet this extreme defiance developed as excessive devotion. For example, the reservation voiced by Greenberg about some cubistic painting – that its content is too governed by its edge (‘American-Type Painting’) – is elaborated by Judd into a brief against all modernist painting: its flat, rectangular format ‘determines and limits the arrangement of whatever is on and inside it’. Here, as Judd extends

5 Clement Greenberg, ‘Modernist Painting’ (1960), Forum Lectures (Voice of America, Washington); revised and reprinted in: Art and Literature (Paris, Spring 1965) and Gregory Battcock (ed.), The New Art: a critical anthology (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1966), 67-77. The reprinted version in Battcock is referenced henceforth. 5

Greenberg, he breaks with him, for what Greenberg regards as a definitional essence of painting Judd takes as a conventional limit – literally a frame to exceed.6

As Foster points out, Judd’s specific objects have their conceptual genesis in Greenberg’s modernist painting. Yet, Judd’s specific objects necessarily reject the conditions of two-dimensional painting to subversively occupy sculpture’s third dimension. In ‘Specific Objects’ (1965), Judd declares painting and sculpture finished; condemned by their inherent limitations, he asserts his new art exists as neither. Driven by a strong empiricist bent, Judd purged what he saw as painting’s redundancies and conceits: realism – the representational depiction of objects, the illusionistic treatment of space, and anthropomorphic or rationalist composition. Judd countered these falsities by creating real objects in real space. Surmising this position, Judd confirmed: ‘Actual space is intrinsically more powerful and specific than paint on a flat surface.’7

Judd’s 1964 radio interview with Bruce Glaser, in which Frank Stella and Dan Flavin also took part, remains one of the prescient documents of the new art.8 In the interview, Judd dismisses the aesthetic traditions of European modernism as outmoded and in disagreement with the new American art. Judd and Stella set out divisions between old and new, between Europe and America, and propose a new art form that is non-compositional and not governed by rationalist philosophy. This interview is critical to understanding Judd’s philosophical argument which underpins the new art he theorises in his key essays and reviews. Within the heated contest of ideas enthusing the New York art world, some critics were

6 Hal Foster, ‘The Crux of Minimalism’ (1986), in: Foster, Return of the Real: the avant- garde at the end of the century (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 1996), 44. 7 Donald Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, Arts Yearbook 8, 1965; in: Judd, Complete Writings, 184. 8 This program was one of a series hosted by Glaser and was titled, ‘New Nihilism or New Art’ and broadcast on New York’s WBAI-FM in February 1964. The radio interview featured Dan Flavin, though Judd and Stella contributed to most of the discussion with Glaser, and Flavin subsequently asked his comments to be withheld from the final transcript. The discussion was transcribed and edited by Lucy R. Lippard, and published in the September 1966 edition of ARTnews, appearing under the title ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’. It was reprinted in: Gregory Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 148-64. The reprinted version in Battcock is referenced henceforth. 6 sympathetic to the new art Judd agitated for, others were not as forgiving. In his writings, Judd brazenly advocated for the new art while he took aim with his customary blunt, dry, and often stinging rebukes, against artists and critics perceived by him as ‘old hat’.9 In addressing Judd’s work through this primary critical foment, his aesthetic program is historically situated – quite causatively – at the fracture of modernist art. This thesis evaluates Judd’s words and objects in their disruptive impact against modernist discourse and measures their weight upon late artistic modernism.

Morris

Pursuing Morris’s trajectory through the different fields of painting, dance, and sculpture forms the other critical focus of this thesis. Like Judd, Morris starts out in painting, yet distinct from Judd, Morris’s engages the body and its movement. Morris’s focuses on the physiological act of painting, whereas Judd’s focus is squared on the formal physicality of the painting. This early distinction between the two is vital and points to fundamental distinctions between Judd’s and Morris’s principle minimalist practices. Morris’s interest in the body’s movement in the act of painting was ultimately frustrated as he was unable to reconcile this activity with the end image. Morris exhibited paintings in the late 1950s in two exhibitions before he gave up on the practice altogether. There is little documentation or information on these earliest paintings outside a favourable exhibition review and a 1968 interview in which he lists his influences in these works as Jackson Pollock and Clyfford Still. In this interview, Morris claims his inability to reconcile process and image led him to the field of dance where the body’s movement constitutes both the process and the artwork.10

9 Judd; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, 151. 10 Robert Morris interview by Paul Cummings (1968). Transcript of oral history interview with Robert Morris conducted on 10 March 1968 for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. [Online and no pagination], accessed: 5 March 2009. Available from: http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-robert- morris-13065 7

This thesis contends that Morris’s dance practice opens-up to the conceptual crux of his minimalist sculpture. Most of the monographic literature on Morris approaches his involvement with dance from an art historical perspective, viewing his choreographic work as adjunctive. This art historical literature considers little of Morris’s important intercession into modern dance as part of the Judson Dance Theater. There is scant illumination upon the formal concerns that Morris interrogates in dance that inform his wider minimalist practice. This thesis evaluates Morris’s choreographic work as part of the Judson group’s broader dissolution of modern dance and performance. To achieve this, this thesis establishes an historical interchange between the early modernism of Martha Graham and Doris Humphrey, which Morris and his collaborators sought to subvert and with the interrogative practices of Merce Cunningham and Ann Halprin, who in many ways anticipate Morris and his contemporaries.

Dance historian Sally Banes’s scholarship on the Judson Dance Theater stands alone as the most authoritative account on this collaboration of dancers, musicians, and visual artists who performed at the Judson Memorial Church from the early 1960s.11 Banes follows the Judson group’s unravelling of modernism in dance and argues that the group’s experimental practices instigated postmodern dance. Banes’s documentation of the Judson concerts is an invaluable resource for study in this field given the ephemeral nature of dance and performance, the scarcity of visual documentation, and the little critical attention the group received at the time. The dance critic Jill Johnston is the notable exception here; she was the group’s initial critical champion. The research on the Judson Dance Theater presented in this thesis is indebted to Banes’s scholarship for providing documentary access to choreographic works otherwise inaccessible. Significantly, it is the exuberant, unencumbered spirit and communal ethos of the group which shines through Banes’s studies on the Judson Dance Theater. In the context of this

11 Sally Banes, Terpsichore in Sneakers (Middleton: Wesleyan University Press, 1987 [1977]). Sally Banes, Democracy’s Body: Judson Dance Theater, 1962-1964 (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1993). Sally Banes, Greenwich Village 1963: Avant-garde performance and the effervescent body (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1993). 8 thesis, Banes’s mapping of the personal trajectories and synergies among the group have been particularly beneficial. These creative tangents bring forth Morris’s influences from within and without this milieu for examination. The personal and professional relationships Morris shared with Simone Forti and Yvonne Rainer were the site of the major conceptual, formal, and indeed personal problems Morris wrestled with through dance and sculpture. Reading much of the literature on Morris through the prism of art history provides little insight into these important relationships.

Maurice Berger’s scholarship on Morris is telling in how Morris’s relationships to Forti and Rainer are generally treated in art historical narratives.12 Although Berger does give analytic attention to Morris’s choreographic works, it tends towards expressions of Morris’s individual achievement or genius. This is somewhat understandable given Berger’s scholarship is solely focused on Morris. Yet, the portrayal of Morris as a politicised, radical, individual, and even heroic figure of the New Left, veils the fact that Morris was part of a much wider collaborative group when working on these performance pieces. Further, Morris was not always a principal member in the Judson group’s performances. Berger’s scholarship neglects to mention that Morris was often cast as a performer, not creator, in works choreographed by Forti, Rainer, or others. And it fails to point out that many of the seminal concepts attributed to Morris were either common or not so seminal. Anna C. Chave’s enquiry into the use of biography by Morris and his overly sympathetic critics, casts doubt over the origin of concepts and works often linked to Morris. Although Chave does not direct this criticism at Berger – instead thanking him in the credits of her essay – it is useful, nonetheless, to focus Chave’s analysis on Berger’s writing on Morris. Here Chave writes:

A certain overweighing of Morris’s role as progenitor or ‘intellectual superman’ has served to occlude or subsume the initiatives of other generative and engaging

12 Maurice Berger, Labyrinths: Robert Morris, minimalism, and the 1960s (New York: Harper & Row, 1989); Maurice Berger, ‘Wayward Landscapes’ in: Robert Morris: the mind/ body problem: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, January – April 1994 (New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 1994). 9

figures of this era with differing reference points, emphases, and values ... the lionising of Morris by Krauss and others has not only functioned indirectly to slight other individuals whose achievements and scope of influence might render them equally or more deserving of such attention, it has also traduced much that was most radical – because at least incipiently communitarian – about the creative ferment at this historical juncture in the United States.13

Chave’s feminist critique on Morris’s earlier practices and their less than critical assumption in the writing of minimalism’s history reveals the complexity in engaging the personal biography of Morris in discussion of his work. The artist frequently mediates or presents biographic elements through his works which are often at variance to others’ historical accounts. The writings of Rainer and Forti have been valuable in disentangling Morris’s practices from his labyrinthine biography. Although Forti’s and Rainer’s accounts cannot be taken as truer, they do appear less affected than the deliberate mythologising and revisionism which is present in Morris’s later writing and that of his allied monographers.

While this thesis interrogates Morris’s performance practices, it also looks at the broader dissolution of modernism in dance. As such, it attends to other figures within the milieu that influenced Morris or who he shared influences with. This includes Forti, Rainer, Steve Paxton, and earlier luminaries Robert Rauschenberg, John Cage, and Merce Cunningham. By viewing Morris’s choreographic practice through dance history, his approach to minimalism is inherently different to that of Judd’s. If Judd is seen to threaten modernist art from within, does Morris challenge it from outside? Ultimately, by realising minimalist theory co-extensively in dance and sculpture and with his conceptual crossover between these fields, Morris’s perception of the object can only be distinct from Judd’s.

13 Anna C. Chave, ‘Minimalism and Biography’, The Art Bulletin, 82.1 (March 2000), 154. Chave indicates the phrase ‘intellectual superman’ was used by Morris about himself. 10

Dissonance

Reading Judd’s definitive essay, ‘Specific Objects’ in contrast to Morris’s own defining articles, ‘Notes on Sculpture, parts I & II’, the conflict between the two viewpoints is made abundantly clear.14 Much of Morris’s ‘Notes on Sculpture’ essays (parts I-IV), read as a negation of Judd’s aesthetic program. In establishing the points of dissonance between Judd and Morris, this thesis engages their opposing theories as they are set out in these essays and then realised in their respective artworks. Of the more recent literature, James Meyer’s extensive study on minimalism successfully periodises the artworks and critical writings of Judd and Morris. Although Meyer’s holistic account extends to cover all the key minimalists, his concise framing of Judd and Morris’s opposition resonates with the investigative framework of this thesis. Meyer presents minimalism as a contested discourse with its central theories and practices forged in a constant state of challenge and rebuttal. Below, Meyer outlines the highly oppositional nature of minimalism:

… if we construe minimalism as a discourse, we do well to understand this in relation to its historical setting, the network of galleries and magazines that supported these [minimalist] practices ... specific exhibitions inspired certain replies, which inspired further accounts; a term introduced casually in a review might eventually designate a broader trend. Theory influenced practice and vice versa.15

Meyer’s discursive understanding of minimalism finds its defining theories were constructed through antagonistic viewpoints. This critical perspective is expanded

14 Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part I’, Artforum, 4.6 (February 1966), 42-44. Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, Artforum, 5.2 (October 1966), 20-23. Both parts are reprinted in: Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 222-235. The reprinted versions in Battcock are referenced henceforth. Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part III: Notes and Non-Sequiturs, Artforum, 5.10 (Summer 1967), 24-29. Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part IV: Beyond Objects, Artforum, 7.8 (April 1969), 50-54. 15 James Meyer, Minimalism: art and polemics in the sixties (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 7. 11 upon and pursued in this thesis. To address Judd’s ‘Specific Objects’ it is necessary to engage with Greenberg’s ‘Modernist Painting’. Consideration of Morris’s notion of phenomenological formalism, as he defines it in ‘Notes on Sculpture, parts I & II’, can only be fully realised in contradistinction to Judd’s ‘Specific Objects’. Fried’s ‘Art and Objecthood’ is a clear response to Greenberg’s, Judd’s, and Morris’s essays. Finally, Morris’s ‘Notes on Sculpture, parts III & IV’ serve to unravel the minimalist object. This dislocating digression is picked up and mapped out by Krauss in her influential essay, ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’ (1979).

The aim of this thesis is not to conduct a broad history of minimalism, as Meyer has achieved, but rather to explicate the dissonances between the programs of Judd and Morris in consideration of their earlier artistic practices. This dissertation agrees with Meyer’s observation that Morris’s sculptural theory is staked out as a rejection of Judd’s, however, this thesis goes further to contend that Morris’s involvement with dance and performance is instructive to his sculptural theory too. As Meyer’s framing of the artists confirms, the opposition between Judd and Morris is seen elementarily in the terminology they use to describe their practices. Where Judd declares painting and sculpture dead, with his specific objects existing as an art form beyond these terms, Morris argues his own work is concerned with traditional sculptural values. The use of colour then becomes a critical point of contention, with Judd declaring: ‘Color is never unimportant, as it usually is in sculpture.’16 Morris radically inverts this logic and emphasises that:

[The] qualities of scale, proportion, shape, mass, are physical. Each of these qualities is made visible by the adjustment of an obdurate, literal mass. Color does not have this characteristic. It is additive. Obviously, things exist as colored. The objection is raised against the use of color that emphasises the optical and in so doing subverts the physical. The more neutral hues, which do not call attention to themselves, allow for the maximum focus on the physical decisions that inform sculptural work.17

16 Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, 183. 17 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part I’, 225. 12

According to Morris, colour was not one of the essential properties of sculpture. The pale grey palette Morris worked with in the 1960s attests to this stance. In his essays of the period, Morris slates Judd’s use of colour suggesting his brightly coloured objects are not far removed from painting. Conversely, Judd pointed out that ‘Morris’s pieces are minimal visually’, his sculpture existed in ‘the most minimal way’, and that ‘there isn’t, after all, much to look at.’18 Minimalism during this period was a contested term. Judd resisted the use of minimalist or minimal in relation to his own work throughout and thereafter, claiming instead that he was an empiricist. For Judd, minimalism was construed as negative against his own work, though he had used it in his evaluation of Morris’s work. The fact minimalism was eventually settled upon and applied to Judd’s work as well, was a source of considerable annoyance to the artist as his complaint below suggests:

In the last three years or so I’ve thought that Clement Greenberg and his followers have been trying to form a similar closed situation [to Abstract Expressionism]. I’ve expected a lot of stupid things to reoccur – movements, labels – but I didn’t think there would be another attempt to impose a universal style. It’s naive and it’s directly opposed to the nature of contemporary art, including that of the artists they support. Their opinions are the same as those of the critics and followers of the late fifties: there is only one way of working – one kind of form, one medium, everything else is irrelevant and trivial; history is on our side; preserve the true art; preserve the true criticism.19

Although it appears insincere to Judd to claim his work under the umbrella of minimalism, as this thesis does, minimalism as a historical label which designates an aesthetic style and discursive practice, has long since been adopted. Herein, when the practices of Judd, Morris, or their contemporaries Frank Stella, Dan Flavin, Carl Andre, or Sol LeWitt are labelled minimalist, it is in exploitation of the

18 Donald Judd, ‘In the Galleries – Robert Morris’, Arts Magazine (February 1965), in: Judd, Complete Writings, 165. Donald Judd, ‘Nationwide Reports: Hartford – Black, White and Gray’, Arts Magazine (March 1964), in: Judd, Complete Writings, 118. 19 Judd, ‘Complaints: part I’, 197. 13 term in this broadest and most general sense. This thesis does not seek to unpack minimalism as an art historical label or challenge its broader acceptance by the canon. Judd’s and Morris’s work is not considered contemporary today; the disputes over labelling artists and their artworks, which are typically hottest at their most immediate, have been decided. This thesis does however scrutinise when and where minimalism is used and contested as a visual description comparative to Judd’s and Morris’s works. The question of what is visually minimal goes to one of the core antagonisms between Judd and Morris. It points to oppositional tension between the haptic and the optic which both artists heatedly claimed distinguished their own work from the other.

In addition to explicating the dissonances between Judd and Morris, this thesis examines how and where their respective practices engage and disengage modernist art. The dissimilarity between the cumulative works of Judd and Morris, and those of other contemporary groupings of artists, can be stressed through analysing the formal properties of space, colour, scale, volume, mode of facture, and choice of materials. From this, Judd’s and Morris’s formal concerns reveal interrogative attitudes towards Greenbergian formalism. Judd’s intense empiricist treatment of colour, material, and form exaggerate Greenberg’s definition of the modernist artist and compounds the critic’s notion of artisanal quality. While Morris’s minimal treatment of the visual and emphasis on the phenomenal calls for a different perceptual model for engaging his works. The theatrical aspects of Morris’s minimalist practices further question the very nature of modern art.

Resonance

While this dissertation accentuates the differences between Judd’s and Morris’s practices to stress their extrication within the canon, it must also acknowledge the resonances between them. The initial perceptions of Judd and Morris go some way to explaining their proximity within the narrative of modern art. At the time of 14 their emergence, establishment critics perceived Judd and Morris pursuing similar anti-modernist programs, identifying commonage across their geometric, mainly monochromatic, three-dimensional forms. Heightening this, Judd’s and Morris’s artworks were regularly presented alongside each other in the same group shows, particularly early on. Both artists were promoted by the same New York galleries; first Green, then Castelli. Mel Bochner, a sympathetic critic, identified amongst the watershed ‘Primary Structures’ exhibition at the Jewish Museum in 1966, that the works of Judd and Morris, along with the other would be core minimalists, stood out amongst the rest in the show. In his review Bochner cut to the chase:

The New Art of Carl Andre, Dan Flavin, Sol LeWitt, Don Judd, Robert Morris, Robert Smithson deals with the surface of matter and avoids its ‘heart’. It is unlifelike, not spontaneous, exclusive. It does not move. This is not an ‘art-style’. It will not ’wither’ with the passing season and go away. It is not engineering. It is not appliances. It is not faceless and impersonal. It will not become academic. It offers no outline or formula. It denies everything it asserts. The implications are astounding. Art no longer need pretend to be about Life. Inhibitions, dogmas and anxieties of nineteenth-century romance disappear. Art is, after all, Nothing.20

Bochner’s review valorising the works of Judd, Morris, Flavin, Andre, LeWitt, and Smithson reveals their new art defied the interpretative models of previous art. Although Judd and Morris conceptually contrasted each other throughout the 1960s, they did share a common rejection of previous aesthetic convention. Their capacity to articulate this in both artistic production and theoretical writing is attributable to their formative art training and their interests in art history and philosophy. In a strictly biographic sense, and without framing an historical context here, Judd’s and Morris’s paths towards minimalism bear considerable semblance. Art historian Phyllis Tuchman identifies numerous similarities across Judd’s and Morris’s childhoods and early adulthoods and proposes that ‘their parallel experiences … probably were as significant for twentieth century art as the

20 Mel Bochner, ‘Primary Structures’, Arts Magazine, 40.8 (June 1966), 32-5, in: Bochner, Solar System & Rest Rooms: Writings and Interviews, 1965-2007 (Cambridge and London: October and The MIT Press, 2008), 8-11. 15 actual exchanges of Picasso and Braque or Morris Louis and Kenneth Noland.’21 Both Judd and Morris were born and raised in the American mid-West; Judd born in 1928 in Excelsior Springs, Missouri and Morris, in 1931 in Kansas City, Kansas. As children, both had shown interest in art in school and through extracurricular art lessons, growing up in what Tuchman describes as ‘the hotbed of Regional Art during its heyday.’22

Both Judd and Morris served in engineers’ units in Korea; Judd prior to the outbreak of the war (1945-7) and Morris towards its end (1952). Returning from Korea, Judd studied painting at the Art Students League in New York (1947-8; 1950-3) and philosophy at Columbia University (1949-53), with emphasis on empiricism and pragmatism. He returned to Columbia in 1957, four years after completing his Bachelor’s degree to undertake a Master’s degree in Art History (1957-62). Judd’s interests here centred on the Renaissance and contemporary art. Throughout this period (1953-67), Judd taught art at various institutions. In 1959, Judd commenced writing art criticism and reviews for publications including Arts News, Arts Magazine, and Art International.

Morris undertook tertiary studies at the University of Kansas City (1948-50) and the Kansas City Art Institute. In 1951, Morris enrolled at the California School of Fine Arts in San Francisco, before suspending his studies to serve with the Army Corps of Engineers in Korea. Upon his return, between 1953 and 1955, Morris studied at Reed College in Oregon, majoring in philosophy and psychology. After moving back to San Francisco, Morris began his involvement with experimental dance and performance. With his first wife Simone Forti, Morris moved to New York around 1960 though they divorced soon after.23 In New York, Morris pursued art history studies at Hunter College and submitted his Master’s thesis on Constantin Brancusi in 1966.

21 Phyllis Tuchman, ‘Minimalism and Critical Response’, Artforum, 15.5 (May 1977), 29. 22 Tuchman, ‘Minimalism and Critical Response’, 29. 23 Judd also married a dancer, Julie Finch, in 1964 (divorcing in 1975). 16

Both Judd and Morris wrote extensively on art, their own and particularly, in the case of Judd, the art of others. It is these writings that are given the most analytic attention in this thesis. Judd’s definitive essay ‘Specific Objects’ was published in 1965, though he claims to have formulated its argument around 1963. From his numerous exhibition reviews through to his longer essays on the primary painters of the New York school, Judd fashions his view on how the new American art differed from and surpassed European modernism. Here, Judd came to symbolise both what is new and American, positioning himself not only as the logical heir to Jackson Pollock, Clyfford Still, Barnett Newman, and Mark Rothko, but as the voice of this art thereby usurping Greenberg.

Morris first theorised his minimalist sculpture with ‘Notes on Sculpture, Part I’ in the February issue of Artforum in 1966. Part II was published in the October issue of the same year. Parts III and IV were published in 1967 and 1969 respectively, while ‘Notes on Dance’ was published in 1965 and ‘Anti form’ in 1968.24 These articles form the theoretical nexus of Morris’s minimalist, performance, and postminimalist practices during the 1960s. As such, Morris offers an evolving interpretation of minimalism. Over the course of his essays, Morris expands minimalist thought to encompass various sculptural practices and situations, as well as the engagement with unconventional, soft materials and external environments. In both his writing on sculpture and dance, Morris’s conceptual concern with body and object relationships is clearly evident.

Judd and Morris’s assumption of the positions of both artist and theorist, led Harold Rosenberg to exclaim: ‘The inspiration of the Minimasters is art criticism; many of these painters and sculptors began as writers on art.’25 Rosenberg, an ardent critic of minimalism, writes here from a position of eroding authority. Minimalism demanded new critical methodologies from those of earlier artistic movements. The critics entrenched in previous convention, like Rosenberg, soon

24 Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Dance’, The Tulane Drama Review, 10.2 (1965), 179-186. Robert Morris, ‘Anti-Form’, Artforum, 6 (April 1968), 33-35. 25 Harold Rosenberg, ‘Defining Art’, The New Yorker (25 February 1967); reprinted in: Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 304-5. 17 found their voices increasingly marginalised in the face of the new art. Gregory Battcock, in the preface to his quintessential anthology of writings on minimal art, noted this changing relationship between art and its criticism during this period:

In order to declare his intentions effectively, and to emphasise his achievements, the new artist has moved into a much closer relationship with the art critic. Many of the new artists are both writing and talking about their art in a highly articulate and critical manner. At the same time, the appraisals of critics go beyond mere judgment and evaluation; they provide a sympathetic contribution.26

That the artists themselves wrote liberally about their own art was not necessarily a new development. Artists across the history of modern art have engaged with the written word to substantiate meaning behind their artworks. In this sense, such artist writings are somewhat reflective, often verging on and sometimes venturing into the metaphysical as way of illumination. The generation previous to Judd and Morris were no different in this regard; it is seen in the writings of Newman or Rothko which deal with the sublime. This is not to say these earlier artists were disingenuous when engaging with art writing, but rather, before Judd and Morris, the artist’s text was held decidedly secondary to the primary practice of painting or sculpting. These earlier texts served to reflect meaning upon the artworks – an explanatory note or almost an afterthought. Judd and Morris differ from these earlier artists in two main ways. Firstly, their writings serve as interpretive models to their artworks. That is, they state to the audience the conceptual framework for engaging the artwork. Their texts do not reflect, rather they instruct – sometimes to the point of didacticism. As such, writing becomes an integral part of the overall artistic practice, no longer held separate or distinct from the artwork and its making. Judd’s objects and Morris’s sculptures, arguably, seem less resolute without the contexts of ‘Specific Objects’ or ‘Notes on Sculpture’. Many of the conceptual artists who followed Judd and Morris, dispensed with the art object altogether leaving only its blueprint or text. That many of these artists saw Judd

26 Gregory Battcock, ‘Preface’, in: Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 26. 18 and Morris as their theoretical precursors, points to the centrality which Judd and Morris afforded art writing in their practices.27

Secondly, the nature of art writing changed with Judd and Morris. References to the spiritual, metaphysical, or transcendental qualities of the art object and art making became decidedly unfashionable to Judd, Morris, and their contemporaries. Instead, their writings situated meaning solely in the experiential, factual, and tangible aspects of their artworks. In Judd’s case particularly, this manifested itself as an extreme formalism extending into empiricism. Only what could be seen or experienced as fact in the artwork was given countenance. Morris’s writings too conveyed a rebellious matter-of-factness. He argued his sculptural objects existed as the sum of interrelated formal properties – size, scale, mass, and shape. The emphasis, as Morris’s essays makes clear, is on the spectator’s visual apperception of these formal relationships. He termed this ‘phenomenological formalism.’28 The key to decoding Judd’s and Morris’s minimalist works is set out in their respective writings. Bochner would later reflect on this period of art writing and criticism undertaken by these artists as revolutionary, irreversibly leading to a change in art itself. For Bochner:

Judd opened-up art writing, showing that it didn’t deserve its bad name as a literary form, and that it could establish grounds for a public discourse among artists. His contemporaries like Flavin, Robert Morris, and Sol LeWitt, as well as younger artists like Robert Smithson, Dan Graham, and I, all joined the published conversation … The inmates had realised that if they couldn’t quite take over the asylum, they could at least talk to each other through the bars. Hijacking the critical discourse proved extremely subversive, redefining all the issues (goodbye

27 Such artists include Mel Bochner, Joseph Kosuth, or Vito Acconci who once declared minimalism ‘the father art’. (Acconci’s statement is from a 1997 interview with Frazer Ward, see: Alexander Keller & Frazer Ward, ‘Matthew Barney and the Paradox of the Neo- Avant-Grade Blockbuster’, Cinema Journal, 45.2 (Winter 2006), 5. 28 Robert Morris; Benjamin Buchloh, ‘Three Conversations in 1985: Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Robert Morris’, October, 70, The Duchamp Effect (Autumn 1994), 51. [Interview conducted 17 December 1985]. 19

‘flatness, goodbye ‘framing edge’), and eventually leading to a sea change in the nature of art.29

The stakes were high on all sides; for Judd and Morris the splintering of modernist thought gave their competing aesthetic programmes historical consequence. They served as models for the next generation of artists whose practices could no longer be verbalised within a modernist syntax. Lucy Lippard confirms the influence of the two: ‘Donald Judd was … a powerful figure, an obdurately blunt artist and writer who was a model for many young artists. And Robert Morris, elusive and virtually styleless, was the progenitor of many soon-to-be “seminal” concepts.’30 Notionally, Morris’s movement through postminimalism is beyond the chronological scope of this thesis. Nonetheless, Morris’s early postminimalist works demand deliberation when addressing minimalism’s canonisation. With the elevation of minimalism into the canon of modern art occurring at the end of the 1960s, Morris’s postminimalist and process works, somewhat paradoxically, subvert the very institution of modern art. This paradox is expanded upon in the final chapter of this thesis which examines the elevation of minimalism into the modern art canon. Here, Judd’s and Morris’s respective positions to the canon and to modernism are addressed. Now, as a final intonation on the positioning of Judd and Morris within the canon of modern art, Bochner’s observation below is telling:

For my generation, Judd posed the same problem as Picasso did for the Abstract Expressionists; you either had to go over, under, around, or through him. Conceptual, process, and earth art, each in their own way, constituted a rejection of the specific object.31

Above, Bochner writes of the artists who came after Judd, though Morris was obviously contemporaneous to Judd. Morris’s rejection of Judd’s specific object is

29 Mel Bochner, ‘Judd’s Writings’, Artforum (Summer 2005), reprinted in: Bochner, Solar System & Rest Rooms, 198. 30 Lucy Lippard, Six Years: the dematerialisation of the art object from 1966 to 1972 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997 [1973]), viii. 31 Bochner, ‘Judd’s Writings’, p.198. 20 first discernible in his minimalist works in the mid-1960s. This negation becomes unmistakable in Morris’s postminimalist and anti-form works of the late 1960s and early 1970s, which read as attacks against the integrity of the art object. While Morris’s minimalist works conflict so readily with Judd’s, their respective anti- modernist programs created a fertile and emerging context for the postminimalist and postmodernist practices that followed. Evidently, Morris’s work moved into this context. A corollary of this enquiry, is that future research can adequately define the conceptual resonances of Judd or Morris amongst the next generation of New York artists who widened the fissures caused by their initial interrogations of modernist art.

The dissolution of modernist art that is held common to Judd and Morris, sees their pairing in art history. As such, the resonant and representative view of the artists has more widely prevailed and the differences between their practices, has until more recently, escaped thorough investigation. This thesis re-evaluates the teaming of Judd and Morris by accentuating the dissonances at play between their aesthetics. It finds these differences are ultimately rooted in their paths towards minimalism and thus their minimalist practices are fundamentally dissonant. By analysing their competing aesthetics through respective analyses and drawing out this conflict, this dissertation offers to the existing scholarship on the artists a more nuanced reading on how they defined themselves not only against Greenbergian modernism, but against each other.

21

22

CHAPTER ONE

Modernist Painting and its Challenge

When the respective minimalist practices of Judd and Morris emerged in the early 1960s, they came into open conflict with the dictates of modernist art. The modernist canon was largely policed through Greenberg’s formalist narrative and practices that did not conform to the critic’s qualifications were excluded. Greenberg had cemented his teleological view of artistic modernism through the preceding decades and by the 1950s and the 1960s it was the established paradigm in American art. The new art championed by Judd and Morris sought to unravel this paradigm and soon after Greenberg’s critical model was resoundingly rejected. Impelling the rejection of Greenberg’s narrative in the 1960s was the collective and individual works of Cage, Cunningham, and Rauschenberg in the 1950s. In 1953, Cunningham formed the Merce Cunningham Dance Company while teaching at Black Mountain College. Rauschenberg served as the company’s artistic director until 1964 and Cage continued as Cunningham’s long-time musical collaborator and partner until the composer’s death in 1992.

Black Mountain College was a hotbed of new ideas in experimental aesthetics through the 1940s and 1950s. Cage began performing and teaching there and Rauschenberg started studying there, both in 1948.1 In 1951, while at Black Mountain, Rauschenberg begun work on his White Paintings. It is after witnessing Rauschenberg’s blank paintings that Cage produced his own silent arrangement 4’33”. The seemingly contentless works of Rauschenberg and Cage challenged the inherent dichotomy of Greenbergian modernism – content and form. As such, the White Paintings and 4’33” are influential precedents to minimalism. This chapter defines Greenberg’s modernist paradigm and traces the emerging discordance with it through the work of Cage and Rauschenberg. The paintings of Jasper Johns

1 Although Cage and Rauschenberg both first attended Black Mountain College in 1948, they did not formally meet until three years later at Betty Parsons Gallery in New York. 23 and Frank Stella from the mid-1950s further agitate this discord. Cage, Rauschenberg, Johns, and Stella resonate, in differing measures, with the respective works of Judd and Morris in the 1960s. All four artists challenge Greenberg’s modernist paradigm and within of the context this thesis they anticipate the contest of the modernist canon played out in the critical interventions of Judd and Morris.

Painting as Modernist

Greenberg was in many ways the chief arbiter of modernist art in America. He greeted minimalism contemptuously as it coalesced as a visual presence in the early 1960s. Within this new art, Greenberg rightly sensed a threat to modernist art and criticism. Greenberg had established criteria to define artistic modernism and policed the medium boundaries through a highly selective, formalist methodology. Some tendencies within minimalism were categorically incongruent to this privileged position of the art critic. Greenberg sought to exclude the minimalists’ non-art from the canon, reactively publishing his dogmatic essay ‘Modernist Painting’ in 1965.2

Greenberg begins his narrative of modernist painting in the mid-nineteenth century when a ‘more rational justification had begun to be demanded of every formal social activity’.3 The arts, as one of these activities, had to justify their continuation by offering an experience no other activity could, or face assimilation into the realms of entertainment or therapy. To achieve this, each artistic discipline had to eliminate allusions to the other arts and accentuate its own inherent qualities. Painting had to distinguish itself from sculpture by removing sculptural shade and modelling, from literature by removing reference to the literary, and

2 Clement Greenberg, ‘Modernist Painting’ (1960), in: Gregory Battcock (ed.), The New Art: a critical anthology (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1966), 67-77. 3 Greenberg, ‘Modernist Painting’, 67. 24 then limit itself to qualities explicit to painting alone. In identifying ‘Kant as the first real modernist’, Greenberg terms this move to medium purity as ‘self- criticism’.4 Greenberg presents self-criticism as the very essence of modernism. Self-criticism holds that the modernist practitioner uses the ‘characteristic methods of the discipline to criticise the discipline itself.’5 The resolve of self- criticism is to make explicit only what is ‘unique and irreducible’ to each art.6 This is done through the testing of the medium’s conventions and rejecting all that are found inessential. The result of self-criticism is medium purity. In ‘Towards a Newer Laocoön’ (1940), Greenberg finds this move to medium purity complete:

… the avant-garde arts have in the last fifty years achieved a purity and a radical delimitation of their fields of activity for which there is no previous example in the history of culture … Purity in art consists of acceptance, willing acceptance, of the limitations of the medium of the specific art.7

In Greenbergian modernism, the artist tests the internal logic of their medium. That is, the quintessential aspects which demarcates their art from other artistic mediums. In painting, 'the flat surface, the shape of the support, and the properties of the pigment' are the defining parameters.8 The modernist painter embraces these limiting conditions in and as part of their work. Hence, in Greenberg’s narrative: ‘[Édouard] Manet’s paintings become the first modernist ones by virtue of the frankness which they declared the surfaces on which they were painted.’9 Greenberg determines that in tandem with the nineteenth-century’s increasing rationality, artists progressively and consciously began testing the medium’s explicit nature. Greenberg juxtaposes modernism as a reaction against

4 Greenberg, ‘Modernist Painting’, 67. ‘Kant used logic to establish the limits of logic, and while he withdrew much from its old jurisdiction, logic was left in all the more secure possession of what remained to it.’ 5 Greenberg, ‘Modernist Painting’, 67. 6 Greenberg, ‘Modernist Painting’, 68. 7 Greenberg, ‘Towards a Newer Laocoön’, Partisan Review, (July-August 1940), in: Clement Greenberg, The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol. I: Perceptions and Judgements, 1939- 1944, [(ed.) John O’Brian], (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986), 32. 8 Greenberg, ‘Modernist Painting’, 69. 9 Greenberg, ‘Modernist Painting’, 69. 25

Romanticism and what distinguishes the later condition is this greater concern with technique or its ‘artisanal emphasis’.10 For Greenberg, it is this analytical and technical approach to painting, beginning with Manet, that marks the 'hard- headed, sober, “cold” side of Modernism’.11 The teleological nature of modernism sees the technical advancements of earlier movements assumed by later movements, pushing art forward through further technical innovation. To this end, problem-solving is intrinsic to modernist art. The artist strives to overcome formal problems proposed by earlier artists. Greenberg argues: for Pollock, this is Picasso; for Picasso, this is Cezanne.

Modernist art is reductionist. Exploratory technique tests the medium’s conventions and those found inessential are jettisoned. Gradually, over the course of modernism painterly principles like correctness of proportion, the use of tone and shade to model three-dimensional shapes, the use of light and dark to fashion illusionistic space and depth, and linear perspective are proven dispensable. The end result of this reductionism is a flattened and totally abstracted image. By eliminating painting’s inessential elements the artist arrives at its ‘two constitutive conventions or norms: flatness and the delimitation of flatness.’12 Greenberg claims that since the time of Manet, painters sought to flatten the picture plane more and more to the point of its unity with the plane of its support: ‘The uniformly smooth and transparent surface behind which the picture used to take place has been made the actual locus of the picture instead of its window pane.’13 The medium of painting comprises these two irreducible constants – the image and its support. It is the tension and disarticulation between these two fundamentals and the pursuit to reconcile the two, which concerns the efforts of the modernist painter.

10 Clement Greenberg, ‘Necessity of “Formalism”’, New Literary History, 3.1, Modernism and Postmodernism: Inquiries, Reflections, and Speculations (Autumn 1971), 173. 11 Clement Greenberg, ‘Necessity of “Formalism”’, 173. 12 Greenberg, ‘After Abstract Expressionism’, Arts International, 6.8 (October 1962), revised and reprinted in: Henry Geldzahler, New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970 (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1969), 369. The version reprinted in Geldzahler is referenced henceforth. 13 Greenberg, ‘Abstract Art’, The Nation (15 April 1944), reprinted in: Greenberg, Collected Essays and Criticisms, vol. I, 200-1. 26

The New York School painters Greenberg champions see this resolution at its nearest or most advanced. These painters are the logical apex to Greenberg’s modernist succession. This positioning by Greenberg reinforces the geo-political and economic ascendency of postwar America over Europe. Relatedly, Greenberg’s aim was the insistence of New York’s centrality over Paris as the new home of modern art and the avant-garde. Unapologetically, the critic envisages emergent and radical painting techniques in mid-nineteenth century Paris as initiating the relentless march towards flatness, abstraction, and onwards to Abstract Expressionism. Yet puzzlingly, while developments in technique drive the advance of Greenbergian modernism, its self-criticism begs ignorance towards cross- medium innovations and the neglect of certain innovators. It is a too-clever turn that reveals a judicious and shrewd narrative construction; a selection of artists and stylistic innovations in nineteenth and twentieth century painting to predicate the New York School in the mid-twentieth century.

A critical aspect of Greenberg’s theory is the notion of quality. While technique assumes the mechanical or physical association of form, it is not designative of quality. Content is the consequence of the artist’s conception and expression, and this alone is ‘the only factor in the creation of a successful work.’14. Content and form – the indelible dichotomy of Greenberg’s criticism – are coterminous though forever remain distinct. ‘Quality, esthetic value originates in inspiration, vision, “content”, not in “form”, Greenberg states and continues: ‘When a work of art or literature succeeds, when it moves us enough, it does so ipso facto by the content which it conveys; yet that “content” cannot be separated from its “form”’.15

From Greenberg’s perspective, it is not the skill and dexterity with which the artwork is executed, but rather the artwork’s content which reveals its quality. This becomes an important distinction with Abstract Expressionism. The total

14 Greenberg, ‘After Abstract Expressionism’, 369. 15 Greenberg, ‘Necessity of “Formalism”’, 174-5. 27 intellection of the image and the disparate, highly individualised styles of the Abstract Expressionists makes the discernment of an overarching technical approach difficult. More so than it had been in earlier movements like Impressionism or Cubism. In eliminating one by one the painterly conventions over the advance of a hundred years, all that is left by the time of Abstract Expressionism is a barely or non-representational image. Or indeed, at its most elemental, paint marks on canvas. Quality must then be found in something intangible, as the tangible seemingly anyone can do. Greenberg’s writing on Newman argues just this point. The critic postulates that even though ‘Newman’s pictures look easy to copy… they are far from easy to conceive or invent’.16 For Greenberg, Newman’s conception resides in the exact choice of colour and proportion. It is Newman’s exactness in making these formal choices that point to the artist’s inspiration and conception. This is evident in Greenberg’s declaration: ‘The onlooker who says his child could paint a Newman may be right, but Newman would have to be there to tell the child exactly what to do.’17

Newman’s aesthetic breakthrough came with Onement 1 (1948) [fig.1]. Formally, it consists of two elements – a smooth Indian Red colour field of indeterminable depth, bisected by a vertical strip or zip of light cadmium red. Together these elements constitute a spatial order which Newman worked with predominantly from here on. This is the first painting in which Newman articulates his conception of the sublime experience. The zip expresses the finiteness of man against the colour field that symbolises the infinite and unknown.18 The transcendental significance of Newman’s zip paintings goes some way to confirming Greenberg’s assertion that while they look technically simple, the concept governing them is complex. Newman’s zip paintings are formally organised through an austere pictorial device, yet they symbolise the artist’s abstraction of the sublime relationship. Therefore, the content of Newman’s painting is exceedingly more

16 Greenberg, ‘After Abstract Expressionism’, 370. 17 Greenberg, ‘After Abstract Expressionism’, 370. 18 Paul Crowther, ‘Barnett Newman and the Sublime’, Oxford Art Journal, 7.2 (1984), 55-6. The ‘implied analogy’, Crowther suggests, is that just as Newman’s zip ‘achieves self- definition within the “whole space” by its accentuation of the colour field’, so too ‘humankind can only define and express its own finite rational nature in opposition to the infinite and unknown.’ 28 intricate than its form. It is this estimation by Greenberg that positions Newman at the advance of a hundred years of modernist painting. Within Greenberg’s reasoning then, the painting’s content extends from the artist’s conception and is intangible. Form is tied to the artist’s technique and is mechanical. The artwork’s content directs its form hence, conception is privileged over technique. The hierarchic division between content and form replicates the Cartesian division between mind and body. This division spurs Judd’s rejection of rationalist philosophy and instructs his pursuit of a new art which collapses distinctions between content and form, thought and feeling.

In the narrative of Greenbergian modernism, by the time of Newman many of painting’s technical conventions had been abandoned. Conception alone remained with the artist. It follows, if an artwork’s quality is determined through its content vis-à-vis conception, then quality derives from the inherently individual and subjective. In Newman’s Onement 1, it is the artist’s conception and individual expression of the sublime relationship that points to the painting’s conceptive quality.19 Greenberg confirms this: ‘Inspiration, conception, alone belongs altogether to the individual; everything else can be acquired by anyone now.’20 This underscores the popularised reading of the Abstract Expressionists’ individualism, freedom, and originality. It also feeds into wider cultural tropes of American exceptionalism. Greenberg’s championing of Abstract Expressionism along these terms is indicative and sustaining of the confidence of American art over European and the new found artistic centrality of New York.

The triumph of Greenbergian modernism extends from its easy readability – a self- confirming and persuasive narrative grounded in Kantian aesthetics. Greenberg’s

19 Barnett Newman, ‘The Sublime Is Now’, Tiger’s Eye, 1.6 (December 1948). Newman’s own words suggest as much; here declaring the power in his paintings and those of his New York School contemporaries, stems from the individual self-expression: Instead of making cathedrals out of Christ, man, or ‘life’, we are making it out of ourselves, out of our own feelings. The image we produce is the self-evident one of revelation, real and concrete, that can be understood by anyone who will look at it without the nostalgic glasses of history.’ 20 Greenberg, ‘After Abstract Expressionism’, 369. 29 critical theory of modernism appeared more accessible and legitimate than other methodologies in America during the 1940s, ‘50s and well into the ‘60s. Its teleology was easily grasped; by arranging the successes of modernist art in linear order, then expounding the analytical impulses behind these examples, Greenberg’s theory of modernism was easy to get. Greenberg made modern art explainable. Over the course of three decades, the accessibility of Greenbergian modernism and its wide dissemination saw it entrenched as paradigm. Resultantly, Greenberg came to be the undoubtable authority on art in America. By the late 1950s and in the 1960s, both these standings faced growing threats. When Greenberg’s ‘Modernist Painting’ appeared in the mid-1960s it came as ‘a defensive show of force’.21

Greenberg’s titular essay ‘Modernist Painting’ sought to reinforce the authority of his paradigm. In doing so, it became a lightning rod for art’s new theorists to counter and refute. Judd and Morris were in the forefront of this. Yet paradoxically and somewhat paternalistically, Judd’s and Morris’s competing aesthetics must interrogate to subvert Greenbergian formalism and break from modernist art. Their differing strategies are the focus of later chapters in this thesis. Here, the erosion of Greenberg’s authority began with Cage’s and Rauschenberg’s theatrical practices in the 1950s. According to Greenberg, Cage’s and Rauschenberg’s works extended the antagonisms of Marcel Duchamp against modernist art. By the time of Judd and Morris in the 1960s, these antipathies had grown to rebellion. The fracturing of modernist thought, stemming from this revolt, saw fierce competition for the discursive space thereafter. A myriad of antithetical practices emerged,

21 Roxie Davis Mack, ‘Modernist art criticism: Hegemony and Decline’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 52.3 (Summer 1994), 341-2: ‘[Greenberg’s] approach was being assimilated by a generation of younger critics, achieving widespread dissemination and with it something of the status of a critical paradigm. It attracted disciples for a number of reasons. It filled a theoretical vacuum and provided a learnable critical method that could be applied across cases. Its promise of cool cognitivity was alluring: by organising the productions of Modernist art into a developmental sequence and offering an explanation of the principles behind that development, it was able to supply a certain kind of understanding more powerful than any other model on offer … Greenberg’s essay gave Modernism in the visual arts the closest thing to a reasoned philosophical foundation it was ever to have and immediately made other styles of criticism look impressionistic, eclectic, and ad hoc. Apart from what seemed its considerable explanatory power, the fact that it was the ober dictum of the most powerful critic in the country gave it even greater impact.’ 30 unsustainable under modernist art’s theoretical conditions, though all loosely sharing a repudiation of them. Did Greenberg’s fears come to fruition with the arrival of postmodernism in the late 1960s – a general lowering of standards and lessening of quality?

The Theatre of Cage and Rauschenberg

Rauschenberg’s White Paintings (1951) [fig.2], problematize Greenberg’s critical paradigm by bringing into question Greenberg’s notion of quality and confuting content and form distinctions. Looking at Rauschenberg’s paintings, which consist of a series of canvases painted white with house paint and a paint roller, it is evident why Greenberg objected to these. Following Greenberg’s hypothesis, what is to be read from Rauschenberg’s White Paintings? What is their content and what is their form? Where is the question of technique? And, what is the artist’s inspiration? Rauschenberg’s white monochromes are often referenced with the composer John Cage’s 4’33” (1952), a musical piece consisting of three movements of complete silence. Arguably then, the meaning behind Rauschenberg’s paintings is better found in the words of Cage rather than those of Greenberg. Cage writes of Rauschenberg’s paintings:

Everything is so much the same, one becomes acutely aware of the differences, and quickly. And where, as here the intention is unchanging, it is clear that the differences are unintentional, as unintended as they were in the white paintings where nothing was done … the reflective surfaces changing by means of what is happening; lights going on and off … The white paintings were airports for the lights, shadows, and particles.22

22 John Cage, ‘On Robert Rauschenberg, Artist, and His Work’, in: Cage, Silence: lectures and writings (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 102. 31

If Cage’s interpretation of the White Paintings is taken to be the more perceptive to Rauschenberg’s thinking, then can they be considered proto-minimalist?23 From a Greenbergian perspective, the form in these paintings, or Rauschenberg’s technique, suggests the effacement of the artist’s hand, its artisanal aspect. The application of white house paint with a paint roller gives the paintings a highly- smoothed surface, almost industrial-like finish, making the craftsmanship of the artist negligible. The paintings’ content, like their form, aspires to an apparent nothingness. Though Cage suggests the paintings act as reflective surfaces for lights, does this still make them contentless? Or do the reflections of the lights become the content? More recently Rauschenberg called the paintings clocks, offering: ‘if one was sensitive enough … you could read it, that you would know how many people were in the room, what time it was, and what the weather was like outside.’24 These seemingly contentless paintings call attention to the perceptual relations between the spectator, the paintings, and the space containing them – factors external to the artwork itself. This situation then evokes Fried’s notion of theatre: ‘For theater has an audience – it exists for one.’25

Inspired by Rauschenberg’s White Paintings, Cage’s composed 4’33”. Like the paintings, Cage’s 4’33” is seemingly devoid of content, yet its silence focuses the audience’s concentration to the indiscriminate sounds in the hall; a person coughing, the creaks of the wooden floor, or the wind blowing through the trees.26 Cage would later opine about his silent masterpiece: ‘Life goes on very well

23 Cage, ‘On Robert Rauschenberg, Artist, and His Work’, 108: ‘(The white paintings caught whatever fell on them; why did I not look at them with my magnifying glass? Only because I didn’t yet have one? Do you agree with the statement: After all, nature is better than art?) Where does beauty begin and where does it end? Where it ends is where the artist begins. In this way we get our navigation done for us. If you hear that Rauschenberg has painted a new painting, the wisest thing to do is drop everything and manage one way or another to see it. That’s how to learn the way to use your eyes, sunup the next day.’ 24 Robert Rauschenberg, video interview by David A. Ross, Walter Hopps, Gary Garrels and Peter Samis, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, 6 May 1999 (Unpublished transcript at SFMOMA Research Library and Archives [6537]), R:18. 25 Fried, ‘Art and Objecthood’, Artforum (June 1967); reprinted in: Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 140. The version reprinted in Battcock (1968) is referenced hereafter. 26 4’33” was first performed by the pianist David Tudor at Maverick Concert Hall, Woodstock, New York on 29 August 1952. 32 without me, and that will explain to you my silent piece, 4’33”.’27 What Rauschenberg’s White Paintings and Cage’s 4’33” do is shift the critical focus from the creative subject, artist or performer, to the audience and their experience of the theatrical situation. Despairingly, Fried points out Cage and Rauschenberg as evidence of the boundaries of the arts being transgressed. He sees in Cage the synthesis of music and theatre and in Rauschenberg, painting and theatre. Fried pursues the reductive reasoning of Greenberg with vigour in ‘Art and Objecthood’ (1967) and finds a variety of emergent practices occupying the spaces between the arts. Fried writes:

Art denigrates as it approaches the condition of theater. Theater is the common denominator that binds a large and seemingly disparate variety of activities to one another, and that distinguishes those activities from the radically different enterprises of the modernist arts. Here as elsewhere the question of value or level is central. For example, a failure to register the enormous difference in quality between, say, the music of Carter and that of Cage or between the paintings of Louis and those of Rauschenberg means that the real distinctions – between music and theater in the first instance and between painting and theater in the second – are displaced by the illusion that the barriers between the arts are in the process of crumbling (Cage and Rauschenberg being seen, correctly, as similar) and that the arts themselves are at last sliding towards some kind of final, implosive, hugely desirable synthesis.28

Fried’s charge of theatre against Rauschenberg and Cage in a literal sense argues that the mixing of disciplines dilutes medium purity. From this critical stance, the collaborations and cross-disciplinary practices between the composer Cage, the painters Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns, and the choreographer Merce Cunningham, blur disciplinary boundaries. The combines of Johns and Rauschenberg, mixtures of painting and sculpture, also blend mediums in this literal sense. Leo Steinberg argues the restrictive aspect of modernist self-criticism,

27 John Cage, ‘[Letter to Paul Henry Lang]’ (1956), in: Richard Kostelanetz (ed.) John Cage: An Anthology (London: Allen Lane, 1971), 118. 28 Fried, ‘Art and Objecthood’, 141-2. 33 which Fried and Greenberg advocate and which informs the need for medium sanctity, is a strategic omission of many inter-disciplinary practices that can be themselves characteristic of the modern. In excluding boundary-transgressing elements of modern art an ‘impulse to self-preservation’ is revealed, where any practice not conforming to the certain nature of its medium is read as a threat to modernist art.29 Steinberg makes the salient points that: ‘Despite the continual emergence in our culture of cross-border disciplines (ecology, cybernetics, psycho- linguistics, biochemical engineering, etc.), the self-definition of advanced painting is still said to require retreat.’30 Following Steinberg, it can be asked is one to omit from the canon the collaborations between Matisse and Picasso with Diaghilev? Or the explorations into film and photography by key twentieth century painters or sculptors and the evident cross-pollination between these disciplines? If the rigidity of the disciplinary boundaries is upheld, according to Greenberg’s and Fried’s criteria, many collaborative and avant-garde practices are held against modernism for their boundary-transgressions.31

Fried’s charge of theatre against Rauschenberg’s White Paintings is also tied to the Greenbergian anaphora of quality. From Fried’s perspective, the White Paintings have their antecedence in the Duchampian readymade. Duchamp’s readymades, mass-produced functional objects which Duchamp labelled as art, upset the artistic notion that an artwork is the result of the artist’s physical and metal toil. Rauschenberg effectively erases the hand of the artist in the White Paintings. This

29 Leo Steinberg, ‘Other Criteria’ (1968, 1972), in: Other Criteria: Confrontations with twentieth-century art (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 68. See also: Mack, ‘Art Criticism: Hegemony and Decline’, 342. 30 Steinberg, ‘Other Criteria’, 68. 31 Mack, ‘Art Criticism: Hegemony and Decline’, 342-3. Mack suggests Fried’s and Greenberg’s arguments for modernist art are retrograde in their sanctioning of perceived transgressions. She writes: ‘It is not clear what undesirable consequences result when such transgressions occur, nor is it clear what is considered a transgression … It is strange in retrospect how quite intelligent critics could have believed, for example, that when painting portrays three dimensions, it is aspiring to the condition of sculpture, or if it depicts narrative, it has sullied itself with the ‘literary’. Painted three-dimensionality uses none of the means of sculpture; it alludes to but does not reproduce its effects. The same is true for painted ‘narrative’ and the actual literary variety. These elements, in painting, are not direct borrowings, but analogues of one medium within another. But for Greenberg, it is not enough that painting be, de facto, color on flat ground. It must also … intend, express, foreground what is characteristic of the medium; it must acknowledge rather than conceal the medium’s materiality and resistance.’ 34 upsets interpretation of White Paintings from a modernist critic’s perspective as the creative subject and their conception and technique cannot be readily identified with the works. This is like Duchamp’s readymades that show little or no sign of the artist’s making (only choosing). As the artist’s creative subject is negligible or indeterminable in the work, the critic can only engage an authorless object. The objecthood of the White Paintings prevents the critic from penetrating the work to form a critical consonance with the creative subject. While Cage proposes Rauschenberg’s paintings are reflective surfaces for lights, from Fried’s perspective the paintings reliance on external effect suggests theatre and the need for an audience. This is what relates Rauschenberg’s paintings to theatre metaphorically in Fried’s critique.

The example of Duchamp is highly contrary to modernist art. Greenberg regularly presents Duchamp as the forebear of the anti-modernist assaults against the canon in the 1950s and 1960s. That Cage, Cunningham, Johns, and Rauschenberg were close to Duchamp aesthetically and in the case of Cage personally, further explains the consternation they elicited from Greenberg.32 Their interest in the everyday, mundane, and found objects, could only be read as anathema to the modernist arts. What becomes apparent is only select art practices conform to Greenberg’s demands and are admitted into the canon. In this sense, Greenberg’s criticism becomes almost self-consciousness, evolving with the art it defines and continually reasserting its authority through excluding practices outside its self-defined parameters. Modernist criticism assumes a privileged position for the critic who becomes the arbiter of what is fit for the canon and what is not. Greenberg’s definitions and parameters however, are found to be ultimately arbitrary.33

32 Cage and Duchamp regularly played chess together when both were living in New York. See: John Cage interview by Paul Cummings (1974). Transcript of oral history interview with John Cage conducted on 2 May 1974 for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. [Online and no pagination], accessed: 5 March 2009. Available from: http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-john-cage-12442 33 See: Toby Mussman, ‘A Comment on Literalness: Should the picture plane be abolished’, Arts Magazine (February 1968), 14: ‘‘When you make a line dividing one area from another (painting from sculpture, for example), how do you go about making that line? It seems clear enough to me that any line drawn has to be an arbitrary one.’ 35

Although the fixing of these boundaries between the arts may be considered, they are nonetheless informed by the critic’s partialities.

Thierry de Duve argues that much of the belated censure of Greenberg’s modernist criticism stems from a misinterpretation of the relationship between formalism and modernism.34 De Duve contends many opponents are quick to call attention to the theoretic rigidity of ‘Modernist Painting’ and thereby fail to appreciate the declarative summarisation of modernism and formalism that the critic presents. De Duve points out the development of Greenberg’s modernist theory begins with ‘Avant-Garde and Kitsch’ (1939) and is tested, refined, and advanced across the entirety of his insurmountable body of work. ‘Modernist Painting’ serves as an exclamation mark to Greenberg’s whole theory of art and modernism. Many of Greenberg’s critics in their reproach, de Duve finds, neglect the qualifications of modernism that Greenberg sets out in his previous essays. The most critical of these oversights is its relationship with formalism. De Duve sees Greenberg’s modernist theory presenting a slow process of elimination to arrive at modernist innovation:

Certainly Greenberg would agree that … all modern art isn’t modernist. To be modernist is to be a work that takes its own conditions of possibility for its subject matter, that tests a certain number of the conventions of the practice it belongs to by modifying them, by jettisoning or destroying them, and in so doing, rendering the conventions or conditions thus tested explicit, revealing them as nothing but conventions, which is to say as a social pact relative to a given culture or a given moment of history. At the end of this process there will be isolated – stripped bare – the ‘essential conventions’, otherwise called the necessary and sufficient, universal conditions of the given practice, visible or legible in the work itself.35

34 Thierry de Duve, ‘Debate with Clement Greenberg’, in: Thierry de Duve, Clement Greenberg Between the lines: including a debate with Clement Greenberg, [trans. Brian Holmes], (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010). 35 Thierry de Duve and Rosalind Krauss, ‘Echoes of the Readymade: Critique of Pure Modernism’, October, 70, The Duchamp Effect (Autumn 1994), 62. 36

In recognising Greenberg’s discrimination between modernist and modern art, de Duve reaffirms Greenberg’s definition of modernist art as a medium specific practice where the analytical testing of the medium’s conditions is evident in the work itself. De Duve states: ‘When Greenberg says “painting”, one must never forget that he means “the best painting”. And when he says “modernism”, he means “the best of modern art”.36 Yet, Greenberg also conflates formalism, the methodology he championed, with modernism. The effect being, works of art where quality cannot be read from a formalist perspective are perceived as deficient. Following on from de Duve then, Greenberg’s narrative is inherently selective because it is concerned with forming and policing the modernist canon. In this regard, it is highly paradigmatic. Reiterating the necessity of his narrative in 1971, Greenberg’s attempt here reads as a last grasp for relevancy:

But so far every attack on the ‘formalist’ aspect of Modernist painting and sculpture has worked out as an attack on Modernism itself because every such attack developed into an attack at the same time on superior artistic standards. The recent past of Modernist art demonstrates this ever so clearly. Duchamp’s and Dada’s was the first outright assault on ‘formalism’, that came from within the avant-garde, or what was nominally the avant-garde, and it stated itself immediately in a lowering of aspirations. The evidence is there in the only place where artistic evidence can be there: in the actual productions of Duchamp and most of the Dadaists. The same evidence continues to be there in the neo-Dadaism of the last ten years, in its works, in the inferior quality of these works. From which it has to be concluded that if Modernism remains a necessary condition of the best art of our time, as it has been for the best art of the hundred years previous, then ‘formalism’, apparently, remains a necessary condition too, which is the sole and sufficient justification of either Modernism or ‘formalism’.37

It is clear for Greenberg and Fried that the practices of Cage and Rauschenberg, although modern, cannot be considered modernist. They are an attack on formalism, just as Duchamp’s Dadaist practices before them. If Greenberg’s theory

36 De Duve, Clement Greenberg Between the lines, 52. 37 Clement Greenberg, ‘Necessity of Formalism’, 173-4. 37 can be reduced to such: that a modernist work takes the testing of the conditions of its medium as its purpose and then disregards the inessential conventions to be left with only the essential; then what of Rauschenberg’s White Paintings or Cage’s 4”33’? If read from a formalist perspective, these works show that what is essential is nothing. Profoundly, Rauschenberg’s White Paintings and Cage’s 4”33’ suggest that everything inessential, or that nothingness, is essential.

Cage referred to Rauschenberg’s work as ‘a poetry of infinite possibilities’.38 Rauschenberg’s appeal in using found and everyday objects, such as stuffed goats and tyres in his combines, confound distinctions between high and low art, and art and life. By turning the detritus of the urban environment into art, Rauschenberg questions what defines art and highlights its rarefied distinction from everyday life. Cage’s intimation of Rauschenberg’s work being open to ‘infinite possibilities’, indicates here a continuum between art and life in Rauschenberg’s work, not a division. Cage mediates the notion of art’s divorce from life within his own work too. It is a driving awareness in Cage’s aesthetic from the early 1940s, inspired by his reading of Ananda Coomaraswamy’s essays on Indian aesthetics and other traditional Asian cultural forms.39 Coomaraswamy contextualises the separation of art from life in the modern West against the unity of life and art in Eastern traditions. Coomaraswamy finds the post-Renaissance embellishment of artists’ individuality, led to art’s estrangement from everyday experience in the Western modern era.40 Cage seeks to redress this alienation in his own work by not privileging the human being as the centre of things:

38 Cage, ‘On Robert Rauschenberg, Artist, and His Work’, 103. 39 David W. Patterson ‘The Picture That Is Not in the Colours: Cage, Coomaraswamy, and the Impact of India’, in: David W. Patterson (ed.), John Cage: Music, Philosophy, and Intention, 1933-1950, Routledge, New York, 2002, 177-216. Patterson writes about the influence of Eastern philosophies on Cage’s developing aesthetic perspective and finds that Cage’s first serious engagement with these philosophies came through the writings of Ananda Coomaraswamy in the early 1940s. 40 Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, The Transformation of Nature in Art: Theories of art in Indian, Chinese, and European medieval art; iconography, ideal representation, perspective and space relations (New York: Dover Publications, 1934). Over the course of these essays, Coomaraswamy examines the relationship between art and life. He argues in the cultures of Asia and those of medieval Europe, art remains (and remained) indistinct from life, while in the post-Renaissance West the relationship between art and life became dislocated. 38

For ‘art’ and ‘music’, when anthropocentric (involved in self-expression), seem trivial and lacking in urgency to me. We live in a world where there are things as well as people. Trees, stones, water, everything is expressive. I see this situation in which I impermanently live as a complex interpenetration of centers moving out in all directions without impasses. This is in accord with the contemporary awareness of the operations of nature. I attempt to let sounds be themselves in a space of time.41

Cage reinterprets the non-emotive and non-expressive aspects of various Eastern cultural forms in his performance practices from the mid-1940s. His engagement with Zen Buddhism is well known. Contrastingly, this development in Cage’s practice is occurring against the ascendency of Abstract Expressionism and the popular reading of the movement which extolled individuality and self- expression.42 Cage’s interest in Indian aesthetics encompassed his study of the doctrine of rasa and Cage used the rasa as the subject for his 1946-48 work, Sonatas and Interludes.43 Considered one of the composer’s principal works, it is arguably the most exacting of Cage’s prepared-piano compositions.44 Cage’s score for Sonatas and Interludes is decidedly mathematical, consisting of sixteen sonatas and four interludes arranged in a palindrome. This structure restricts the imposition of compositional choice by the creative subject. Further, using a

41 Cage, ‘[Letter to Paul Henry Lang]’, 117. 42 Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, ‘The Theory of Art in Asia’, in: The Transformation of Nature in Art, 15.Contrast can be seen between the emphasis on self-expression and individuality in Abstract Expressionism against the cultural forms that inspired Cage: ‘… Indian treatises constantly emphasise that the actor should not be carried away by the emotions he represents, but should rather be the ever-conscious master of the puppet show performed by his own body on the stage. The exhibition of his own emotions would not be art.’ 43 John Cage, ‘More on Paik’, in: Cage, John Cage: Writer (New York: Limelight Editions, 1993), 155: ‘In the course of my studies of Indian philosophy, I had become aware of the nine permanent emotions of aesthetic tradition. The rasas. The four black, sorrow, fear, anger, disgust; the four white, the heroic, the wondrous, mirth and the erotic; finally, the one without colour, in the centre, towards which any work of art should conduce, tranquillity.’ 44 Cage’s prepared piano pieces involved placing bolts, screws, and pieces of rubber between the piano’s strings. The result was that certain keys took on percussive qualities; others’ tuning was effected, whilst the use of the soft pedal gave two completely different sounds. 39 prepared piano elicits indeterminate sounds and noises in the performance, even when the instrument is played in a conventional manner. Non-composition, chance, and indeterminacy as means for structuring a work, and non-expressive and non-emotive ways for communicating it, were central to Cage’s aesthetic. These Cagean strategies foreground many of the formal concerns of minimalism. Cage’s sentiment voiced here: ‘My feelings belong, as it were, to me, and I should not impose them on others’, presages the minimalist attitudes seen in sculpture, dance, and music in the 1960s.45

The End of Modernist Painting

In ‘Recentness of Sculpture’ Greenberg builds a critique of minimalism, presents a rebuttal to Judd’s ‘Specific Objects’, and highlights the irreconcilability of Rauschenberg and modernist art. In contrast to Rauschenberg’s poetry of infinite possibilities and blurring of distinctions between art and life, the critic asserts: ‘Given that the initial look of non-art was no longer available to painting, since even an unpainted canvas now stated itself as a picture, the borderline between art and non-art had to be sought in the three-dimensional, where sculpture was, and where everything material that was not art also was.’46 Here, Greenberg stakes out the non-art status of Judd’s three-dimensional objects, whilst also inferring their precedence in Rauschenberg and Johns’ combines. This area between art and non- art, which Greenberg refers to, evokes Rauschenberg’s desire to ‘act in the gap between the two’. Rauschenberg’s Monogram (1955-59) [fig.3], a combine consisting of painted found and everyday objects, including a stuffed Angora goat,

45 Cage interviewed by Joseph H. Mazo, ‘John Cage Quietly Speaks His Piece’, Bergen Sunday Record (13 March 1983), excerpted in: Cage & Kostelanetz, ‘The Aesthetics of John Cage: A Composite Interview’, Kenyon Review, 9.4 (Autumn, 1987), 107. 46 Clement Greenberg, ‘Recentness of Sculpture’ (1967), in: American Sculpture of the Sixties [exh. cat.], Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1967; reprinted in: Gregory Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 180-6. The reprinted version in Battcock (1968) is referenced hereafter. 40 springs to mind here. For Greenberg, Monogram assuredly exists where the three- dimensional material ‘that was not art also was’.

Greenberg contends, in relation to Johns and Rauschenberg ‘assemblages’, they ‘did a lot of flirting with the third dimension’ though could not escape ‘a stubbornly pictorial context.’47 This criticism is more relatable to their combines which occupy the wall space where they still retain the perpendicular aspect of conventional painting. Such an example is found in Johns’s Target with Plaster Casts (1955) [fig.4]; a circular target of concentric blue and yellow bands on a red field with a row of painted plaster casts of different body parts set in compartments above. The bulls-eye target necessitates a perpendicular orientation as well as suggesting flatness, while the casts are obviously three-dimensional. Greenberg argues examples like these aspire to be both painting and sculpture, failing in their purpose as art by not maintaining the purity of one medium or another. The plaster casts, including those of genitalia mostly came from Johns’s own studio. They are the type of casts painters use to practice rendering three-dimensional body shapes in two-dimensions. In Target with Plaster Casts, Johns seems to tease Greenberg’s stringent division of painting and sculpture by placing a row of sculptural elements above a flattened painted image.

Similarly, Greenberg charges the ‘Shape-Canvas School’, which he mainly equates with Stella, and proposes: ‘[They] used the third dimension mainly in order to hold on to light-and-dark or “profiled” drawing’.48 It is here that Greenberg’s criticism becomes increasingly difficult to sustain. To imply shaped-canvas paintings like Stella’s are a kind of sculptural drawing and that this drawing determines the shape of that canvas, rests on Greenberg’s reductive premise of painting consisting of two irreducible elements – the support and the image it contains. For Greenberg, the production of this image extends from drawing; an analytical process which suggests the final image has been built up over time, the result of many tentative

47 Greenberg, ‘Recentness of Sculpture’, 182. 48 Greenberg, ‘Recentness of Sculpture’, 182. 41 lines and variations reflecting the inner workings of the artist.49 Greenberg reads Stella’s work in the same terms he applies to Cezanne, who ‘sacrificed verisimilitude, or correctness, in order to fit drawing and design more explicitly to the rectangular shape of the canvas’.50 While Stella dismisses any notion that his paintings begin from drawing:

Well, you have a brush and you’ve got paint on the brush, and you ask yourself why you’re doing whatever it is you’re doing, what inflection you’re actually going to make with the brush and with the paint that’s on the end of the brush. It’s like handwriting. And I found out that I just didn’t have anything to say in those terms.51

Stella’s insight above reveals that his painting is better understood in terms of immediacy or perceived as if they are painted in one shot. Drawing is problematic for Stella as it records a path of the artist working out the image in and over time – something he ‘wasn’t going to do’.52 Without evidence of drawing in Stella’s work, his paintings confound the artistic disarticulation of an image worked up in relation to its support. Indeed, Stella’s rejoinder: ‘I tried to keep the paint as good as it was in the can’, implies the urge to paint the painting in one shot.53 In Stella’s painting the two aspects of image and support are unified. The work is seen as a singular whole, or rather the question of this division in the first place has been dismissed. They exist as a painted form and not as an image and its support. If modernist painting in its progression since Manet demanded the continual flattening of the picture plane, then are not Stella’s shaped canvases the logical conclusion to this progress? If Stella’s paintings are read from a Greenbergian perspective then they are declaratively the result of the steadfast advance towards flatness. Nonetheless, Greenberg dismissed Stella’s paintings as mere ideation. Notwithstanding, when the two-dimensional plane cannot be flattened further, the

49 Rauschenberg’s Erased de Kooning Drawing (1953) is the perversion of this process. 50 Greenberg, ‘Modernist Painting’, 68-70. 51 Stella; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, in: Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 156-7. 52 Stella; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, 157. 53 Stella; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, 157. 42 illusionistic space suffocated and so the now completely abstracted image resides on the plane of its support, this is the full extent of modernist painting’s rationalisation. From here, there is little place for painting to progress except out into the third dimension, the domain of sculpture. And, it is Judd who makes this last step.

A comparison of colour field painting from the early 1960s on flat rectangular canvases with the shaped, deep canvases of Stella from the same period, demonstrates the expiration of two-dimensionality and prevailing of three- dimensionality. In his installation of works at Castelli Gallery in New York, 1964, Stella rejected the conventional perpendicular, rectangular orientations of the canvas [fig.5].54 His radically shaped, deep-recessed, and expansive paintings broke the rectangle and pushed their monochromatic and irregularly shaped forms further from the wall into the gallery space, the space of the viewer. Works like the large hexagonal Charlotte Toyaker (1963), seemed to draw breath as they escaped the static format of two-dimensional painting and its illusionistic space. They did not gain total independence from the wall, though they seemed to aspire to an objecthood that could not be similarly remarked upon in Kenneth Noland’s chevron paintings of the same period like Shoot (1964) or Morning Span (1964) [fig.6]. Seen in contrast, Noland’s works appear overly dependent on the wall for their flatness and perpendicular orientation.55

54 ‘Frank Stella’, Castelli Gallery, New York, 4 January – 6 February, 1964. 55 Judd, although he recognised Noland as ‘one of the best painters’, felt these paintings were part of Noland’s attempt to overcome the residuum of compositional painting. Judd observed of Noland’s breakthrough circle paintings of 1958 and 1959 that these were slightly hierarchical in their composition. Judd wrote: ‘You can argue that the area within the centred circles is more important than the area beyond the outer one and that this is a remnant of the form of the pictured object, of hierarchical structure.’ And so, by 1963 and 1964, Judd found: ‘The desire to use the whole area is reasonable generally and reasonable considering Noland’s earlier work, but also he may be influenced by the development of paintings that aren’t rectangular and by the development of three-dimensional work, which especially asserts wholeness.’ Seen here Judd is emphasising wholeness in relation most likely to Stella’s and his own work. For Judd, Noland occupies uncertain ground between Pollock and Newman on one side and between himself and Stella on the other. See: Donald Judd, ‘New York Letter’, Art International, (April 1965), in: Donald Judd, Complete Writings 1959-1975 (Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design), 172. Stella however, saw closer affinity between his work and Noland’s: ‘I think I have been very influenced by Ken in a number of ways, most of it I would say indirect. But I would say the most direct thing 43

While Fried would argue Noland and Stella together, Noland’s severely flattened bands of colour do not suggest the occupancy of real space that Stella’s paintings do.56 Noland’s chevron and circle paintings remained strictly two-dimensional, flat, and consistent with the disarticulation of a painted image with its corresponding rectangular support. Greenberg disagreed with Fried on Stella as well, suggesting his ‘bas relief constructions’ were more concerned with ideation than painting; a suggestion that arguably reflects anxieties that Stella’s works perform Greenbergian theory and precipitate its demise.57 To Judd, Stella’s shaped canvases opened to a new theoretical context for his three-dimensional objects. Yet, Judd’s and Stella’s respective formal concerns were not entirely coterminous. While Judd sought a new form beyond modernist painting and sculpture, Stella remained engaged with the analytical interrogation of modernist painting, albeit emphasising its terminus for Judd. Indeed, Judd and Stella straddle either side of the divide between painting and objects. While Stella may push painting to its precipice, Judd aims to pull painting from the wall, situate it on the floor, and realise it in three dimensions. This distinction is evident through Judd’s observations on Stella’s paintings, referring to them as ‘slabs’, as objects, if like he, Stella too seeks to end painting. Judd reads Stella’s paintings as follows:

Frank Stella says that he is doing paintings, and his work could be considered as painting. Most of the works, though, suggests slabs, since they project more than usual, and since some are notched and some are shaped like letters. Some new ones, painted purple, are triangles and hexagons with the centres open. The notches in the aluminium paintings determine the patterns of the stripes within.

would be about a kind of feeling for scale potentials and also very influenced by his concern probably more than mine of direction both in terms of scale and direction and also in terms a little bit of a kind of breadth, I mean I’m attracted by his looseness as opposed to what I would call my own tightness.’ See: Transcript of interview of Frank Stella by Sidney Tillum for the Archives of American Art, (1969), 15. 56 See: Michael Fried, ‘Shape as Form: Frank Stella’s New Paintings’, Artforum, 5.3 (November 1966), 18-27. See also: Fried, catalogue essay for Three American Painters: Kenneth Noland, Jules Olitski, Frank Stella, Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, 1965; reprinted in: Michael Fried, Art and Objecthood: essays and reviews (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 213-265 57 De Duve, ‘Debate with Clement Greenberg’, in: Between the Lines, 134. 44

The projection, the absence of spatial effects and the close relation between the periphery and the stripes make the paintings seem like objects, and that does a lot to cause their amplified intensity.58

Yet for all their object-likeness, Stella’s shaped canvases still, for him at least, deal with the analytical traditions of modernist painting. Stella firmly argues his practice within the context of abstraction and as a rejection of representational and figurative painting. Stella stipulates this in a 1969 interview, ‘in order to locate myself as a person and, let’s say, essentially … as an artist, I had to get from Monet to de Kooning in the simplest possible terms.’59 At the extremity of modernist painting’s theoretical limits, after Abstract Expressionism, Stella’s paintings exist as completely compressed picture planes with no illusionistic space and all traces of representation and figuration eliminated. Slab-like as they are, Stella’s shaped canvases are the end game to modernist painting’s unrelenting quest for flatness and abstraction.

58 Donald Judd, ‘Local History’, Arts Yearbook 7 (1964), in: Complete Writings, 153. 59 Frank Stella interview by Sidney Tillum (1969). Transcript of oral history interview with Frank Stella conducted in 1969 for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, 12. 45

46

CHAPTER TWO

Movement through Painting

As with many American artists of their generation, the early tracts of Judd’s and Morris’s aesthetics were cast against the ascendency of Abstract Expressionism. The primary painters of the New York School appeared to the new artists conceptually impassable in painting. This chapter analyses Judd’s and Morris’s early painting from the mid-1950s, exploring what led them to abandon the medium in the early 1960s; Judd for objects, Morris for dance and sculpture. For Greenberg, The New York School represented the high point of modernist painting. Abstract Expressionism was the culmination of a one-hundred-year advance of artistic modernism. The stressing of pictorial flatness and total abstraction of the image, which drove Greenberg’s linear narrative of modernism, had reached their closest resolution with the New York School. The conceptual passages which Judd and Morris navigated from painting to minimalism, were impelled by the initial formal problems they grappled with in painting. These problems were established through their respective dialectics with Abstract Expressionism, especially through the figure of Pollock. Judd’s and Morris’s responses to the challenges of late modernist painting, frame their divergent minimalist practices in the 1960s.

As the previous chapter established, a challenge to modernist discourse coalesced through the 1950s. The painting practices of Rauschenberg, Johns, and Stella, tested the limitations of Greenberg’s formalist dictates. The philosophical mediations of Cage were prescient throughout the wane of artistic modernism and conceptually resonant with the thinking of younger artists. Cunningham’s innovations opened an emerging context for the postmodernist enquiries of dance in the 1960s. Judd’s and Morris’s formative aesthetic explorations occur in context of modernist painting’s rising exhaustion and the increasing literalist and theatrical currents in American art as expressed by these artists.

47

Problems in Painting

Judd’s conceptual passage from painting to objects is defined by the artist’s interrogation of formalism and subsequent break with painting’s fundamental condition – its two-dimensionality. Judd exhibited paintings in three shows at the Panoras Gallery in New York in the mid-50s: a group show in 1955, another in 1956 with the artist Nathan Raisen, and a solo show in 1957. Judd did not exhibit his artworks within a gallery context like this again until 1963 when he appeared in two group shows at the Green Gallery – New Work: Part I and New Work: Part III. Judd followed these group shows with his watershed solo show at Green Gallery in late 1963, which emphatically announced the arrival of his specific objects. In between the Panoras shows and the Green Gallery shows, Judd’s main visibility was as an art critic. He taught art and studied art history, and less visibly, he continued to work through important formal problems in painting. Many of the paintings Judd produced during this period were not shown until much later and some were not seen until after his death in 1994. These paintings are instructive to the emerging aesthetic concerns that inform Judd’s specific object. In these paintings, Judd negotiates non-compositional means for structuring a work, the rejection of illusionistic space and representational objects, and the materiality of colour and form.

Morris’s exhibited paintings at the Dilexi Gallery in San Francisco in 1957 and again at the same gallery in 1958. His paintings in these exhibitions bore the visual influence of Pollock and Still.1 Large scale, forcibly painted, and abstract, Morris’s driving concern in these works is the interrogation of the painting process – the interaction between the artist’s body, paint, and canvas. These early paintings not only reveal Morris’s interest in process, but relatedly corporeality, movement, and

1 Robert Morris interview by Paul Cummings (1968). Transcript of oral history interview with Robert Morris conducted on 10 March 1968 for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. [Online and no pagination], accessed: 5 March 2009. Available from: http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-robert- morris-13065 48 perception. The conceptual contrast in Judd’s and Morris’s later work is foreground in the early paintings of the artists. Judd’s focus is centred on the formal elements within painting – composition, the depiction of space, the representation of objects. Morris’s concerns lie with aspects without the picture frame – the movement of the body, the elapse of time, and the physical act of applying paint to canvas. This earliest distinction anticipates the fiercest exchanges between the two around minimalism in the mid-1960s.

The philosophical influences from their corresponding years of study concentrate Judd’s and Morris’s initial concerns in painting. Judd studied painting at the Art Students League from 1949–1953 and philosophy at Columbia University during this same period. Yet for Judd, his ‘philosophical allegiance’ to empiricism, which he was studying at Columbia, conflicted with the imitative realism being promulgated by the League.2 Judd’s interest in the eighteenth-century philosopher and essayist David Hume led to his conviction that knowledge was only credible if gained through concrete experience. Eventually, Judd concluded that painting premised on a naturalistic treatment of figures and objects within an illusionistic space was intrinsically false.

From 1953-1955, Morris studied psychology and philosophy at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. He described this as an intense and competitive environment, while intellectual and progressive.3 The combined interests in psychology and philosophy are telling, given the strong phenomenological emphasis and interest in Gestalt psychology that emerges with Morris’s minimalist works. Early on, Morris explores the effect of shifting perspectives in painting. This is noted in a review of Morris’s second Dilexi show by Eleanor C. Munro:

At the Dilexi, a small, comparatively new gallery dedicated to bringing an infusion of New York vitality into this city, Robert Morris showed large energetic

2 Barbara Haskell, Donald Judd (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1988), 18. 3 Morris; Cummings, no pagination. 49

abstractions. These big paintings, in dark colors, are built up in short, thick strokes with a wide brush, while drier frayed strokes interweave across the surface. The surface thus presents endless variations, through many layers, perspectives and depths. While there was some attempt to pull the works together with strong white or dark themes coursing through, they are generally open, flat, composed according to the shifting, Oriental perspective. Thus, the energy is equalised across the surface, not gathered into focuses of intensity.4

Munro’s use of the term ‘Oriental perspective’ is used to describe Morris’s all-over paintings; it was a popular refrain of mid-twentieth century critics and not necessarily means for suggesting visual cues or references to Asian cultures.5 Instead, the reviewer is establishing that Morris’s paintings operate on multiple perspectives and this implies that they were produced from shifting vantage points. Morris, in similarity to Pollock, worked on his paintings from the floor, noting: ‘If I put it on the floor, not seeing it in that completely frontal way, allowed me to have that particular kind of critical focus of seeing all the relationships.’6 Here, Morris distinguishes the perceptual contingencies between a painting produced on the floor and one in a perpendicular position – in other words, an easel picture. His thoughts on painting in this manner echo Pollock’s, who had previously stated: ‘On the floor I am more at ease. I feel nearer, more a part of the painting, since this way

4 Eleanor C. Munro, ‘Art News from San Francisco’, ARTnews, 58 (February 1960), 46. 5 Many traditional Asian art forms utilise axonometric perspective, Japanese wood block prints are one, in which there is no vanishing point and hence they are not governed by an optical illusion. Pictorial elements, like floorboards for example, remain geometrically constant, they run parallel to each other and do not converge to a single point as they would in post-Renaissance Western painting. Other Asian art forms use atmospheric perspective whereby distant objects in the picture are painted a duller or softer tone in contrast to the sharper and brighter foreground objects. In classical Chinese scroll paintings far-off mountains are often painted in a hazy blue or grey to signify their geographic distance to the forward figures or objects. Within Chinese scrolls space and time are often synchronous and the scroll explains a story rather than depicts a scene. For example, a pictorial element such as a boat can be shown throughout the scroll at different points in time (in relation to the story), appearing on one bank of a river, in the middle of the river, then on the other riverbank. Because of this there is no fixed point or dominant element to fixate upon in the scroll, rather the focal point is moving hence the perspective is ‘shifting’. The reviewer theorises Morris’s paintings as operating on ‘Oriental perspective’ because it aspires to this all-over state, there is no vanishing point, no single point of focus: ‘the energy is equalised across the surface, not gathered into focuses of intensity.’ 6 Morris; Cummings, np. 50

I can walk around it, work from the four sides and literally be in the painting.’7 Like Pollock, Morris found painting on the floor opened up new ways of seeing the painting’s pictorial relationships. The studied and focused perspective of easel pictures gave way to the multiple and shifting sensation of the all-over painting.

Given the significance of perception in Morris’s work, the writings of Maurice

Merleau-Ponty help illuminate its role within Morris’s early painting. In The Prose of the World, Merleau-Ponty distinguishes between what he terms ‘spontaneous vision’ and ‘perspective’. Morris was clearly cognisant of this distinction when he started painting on the floor: ‘It was a different way of seeing, of looking at something … it was a freer way of looking at something.’8 And similarly here Merleau-Ponty’s description reveals:

In spontaneous vision, things rivalled one another for my look and, being anchored in one of them, I felt the solicitation of the other which made them coexist with the first. Thus, at every moment I was swimming in the world of things and overrun by a horizon of things to see which could not possibly be seen simultaneously with what I was seeing but by this very fact were simultaneous with it.9

Merleau-Ponty’s description of spontaneous vision evokes the experience of the sprawling all-over paintings of the Abstract Expressionists. The all-over painting has no fixed point of perspective, rather activity is registered equivalently across the whole of the canvas. Morris consciously engages the perceptual contrast between the all-over and easel painting. ‘These were completely abstracted images’, he notes, ‘the influences that are most heavy in them are those of Clyfford

7 Jackson Pollock, ‘My Painting’, Possibilities,1 (Winter 1947-48),78-83. 8 Morris; Cummings, np. 9 Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Prose of the World (1969), [trans. John O’Neill], (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973), 52-3. Merleau-Ponty contrasts spontaneous vision (as excerpted above), with perspective which he describes here: ‘But in perspective I construct a representation in which each thing ceases to demand the whole visual field for itself, makes concessions to the others, and agrees to occupy no more space on the paper than the others leave it. In the first case, my glance, running freely over depth, height, and width, was not subordinated to any point of view, because it adopted and rejected each one in turn. In perspective, I renounce that ambiguity and agree to let only that figure in my drawing which could be seen from a certain reference point by an immobile eye fixed on a certain ‘vanishing point’ of a certain ‘vanishing line’, chosen once and for all.’ 51

Still and Pollock too. Very much an all-over kind of thing.’10 In his strive for the all- over painting, Morris approximates the painting styles of Still and Pollock which opens to investigations of process and corporeality [fig.7 & fig.8].

Judd’s Early Paintings

From the mid-1950s, tensions between the real and realism, and abstraction and representation become evident in Judd’s paintings. His earliest known documented paintings, which he produced while attending the Art Students League, include a female nude figure seated within a red room (c.1950) [fig.9] and an interior view from within a studio looking to and out a large window (c.1952) [fig.10]. In the window painting, it is worth noting how sharply Judd defines the vertical and horizontal lines. This gives the painting a pronounced geometric focus. Yet, the geometry is clearly balanced and compositional. In Judd’s paintings dated from 1955, figuration recedes and a more abstract vernacular emerges. The forms are, or still hold semblance to representational objects. The use of colour is somewhat muted and middling. One feature in these paintings which persists is a horizontal band that extends across the picture plane. It is a distinct feature that is worked up to dominate the generally treated forms and areas of the paintings [figs.11 & 12]. This band gives these paintings a strong horizontal orientation. When contextualised against Judd’s rectilinear objects, it is arguable that this pronounced geometry stayed with the artist. Thomas Kellein describes this horizontal band as a bridge motif; ‘bridges in the sense of picture-filling transitions.’11 Kellein indicates that the motif possibly grew out of studies Judd made of Houston Street and FDR Drive near East River in Manhattan.12 Kellein’s suggestion that these works extend from Judd’s studies of Manhattan’s urban landscape are further credited by remarks by Judd who later revealed in an interview with Roberta Smith:

10 Morris; Cummings, np. 11 Thomas Kellein, Donald Judd, 1955-1968, (New York: D.A.P., 2002), 22. 12 Kellein, Donald Judd, 22. Kellein states this information was passed on to him by Maureen Jerome. Reference is to the Franklin D. Roosevelt East River Drive. 52

‘Landscape and figures got in the way of doing what I wanted in the drawings and paintings.’13

In the show with Raisen in 1956, Judd is seen abstracting the urban environment more and more. The reviewer for ARTnews discerned that Judd was ‘struggling with’ key formal problems:

He is a romantic of the machine and for him a tree is a kind of machine to be reduced from an indecisive shape to a form as clearly defined as plumbing. Except perhaps for Welfare Island, none of his paintings are thoroughly worked out. He seems to be struggling with problems. The interest in his paintings lies in the problems’ nature.14

The formal problems that the reviewer identifies appear at least twofold. Firstly, representational elements in the paintings conflict with Judd’s empirical desire to emphasise the actual experience of objects. It stands that a painted representation of an object is not the same as the real thing. Secondly, the composition of these pictures is conventional. The recurrent horizontal axis is an anchor point to balance the paintings’ parts. This is not unusual in modern painting, but with Judd this studied compositional effect is inherently problematic. In Judd’s subsequent paintings, he goes to lengths to make his works appear uncomposed. This tendency becomes obsessive in Judd’s objects, where mathematic or geometric progressions are used exclusively to impose a non-compositional order upon the work.

13 Roberta Smith, ‘Donald Judd’, in: Brydon Smith, Donald Judd: a catalogue of the exhibition at the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, 24 May-6 July 1975: catalogue raisonné of paintings, objects, and wood-blocks, 1960-1974 (Ottawa: The Gallery for the Corporation of the National Museums of Canada, 1975), 6. Quote from an unpublished interview between Roberta Smith and Judd, 6 January 1969. 14 Lawrence Campbell, ‘Reviews and Previews: Judd and Raisen’, ARTnews, 55 (September 1956), 17. Review of Don Judd and Nathan Raisen, Panoras Gallery, New York, 4-15 September 1956. 53

In Welfare Island (1956) [fig.13], which the reviewer deemed the most successful of the paintings, the bridge motif is abstracted and fractured. This treatment of the compositional device signals the start of Judd’s break from conventional composition. The painting appears a conglomeration of thick and thin, curved and straight lines. The horizontality of the image is still resolute, though Judd’s intent to branch out of his previous pictorial arrangement is evident. In the next group of paintings after Welfare Island, dating around 1957, Judd moves closer to the all- over picture [figs.14 & 15]. These paintings consist of flat, slow, slightly-geometric shapes set upon light gradient fields. The forms have a primordial look to them and do not correspond with real objects outside the picture or regular geometry. As Roberta Smith suggests: ‘The irregular shapes themselves are difficult to describe and look as if Judd took great care to make them that way.’15 Here, Judd is seeking forms that are specific to the picture and are not predetermined by geometric or compositional rules.

After his 1957 solo show at the Panoras Gallery, Judd moves through a brief agitated period in 1958 and 1959 [fig.16]. The broad and flat shapes of before are now distorted and appear more organic and violent, swirling and overlapping. The thick, aggressive brushwork gives these pictures a sense of movement. The use of colour is bolder and moving towards being specific and declarative. Pictorial space in these paintings is significantly flattened with the juxtaposing forms pushing toward the canvas surface. Smith writes that this is the ‘closest he [Judd] ever gets to either Cubism or anything expressionistic’ and as such they are an important formal step.16 These are the first of Judd’s paintings to approach the condition of the all-over. Further, these paintings highlight the key problems confronting Judd: The move to abstraction in rejection of representational forms, the denial of illusionistic or pictorial space, the polarisation of specific and bold colours, and the all-over effect sought in defiance of conventional composition. These swirling paintings speak to the forcefulness of Pollock, but the forms, though more abstracted, lack Pollock’s formlessness. Judd moves towards total abstraction, yet is unwilling to abandon structure and embrace chance like the Abstract

15 Roberta Smith, ‘Donald Judd’, 8. 16 Roberta Smith, ‘Donald Judd’,15. 54

Expressionist. There is still a slight, studied order and a painterly feeling in these works. It is as far as Judd goes in this direction, as if realising his insincerity with the expressionist mode. Later he expands on the problem of Expressionism in his essay on Pollock:

The term ‘Abstract Expressionism’ was a big mistake. For one thing, it implied that Pollock and de Kooning were alike and that both were Expressionists. Pollock’s paintings are much more remarkable than that. De Kooning’s paintings are substantially the same as those of the various Expressionist painters from Soutine back to Van Gogh and back through the recurrent use of expressive brushwork. That portrays immediate emotions. It doesn’t involve immediate sensations.17

After his experimentation with expressive painting, Judd resolved a Cartesian division between evoking emotive qualities (mind) and exciting immediate sensations (body). As his excerpt above indicates, this distinction separates paintings in the Expressionist and European traditions to paintings like Pollock’s. Resultantly, Judd’s next works after his expressive phase are pared back visually, with singular forms and monochromatic backgrounds. In these paintings, Judd rejects expressive and painterly qualities. Judd’s line paintings dating from 1960 and 1961 are a contrast in economy to his previous painting [figs.17 & 18]. These works consist of one or two simplified pictorial elements. On a mostly monochromatic field, the canvas is delineated by snaking or curved lines of lighter colour. The ground is roughened by the mixing of sand with the acrylic paint. Visually, the quietness of these paintings moves Judd closer to aesthetic relatedness with Newman [fig.19]. The distinction between line and field in these works recalls Newman’s zip paintings, but unlike Newman there is no deference to

17 Donald Judd, ‘Jackson Pollock’, Arts Magazine (April 1967), in: Judd, Complete Writings 1959-1975 (Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design), 195. Judd continues: ‘That kind of expression of emotions occurs through a sequence of observing, feeling and recording. It’s one of the main aspects of European or Western art. It’s one kind of art, not all art. It’s bad that it involves reactions to things to such an extent. Its premise that those reactions say something about the nature of the things you observed is false. Obviously, what you feel and what things are aren’t the same. Anyway, Pollock’s paintings don’t involve the immediate emotions of traditional art and don’t involve the way these are generalised.’ 55 a sublime experience in these Judd paintings. The lines appear too studied to reflect the bold, Romantic expression of Newman’s zips. Judd’s line paintings seem more solely concerned with the organisation of pictorial space.

In Judd’s last group of paintings in his trajectory to objects, dating from late 1961 and 1962, the artist arrives at concluding divergences between illusionistic space and physical space, and between representational and real elements. Judd experiments with acrylics to give further particularity to the surface ground. The faster drying times of Liquitex may say something about Judd’s desire to have the work done in one shot; in contrast to the slower drying times of oil paints which require the building-up of layers and adjustments to an image over time. The field, now strictly monochromic and in bold, distinct, and primary colours, further has sand and wax mixed into it to give it more physicality. The snaking, hand-drawn lines from the previous paintings are replaced with a curved or double curved line declaratively stamped into the field [fig.20]. There is an industrial feel to these works. The bold, stencil-looking lines assert physical space and presence, more so than the composition of pictorial space. Yet ultimately for Judd, painting still holds to it the intrinsic problem that he cannot reconcile. When broken down, a painting still consists of its two fundamentals – the rectangle and the image contained within it.18

The Question of Pollock

In Allan Kaprow’s 1958 essay on Pollock, written two years after the painter’s death, Kaprow laments: ‘He created some magnificent paintings. But he also

18 Donald Judd; John Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, Artforum, 9.10 (June 1971), 41: ‘…one also had the problem that there were at least two things in the painting: the rectangle itself and the thing (image) in the rectangle, which is true even in Newman. You couldn’t get around that. The only paintings that didn’t have that kind of problem were Yves Klein’s – the blue paintings. But for some reason I just didn’t want to do monochrome paintings.’ 56 destroyed painting.’19 Kaprow, a contemporary of Judd and Morris, outlines four aspects of Pollock’s painting that for him had a terminal effect on the medium. These aspects are: the physicality of Pollock’s painting, formlessness or all-over effect, scale, and the flattening of pictorial space [fig.21]. Kaprow reasons, that in modernist painting since Impressionism the painter’s hand upon the canvas and the resultant marks of the brush took on increasing importance. As these marks became less representational, they became more self-sustaining and self- sufficient.20 These markings made explicit an order devised by the artist – composition; colours and shapes balanced against each other in considered relation to the whole canvas. Thereby, the artist concerns themselves with arranging part-to-part and part-to-whole relationships.21 Pollock in working with large canvases placed on the floor so he could be in the painting, inspired a more embodied perspective of the whole and its relatable parts. Morris similarly had this revelation when working from the floor.

Pollock upset conventional understandings of form. There is no beginning, middle, and end with Pollock’s paintings, but rather a continuum of activity simultaneously branching out in all directions. This includes beyond the rectangular field. Inasmuch, Pollock’s paintings are formless – the viewer does not enter or exit the paintings at any one place, but as Kaprow explains: ‘Anywhere is everywhere, we dip in and out when and where we can’.22 Pollock’s mural-scale paintings confront and draw the viewer into them, similar in ways to large-scale Renaissance paintings. The effect of trompe l’oeil in Renaissance paintings invites the viewer into an idealised representation of a familiar world. Pollock’s mural paintings offer a chaotic, dazzling web of colour best understood through Merleau-Ponty’s spontaneous vision: ‘the experience of a world of teeming, exclusive things which could be embraced only by means of a temporal cycle in which each gain is simultaneously a loss.’23 Here, Pollock’s paintings operate like optic, polyphonic

19 Allan Kaprow, ‘Jackson Pollock’ (1958), in: Kaprow, Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life, ed. Jeff Kelley (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 2. 20 Kaprow, ‘Jackson Pollock’, 2-3. 21 Kaprow, ‘Jackson Pollock’, 3. 22 Kaprow, ‘Jackson Pollock’, 5. 23 Merleau-Ponty, The Prose of the World, 53. 57 environments. A gallery space hung entirely with Pollock paintings multiplies this environmental effect.24

This leads to Kaprow’s fourth and final aspect, space. For Kaprow, Pollock’s paintings are the fatal result of the picture plane’s flattening over the course of modernism. The pictures of Pollock’s paintings moved so far out that they existed outside the plane. The canvas no longer confines the picture, rather the picture is upon it. Pollock’s paint marks push out into the space of the viewer. This extra- spatial effect creates the sensation of being surrounded by drips and splashes as Pollock was when he made them. Kaprow argues, this fundamentally alters the relationship with the viewer, who is now cast as a participant in the spectacle.25 This fourth aspect, as read by Kaprow, resonated with the younger artists of the late 1950s and early 1960s. The opening-out of Pollock’s painting to activate the gallery space, conceptually opened to Happenings of which Kaprow was a central figure. While this can be read as a conceptual stratagem on behalf of Kaprow, it no less points to the emergent art practices that were increasingly theatrical, sculptural, environmental, or performative. Many of these new divergent practices saw Pollock as their theoretical departure point from the medium of painting.

The end of painting is the legacy of Pollock for a myriad of artists in the 1960s including Kaprow, Judd, and Morris. Pollock compelled artists to engage the formal problems presented by his painting outside the medium of painting.26 For Kaprow, this was Happenings, with Judd specific objects, and Morris – dance and sculpture. The terminal condition Pollock visited upon painting left the younger artists with only two choices. One was to continue painting in a derivative and imitative style of Pollock and the other was to abandon painting altogether. For Judd, Pollock

24 Kaprow, ‘Jackson Pollock’, 6. 25 Kaprow, ‘Jackson Pollock’, 6. 26 See also: Branden W. Joseph, ‘Negative Capabilities: Claes Oldenburg and Jackson Pollock’ Artforum International, 51.8 (April 2013): 231-237,239,282-283. Joseph articulates the formal relationship between Pollock’s painting and the work of Oldenburg – a contemporary to Kaprow who was likewise working with the form of the Happening. Though Joseph emphasises the dissimilarities between Oldenburg’s and Kaprow’s practices, the essay illustrates how Pollock’s work and legacy was negotiated by artists outside of conventional painting. 58 pointed the way to an object-centric, non-compositional art form. In his consideration of Pollock’s paintings, Judd found the power of the works resided in the parts and elements being discreet and held in oppositional tension. Judd here explains this in a manner which leaves little doubt to where the formal theorisation of his objects aligns:

Pollock used paint and canvas in a new way… It’s a different idea of generality, of how a painting is unified. It’s a different idea of the disparity between parts or aspects and it’s a different idea of sensation … The elements and aspects of Pollock’s paintings are polarized rather than amalgamated. The work doesn’t have the moderated a priori generality usual in painting. Everything is fairly independent and specific.27

Above, the importance of Pollock upon Judd’s development of his specific objects is clearly seen. The premise of Judd’s objects is that their parts are discreet, they are not ordered in a hierarchy, and the use colours and materials is considered specific. This too can be interpreted as Judd creating an aesthetic lineage from his own work back to Pollock’s. But again, it is the questions posed by Pollock’s painting that necessitate answers outside the medium for the next generation of artists. In his essay on Pollock, Judd defines generality and particularity within painting to argue that Pollock departs from this convention. For Judd, the prioritisation of certain colour and forms within a painting equates to hierarchical composition. Herein, the central elements of the painting are accorded a more detailed treatment, while the less important parts – usually towards the edges of the rectangular canvas – are rendered in a generalised manner. This characteristic is evident in Judd’s mid-1950s paintings, where the horizontal band dominates other elements within the compositions. This focal, bridge-like form is afforded more detail than the parts towards the edges of the picture, which in turn are gradated to draw the eye back to the central point. In his estimation of Pollock, Judd explains that the elements in Pollock’s paintings are not amalgamated to this effect, but rather they are specific and polarised. Even the elements at the end of

27 Donald Judd, ‘Jackson Pollock’, 195. 59

Pollock’s canvases are seen to state their independence from the parts in the centre. This for Judd, is the all-over effect of Pollock’s paintings.

Painting and Bodies

Morris’s conceptual engagement with Pollock was concerned with the physical act of painting. The examination of physical process established aesthetic concerns that Morris pursued through dance and sculpture. Below, Morris expands on the importance of Pollock’s physical approach to painting:

Until Pollock, art making oriented toward two-dimensional surfaces had been a fairly limited act so far as the body was concerned. At most it involved the hand, wrist and arm. Pollock’s work directly involved the use of the entire body. Coupled to this was his direct investigation of the properties of the materials in terms of how paint behaves under the conditions of gravity.28

Seen above, Morris’s revelation from Pollock’s painting is the role that the artist’s body plays in the realisation of the artwork. Morris suggests Pollock revolutionises painting by using his entire body – as opposed to that of the just his hand, wrist, and arm. In this context, Hans Namuth’s film and photographs of Pollock drip painting illustrate most precisely how these paintings were born out of a physical process that was measurable in real time [fig.22]. Pollock’s drip painting technique, as recorded in Namuth’s photographs, shows the painter’s body moving in, out, and across the breadth of the canvas attacking it from different perspectives and at different moments in time.29 The viewer similarly engages the painting from

28 Robert Morris, ‘Some Notes on the Phenomenology of Making: The Search for the Motivated’, Artforum, 9 (April 1970), 63. ‘ 29 See: Matthew Baigell, ‘American Painting: On Space and Time in the Early 1960s’, Art Journal, 28.4 (Summer 1969), 368-9: ‘In his [Pollock’s] work, one can observe the artist’s manual operations – the putting down of one color and the response with another, the tangled webs of one group of lines developing from the splatters of another. One certainly 60 differing perspectives and temporal points, or as Kaprow noted: ‘we dip in and out when and where we can’.30 In his exploration of Pollock’s work, Morris examined this effect by building a scaffold over the canvas to access the painting from different points.31 For Morris, these early all-over paintings and the use of the scaffold, opened new ways of seeing the relationships between the different parts and the whole of the picture.

Morris also notes that the scaffold restricted his movement: ‘The first paintings had a lot of action in them. And they became less and less active.’32 With this restriction of movement, Morris shifts from the kinaesthetic style of Pollock to a more deliberative and less gestural approach familiar with Still.33 Here, Morris interrogates painting in purely physical terms. In restricting his own physical movement, Morris reduces the gestural quality of his paintings. Gesture in painting symbolically analogises the artist’s brushwork with their internal state. The gestural quality of Abstract Expressionist painting was popularised by Harold Rosenberg’s theory of ‘action painting’.34 Rosenberg viewed the paintings of the

does not feel any logical progression of time in a linear sense. Rather one finds intensifications of particular moments and kaleidoscopic views that move off in many directions at once. Pollock worked from four sides of a canvas so that he could literally be in the painting. If his body was not actually borne along in a stream of time, it would appear that his soul was. Each entry to the canvas marked a new beginning, a new vantage point, that nevertheless had to coincide with earlier beginnings. Every splash was part of a continuing present that immediately engaged itself with a past.’ 30 Kaprow, ‘Jackson Pollock’, 5. 31 Morris; Cummings, np. 32 Morris; Cummings, np. 33 Michael Auping, ‘Clyfford Still and New York: The Buffalo Project’, in: Thomas Kellein (ed.), Clyfford Still: The Buffalo and San Francisco Collections (Munich: Prestel-Verlag, 1992), 40-1. Auping writes: ‘What at first appears instantaneous in Still’s work, however, turns out upon closer inspection to be the result of considerable forethought and workmanship. In fact, Still’s method of working was a far cry from the splattered portraits that photographers offer us of de Kooning and Pollock. According to the artist’s widow, ‘Still seldom got paint on himself, and in fact was very careful. He used to laugh with Rothko about how he [Rothko] could get so much paint on his clothes.’ 34 Harold Rosenberg, ‘The American Action Painters’, ARTnews (December 1952); reprinted in: Rosenberg, The Tradition of the New (London: Thames and Hudson, 1962 [1959]), 25: ‘At a certain moment the canvas began to appear to one American painter after another as an arena in which to act – rather than as a space in which to reproduce, redesign, analyse or ‘express’ an object, actual or imagined. What was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event.’ 61

Abstract Expressionists as gestural, performative acts. Rosenberg’s notion held that the paint marks on the canvas acted as signifiers to the artist’s interior:

A painting that is an act is inseparable from the biography of the artist. The painting itself is a ‘moment’ in the adulterated mixture of his life – whether ‘moment’ means the actual minutes taken up with spotting the canvas or the entire duration of a lucid drama conducted in sign language. The act-painting is of the same metaphysical substance as the artist’s existence.35

With the free-flowing paint of Robert Motherwell or de Kooning, Rosenberg’s reading held currency. With other painters of the New York School it was not as convincing. Still and Newman, for example, do not pertain to their painting the free-flowing styles that Rosenberg’s essay evokes. Rather their pictures appear as the result of a more intellective process, where the image is conceived and the application of paint, in its varying consistencies, depths, and directions is vital to the realisation of the original concept. Notions of accident and chance, which prevail in Pollock’s drip paintings, seem less prevalent in the work of Newman or Still.

Rosenberg’s action painting came into opposition with Greenberg’s formalist estimation of Abstract Expressionism. The two critics were the defining authorities on the movement through the 1950s, with its key painters split in identifying with one theory over the other. Rosenberg emphasised action, locating importance in the expressive activity of the artist. Greenberg directed his critical gaze toward the resultant artwork stressing flatness and abstraction in his formalist analysis. It is against this theoretical disjunct between Greenberg and Rosenberg that Morris’s early painting can be read. Morris, in breaking down the painting of Pollock to examine the physical process behind it, speaks to the formalist analysis of Greenberg. Conversely, Morris’s interest in physicality and performance resonates with Rosenberg’s school of thought. Tellingly for Morris, the use of gesture

35 Rosenberg, ‘The American Action Painters’, 27-8. 62 becomes a physiological indicator to the artist’s corporeality. This contrasts with a psychological designator, that for Rosenberg points to the artist’s personality. With Morris there is an objective, almost detached, concern with the body’s movements. Again, concerning Pollock, Morris writes:

Of any artist working in two dimensions it could be said that he, more than any others, acknowledged the conditions of both accident and necessity open to that interaction of body and materials as they exist in a three-dimensional world. And all this and more is visible in the work.36

Through the literal analysis of painting’s physical process, Morris questions the Romantic figure of the artist. With the Abstract Expressionists, this mythologised figure had been central in the writing of critics like Rosenberg and Greenberg. Whether the artists themselves ascribed to these views, of which some did, is not the issue, it is the construct itself that Morris seeks to agitate. Maurice Berger, in pointing to Morris’s ‘disenchantment with the static, precious art object’, claims that through Pollock, Morris began to question ‘the role of the artist in the production of art.’37 Morris’s dance Site (1964), is a leading example where this enquiry is played out. This performance piece is examined in greater detail in Chapter Four of this thesis. Ultimately here for Morris, the investigation of process and gesture in the late 1950s in painting, led to an irreconcilable dislocation. There existed a split between the artist’s movement – their process – and the image which resulted from that movement.38 This led Morris from painting to dance, ‘where process is something that is what it is; it takes place in time.’39 In dance,

36 Morris, ‘Some Notes on the Phenomenology of Making’, 63. 37 Maurice Berger, Labyrinths: Robert Morris, Minimalism and the 1960s (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), 23. 38 Morris; Cummings, np: ‘…there was a crisis developing in the painting because I couldn’t satisfactorily bring the two things together. It seemed to be a complete split. On the one hand, there was this process that I was very interested in, not in any kind of, you might say, inspired way, I mean it was a working process which did not in any way equate with the image. And I found in the theater a situation where that dichotomy was not the case.’ 39 Morris; Cummings, np. During this period Morris and Forti also rented out a studio in San Francisco and along with other visual artists, musicians, dancers, and filmmakers began experimenting with sound, objects, body movements, materials, and light projections. Morris explained to Cummings: ‘I guess you’d call it mixed media. I mean 63

Morris resolved the division between process and the resultant artwork. In the context of a time-based and three-dimensional medium, the body, which is only suggestible metaphysically or metaphorically in painting, is literally availed in dance. With dance, the body’s movement is the work. Critically, Morris’s exploration of Pollock’s corporeality and process led him to work predominantly within three-dimensional space hereafter.

there were musicians, who would come, play the drums, and there was a pianist … There were all kind of things to make noise with; we brought all kinds of props, like enormous amounts of fabrics and boxes and lights. There was some movement, dancers did certain kinds of movement that were more or less – not dance movement, but just moving around the room, moving these props.’ 64

65

CHAPTER THREE

Modern Dance and Minimalist Interventions

Morris continued his aesthetic investigations through the field of dance after discovering an irreconcilable split in painting between process and the end work. In dance, Morris again engages with process as part of the visual realisation of the work. Concurrent to his performance explorations, Morris begins working with objects. In his choreographic work and object production, two competing aesthetic tendencies emerge. On one hand, Morris engages the Duchampian assault on art through small-scale, self-reflexive objects and Fluxus-type performances. On the other hand, Morris begins a more severe, formalist and theatrical interrogation of bodies, objects, time, and space. Morris’s key choreographic works, which focus this interrogation, open to the conceptual crux of his minimalist theory.

Morris’s involvement in dance can be traced back to Ann Halprin’s movement improvisation workshops in late 1950s California. The workshops attracted an array of visual artists, dancers, and musicians. This confluence of dance, music, and visual art flowered in New York in the 1960s, where several performers including Yvonne Rainer, Steve Paxton, Trisha Brown, Robert Rauschenberg, and Morris continued these investigations as the Judson Dance Theatre. Morris choreographed five works with the Judson group and appeared in several more choreographed by other members. The young Judson dancers celebrated everyday bodies performing pedestrian movements, challenging the technical emphasis of modern dance.

This chapter defines modern dance through the respective choreographic theories of Martha Graham and Doris Humphrey. Focus then shifts to Merce Cunningham, whose uncompromising technique, and his rejection of narrative and expressive performance, created an emergent context for the Judson Dance Theater. Many of the performance strategies of the Judson group were informed by Halprin’s

66 workshops which are herein analysed. Following on, this chapter examines Morris’s choreographic works and his important partnerships with Simone Forti and Rainer. Morris’s interrogation of bodies and objects in the time and space of dance is considered against the formal concerns he works with in sculpture. From this, a broader, non-medium specific understanding of Morris’s minimalist theory emerges.

Modernism and the Dancing Body

Modern dance announced itself in the United States around 1930.1 As an inchoate art form, it provided stark contrast to the studied reservedness, balance, and proportion of the classical form of ballet.2 As modern dance was not bound – indeed it sought to break from – the strictures of classicism, it exploited a more direct correspondence with the modern consciousness. Modern dance was innovative and contemporaneous, while ballet held to tradition. The professionalism that Humphrey and Graham brought to dance pushed the analytical development of teachable styles as with ballet. An integral part of the dancer’s training under Graham or Humphrey was the refinement of the individual. As an expressive art form, modern dance valued technique, yet it prized above this originality and individuality.

1 Julia L. Foulkes, Modern Bodies: Dance and American Modernism from Martha Graham to Alvin Ailey (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002), 1. Mary Wigman, a German choreographer and dancer, was a central figure in the development of modern dance in Germany. It is generally accepted that the German experience of modernism in the performing arts was antecedent to that of the American. Yet, the influence of Wigman, who toured the United States in the early 1930s, was largely written out of modern dance’s canonical history by American-centric critics who sought to essentialise the Americaness of the new form. See: Susan A. Manning, Ecstasy and the Demon: Feminism and Nationalism in the Dances of Mary Wigman (Berkely: University of California Press, 1993), 261. 2 For a detailed exposition on how the modernists reacted against the classism of ballet, see: Lincoln Kirstein, ‘Crisis in the Dance’, The North American Review, 243.1 (Spring 1937), 80-103. 67

In the aftermath of the First World War, many avant-gardists rationalised the cataclysm as a stage of vital rebirth. For Graham, expressing her anxieties of chaos and regeneration in relation to dance: ‘This period following the war demanded forms vital enough for the reborn man to inhabit’.3 Graham believed that society’s ‘revitalised consciousness’ needed ‘an entirely contemporary set of technics’.4 Humphrey similarly felt the compositional theory of modern dance emerged from the schism of the First World War. ‘Everything was re-evaluated’, she opined, ‘in light of the violence and terrible disruption’.5

Humphrey counselled that this new dance should draw upon the modern city for inspiration.6 To this, the archetypal modern city – New York – where Humphrey lived and worked, influenced her thoughts on dance and the modern consciousness. Humphrey proposed that the stark and severe architecture of the city presented the requisite lines and structures to the modern dancer: ‘The right angle is possibly the prime symbol of our age, eloquent of conflict. Its parent, the straight line’, she claimed, ‘is thought to be best and smartest when it is shiny and naked, pointed slightly like the end of a weapon.’7 Humphrey’s vivid account gives insight into how she expressed the intensity of experience felt with urban, modern life through dance. Seeking parallels with the sleek, sharp, and angular forms of the city, the modern dancer’s movement was acute with energy and struck strong, hard-angled lines. The technical aspect of modern dance was exacting and vigorous. Both Graham’s and Humphrey’s writings on dance inspire this sense of the modern.

3 Martha Graham, ‘Graham 1937’, in: Brown (ed.), The Vision of Modern Dance (Princeton: Princeton Book Company, 1998), 51. 4 Graham’s writing here is in retrospect and about the period after the First World War during the 1920s. 5 Doris Humphrey, The Art of Making Dances, (Princeton: Dance Horizons, [1959], 1987), 18. 6 Humphrey, The Art of Making Dances, 29: ‘From the point of view of visual influences, it seems to me that architecture, especially for those who live in the city, speaks to us and for us with the most insistent cry.’ 7 Humphrey, The Art of Making Dances, 29-30. 68

As leading choreographers of American modern dance, both Graham and Humphrey drew from continental ideas in painting, sculpture, architecture, and literature. They endowed dance with an unprecedented intellectual rigour, fervently pushing its elevation as a modern art form and furnishing it with a body of teachable theory that was previously lacking. Graham was drawn to the abstraction of Wassily Kandinsky and her thoughts on dance echo Kandinsky’s on painting. Graham recounts her experience when she saw a Kandinsky painting for the first time: ‘I saw across the room a beautiful painting, what was then called abstract art, a startling new idea … It was by Wassily Kandinsky and had a streak of red going from one end to the other. I said, ‘I will do that someday. I will make a dance like that.’8

For Kandinsky, harmonious composition in a painting had the power to uplift the soul of the viewer. Kandinsky’s aesthetic theory extends from theosophy and the belief that mental thoughts transmit electric vibrations and are communicable through colour. If the colours in the painting are balanced correctly, then the painting will illicit harmonious thoughts and feelings in the viewer. Kandinsky felt it incumbent upon the artist to cultivate a harmonious soul, which transpired in the painting as balanced and agreeable composition.9 ‘The resonance is then the soul of the form which can only become alive through the resonance and which works from within to without’, Kandinsky articulated about this harmonious relationship: ‘The form is the outer expression of the inner content.’10

8 Martha Graham, Blood Memory (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 98. Graham witnessed Kandinsky’s painting on a visit to the Art Institute of Chicago in 1922. The dance Graham’s choreographed in response to the painting was Diversion of Angels (1948). Although Graham did not name Kandinsky’s painting in her recollection, the Art Institute of Chicago hosted an ‘Exhibition of Paintings from the Collection of the Late Arthur Jerome Eddy’ in 1922; a collection containing several Kandinsky paintings. The most probable painting from this exhibition which matches Graham’s description of red streak on blue, is Kandinsky’s Painting with Troika (1911). 9 Christopher Butler, Early Modernism: Literature, Music and Painting in Europe 1900-1916 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 37. 10 Wassily Kandinsky, ‘On the Problem of Form’ (1912), in: Hershel B. Chipp (ed.), Theories of Modern Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 155. 69

Graham shares with Kandinsky’s compositional theory this notion of the artist’s inner essence being externalised through the artwork – moving from the inside out. In Graham’s dance, the inside is both a physical idea – as in the centre of the body – as well as incorporeal – the emotional centre.11 The movement of the limbs is physical, yet their stylised and composed form signifies the emotive content of the dance. To this effect, dance historian Julia L. Foulkes intones: ‘Graham’s landmark solo Lamentation (1930)[fig.23], was not a depiction of a woman in sorrow – it was grief itself.’12 To heighten emotional connect with her audience, Graham dramatized the cadence between rest and action.13 This tension gave dramatic and psychological structure to the performance and came to be known with Graham as contraction and release.14 The emphasis on crises and climax in Graham’s dance is what Cunningham and then later the Judson choreographers reacted strongly against.15 Cunningham went as far to declare:

11 Graham, Blood Memory, 6: ‘To understand dance for what it is, it is necessary we know from whence it comes and where it goes. It comes from the depths of man’s inner nature, the unconscious, where memory dwells. As such it inhabits the dancer. It goes into the experience of man, the spectator, awakening similar memories.’ 12 Foulkes, Modern Bodies,132. 13 Graham, Blood Memory, 8: ‘That tension, that intensification of a body in its stillness and in its movement’. 14 Deborah Jowitt, Time and the Dancing Image (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1988), 166. Deborah Jowitt explains how contraction and release extends from Graham’s focus on breathing to inform her whole performance technique. ‘As Graham developed her technique, a contraction might hit the dancer sideways, make her twist, spiral, or be spun to the floor. It might attack percussively, then deepen slowly, resonating throughout her body. But always, no matter how drastic the fall, there is a release, a rise, an advance, an inhalation. The dancer waits – poised, charged – for the next crisis.’ 15 Yvonne Rainer’s minimalist dance construction Trio A subverts Graham’s notion of contraction and release and its inferred crisis and climax. Rainer’s dance consists of non- hierarchical and pedestrian movements performed in a continuous, almost repetitive manner thereby eliminating the Grahamnesque tension between movement and stillness which engenders the expressive and emotive qualities of her dance. Rainer, in her accompanying essay to Trio A, explains: ‘Much of the western dancing we are familiar with can be characterised by a particular distribution of energy: maximal output or ‘attack’ at the beginning of a phrase, recovery at the end, with energy often arrested somewhere in the middle. This means that one part of the phrase – usually the part that is most still – becomes the focus of attention, registering like a photograph or suspended moment of climax. In the Graham-oriented modern dance these climaxes can come one on the heels of the other.’ See: Rainer, ‘The Mind is a Muscle: A Quasi Survey of Some “Minimalist” Tendencies in the Quantitatively Minimal Dance Activity Midst the Plethora, or an Analysis of Trio A’, in: Rainer, Work 1961-1973 (Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design, 1974), 65. 70

Now I can’t see that crisis any longer means a climax, unless we are willing to grant that every breath of wind has a climax (which I am), but then that obliterates climax, being a surfeit of such. And since our lives, both by nature and by the newspapers are so full of crisis that one is no longer aware of it, then it is clear that life goes on regardless, and further that each thing can be and is separate from each and every other, viz: continuity of the newspaper headlines. Climax is for those who are swept away by New Year’s Eve.16

Graham’s dances are redolent with crisis and climax and structured on emotional tempi. Her leading characters often evolve across emotional states, from envy to anger to sorrow to triumph.17 As a representational art form, the subject matter of Graham’s dances is conveyed through the narrative, costume, music, design, and décor. These theatrical conventions give the audience the signifying framework in which to make sense of the world of that dance, whether it is set against historic, mythical, or contemporary backgrounds. Yet it is the expressive quality of Graham’s movement style that connects the spectator to the emotional root of the dance. Graham construes modern life as full of crises and climaxes, and her choreography plays to the excitations and anxieties of her audience.

Graham’s contraction and release style is characterised by movement emanating from the lower abdomen and pelvis – an area associated with primal instinct and sexual desire. Tensely and against seeming resistance, the movement waves through and twists the upper torso – the part of the body associated with the symbolic heart and feelings. The head, the centre of intellect and rationality, is flung back or cast askew. The arms and fingers outstretched. The asymmetry of the right and left sides of the body, representing activity and sensitivity respectively, is heightened to create dramatic and psychological contrast.18 In exploring the connection between the corporeal and abstract in Graham’s style, Susan Leigh

16 Merce Cunningham, ‘Space, Time and Dance’, in: Richard Kostelanetz (ed.), Merce Cunningham: Dancing in Space and Time: Essays 1944-1992 (Pennington: A Capella Books, 1998), 38-49. 17 Susan Leigh Foster, Reading Dancing: Bodies and Subjects in Contemporary American Dance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 94. 18 Foster, Reading Dancing, 79. 71

Foster finds: ‘This tense texture, pervading most of Graham’s choreography, documents both the traumas of her characters’ situations and their resistance to acknowledging and expressing these situations … The powerful message from the unconscious makes it way only with great difficulty through the emotional and intellectual centres of the person an into the world.’19 Graham’s style, as Foster suggests, is grounded in the toil between libidinal impulses and rationality’s restraint, and is physically expressed through the dancer’s bridled energies, dramatic tensions and releases.

Humphrey’s dance style, in distinction, is characterised by its sweeping falls and ascendant recoveries. In Humphrey’s style the dancing body skirts along the edge of the fall, quivering between stability and imbalance. Only when the dancer succumbs to the pull of earthly gravity, can the body then spring forth with renewed vitality towards the next apogee.20 Foster explains that, Humphrey ‘portrays the human body in a cyclic but lyric tension between heaven and earth’.21 Indeed, Humphrey theorised her dance in terms of Nietzsche’s Apollonian and Dionysian duality.22 Nietzsche reasoned that Greek tragedy played on the opposition between order and rationality on one hand – Apollo, and intoxication and disorder on the other – Dionysus. Consequently, in Greek tragedy Nietzsche holds these conflicting forces in ‘equal measure’, resulting in a work of art that appeals to both the higher nature and earthly pleasures of the viewer.23 Humphrey likens this duality as the physical states of symmetry and asymmetry or balance

19 Foster, Reading Dancing, 81. 20 Jowitt, Time and The Dancing Image, 165: ‘Humphrey’s drama of motion lay in the struggle to resist the pull of gravity, in the ecstasy or the tragedy of complying, in the suspended moment before equilibrium was regained.’ Jowitt reveals the tension in Humphrey’s work as ‘the desire for stability and calm on the one hand and, on the other, the passions that throw you off-balance, the call to danger.’ 21 Foster, Reading Dancing, 87. 22 Humphrey, The Art of Making Dances, 56. Humphrey relates this Nietzschean duality in her choreography to symmetry and asymmetry. She frames the dancer’s poise in either a state of symmetry or asymmetry. Extending from this, the dancer’s line is then seen as successional or oppositional. ‘If symmetry should be used sparingly in choreography because of its calming effect’, states Humphrey, ‘then asymmetry, which stimulates the senses, is the area to court and understand for dancing.’ 23 See: Friedrich Nietzsche, Geburt der Tragödie, (1872) [The birth of tragedy, trans. Douglas Smith], Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. 72 and imbalance.24 The fall and recovery serve as the liminal transition between these states in her dance.

Deborah Jowitt claims the female modern dancer was similarly considered in diametric terms: ‘All could display an artless sensuality, and, compared to ballet dancers, they looked compulsive, capable of unexpected vagaries.’25 The individual styles of Graham and Humphrey placed extreme demands on the dancer’s body with constant fluctuation between activity and passivity, rigidity and laxity. Dancers under the instruction of Graham or Humphrey were expected to prove a committed adherence to technique. Yet more so, modern dance demanded an intimate refinement within to inspire the dance’s emotional message.26 This hierarchic separation between the mechanical – technique, and the conceptual – inspiration, replicates the Cartesian division of body and mind that permeates modern thought in the arts.

The young choreographers of the 1960s subverted or rejected most defining conditions of modern dance. The use of untrained dancers, together with the common, everyday movements that constituted typical Judson choreography, subverted the stylised techniques of Graham, Humphrey, and their contemporaries. This is evinced by Forti’s infamous denouncement: ‘I started going to classes at the Martha Graham School, but I could not hold my stomach in. I would not hold my stomach in’.27 The literal content of the Judson performances

24 Humphrey, The Art of Making Dances, 56: ‘[Nietzsche] saw clearly that the Greek ideal of moderation and balance in all things was Apollonian, but that they wisely provided an escape from this monotony in their Dionysian rites. There lived within the Apollonian man a Dionysus, an unquenchable desire for excitement in breaking all the rules and indulging in the passion for unevenness – and freedom from rational balance.’ 25 Jowitt, Time and the Dancing Image, 157. 26 Graham, Blood Memory, 4. Graham here presents these terms as the fundaments of the modern dancer’s training: ‘It takes about ten years to make a mature dancer. The training is twofold. First comes the study and practice of the craft which is the school where you are working in order to strengthen the muscular structure of the body. The body is shaped, disciplined, honoured, and in time, trusted. The movement becomes clean, precise, eloquent, truthful … Then comes the cultivation of the being from which whatever you have to say comes.’ 27 Simone Forti, Handbook in Motion (Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design, 1974), 34. 73 was rejection of the symbolic narratives associated with modern dance. Rainer’s, We Shall Run (1963) [fig.24], featured performers simply running around the performance space, while Paxton’s Smiling (1969) had two performers smiling at each other for five minutes. The content for the Judson performances was exactly what their titled implied. Much of the Judson group’s antithetic attacks on modern dance and their outright abandonment of its expressionist aims, was informed by Cunningham’s earlier interrogations. Cunningham himself had been a soloist in Graham’s company and trained classically at the School of American Ballet under George Balanchine. Cunningham’s radical innovations exposed the limitations of the expressive mode and hastened its exhaustion.

Cunningham’s Dance in Space and Time

Cunningham began dancing with Graham’s company in 1939. He had met Cage in 1938 while studying at the Cornish School in Seattle, thus commencing a professional and personal partnership that would span until Cage’s death in 1992. Starting as a twenty- year old under Graham, Cunningham performed with the company for six years before branching out on his own. Cunningham’s first solo concert in 1944 signalled the revolutionary intervention into modern performance that became synonymous with his pairing with Cage. Cunningham’s choreography showed little or no adherence to Cage’s music, which was often unmelodic and constituted from non-musical sounds. Cunningham rejected narrative, emotive structure, mythical themes, and dramatis personae that had constituted modern dance. Conversely, Graham structured her dances with diminuendos and crescendos, crises and climaxes, and contractions and releases; this gave her dances linearity and emotive tempi. Cunningham spurned this compositional model: ‘I never could stand the modern dance idea of structure in terms of theme

74 and variations. That sort of A-B-A business based on emotional or psychological meanings just seemed ridiculous to me.’28

Without contraction and release based movement, and with no emotive climaxes or lulls, Cunningham’s dance took on an almost continuous, flowing quality. Constance Smith, a notable dance critic in New York during the 1940s, when reviewing Cunningham’s Root of an Unfocus (1944) [fig.25], wrote: ‘His cycle, which should have contained both activity and inactivity, had a quality of quivering tension throughout, and his pauses and suspensions were always so burdened with impending pressures that in recall he seems not to have rested at all.’29 Within Cunningham’s dance, crisis and climax gives way to sustained exertion and physicality.30 In abandoning the dramatic structures of modern dance and disassociating dance from music and décor, Cunningham focused solely on the body’s movement. In Root of Unfocus Cunningham applied Cage’s notion of rhythmic structure to organise the piece.31 With this, he divided his dance into phrases based on temporal measures – Cage did likewise with his musical score.32 The result was that the music and choreography expanded independently only

28 Cunningham quoted in: Calvin Tomkins, The Bride and the Bachelors: Five Masters of the Avant-Garde [expanded edition], (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976 [1968]), 244. 29 Constance Smith, ‘Dance Letter: Reviewed Work(s)’, The Kenyon Review, 8.4 (Autumn 1946), 691. Root of Unfocus featured on a concert programme of six solos by Cunningham and three musical pieces by Cage, performed at Studio Theatre, New York City, 5 April 1944. 30 Cunningham; Tomkins, The Bride and the Bachelors, 244-5. Cunningham found that most of the audience, who were accustomed to the expressive conventions of Graham and Humphrey, sought to read an emotive quality into Root of an Unfocus. Cunningham lay waste to this belief, that his work was expressive in the conventional sense, stating: ‘A lot of modern-dance people in the audience liked one of my dances on that program – the one called Root of an Unfocus – because it seemed to them to be tied to an emotional meaning.’ 31 Merce Cunningham, ‘A Collaborative Process between Music and Dance (1982)’, in: Richard Kostelanetz (ed.), Merce Cunningam: Dancing in Space and Time (Pennington: a Capella books),139. Cunningham explains: ‘… in Root of an Unfocus (1944), the original phase was structure 8-10-6 beats. The dance was in three parts, the first section being 8x8, the second 10x10, the third 6x6. The tempo for each section varied as did the time lengths (one and one-half minutes; two and one-half minutes; one minute). 32 Cage used a prepared piano for this concert which consisted of placing bolts, screws, and pieces of rubber and plastic between the piano’s strings. The result was that certain keys took on percussive qualities; others’ tuning was effected, whilst the use of the soft pedal gave certain keys two completely different sounds. 75 approaching unison at the points where the phrases met.33 The disassociation between choreography and score is the defining revelation of Cage and Cunningham’s collaborations. Dance and music conceived independently; separate occurrences coexisting in the same space and time of the performance. ‘The result is the dance is free to act as it chooses,’ claimed Cunningham, ‘as is the music.’34

From dividing dance from music, Cunningham articulated the body’s movement with more technical concern than the earlier moderns. He placed a heightened emphasis on technique, isolating parts of the body and scrutinising their movement. Cunningham consciously stripped back and tested the raw conventions of the dance medium. This marks Cunningham as a formalist and high-modernist. At this juncture, it is necessary to define the modern dance of Graham and Humphrey from the modernist practice of Cunningham. The respective styles of Graham and Humphrey are unquestionably modern, both in their expressionist intents and the symbolic relationships they forge with the modern consciousness. Dissimilarly, Cunningham’s practice is marked by its examination of the irreducible elements of dance – the body and its movement. Cunningham’s interrogation of the dance medium aligns his practice with analytical modernism. Here, Cunningham’s practice is like Cubism or Abstract Expressionism in invoking Greenberg’s modernist dialectic of self-criticism. Writing on Cunningham’s alignment with analytical modernism, Sally Banes and Noël Carroll conclude:

Thus, throughout his compositions, Cunningham, in the spirit of high modernism, unfailingly acknowledges his medium. It is pure dance and not something else: not a representation of romance, an expression of primal instincts, or a journey of self- discovery, but rather a sequence of steps, evolving their own intrinsic cadence, a cadence with a temporal pulse tangibly different from any other sort of movement.

33 Cunningham, ‘A Collaborative Process between Music and Dance’, 138-9. Cunningham here details this radical collaborative approach: ‘The use of a time structure allowed us to work separately, Cage not having to be with the dance except at structural points, and I was free to make the phrases and movements within the phrases vary their speeds and accents without reference to a musical beat, again only using the structural points as identification between us.’ 34 Mere Cunningham, ‘Space, Time, and Dance (1952), in: Kostelanetz (ed.), Merce Cunningham: Dancing in Space and Time, 39. 76

That is, by using movement that is unequivocably dancerly to the naked eye, Cunningham intends to show us the quiddity of pure dance.35

Seen here, Cunningham’s dance reveals through itself the strictures and conventions of the medium as he breaks them down. This self-critical tendency in Cunningham’s practice – his examination of the conditions of dance in his dance – separates him from the modern dancers that went before. When Cunningham left Graham’s company, modern dance was waning in both innovation and appeal – it had long lost its avant-gardist claims.36 Where the early moderns had rejected the classicism of ballet, Cunningham returned to reinvigorate a moribund mode. In the early 1940s, Cunningham began working with George Balanchine’s School of American Ballet. Cunningham found with Balanchine, ballet going through its own process of self-criticism and renewal.37 Balanchine had distilled ballet to its basic ‘movement patterns or conventions’.38 Discarding story, narrative, drama, and elaborate costumes and scenery, Balanchine’s interventions revealed the fundamental, technical concerns of ballet. Cunningham’s analytical questioning of modern dance is conducted in similar vein to that of Balanchine’s and oversees the jettisoning of unnecessary conventions. From this, Cunningham reduced dance to its two constants – the body and its movement – and placed a modernist, hard- headed emphasis on technique. Cunningham’s separation of dance from music speaks to his indefatigable focus on bodies in motion in time and space; his

35 Sally Banes & Noël Carroll, ‘Cunningham, Balanchine, and Postmodern Dance’ (2006), Dance Chronicle, 29:1; 57-8. 36 Constance Smith, ‘Dance Letter: Reviewed Work(s)’, 689: Smith noted about the 1944, ’45 and ‘46 dance seasons in New York: ‘The revolutionary dynamic that led Miss Graham and the others away from ballet faded some time ago … and the dancers they indoctrinate, instead of seeming purposeful once they get off on their own, usually look derivative, grounded, or merely outdated. Sybil Shearer and Merce Cunningham are about the only ones trained in this pious, ingrown atmosphere who are really managing surviving all its hazards, and the concerts they are presenting separately during these inartistic seasons seem wonderfully intense, personal, audacious and important.’ 37 For comprehensive analysis on the formal relationship between Cunningham and Balanchine, see: Banes & Carroll, ‘Cunningham, Balanchine, and Postmodern Dance’, 49- 60. 38 Banes & Carroll, ‘Cunningham, Balanchine, and Postmodern Dance’, 55. 77 dancers frequently rehearsed in silence.39 Forti, who attended Cunningham’s school, recalled being unnerved by this intense technicality of the lessons:

An important element of the movement seemed to be the arbitrary isolation of the different parts of the body. I recall a statement I made in exasperation one day in the studio. I said that Merce Cunningham was a master of adult, isolated articulation. And that the thing I had to offer was still very close to the holistic and generalised response of infants.40

Forti’s remark about the ‘arbitrary isolation’ of body parts relates with Cunningham’s statement: ‘You do not separate the human being from the actions he does, or the actions which surround him, but you can see what it is like to break these actions up in different ways’.41 Cunningham’s technique called for the different parts of the body to move in opposition or out of synchronisation.42 To this, Emily Macel Theys’s adds: ‘In a Cunningham class, your upper body and lower

39 Tomkins, The Bride and the Bachelors, 245. See also: Moira Hodgson, Quintet: five American dance companies (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1976), 84: ‘The laughter, chatter and waiting that characterise rehearsals in most dance companies are absent here. There are no tapes to be fumbled with or pianist to give the cue. The only sound is the thud and squeak of the dancers’ feet on the highly polished maple floor. Merce Cunningham, in a gray tracksuit, sits very straight on the chair he has drawn up to face the dancers. Occasionally he stands and clicks his fingers or slaps his thigh in rhythm. He carries a towel, a stopwatch and a notebook. The dancers, young, grave, and elegant, four men and six women, work quickly and intently. With no stepping stones provided for them by music, they have to count it all in their heads. The dance, with several sections, must finish at a specific time. At the end of the sequence Merce looks at his stopwatch and says, ‘You’re thirty seconds over.’ The dancers look at each other and scratch their heads.’ 40 Forti, Handbook in Motion, 34. 41 Merce Cunningham, ‘You have to love dancing to stick with it’ (1998), in: Brown (ed.), The Vision of Modern Dance, 91. 42 In Cunningham’s technique, the spine is central and the legs and arms work in either opposition or unison to this centre point. The base of the spine acts as a spring, which can either coil or twist or send parts of the body or its whole surging into space. The legs which drive the vital movement across space often appear under different instruction than the rest of the body. Cunningham’s choreography necessitates the dancers cover large areas of space. He regularly sought to perform in gymnasiums, large halls, and later museums, escaping the spatial restrictions of the traditional proscenium stage. For Cunningham and his dancers to cover these expanses efficiently, the legs had to move with incredible dexterity and generate extraordinary power, just as with ballet. See: Copeland, ‘Merce Cunningham and the Politics of Perception’, 319; Cunningham, ‘Space, Time, and Dance’, 37-8; Robert Swinston quoted in Macel Theys, ‘Modern Masters’, Dance Spirit, 15.4 (April 2011), 69. 78 body will often be doing totally different things.’43 Or, as Robert Copeland puts it: ‘Not only is everybody a soloist in Cunningham’s choreography, every section of every body can become a soloist as well’.44

Rainer’s Trio A (1965-66) [fig.26], a focal work in articulating minimalism in dance, expanded Cunningham’s arbitrary isolation to the structure of the dance itself. In Trio A, Rainer conceives the performer’s body as an object and performs a series of individual movements each separate and distinct from the others. ‘No one of the individual movements’ she claimed, ‘was made by varying a quality of one with any other.’45 The movements are not set in a hierarchy. There is no crescendo or climax. Instead the series progresses by one distinct movement following another. The effect is a series of disconnected movements undertaken by isolated parts of the body. By focusing on basic, discrete movements and repeating these in a mechanical, non-expressive manner, Rainer’s performance is serial and minimalist. Here, Rainer’s choreography resonates more with Judd’s specific objects where discrete units are repeated over and over to create a highly-depersonalised effect, than it does with Morris’s phenomenological framing of bodies and objects. In Trio A presents the body and its movement as object-like, inexpressive, and impersonal. In earlier modern dance, the dancing body wrought and amplified the emotive turmoil and exaltations of the modern condition. This aspect is one of the core elements rejected by the Judson dancers: ‘I find all so-called “Modern Dance” impossible to watch’, protested Morris, ‘that is all dance which exhibits “expression” I find repellent.’ 46

Cunningham’s resonance with the younger generation of dancers is seen through non-expressive modes of performance, anti-compositional strategies, and the disassociation of dance, music, and décor. These concepts, which Cunningham

43 Emily Macel Theys, ‘Modern Masters’, 69. 44 Roger Copeland, ‘Merce Cunningham and the Politics of Perception’ (1979), in: Copeland and Marshall Cohen (eds.), What is Dance? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 319. 45 Rainer, ‘The Mind is a Muscle’, 67-68. 46 Robert Morris, From Mnemosyne to Clio: The Mirror to the Labyrinth (1998-1999-2000), (Lyon: Musee d’Art contemporain, 2000), 183. 79 performed in the mid-1940s, empowered many of the antithetic questionings of the Judson Dance Theater. There were aspects of Cunningham’s dance which the younger performers of the Judson group challenged; the unnerving technicality of Cunningham’s technique being the main. Mostly, there was practical and conceptual interchange between Cunningham’s dance company and the Judson group. Many of the younger dancers trained at Cunningham’s school and Steve Paxton and Judith Dunn danced with his company. The figure of Rauschenberg was a constant in both groups and undoubtedly a conduit of ideas.47

Movement and Nature

Morris was introduced to dance by Forti, who was a student of Ann Halprin. Halprin formed her Dancers’ Workshop in 1955 in San Francisco; Forti, recently married to Morris, joined in 1956. Although Morris never performed with Halprin’s group, he attended her workshops which attracted visual artists, dancers, musicians, and poets.48 The location of Halprin’s studio in the mountainous countryside outside San Francisco spoke to her dance philosophy. Conducting workshops surrounded by nature, Halprin encouraged students to explore the relationship between humanity and the natural world.49 ‘You become vitally

47 In 1953, whilst at Black Mountain College with Cage, Cunningham formed the Merce Cunningham Dance Company. It was at the college that they met Rauschenberg, who joined as the company’s first artistic advisor until 1964 – Jasper Johns continued in this role from 1967. The collaborations which arose out of Cunningham’s choreography, Cage’s music, and Rauschenberg’s visual designs irrevocably disrupted the accord these three elements conventionally shared in modern and classical dance. Dance, music, and décor were conceptualised independently from the other and could be translated by the audience in isolation and in concert. Rauschenberg prepared the visual design in independence from the music and choreography. As was his practice, Rauschenberg’s routinely incorporated objects he found on the streets into his designs. This practice introduced another element of chance into the overall performance. 48 Other performers and artists associated with Halprin’s workshops around this time included – Yvonne Rainer, Trisha Brown, La Monte Young, Ruth Emerson, Terry Riley, A.A. Leath, and John Graham. Many of these attendees were instrumental in the development of postmodern dance and minimalist performance in New York in the 1960s. Morris, Rainer, Brown, and Emerson were directly involved with the Judson Dance Theater. 49 Forti, Handbook in Motion, 31. Forti remembered in one workshop students were asked to observe the nature around them and articulate what they had viewed into movement. 80 concerned with the materials, the sensual materials of our lives,’ Halprin reflected, ‘and with the almost primitive naiveness [sic] of being an extension of your environment.’50 For Halprin, the relatedness between the body and nature, calls upon a premodern view of the world. Halprin described this connection with nature through movement a ‘non-intellectual’ way of working.51 Certainly, this represents a non-rationalist or pre-Cartesian understanding, as there is a desire to revert to an indivisible unity between humanity and the environment, and between mind and body.52

Halprin’s premodern understanding of dance was aimed at moving beyond the dance clichés and conventional techniques of modern dance. Halprin sought more basic human responses and she considered improvisation as the means for breaking down the stylised movement of modern dancers: ‘I was trying to get at subconscious areas’, Halprin explained, ‘so things would happen in an unpredictable way’.53 While Halprin aimed to break through the artifice of modern dance with non-intellectual movement, this movement still required structure to

Morris participated in this exercise and Forti recalled that Morris had observed a rock. Over the course of three minutes, Morris compressed his body more and more until, according to Forti, ‘just the point under his centre of gravity remained on the ground.’ Forti’s recollection of Morris performing this exercise goes to the central tenet of Halprin’s dance philosophy; a primitive understanding of the body’s relationship to nature as it is articulated through movement. 50 Ann Halprin interviewed by Vera Maletic, ‘The Process Is the Purpose’, in: Jean Morrison Brown (ed.), The Vision of Modern Dance (Princeton: Princeton Book Company, 1979), 133. 51 Halprin; Maletic, ‘The Process Is the Purpose’, 133. 52 Meredith Morse, Soft is Fast: Simone Forti in the 1960s and After (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2016), 15-35. In her extensive study on Forti, Morse traces the choreographic lineage of Forti’s dance interrogations in the 1960s back through the mentorship of Halprin in the late 1950s. Halprin in turn was influenced by the teachings of dance pedagogue Margaret D’Houbler from the 1910s and 1920s. H’Doubler approached dance using scientific and anatomical methods and dismissed the stylistic and expressive early- modern dance of Isadora Duncan. Informed by contemporary social reform and evolutionary theories, H’Doubler’s notion of kinaesthetic awareness was rooted in anatomical self-exploration and physical education. She gave her students movement exercises and instructed them to observe the bodily changes. H’Doubler’s objective focus on real and natural movement inspired Halprin’s practice which similarly sought to circumvent the stylised artifices of modern dance and arrive at an unadulterated view of the body’s movement. Morse illustrates that these concerns were carried forward in Forti’s practice in the 1960s. 53 Ann Halprin interviewed by Yvonne Rainer in: ‘Yvonne Rainer Interviews Ann Halprin’, The Tulane Drama Review, 10.2 (Winter 1965), 143. 81 be considered performance.54 She remarked in an interview with Rainer: ‘Doing a task created an attitude that would bring the movement quality into another kind of reality … [and] was devoid of a certain kind of introspection.’55 Here, Halprin refers to ‘introspection’ as the emotive connect between the inner state of the dancer and outward expression of that state through their movement. This notion of introspection did not form part of Halprin’s dance philosophy or approach to choreography.

Halprin devised game-like situations, improvisational problems, or had students perform mundane tasks to give their movements the necessary performance structure.56 In one example Forti recalls, Halprin asked her students to walk around in a circle as a group. Individually, the students were instructed not to instigate any changes to the speed or direction of the group. After an hour, the group had gradually sped up to the point of running and after running for a while, slowed to a walk again. Forti recalls that this process of speeding up and slowing down continued for some time thereafter, until the group finally came to a stop and fell to the ground.57 This walking/running exercise exemplifies the use of game and task-based operations to elicit a performance quality out of a non- intellectual movement. Operations like these preclude subjective compositional

54 Morris; Cummings, np. As Morris noted: ‘the kind of thing that Ann Halprin was doing at the time … was oriented towards a performance or toward a very, very structured kind of solution to some problem.’ 55 Halprin; Rainer, ‘Yvonne Rainer Interviews Ann Halprin’, 147: ‘I wanted to explore in a particular way breaking down any preconceived notions I had about what dance was, or what movement was, or what composition was. I began setting up situations where we could rely only on our improvisation skills. Everything was done, for quite a few years, with improvisation. The purpose of the improvisation was not self-expression. I was trying to get at subconscious areas, so things would happen in an unpredictable way. I was trying to eliminate stereotypical ways of reacting. Improvisation was used to release things that were blocked off because we were traditional modern dancers.’ 56 Yvonne Rainer, Feelings are Facts (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 2006), 193. Rainer here describes a performance piece that she constructed in one of Halprin’s workshops. Both Rainer and La Monte Young would individually pursue avant-garde experimentations in New York in the early 1960s: ‘For one week, composer La Monte Young conducted explorations of John Cage’s scores and vocal and non-vocal sound production. I made a score for three performers titled “Sonata for Screen Door, Flashlight, and Dancer”. The squeaky screen door to the indoor studio beside the deck was the source of the sound. Someone else created a melange of sound while sawing through a milk carton.’ 57 Forti, Handbook in Motion, 29. 82 choices of the choreographer and expressive gestures of the dancer. Rainer used a similar exercise to Halprin’s – a group of people running in a circle together – as the basis for her dance We Shall Run performed at the Judson Dance Theater in 1963.

Halprin’s practice celebrated real bodies performing real, everyday movements. Her workshops were open to performers not formally trained in dance. Halprin’s stated indifference to the technical lexis of modern dance: ‘I am disinterested in movement so highly stylised that we must say this is a Dancer.’58 Halprin sought to breakdown the artifices of the modern dancer and speak to the performer’s movement alone: ‘Anybody’s a dancer to me at any time’, she stated, ‘when I am involved in communicating with that person through his movement.’59 Halprin encouraged her students to incorporate everyday objects, use non-musical sounds, or perform repetitious and non-dance movements in their performances.60 This was wilful erosion of the traditional boundary between performer and audience.61 Further, it augured collapse of the terms art and life.62 Many of these performance explorations were continued with the Judson Dance Theater. Where Halprin used these methods to arrive at a premodern or primitive understanding of the body and its movement, the Judson Dance Theater incorporated these elements into their performance as a conscious subversion and critique of modern dance. The

58 Halprin; Maletic, ‘The Process Is the Purpose’, 128. 59 Halprin; Maletic, ‘The Process Is the Purpose’, 128. 60 Forti, Handbook in Motion, 31-2. Here Forti explains a movement of Trisha Brown using an everyday object: ‘Another memory I have of those days is of a movement Trisha Brown did. She was holding a broom in her hand. She thrust it out straight ahead, without letting go of the handle. And she thrust it out with such force that the momentum carried her whole body through the air. I still have the image of that broom and Trisha right out in space, travelling in a straight line about three feet off the ground.’ 61 Halprin; Maletic, ‘The Process Is the Purpose’, 129: ‘I want the audience to be able to identify and realise that this is a person more than he is a dancer, a person who identifies with very real things.’ 62 Halprin; Maletic, ‘The Process Is the Purpose’, 129-30: ‘We don’t even accept the theater as a conventional place where the audience is here and you’re there, but it is a place, and whatever you do in that place is valid because it’s the place. You don’t have to be on the stage separating here from there. This desire to merge a very life-like situation into the concept of the dance is very true also in my training. Everything we do in dance somehow or other usually relates to who you are as a person, and this affects how you see things and feel things and relate to people. Again, it’s this non-separation of life and art, so that somehow or other it becomes a heightening process.’ 83 ideas that emerged in the relative philosophic and geographic isolation of Halprin’s workshops in California, gained a certain criticality when articulated by the Judson group in New York in the early 1960s.

Early Objects, Early Dance

Morris and Forti moved to New York around 1960.63 By this stage Morris had all but given up on painting.64 He began studies in art history at Hunter College with designs of becoming an art historian, whilst Forti attended Robert Dunn’s dance- composition classes at Cunningham’s studio.65 Dunn’s students started developing performances out of the class activities and began showing these at various Happenings and events around Lower Manhattan. One such piece composed by Forti was See-Saw (1960), performed at the Reuben Gallery.66 The piece involved a male and female performer, Morris and Rainer. A long wooden plank balanced upon a saw horse, with elastic bands fastening the plank to the walls. A toy rubber cow under the see-saw mooed every time it was tipped. Morris and Rainer performed several combinations of movements, each affecting the balance of the see-saw while trying to maintain equilibrium. In one section of the performance, Rainer started screeching while she rode the see-saw and Morris began reading an article from ARTnews in a monotone voice. Throughout the performance, Forti turned the lights on and off and sung. The piece lasted twenty minutes.

63 The date of their arrival in New York is given differently by Forti and Morris. In Handbook in Motion, Forti lists it as Spring 1959. In his interview with Cummings, Morris says, ‘I moved to New York at the beginning of 1960 I guess it was, 1961. There was a time of travelling back and forth. There was a kind of inactivity there at one point.’ 64 Forti, Handbook in Motion, 34: ‘Bob had stopped painting. He was actively trying to do nothing, but actually he was reading voraciously.’ 65 Morris; Cummings, np. 66 Forti at this stage was working with children at a nursery in New York and through this became interested in children’s games and the way they act and move whilst playing. Forti subsequently explored the actions and activities of children in her performance works during this period. In See-Saw, Forti structured a performance around a children’s game- like situation upon a see-saw object, forming what she termed a dance construction. 84

Morris has stated that Forti’s choreographic explorations resonated with his own work greatly at this time.67 An important Forti piece that impacted on Morris was Slant Board (1961), performed at her Five Dance Constructions & Some Other Things held at Yoko Ono’s loft in Lower Manhattan.68 In this work, Forti constructed a forty-five-degree inclined plywood ramp fitted with knotted ropes. Performers had to pull themselves up or across the ramp and were required to stay upon the board for ten minutes. For Morris, Slant Board was revelatory: ‘Here focused clearly for the first time were two distinct means by which new actions could be implemented: rules or tasks and devices (she termed them constructions) or objects.’69 Morris increasingly explored this formalised relationship between tasks and objects in performance and it is most visible in his dance Arizona (1963) which is explored later in this chapter.

The installation of Forti’s dances throughout the space of Ono’s loft and the movement of visitors through that space meant, according to Virginia Spivey, that Forti ‘effectively blurred distinctions between real and performative space.’70 Spivey pictures a conceptual relationship between Forti’s Five Dance Constructions & Some Other Things and Morris’s plywood show at the Green Gallery in 1964. The activity of the spectator moving through Ono’s loft encountering simple rope and plywood forms, was not dissimilar to what visitors encountered moving among Morris large plywood objects at the Green Gallery.71

67 Morris, From Mnemosyne to Clio, 198. 68 Other works performed in Forti’s concert included Huddle, Platforms, Hangers, Accompaniment for La Monte’s “2 sounds” and La Monte’s “2 sounds”, and the previously performed See-Saw. All the performances, except Huddle – which comprised a rolling scrum of dancers, featured rope or plywood board device. Visitors to Ono’s loft that evening moved through the space from performance site to site, with the dances performed sequentially. All the dances were structured by a set of predetermined tasks that the performers had to complete to finish the dance. 69 Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Dance’, The Tulane Drama Review, 10.2 (Winter 1965), 179. 70 Virginia B. Spivey, ‘The Minimal Presence of Simone Forti’, Women’s Art Journal, 30.1 (Summer/Spring 2001), 14. 71 Spivey, ‘The Minimal Presence of Simone Forti’, 16. 85

Morris has made efforts to disentangle his dance from his sculptural practices, yet it is undoubtable that the theatrical relationships of bodies and objects resonates across the two fields of practice. While it is unfair to both Morris or Forti to suggest that either one was the originator of the pared-back, plywood minimalist aesthetic and conceptual engagement with bodies and objects in performative space, the most accepted canonical view is that it emerged with Morris.72 More realistically, as a partnership, Forti and Morris worked through similar formal problems in performance and developed a common visual vocabulary.73 Certainly, in this more recent recount, Morris credits the importance of Forti’s innovations:

In dismantling and dispensing with the presuppositions of expressive movement – based on carrying out tasks, negotiating objects, and following instructions or rules, while using fatigue and endurance as limits – Forti’s Dance Constructions revolutionized contemporary dance and embraced Agency Reduction as a strategy that could be shared across various media.74

Forti’s Dance Constructions were a break through point for the artists and dancers that became associated with the Judson Dance Theatre and minimalism. And, Forti’s importance at this juncture – or critical lacuna in the art historical record thereof – is source of much recent scholarly and curatorial re-evaluation.75 Forti and Morris divorced in 1961 with Forti soon after marrying Robert Whitman, who

72 Yvonne Rainer, ‘On Simone Forti’ (2014), in: Sabine Breitwiesser (ed.), Simone Forti: Thinking with the Body (Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 2014), 72: Rainer here interprets Forti’s critical oversight during this period: ‘Simone’s ‘Five Dance Constructions’ confirmed for many people her stature as a formidable artist on par with her better-known contemporaries. Of course, as far as the art world was concerned, she was still the ‘dancing girl’ with noting to sell, and as a consequence was relegated to the dance ghetto, with its attendant economic constraints.’ 73 Spivey, ‘The Minimal Presence of Simone Forti’, 15. 74 Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Simone Forti’ (2014), in: Breitwiesser (ed.), 47. Morris here uses the term ‘Agency Reduction’ as reference to the automation of ‘decision making’ in art that is evidenced in Duchampian and Cagean aesthetic practices. 75 Steve Paxton, ‘The Emergence of Simone Forti’ (2014), in: Breitwiesser (ed.), 61:[In relation to ‘Five Dance Constructions’] ‘All I know is that this small, radical groups of works by Forti was like a pebble tossed into a large, still, and complacent pond. The ripples radiated. Most notably, Forti’s event happened prior to the first performance at the Judson Memorial Church by the choreographers from Robert Dunn’s composition class, and they took courage from it.’ 86 had organised the Happening at the Rueben Gallery where See-Saw was performed.76 Morris and Rainer later became romantically involved. During this period, just after his arrival in New York and the deterioration of his marriage to Forti, Morris turned his focus to the minimalist object. One of Morris’s first significant sculptural-type works Passageway (1961) was produced for a Fluxus event again held at Ono’s loft [figs.27 & 28].77 The piece consisted of two, long curving and narrowing walls of plywood that visitors could barely make their way through. In this early work, concepts emerge that point to Morris’s later minimalist sculpture. There is a concern with the human body, how it relates in scale to the object and to the space which contains both. How the viewer’s perceptual field is clouded by the imposition of the large blank-surfaced walls that converge to a dead end. Clearly, the relationship between bodies and object, both psychological and physical, is Morris’s main interest. The work is theatrical, functioning on the situation evoked when a viewer encounters the work.78

A second early work further serves as a precursor to Morris’s minimalist sculpture – Column (1961) [fig.29]. This piece was part of a presentation at the Living Theater performed in 1962. For the performance, Morris stood the rectangular grey plywood column on its end in the centre of the stage. The curtains parted to

76 Morse, 51-53. Morse explains how Whitman and the ‘more established artists of the downtown art scene’ involved in the early Happenings including Claes Oldenburg and Jim Dine, influenced Forti’s early works from 1960-61. This is an observation shared by Paxton who notes: ‘I believe she took courage from the artists who produced Happenings, rather than the example of the choreographers who had dance companies.’ See also: Paxton (2014), in: Breitwiesser (ed.), 60. 77 Robert Morris; Simon Grant, ‘Interview: Robert Morris’, TATE etc., 14 (Autumn 2008), [Online and no pagination], accessed on: 12 July 2010. Available from: https://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue14/interviewmorris.htm In the interview, Morris describes his piece Passageway and reveals how his interest in psychology and philosophy were mediated through the work: Reading Wittgenstein’s remarks in the Tractatus that ‘I am my world. (The microcosm),’ my heart skips a beat. I make a 50-foot long plywood Passageway, which narrows as it curves. Two arcs of a circle converging. I wedge my body between the narrowing walls, which curve ahead and out of sight. I am suspended, embraced and held by my world. I listen to the faint sound of the hidden mechanical heartbeat I have installed over the ceiling of Passageway. 78 Rainer, Feelings are Facts, 197. Rainer’s recollection of the piece is as follows: ‘The final evening at Yoko’s loft was announced as ‘an event’ by Robert Morris. George Sugarman and I traipsed downtown and up the five flights expecting some kind of performance, only to be met, on opening the door, by a three-foot wide curving corridor with seven-foot high ceiling that ended in a pointed cul-de-sac. I was so outraged that I wrote on the wall “Fuck you too, Bob Morris.” 87 reveal the column with no one or nothing else on stage. After three and a half minutes the column was made to topple onto its side, where it remained for another three and a half minutes, then the curtains closed.79

Morris exhibited Column at the ‘New Works I’ exhibition at the Green Gallery in January 1963. He continued the use of the column form in various configurations throughout his minimalist period. Sidney Tillim, reviewing New Works I’, said of Morris’s Column, ‘it protested the ineluctable modality of an aesthetic that had

79 Differing accounts of the origin of Column have been presented at times by Morris and others. Rainer has stated that Morris had intended to stand inside the column and make it topple himself, though had injured himself in rehearsal. Morris, on the other hand, has suggested a much more majestic origin. See: Robert Morris, ‘Three Folds in the Fabric and Four Autobiographical Asides as Allegories Or…’, Art in America, 77.11 (November 1989), 144. Morris would later state that the genesis for this piece was to be found in his childhood experiences at the Nelson- Atkins Gallery in Kansas City, Missouri. Morris claims: ‘I remember most drawing from the Egyptian objects … In 1961 I made my first works that would later come to be called Minimal sculpture. Those gray columns and slabs I copied directly from the photographs of the ruins of the King Zoser complex at Saqqara Egypt’. See also: Rainer, Feelings are Fact, 235-6. Rainer later made known that Morris actually found the column piece at the theatre: ‘Bob found it [the column] in the wings and painted it gray, then in rehearsal made it fall over while standing inside it. He cut his lip on that occasion and in the actual performance attached a string to the column, which he pulled from offstage to effect the toppling. And: Chave, ‘Minimalism and Biography’, The Art Bulletin, 82.1 (March 2000), 149-163; 156. Chave cites Morris influence for Column coming from an earlier Forti performance work Platforms (1961). However, Rainer asserts the actual physical object came from her performance The Bells (1961) and was constructed by George Sugarman (See: Rainer, Feelings are Facts, 235). Nevertheless, as Chave points out, Column ‘plainly owed less to Egyptian artefacts glimpsed in photographs during boyhood’. It is certain that Morris’s later re-interpretation of Column speaks more to an art historical game than it does to the influences of Forti or Rainer. Morris presents a reading of his art historical subject as the genius male artist, complete with the almost Vasari-like, childhood epiphany of the encounter with the ancient Egyptian forms. As an art historical subject, Morris appears to arrive at critical junctures in his practice without conference with the strong, female artistic voices that were actually present. He distances his minimalist sculpture from dance and aligns it with a perceivably more academic tradition; the gendered connotations of this are apparent; art history or archaeology conjures the collegiate image of middle-age and male professors, dance does not. Hence at the time, though now assuredly contentious, it was considered more serious and thereby more important. In retrospection, Morris seeks to theoretically posit works like Column within an authoritative historical continuum, rather than the fleeting and ephemeral essence of contemporary dance and performance. Column or Morris’s recount of its genesis, underscores the machinations which permeate his work and illustrates how he entwines selective versions of his biography with the narration of his art historical subject. 88 stripped it bare.’80 Here we see, with this very early piece by Morris, the critical vernacular around minimalism taking shape – an aesthetic stripped bare. Though from Tillim, this is not a negatively-framed observation and indeed Tillim, who wrote for Artforum, was one of the early art writers to anticipate the consequence of Morris and Judd. Having started its life as a theatre prop, Column is inherently performative and ephemeral.81 This ephemerality is an important distinction when contrasting the works of Morris against Judd’s from this period. Judd’s objects espoused a classical perpetuity; they were built to last in terms of both their material construct and his supporting theory of specific objects. Morris’s plywood works were usually constructed to exist for the duration of an exhibition and did not last long after, often being destroyed. In a 1985 interview with Benjamin Buchloh, Morris revealed his use of plywood was economical, temporal, replicable, and as a slight to the precious art object: ‘I liked the idea of the thing being completely reconstitutable at any moment and place, and the lack of precious materials.’82

Morris displayed another work in ‘New Works I’ that was more Duchampian or Cagean than minimalist. Card File (1963) consisted of a file card holder mounted on a wood panel and affixed to the wall [fig.30]. Each card had written on it a word explaining each different stage that went into its construction. Card File recalls Morris’s interest in process which had first appeared in his explorations of Pollock.83 These early works highlight the competing aesthetic motivations in this period of Morris’s practice. In Passageway and Column, Morris articulates a visually stark, theatrical, large-scale, object-based aesthetic that later was interpreted as

80 Sidney Tillim, ‘New York Exhibitions: Month in Review’, Arts Magazine, (March, 1963), 62. 81 Rainer, Feelings are Fact, 235-6: ‘The transformation of his ‘primary structure’ – from décor to inert protagonist – might add another angle to the roiling debates that would foment around the work of Morris and Don Judd for the next few years. But this early performance of his confirms a basic difference between them: The human body was always implicit in Morris’s sculpture in the 1960s.’ 82 Robert Morris; Benjamin Buchloh, ‘Three conversations in 1985: Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Robert Morris’, October, 70 The Duchamp Effect (Autumn 1994), 50. 83 Robert Morris, ‘Letters to John Cage’, October, 81 (Summer 1997), 78-9. In a letter to Cage, Morris asks him as the viewer to make additions to the piece, ‘the nature of the work is such that all additions are welcome but I want to know the time that such and such an addition is conceived since this is important information that must be entered into the cards of the CARD FILE.’ (Letter dated, 12 January 1963). 89 minimalism. On the other hand, there is a Duchampian subversion of the art object, as in Card File, where linguistic games and visual puns are used to subvert the conventions of art making.84

Also in this Duchampian vein is Box with the Sound of Its Own Making (1961) [fig.31]. The piece, a small wooden box with a tape recording of the sounds of its construction playing inside. The literal emphasis of the title throws back the question to the viewer – what defines art? Is it the process that goes into making the object or is it the resultant object itself? Morris exhibited this piece in his one man show at the Green Gallery in October and November of 1963 [fig.32]. He encouraged Cage to see his show.85 Both Card File and Box with the Sound of Its Own Making, with their self-reflexive titles and performative aspects, would have appealed to Cage’s sense of theatre.86 In both these works, process and the resulting art object which had troubled Morris in painting exist together and approach reconciliation.87 In this exhibition, Morris showed a mixture of both larger minimalist and smaller-scale Duchampian objects.88 Here, the tension

84 Morris quoted in: Berger, Labyrinths, 31. [Taken from an unpublished interview with Jack Burnham in 1975]. Morris asked Cage to come to his studio and view his Box with the Sound of Its Own Making and Morris recalls of the meeting with Cage, ‘I turned it on … and he wouldn’t listen to me. He sat and listened to it for three hours and that was really impressive to me. He just sat there.’ 85 Morris; Buchloh, ‘Three conversations in 1985’, 51. Morris asked Cage to give his thoughts on this showing as well. In an interview with Buchloh Morris revealed Cage’s response as: ‘I knew John Cage; he was one of the first people I knew when I came to New York. So when I was showing my first slab in the Green Gallery, I asked John to be sure to go see this work. Later I heard that he told somebody: ‘I went to see Bob Morris’s sculpture, but I didn’t see any sculpture; I only saw this slab, this pipe form.’ I don’t know if he was being completely ironic or not, but I always enjoyed that comment.’ 86 There is performative aspect in Card File and Box with the Sound of Its Own Making, which suggests they do not begin their function as art objects until they are encountered by a viewer – until there is an audience. 87 Morris interviewed by Cummings: ‘I recorded the sound of making this box and put a speaker in it so that it plays for three hours the sounds of its being constructed. And it wasn’t conscious with me but I think this was again … I mean this completely split the process and the object. And yet put them both back together again. So in some way I think this was a work that allowed me then to go ahead. I mean really resolved that conflict that had happened in painting.’ 88 In the early 1960s Duchamp was receiving a renewed interest by the younger generation of American artists. A major retrospective exhibition was held at the Pasadena Art Museum in autumn 1963, and a limited series of Duchamp’s readymades, made by the Galleria Schwarz in Milan under Duchamp’s supervision in 1964, toured to New York. The term neo-Dada was derisory in the Greenbergian context. It was applied to several 90 between his competing aesthetic concerns is played out. The Duchampian pieces engage the viewer in a roguish intellectual game whilst the minimalist slab and column excites a more physical, phenomenological experience. In a letter to Cage, Morris suggested he was keener to explore the larger objects than pursuing the smaller Duchampian works.89

Another neo-Dadaist work in this phase of Morris’s artistic production is the dance War (1963), performed at the Judson Dance Theater’s A Concert for Dance #4 on 30 January 1963 [figs.33 & 34]. Morris created and performed War with the painter, Robert Huot. The pair dressed as medieval knights with armour constructed from objects found on the street. Morris carried a shield with a picture of Dwight D. Eisenhower upon it. With the lights dimmed, La Monte Young slowly chimed a gong and when the lights eventually raised, Morris and Huot charged at each other yelling and flailing away with wooden swords which splintered and shattered. After duelling violently for some time, the pair released doves and the lights went off.90 The crowd reaction to this performance was positive and enthusiastic. Jill Johnston, who was firming as the chief advocate for the Judson Dance Theater, nominated War as one of the attractions of the night. War’s thematic content suggests the piece was an exploration of violence, aggression, and spectacle, though the treatment of these themes cannot be considered overly discursive or analytical. Visual effect seemed to be the main concern of Morris and Huot, at least this is how Paxton interpreted it:

It was a very successful piece in terms of audience reaction. I thought it was a piece of shit. Where was the concept? What was this political cartooning that was going

instances of the new art that seem to take their cue from Duchamp, this includes Morris, Johns, Rauschenberg, but also Pop and Fluxus. 89 Morris, ‘Letters to John Cage’, 77. However, the response coming from the gallerist, with whom Cage had made an introduction on Morris’s behalf, indicated that the smaller pieces were more popular and hence more likely to sell: ‘I appreciated very much your efforts on my behalf in having Mrs Castelli come over to see my things. However, she expressed an interest at that time of mainly in the smaller objects since they would be more likely to sell. Even though I do not have plans for smaller objects.’ (Letter dated, 12 April 1962). 90 Sally Banes, Democracy’s Body: Judson Dance Theater, 1962-1964 (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1993), 101. 91

on? … There was an anti-war movement then, certainly an anti-nuclear movement, but this didn’t seem about that, this was just preposterous.91

Morris omits War from future discussions of his choreographic work, but it is fair to say, War is limited in its attempt to critique the absurdity and spectacle of war.92 War is an over-the-top visual spectacle with dramatic action, costumes, and blithe treatment of a significant issue.93 With this, War aligns firmly with Morris’s neo- Dada tendencies. Morris’s performances hereafter assert a more thorough interrogation of ideas on objects, space, time, and the moving body. Morris’s exclusion of War from his account of his choreographic work, reflects his desire to depart from the Duchampian tradition that had been influencing the more visible part of his art making to this point. Rainer gives credence to this notion. In October 1964, when Rainer and Morris toured Europe (Rainer touring with Cunningham’s company, though performed with Morris at separate events), Morris was invited to exhibit his sculptural works at a gallery in Dusseldorf. For the exhibition, Rainer recalled that Morris mainly presented smaller sculpt-metal reliefs and his self- reflexive constructions – among them I Box (a small cabinet that contained a photograph of Morris naked and smiling inside) and Box with the Sound of Its Own Making. Yet, Rainer remembers that Morris was no longer interested in these

91 Steve Paxton in interview with Sally Banes (11 April 1980), as cited in: Banes, Democracy’s Body, 101. 92 Morris does not mention War in his ‘Notes on Dance’ essay. 93 Morris; Cummings [np]. An anecdote Morris shared with Cummings about his time serving with the military in Korea suggests that the artist had first-hand experience of the absurdity and spectacle of war. Morris recounts the story of serving with an Engineers battalion who had been tasked with drilling a mile-long tunnel into the side of a mountain to then fill with dynamite and blow it up. Morris recalls: ‘But before they blew it up, they built a grandstand in front of this hole at some distance. And all of the brass of all of the Engineering Battalions came to this event. And programs were printed up. And I remember the cook going up with a whole truckload of cake and coffee … And they blew this thing up. It was a fantastic event.’ Like the insane situation of blowing up of a mountain for a grandstand full of the Top Brass, is War meant to be anything more than an absurd display of militaristic violence and power? Morris advised Cage of the piece saying, ‘I think of this dance as a kind of moralistic act, a useful substitute, a necessary replacement for an activity not easily discarded.’ If war or violence is ‘not easily discarded’, then Morris and Huot fight a war with weapons and armour made from the easily discarded, the detritus they found on the street. War, like Morris’s experience with the exploding mountain in Korea, was absurd, violent, and an ultimately futile exercise. Morris’s battalion then spent the rest of the time he was in Korea grinding the remains of the mountain into gravel, a task Morris suggests was set to keep them busy: ‘It was one of those typical insane situations’. 92 works: ‘Somehow he felt deeply humiliated by his ‘lapse’ in career acumen by having exhibited the more personal neo-Dada objects, which were already being perceived as not cutting edge.’94

After this exhibition in Dusseldorf, Morris produced less neo-Dada pieces and sought to articulate minimalism through his choreographic works and large-scale objects. Morris’s move to minimalism is set against the rising exhaustion of neo- Dada; Johns and Rauschenberg had produced the first of these works in the 1950s and Duchamp’s Dada works appeared some thirty to forty years previous.95 As well, there was the increasing pervasiveness of Pop, which also had claims to the Dadaist lineage as did Fluxus.96 In Morris’s next dance and sculpture pieces there is a decidedly minimalist feel and appearance. A more rigorous, formalism appears in these works that is not as apparent in War, Card File, or Box with the Sound of Its Own Making. Morris performed these key works with the Judson Dance Theater, which as a site of minimalist practice, proved just as vital – though less visible in the discourse – as the Green Gallery.

Movement towards the Postmodern

The most synergetic period of the Judson Dance Theater runs from 1962 to 1964, during which time they performed sixteen concerts.97 A Concert for Dance #1 took

94 Rainer, Feelings are Facts, 254-5. 95 John Cage interview by Paul Cummings (1974). Transcript of oral history interview with John Cage conducted on 2 May 1974 for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. [Online and no pagination], accessed: 5 March 2009. Available from: http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-john-cage-12442 Cage, circa 1963, recalled: ‘It dawned on me that Marcel had done this 50 years, 40 years before. I saw him in Venice at Peggy Guggenheim’s and I said, “Oh, Marcel, you did that long before I did.” And then he smiled and said, “I must have been 50 years ahead of my time”.’ [No pagination]. 96 Morris; Buchloh, ‘Three conversations in 1985’, 52-3. Morris later distanced himself from Fluxus, though he had performed at Fluxus events and War could be read as a Fluxus- type performance; maybe another reason why he omits this from his dance history. 97 Banes, Democracy’s Body, xiv-xv. 93 place on 6 July 1962 [fig.35]. The concert evolved out of Robert Dunn’s dance composition classes and student-run workshops held in the church’s gymnasium.98 The creative buzz enthusing Greenwich Village created an open flow and exchange of ideas between dance, music, poetry, and the visual arts; the concerts were the embodiment of this eclectic, vibrant, and experimental spirit. Under the ministership of Howard Moody (1956-1992), the church itself was a vital site for fostering avant-garde experimentation within Greenwich Village [figs.36 & 37].99As early as 1959, the Judson’s art gallery was showing works by Pop artists Jim Dine, Tom Wesselman, Red Grooms, and Claes Oldenburg. The church’s gallery staged some of the first ever Happenings. The Judson Poets’ Theater was established in 1961 and produced a regular program of plays and musicals with untrained players drawn from the surrounding community. The use of the church’s space by the Judson Poets’ Theater inspired students from Dunn’s dance- composition classes to hold workshops and later stage dance concerts in the church.100

98 A shaping influence on the Judson Dance Theater was the dance composition classes taught by Robert Dunn and held at Cunningham’s studio between 1960 and 1962. Dunn had studied music composition under Cage and brought many Cagean ideas to the class. He encouraged students to devise scores or game-plans to generate performance. For Dunn, the use of these plans or scores undermined the reliance on artifice and premeditated movement. Many of the future Judson Dance Theater members, Steve Paxton, Yvonne Rainer, Alex Hay, Trisha Brown, Deborah Hay, Elaine Summers, David Gordon, Ruth Emerson, and Judith Dunn, attended Dunn’s classes and it was Robert Dunn who organised the first dance concert at the Judson Memorial Church for his students. 99 Howard Moody, A Voice in the Village: A Journey of a Pastor and a People (New York: Howard Moody, 2009), 22-24. Located in Washington Square, the church was built in 1890 with the aim to serve the growing community of Italian migrants through health and nutrition, recreation, as well as worship and religious instruction. By the 1950s and 1960s, owing to the changing demographic of the area, which was due to the spread of the surrounding New York University and with it, the influx of intellectuals, students, and artists seeking cheaper rents, the church established itself as advocate for causes deemed undeserving by the mainstream churches. These causes included then and have continued to be – campaigning for civil rights, advocating compassion for drug addicts and prostitutes, providing consultation for women seeking abortion and abortion law reform, gay and lesbian rights, and medical advocacy for AIDS patients. 100 Rainer, Work 1961-73, 8. Rainer notes of their decision to use the church: ‘…the church seemed a positive alternative to the once-a-year hire-a-hall mode of operating that had plagued the struggling modern dancer before, Here we could present things more frequently, more informally, and more cheaply, and – most of important of all – more cooperatively.’ 94

The democratic nature of the Judson Dance Theater departed from the hierarchic order of the modern dance studio. With no lead choreographer, principle dancers, or soloists, the air of the group was egalitarian. Decisions were arrived at through consensus; a definitive departure from the Graham and Humphrey schools and even Cunningham’s. There were stronger personalities within the group like Rainer and Paxton, and Dunn then later Rauschenberg acted as elder spokesmen for the group, but openness to all ideas formed the group’s ethos. This free and experimental atmosphere enabled the young choreographers to challenge conventional assumptions of what dance was, where dance could take place, and who could dance. Sally Banes in her authoritative scholarship on the Judson Dance Theater suggests that between 1960 and 1968, postmodern dance developed out of the explorations of the young Judson group and their milieu. Banes identifies three areas that unravelled modernism in dance: ‘references to history; new uses of time, space, and the body; [and] problems defining dance.’101

The first aspect Banes raises – references to history, concerns the Judson choreographers ‘acknowledging the heritage [they]…set out to repudiate.’102 The Judson dancers’ pedestrian movements were a conscious subversion of the highly- stylised gestures of modern dance. Banes notes, works in this vein establish an ‘ironic’ dialogue with other dance traditions to accentuate their separation from them.103 Secondly, the Judson group opened-up new understandings of the moving body in time and space. Rainer’s expression of her body as an object, ‘so that it could be handled like an object, picked up and carried, and so that objects and bodies could be interchangeable’, speaks to Banes’s postmodernist condition, but further to Rainer’s minimalist concern of objecthood.104 And thirdly, the use of tasks, game-like situations, and chance operations were a rejection of the

101 Banes, Terpsichore in Sneakers, xvii. 102 Banes, Terpsichore in Sneakers, xvii. 103 Banes, Terpsichore in Sneakers, xvii. 104 Rainer, quoted in: RoseLee Goldberg, ‘Space as Praxis’, Studio International, 190 (1975), 131. [Taken from an interview with Rainer in Avalanche (Summer 1972)]. 95 compositional rules of modern dance. Resultantly, these new choreographic strategies confounded conventional definitions of dance.105

There are intersections between Banes’s three areas of postmodernist enquiry and they rarely operate exclusively in any choreographic work. These areas of concern are seen in Morris’s performances either solely or in combination. History (of painting), is interrogated in Site (1964); relationships between space, time, and body are articulated in Arizona (1963); while the definition of dance is challenged in Check (1964).106 It is, however, the body’s movement in space and time and the engagement with objects that is the prevailing idea communicated in these three Morris dances. Significantly, for this dissertation this reveals more of a minimalist rather than a postmodernist tendency with regards to Morris. Minimalism in dance was championed by the primary agitators of the Judson group in Paxton and Rainer.107 Minimalist strategies like non-expressivity and non-composition

105 Rainer’s Parts of Some Sextets for 10 people and 12 mattresses (1965), illustrates both the use of chance and tasks. Rainer began with the premise of 10 people and 12 mattresses and drew up a large grid which consisted of 31 different activities, such as no.1 ‘Rope movement’, no. 18 ‘Human flies on mattress pile’, or no. 23 ‘crawl thru below top mattress’ [sic]. The order the performers worked through these activities was determined by chance and each activity took a different measure of time to complete. The effect was multiple activities occurring across the performance time and space, thereby upsetting the narrational or dramatic structure of modern dance and performance. 106 In August 1964 Morris and Rainer performed Morris’s Check at a concert at the Moderna Museet in Stockholm. In the 700-seat space, Morris rearranged the chairs at random during an interval. When the audience returned, they were confronted by a chaotic arrangement of chairs not knowing whether to sit or stand. Prior to the performance, Morris’s had instructed forty locals to wander through the sea of chairs and interact with the wider audience after the interval. At a given signal, they would form into groups and perform ‘simple, simultaneous actions. At another signal, they again dispersed throughout the room to resume wandering and talking. For Morris, the effect was that actions would materialise at a place and time from within the mass of people and chairs, then dematerialise back into this mass. This blurred the demarcation between spectator and performer. 107 Rainer, Feelings are Facts, 241. Rainer described Paxton’s work as ‘the most severe and rigorous of all the work that appeared in and around the Judson’ and ‘could most accurately be termed minimalist’. Paxton’s English (1963), is a group performance for eleven dancers in which the performers wore pale makeup to erase their distinguishing facial features. Paxton mapped out group configurations based on formations he saw in sports photographs. Following the paths Paxton devised, the dancers moved to different parts of the performance space to carry out pedestrian movements and mime everyday activities like washing up. The use of sports photographs to structure the dancer’s positioning for the performance, extended from the use of chance operations by Cunningham. Paxton was a dancer of Cunningham’s company and so arguably, had more grasp on the performance ideas of Cage and Cunningham to work with and against. The 96 subverted the expressionist and individualist claims of modern dance.108 The Judson Dance Theater rejected notions of spectacle and drama, adherence to musical scores or narrative structure, elaborate costumes and sets, and mythological or psychological themes. Rainer’s ‘NO’ Manifesto is the exclamation point to this program:

No to spectacle, no to virtuosity, no to transformations and magic and make- believe, no to the glamour and transcendency of the star image, no to the heroic, no to the anti-heroic, no to trash imagery, no to involvement of performer or spectator, no to style, no to camp, no to seduction of spectator by the wiles of the performer, no to eccentricity, no to moving or being moved.109

Many of these conventions that Rainer denounces were initially tested by Cunningham and Halprin. Yet, in this experimental air of the Judson Dance Theater there is a critical disengagement from tradition to create something entirely new and regenerative. Paxton and Rainer, as the two main agitational forces within the Judson group, were pursuing unadorned, pared back minimalist dance aesthetics that departed from traditional notions of dance reliant on spectacle, drama, and artifice. According to Rainer, critics found Paxton’s work more than often, the most difficult to get or critically penetrate.110

Morris created some of his most conceptually important works during this period. Arizona, an austere solo performance in four sections from A Concert for Dance #6, articulated minimalist theory in the medium of dance [fig.38]. In the first section,

use of the photographs by Paxton precluded compositional choices. By blanking out of the performers’ faces, Paxton sought to negate the emotive syntax traditionally conveyed through the dancers’ facial expressions. 108 Not all the dance of the Judson engaged with minimalism – Carolee Schneemann or Trisha Browns’ works cannot be described as minimalist. Thus minimalist dance can be argued postmodernist, though not all postmodern dances are minimalist 109 Yvonne Rainer, ‘Some Retrospective Notes on a Dance for 10 People and 12 Mattresses Called “Parts of Some Sextets.” Performed at the Wadsworth Athenaeum, Hartford, Connecticut, and Judson Memorial Church, New York, in March, 1965’, The Tulane Drama Review, 10.2 (Winter 1965), 178. 110 Rainer, Feelings are Facts, 241 97

Morris stood in the middle of the darkened stage and slowly turned his upper torso from front to left over the elapse of five minutes. As Morris performed this movement, a recording of his voice issuing instructions for sorting cows played.111 When Morris completed the movement, he left the stage and the lights dimmed. Morris’s intent was to draw attention to the banal though pragmatic aspects of labour. Morris’s own non-productive and non-strenuous movement stood in contrast to that of a cattle hand or rancher.112 The second part of Arizona entailed the artist walking out on stage and adjusting a T-form – a construction of a lamp stand with two sticks attached to its top by a swivel joint. Morris adjusted the object, then moved away from it and repeated this process several times before leaving the stage and the lights again dimmed. The third section of Arizona involved Morris throwing a javelin at a target. In the fourth section Morris swung a small light attached to a cord over his head. As he was doing this the lights dimmed and the only thing which remained visible to the audience was the moving point of light.

For Arizona, Morris set up a temporal and spatial ratio between his actions and the objects – the T-form, the javelin, and the swinging light. This idea of using such a ratio to structure the performance came to Morris after viewing A Concert for Dance #5, which had been held at a roller skating rink in Washington D.C. as part of a Pop Art Festival. The highlight of the evening was Rauschenberg’s performance Pelican, in which he and the Swedish sculptor P.O. Ultvedt glided and swooped around the rink wearing white costumes with large sails attached to their backs like parachutes. Rauschenberg’s Pelican impressed upon Morris the principle of

111 Robert Morris, ‘Three Folds in the Fabric and Four Autobiographical Asides Or…’, 147- 8. Morris delineates productive from non-productive forms of labour and again questions the process of making art. The piece carries biographic intimations as well. Morris’s father was in the livestock business and the younger Morris would accompany his father to the stockyards of Kansas. See also: Morris; Cummings [np]. Morris, when he was fourteen or fifteen, rode a cattle train to Los Angeles and passed through the desert states of Arizona and New Mexico, and remembers being ‘very impressed with the West’ due to its large, open expanses. The dance’s title may be reference to this given its spatial concerns, but again, engaging Morris’s biography and character for meaning in his work is fraught due to the artist’s performative self-mythologising. 112 Berger, Labyrinths, 88. 98 bodies in motion in time and space.113 The use of the skating rink for the concert had been pushed by Rauschenberg, who was involved in Cunningham’s productions where this premise for dance emerged.114 Cunningham had sought to perform in larger venues like gymnasiums and halls to accentuate the notion of bodies in movement in expanded space.

In the last three sections of Arizona, Morris incorporated objects into the performance. Morris’s reasoning was to focus the body to a specific, task-oriented movement which elicited a methodical, work-like process. Morris below discusses how objects in this dance were used to address formal considerations of space and time:

By the uses of objects which could be manipulated I found a situation which did not dominate my actions nor subvert my performance. In fact, the decision to employ objects came out of considerations of specific problems involving space and time. For me, the focus of a set of specific problems involving time, space, alternate forms of a unit, etc., provided the necessary structure.115

Morris here sets out a theory of dance which resonates with his minimalist sculpture. In sculpture, Morris’s concern is with controlling the perceptual field of the viewer. This is the spatial context of body and object, and the duration of this encounter is measurable by time. The kinaesthetic quality of dance and the static nature of sculpture present different formal problems and the time and space in which these activities exist is different, yet the interest in the theatrical

113 Morris, ‘Notes on Dance’, 183-4: ‘The extreme slow-motion element in Arizona came from experiencing the dancer’s movements being soaked up, dissipated, in a concert given in an enormous skating rink in Washington D.C. It was apparent that only the smallest movements kept their weight or mass in such a large, nonrectangular space. A consideration in Arizona was to make movements which would keep their focus in any space – a case of spatial opposition rather than cooperation or exploration.’ 114 Tomkins, The Bride and the Bachelors, 230: ‘Rauschenberg would like to see modern dancers move toward a more spontaneous, unplanned sort of choreography, letting the specific environment they find themselves in dictate what they do at each performance.’ 115 Morris, ‘Notes on Dance’, 180. 99 relationship between body and object remains constant in both fields.116 In dance, the body of the dancer explicitly interacts with objects in the performance time and space. In sculpture, it is the body of the viewer that is implicitly related to objects within the gallery space.

Morris’s final and most complex choreographic work, Waterman Switch (1965), was performed with Rainer and Lucinda Childs [figs.39 & 40]. The piece generated controversy after a reporter for the New York Times ran the headline: ‘Nudes Dance in the Sanctuary of the Church’. Though the dance had been debuted earlier in a concert arranged by Jill Johnston in Buffalo, NY, the nudity of Morris and Rainer within a church, raised the ire of the American Baptist Convention which issued threats of ‘disfellowshipping’ the Judson congregation.117 As such, the performance proved an almost fatal one for the group.118 The performance began with fake rocks being rolled across the stage to the recorded sounds of real rocks rolling downhill. Childs, who was dressed in a man’s suit and hat, then lay down wooden tracks across the stage. The lights then went out. When they came back on, one of Verdi’s arias played and Morris and Rainer stood on the tracks nude, covered in baby oil and in face-to-face embrace. As a recording of Giuseppe Verdi’s opera Simone Boccanegra (1857) played, Morris and Rainer moved along the track pressed together, while Childs walked beside them unrolling a ball of twine. The aria ended and the lights went off. In the next section, Childs stood in the centre of the stage holding a long pole with the naked Morris at the other end running in circles around Childs. Whilst this action was occurring Morris’s tape recorded

116 Morris, From Mnemosyne to Clio, 217. Morris claims the relationship of body to objects in his dance is explicit, whilst in his sculpture it remains implicit. 117 Moody, A Voice in the Village, 179. 118 Waterman Switch was a fateful performance for the Judson group. Through the controversy, the church was forced to defend its involvement with the group and their concerts. They Judson ministry successfully argued for the right of artistic expression free of censorship and reaffirmed the Judson’s commitment to the arts and to the Greenwich Village community. For the dancers, the performance marked a symbolic end for the first generation of the Judson Dance Theater. By this stage many members had branched out into different directions and ventures; the workshops and concerts having served their purpose, the initial synergy lost. Divisions and rivalries started to appear in the once democratic group. A faction emerged from within the group that were being favoured by critics and invited to perform in paid engagements. See: Banes, Terpsichore in Sneakers, 13. This favoured group included Morris, Rainer, Paxton, Childs, Trisha Brown, Alex Hay, Deborah Hay, and David Gordon, and Rauschenberg who was already an art celebrity. 100 voice spoke of rearranging the stage. The lights went out to again signal the end of the section. When they came back on the three performers were standing on real rocks holding a thick rope as Morris’s prerecorded voice read a passage from Leonardo da Vinci’s notebooks. The final section again saw Morris and Rainer traverse the tracks to Verdi. Morris then poured a vial of mercury down Rainer’s back and the lights went out.119

The title for Waterman Switch, according to a biographical aside of Morris, came from his experiences working as a land surveyor in the ‘50s – Waterman Switch was the name of a road in Northern California Morris found on an old survey map.120 Again, as in Arizona, the biographical is at play in Waterman Switch.121 This differs from other members of the Judson group who strove for a completely inexpressive and depersonalised aesthetic. Morris’s use of his biography in his choreographic work, or presented versions of it, suggests he was not as committed to purging the personal as Rainer or Paxton. The use of biography in his choreography has its precedence in some of Morris’s earlier, small-scale objects like I Box (1962) or Self-Portrait (1963). In these works, Morris records, in some way, a trace of his actual self which reveals in the meaning of the work. In I Box it is a naked photograph of himself. Or in Self-Portrait, it is an electroencephalogram of his brain waves. Other sculpt-metal works were casts of Morris’s footprints or impressions made by his hands. These objects record the artist’s corporeality as an embodied experience. His dance suggests the performer’s body is constituted by

119 After the Buffalo performance, Rainer mentions that the vial of mercury poured down her back made her violently ill. It is unlikely that the mercury was used in the Judson performance. See: Rainer, Feelings are Facts, 265. 120 Morris, From Mnemosyne to Clio, 177. 121 Morris’s performance piece 21.3 (1964) also has a biographic element. 21.3 was first performed at the Surplus Dance Theater in February and March 1964. In 21.3, Morris turned his critical focus to art history; the title was taken from the number of an art class at Hunter College where Morris taught and studied art history. For the performance, Morris dressed as an art history professor in tweed coat and dark rimmed glasses, stood from a lectern reciting passages of Erwin Panofsky’s Studies in Iconology. In subversion of Panofsky’s text, Morris’s had prerecorded the lecture and played this back on a tape that was out of sync with his live spoken words. This confounded the audience’s capacity to deduce meaning from the scrambled, overlapping words. Morris even paused to pour himself and drink a glass of water, only for the audience to hear the recorded version of this action moments later. 101 personal memories and past experiences and is not considered as a factual object detached from subjectivity or personality.122

After Waterman Switch, although he and Rainer undertook another European tour later in 1965, Morris ceased his choreographic work. Morris suggested that, ‘after a while it got to be a bore’.123 Rainer, however, would later state the reason was more personal and share: ‘Either Bob had to get out of my field or I had to get out of his life.’124 Either way, after Morris’s Green Gallery minimalist show his art star rose and the large-scale plywood pieces became his focus. Morris had become involved in dance to overcome a conceptual blockage in painting. Dance enabled him to address the formal issues that confounded him in painting in real time and space, namely the disarticulation between process and image, then, Morris redirected his artistic practice to the field of three-dimensional objects. With his smaller scale objects, the body is evidenced through indexical signs like handprints or sounds it made in its interaction with the object. In dance, by the very nature of the medium, the body is explicit. In his larger scale minimalist sculpture the body/object relationship is implicit.

122 Morris would much later revise: ‘Although I had sympathy with Duchamp’s notion of a self that is never centred, I wanted to manifest a particular kind of presence in my performances. I wasn’t interested in showing the perfect, narcissistic body doing effortless work and masking every psychological nuance. Modern dance bothered me a lot. I was trying other ways to establish a persona. To some degree I even drew on the events of my past to shape this persona. While many of the Judson performers were involved in the blank-faced, neutral movements, I was self-consciously trying to create a persona – to frame it, to name it, to acknowledge that this character is a person and the audience must deal with that person.’ See: Morris, From Mnemosyne to Clio, 223. 123 Morris; Cummings, np. 124 Rainer, Feelings are Facts, 265. 102

103

CHAPTER FOUR

Objects and Sculpture

In December 1963, Judd marked his conceptual break from two-dimensional painting and his entry into the three-dimensional field of objects with his one man show at the Green Gallery. Featuring a mixture of wall reliefs and stand-alone objects, the artist-critic boldly proposed a new aesthetic vernacular that spoke to neither modernist painting or sculpture. On show, was Judd’s emergent theory of the specific object. Historically, this watershed exhibition by Judd opened to the challenge of modernist art and to the discursive dissonance of minimalism. This chapter begins with examination of Judd’s move from his late painting to his first objects displayed at the Green Gallery. During most of this period, Judd’s main visibility is as an art critic and writer, and much of his theorisation behind his arrival at objects is found in his critical considerations. Judd’s radio interview with Stella by Bruce Glaser is a prescient document of the new art in which the young artists define their programs in rejection of European modernism. Judd’s late paintings speak to this continental split as he discards what he perceives to be the medium’s European conventions – spatial illusionism, realism, and rationalist composition.

The chapter then returns focus to Morris, analysing his perceptual interplay between bodies and objects in his defining plywood show at the Green Gallery. Morris’s second one man show at the Green in December 1964, stated the arrival of his minimalist sculpture through his suite of large, grey polyhedrons.1 Sparse in their distinction to Judd’s, the sculptural forms of Morris’s minimalist show articulated his notion of phenomenological formalism. Morris’s sculptural propositions were an unravelling of artistic modernism, challenging understandings of the art object and subjective experience of it. In the previous

1 Morris had debuted a year earlier at the Green where he displayed a mix of smaller neo- Dada and minimal objects – this show was considered in the previous chapter. 104 chapter, Morris’s dance interrogations of object and body relationships were contextualised against his move toward the minimalist object. There is chronological overlap between Morris’s dance and sculpture practices in this period. A focus of this chapter is to analyse the conceptual interchange between these two fields of Morris’s practice. This reveals Morris’s formalist exploration of bodies and objects in time and space as a cross-disciplinary concern.

Painting to Objects

From late 1961 and across 1962, Judd incorporated found objects in his paintings. In a work of 1961, Judd placed an aluminium baking pan within the painting to create a recessed physical space [fig.41]. In another painting from 1961, Judd inserted a sheet of wire enforced glass to produce tactile disjuncture between the picture’s material parts [fig.42]. These works demonstrated to Judd, firstly, real space as an organisational element in contrast to pictorial or illusionistic space; and secondly, the resoluteness of real objects as opposed to painted representations of objects. These two works exist as real objects and their supports as opposed to images contained within the plane of their support. This critical development proved terminal to Judd’s painting practice. As Judd placed more found and manufactured objects into his works, it became apparent that the format of two-dimensional painting was inherently limiting. In a larger work of 1961, Judd attached two curved galvanised iron pieces to the top and bottom of a cadmium red-painted board. The iron ends of this piece project outward from the picture into the space of the viewer. Thomas Kellein writes of this work: ‘Art was no longer painting and sculpture, but texture, structure and material, weight and volume on a wall’.2 It is difficult to reconcile this work by Judd within the medium of painting. Yet somewhat problematically for the artist, whether this work declares itself a sculpture or a relief, it is still constricted by the frontality and two- dimensionality of painting.

2 Thomas Kellein, Donald Judd, 1955-1968, (New York: D.A.P., 2002), 36. 105

In this phase of Judd’s artistic production, his increasing focus is to emphasise the unorthodox materiality of his works. A piece produced in 1962 – a red wooden rectangle, bisected top to bottom on its vertical axis by a black asphalt pipe – declared its physicality through the assertion of its material components [fig.43]. The piece struggled to exist by its sheer weight and volume on the wall. When asked by an interviewer what compelled him to move the piece off the wall and onto the floor, Judd revealed:

First, I did the pipe relief and kept it on the floor. It was a big thing when sitting on the floor. I left it on the floor, and that didn’t seem to bother it much. It was meant to go on the wall, but it looked all right on the floor. And then the whole situation of the wall was tiresome.3

This pipe piece, initially conceived as a relief and so retained the vestige aspects of two-dimensionality, was a significant precursor for Judd’s specific object. Its material components are unconventional in comparison to paint on canvas or traditional sculpting materials. The work’s rectangularity, frontality, and need for a support plane extends from painting, though its three-dimensional bulk precludes it being hung on the wall. This piece exists uncomfortably between relief and stand-alone object – an unsuccessful amalgam – yet important nonetheless, as it opened-up for Judd a new field of possibility. ‘I didn’t want it to sit back against the wall’, Judd remarked, ‘a piece that was completely three-dimensional was a big event for me.’4 In a faculty show at Brooklyn Museum in November 1962, where he was working as an art instructor, Judd displayed his first truly three-dimensional object that was conceived and constructed as such. Comprising of a curved Masonite board with three horizontal timber slats spaced and fixed at its front, the piece was standalone without the need of physical support. This was Judd’s first work to convey complete and real three-dimensionality. An asphalt pipe connecting the Masonite backing to the centre wooden slat, both bisected and

3 Donald Judd; John Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, Artforum, 9.10 (June 1971), 41. 4 Judd; Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, 41. 106 articulated the internal space of this sculptural piece. The materials used in the work were unambiguous – Masonite board, asphalt pipe, and three planks of timber.

The use of found objects in these works by Judd during this period points to a wider aesthetic tendency of his generation of artists scouring the streets for detritus to include in their artworks. Rauschenberg’s assemblages were the precedence and by the early 1960s the practice was common. The use of found objects helped Judd circumvent one of the most troubling formal aspects of artmaking he had grappled with to this date – composition. A revelatory work Judd produced in 1962, illustrates how the inclusion of a discarded pipe in the work resolved the problem of conventional composition for the artist [fig.44]. This work, simply comprised of two upright planks positioned at right angles with a bent pipe extending out from the centre of one plank and connecting to the centre of the other. The pipe is asymmetrical, not regularly shaped, and it determines the structural organisation of the artwork. ‘The asymmetrical disposition is determined by the pipe, which I found that way, so that the pipe is a given thing’, Judd notes. He continues: ‘Otherwise, it would get into composing, and it doesn’t really look that way.’5 The asymmetry of the work creates a questioning sense of whether its placement is intentional or not in terms of artistic composition. Judd incorporates the pipe into this work in a way that appears declarative, almost inevitable, supposing industrial facture and not the result of a drawn-out, compositional process. The materials Judd used in the construction of the work were found essentially as is and determine the articulation of the end object. The use of found objects then, obviates the subjective compositional choices of the artist and suggests a new take on chance operations. The previous generation had applied methods and devices to make chance central in the realisation of their work. Pollock’s drip technique, Cage’s prepared piano, or Cunningham’s flipping of a coin exemplify the use of chance as a non-compositional strategy. As Judd notes:

5 Judd; Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, 41 & 43. 107

Pollock and those people represent actual chance; by now it’s better to make that a foregone conclusion – you don’t have to mimic chance. You use a simple form that doesn’t look like either order or disorder. We recognise that the world is ninety percent chance and accident.6

Judd’s point is that similar outcomes to chance operations can be found with simpler generic forms like boxes or machine-produced objects. Judd reasons that these simpler forms suggest an impersonality – they are not so ordered as to reveal an anthropocentric or rationalist order. This contrasts with more complex compositional devices where, ‘order becomes more important than anything else’.7 Thus, Judd finds indeterminacy through the quotidian.

This use of simple, machine-produced forms and found objects, speaks to the post- industrial, urban environment in which Judd and his contemporaries worked. The cityscape of early 1960s New York was being rationalised and transformed. In lower Manhattan, where Judd and most the younger artists lived, large swathes of buildings and city blocks were rezoned, razed, and redeveloped. The old industrial workshops and warehouses gave way to new office blocks and high rises.8 Joshua Shannon insightfully correlates the transformation of lower Manhattan with Judd’s shift from painting to found object reliefs. As the staid geometry of Judd’s two- dimensional painting recedes, the semi-industrial appearance of his reliefs materialises. Shannon here writes about the visual relationship between this changing urban environment and Judd’s aesthetic development:

As the city was systemising unruly parts of lower Manhattan, Judd himself was deploying a language of stripes and grids, gingerly half-organising the rough surfaces of his works. In his paintings of 1961 and 1962, the artist constantly rearticulated this tense dialectic between random surface particularities and

6 Judd; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, in: Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 156. 7 Judd; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, 156. 8 Christopher Mele, Selling the Lower East Side: culture, real estate, and resistance in New York City, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 2000: 153-57. 108

abstract linear order. As he began to work in sculptural reliefs, Judd bought these tensions to bear on the forms of the city, focusing on the fading materiality of the urban environment, the ungainliness of iron, asphalt, and discarded two-by-fours.9

Shannon reads Judd’s work in the early 1960s in consonance with the dramatic physical changes of the city around him. This reading opens to further insights as Judd’s career progresses. Judd’s use of discarded pipes and bits of timber mark his work in the early 1960s, while the stacks, rows, and wall progressions of finely manufactured and lustrous materials typify Judd’s high-minimalism from the late 1960s. This visual parallel identified by Shannon, is discussed further in Chapter Six of this thesis which engages Judd’s use of industrial materials and manufacturing processes.

Judd was not the only young artist to incorporate found and pre-manufactured objects into his work. The Japanese artist Yayoi Kusama created sensorial objects and obsessive environments from discarded and unconventional items found in the street. Kusama had moved to New York in 1957 and with little English or money, sought to sell her paintings to whomever she could meet. Judd was the first person to buy one of Kusama’s painting and Judd, who was more prominently an art critic at this stage, became an early champion of her work.10 Judd and Kusama were at one stage lovers and it begs for curious rumination upon the creative synergy that may have arisen from this pairing. For arguably, more than any two visual artists of this period, repetition as a conceptual strategy is synonymous with their individual practices. This is not to suggest that repetition was used by these artists with same intent or for similarly desired outcomes. Notably however, some of Kusama’s key works of this period clearly resonated with Judd.

9 Joshua Shannon, The Disappearance of Objects: New York and the rise of the postmodern city, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009: 164-5. 10 Yayoi Kusama interview by Midori Matsui (1998). ‘In Conversation with Yayoi Kusama’, Index, [Online and no pagination], accessed: 8 November 2016. Available from: http://www.indexmagazine.com/interviews/yayoi_kusama.shtml 109

Kusama’s ‘Sex Obsession’ pieces, common objects that the artist covered in white phalluses, bore the direct involvement of Judd. In Kusama’s Aggregation: One Thousand Boats Show (1963), the centrepiece boat was found and retrieved from the junk heap with the help of Judd. While for Accumulation No.2 (1963), a large sofa also covered in white phalluses, Kusama enlisted Judd with the monotonous and repetitive task of stuffing hundreds of the phalluses.11 These two works, along with a third chair covered in phalluses, were displayed as a suite in Kusama’s breakthrough ‘Driving Images Show’ at Castellane Gallery in April 1964. Judd reviewed the show and wrote as follows:

The three masses of white protuberances are more alike than their underlying forms are alike. Kusama varies the protuberances, but they are seen collectively, as she intends, before they are seen individually. The collective impression is the more important anyway; the point is obsessive repetition.12

While it is outside the scope of this thesis to delve into repetition as a strategy in Kusama’s work, it is certain that her practice found resonance with Judd’s.13 Around this period of 1962-64, Kusama’s studio was directly below that of Judd’s in the same building in lower Manhattan. It was fortuitously through Kusama that

11 Judith E. Stein, Eye of the Sixties: Richard Bellamy and the transformation of Modern Art (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2016), 246-7. 12 Yayoi Kusama’s ‘Driving Images Show’ at Castellane Gallery, 21 April – 9 May 1964, review by Judd: ‘In the Galleries’, Complete Writings 1959-1975 (Halifax: The Press of Novia Scotia College of Art and Design, 1975), 134. 13 Judd use of repetition is analysed in the following chapter of this thesis. It is not possible within the scope of this thesis to fully expand upon Kusama’s use of repetition in its distinction from Judd’s, though in the limited space of this footnote, it is arguable that Kusama’s use of repetition is internalised and reflexive, while Judd’s use of repetition is highly depersonalised and external. In closing his review of Kusama’s show, Judd wrote: ‘In most art the chief interests of the artist have been subordinate – those things he thinks about most, the strongest and clearest attitudes, the psychological preoccupations. Kusama is dealing directly with her interests, developing them, making a clear and obvious form’. (Judd, ‘In the Galleries’, Complete Writings, 135). This aligns somewhat with Kusama’s reasons behind her making of the works she termed ‘Sex Obsessions’: ‘My family was really conservative, really uptight. I was really afraid of sex. It was a big taboo. I liberated myself from the fear by creating these works. Their creation had the purpose of healing myself.’ (Kusama, ‘In conversation with Midori Matsui’, Index, 1998), [online]. More broadly. Kusama’s use of repetition is understood in terms of compulsion and self- obliteration. 110

Judd’s work was seen by Richard Bellamy, the director of the Green Gallery. Bellamy had come to visit Kusama at her studio in the Spring of 1962, who in turn took Bellamy upstairs to show him Judd’s work. Upon seeing Judd’s work, Bellamy was instantly enthusiastic and invited Judd to show his work at the Green; first in two group shows in early 1963, followed by a solo show in December 1963.14 It is in these shows that Judd’s move to objects is formally realised.

Judd at the Green Gallery

The Green Gallery opened on Fifty-Seventh Street in 1960 and ran to 1965. Run by Richard Bellamy and financed by Robert Scull, the dynamic gallery was a focal point for the emergent avant-garde. Most of the young artists who historically became associated with Pop or minimalism and indeed well-known artists who did not, tasted their first critical and commercial recognition at the Green. Bellamy, was a visible figure within the new avant-garde and had previously run the Hansa Gallery, one of the artist-run cooperative galleries on Tenth Street. Of the same age as Judd, Morris, and their contemporaries, Bellamy was well-known in the circles of artists, poets, dancers, and musicians gravitating around Greenwich Village in the early 1960s.15 When Bellamy opened the Green Gallery in midtown in 1960, Judd was a regular visitor in his capacity as art critic. Bellamy was an admirer of Judd’s reviews and they shared a mutual rapport.16 From this, Bellamy was the first gallerist to showcase Judd’s three-dimensional work. Later, Bellamy introduced Judd to Julie Finch, a dancer who Judd married and fathered two children with and named after their contemporaries, Flavin and Rainer Judd.17

14 Stein, Eye of the Sixties, 261-62. 15 For detailed account of this synergetic milieu, see: Sally Banes, Greenwich Village 1963: Avant-garde performance and the effervescent body (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1993). 16 Stein, Eye of the Sixties, 261. 17 Stein, Eye of the Sixties, 235. 111

The first group show that Judd participated in at the Green Gallery, ‘New Work: Part I’, also featured Morris, Kusama, and Dan Flavin.18 Judd exhibited three works in this show. The first piece comprised a large horizontally-spanning red board with a triangular metal ‘beak’ protruding from a slit in the middle of the board [fig.45]. Judd had mixed sand and wax in with the light cadmium red paint to give the wood board a roughed-up surface. A reviewer of the show noted it was ‘the most sensible and rigorous item in the exhibition.’19 The second piece Judd exhibited was the large red plywood wall relief with curved galvanised iron top and bottom as described in the previous section of this chapter. Likewise, the third piece, the asymmetrical pipe piece as described above [see: fig.44].

In the second group show held in May, titled ‘New Work: Part III’, Judd exhibited a large free-standing, open, three-dimensional piece [fig.46]. The work, comprising of two vertical bookended boards holding seven horizontally arranged beams in place between them in an ascending diagonal configuration, resemble stadium bleachers. The centre beam is made from aluminium and painted purple, the rest of the object is made from wood and painted cadmium red.20 An earlier Judd painting from 1961 anticipates these three-dimensional bleachers. In the painting, six stencilled horizontal black bars are arranged one after the other from the top of the canvas to its bottom [fig.47]. A blue circle is positioned in the centre of the red field bisecting the six bars, so that three are positioned above and below the circle. ‘The Bleachers’ articulate this in three-dimensions.21 The central blue circle in the painting corresponds with the purple aluminium bar in the later object. The painting’s six black bands are repeated by the six red wooden beams. The

18 ‘New Work: Part I’, Green Gallery, 8 January – 2 February 1963. Milet Andrejevic, Dan Flavin, Donald Judd, Yayoi Kusama, Robert Morris, Larry Poons, Lucas Samaras, George Segal. 19 Sidney Tillim, ‘New York Exhibitions: Month in Review’, Arts Magazine (March 1963), 62. 20 ‘New Work: Part III’, Green Gallery, May – 15 June 1963. Robert Morris, Larry Poons, Kenneth Noland, Tadaaki Kuwayama, Donald Judd, Frank Stella, Darby Bannard, Ellsworth Kelly. * Note: There was no ‘Part II’ of the ‘New Work’ shows. Confusingly, there was another ‘Part III’ held in 1964. See: ‘New Work: Part III’, Green Gallery, 8 April – 2 May 1964. Dan Flavin, Donald Judd, Larry Poons, Richard Smith, Neil Williams, George Segal. 21 Judd never tilted his works and the unofficial nickname, ‘The Bleachers’, was given by Bellamy, much to Judd’s chagrin. Bellamy wrote the unofficial names on the back of curatorial photographs. See: Stein, Eye of the Sixties, 260. 112 painting’s red field is replicated by the two red boards supporting the beams in the object. Judd’s ‘Bleachers’ demonstrate his origination of a three-dimensional object out of painting. The horizontal axis, predominant in Judd’s painting, and to a lesser degree the vertical axis, is appended here in this sculptural piece by a third axis signalling real spatial depth. Where in painting the organisation of space is restricted to the pictorial plane, in the ‘Bleachers’ Judd organises real space. This large work volumetrically holds space. Yet its open-endedness means the space is not enclosed only divided. It was an indicative work for Judd who revealed, ‘it’s the first big piece. It’s also the first, free, open, dimensional sculpture.’22

Judd exhibited eight pieces in his one-man Green Gallery show that started in December and ran until January.23 These included three wall reliefs and five stand- alone objects. The pieces in the exhibition were untitled, like all Judd’s works had been since his early paintings. Judd maintained this practice of not naming his works to obviate subjective or personal meaning being conferred upon the work by the artist or discerned by the viewer. Cadmium red dominated the colour scheme for Judd’s one-man Green Gallery show and the colour became synonymous with Judd’s work in the early 1960s. Judd’s use of colour here nears Newman’s palette in the older painter’s breakthrough works of the late 1940s and early 1950s, and further points to the aesthetic closeness between the two artists. Colour also became another major point of dissonance between Judd and Morris. The brightness of Judd’s red objects contrasted starkly against Morris’s grey plywood forms of the same period.

Some of the floor pieces Judd exhibited are the most recognisable pieces of this time and indeed his oeuvre. These include two strikingly coloured cadmium red cubes, built to the same proportions with recessed channels on their upper

22 Judd; Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, 43. 23 ‘Don Judd’, Green Gallery, 17 December 1963 – 11 January 1964. See also: James Meyer, Minimalism: art and polemics in the sixties (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2001), 56. Meyer identifies that an additional relief was displayed in the side room of the gallery, making a total of nine works. The eight mentioned here, were displayed in the front room of the gallery. 113 surfaces [figs.48 & 49]. The channels are cut approximately one third in from their edge. One cube’s channel contains an iron pipe, while the other cube’s semi- circular channel is slatted. The slats of the second cube are distanced by progressively thinner spaces. Critically, Judd decided the distancing of the slats not by a conventional composition, but a devised geometric sequence. There are four segments of the largest spacing, followed by three segments of lesser-distanced spacing, then four-five-six-seven segments of descending spatial distance. In figuring where to place the channel on the two pieces, Judd sought to make them asymmetrical: ‘In the red box I did a great deal of juggling to make it un-composed’, Judd informs, ‘it couldn’t appear to occur at some definite, measured spot.’24

These three-dimensional pieces speak to the aesthetic influence of Newman upon Judd. The deep red surfaces of Judd’s objects, broken by the slatted channel or pipe, recall the dividing zip upon the colour fields of Newman’s paintings. Like Newman’s zips, the channels in Judd’s boxes are declarative and discrete. Judd remarked of Newman’s painting: ‘Everything is specifically where it is.’25 Judd’s channels, like his reading of Newman’s zips, declare with conceptual exactness upon cadmium red coloured fields. For Judd, both Newman’s zip paintings and his own three-dimensional objects appeal to the notion of seeing the work done in one shot; they are not the result of relational, drawn-out composition. The notion of non-compositional art works was not new to Judd or his generation of artists. As noted in this thesis previously, non-compositionality was read in Newman’s work and it certainly applied to Pollock’s. Non-compositional order was undeniably elemental to Judd’s work. As his objects became more refined, the non- compositional strategies Judd employed became increasingly sophisticated. Judd further argued against conventional composition in philosophical and geopolitical terms, which reverberated across the 1960s.

24 Judd; Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, 43. 25 Donald Judd, ‘Barnett Newman’, Studio International (February 1970); in: Complete Writings, 202. Judd indicates the article was written in November 1964. 114

In 1964, Stella and Judd appeared in an infamous radio discussion with the critic Bruce Glaser. In the interview, Judd and Stella outlined the philosophical context for the new art they were pursuing. The young artists argued a clean break from the traditions of European art.26 To Judd and Stella, their experience of the world was vastly different to that of pre-war Europe and the abstract geometric painters who they were often compared with. Judd dismissed many of the beliefs and truths which had philosophically sustained European art to be ‘old hat’.27 When asked by Glaser why he sought to rid his work of compositional effects, Judd responded: ‘Well, those effects tend to carry with them all the structures, values, feelings of the whole European tradition. It suits me fine if that’s all down the drain.’28 When pressed to expand upon this response by Glaser, Judd elaborated: ‘The qualities of European art so far, they’re innumerable and complex, but the main way of saying it is they’re linked up with a philosophy – rationalism, rationalistic philosophy.’29

For Judd, this rationalistic model as a basis for art was not conducive to the experiences of the artists of his generation. Rationalism, for Judd, expressed ‘a certain type of thinking and logic that is pretty much discredited now as a way of finding out what the world’s like.’30 Judd’s generation were witness to the cataclysmic events of the Second World War, several – including Judd – served in the Korean conflict. The 1960s were marked by rapid cultural and political change and turmoil, through Civil and Women’s’ Rights movements, defining political assassinations, anti-war and counter-culture movements and another epochal conflict unfolding in Vietnam. Against this socio-historical context, Judd’s remarks

26 In a later interview in 1969, Stella retreats from his anti-modernist sentiments seen in the interview with Glaser. Repositioning himself within the tradition of modernist painting, Stella asserts: ‘I never protested the past. That’s not what I am about. I mean the burden of modernism is, it seems to me – at least the way I feel it – is that the past is not something that you have to refute. The past is something you really have to acknowledge. I mean what modernism is all about is acknowledging the best work of the past and what the implications are of really good painting and therefore forcing yourself to act in face of the quality or the quality as you perceive it of that painting in the immediate past.’ See: Frank Stella interview by Sidney Tillim (1969). Transcript of oral history interview with Frank Stella conducted in 1969 for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, 2. 27 Judd; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, 151. 28 Judd; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, 150. 29 Judd; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, 151. 30 Judd; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, 151. 115 are consistent with the contemporary questioning of many of modernism’s models of knowledge and grand narratives. Judd’s interrogation of modernist art carried with it the voice of paradigmatic and generational rupture.

The division between old European and new American art that Judd and Stella announce, reflects the confidence in their generation creating art anew. The new art was championed by them as a reawakening of the artist’s relationship to contemporary experience. Most generations of artists across the modernist narrative have held to this relationship. What situates these younger American artists at the end of this narrative is their wholesale rejection of much of what had defined and sustained modernism in the arts before them. The rejection of rationalism as a basis for the art experience is critical to Judd’s theorisation of his specific objects. It is Descartes’s mind/body problem, embryonic to modern thought, that Judd finds erroneous and seeks to overcome. This division has its origins in Descartes’s Meditations (1641) where the philosopher methodically distinguishes between thoughts originating in the mind from the sensory perceptions received through the body.31 Descartes believed that the mind, distinct from the body and its senses, could reason the essential nature of material things. This internalised vision was perceived to be harmonious with a higher or divine intelligence, while the corporeal body as the realm of sensory perceptions could not be trusted as its senses where held to be corruptible. Thus, as it extends from Descartes, thought is privileged over feeling – Cogito ergo sum.

31 René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy: with selections from the Objections and Replies (1641), [ed. and trans. John Cottingham], (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996 [1986]), 21-2. Here, Descartes distinction between mind and body, and the perception of a piece of wax through mental reflection: ‘We say that we see the wax itself, if it is there before us, not that we judge it to be there from its colour or shape; and this might lead me to conclude without more ado that knowledge of the wax comes from what the eye sees, and not from the scrutiny of the mind alone. But then if I happen to look out of the window and see men crossing the square, as I just happen to have done, I normally say that I see men themselves, just as I say that I see the wax, Yet do I see any more than hats and coats which conceal automatons? I judge that they are men. And so, something which I thought I was seeing with my eyes is in fact grasped solely by the faculty of judgement which is in my mind’. 116

Descartes writings touched little on the arts, though Judd argues European artistic modernism is fundamentally built upon a rationalist seventeenth-century view of the world. Judd asserts the division of mind and body is simulated in the modernist dichotomy of content and form.32 In rejecting Cartesian rationalism, Judd turned to empiricism as an experiential basis for his art where only observable and real qualities in the work are given countenance.33 Judd’s art seeks to bring together thought and feeling or collapse this division, so that the viewers’ experience of the work is both cognitively and sensibly immediate. The aim is to preclude the need for rational analysis of the artwork, which preferences content (thought) over form (feeling).34 This tendency can be seen in the early Judd objects which have been discussed above. In the two cube pieces that Judd exhibited at his solo show at the Green, the viewer can apprehend the make-up of these works quite readily. Both pieces are wooden red boxes of the same dimensions, with one containing an iron pipe in its recessed channel and the other with a slatted grove. The freestanding nature of these works and the simple, material forms Judd uses, means the viewer perceives their mass, materiality, and structure with immediacy; they are seen in one shot. This is not to suggest that these works are intellectually

32 Donald Judd, ‘Art and Architecture’ (1983), Complete Writings 1975-1986, 30: ‘I’ve always disliked the division between content and form, and have never known what to answer when asked: ‘But what is the content?’, ‘What does it mean?’ Recently it occurred to me that this unreal and uninformative division is just part of the larger division between thought and feeling.’ 33 Judd, ‘Walter Murch’, Arts Magazine (February 1963), in: Complete Writings 1959-1975, 72: In a review of the contemporary painter Walter Murch’s exhibition which featured paintings of ‘three stacked bricks … machine parts, rocks, spheres and cylinders’, Judd brutally compared Murch to the 18th century still life painter Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin. Judd lectured: ‘In regard to painting objects in a naturalistic, unified space, it is necessary to believe that the objects are so important that the composition of and the colour must not violate their integrity, that the formal elements must accord with the objects. The only thing that can justify all this trouble is the thing that did: objects have essences. The world has a spiritual order and identity, part and whole. But: ‘We have therefore no idea of substance, distinct from that of a collection of particular qualities, nor have we any other meaning when we either talk or reason concerning it.’ This is from A Treatise of Human Nature, published in 1738, by David Hume. It is very elementary philosophy that objects do not have essences.’ 34 Richard Shiff, ‘Donald Judd: Fast Thinking’, in: Donald Judd: Late Work (New York: Pace Wildenstein, 2000), 6-7: Expanding on Judd’s distrust of the thought/feeling divide and Judd’s desire to create works that collapse the division, Shiff writes, ‘feeling is thinking of a certain sort – thinking that’s too fast to be “thought”, or rational analysis. “Insight” and “intuition” are other words for fast thinking: an immediate apprehension of an object or a situation by either the mind or the senses. With such immediacy, the distinction between the mind and sense, thought and feeling breaks down.’ 117

‘lean’ as one reviewer did.35 Rather, Judd is premising an immediate experience of the artworks over a deductive reading of them that extends from the division of thought from feeling.36

For Judd, it is the simple forms with little or no internal parts which enable fastest apprehension of the artwork. Central to Judd’s thesis of the non-rationalist art is the concept of wholeness. This is what Judd esteemed in Newman’s paintings: ‘They are whole and aren’t part of another whole.’37 Conversely, works of art with many parts and complex relationships between those parts demand rational analysis. In these works, the viewer must evaluate the formal relationships between the parts to arrive at comprehension of the work’s meaning.38 Judd sees this relational composition inherent within European modernism and emphasises

35 G R Swenson, ‘Reviews and Previews: New Names this Month’, ARTnews, 62 (February 1964), 20: ‘Simple, wooden, box-like constructions are painted flat-red orange; but these works are neither lean nor intellectual enough to look as demandingly simple as they should.’ 36 Donald Judd, Yale Lecture, September 1983, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 7/8 (Spring – Autumn 1984), 50: ‘I’ve always considered the distinction between thought and feeling as, at the least, exaggerated; this is a small description that has been raised to a central fact of human nature. All experience, large and small, involves feeling; all thought involves feeling. All feeling is based on experience, which involves thought. Emotion or feeling is simply a quick summation of experience, some of which is thought, necessarily quick so that we can act quickly. It is not irrational, virtually the opposite. Thought is not strict, isolated, and only logical, but is continually using its backlog of experience, which is called feeling. Otherwise we could never get from A to Z, barely to C, since B would have to be always rechecked. It’s a short life and a little speed is necessary. If the nature of art is the same as our nature, and if there is no division between thought and feeling, art is cognitive just as our experience is. And art is no more inferior than is our experience as a whole.’ 37 Judd, ‘Barnett Newman’, 202. 38 John Ruskin, The Elements of Drawing: Three Letters to Beginners, 1857 (New York: Maynard, Merril, & Co., 1893), 241: ‘In a great picture; every line and colour is so arranged as to advantage the rest. None are inessential, however slight; and none are independent, however forcible. It is not enough that they truly represent natural objects; but they must fit into certain places, and gather into certain harmonious groups’. Ruskin’s notion of composition exemplifies what Judd found implausible in the European tradition. In referencing Ruskin in this thesis, it is not to dismiss the nineteenth-century aesthetician’s theories of composition, which should be understood in the social and historical context of Victorian England, but rather to illustrate relational composition as Judd applies it to European art. In Ruskin’s concept of composition, the composed artwork is hierarchical and harmonious; it reaffirms the order of the Divine. The depicted objects and figures are the physical embodiment of a metaphysical or Platonic form. In contrast, see Judd’s review of Walter Murch in fn.33 above. 118 wholeness as an American quality. Here, Stella further ties relational composition to European modern art:

The other thing that the European geometric painters really strive for is what I call relational painting. The basis of their whole idea is balance. You do something in one corner and you balance it with something in the other corner.39

Judd and Stella frame non-compositional aspects of the new art as positively American. Their sentiments are resonant with the larger postwar cultural shift marking New York’s centrality in the international art world, with Judd declaring: ‘There’s an enormous break between [European] work and other present work in the U.S., despite similarity in patterns or anything.’40 In the interview, the young American artists argue composition and non-composition as European and American respectively. From this, Howard Singerman asks: are we to understand ‘the contrast between democratic order and hierarchical passion’ as ‘the difference between Stella and Mondrian’ or ‘as Stella and Judd did, as the difference between American and European’?41

The geo-political distinction between hierarchic Old World Europe and democratic New World America has obvious historical and political connotations. As James Meyer observes with Judd, ‘wholeness, and Americaness were indissociable terms.’42 It is not surprising, given the paternalistic nature of Greenberg’s modernism to the younger artists, that this geo-political framing of composition and non-composition is anticipated in Greenberg’s ‘The Crisis of the Easel Picture’ (1948). Herein, Greenberg associates Pollock with the ‘all-over, decentralised,

39 Stella; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, 149. 40 Judd; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, 149. 41 Howard Singerman, ‘Noncompositional Effects, or the Process of Painting in 1970’, Oxford Art Journal, 26.1 (2003), 135. See also: E.C. Goossen, The Art of the Real: USA 1948- 1968 [exh. cat.], (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1968), 9. 42 James Meyer, Minimalism: Art and Polemics in the 1960s (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 88. 119 polyphonic picture’.43 For Greenberg, as the title suggests, the new all-over tendency constituted a crisis, though it was a crisis visited upon the European tradition. ‘I am not thinking of Mondrian in particular at this moment’, the critic wrote, but rather it was Pollock’s all-over paintings that were the cause of crisis.44 For Greenberg, the Abstract Expressionists, especially Pollock, were destroying the easel picture inasmuch because:

The ‘all-over’ may answer the feeling that all hierarchical distinctions have been, literally, exhausted and invalidated; that no area or order of experience is intrinsically superior, on any final scale of values, to any other area or order of experience.45

Above, Greenberg points to the exhaustion of relational or hierarchical composition with the slight allusion to European pictorial modernism. The quintessential all-over paintings of Pollock held for Greenberg qualities of wholeness, unity, and repetition. These aspects came to be similarly noted by Judd: ‘It’s a different idea of generality, of how a painting is unified. It’s a different idea of the disparity between parts or aspects and it’s a different idea of sensation.’46 While there is theoretic resonance between Greenberg and Judd at points like here, the discursive dialogue between them in general is contested on shifting paradigmatic and generational terms. Greenberg’s location of this all-over development in Pollock and in American high-modernist painting focuses Judd’s theorisation of his specific object. Greenberg believed that in Pollock’s paintings the pictorial dissolved into ‘sheer texture’, ‘sheer sensation’, and ‘sheer monotony’ – an ‘accumulation of repetitions’ with no beginning or end.47 These were not

43 Clement Greenberg, ‘The Crisis of the Easel Picture’ (1948), in: Greenberg, Art & Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1961), 155. 44 Greenberg, ‘The Crisis of the Easel Picture’, 155. 45 Greenberg, ‘The Crisis of the Easel Picture’, 157. 46 Donald Judd, ‘Jackson Pollock’, Arts Magazine (April 1967), in: Complete Writings 1959- 1975, 195. 47 Greenberg, ‘The Crisis of the Easel Picture’, 157: ‘The very notion of uniformity is anti- aesthetic. Yet many “all-over” pictures seem to succeed precisely by virtue of their uniformity, their sheer monotony. The dissolution of the pictorial into sheer texture, into apparently sheer sensation, into an accumulation of repetitions, seems to speak for and answer something profound in our contemporary sensibility… It may express a monist 120 pictures in the conventional sense and Greenberg’s language here pushes them towards a certain objecthood and unity where rationalist division between thought and feeling is lost. But, this is as far as Greenberg pushes in this direction. By 1965, when he released ‘Modernist Painting’ as rear-guard action against the new art, content and form were reasserted as the explicit binary in formalist art.

The formal and theoretical relationship Judd constructs with Pollock and Newman shares this generational aspect. Judd positioned his specific objects as the resolution to the problems advanced by the New York School’s primary painters. In Judd’s theorisation of his specific objects these painters point for him the end of painting and he seeks resolution in the three-dimensional space beyond painting. The generational contest, between Greenberg and Judd and between Judd and Abstract Expressionism, frames Judd’s formal move from painting to objects.

Sculpture in Grey, Dance in White

Morris’s one man show at the Green Gallery in December 1964 marked the artist’s definitive shift to his large-scale, minimalist vocabulary.48 Although Morris had shown three larger scale works at his debut show at the Green a year previous, they were mixed among a selection of his smaller scale neo-Dadaist works; a conflict of not only size and scale, but of tone and presence. The December 1964 show was the first time Morris had an entire gallery space dedicated to his minimalist sculpture [fig.50]. Featuring seven large plywood shapes painted a ghostly grey, the pieces were strategically arranged around the room. The accumulative effect was the concealment or revelation of space to the viewer as they moved through the gallery. The exhibition featured several forms that re- materialised in various configurations throughout Morris’s minimalist period. The

naturalism for which there are neither first or last things, and which recognises as the only ultimate distinction between the immediate and the un-immediate.’ 48 ‘Robert Morris: Sculpture’, Green Gallery, 16 December 1964 – 9 January 1965. 121

Cloud, which hung from the gallery ceiling, was a re-augmentation of the slab that had earlier intrigued Cage at Morris’s first show at the Green; where then, it had sat on the floor [fig.51]. The large inverted L-shape that buttressed the wall in this second show, was a form that Morris would return to, often placing it with other ‘L’ shapes in different arrangements. A column was also present in this show; laid down in the centre of the exhibition space, it almost extended the length of the room. The upper, longitudinal plane of the resting column had one square edge while the other was rounded.

Reviewing the show, Ted Berrigan wrote: ‘Robert Morris is interested in the Other’. It is a curious observation by Berrigan that calls for unpacking.49 According to Berrigan, Morris’s concern with the Other arises from the disarticulation between the rounded and square edges of the laid down column. This for Berigan, made the work ‘both suggestive and paradoxical’.50 If the column were to have two straight, square edges it would be an ordinary rectilinear form, a true rectangular prism. Yet, the rounded edge implies, however slightly, an artistic intent; it shifts the up- ended column’s status from regular object to art object. As it exists, the laid down Column is a simple though uncommon form. This paradox is what makes Column art. Morris’s work inhabits the space between a barely art form and a slightly irregular shape giving it, for Berrigan, the sense of otherness.

In an earlier group show in which Morris participated, ‘Black, White, and Gray’ at the Wadsworth Athenaeum in January 1964, Morris exhibited the Column, the Slab, the Portal – a large doorframe shape, and an upright, hollowed-out square referred to as Doughnut [fig.52]. All the forms were painted grey and spoke to this uneasy existence between being barely art and an ordinary object. Referring to this exhibition in an article he wrote on Morris, David Antin noted that Morris’s work was involved with absence – ‘the absent reference, the absent context’51. For Antin, the ghostliness of Morris’s work was found in its abounding absence. The doorway,

49 Ted Berrigan, ‘Reviews and Previews’, ARTnews, 63 (February 1965), 13. 50 Berrigan, ‘Reviews and Previews’, 13. 51 David Antin, ‘Art & Information, 1 Grey Paint’, ARTnews, 65 (April 1966), 57. 122 the doughnut, and the wheel are all fashioned out of what is not there’, remarked Antin. ‘This bringing together of what is absent with what is present,’ Antin continues, ‘to a great extent characterises the earlier work.’52

Morris’s early minimalist works, as seen at the Wadsworth Athenaeum and at the Green Gallery, evoke emptiness and loneliness. They quaver in an almost indeterminate state between materiality and hollowness, absence and presence, art and non-art. They deal with the revelation and concealment of space. In a much more recent interview, Morris intimated at the alienation which encouraged these forms: ‘Only the inanimate object is alive for me in these years, and making objects becomes my bulwark against the threat of the other, and every other is regarded as threatening, especially those who would try to get close to me.’53 From Morris’s self-assessment here, it appears that for the artist too these early objects carried a certain pathology; a deviation from normalness and a mediation on loneliness and emptiness. The common observations of Morris personally during this period, from those within his circle, point to a strangely isolated, slightly depressed, and detached figure.54 It is conjecturable that part of this air of detachment was cultivated by Morris. In his earlier neo-Dadaist works, it is apparent that the artist put forward an artistic ego, engaging in a roguish intellectual game through self- referential works like I-box and Box with the Sound of Its Own Making.55 This playful version of the artist’s subjecthood soon gives way to the more sombre, severe, and gloomy grey presence.56

Morris’s minimalist slabs and columns represent a withdrawal or depersonalisation – they are as much defined by the artist’s absent subjecthood, in

52 Antin, ‘Art & Information, 1 Grey Paint’, 57. 53 Robert Morris; Simon Grant, ‘Interview: Robert Morris’, TATE etc., 14 (Autumn 2008), [Online and no pagination], accessed on: 12 July 2010. Available from: https://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue14/interviewmorris.htm 54 Yvonne Rainer, Feelings are Facts (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 2006), 185. 55 Stein, Eye of the Sixties, 37. 56 Robert Morris in interview with W.J.T. Mitchell, ‘Golden Memories’, Artforum, 32:8 (April 1994), 133: ‘How should I remember to/for you a sense of how the world felt, how nailing together a slab of gray plywood resonated to impulses compounded of desperation, humor, speculation, anger, indifference, malice, doubt?’ 123 comparison to the early neo-Dada works, as they are by their material presence. Reviewing Morris’s work in the ‘Black, White, and Gray’ show, Judd observed, ‘it is art, which is supposed to exist most clearly and importantly, but it barely exists.’57 Picking up on the influence of Cagean silence in these works, Judd found that in their slight existence as art, ‘in the most minimal way’, Morris’s sculpture questioned the specialness of the art object and its context:

It doesn’t appear to be art. Its only claim to be is that it is being exhibited. It is shown as art and becomes the equal of things that are obviously art. The importance of art is extended to everything, most of which is slight, ordinary and unconsidered. You are forced to consider the ordinary things and to question whatever was thought important in art.58

Following Judd, Morris’s grey forms are barely definable as art objects, yet they are also unidentifiable as ordinary, everyday objects. In Morris’s minimal grey forms, Judd reads the clouding of distinctions between art and life, and in so doing, they call to question the special nature of art. In his minimalist Green Gallery show, Morris’s grey forms seemingly meld with the things around them that are clearly not art such as the walls and floor of the gallery space. Their uniform greyness accentuates the effect; it cloaks the nature of their plywood materiality and masks signs of their construction. There is no expressivity shown by the artist to inspire a subject-oriented reading of the work. All that is left is space and its division.

Similarly, Antin found in Morris’s plywood show at the Green that: ‘In the most profoundly sculptural sense these simple forms really determine the space into which they are put.’59 For Antin, Morris’s minimalist sculptures at the Green were placed in a manner within the room that directed the viewers’ sightlines and as they moved through the room directed their movement. Perceptual and spatial

57 Donald Judd, ‘Nationwide Reports: Hartford – Black, White and Gray’, Arts Magazine (March 1964), in: Complete Writings, 118. 58 Judd, ‘Nationwide Reports: Hartford – Black, White and Gray’, 118. 59 Antin, ‘Art & Information, 1 Grey Paint’, 56. 124 concerns are the guiding ideas driving Morris’s early minimalism. In his show at the Green, Morris’s grey forms cloud the perceptual field of the viewer. The viewer’s response then becomes phenomenological as they are made physically conscious to the disjunctive relationship between their body and the objects. As the viewer’s gaze through and then move among the gallery, Morris’s objects block off space or give access to it. Their encompassing greyness marks the forms impassive, yet they are imposing.

Morris’s dance Site (1964) [fig.53], visually foregrounds his minimalist installation at the Green Gallery.60 Site is all white with the show of sculpture predominantly grey. The neutral colours of grey and white evoke silence, coolness, and detachment. Plywood boards are used in both to reveal and conceal space. In the Green Gallery show these boards are static, in Site they are dynamic. For Site, Morris, dressed as a construction worker in white clothes and gloves, wore an expressionless skin-tight face mask crafted by Jasper Johns. He began the performance standing in front of a white box which emitted prerecorded construction sounds. In the centre of the performance space a stack of large, rectangular, plywood boards stood horizontally. Morris with slow, pallid, and deliberate movements strode to the first board and picked it up to position it vertically a few metres away. He then moved to the second board, grasped its upper corner with his hands and buttressed its bottom with his foot to swing the board swiftly upwards to reveal performance artist Carolee Schneemann. Schneemann lay naked covered with white body paint reclined on a white sofa and backed by white pillows in the manner of Eduard Manet’s Olympia (1863).

As Schneemann sat motionless and silent assuming the persona of Olympia, Morris gracefully danced with a large wooden board across the performance space. He balanced it on his back, manoeuvred it around his body, lifted it over his head, and spun it on its point. Morris’s partner in this dance was an inanimate object, not

60 Morris first performed Site with Schneemann at Stage 73 with the Surplus Dance Theater in March 1964. In a later performance in Philadelphia, Morris performed with Olga Adorno Kluver in April 1964 and a few days later at the Judson Dance Theater’s A Concert #16, Morris again presented the piece with Schneemann. 125

Schneemann, who gazed coolly out to the audience as Manet’s depiction of Victorine Meurent had scandalously done so one hundred years previous. Morris’s duet with the board continued as sounds of drills and jackhammers rang out from the small white box creating a dissonant visual and aural effect between the box, the sounds, Morris and the board, and the unflinching Schneemann. After Morris’s duet with the board finished, he repositioned it in front of – and to again conceal – Schneemann. Visually, the movement of the plywood boards and the neutral tones and colours of the performance, though dynamic, anticipates the Green Gallery installation. With the boards Morris cuts across the performance space, blocking out and sealing off space. In relation to his Green Gallery show, Antin noted of the plywood forms: ‘they are cuts through space of such and such dimension, proportion, solidity.’61 In Site Morris conceals and reveals space with the plywood forms, in this case the space Schneemann occupies.

Through Site, Morris interrogated the process of art making by evoking ideologies of industrial labour and production to question long-standing values and conceits in art historical discourse. It is not without a degree of poeticism that Morris’s critical focus in Site is trained on the beginning of the Greenbergian narrative. Manet in his time had been the epitome of the Baudelarian dandy; a painter of modern life inhabiting a rarefied aesthetic realm nominally outside the socio- political class structure. In contrast Morris’s workmanlike construction of his ‘Olympia’ posited the artist back within this societal structure, demystifying and even undressing the romanticised figure of the artist. This goes to the spirit of the Judson Dance Theater which held anyone can be considered a dancer, implying art making is not a specialised realm open to a select few.

Peter Bürger explores the socio-historic circumstances which gave rise to the idea of art’s autonomy or rather ‘the detachment of art as a special sphere of human activity from the nexus of the praxis of life.’62 This idea of the autonomy of art had

61 Antin, ‘Art & Information, 1 Grey Paint’, 56. 62 Peter Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 47-49. 126 been entrenched by the time of Baudelaire and Manet and served as validation of dandyism as Bürger suggests:

…the autonomy of art is a category of bourgeois society. It permits the description of art’s detachment from the context of practical life as a historical development – that among members of those classes which, at least at times, are free from the pressures of the need for survival, a sensuousness could evolve that was not part of any means-ends relationships.63

With his treatment of Manet’s Olympia, Morris collapses the disjuncture between art and art making on the one hand and the everyday aspects of labour and production on the other. Site’s scrutiny of aesthetic production highlighted the inherent gendered positions of object and subject therein. In reframing Olympia, Morris questioned the Romantic notion of the artist through his inexpressive performance, however the masculine coded reality of this role was not likely an overly conscious concern for him.64 In his plywood show at the Green, Morris’s arrangement of the plywood forms called to question the rarefied status of the art object. Morris’s ghostly grey forms barely existed as art; they did not draw to them the discerning eye of the spectator as in the case of previous modernist sculpture. Instead, Morris’s show at the Green forced the spectator into a phenomenological encounter with his grey forms. As such, with Morris here, the meaning of sculpture shifted from the internal and subjective to the external, spatial, and environmental.

63 Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde, 46. 64 Schneemann’s positioning as the art object, called to question the absence of a similar female positioning or rather agency as a creative subject. The objectified position that Schneemann occupied for this performance would serve as a point of departure into her own feminist interrogations of art making and art history. 127

Critical Receptions at the Green

The Green Gallery played a crucial role in the emergence of minimalism. Through Dick Bellamy, the artists that formed the core of minimalism were first brought together in the Green’s group shows; Stella, Judd, Morris, and Flavin with the latter three all holding early solo shows there. The location of the gallery on Fifty- Seventh Street exposed the younger artists to the uptown network of serious critics and collectors, whereas previously, the circle of artists had gravitated downtown and around Greenwich Village. The Green Gallery also played a role in establishing numerous artists not associated with minimalism. Mark di Suvero and Ronald Bladen featured prominently in early showings at the Green. Di Suvero and Bladen became central figures in the Park Place group and were often seen in contest with Judd and Morris. Kusama, Andy Warhol, Claes Oldenburg, Larry Poons, James Rosenquist, Lucas Samaras, and George Segal all featured at the Green. Indeed, these artists were often shown in the same group shows alongside the works of Morris, Judd, Stella, and Flavin.

This meeting and mixture of diverse visual styles and aesthetic tendencies in the Green Gallery group shows illustrates the inexact practice of art historical labelling. It is something that Judd forewarned against at the time: ‘The history of art and art’s condition at any time are pretty messy. They should stay that way.’65 Here, Judd is acknowledging the often-inaccurate approximation of artists, schools, styles, and movements that constitute the modernist canon. Yet, he is also pointing to the disparity and diversity of the new art of which the young artists at the Green were key protagonists. For Judd, the new artists shared more of a sensibility in their rejection of previous art, than any emerging codified school or style.

Critically for Judd, the best works of the new art that he championed and which were seen at the Green, were works that he described as attaining the ‘the singleness of objects’. That is, these works had no correlative or reference in the

65 Donald Judd, ‘Local History’, Arts Yearbook 7 (1964), in: Judd, Complete Writings, 151. 128 world outside of the exhibition. These works, made from common forms and specific materials, become singular art objects.66 Judd explains this concept as:

The most unusual part of three-dimensional work is that which approaches ‘being an object’. The singleness of objects is related to the singleness of the best paintings of the early fifties. Like the paintings, such work is unusually distinct and intense. Generally, it has fewer of the devices of earlier art and more of its own.67

For Judd, this singleness is best understood when the work exists as its own object and not a sculptural or painted representation of an object. At the same time, to make it art these objects necessitate aesthetic intent to distinguish them from commonplace objects. This understanding is central in Judd’s concept of specific objects and it is visualised in a telling piece Judd exhibited at his solo show at the Green. The work is a large square-shaped slab with another triangular slap atop [fig.54]. The triangular slab bisects the square slab diagonally. The whole piece is set low, rising roughly knee-height at its highest point. It is painted cadmium red except the hypotenuse of the triangle which is made from violet Plexiglass. This piece sustains a visual tension between the purple reflective surface and the matted red plywood structure. The sensible simplicity of that structure – a triangle laid flat upon a square – almost undermines the work’s specificness as an art object. A reviewer of Judd’s show, who was unimpressed with what was on offer, picked up on this seeming contradiction:

Seen from different angles, it appears to change from more to less ‘absolutely simple’ shape. It never seems to exist as pure fact (what is in complete simplicity) nor as illusion (more or less what it is) – which is a logical if not visual paradox.68

66 Donald Judd, ‘Lee Bontecou’, Arts Magazine (April 1965), in: Complete Writings, 178. ‘Rather than inducing idealisation and generalisation and being allusive, it excludes. The work asserts its own existence, form and power. It becomes an object in its own right.’ 67 Judd, ‘Local History’, 152. 68 G R Swenson, ‘Reviews and Previews: New Names this Month’, ARTnews, 62 (February 1964), 20. 129

The conceptual strength of Judd’s objects stems in part from the tensions he articulates between the works’ formal properties. These formal tensions are often the source of most intrigue amongst Judd’s critics and it is this aspect that Judd increasingly refines across his oeuvre. As the above excerpt specifies, the critic of Judd’s earliest object show at the Green finds a problematic tension between what appears as fact and the illusive qualities in the work. The square slab with a triangular slab atop is not an unusual shape or combination of shapes. Yet the violent, transparent Plexiglass contrast against the rest of the object’s matte red creates an interplay between colour and surface, interior and exterior, and this makes the determination of a clear, singular object uncertain.

Judd’s strict and objective structuring of a work’s physical components, contrasts against the sensuous properties of the materials and colours he worked with. Judd’s interplay between structure and colour is expanded upon in more detail in chapter six, particularly in relation to Rosalind Krauss’s observations, and specifically in contradiction to Morris’s use of colour. From Judd’s and Morris’s solo shows at the Green considered in this chapter, it is maintained that while Judd’s cadmium red objects call for a more visual and optic interpretation, Morris’s large grey forms tend towards a more perceptual and haptic comprehension. A commonage arising from Judd’s and Morris’s Green Gallery showings however, is in the abstraction of ordinary and recognisable shapes; a cube, rectangular prism, pipe, or triangle. The three-dimensional, geometric abstraction that the artists engage with here, however, springs forth from differing aesthetic trajectories. With Judd, the move into three-dimensional space is the artist’s end game to two- dimensional painting. Insightfully, Sidney Tillim, a colleague of Judd’s at Arts Magazine, picked up on Judd’s origination of objects out of painting in his Green Gallery show and noted, ‘the work’s claim upon space is real, an abstract object that verges on sculpture while retaining its pictorial axis.’69

69 Sidney Tillim, ‘Month in Review’, 62. 130

Tillim’s comment reveals the crucial dynamic at play in Judd’s work, that is, the objects’ occupancy of the field between painting and sculpture. This observation was commensurate with Judd’s thinking at the time. Judd admitted in response to his first free-standing objects that, ‘to have something set out in the middle of the room … suddenly seemed to have an enormous number of possibilities’, he adds, ‘I certainly didn’t think I was making sculpture’70 [fig.55]. Judd’s insistence that the objects of the new art existed neither as painting or sculpture is the premise of his ‘Specific Objects’. In defiance, Morris categorised his large plywood forms within the medium of sculpture and this too forms the central thrust of his ‘Notes on Sculpture’ essays. In the strictest understanding of sculptural form, in Morris’s plywood show at the Green his grey forms shape the space around them and sculpt the space of the gallery. Judd, in his review of Morris’s show similarly found:

Morris’s pieces are minimal visually, but they’re powerful spatially. It’s an unusual asymmetry. The Cloud occupies the space above and below it, an enormous column. The triangle fills a corner of the room, blocking it. The angle encloses the space within it, next to the wall. The occupancy of space, the access to or denial of it, is very specific.71

Judd’s labelling of Morris’s work here as ‘minimal’ points to the main dissonance between the work of the two artists. Morris embraced the term minimalism when used in this sense, that his work was less concerned with the optic – colour, than it was with space – the haptic. Conversely, Morris makes this charge against Judd, that his work is more concerned with colour rather than it is space. In their solo shows at the Green that have been considered above, this argument reveals itself in the distinction between Judd’s cadmium red objects that articulate formal tensions residing in the works themselves and Morris’s flat grey plywood forms disarticulating the space which surrounds them. Nonetheless, there were distinct commonages to be found in the works of the two artists in their various showings at the Green Gallery. Often shown next to each other in group shows, it was clear

70 Judd; Coplans, ‘Interview with Don Judd’, 43. 71 Judd, ‘In the Galleries – Robert Morris’, Arts Magazine (February 1965), in: Complete Writings, 165. 131 that Judd and Morris were advancing a new art premised on the rejection of old conceits and rationales. Coalescing from their exhibitions at the Green Gallery came an art form based on geometric abstraction that was conceptually laden, often physically understated, and premised on simple, basic order. It is now historically accepted that minimalism, which was then a contested term, emerges with Judd’s and Morris’s exhibitions at the Green.

The Green Gallery was integral in promoting the new art and its artists who alongside Judd and Morris included Warhol, Kusama, Stella, Flavin, and Oldenburg amongst others. Both Judd and Morris were personally close to Dick Bellamy and when the Green closed in 1965, both artists signed on with Leo Castelli. Through this transition, Judd and Morris both grew in critical recognition and acclaim. The following chapter of this thesis addresses Judd’s and Morris’s practices when minimalism reaches its critical peak in the mid-to-late 1960s. This next chapter analyses the formal dissimilarities between Judd’s and Morris’s respective objects and sculpture, relating these back to the artists’ key theoretical writings which conceptually underpinned their three-dimensional works.

132

133

CHAPTER FIVE

Formalist Concerns: Gestalts and Seriality

From an art historical perspective, the emergence of minimalism is traceable to Judd’s and Morris’s solo shows and the various group exhibitions occurring at the Green Gallery in the early 1960s. From these showings, a loosely-shared formal vocabulary developed, conveying values like rectilinearity, non-expressivity, large- scale, and unitary forms. After this emergent phase of minimalism, Judd’s and Morris’s aesthetics mature, and minimalism approaches its critical zenith. The central years of minimalism occur between 1965 and 1968. The contest of art history in these central years is played out in text as well as the key artworks and exhibitions.

The critical literature Judd and Morris produce during this period is vital to understanding the formalist concerns with which their individual practices engage. The formal dissimilarities between the pair are defined more pointedly in their competing aesthetic theories. In 1965, Judd published ‘Specific Objects’ where he sets out his designs for a new art form moving beyond the containers of modernist painting and sculpture.1 In the same year, Greenberg revisits ‘Modernist Painting’ to declare anything outside these containers is indeed not modernist, but barely considerable as art.2 Morris’s ‘Notes on Sculpture, parts I & II’ appeared in 1966.3 In the articles, Morris proposes a phenomenological understanding of minimalist sculpture which invokes Gestalt psychology. Morris emphasises the embodied experience of the spectator in their relation to the object as an essential aspect of

1 Donald Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, Arts Yearbook 8, 1965; in: Judd, Complete Writings 1959- 1975 (Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design), 184. 2 Clement Greenberg, ‘Modernist Painting’ (1960), in: Gregory Battcock (ed.), The New Art: a critical anthology (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1966), 67-77. 3 Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part I’, Artforum, 4.6 (February 1966).), 42-44. Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, Artforum, 5.2 (October 1966).), 20-23. Both parts are reprinted in: Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 222-235. 134 his work. This leads to Fried’s charge of theatre against minimalist art. Morris’s emphasis also underscores the difference in focus between his work and Judd’s: Morris locates meaning necessarily outside the object with the viewing subject’s relationship to it; whilst Judd emphasises the formal tensions operating upon the object itself and the viewer’s experience is not entirely essential.

This chapter and the one proceeding scrutinise the formalist concerns behind Judd’s specific objects and the minimalist sculpture of Morris. Judd’s and Morris’s respective treatment of formal elements like size, scale, colour, material, facture, and structural organisation, extend in their difference from their earlier aesthetic explorations. Formal problems in painting, like tensions between illusionistic and real space, form and content, are answered in Judd’s turn to his specific objects. The formal lexis of Morris’s sculpture reveals his concern with situating objects within a temporal and spatial or theatrical context, and the perceptual experience of the viewer.

The appearance of Judd’s and Morris’s works alongside each other in major exhibitions of this period meant their aesthetic conflict in formalist terms was not often interrogated sufficiently.4 The ‘Primary Structures’ exhibition at the Jewish Museum, New York in 1966, saw the appearance of Judd and Morris together, along with the other emerging minimalists. This exhibition helped solidify minimalism as a movement of the avant-garde while further signalling its break

4 ‘Shape and Structure: 1965’ at the Tibor de Nagy Gallery featured Stella, Judd, Morris, and Andre. The ‘Primary Structures’ exhibition held at the Jewish Museum in 1966 showed works by Judd, Morris, Flavin, LeWitt, Andre, and Smithson. Running concurrently, ‘Art in Process: The Visual Development of a Structure’ was held at the Finch College Museum of Art and featured Judd, Flavin Le Witt, Morris, and Smithson. The Whitney’s ‘American Sculpture, Selection 1’ of 1966 had Judd and Morris and their ‘Annual’ of that year selected works by Judd, Morris, as well as Smithson. ‘10’ at the New York Dwan gallery found Judd, Morris, Andre, Smithson, Flavin, and LeWitt. And Judd’s and Morris’s first showings at the Castelli occurred in 1966 and 1967 respectively. There were numerous other exhibitions, both major and minor, throughout this feverish period in and out of New York that contributed to the codification of minimalism. The period leads to two major exhibitions, which largely canonised minimalism as an art historical movement, held aptly at the Museum of Modern Art and the Metropolitan Museum of Art: ‘The Art of the Real: USA 1948–1968’ curated by E.C. Goossen at MoMA in 1968 and ‘New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940–1970’ at the Met, curated by Henry Geldzahler in 1969. 135 from modernist art. This departure distinguished minimalism from other contemporary modes of sculpture and object making.

Primary Structures

Rosalind Krauss argues that the end of modernist sculpture is signalled with minimalism, with sculpture reaching a state of ‘pure negativity: the combination of exclusions.’5 Krauss finds that, ‘one found in the early sixties that sculpture had entered a categorical no-mans-land: it was what was on or in front of a building that was not the building, or what was in the landscape that was not the landscape.’6 Krauss uses Morris to exemplify this; with his 1964 Green Gallery exhibition featuring the suite of large scale, grey painted polyhedrons, and an outdoor installation of his Mirrored Boxes in 1965. For Morris’s Green show, Krauss suggests the plywood forms identification as sculpture becomes the ‘simple determination that it is what is in the room that is not really the room.’7 Whilst for the outdoor mirrored boxes they are ‘distinct from the setting only because, though visually continuous with grass and trees, they are not in fact part of the landscape.’8 With these Morris works, sculpture enters its full condition of negation – it is defined by what it is not (not-architecture and not-landscape).

5 Rosalind Krauss, ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, October, 8 (Spring 1979); reprinted in: Hal Foster (ed.), The Anti-Aesthetic: essays on postmodern culture (Seattle: Bay Press, 1983), 36. The reprinted version in Foster (1983) is referenced hereafter. Krauss uses a mathematical structure, a Klein Group, conceived by the 19th century mathematician Felix Klein and which can be used to map operations within the human sciences. It relies on establishing a ‘quaternary field’ of binaries, in which Krauss places oppositional terms such as architecture/not-architecture, landscape/not-landscape. See also: A J Greimas & Francois Rastier, ‘The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints’, Yale French Studies, 41 (1968), 86-105. Greimas & Rastier point out that these types of structures (known as a Klein group in mathematics, and similar model in psychology – the Piaget group) allow the logical mapping of ‘semic terms’. 6 Krauss, ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, 36. 7 Krauss, ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, 36. 8 Krauss, ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, 36. 136

Krauss expounds that traditionally in Western art, sculpture was bound to the logic of the monument. Sculpture served a commemorative function, symbolising a distinct meaning or event in a specific place. The pedestal served to ground the representational sign – the sculpture – in its specific place. With the advent of modernism, sculpture rejected this call to the monument. The pedestal was subsumed into the structure and a sculpture no longer spoke of a historical instance, nor marked a specific site. It became placeless, siteless, though self- referential and autonomous. Modernist sculpture became the negative condition of the monument. By the mid-twentieth century modernist sculpture was no longer representational or symbolic, it was abstract and analytical. For Krauss, modernist sculpture’s drive to self-autonomy hastened its exhaustion as it followed painting’s restricting resolve to medium purity. Modernist sculpture’s negative condition and inverse logic meant it was increasingly defined by what it was not, rather than its positive content.9 This is the point minimalism emerges. Vitally for Krauss, while this development proves terminal for modernist sculpture, it opens to an expanded field of postmodernist practices.

The ‘Primary Structures’ exhibition at the Jewish Museum exemplified late modernist sculpture’s negative condition and inverse logic. Significantly, seen in the show was sculpture’s distinct departure from its earlier logic and conventions. Instead of resting on pedestals the works sat on the floor or jutted from the wall in confrontation with the viewer. The stated, stark, and bold colour of the new sculpture was thrown up in dramatic relief historically against the muddled and drab tones of previous sculpture. Earlier sculpture had taken its colour cues from its materials, aspiring to a middling generality between colour and form. Although the exhibition featured the work of young artists from the London and New York schools, it was notable, if not definitive, in establishing minimalism as distinct aesthetic style. Some critics, namely Mel Bochner, identified amongst the various styles those of a core group who became regarded as minimalists: Andre, Flavin, LeWitt, Judd, Morris, and Smithson. Their works articulated a rationale which

9 Krauss, ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, 33-4. 137 challenged modernist interpretation and as a grouping represented a conceptual split from other contemporary groups and artists in the exhibition [fig.56].

For Bochner, these six artists represented a definitive break from both previous and contemporaneous art styles. ‘What is ultimately most difficult for the art viewer of good faith to accept’, remarked Bochner, ‘is the non-visuality, a concept at odds with all previous ideas of the Art experience.’10 The six artists’ works were inexpressive; the hand of the artist seemingly absent in their making. This aspect made critical penetration difficult, given most modernist interpretative models sought to engage the artist’s subjectivity through the art object. Bochner identifies in the work of the six artists a disjuncture between new and old art: ‘Old Art attempted to make the non-visible (energy, feelings) visual (marks). The New Art is attempting to make the non-visual (mathematics) visible (concrete).’11 Here, Bochner points to a new motivation operating upon the works of Judd, Morris, Andre, Flavin, LeWitt, and Smithson. Whereas the old art recorded the subjective expressions of the artist, the new art sought more impartial measures. Serial progressions, non-gestural arrangement, and non-compositional order informed the works of these six artists in ‘Primary Structures’.

For the show, Judd displayed two near-identical rows of galvanised iron cubes connected in front by a horizontal aluminium rod [fig.57]. One row of cubes sat on the floor whilst the other was set into the wall behind in relief. The rod which connected the cubes on the wall was painted blue, whilst the rod for the floor piece remained plain. The seeming equivalence of the rows, seen in their symmetrical arrangement and uniform size, is upset by the blue coloured rod. Inert and metallic, Judd’s evenly spaced cubes made a bold statement – inexpressive, yet wholly declarative. In terms of structural organisation these are the first truly

10 Mel Bochner, ‘Primary Structures’, Arts Magazine, 40.8 (June 1966), 32-5, in: Bochner, Solar System & Rest Rooms: Writings and Interviews, 1965-2007 (Cambridge and London: October and the MIT Press, 2008). 11 Bochner, ‘Primary Structures’, 35. 138 serial works of Judd’s. Hereafter, Judd increasingly uses seriality to preclude personal and subjective compositional choices in his works.

Morris exhibited two large grey ‘L’ shapes which were positioned alongside Judd’s works [fig.58]. The L-Beams were set in different arrangements – one sat upright in a regular ‘L’ position while the other was inverted. Morris worked with these forms regularly during this period altering the arrangement of the ‘L’ shapes in various showings. This reveals Morris’s intent to create Gestalt effect through basic unitary forms. The viewer recognises these shapes as ‘L’s, though their unusual configuration, sometimes inverted, sometimes back-to-front, made the straightforward cognition of them as ‘L’ shapes somewhat unsure or uncertain. The arrangement of the simple forms becomes increasingly important to the meaning of Morris’s work. As Morris notes: ‘placement becomes critical as it never was before in establishing the particular quality of the work. A beam on its end is not the same as a beam on its side.’12

Flavin’s corner monument 4 (1966) in gallery one – an unassuming arrangement of red fluorescent tubes occupying the corner of the room, Andre’s Lever (1966), a row of firebricks laid out on the floor of gallery two, Le Witt’s Untitled (1966), a white, open cubic grid in gallery eight, and Smithson’s five cog-like metallic units – Cryosphere (1966) – set into the wall of the museum’s vestibule, were also dissimilar in tone and tenor to the works of the other artists in the exhibition. Amongst each other they seemed to loosely share a rejection of many aesthetic conventions that were identifiable, however slightly, in the works of other artists in the show.13

12 Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, 235. 13 Milton Kramer, ‘”Primary Structures” – The New Anonymity’, The New York Times (1 May 1966), 147: ‘There are, to be sure, at least two discernible modes of feeling in these sculptures: on the one hand, a certain cheerfulness and gaiety, an extrovert affability; and, on the other, an intellectual solemnity that only grudgingly permits its innermost concerns to be tested in the realm of quotidian experience.’ See also: Bochner, ‘Primary Structures’, 32: ‘This addition of dilutants [sic] and mannerists to this exhibition (in the name, no doubt, of a ‘good show’) does not dissolve the issues the best work raises. In this exhibition, sculptors such as the Park Place group, the Richard Feigen group and the Pace 139

In ‘Primary Structures’ Judd announces seriality as a non-compositional means for organising a work. Morris’s use of Gestalts as structural organisation signals his concern with phenomenology. This distinction will be expanded upon in the next section of this chapter, though it is worth noting here that shown alongside each other, Judd’s and Morris’s works were seen more in conceptual unity than apart. Gallery five which contained their works, also featured sculptures by Robert Grosvenor and Ronald Bladen. The choice of artists in this gallery speaks to the art historical contest of New York sculpture in the mid-1960s.

Bladen created monumental and dramatic sculptures like the three black, slanted rhomboids shown in Gallery five. He was older than Judd, Morris and the other minimalists, and though he was associated with the geometric object-type sculpture of the 1960s, he eschewed the depersonalised tendencies of minimalism.14 To the younger minimalists, Bladen’s sculptures sought to echo the movement, lyricism, and sublime romanticism that concerned some Abstract Expressionist painting.15 The Elements (1965), Bladen’s three rhomboids, were dynamic; their slant implied a push or pull operating on the three obelisks – movement which was not present in the inert works of Judd or Morris. Grosvenor’s Transoxiana (1965) was a large inverted ‘V’ that thrust downward from the ceiling of Gallery five, made an acute about-turn, and soared back up to the ceiling. More broadly, Grosvenor’s monumental constructions suggested movement in space or travel through space in a manner that implied the forms were following

Gallery group are seen to be manipulating streamline versions of outmoded forms. They may be dismissed in a discussion of New Art.’ 14 James Meyer, ‘Ronald Bladen’, Artforum International, 37:9 (May 1999), 174. 15 Meyer, ‘Ronald Bladen’, 174. See also: Donald Judd, ‘In the Galleries – Ronald Bladen’, Arts Magazine (February 1963), in: Judd, Complete Writings, 75. In Judd’s review of Bladen’s solo exhibition at Green Gallery (Dec.1962-Jan.’63), Judd points out that the composition of Bladen’s wall relief is suggestive of Rothko, whilst the placement of a plank is like Kline’s brush strokes – ‘a form of abbreviated naturalism.’ At the time of his show at the Green, Bladen was moving from his abstract, painted wall reliefs to his free-standing geometric sculptures. Judd criticisms arise from the gestural movement and undercurrent of naturalism he identifies in Bladen’s works; a criticism he would continue to detail in relation to Bladen’s monumental sculptures and indeed the rest of the Park Place group. Judith E. Stein, Eye of the Sixties: Richard Bellamy and the transformation of Modern Art (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2016), 253. 140 internalised motivations. The tensile aspect in the works of Grosvenor and Bladen came from their suggested kinaesthesia, evident stasis, and monumental size.16

Bladen and Grosvenor were associated with the Park Place Gallery in Greenwich Village, while Judd and Morris were more identified with the Green Gallery in Midtown. The Park Place group included the sculptor Mark di Suvero, and the painters Leo Valledor and Ed Ruda. The aesthetic concerns of the Park Place group generally conflicted with those of Judd and Morris, who viewed them as rivals within the contest of art history taking place.17 Bladen, Grosvenor, and di Suvero implied movement in their sculpture, using large counterbalanced forms and the gestural arrangement of its materials. For Judd, this revealed compositional affect and in relation to di Suvero’s sculpture he remarked:

Di Suvero uses beams as if they were brush strokes, imitating movement, as [Franz] Kline did. The material never has its own movement. A beam thrusts, a piece of iron follows a gesture; together they form a naturalistic and anthropomorphic image.18

16 The Park Place group explored space not only in a formal or sculptural sense, but also examined space through their engagement with the technical and philosophical possibilities opened-up by the Space Age. They read journals on science, technology, and mathematics and developed a visual vocabulary that made manifest these interests. They also held noise-making jams at Park Place, smoking pot and listening to free jazz. David Bourdon wrote of the group: ‘The Park Place artists take the Space Age for granted and try to get it across in their work.’ See: David Bourdon, ‘E=MC2 a Go-Go’, ARTnews, 64.9 (January 1966), 24. Whilst Smithson found: ‘The Park Place Group … exists in a space-time monastic order, where they research a cosmos modelled after Einstein.’ And he described their works with the evocative terminology: ‘Valledor’s “fourth dimensional” color vectors, Grosvenor’s hypervolumes in hyperspace, and di Suvero’s demolitions of space-time.’ See: Smithson, ‘Entropy and the New Monuments’, 30-1. 17 Judd, ‘Complaints: part I’, Studio International (April 1969), in: Complete Writings, 198: ‘I hated the Primary Structures show at the Jewish Museum in 1966, itself and its title – primary sounds Platonic. The show started out a year earlier with Flavin, Morris, myself, maybe Andre and Bell and maybe a couple of others. Forty odd artists, I think, were in the show and a lot of them, most of Park Place had become geometric that year.’ 18 Donald Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, Arts Yearbook 8, 1965; in: Judd, Complete Writings, 183. *Note: Di Suvero did not exhibit in ‘Primary Structures’. 141

In contradistinction, the works of Judd, Morris, Andre, Flavin, LeWitt, and Smithson in ‘Primary Structures’ were vastly inexpressive and inherently non-gestural. Judd was against movement and anything expressionistic: ‘I am interested in static visual art and hate imitation of movement’, he declared.19 In contrast to Bladen’s and Grosvenor’s dynamic works in gallery five, Judd’s and Morris’s works were still and silent. Similarly, Judd’s two rows of boxes and Morris’s two ‘L’ beams were sombre and contained in terms of tone and scale against Bladen’s and Grosvenor’s expressive and monumental structures. The engagement with space in the respective works of Judd and Morris was literal and immediate to the actual space surrounding their objects. For Morris, the size and scale of the object was a vital consideration for its spatial context – the gallery space – and its perceptual engagement by the viewer:

Beyond a certain size the object can overwhelm and the gigantic scale becomes the loaded term. This is a delicate situation. For the space of the room itself is a structuring factor both in its cubic shape and in terms of the kinds of compression different sized and proportioned rooms can effect upon the subject-object terms.20

Where Bladen’s and Grosvenor’s sculptures were structured on a monolithic and heroic scale, Morris’s and Judd’s works were scaled more realistically in relation to the human body. As Morris’s above text identifies, in his work the critical concern is the relationship of the embodied viewer to the object and how this relationship is contextualised within the space of the gallery. Brian O’Doherty argues that exhibitions, curatorship, and gallery spaces were transformed during the 1950s and ‘60s as the tendency towards large, blank white rooms became the norm. O’Doherty finds that the new art developed in tandem with the transformation of the gallery space. He suggests that Stella’s shaped canvases were fundamental as they broke the rectangular parallelism between painting and its support.

19 Donald Judd; John Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, Artforum, 9.10 (June 1971), 49. In reference to: Don Judd, The Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, NY, 27 February – 14 April 1968. Judd made this comments in relation to a row of floor boxes he exhibited at the Whitney in 1968. 20 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, 233. 142

O’Doherty writes: ‘The breaking of the rectangle formally confirmed the wall’s autonomy, altering for good the concept of the gallery space.’21

The gallery spaces at the Jewish Museum for ‘Primary Structures’ consisted of large, blank, white rooms. The sculptures on display in ‘Primary Structures’ dominated the gallery creating a contextual relationship with the display space that had rarely been explored prior. These sculptures no longer simply sat on pedestals with a myriad of other similar works, passive and unassuming, to be contemplated by the viewer. The new sculpture asserted its presence within the space making the viewer aware of their own embodied experience in relation to the object and to the gallery space. Again, Morris in text reasserts this premise:

The awareness of scale is a function of the comparison made between that constant, one’s body size, and the object. Space between the subject and the object is implied in such a comparison. In this sense space does not exist for intimate objects. A larger object includes more of the space around itself than it does a smaller one.22

Seen above, the articulation of size and scale in Morris’s sculpture is in blunt consideration of the body/object relationship and how this is framed within the gallery space. This necessarily opens to a new art experience for the visitor and demands new interpretive methodologies of the critic. Critics who labelled the works of Morris, Judd, and their counterparts non-art and reductionist, did so because against previous aesthetic criteria it was deemed deficient in some way. Conversely, Judd countered: ‘New work is just as complex and developed as old work. Its color and structure and its quality aren’t more simple than before; the work isn’t narrow or somehow meaningful only as form.’23 Meanwhile Bochner

21 Brian O’Doherty, Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space (Santa Monica: Lapis Press, 1976). 29. 22 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, 231. 23Donald Judd, ‘Statement’, for: Primary Structures: Younger American and British Sculptors, The Jewish Museum, New York, April – June 1966, in: Judd, Complete Writings 1959-1975, 190. Judd continues: ‘Prior work could be called reductive too; it would have 143 argued that terms such as ‘form-content’, ‘classic’, ‘romantic’, ‘expressive’, ‘individual’, ‘composition’, ‘biomorphic’, ‘biographic’ – were outmoded in face of the new art that Judd and Morris championed.24

If minimalism emerges at the point of modernist sculpture’s utmost negative state, as Krauss contends, the works of Judd, Morris, Flavin, LeWitt, Andre, and Smithson in ‘Primary Structures’ necessarily demanded new modes of critical interpretation. The apparent rejection of subjective meanings and the gestural and emotive aesthetics associated with Abstract Expressionism, presented a quandary for critics. The prefabricated and seemingly authorless objects of the six artists identified by Bochner, signalled a break from the rationale of modernist art. Yet, what logic did the artists themselves offer in its place?

Form and Order

The use of simple geometric forms is central within minimalism. Judd’s use of simple forms, primarily cubes and rectangular prisms, is to escape rational and anthropomorphic order. ‘Take a simple form – say a box – and it does have an order,’ he remarked to Glaser, ‘but it’s not so ordered that that’s the dominant quality.’25 Judd then used serial progressions or mathematical sequences to organise his works in a way which precluded compositional choices of the artist. He argued: ‘You see, the thing about my work is that it is given. Just as you take a stack or row of boxes, it’s a row. Everybody knows about rows, so it’s given in advance.’26

less color, less scale and less clear form; compared to the new work it would even mean less, since then much of its own meaning would be irrelevant.’ 24 Bochner, ‘Primary Structures’, 33. 25 Donald Judd; Bruce Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, in: Gregory Battcock, ed. Minimal Art: a critical anthology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). 156. 26 Judd; Coplans, ‘Interview with Don Judd’, 47, 49. 144

Morris’s use of simple unitary forms is to generate Gestalt effects: ‘In the simpler regular polyhedrons, such as cubes and pyramids, one need not move around the object for the sense of the whole, the Gestalt, to occur’, Morris explained.27 Gestalt theory came to significance in the 1920s in the writings of Wolfgang Kohler and Max Wertheimer, who were both members of the Berlin Circle (die Berliner Gruppe). Kohler and Wertheimer advanced Gestalt theory to challenge conventional scientific method. For them, the fundamental logic of European science was to break down complex structures into their constituent parts, then analyse these parts in isolation to discover their governing laws. Reconstituting these parts would then give a better understanding of the nature of the whole.

Contrary to conventional scientific thought, Kohler and Wertheimer held to the proposition that it is the whole that makes sense of the laws of its parts. Wertheimer offered this rationale in 1925: ‘There are wholes, the behaviour of which is not determined by that of their individual elements, but where the part- processes are themselves determined by the intrinsic nature of the whole.’28 Gestalt theory seeks to makes sense of these wholes. Following Wertheimer’s description, the extension of Gestalt theory into the visual arts in postwar America was expressed by artists and critics ‘seeking the essential whole image’.29 This dominant propensity within late modernist American art, from Greenberg through to Judd and Morris, holds that the more unified the work of art, the more the entirety of the art object speaks over the disparity of its parts. Wholeness in an art work tends towards greater Gestalt effect. This points partly to the esteem in

27 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part I’, 226. 28 Max Wertheimer, ‘Gestalt Theory’ (1925), in: Willis Davis Ellis (ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co., 1938), 2. See also: Wolfgang Kohler, ‘Physical Gestalten’ (1920), in: Willis Davis Ellis (ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology, 20: ‘The facts of vision require that we treat them [stimuli] as properties of a single physical system in which the totality of stimulus conditions both individually and collectively is determined by the whole which they comprise.’ 29 See: Rudolph Arnheim, ‘Gestalt and Art’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Criticism, 2.8 (Autumn 1943), 71-75; Cindy Nemser, ‘Art Criticism and Perceptual Research’, Art Journal, 29.3 (Spring 1970), 326. Nemser indicates that Rudolf Arnheim, who studied under Kohler and Wertheimer in Berlin before immigrating to the United States, was instrumental in relating perceptual research to the visual arts. 145 which Pollock was held in by Judd and Morris. Pollock created whole art works, seemingly overcoming painting’s inherent divisions between content and form, image and support.

With Morris, the simple geometric form also lacked internality. Yet, where Judd’s focus is seen directed more towards the object articulating formal tensions upon it, Morris’s focus is necessarily without. Morris used basic three-dimensional polyhedrons in puzzle like configurations to create Gestalt effects. This emphasis on the viewer’s perceptual engagement with the work points to an externalised meaning for Morris’s sculpture. Morris’s phenomenological formalism extends the concerns of his sculpture to spatially and temporally contextualise the embodied experience of the viewer. The implication of the viewer’s experience in the meaning of the work, for Fried, points to the innate theatricality of Morris’s sculpture. Fried argued: ‘The literalist preoccupation with time – more precisely, with the duration of the experience – is, I suggest, paradigmatically theatrical, as though theater confronts the beholder, and thereby isolates him, with the endlessness not just of objecthood but of time’.30

Taking simple geometric forms as the basis for their work, often likened the objects of the minimalists to mass-produced items. In the case of Andre’s use of firebricks, this is entirely literal. The evocation of industrial mass production undermines the artisanal quality of artistic practice. Yet more so, the use of basic units of identical size and shape arranged in an objective order or serial arrangement, denied any sense of the art object’s internality. In response to Judd’s one man show at the Green Gallery considered in the previous chapter, Fried admitted: ‘I find myself unable to discover a convincing internal rationale for the particular decisions of style and structure Judd has made.’31 Yet this was exactly Judd’s intent, to deny internality or interior meaning of his objects. It is this negation of internalised significance which most confounds modernist criticism.

30 Fried, ‘Art and Objecthood’, Artforum (June 1967); reprinted in: Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 144. 31 Fried, ‘New York Letter: Judd’ (1964), in Fried: Art and Objecthood: essays and reviews (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 312 146

Krauss further explains: ‘In structural or abstract terms, compositional devices of the minimalists deny the logical importance of the interior space of forms – an interior space which much of previous twentieth-century sculpture had celebrated.’32

Following on from Krauss, the art object’s interior abstractly holds a symbolic relationship with the individual associated with it – either the artist or the viewer.33 By voiding the object of interior meaning, minimalism troubles this relationship. The subject is unable to form a critical consonance with the object. Thus, Fried reacts negatively to Judd’s work through his inability to identify any internal rationale.34 Donald Kuspit terms this critical relationship between the critic and the artist qua the artwork as ‘theatrical mirror transference’. Kuspit theorises that the critic makes internal the subjective position of the artist to decipher meaning in the art object. Kuspit explains:

… the artist is unconsciously regarded by the critic as his twin, his double. The art is encountered and analysed in the aura of this two-faceted narcissistic

32 Krauss, Passages in Modern Sculpture, 251 & 253. 33 Krauss, Passages in Modern Sculpture, 250: ‘The idea that they were not fabricated by the artist but were made instead for some other use within society at large – constructing buildings – gives to those elements [firebricks] a natural opacity. It will be difficult, that is, to read them illusionistically or to see them as alluding to an inner life of form (the way chiselled rock in a sculptural context might allude to inner biological forces). Instead the firebricks remain obdurately external, as objects of use rather than vehicles of expression. In this sense the readymade elements can convey, on a purely, abstract level, the idea of simple externality.’ 34 Fried, ‘Art and Objecthood’, 156. Ironically and perhaps wrongly, Fried described both Judd’s and Morris’s work (as well as Tony Smith’s) as being anthropomorphic. This was due, so Fried believed, to their works having an inner meaning or ‘life’: ‘It is, as numerous commentators have remarked approvingly, as though the work in question has an inner, even secret, life – an effect that is perhaps made most explicit in Morris’s Untitled (1965- 66), a large ringlike form in two halves, with fluorescent light glowing from within at the narrow gap between the two. I am suggesting, then, that a kind of latent or hidden naturalism, indeed anthropomorphism, lies at the core of literalist theory and practice … The latency or hiddenness of the anthropomorphism has been such that the literalist themselves, as we have seen, have felt free to characterise modernist art they oppose, for example, the sculpture of David Smith and Anthony Caro, as anthropomorphic – a characterisation whose teeth, imaginary to begin with, have just been pulled.’ Krauss’s reading on minimalist sculpture, which argues the object’s externality, contradicts Fried’s anthropomorphic interpretation here. See fn.33. 147

transference, out of which emerges a fantasy or transference representation of the artist-self, which is internalised by the critic. But it is in fact the critic’s self ‘making sense’ of the art, that is, giving it a self of which the particular works are regarded as emanations.35

The use of simple three-dimensional forms without interiority negates this critical act of ‘mirror transference’. Unable to penetrate the art object to arrive at its essential meaning, reactionary critics like Greenberg or Fried dismiss minimalism as non-art. In turn, Judd retorted: ‘Non-art’, ‘anti-art’, ‘non-art art’ and ‘anti-art art’ are useless. If someone says his work is art, it’s art.’36 Minimalism opened to new art criticism, necessarily beyond Greenbergian formalism. For Judd, simple geometric forms presented the most efficient means to exclude any sense of anthropomorphic, hierarchical, or rationalist order. As he noted in relation to Morris’s work: ‘Order, in the old sense, can’t be read into something that is just a rectangle or a triangle.’37 Judd then used repetition to further eliminate compositional order and artistry. ‘The order is not rationalistic and underlying’, he wrote (in relation to Stella), ‘but is simply order, like that of continuity, one thing after another.’38 Repetition, ‘one thing after another’, expunges any question that the forms are following the artist’s gesture or directed by some internal motivation.

In Judd’s first solo show at Castelli Gallery, beginning in February 1966, the artist featured works mainly organised by repetition and serial progressions [fig.59]. These included a wall-bound, long aluminium bar with purple subtended units, a vertical stack of galvanised iron boxes set into the gallery wall at identical intervals, a horizontal row of aluminium boxes with a blue bar (this had also appeared in ‘Primary Structures’), a horizontal and wall-bound, stainless steel row of cubes with amber plexiglass ends, and three low steel wedges, perforated and

35 Donald Kuspit, ‘The Subjective Aspect of Critical Evaluation’, in: The New Subjectivism: Art in the 1980s (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1988), 555-6. 36 Judd, ‘Statement for: Primary Structures’, 190. 37 Donald Judd, ‘In the Galleries – Robert Morris’, Arts Magazine (February 1965), in: Judd, Complete Writings, 165. 38 Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, 184. 148 placed alongside each other. Two unitary works were also displayed – a single, large aluminium box which sat on the gallery floor and a galvanised iron box set into the wall with green plexiglass at its top and bottom, casting green reflections on the gallery wall above and below.

Judd’s vertical stack at Castelli contained seven identical, clearly segregated, and evenly-spaced boxes. The play between negative and positive space in the work gave off the spatial effect of a singular vertical column. Judd used this format extensively hereafter, changing the number of units within the stack for different displays. Judd experimented intensely with a multitude of colours and materials in this stack format [figs.60, 61, & 62]. Within the various installations of Judd’s stacked boxes no one of the units is held subordinate or dominant in relation to the others; the independent units are perceived in unison. With these stacks, Judd overcomes relational composition and hierarchical layering in a multi-part work of discrete and identical units through serial organisation.

With his first Castelli show, several key terms from Judd’s aesthetic vocabulary are pronounced within a serial system – independence of parts, specificity of materials, polarity of colours, and formal unity or wholeness. The distinction of this show resides in Judd’s articulation of these artistic terms, which he first identifies in the work of Newman and Pollock, within a postindustrial syntax. Part of Judd’s consequence to late modernism is that he impressed systemic thinking upon art. That is, Judd evokes factorial production in the creation of late modernist sculpture – a seeming antithesis or contradictory notion in the context of high art. Bochner here expands on the concept of systemic thinking:

Systems are characterised by regularity, thoroughness, and repetition in execution. They are methodical. It is their consistency and the continuity of application that characterises them. Individual parts of a system are not in themselves important

149

but are relevant only in how they are used in the enclosed logic of the whole series.39

Following on from Bochner, seriality is not commensurate with modernist aesthetics.40 The clinical precision and methodical repetition of Judd’s wall- mounted boxes and floor-bound cubes seem a far remove from the visceral drip paintings of Pollock. Visually, they are. Yet conceptually, within these serial works Judd is seeking three-dimensional resolutions to aspects he valued in Pollock’s painting. The play between negative and positive space, the independence of the works’ parts within a unified whole, the polarisation of light and colour, and importantly using repetition as non-compositional order.

One of the main criticisms levelled against Judd is that he outsourced the production of his objects to metal workshops and factories. This was not uncommon practice and was not exclusive to Judd or minimalism. It is arguable that this criticism stems not from the use of industrial workshops in the realisation of the art object, but instead the manufacturing thinking in the conception of it.41 As Krauss notes, Judd used seriality to ‘drive the possibility of significance out of the act of placing or arranging forms.’42 It is the negation of this significance that troubles modernist critics. In his critique of minimalism as theatre, Fried contends that the minimalists are concerned with ‘endlessness’. Fried’s frustration is that the experience of the object is necessarily temporal – it is measurable by time.

39 Mel Bochner, ‘Serial Art Systems: Solipsism’, Arts Magazine (Summer 1967), 40. 40 Bochner, ‘Serial Art Systems: Solipsism’, 40. 41 Jack Burnham, ‘Systems Esthetics’, Artforum (September 1968), 31. Jack Burnham suggests that the relation of art to industrial production reflected a boarder rationalisation of postwar American society. For Burnham, systemic thinking could be seen in most ‘matrixes of human activity’ where there was need to create stable relationships between ‘organic and non-organic systems’; from industrial complexes and transportation systems to farms and neighbourhoods. In the mid-1960s, minimalism introduced systemic thinking to art, nominally the most individualist and subjective human endeavour. Hence, the initial critical reception of minimalism was that it was cold and impersonal. 42 See: Krauss, Passages of Modern Sculpture, (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 1977), 245: ‘One found it in the early 1960s in the sculpture of Donald Judd, through wall- bound rows of boxes in which the sameness of the units and the regularity of the intervals between them seemed to drive the possibility of ‘significance’ out of the act of placing or arranging forms.’ 150

Compounding frustration for Fried is the fact that the temporal experience confronting the spectator is endless – it goes on and on. In relation to Judd, Fried charged:

In fact, it seems to be the experience that most deeply excites literalist sensibility, and that literalist artists seek to objectify in their work – for example, by the repetition of identical units (Judd’s ‘one thing after another’), which carries the implication that the units in question could be multiplied ad infinitum.43

The implication that Judd’s rows and stacks of boxes could go on and on forever, while not the actual case, goes to the core of the modernist distrust of minimalism. As noted, Judd used repetition to negate the significance of arranging forms, to inhibit personal compositional choices. Fried’s notion of endlessness, where Judd’s rows and stacks continue on and on, suggests no personal agency is acting upon them. The nightmarish revelation for Fried is that this calls to question modernism’s anthropocentric view of the world – it upsets the natural order.44

Judd’s use of simple geometric units and serial progression to structurally organise his works, purges the art object of interior meaning and compositional effects. Instead, Judd stresses the formal tensions operating upon the work. These include the play between positive and negative space, the synchronicity of discrete units into a whole form, and the incongruity between the illusive properties of light and colour against the tactile rigidity of the works’ materiality and structural

43 Fried, ‘Art and Objecthood’, 144. 44 Conversely, it can be argued that minimalism forces a universal understanding of life and existence in which humans are not the centre. The minimalist composer Steve Reich, likewise known for his use of repetition, writes of this understanding in relation to his own work: ‘Focusing in on the musical process makes possible that shift of attention away from he and she and you and me outward toward it.’ Reich’s point here is that an art work that eschews rationalist aesthetics and anthropomorphic order, requires its audience to look outside the work and themselves for meaning. See: Steve Reich, ‘Music as Gradual Process’, Writings on Music (Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design, 1974), 34-36. 151 organisation. The articulation of these tensions operating upon the self-contained object goes to the conceptual strength of Judd’s artistic program.

Morris staged Gestalt theory in his sculptural installation at the Dwan Gallery Los Angeles in March 1966 [fig.63].45 An untitled work featuring four grey fibreglass irregular polyhedrons presented a simple visual puzzle to the viewer. Rising just below waist height and fixed in a separated configuration, the inner facing planes of the boxes ran perpendicular at right angles. The outer facing sides were slanted [fig.64]. When the spectator encountered the polyhedrons in their separated configuration, they almost immediately perceived them grouped together as a whole – a truncated square-based pyramid. As Morris explains, the Gestalt occurs when the viewer’s spatially visualises this unified whole: ‘One sees and immediately believes that the pattern within one’s mind corresponds to the existential fact of the object. Belief in this sense is both a kind of faith in spatial extension and a visualisation of that extension.’46 Morris’s installation here evokes the simple block and pattern puzzles used to teach young children arithmetic and basic geometry.47 The tendency of the viewer is to visually arrange the polyhedrons in their correct position. Unlike children’s puzzles however, this is an urge that can never be satisfied. Morris directs the viewer towards the Gestalt though never resolves it.

Another quizzical work in this exhibition was a large fibreglass ring cut in half across its diameter [fig.65]. White light shone from the split in the ring from fluorescent lights Morris installed inside the two segments. Here, the perceptual urge is to visualise the complete ring, yet the emanating light vexes the viewer’s

45 Robert Morris, ‘Sculpture’, 15 March – April 1966, Dwan Gallery Los Angeles. 46 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part I’, 226. 47 Max Wertheimer, ‘The Famous Story of Young Gauss’, in: Wertheimer, Productive Thinking (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959 [1945]), 126-7. ‘If confronted by such patterns – say in blocks – there seems to be even in children a strong tendency in the sensible direction. They often get at it spontaneously, ‘improving’, ‘correcting’ the situation. No language is needed – they just put the objects together reasonably, fit them together. Often it is not even necessary to assign a task for a sensible response to appear: it grows out of the inner dynamics of the situation. Again we see the role of ‘disturbance’, ‘gap’, ‘fitting’, ‘being just needed’, ‘being required’, as parts in a consistent whole.’ 152 attempt to grasp the whole form. If there were shadows instead of light, would perceiving the whole be easier?48 Again, instead of resolving the Gestalt, Morris stresses separation between the whole and its parts. In staging Gestalt theory through his large-form sculptural works, Morris theatricalises the viewer’s perceptual relationship with the object(s). A reviewer of the show suggested the apparent meaning of Morris’s sculptures rests in the fact they compelled the viewer into a ‘kind of Gestalt showdown’.49 Morris’s basic unitary forms precluded rational analysis. The forms’ externality and relationship within the gallery space forced the viewer to analyse the visual field in which they were arranged. The shifting, physical perspective of the viewer then becomes one of the formal terms involved in the work. Here, Morris explains how the formalist considerations of his work are not exclusive to the non-reducible object, but are extraneous to it: ‘While the work must be autonomous in the sense of being a self-contained unit for the formation of the Gestalt, the indivisible and undissolvable whole, the major aesthetic terms are not in but dependent upon this autonomous object.’50

Whether conscious to the viewer or not, their shifting perspective, along with the environmental exigencies of the gallery (space and light), become formal terms in the enactment of Morris’s sculpture. Only one aspect of the work is immediate, writes Morris: ‘the apprehension of the Gestalt. The experience of the work necessarily exists in time.’51 It follows, that within this contrived situation the temporally-measurable experience of the viewing subject functions in the consequence of the work. This of course underscores Fried’s charge of theatre against Morris. Morris’s sculpture, as with dramatic theatre, requires an audience

48 David Antin, ‘Art & Information, 1 Grey Paint’, ARTnews, 65 (April 1966), 56. ‘… in the split ring at the Dwan, the use of light is even more emphatic [compared to Morris’s plywood show at the Green], since fluorescent lights are installed inside the ring segments and glow from the air gaps, which would normally be reservoirs of shadow. This is one of the major factors contributing to the strangeness of the piece, but this sort of equivocation has always been characteristic of Morris’s work.’ 49 Donald Factor, ‘Los Angeles, Dwan Gallery, Robert Morris’, Artforum (April 1966), 13. ‘The prime significance of these sculptures is the effect of forcing the viewer into a kind of Gestalt showdown. These non-reducible, closed forms sit uncomfortably in the gallery space, or, in Gestalt terms, the ‘visual field’, and permit of no direct analysis. Thus, they force the viewer into analysing the field itself and disrupting his organisational habits.’ 50 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, 234. 51 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, 234. 153 to complete it. Fried argues further, that not only is the viewer’s experience of the object measurable by time, but the temporal experience confronting them is endless:

Similarly, Morris’s claim that in the best new work the beholder is made aware that ‘he himself is establishing relationships as he apprehends the object from various positions under varying conditions of light and spatial context’ amounts to the claim that the beholder is made aware of the endlessness and inexhaustibility if not of the object itself at any rate his experience of it.52

Fried reads endlessness in Morris’s minimalist objects as they never resolve upon themselves, instead they engage the viewing subject in a Gestalt circularity. With Judd, Fried saw endlessness in the suggestion of infinite repetition. Fried argues, that unlike minimalism’s endlessness, modernist painting and sculpture pertain to them the qualities of ‘presentness’ and ‘instantaneousness’. That is, modernist art is held to be self-sufficient and self-fulfilling – ‘every moment the work itself is wholly manifest.’53 As such, the viewer’s experience of modernist painting and sculpture is not bound to a notion of duration as these works exist in a ‘continuous and perpetual present’.54 What’s more, modernist paintings and sculptures do not require an audience to complete their function as art objects.

In contrast, Morris’s sculptural object operates as but one formal term within a theatrical or expanded situation. Control of the situation then becomes of primary importance to Morris: ‘the concerns now are for more control of and/or cooperation of the entire situation’, he writes: ‘Control is necessary if the variables of object, light, space, body, are to function.’55 Further, Morris argues that it is his emphasis on the expanded situation which distinguishes his work from Judd’s. In pointed reference to Judd’s specific object, Morris pans: ‘The sensuous object,

52 Fried, ‘Art and Objecthood’, 144. 53 Fried, ‘Art and Objecthood’, 145. 54 Fried, ‘Art and Objecthood’, 146. 55 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, 234. 154 resplendent with compressed internal relations, has had to be rejected.’56 Morris’s inference here is that Judd emphasises the formalist concerns operating upon the object itself, where in contrast his work articulates extraneous formal considerations. On the other hand, Judd faults the lack of visual interest in Morris’s objects, implying that they barely exist as art: ‘They are next to nothing; you wonder why anyone would build something only barely present. There isn’t anything to look at.’57 To which Morris responds: ‘That many considerations must be taken into account in order that the work keep its place as a term in the expanded situation hardly indicates a lack of interest in the object itself.’58

These differing viewpoints concerning the object opens to the major source of dissonance between Judd and Morris. In his ‘Notes on Sculpture’ essays, Morris airs the notion that his work presents a haptic understanding of sculpture, whereas Judd’s objects appeal to the optic and therein belie their origination from painting. To this, the use and concern of colour as a formal consideration becomes important in interrogating the haptic/optic discrimination between the two artists. In the next chapter of this thesis, Judd’s and Morris’s formalist concerns of colour and facture are analysed. While colour becomes the major point of contention between the two artists, new age materials and the industrial manufacture of their works is an initial point of resonance. The discord they strike through their contracting of professional metal workshops is with competing contemporary artists and historically against traditional notions of artistry and the handmade.

56 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, 234. 57 Donald Judd, ‘In the Galleries – Robert Morris’, 165. 58 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, 234. 155

156

CHAPTER SIX

Formalist Concerns: Red and Grey

Following on from the previous chapter, this chapter further analyses the formalist concerns of Judd and Morris. The sharpest discord between the artists is on the grounds of colour. Judd viewed colour similarly to how he viewed materials and other formal properties – it was treated as a structural element. In this regard, Judd’s work extends from the earlier painters of the New York School in their structural use of colour. In contrast, Morris rejects colour because of its optical quality. Morris used a neutral palette to lessen visual appeal in his sculpture, but sought to heighten its spatial claims. Morris’s plain grey forms had the further effect of questioning visual definitions of art, which led to Judd’s labelling of Morris’s work as minimal.

Where Judd and Morris share common concerns, is in the use of industrial materials and contracting metal workshops to have their pieces constructed. In their respective writings, Judd and Morris valorise the availability of new materials and manufacturing processes to the contemporary artist. Their engagement with these non-traditional materials and processes was exceedingly technical and led to censure by critics and artists who valued the artisanal nature of art. For Morris, the use of professional metal workers to execute his concepts ultimately proved problematic. The removal of the artist from the production of the object, provoked Morris’s divergence from minimalism and his subsequent experimentation with soft materials in his postminimalist practice. Here, Morris unravels the minimalist object’s stated materiality and reasserts the physical role of the artist in artmaking.

157

Colour

Morris claimed colour as a major point of differentiation between his work and Judd’s. He argued that colour detracted from the physical aspects of sculpture and that it was primarily an optical concern. Where Judd states: ‘Color is never unimportant, as it usually is in sculpture,’1 Morris argues just this, that colour is unimportant to sculpture: ‘It is the essentially optical, immaterial, non-containable, non-tactile nature of color that is inconsistent with the physical nature of sculpture.’2 To which Judd countered: ‘I consider everything to be color, including gray, so that business of gray not being a color that Morris talks about is nonsense.’3

Judd’s use of colour extends from his earlier painting: ‘so obviously’, he notes, ‘I wasn’t going to go and do uncolored three-dimensional things.’4 His palette in his earlier objects centred around cadmium red. It was bold though spare with few hues and in this sense reflected his aesthetic closeness to Newman. With Judd’s first show at Castelli, which was considered in the previous chapter, his use of colour gained complexity. The objects of Judd’s principal minimalist period generally feature more than one colour, often achieved using coloured materials. Intense experimentation with colour, materials, and structural organisation became readily associated with Judd’s work from the mid-1960s. From his first show at Castelli, Judd introduced the use of coloured materials, such as tinted Plexiglass and anodised metals. Using coloured materials meant the juxtaposition of materials created polarisation between colours. Judd’s structural organisation of the works, whether unitary or serial, heightened tensions between colours and between materials.

1 Donald Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, Arts Yearbook 8, 1965, in: Donald Judd, Complete Writings 1959-1975 (Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design), 183. 2 Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part I’, Artforum, 4.6 (February 1966), in: Gregory Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 225. 3 Donald Judd; John Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, Artforum, 9.10 (June 1971), 45. 4 Judd; Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, 44. 158

The use of coloured embedded materials marked a crucial step for Judd. He had realised in his early plywood pieces, with the absorbent nature of the material and the need for thick coats of paint, that the result was an indefinite volume and surface. Judd found metals did not have to be painted and he used metals extensively to ‘reduce the number of ambiguous elements in the pieces, to define them more rigorously.’5 Further, the adonising process freed Judd from the lingering problem of painted surfaces. The disunion between painted surface and its supporting structure is one of the irresolvable problems which pushed Judd from painting to objects: ‘one also had the problem that there were at least two things in the painting’, he stated, ‘the rectangle itself and the thing (image) in the rectangle’.6 Applying a painted surface to an object repeats this binary division, no matter how slight. In using colour embedded materials, Judd collapses the distinction between surface and structure. Colour becomes part of the structure itself.

Light is used by Judd to sustain tension between the part and the whole. This is seen in one work from Judd’s Castelli show in 1966; a horizontally, wall-bound row of four stainless steel boxes with amber plexiglass at their lateral ends. From front- on the metal boxes appear as discrete, silver units with slight amber colour seen at their lateral edges. When seen directly side on, looking through the plexiglass sheets, it appears the boxes are connected through a unifying beam of amber colour. The viewer’s movement from front on to side on elicits contradictory visual experiences. Krauss, in an article relating to Judd’s exhibition, suggests that this optical interplay with the viewer points to the illusory quality of Judd’s work.7 The piece that puzzled Krauss was an elongated, horizontal aluminium bar set high into the wall [fig.66]. Ten small, violet aluminium units of differing sizes and spaced at unequal intervals, subtended from the long uncoloured bar. Krauss notes that the extreme length of the bar meant the work had to be viewed in perspective. Yet, at the same time, Judd confounds this perspective view with the different sizing and

5 Judd; Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, 45-6. 6 Judd; Coplans, ‘An Interview with Don Judd’, 41. 7 Rosalind Krauss, ‘Allusion and Illusion in Donald Judd’, Artforum, 4.9 (May 1966), 24-6. 159

intervals of the violet units. The size and spacing of the units do not correlate with the viewer’s understanding of geometric proportion in perspective.

Krauss establishes that the work ‘cannot be seen rationally’, as the a priori laws of geometry conflict with the actual experience of the object.8 Drawing upon Merleau- Ponty, Krauss finds Judd’s work can only be understood through ‘lived perspective’.9 That is, the work only becomes sensible in the direct experience of the viewer. Yet, Krauss goes further, interrogating Judd’s use of colour and material, to argue Judd’s work presents a ‘lived illusion’.10 More recently, David Raskin and Richard Shiff have both countered Krauss’s implication that Judd’s objects are somehow insincere in rejecting pictorial illusionism while inviting visual illusion. Raskin finds that Krauss’s view of Judd’s piece discussed above extends from the belief ‘that our perception and conception of the world require[s] a representational interface’. This belief extends from Cartesian thought to which Raskin writes:

In presenting this idea – one she called ‘lived illusion’ to distinguish it from non- modernist pictorial illusionism – she held that Judd’s art served as ‘an irritant’, teaching viewers that the world is only a function of active cognition, since they must move in order to make sense of his art. Krauss thought that meaning in Judd’s work resides in evoking just this self-reflection, because it believed it was interaction with objects in the world that enlivens them, that imbues them with significance.11

Pursuing Raskin’s argument, the critical frustrations directed against Judd’s work stems from a rationalist premise where the subject’s engagement with the object

8 Krauss, ‘Allusion and Illusion in Donald Judd’, 26. 9 See: Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Prose of the World (1969), [trans. John O’Neill], (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973), 52-3. Discussed previously in Chapter 3 of this thesis. 10 Krauss, ‘Allusion and Illusion in Donald Judd’, 26. 11 David Raskin, ‘The Shiny Illusionism of Krauss and Judd’, Art Journal, 65.1 (Spring 2006), 7 & 9. 160

gives the object consequence. Given Judd’s repeated rejection of Cartesian philosophy, it is difficult to reconcile this understanding with his work. Indeed, Judd seemingly presents an object disassociated from the subjective. The object is and of itself. The formal tensions Judd brings to bear upon the object, do not appear reliant upon the subjective experience of the viewer to make them cognisable. Nonetheless, visual interest is heightened in Judd’s objects through tensions created between the optical – but real – concerns of materials, colour, light, and structural pulse. The visual illusions elicited through the stressing of these tensions are real. The subject’s experience of these illusions is empirically measurable. Shiff here outlines the difference between illusion and illusionism in relation to Judd’s work:

Everyone see optical illusions in the same situations, under the same conditions. Such illusions are not only objective but real – real illusions. They have little to do with illusionism. What Judd said of the modern artist’s emphasis on colour – that it produced ‘an immediate sensation, a phenomenon’, that it ‘destroyed the earlier representational painting’ – applied also to optical illusion. The ‘illusions’ of illusionism, to the contrary, were effects neither physiologically nor phenomenologically inherent in the direct apprehension of an object. Illusion is the way things are. Illusionism is the way things are not.12

As Shiff notes, the visual illusions that occur in Judd’s work are real and objective and do not impress upon the viewer an image which defies empirical observation. The tension between clarity and ambiguity does however, underscore much of Judd’s work. Robert Pincus-Witten termed this ‘the device of attraction/frustration’, where the viewer’s experience of the object is never fully resolved.13 The culminating point between what is visually concrete and what is

12 Richard Shiff, ‘Donald Judd, Safe from Birds’, in: Nicholas Serota (ed.) Donald Judd (Tate Publishing: London), 42. 13 Robert Pincus-Witten, ‘Fining it Down: Don Judd at Castelli’, Artforum (June 1970), 49. ‘He engages the spectator without in fact permitting the participation to spend itself. Open ended boxes, for example, are placed too low to crawl through while polished surfaces and glossy plastic linings also thwart the sensate body appeals they are making.’ Considering Raskin’s observations in relation to Krauss (fn.11), Pincus-Witten similarly places the viewing subject at the centre of meaning with Judd’s objects. 161

visual illusion is never quite revealed to the viewer or completed by their shifting perspectives. In the sense, the experience of Judd’s objects undulates between the haptic and the optic.

Morris persisted with his distinction from Judd using colour. He emphasised the inherently optical nature of colour and reinforced the physical and tactile concerns of his sculpture. In antagonism of Judd, Morris declared, ‘intense color, being a specific element, detaches itself from the whole of the work to become one more internal relationship. The same can be said of emphasis on specific, sensuous material or impressively high finishes.’14 Here, Morris is defining and substantiating his own definition of minimalist sculpture in contradiction to Judd’s specific objects. Seen in this way, Morris’s theoretical positioning, as communicated through his ‘Notes on Sculpture’ essays, is didactically oppositional to Judd’s. In arguing on the grounds of colour, Morris delineates the optic from the haptic. From the perspective of Morris’s argument, the chromatic appeals of Judd’s sensuous objects disarm their physical claims to sculpture. In contrast, Morris used almost exclusively a neutral palette of Merkin Pilgrim grey in his work.

For Morris, the colour grey obviates internal relationships in the work. Conversely, he finds Judd’s use of vibrant colours increase the internal relationships in the object. In lessening the visual appeal of his sculptural forms by using grey paint, Morris encourages the viewer to shift their perceptual focus to external concerns. As such, Morris’s sculpture is reduced to the simple determination whether it is part of the architecture of the room or not. In Morris’s solo exhibition at the Dwan Gallery Los Angeles, a reviewer noted just this:

One does not see these simple, neutral, grey polyhedrons in the conventional sense of seeing sculpture. Rather, the pieces are sensed as spatial amalgams, objects that disrupt or comment upon the space of the room. Interest in the shapes themselves

14 Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part II’, Artforum, 5.2 (October 1966), in: Gregory Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 232. 162

is quickly diminished, leaving an impression of scale as the dominant tension- causing device.15

As the reviewer identifies, the visual appeal of Morris’s objects is limited. The basic, grey-painted forms do not hold the attention of the viewer long and this is Morris’s intent. Unlike Judd’s objects, which Morris criticises for their overly visual appeal, Morris’s sculptural forms have minimal visual tensions operating upon them. Morris’s concern is with manipulating the formal conditions necessarily without. Morris works with the formal properties of size, mass, and scale, moderating these relative to the gallery space in consideration of the viewer. The diminishing visual appeal of Morris’s sculpture heightens their claims to real space. Morris privileges the haptic over the optic. The grey paint further speaks to this; it uniformly blankets the forms barely differentiating them from each other within the gallery space. So, as David Antin writes: ‘Only the greyness of the paint seems constant.’16

Antin, in comparing Morris’s Los Angeles Dwan show and his earlier plywood show at the Green, likewise notes the spatial claims of Morris’s sculpture. Antin observes that Morris’s effectiveness in doing this differs with the materials he respectively used in the two shows. In Morris’s Dwan show, several of the pieces were constructed from fibreglass with no visible joins or fissures in the material. For Antin, the forms appeared as ‘sudden materialisations of some indefinable grey substance’ to envelop space within.17 In Morris’s show at the Green, joins between the plywood sheets were visible and disunion between the grey paint and plywood surface was discernible. This for Antin, made the ‘large pieces look relatively weightless, like continuous, enclosed surfaces rather than volumes.’18 The positioning of the plywood forms and the bare differentiation in colour to each other and to the gallery room left Antin to conclude: ‘At what point does grey

15 Donald Factor, ‘Los Angeles, Dwan Gallery, Robert Morris’, Artforum, 4.8 (April 1966), 13. 16 Antin, ‘Art & Information, 1 Grey Paint’, ARTnews, 65 (April 1966) 56. 17 Antin, ‘Art & Information, 1 Grey Paint’, 56. 18 Antin, ‘Art & Information, 1 Grey Paint’, 56. 163

become white? The question is what are we looking at?19 Expanding on Antin’s comments, the uncertainty Morris’s sculptural forms elicit resides in their bare existence as art objects. Critics of Morris’s shows at the Green and at the Dwan galleries read the works as phenomenological propositions. Morris’s plain and grey polyhedrons were a seeming rejection of the notion of art being something to look at. Morris’s sculptural works called attention to the formal conditions under which they were arranged. Morris ascribes meaning in these works to the viewer’s perceptual experience within a contrived theatrical situation.

Judd reviewed Morris’s plywood show at the Green Gallery and Morris’s work shown in the ‘Black, White and Gray’ exhibition [see: fig.52].20 In these two reviews, Judd labels Morris’s work as minimal, cool, and barely existing as art. Morris does not reject Judd’s observations of his work in the two reviews, but rather craftily subverts them in his attack against the optic nature of Judd’s objects in his ‘Notes on Sculpture’ essays. Morris further disclaims Judd’s call to the specific object by situating his own minimalist forms in historical continuum of sculpture, not the category of new objects that Judd seeks beyond painting and sculpture. Judd’s thoughts upon Morris’s sculpture, nonetheless, are clearly prescient. In relation to Morris’s Green Gallery show Judd found:

Morris’s work nearly appears not to be art; perhaps he doesn’t want it to be thought art at first, though of course it is finally. ‘Cool’ applies only to Morris. The pieces are fairly ordinary geometric shapes and a very ordinary color, but they have been built. They’ve been made on purpose, not found, to be minimal, unimportant, relatively unordered objects.21

19 Antin, ‘Art & Information, 1 Grey Paint’, 56. 20 ‘Black, White and Gray’, Wadsworth Atheneum, Connecticut, 9 January – 9 February 1964. 21 Donald Judd, ‘In the Galleries – Robert Morris’, Arts Magazine (February 1965), in: Judd, Complete Writings, 165. 164

Here, the reasoning behind Judd’s stern resistance to the term minimalism in context of his own work becomes apparent. Judd initially uses the term against Morris’s work that he sees existing minimally and barely as art. The ordinary greyness of the forms further dispels any visual claims upon Morris sculpture. Instead, greyness sustains Morris’s preferencing of a haptic experience over an optic one. The experience of Morris’s sculpture is temporal and the materials and construction of the forms tends to the ephemeral. In this way, Morris’s minimalist sculpture is framed as conceptually oppositional to Judd’s specific object. Rauschenberg’s White Paintings were also shown in ‘Black, White and Gray’. In his review, Judd notes that Rauschenberg’s paintings along with Morris’s grey sculptures are ‘the extreme of the most inclusive attitude of the show.’22 Judd’s observation here is that both Rauschenberg’s paintings and Morris’s sculpture question the visual nature of art, but in doing so, they point profoundly to the equivalence of all things. That is, like everything else they exist – however minimally:

Morris’s pieces exist after all, as meagre as they are. Things that exist exist, and everything is on their side. They’re here, which is pretty puzzling. Nothing can be said of things that don’t exist. Things exist in the same way if that is all that is considered – which may be because we feel that or because that is what the word means or both. Everything is equal, just existing, and the values and interests they have are only adventitious.23

In comparison, Judd conceived his objects to be the equivalent of Pollock’s or Newman’s in their claims as high art. Neo-Dadaist or theatrical propositions which questioned the very endeavour of art is not reflected in Judd’s late modernist program. Materially and conceptually, Judd’s objects stated permanence and resolution. The artistic lineage Judd constructs for his work through the primary painters of the New York School suggests he did not consider his work minimal in the way he implied it to Morris. Colour was as important to Judd as it was to

22 Donald Judd, ‘Nationwide Reports: Hartford – Black, White and Gray’, Arts Magazine (March 1964), in: Complete Writings, 118. 23 Judd, ‘Nationwide Reports: Hartford – Black, White and Gray’, 118. 165

Rothko. The visual strength of Judd’s objects lies in the specificity, polarity, and boldness of colour. Judd’s triumph is in how he identifies these optical qualities in the best of Abstract Expressionist painting and articulates them in three- dimensional objects. To this, Judd’s intense and technical experimentation with colour is indicative of a high-modernist sensibility. Conjecturally, the colours Judd worked with, along with the materials and serial arrangements, do not pertain to them characteristics of high art. This paradox reveals the anxiety that Judd bears upon formalism and late modernism. Judd’s methodical and highly analytical practice befits Greenberg’s description of the modernist artist. Judd’s aesthetic program however, was directed at tearing down modernist art’s defining conditions – medium purity, artisanal quality, and content and form – to position the new art, his specific object, in its place.

Much more recently, Morris revived his objections to Judd’s use of colour and materials, pointing to the optic and haptic distinction as the main difference between their practices: ‘Judd’s work … in its emphasis on candy-box colored surfaces and simple serial extensions, issues from an essentially optical position. Haptic physicality and phenomenological penetrations of space were foreign to his work.’24 This is not entirely unaffected, indeed there is a revisionist refrain to Morris’s writing. Yet in the terms Morris establishes, he is one of the ‘more severe practitioners’ of minimalism due to his engagement with space and conversely, what he states, Judd’s objects ignoring this space: ‘Always beautiful but never sublime, it fetishized the object and ignored the space.’25

Judd clearly held a formal concern with space however he was less interested in the vocabulary of conventional sculpture: ‘I have always been interested in making light pieces, I dislike sculptural bulk, weight, and massiveness’.26 It follows, that a light object can hold as much space as a heavy object can. What Judd sought was art objects that were visually sustaining and enduring like the Abstract

24 Robert Morris, ‘Size Matters’ (2000), in: Morris, Have I Reasons: work and writings, 1993- 2007, (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2008), 126. 25 Morris, ‘Size Matters’, 126. 26 Judd; Coplans, ‘An Interview with Donald Judd’, 45. 166

Expressionist paintings with which his work resonated and colour was the main means in which he achieved this. The primary formal distinction between Judd and Morris then, is manifest in their respective use of colour. Morris’s minimal grey palette was part rejection of the precious art object as he called into question the very nature of art itself. His sculpture’s bare existence as art forced the viewer to consider more broadly what was essential to art and what made art essential. In this regard, Morris’s minimalism has its antecedence in Cage’s 4’33” and Rauschenberg’s White Paintings. The materiality of Morris’s sculpture only prevented it from existing as aesthetic proposition or idea.

More recently, David Batchelor has argued that much of the subsequent literature on minimalism has repeated the negative terminology it encountered in the 1960s. The result, according to Batchelor, is the clouding of Judd’s (and Flavin’s) bold use of colour. The lessened appeal to the visual, which Judd initially attributed to Morris’s sculpture, has prevailed and shaded Judd’s intense concern with colour. In review of this discursive oversight Batchelor elaborates:

Judd’s colours have remained largely invisible for nearly four decades … You would not know, for example, from reading Anna Chave’s account of Minimalism and masculinity, that most works by Judd and Flavin are not only stunningly colourful – a quality which is habitually associated with the feminine, the irrational or the infantile rather than the masculine or authoritarian – but they are often weird and weightless too.27

Batchelor explains that it is the ‘minimal’ reading of minimalism which became the accepted version within the narrative of modern art. This may have been the cause of unsympathetic critics at the time, whose negative reviews gained the most currency. As such, the lesser or understated palettes like Morris’s became emblematic within a discourse which held to visual descriptions such as austere,

27 David Batchelor, ‘Everything as Colour’ (2004), in: Nicholas Serota (ed.) Donald Judd (London: Tate Publishing 2004), 71. Batchelor is here referencing: Anna C. Chave, ‘Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power’, Arts Magazine (January 1990), 44-63. 167

sombre, and spare. More so, it was likely the cause of theorists sympathetic to Morris at the time. Annette Michelson, Barbara Rose, and Krauss were all early critical champions of Morris. Michelson and Krauss together formed the influential journal October (1976-present), which often held-up Morris as the exemplar of poststructuralism in American art. It is not without a sense of irony then, that this reading was partly perpetuated by Judd initially in relation to Morris – and that Judd spent the best part of the next three decades trying to dissociate his art from it.

Judd and Morris viewed colour as a site of difference between themselves, more so than any other formal concern.28 For Morris, colour was secondary to shape, size, scale, and mass. Grey precluded the spectator from discerning the internal relationships in his sculptural forms plus diminished their visual appeal. This then forced the spectator’s focus to the spatial field where his forms were barely discernible from the architecture of the room, closing off and revealing pockets of its space. In stark contrast, colour was critical to Judd’s aesthetic program, tying him to the earlier New York school. ‘More than the so-called form, or the shapes’, Judd later reflected, ‘color is the most powerful force.’ He continued: ‘In retrospect,

28 Jack Burnham submitted Morris’s use of grey to the Lüscher colour test. The test concludes certain aspects about a person’s psycho-physical state through their choice of colours. Selecting grey as the first choice in the test reveals: ‘The grey of the test is neither coloured, nor dark, nor light, and is entirely free from any stimulus or psychological tendency. It is neutral, neither subject nor object, neither inner nor outer, neither tension nor relaxation. Grey is not an occupied territory but a border’. This reading cannot be taken as an accurate measure of Morris’s psychological state, as the test was not conducted on Morris, but rather from Burnham’s selection of grey. Nonetheless, the description of character traits associated with grey in the test is intriguing when held in consideration of the writing around Morris’s work which views it as dispassionate and distant. See: Jack Burnham, ‘Robert Morris Retrospective in Detroit’, Artforum, 8.7 (March 1970), 67-75. Pursuing Burnham’s hypothetical exercise further and selecting red as the Judd’s presumed first colour choice for his early plywood pieces, reveals stark contrast to the grey chosen for Morris. Once again, this should not be read as a truthful evaluation of Judd’s personality traits, but as a hypothetical exercise the Lüscher test explains red as follows: ‘Red is the urge to achieve results, to win success … Red is impulse, the will-to- win, and all forms of vitality and power from sexual power to revolutionary transformation. It is impulse towards active doing, towards sport, struggle, competition, eroticism and enterprising productivity. Red is ‘impact of the will’ or ‘force of the will’.’ Here, the notion of ‘revolutionary transformation’ resonates with Judd’s call to the specific object. See: Max Lüscher, The Lüscher Colour Test (1969), [trans. and ed. Ian Scott], (London: Jonathan Cape, 1970), 52, 60-1. 168

and only so, the expansion of color is logical until the 1960s, concluding with the painting of Pollock, Newman, Still and Rothko.’29 Judd continues the innovation in colour from these earlier painters in three-dimensions. In discrimination to Morris’s grey forms that minimally existed as art, Judd found colour to be intrinsic to art:

Color is like material. It is one way or another, but it obdurately exists. Its existence as it is, is the main fact and not what it might mean, which may be nothing. Or rather, color does not connect alone to any of the several states of the mind. I mention the word ‘epistemology’ and stop. Color, like material, is what art is made from.30

Where Judd views colour like material and associates it intrinsically with art, Morris disassociates colour for its immateriality. Although colour is not tactile, Judd’s use of colour embedded materials creates visual and physical juxtapositions between colours and materials contained within the object. Further, these materials influence the light and space surrounding the object. Conversely, Morris’s use of greys and whites force attention towards the haptic claims of his sculpture. A further effect of Morris’s minimal palette is it agitates art’s definition as a visual experience. Colour opens to the aesthetic fissure between Judd’s and Morris’s programs. Judd resists the term ‘minimal’ in relation to his own work as it lessens its claims to equivalence with the work of Pollock, Newman, Still, and Rothko. Morris ostensibly embraces the term as it fits his program of critiquing the institution of art itself.

29 Donald Judd, ‘Some Aspects of Color in General and Red and Black in Particular’, Artforum, 32.10 (1994), reprinted in: Serota (ed.), Donald Judd, 152. 30 Judd, ‘Some Aspects of Color in General and Red and Black in Particular’, 158. 169

Materials and Methods of Facture

The use of non-traditional media, industrial materials, and contracting metal workshops to produce works became synonymous with the new art and especially minimalism. These aspects, at least initially, are common points between Judd and Morris. Where the difference is more pronounced is historically, between generations of artists and periods of art making. Both Judd and Morris reasoned the new materials and processes opened to more possibilities than oil paint on canvas or sculpting conventional materials. Much of Judd’s ‘Specific Objects’ emphasises the use of advanced materials in the new art. Traditional materials are seen to carry the nascent qualities of previous art.31 To Judd, the traditional media and materials were limiting – whereas:

The use of three dimensions makes it possible to use all sorts of materials and colors. Most of the work involves new materials, either recent inventions or things not used before in art. Little was done until lately with the wide range of industrial products. Almost nothing has been done with industrial techniques … Materials vary greatly and are simply materials – Formica, aluminium, cold-rolled steel, plexiglass, red and common brass, and so forth. They are specific. Also, they are usually aggressive. There is an objectivity to the obdurate identity of a material.32

Judd asserted the new materials were not art in the traditional sense: ‘Most of the new materials are not as accessible as oil on canvas and are hard to relate to one another. They obviously aren’t art.’33 Industrial materials were stronger and bolder than conventional art materials and stated their actuality within the artwork. Where conventional oil paint and canvas melded together to form an

31 Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, 183: ‘Oil and canvas are familiar and, like the rectangular plane, have a certain quality and have limits. The quality is especially identified with art … Wood and metal are the usual materials, either alone or together, and if together it is without much of a contrast. The middling contrast and the natural monochrome are general and help to unify the parts.’ 32 Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, 187. 33 Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, 187. 170

artistic image, something more than the summation of their material properties, steel and plexiglass declared their identities in the end object. ‘The materials are specific’, Judd declared: ‘If they are used directly, they are more specific’.34 Judd’s blunt and dryly descriptive language invokes more the terminology of industry and manufacturing, than the ‘emotive and literary associations’ of previous art criticism.35 Judd theorised the specific object with a syntax that signified a new order of materials and process. The contracting of specialist metal workshops catering purposely to artists, opened to a range of possibilities not afforded previous generations of artists.36

In ‘Notes on Sculpture Part III’, Morris explores industrial manufacturing processes available to the new artists. Like Judd, Morris expounds the historical division between the new sculpture and the old. He further argues the new work has more to do with industry than art in the conventional sense: ‘Its referential connections are to manufactured objects and not to previous art.’37 Morris continues:

In grasping and using the nature of made things the new three-dimensional art has broken the tedious ring of ‘artiness’ circumscribing each new phase of art since the Renaissance. It is still art. Anything that is used as art must be defined as art. The new work continues the conventions but refuses the heritage of still another art- based order of making things. The intentions are different, the results are different, so is the experience.38

34 Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, 187. 35 Jack Burnham, ‘System Esthetics’, Artforum, 7.1 (September 1968), 32: ‘Even before the emergence of the anti-formalist ‘specific object’ there appeared an oblique type of criticism, resisting emotive and literary associations. Pioneered between 1962 and 1965 in the writings of Donald Judd, it resembles what a computer programmer would call an entity’s ‘list structure’, or all the enumerated properties needed to physically rebuild an object.’ 36 Jonathan D. Lippincott, Large Scale: fabricating sculpture in the 1960s and 1970s (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010), 12-13. 37 Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part III: notes and non sequitors’, Artforum (June 1967), 26. 38 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part III’, 29. 171

As Morris reveals, the new art broke from the ‘tedious’ artisanal nature of art, its handmade aspect. The materials and processes which Morris promotes augur dislocation with artistic tradition and convention. Notions of craftsmanship and authenticity, at the heart of traditional artistic practice, are proven to be dispensable. The hand of the artist is all but lost in the professionally fabricated works of the new art. Yet, not everyone responded enthusiastically to the minimalists’ use of industrial materials and metal workshops to execute their concepts.39 It was a contentious issue that split traditionalists from the new art’s protagonists. A symposium mediated by Barbara Rose coinciding with the ‘Primary Structures’ exhibition, pitted Judd and Morris against Mark di Suvero, a rival from the Park Place group who held to the notion an artwork’s quality derives from the artist’s hand in its making. In pointed exchange directed at Judd, di Suvero flamed:

I think my friend Don Judd can’t qualify as an artist because he doesn’t do the work. And there is more and more of this kind of thing, which to my mind is the negation of the object by making an object. But this is not grappling with the essential fact that a man has to make a thing in order to be an artist.40

Di Suvero’s critique epitomised the general distrust of minimalism from conventionalists. The mediator, Barbara Rose, intervened and framed the issue: ‘Here is the crucial question: whether an abstract aesthetic conception which may be manufactured or fabricated is as much art as the personal manipulation of materials.’41 Comments like those of di Suvero’s fed into Greenberg’s and Fried’s

39 Harold Gregor, ‘Everyman's Infinite Art’, [exh. cat.], Chapman College, Orange, CA, 1966. Gregor, a professor in the art department of Chapman College in Orange, California, parodied the minimalists in his show ‘Everyman’s Infinite Art’, which was held at the College’s Purcell Gallery in December 1966. Gregor’s works included ‘A stack of twenty- four white Styrofoam cups, open end down’ and ‘Ten yard sticks lined end to end’. In the accompanying catalogue for the show he wrote: ‘No skill is required to make the works; anyone can repeat the arrangements’. And: ‘The presentation is practically devoid of content – any interpretation seems appropriate.’ 40 Mark di Suvero, Donald Judd, Kynaston McShine, Robert Morris, Barbara Rose, ‘The New Sculpture’, transcript of a symposium held in conjunction with ‘Primary Structures’, Jewish Museum, New York, 2 May 1966. Barbara Rose Papers, Archives of American Art, Washington D.C. Excerpted here from James Meyer, Minimalism (London: Phaidon Press, 2000), 220-221. 41 Rose, ‘The New Sculpture – Primary Structures Symposium’, 221. 172

labelling of minimalism as non-art or anti-art. This condemnation stemmed from the minimalist’s choice of materials and methods of facture, which trivialised the notion of the hand-made artwork. With his curt answer, Morris sided with Judd and defanged di Suvero’s attack:

I think that’s a ridiculous issue, and I don’t think whether you fabricate it yourself or have somebody fabricate it for you has anything to do with making art. My interest is in having the work as well executed as possible.42

For Judd and Morris, a well-executed artwork outweighed the conditions of its facture. They contracted metal workshops to ensure the precise and detailed execution of their concepts. This effectively removed the artist from the physical production of the object, though it accentuated their role in the conception of it. Debatably, this freeing of the artist from the purely mechanical, motivated the conceptual expanse of minimalism. Conception and theorisation were central to both Judd’s and Morris’s practices. Removed from mechanical process, the concepts behind the respective works of Judd and Morris became increasingly cerebral and realisable only through professional workshops.43 It is for this reason that many of the conceptual artists that followed, point to Judd and Morris as originators.

The materials and industrial processes favoured by Judd and Morris openly correlated with the technologically and industrially advanced society in which they

42 Judd, ‘The New Sculpture – Primary Structures Symposium’, 221. 43 John Perreault, ‘Union-Made: Report on a Phenomenon’, Arts Magazine (March 1967), 29: ‘The materials involved (and the new industrial materials employed by the minimalists represent a great break though for sculpture, freeing it not only from the pedestal, the chisel and the casting procedure, but from the blow-torch as well) are completely subservient to the intent of the composition. The artist is once removed from the actual execution of the work, so that the automatism of the artist’s hand does not interfere with the rationalism of the readymade or manufactured units involved. The composition or anti-composition itself is often mathematically derived, modular, or based on permutations of geometric elements. There is, therefore, an automatism of geometry and necessary efficiency rather than of materials or prerational expression.’ 173

lived.44 This is not necessarily uncommon when one considers how modern art developed in tandem with technological advancements and economic transformations through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Where earlier modernist practices reflected the socio-economic and technical advance of their time, minimalism however, directly referenced it.45 ‘I’m impressed by a lot of things I see in industry’, Morris explained, ‘the more you have things made, the more you go into fabrication, the more feedback you get from the processes and the materials and methods that you see in these factories.’46

More recently, Joshua Shannon has read Judd’s work as synonymous with the postindustrial transformation and postmodernisation of New York City. ‘Donald Judd appropriated the style of New York’s postmodernisation’, suggests Shannon, ‘hyperbolising its look of rectilinear systematicity.’47 Shannon argues that as New York City lost the last of its blue collar industries in the 1950s, becoming more a financial and corporate centre from the mid-1960s, this shift is analogised in Judd’s practice. Shannon finds: ‘Representing itself with a metal box, New York capitalism in this period turned definitively toward administration and away from the manual

44 Karl Beveridge and Ian Burn, ‘Don Judd’, The Fox, 2, 1975, 129-130. Judd points out that the new materials were ‘not as accessible as oil and canvas’. For artists without the standing or geographic convenience of Judd, the new materials and processes he details in ‘Specific Objects’ were completely inaccessible. Karl Beveridge and Ian Burns’ Marxist interrogation of Judd’s ‘Specific Objects’ argues just this: ‘Doesn’t this suggest that the materials (and techniques) you use are “specific” to an advanced industrial society? Inasmuch as we know America is technologically the most advanced nation, wouldn’t that locate “specific” in what are generally held as American ways of doing things?’ 45 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part III’, 26. Morris here explains how the cube or rectangular block, the fundamental forms of minimalism, are standard elements in manufacturing and industry. This highlights the direct correlation between minimalism and the principle of mass-production: ‘The most obvious unit, if not the paradigm, of forming up to this point is the cube or rectangular block. This, together with the right- angle grid as a method of distribution and placement, offers a kind of ‘morpheme’ and ‘syntax’ which are central to the cultural premise of forming. There are many things which have come together to contribute to making rectangular objects and right-angle placement the most useful means of forming. The mechanics of production is one factor: from the manufacture of mud bricks to metallurgical processes involving continuous flow of raw material which gets segmented, stacked, and shipped. The further uses of these ‘pieces’ from continuous forms such as sheets to fabricate finished articles encourage maintenance of rectangularity to eliminate waste.’ 46 Robert Morris interview with David Sylvester (1967), in: David Sylvester, Interviews with American Artists (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 267-8. 47 Joshua Shannon, The Disappearance of Objects: New York and the rise of the postmodern city (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009), 165. 174

manipulation of objects.’48 Judd’s earlier works had all been handmade, with cheaper materials like plywood and galvanised iron, and often incorporated objects found on the street. From the late 1960s, with the new materials and methods of facture accessible to the artist, Judd’s objects become increasingly sleeker and lustrous, brilliant though somewhat standardised. Judd’s rows and stacks of boxes were readily reproducible with variations of colour and materials, the physical work carried out by others.49

Yet, does not Judd’s and Morris’s engagement with highly technical problems concerning materials and manufacturing processes, approach the markers of a formalist sensibility? In ‘Necessity of Formalism’, Greenberg defends the modernist artist with terms such as ‘hard-headed’, ‘sober’, ‘cold’, and ‘crucially a concern in the first place with medium and exploratory technique’.50 Both Judd and Morris experimented intensely with industrial materials and processes or techniques. Judd further shone an intense focus upon colour.51 In reviewing the Judd retrospective at the Whitney Museum of American Art in 1988, Lynne Cooke observed that despite the artist’s protestations against modernist art and formalism, in hindsight Judd’s work is ‘central to the late flowering of formalist modernism.’52

48 Shannon, The Disappearance of Objects, 165. 49 Rosalind Krauss, ‘The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum’, October, 54 (Autumn 1990), 3-17. Krauss teases out the contradiction in minimalism using the production technology of late consumer capitalism and its claims to high art in this essay. 50 Clement Greenberg, ‘Necessity of Formalism’, New Literary History, 3.1, Modernism and Postmodernism: Inquiries, Reflections, and Speculations (Autumn 1971), 172-173. 51 William C. Agee, ‘Unit, Series, Site: A Judd Lexicon’, Art in America, 63, (May – June 1975), 45. In relation to Judd’s series of frame-like boxes dating from 1966, Agee found that Judd’s use of colour was the result of intense experimentation and a workman-like approach: ‘These pieces (with exception of one stainless-steel version) were all surfaced with a baked-on-automobile paint (the ‘Lucite Regal Turquoise’ of Chevrolet’s 1958 Corvette). Judd had gathered literally hundreds of samples of automobile paints before settling on this color – another example of the painstaking testing and experimenting that lie behind any given work of his. This ‘turquoise’… is strong enough to ‘carry’ the pieces over the large areas they span without being excessively opulent or reflective. Such formal necessity underlies all his color choices.’ Does not Agee’s observation on Judd here invoke Greenberg’s description of the cold, hard-headed modernist? 52 ‘Donald Judd’, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, NY, 20 October – 31 December 1988; travelled to Dallas Museum of Art, Dallas, TX, 12 February – 16 April 1989. 175

The enduring consequence of Judd lies in the fatal tension his work creates between the terms formalist and modernist. Like other aspects of his aesthetic, Judd’s exploration of materials and facture is so literal and acute it destabilises their original emphasis in Greenbergian modernism. With Judd’s intensity of form, the artist’s hand as indicator of a creative subject is supplanted by an empirical and automated process. Now: ‘Art could be mass-produced’, as Judd claimed.53

Though for Morris, this increasing emphasis on the object as the result of an industrial process removed from the physical involvement of the artist eventually became problematic.54 ‘In object-type art’, notes Morris, ‘process is not visible.’55 For Morris, the ‘well-built’ object revisited the troubling divide between artistic process and the resultant art object. This problem had vexed Morris’s earlier explorations in painting. With minimalism, the resoluteness and rectilinearity of the well-built object, largely dictated the materials used and how they were structured together.56 The investigation of process, a key aesthetic concern of Morris, weakened with the well-built, especially given its manufacture was not undertaken by the artist.

Morris expressed his increasing disillusion with the well-built object stating: ‘The process of “making itself” has hardly been examined.’57 Beginning in 1967, Morris started producing work with felt and other soft materials [figs.67, 68, & 69]. It is

Lynne Cooke, ‘Sculpture Shows, New York’, The Burlington Magazine, 131.1030 (January 1989), 65. 53 Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, 187. 54 Morris; Cummings [np]: ‘In a constructed work like a box that you make, a chair, or something, there’s a form that’s very prior to the construction of the thing. The ends and means are completely separate. You can see and you can depict it is what you’re doing. It’s not too different than painting in some way. You’re depicting a form that you have in your mind or that you’ve drawn. And I wanted to get away from that.’ 55 Robert Morris, ‘Anti Form’, Artforum (April 1968), 35. 56 Morris, ‘Anti Form’, 35: ‘The most obvious unit, if not the paradigm, of forming up to this point is the cube or rectangular block. This, together with the right angle grid as a method of distribution and placement, offers a kind of ‘morpheme’ and ‘syntax’ which are central to the cultural premise of forming.’ 57 Morris, ‘Anti Form’, 34. 176

clear in these felt works Morris sought to reclaim the role of the artist’s physical presence in the work. The artist’s ripping, hanging, folding, and dropping of the felt was intrinsic to its visual understanding. Conversely, the strict geometry of minimalism largely predetermined the execution and result of its object, Morris found soft materials circumscribed this: ‘It is part of the work’s refusal to continue estheticizing form by dealing with its prescribed end.’58 With these statements Morris signals his break from minimalism.

In his soft-sculptural works, Morris explores the physical interaction of artist and materials, and how this is articulated in the end object. He returns to his earlier investigations of Pollock’s painting.59 ‘Of the Abstract Expressionists’, states Morris, ‘only Pollock was able to recover process and hold on to it as part of the end form of the work.’60 The role of the body in Morris’s minimalist sculpture, in this case that of the viewer, is necessarily external to the object. In Morris’s anti- form and postminimalist works, the referential body of the artist is reasserted in the work. In focusing on the body’s activity in its relation to materials, emphasis is shifted from the resultant object and its perception to encompass process as well.61 Morris’s anti-form works question minimalism’s accent on the fabricated end object through its dissolution.

58 Morris, ‘Anti Form’, 34. 59 Burnham, ‘Robert Morris Retrospective in Detroit’, 71. Burnham notes Morris’s return to Pollock in his review of Morris’s felt works finding: ‘The Detroit show contains a number of felt pieces, some very structured and some not. It is easy to understand why these works are especially popular with museums and collectors. The colors and consistencies of the felt and the thread-waste pieces are incredibly sensuous. In an era of mechanically organised field painting, Morris has managed to evoke a passing memory for Kokoschka, Soutine, and Pollock, a sense of painterliness that none of the other anti-form artists has matched.’ 60 Morris, ‘Anti Form’, 34. 61 Robert Morris, ‘Some Notes on the Phenomenology of Making: The Search for the Motivated’, Artforum, 9 (April 1970), 62: ‘The body’s activity as it engages in manipulating various materials according to different processes has open to it different possibilities for behaviour. What the hand and arm motion can do in relation to flat surfaces is different from what hand, arms, and body movement can do in relation to objects in three dimensions. Such differences of engagement (and their extensions with technological means) amount to different forms of behaviour. In this light, the artificiality of media- based distinctions falls away (painting, sculpture, dance, etc.). There are instead some activities that interact with surfaces, some with objects, some with objects in a temporal dimension, etc. To focus on the production end of art and to lift-up the entire continuum of 177

The works which most illustratively announce Morris’s break from the minimalist object are the artist’s scatter pieces [fig.70]. These works, dating from 1968 and 1969, consisted of various materials strewn out across the room – felt, copper, aluminium, zinc, rubber, nickel, and stainless steel. This listing of industrial materials and their scattering across the gallery space, suggests a breakdown of the manufacturing process that would have turned these elements into a sensible object.62 In his scatter works, Morris theatrically unravels the specific object – its materials and unordered elements spread across the floor. Whereas Judd’s objects revealed the materials of their construction only specifically in their realisation; the process behind their construction was hidden – not only by their seamless factory-made appearance, but by Judd’s theorisation of objects which precluded internalised and subjective readings of them. With his scatter works, Morris resists and confounds the realisation of the materials as a finished object. What is more, the scattering of the materials explicitly points to the role of the creative subject – as someone assuredly had to scatter the pieces. While Morris’s negation of Judd’s specific objects defined his own minimalist sculpture, his scatter works perform the dematerialisation of the minimalist, well-built, and specific object.

the process of making and find in it ‘forms’ may result in anthropological designations rather than art categories.’ 62 Burnham, ‘System Esthetics’, 32: ‘Morris was the first essayist to precisely describe the relation between sculptural style and the progressively more sophisticated use of industry by artists. He has lately focused upon material-forming techniques and the arrangement of these results so that they no longer form specific objects but remain uncomposed. In such handling of materials, the idea of process takes precedence over end results: ‘Disengagement with preconceived enduring forms and orders of things is a positive assertion.’ Such loose assemblies of materials encompass concerns that resemble the cycles of industrial processing. Here the traditional priority of ends results of technique breaks down; in a systems context, both may share equal importance, remaining essential parts of the aesthetic.’ 178

179

CHAPTER SEVEN

The Canon and Critical Afterthoughts

The institutional acceptance of minimalism at the end of the 1960s instigated the discursive rupture of modernist art, criticism, and the canon. Minimalism not only demanded new methodologies and theoretical frameworks of criticism, but it inspired various divergent and fragmentary art practices which broadly shared a rejection of modernism. This rupture of artistic modernism transpired against a backdrop of widespread social unrest and pertinently to this chapter’s investigation – a period of increased artists’ activism and artists’ disillusionment with establishment authority. Judd, and particularly Morris, were visible agitators within the tense atmosphere of post-1968 New York. Paradoxically then, at a time when Judd and Morris were being elevated into the canon of modern art, their personal politics and practices were oppositional to the grand narratives and institutions of modernism. Further, Judd’s and Morris’s minimalist aesthetics were instructive to younger artists whose practices were decidedly against modernism.

This chapter analyses the acceptance of Judd, Morris, and minimalism into the canon through specific exhibitions held at modern art’s central institutions. In these major exhibitions, the works of Judd and Morris were included alongside the key figures of the New York School. In exhibiting Judd and Morris in this context, minimalism was assumed as the successor to Abstract Expressionism. Conjecturally, Judd’s and Morris’s highly-visible minimalist works and theories were germinal to an expanding field of postminimalist, conceptual, process, body, and land art. These practices confounded modernism’s narrative linearity, medium sanctity, and its object’s integrity. In this chapter, these fragmentary practices are considered against the minimalist legacies of Judd and Morris. Notably, however, Morris’s own practices increasingly diverged from minimalism through an expanding matrix of sculptural and performative activities. This makes Morris’s shifting legacy comparatively harder to qualify than Judd’s, whose practice after 180

minimalism was concentrated and direct. The final part of this chapter maps out the mediation of art and politics in Judd’s and Morris’s work. The late 1960s is marked as a period of intense social discord, with protests, strikes, riots, and a politically energised New York art world. Judd and Morris were leading figures in this fractious and often politically contradictory art world. This chapter examines the political aspects in their corresponding practices within this era of protest.

Cannon and Contest

The inclusion of minimalism in the canon of modern art was galvanised through two major exhibitions held aptly at the Museum of Modern Art and the Metropolitan Museum of Art: ‘The Art of the Real: USA 1948–1968’ curated by E.C. Goossen at MoMA in 1968, and ‘New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940–1970’ held at the Met and curated by Henry Geldzahler in 1969.1 If the ‘Primary Structures’ exhibition at the Jewish Museum in 1966 announced minimalism, then these two shows at the end of the decade confirmed minimalism as a modern art movement. Similarly, Judd’s and Morris’s first major retrospectives at the end of the decade – Judd at the Whitney Museum of American Art, 1968, and Morris at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, 1969 – closed off the artists’ principal minimalist periods. What is seen in Goossen’s and Geldzahler’s curating of these shows, with minimalism positioned contiguous to Abstract Expressionism, is the fracture of Greenberg’s modernist-formalist nexus. This institutional embrace of minimalism ran counter to the dictates of Greenberg’s modernist paradigm. In displaying the works of Judd, Morris, and other minimalists alongside works of Pollock, Newman, Rothko, and Still, ideas emerging from Abstract Expressionism are corresponded with concepts seen in minimalism. These resonances occurring across late modern New York painting and sculpture, between seemingly disparate artworks and artists, did not stem from formalist interpretation.

1 ‘The Art of the Real: USA 1948-1968’ featured works by Judd, Morris, Smithson, LeWitt, Andre, and Smithson. ‘New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940–1970’ contained works by Judd, Morris, and Flavin. 181

Judd’s works in ‘Art of the Real: USA 1948-1968’, included a vertical stack of eight iron boxes from 1965 and a painted wood wall relief with curved iron top and bottom, which had appeared at the Green Gallery in 1963. Morris included an aluminium I-beam, c.1967-1968 and a low-set grey slab from 1962 [fig.71]. Goossen’s curatorial rationale for the show held that many American artists over the considered timespan engaged the ‘stubbornly literal idea of the real’.2 For Goossen, these select artists created works which dissolved experiential distinctions between art and reality. The ‘real’ in Judd’s and Morris’s minimalist works, which has been illustrated in previous chapters of this thesis, is found here in their explicit materiality and their singleness as objects. Goossen below expresses this premise behind the exhibition:

The ‘real’ of today as it is posited by this new art has nothing to do with metaphor, symbolism, or any kind of metaphysics … Today’s ‘real’ on the contrary, makes no direct appeal to the emotions, nor is it involved in uplift. Indeed, it seems to have no desire at all to justify itself, but instead offers itself for whatever its uniqueness is worth – in the form of the simple, irreducible, irrefutable object.3

Critically, Goossen identifies this turn to the real initiating with Abstract Expressionism. Goossen asserts that in the mature work of Pollock, Newman, Rothko, and Still, there emerges the desire to ‘find one’s real self on the canvas through personal imagery and format.’4 These painters created works so singular that their existed no representational tangent to the world outside that of the painting. They rejected illusionistic space, Euclidean geometry, reference to organic form, indeed any nascent qualities of realism, which as Goossen explains is the ‘illusion of the fact rather than the fact itself.’5 Instead, the ambition of the primary painters of the New York School was ‘to make something so original that

2 E.C. Goossen, The Art of the Real: USA 1948-1968, [exh. cat.], (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1968), 7. 3 E. C. Goossen, The Art of the Real, 7. 4 E. C. Goossen, The Art of the Real, 7. 5 E. C. Goossen, The Art of the Real, 7. 182

its reality could not be challenged.’6 This ambition was continued in the works of Judd and Morris.

Within context of this exhibition, Goossen’s estimation of Judd and Morris cogently positions minimalism as the logical succession to the advanced painting of Pollock, Newman, Rothko, and Still. ‘The Art of the Real: USA 1948-1968’ called re- evaluation upon late modernist art history by proposing minimalism's succession of Abstract Expressionism. Pointedly, Goossen’s correspondence of minimalism with Abstract Expressionism intones a common literalist sensibility across the two generations of New York painting and sculpture. This emphasis on the real points to a new critical understanding of art and its context. It is an understanding that eschews formalist criticism as it exceeds the pure analytical testing of mediums. The new art spoke to a broader, deeper disconnect with previous models of knowledge and meaning. Minimalism made this disconnect explicit. And, within this heightening critical foment, modernist criticism waned.

With an ascendant New York School, modern art theorists assumed a privileged position. The highly abstracted and individualist nature of Abstract Expressionism was necessarily explained through the teleology of modernist painting. That is, interpreting Abstract Expressionism obliged the privileged language of modernist criticism so to explain it both as the outcome and acme of modern art. Individualism was valorised, with the centrality of the subject – artist and critic – extending from an earlier modern, anthropocentric view of the world. Minimalism confounded the critical readings that extended from Abstract Expressionism by stating a self-contained object, supressing claims to the subjective, and collapsing distinction between art and life or reality. Hal Foster here explains the effect of minimalism’s negation of the two dominant critical models of Abstract Expressionism:

6 E. C. Goossen, The Art of the Real, 7. 183

Minimalism … contradicts the two dominant models of the abstract expressionist, the artist as existential creator (advanced by Harold Rosenberg) and the artist as formal critic (advanced by Greenberg). In so doing it also challenges the two central positions in modern aesthetics that these two models of the artist represent, the first expressionist, the second formalist.7

Not only did minimalism reveal these two critical models – expressionist and formalist – limited in light of its irreducible object, it demanded re-evaluation of these models in relation to Abstract Expressionism as well. In earlier chapters of this thesis, consideration of Morris’s engagement with Pollock and Abstract Expressionism focused on the body and its movement – the real process of painting. Judd’s interrogation of Abstract Expressionism was directed upon the formal physicality of the object-painting – what was real and evident in the end work. In ‘The Art of The Real’, Goossen situates minimalism as the successor to Abstract Expressionism according to a shared literalist sensibility. This positioning undermines both the expressionist and formalist critical models which had previously prevailed in American art. As it is, minimalism precludes modernist interpretation and renders it weak in the context of Abstract Expressionism by inspiring new critical insights that align the two movements. Whereas previous criticism had discussed Abstract Expressionism and minimalism as high- modernism and non-art respectively, the new criticism perceived a continuum.

Geldzahler’s rationale for ‘New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970’ speaks to this new inclusivity and vexes the Greenbergian discriminations between high-art and non-art. Geldzahler selected works for the show to illustrate ‘not a general inventory’, but instead an ‘evaluation’ of the key problems and their resolutions played out in the run of New York art over the previous three decades.8 The artists represented in the show, as termed by Geldzahler, were ‘deflectors’.9 These

7 Hal Foster, ‘The Crux of Minimalism’, in: Return of the Real (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 1996), 40. 8 Henry Geldzahler, ‘New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970’, in: New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970 (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1969), 25. 9 Geldzahler, ‘New York Painting and Sculpture’, 23. 184

selected artists resolved problems posed by the work of earlier artists in ways which deflected recent New York art from a more linear course.10 Within this high- profile show, alongside the acclaimed painters of the New York School, were Pop and minimalist artists nominally excluded from the Greenbergian cannon.

Geldzahler reasoned that by the time of the mid-1950s, younger artists were forced to branch from conventional painting to respond to the problems of Abstract Expressionism. For Geldzahler, Rauschenberg was decisive in this regard:

After two decades of tremendous energy and inventiveness in abstract painting, the reintroduction of recognizable content (objects, landscape, and figure) appeared at first retardataire and beside the point. The best and most mature artists at the time had created personal and distinct abstract manners and images. These men left little room for the younger artist … Robert Rauschenberg pointed a way out of this dilemma by the mid-fifties by incorporating real objects in his work.11

Within the exhibition’s narrative, Rauschenberg and then Johns, connect Abstract Expressionist painting to Pop Art. As has been argued elsewhere in this thesis, other elements from Rauschenberg’s aesthetic explorations open to minimalism. The other strain of painting emerging from the late 1950s, Post-Painterly Abstraction as phrased by Greenberg, was featured in the show through the work of Kenneth Noland, Jules Olitski, and Ellsworth Kelly. Greenberg omits Stella from this grouping, though Fried championed Stella as vital to painting post-Abstract Expressionism.12 Geldzahler positioned Stella extending from Post-Painterly

10 Geldzahler, ‘New York Painting and Sculpture’, 24: ‘The innovative artist in his grasp of a new possibility inevitably alters the problem and therefore deflects the tradition through his solution. The current exhibition was conceived as an accumulation of thirty years of solutions to constantly changing set of problems – problems and solutions that make up a vital tradition.’ 11 Geldzahler, ‘New York Painting and Sculpture’, 36. 12 See Fried’s exhibition and accompanying essay: ‘Three American Painters: Kenneth Noland, Jules Olitski, and Frank Stella’, Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, Mass., 21 April – 30 May 1965. 185

Abstraction into minimalism, suggesting that Stella sought to eliminate ‘the roughness of surface and eccentric evidences of personality’ that was associated with expressionist-type painting.13 Geldzahler likened Stella to the minimalist sculptors with their tendency towards ‘anonymity of craftsmanship, a clear projection of simple formal relationships, and a suppression of signature.’14

Judd, Morris, and Flavin represented minimalism in ‘New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940–1970’. Geldzahler only considered artists ‘whose distinctive styles emerged and were viewed before 1965’. In making his selection for new and contemporary artists in the show, Geldzahler looked to the city’s network of private galleries and public museums. In his accompanying essay, Geldzahler points to the importance of the Green Gallery which first revealed the three minimalists to the New York artworld. While Geldzahler selected artists, who came to critical attention before 1965, the selection of artworks produced by these artists extended to 1969. As such, both Judd and Morris exhibited works from both their early and principle minimalist periods and Morris exhibited one of his first felt works, an untitled piece from 1968. Judd and Morris each included four works in the show. Morris’s works also included a painted plywood triangle from his seminal Green Gallery show in 1964, a steel mesh, low-rising cubic form dating 1966, and a set of nine translucent fibreglass blocks rising chest height from 1968. Judd’s works included a low-set perforated steel wedge from 1965 and a wall- bound row of stainless steel cubes with Plexiglass ends of 1969. A darkened gallery room held Flavin’s light sculptures.

Geldzahler held Pop and minimalism as the two contemporary instances from New York art. In distinguishing the two movements, beyond the obvious visual and thematic differences, Geldzahler reasoned: ‘Minimal Sculpture is the most recent movement in American art with a coherent body of work and a sizeable critical literature.’15 While on the other hand, Pop Art ‘was an episode, an interesting one

13 Geldzahler, ‘New York Painting and Sculpture’, 37-8. Geldzahler also includes Burgoyne Filler and Ad Reinhardt in this discussion. 14 Geldzahler, ‘New York Painting and Sculpture’, 38. 15 Geldzahler, ‘New York Painting and Sculpture’, 38. 186

that has left its mark on the decade, and will continue to affect the future, but not a major modern movement which continues to spawn new artists.’16 In contrasting minimalism and Pop, Geldzahler points to two distinguishing factors: minimalism’s body of critical literature and its conceptual legacy to engage a next generation of practitioners. To Geldzahler’s first point, the literature that grew from minimalism, especially the critical writings of Judd and Morris, evinced the new centrality afforded to artists’ writings and the highly contestable discourse of minimalism.17 Anticipating the fatal effect of minimalism upon traditional criticism, Harold Rosenberg complained: ‘The ideal situation from the point of view of the new critics would be for works of art to vanish completely and nothing to be left but the critical interpretation.’18

For Judd and Morris, writing was crucial and contingent alongside the making of objects. Arguably, this was a necessary strategy given the content-less aspect of minimalism and the subsequent charges of non-art against it.19 While dissimilarity has herein been argued between Judd’s and Morris’s practices, minimalism as proscribed cumulatively to them, comprised an undeniable body of theory. While often divergent, this vital body of theory was ultimately successful in the contest of art history played out in the 1960s. This goes to Geldzahler’s second point. The success of minimalism’s theory enabled a next generation of practitioners engaged in conceptualism, land art, process art, and other fragmentary practices stemming from minimalism’s interrogation of modernist art. These subsequent practices

16 Geldzahler, ‘New York Painting and Sculpture’, 37. 17 At the time of Geldzahler’s exhibition statement, Gregory Battcock’s anthology of writings on minimalism had just been published. This collection of writings gave minimalism its critical rationale and because of the breadth and immediacy of the writings, helped centralise text within minimalist practice. Undoubtedly Battcock’s anthology encompassed critical voices indisposed to the validation of minimalist art – Greenberg, Fried, and Rosenberg for obvious instance. What it did do is present minimalist as a disputatious, though essentially cogent, discourse. 18 Harold Rosenberg, ‘Virtuosos of Boredom’ (1966), in: Rosenberg, Discovering the Present: Three Decades in Art, Culture, & Politics (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973), 121. 19 James Meyer, Minimalism: art and polemics in the sixties (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 249. ‘Responding to the charge of the not-art-enough, Judd and Morris had supplied an extraordinary polemical support for their apparently content-less work: the blunt simplicity of their forms required copious justification. The triumph of the minimal movement in 1968 was a powerful testament to the success of their argumentation.’ 187

rejected aesthetic conventions, were decidedly unconcerned with the testing of medium distinctions, and took for their driving concerns the questioning of broader cultural values. The acceptance of minimalism into the canon proved fatal to artistic modernism as it legitimised practices which rejected its definitions of art, theory, and practice.

The figure of Judd loomed large for the younger artists working in the conceptual aftermath of minimalism. Just as Judd and his contemporaries had to confront the figure of Pollock, younger artists had to engage Judd. Mel Bochner later reflected upon Judd, ‘you either had to go over, under, around, or through him.’20 Vito Acconci described minimalism as the ‘father art’.21 While Joseph Kosuth went as far to state: ‘Pollock and Judd are, I feel, the beginning and end of American dominance in art’22 Judd’s work was selected to represent the United States in the VIII São Paulo Biennale of 1965 alongside Newman and Stella. Judd was the recipient of several grants and fellowships during the 1960s, including from the John Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Swedish Institute. As mentioned, in 1968 The Whitney Museum of American Art held the first retrospective of Judd’s work. Judd’s second major show was in 1970 at the Van Abbemuseum in Eindhoven, The Netherlands and it the first showing of one of the key minimalist protagonists in Europe. Asserting his status within the New York art world, Judd purchased a five-story building at 101 Spring Street in 1968 to serve as his studio and residence. In this first building that Judd purchased, he developed his notion of permanent display. Judd believed that the placement and the context in which an artwork was displayed became critical to its very understanding. Alongside works of his own in Spring Street, Judd installed works by Stella, Flavin, Claes Oldenburg, John Chamberlain, Ad Reinhardt, and

20 Mel Bochner, ‘Judd’s Writings’, Artforum (2005); reprinted in: Bochner, Solar System & Rest Rooms: Writings and Interviews, 1965-2007 (Cambridge and London: October and The MIT Press, 2008), 198. 21 Alexander Keller & Frazer Ward, ‘Matthew Barney and the Paradox of the Neo-Avant- Grade Blockbuster’, Cinema Journal, 45.2 (Winter 2006), 5. 22 Joseph Kosuth, ‘Art after Philosophy’, in: Art after Philosophy: collected writing, 1966- 1990, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991), 29. 188

Larry Bell.23 Judd pursued and realised his conception of art and permanence in his installations in Marfa, Texas from the mid-1970s.

Judd was the central voice of the new art. His extensive body of critical writings argued parallels between earlier Abstract Expressionist painting with the diversity of contemporary practices that sprung forth in the 1960s. Instead of disjuncture between the earlier New York School and contemporary works, Judd argued a continuum based on a shared language of non-compositionality, wholeness, the rejection of realism and illusionism, and the singularity of the art object. ‘The Art of the Real: USA 1948–1968’ and ‘New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940–1970’ affirmed the theoretical perspective argued by Judd. Yet somewhat problematically for curators and critics seeking to historically situate Judd, Judd argued throughout that the new art he championed was not contingent upon the notion of schools and movements that had typified conventional modernism.24 In ‘Specific Objects’ Judd explicitly rejects the progression of movements which define modernist art:

The new three-dimensional work doesn’t constitute a movement, school or style. The common aspects are too general and too little in common to define a movement. The differences are greater than the similarities. The similarities are selected from the work; they aren’t a movement’s first principles or delimiting

23 Judd often viewed his work resonating more with the sculptural practices of Claes Oldenburg, John Chamberlin, and Lee Bontecou, than other minimalist artists. For a detailed elaboration of Judd’s critical resonance with Bontecou, Oldenburg, and Chamberlain see: David Raskin, Donald Judd, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010), particularly the second chapter, ‘Credible Art’. 24 Donald Judd, ‘Complaints: part I’, Studio International (April 1969), in: Complete Writings 1959-1975, 198: ‘Originally I agreed to write this to keep Studio International from calling me a minimalist. Very few artists receive attention without publicity as a new group. It’s another case of the simplicity of criticism and of the public. It seems as if magazines are unwilling to give a new artist space by himself … One person’s work isn’t considered sufficiently important historically to be discussed alone. But most of the so- called movements are only one person or maybe two remotely related. That’s obvious by the work, by the initial development, by the fact that in two or three years the followers follow elsewhere.’ 189

rules. Three-dimensionality is not as near being simply a container as painting and sculpture have seemed to be, but it tends to that.25

While Judd’s aversion to being labelled minimalist has been elaborated upon in earlier chapters of this thesis, here it is necessary to examine how Judd is situated in the wider context of artistic modernism. Seen above, Judd closes off the traditions of modernist painting and sculpture. He then announces a new three- dimensional domain of objects that is neither painting or sculpture: ‘The use of three dimensions is an obvious alternative. It opens to anything’.26 Greenberg acknowledges this new three-dimensional field, but makes clear it is ‘where every material that was not art also was’.27 Thierry de Duve has more recently examined the competing dialectic between Judd’s and Greenberg’s validations for the new and modernist art respectively. With Judd’s new category of art removed from the aesthetic traditions of painting and sculpture, the judgments of quality pertaining to those traditions are rendered obsolete. Here, de Duve elaborates on this consequential shift away from aesthetic judgements set upon traditional criteria:

The formalist judgment that would call them art (as art) is lost in a limbo where confrontation with the constraints of a specific tradition can be avoided and where no aesthetic experience of significance can be had. The experience of such objects is merely phenomenal, says Greenberg, and Judd agrees. What we have is generic art with only logical, not aesthetic, ties to history.28

De Duve reasons that Judd’s new objects are more generic than they are specific, precisely because they are not bound to the specific and historical conditions of painting or sculpture. Nonetheless, in Judd’s rationale for the new art, the three-

25 Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, Arts Yearbook 8 (1965), reprinted in: Judd, Complete Writings 1959-1975, 181. 26 Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, 181. 27 Clement Greenberg, ‘Recentness of Sculpture’ (1967), American Sculpture of the Sixties [exh. cat.], Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1967; reprinted in: Gregory Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 182. 28 Thierry de Duve, ‘The Monochrome and the Blank Canvas’, in: de Duve, Kant after Duchamp (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 1996), 231-232. 190

dimensional objects he champions are the logical outcome of the crisis visited upon the two-dimensional medium of painting by Pollock, Rothko, Still, and Newman. Yet, in creating a new category of art that is neither painting or sculpture, can Judd’s specific objects be assessed as the aesthetic outcome to these traditions? From a modernist critical perspective, they cannot, nor can they aspire to the aesthetic quality of these traditions. Judd, however, disputes this position, posing: ‘A work only needs to be interesting.’29 This notion of interest then sets up a beguiling contradistinction to Greenberg’s formalist evaluation of quality.30 And this, as elaborated upon by Hal Foster below, creates an expansive sphere of critical practice and enquiry:

Whereas quality is judged by reference to the standards not only of the old masters but of the great moderns, interest is provoked through the testing of aesthetic categories and the transgressing of set forms. In short, quality is a criterion of normative criticism, an encomium bestowed upon aesthetic refinement; interest is an avant-gardist term, often measured in terms of epistemological disruption. It too can become normative, but it can also licence critical inquiry and aesthetic play.31

It is questionable whether the conceptual, postminimalist, process, earthwork, and performative practices which emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s after ‘Specific Objects’ was what Judd had in mind in his essay. Just as Judd subverted Greenberg’s ‘Modernist Painting’ by reading it so literally as to push two- dimensional painting into three dimensions, Judd’s ‘Specific Objects’ became a

29 Judd, ‘Specific Objects’, 184. 30 Michael Fried, ‘Art and Objecthood’, Artforum (June 1967); reprinted in: Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 142. Fried picking up on this distinction argues: ‘For Judd, as for literalist sensibility generally, all that matters is whether or not a given work is able to elicit and sustain (his) interest. Whereas within the modernist arts nothing short of conviction – specifically, the conviction that a particular painting or sculpture or poem or piece of music can or cannot support comparison with past work within that art whose quality is not in doubt – matters at all.’ Judd responded to Fried’s argument: “I was especially irked by Fried’s ignorant misinterpretation of my use of the word “interesting”. I obviously use it in a particular way but Fried reduces it to the cliché “merely interesting”. See: Judd, ‘Complaints: Part I’, in: Complete Writings 1959-1975, 198. 31 Foster, ‘The Crux of Minimalism’, 45-46. 191

rallying call for subsequent and younger practitioners to challenge the art object itself. If Judd terminally deflected the traditions of modernist painting and sculpture by his turn to the specific object, then what was open to the artists that succeeded him? By confounding modernist definitions of painting and sculpture, Judd and more broadly minimalism, gave validation to a range of divergent practices that threatened the integrity of the object.

Rupture and Conceptual Fragments

Younger artists like Bochner, Kosuth, Acconci, Richard Serra and Bruce Nauman responded to the conceptual and formal aspects of minimalism, though rejected its emphasis on the articulated object. These aspects included: the use of repetition in text-based or video art works, body as object and body and object relationships in performance art, systemic thinking and grid structures in drawn conceptual and object-based works – or the rejection of these in soft-material sculpture, the play on perception and phenomenon in environmental and installation works, and emphasising temporality and the artist’s corporeality in process art. In the new field forged by these divergent practices, ideas and concepts were often prefaced over the material presence of a work. This tendency was phrased by Lucy Lippard as the ‘dematerialisation of the art object’.32 Across a period beginning in 1968 and through to the mid-1970s, younger artists challenged the visual formats and definitions of art. Kosuth questioned whether art need be physically manifest at all.33 A conceptual work could and did take any form or format. It is here that sculpture enters the expanded field, as outlined by Rosalind Krauss, where ‘the organisation of work … is not dictated by the conditions of a particular medium’ and as such, the artist can occupy different places within: sculptor, photographer, performer, and so on.34

32 Lucy Lippard, Six Years: the dematerialisation of the art object from 1966 to 1972 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973/1997). 33 Kosuth, ‘Art after Philosophy’, 37. 34 Rosalind Krauss, ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, October, 8 (Spring 1979), 38. 192

It is debatable whether Judd found these conceptual works interesting any more than Greenberg deemed them to be of quality.35 Here again, Judd merges with Greenberg: ‘One thing is I want to be able to see what I’ve done’, Judd made clear in his discussion with Glaser, ‘art is something you look at.’36 To this end both Judd and Greenberg are concerned with an articulated and autonomous art object. The dematerialisation of the object voids the endeavour of art that is premised upon a quantifiable, tangible, and commodifiable work of an artist. Greenberg’s objection here reaffirms the nihilist threat conceptualism presents to the institution of art:

Let’s take conceptual art. I’m not going to show you a work of art, I am going to give you a dictionary definition, blow it up, Photostat it – that’s what Kosuth does – and put it on the wall, or put some loose-leaf notebooks on the table for you to go through. There’s one idea operating there, it’s that we’re going to go so far out, we’re going to show you that art doesn’t have to be seen. It’s idea that way, not ideas but idea.37

Greenberg above is referring to Kosuth’s First Investigations (Art as Idea as Idea) from 1966-68, in which the artist deployed a series of Photostats of dictionary definitions. Kosuth’s use of language as his medium and his conceptual provocation was part of a strategy to unravel the commodified and precious art object. With Judd, who in practice and theory had foremost stressed the primacy and integrity of the object, the object’s negation in conceptual practices seems anathema. Ursula Meyer points out the challenge of the specific object by younger artists inadvertently undermined Judd’s program: ‘All of a sudden prominent Minimalists have become conservatives; entrepreneurs of the new establishment, but establishment nonetheless.’38 Certainly, at this time Judd is questionably

35 Clement Greenberg; Thierry de Duve, ‘Debate with Clement Greenberg’, in: de Duve, Clement Greenberg Between the lines: including a debate with Clement Greenberg, [trans. Brian Holmes], (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 134. 36 Judd; Glaser, ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, in: Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 164. 37 Greenberg; de Duve, ‘Debate with Clement Greenberg’, 134. 38 Ursula Meyer, ‘De-Objectification of the Object’, Arts Magazine (Summer 1969), 21 193

aligned with the establishment given his prominence, critical importance, and high visibility within the collections and exhibitions of the central institutions of modern art. Judd’s objects were the shiny example of the commodifiable art object; stacks and rows of boxes repeated, replicated, modified, shipped, and installed in galleries, museums, and private collections worldwide. Noting this, Meyer continues: ‘The art of the object is a merchandisable commodity. An artist like Judd refers to his time-consuming managerial tasks. The objectless artists are not burdened with such problems.’39

Ursula Meyer’s observation above points to a final division between Judd and Morris. Judd remained dedicated to the object, constantly refining, revising, and reissuing his vertical stacks and horizontal rows, ceaselessly experimenting with combinations of colours and materials within well-defined parameters and to precise outcomes. Judd’s work as an artist evolved to be highly managerial, efficient, and profitable. And as an artist, Judd was nominally removed from the labour and production of the object itself. Morris’s practice became more concerned with process, often as performance, and the theatrical manipulation of unconventional materials in attack of the art object. Morris explained these dematerialising practices in his final ‘Notes on Sculpture’ essay, ‘Beyond Objects’, claiming: ‘Certain art is now using as its beginning and as its means, stuff, substances in many states – from chunks, to particles, to slime, to whatever – and pre-thought images are neither necessary nor possible. Alongside this approach is chance, contingency, indeterminacy – in short, the entire area of process.’40

Morris’s ‘Notes on Sculpture’ essays firstly establish his notion of the minimalist, sculptural object – largely in contradistinction to Judd’s specific object – before unravelling this through his turn to soft, unconventional materials and the physical manipulation of them.41 In Morris’s retrospective held at the Corcoran Gallery of

39 Meyer, ‘De-Objectification of the Object’, 21. 40 Robert Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part IV – Beyond Objects’, Artforum (April 1969), 54. 41 Morris, ‘Notes on Sculpture, part IV – Beyond Objects’, 53: ‘It is only with this type of recent work that heterogeneity of material has become a possibility again; now any substances or mixtures of substances and the forms or states these might take – rods, 194

Art in Washington, 1969, which then travelled to the Detroit Institute of Art, Morris’s interrogative trajectory through objects was on display. The retrospective showcased Morris’s earliest and intimate neo-Dadaist objects, his large scale and impersonal minimalist forms, to then arrive at his postminimalist soft sculpture works. Writing of the show, Jack Burnham presented a poststructuralist perspective of Morris’s work viewing his different practices as critical interventions into the meta-structure of art itself. For Burnham, Morris’s work consisted of different bracketed sub-sets of artistic enquiries. These differing sub- sets were quantified as ‘environmental systems, fabricated objects, piles of materials, paintings, sculptures, file cards, motion pictures, or any other entity.’42 From this, Burnham concluded: ‘Perception of art’s structure, as Levi-Strauss implies, dissipates art’s societal function. Once the limits of a category are understood, or bracketed, then all further activity is residual, merely existing for collectors and museum directors.’43

As Morris’s enquiries moved further into the field beyond objects his work significantly eschewed collectability and museum display. For the Detroit show, Morris created a large outdoor installation comprised of discarded timbers, concrete, and scrap metal that he had transposed on the museum’s lawn from a nearby demolished overpass. The work was monumental and ungainly, and required labourers to unload the materials on the museum grounds and remove them at the end of Morris’s show.44 In this large theatrical work, Morris states resistance to institutionalisation and commodification. Morris was now increasingly perceiving his own artistic activities as critical interrogations into the convention of art making as it is understood and equated with the production of

particles, dust, pulpy, wet, dry, etc., are potentially useable. Previously, it was one or two materials and a single or repetitive form to contain them. Any more and the work began to engage in part to part and part to whole relationships. Even so, Minimal art, with two or three substances, gets caught in plays of relationships between transparencies and solids, voids and shadows and the parts separate and the work ends in a kind of demure and unadmitted composition.’ 42 Jack Burnham, ‘Robert Morris Retrospective in Detroit’, Artforum, 8.7 (March 1970), 75 43 Burnham, ‘Robert Morris Retrospective in Detroit’, 75. 44 See: Burnham, ‘Robert Morris Retrospective in Detroit’. Julia Bryan-Wilson, Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 108-9. 195

objects. With anti-form materials, Morris returned his investigative focus onto process, yet here, unlike his earlier explorations, process itself became the requisite and valuable activity. ‘There are instead some activities that interact with surfaces, some with objects, some with objects in a temporal dimension, etc.,’ Morris claimed, furthering: ‘To focus on the production end of art and to lift up the entire continuum of the process of making and find in it ‘forms’ may result in anthropological designations rather than art categories.’45 A show organised by Morris in 1968 at the Castelli Warehouse featured works that existed as signs of a prior physical activity rather than a predetermined, articulated form or object. Morris did not feature his own work in the show, titled ‘9 at Leo Castelli’, but chose works by Joseph Beuys, Eva Hesse, Bruce Nauman, and Richard Serra amongst others. In his review of the Morris-curated show, Max Kozloff complained:

After all, we are not accustomed to stepping on sculpture, or avoid stepping on sculpture which appears to be some kind of leaving. Nor do we expect it to seem merely a sullying and spotting of the surfaces which enclose us. And this is not to speak of the amorphousness of the substances that for the most part are scattered or dropped about, and that betray little preconceived notion of orthodox form or even pattern … surely it is its attack on the status of the object which provides the show with its major premise and rationale.46

Kozloff’s observation above expresses the anxiety provoked by the dematerialisation of the art object. The works in ‘9 at Leo Castelli’ presented more as evidence of a performance or remnants of a sculptural activity, rather than sculptural forms or objects. The works could not be touched or moved without irreparably damaging or reconstituting them in some way. ‘The life and salience they have as objects’, Kozloff lamented, ‘is, therefore, a pathetic transience.’47 The work of Richard Serra speaks to the transience between the object and its constituent materials qua process. Serra included one of his series of Splash (1968-

45 Morris, ‘Some Notes on the Phenomenology of Making: The Search for the Motivated’, 62. 46 Max Kozloff, ‘9 in a warehouse’, Artforum (February 1969), 38. 47 Max Kozloff, ‘9 in a warehouse’, 38. 196

70) works in the show at the Castelli Warehouse. These works involve Serra flinging molten lead against wall and floor surfaces with the subsequent hardened lead then availed as the object to viewers. For Serra, the conceptual emphasis in these works is on the act of splashing in a performative interrogation of process. Serra’s Verblist (1967-68), a series of actions set out on paper, instructs the artist’s manipulations of materials and environments in his postminimalist practice of the late 1960s. The list contains such actions as ‘to roll’, ‘to fold’, ‘to scatter’, ‘to disarrange’, ‘to spill’, and ‘to splash’. Verblist resonates with conceptual art in the use of language to concretise artistic thinking and process, and it further tangents with the dance explorations of Rainer and Forti in their use of literal, task-based movements as source for performance. As such, Serra’s practice critically intersects with performance, conceptualism, and sculpture.

In the Morris-curated show at the Castelli Warehouse, Serra also displayed one of his Prop pieces. In these works, Serra balances lead plates and pipes upon each other. The precarious positioning of the heavy lead forms excites an immediate visual tension, but operating on a conceptual level Serra’s prop pieces disarticulate the minimalist object and re-impose the hand of the artist. The indexical interaction of the artist upon the lead pieces impressed upon Acconci, who noted: ‘because, obviously, if something is propped, someone propped it.’48 Serra’s One- Ton Prop – House of Cards (1969) is the most distinguished of Serra’s prop works. It consists of four 250kg lead plates propped against each other in the semblance of a cube. With no physical means of interlocking the plates, gravity simultaneously works to sustain and collapse the structure. For Krauss, Serra’s One-Ton Prop presents the postminimalist cube as an unresolvable and inherently temporal proposition: ‘Serra creates an image of the sculpture as something that is constantly having to renew its structural integrity by keeping its balance.’ Krauss continues: ‘In place of the cube as an ‘idea’ – determined a priori – he substitutes

48 Keller & Ward, ‘Matthew Barney and the Paradox of the Neo-Avant-Grade Blockbuster’, 5. Attributed to an unpublished interview with the artist at Acconci's studio, Brooklyn, New York, April 1997. 197

the cube as an existent – creating itself in time, totally dependent upon the facts of its surface in tension.’49

The works that Morris presented at ‘9 at Leo Castelli’ were a dissolve of minimalism and signalled the unravelling of the art object. Taking the examples of Serra above, these works were theatrical, ephemeral, and held the object circumstantial to process. Process and the performance of it were stated foremost. The striking conflict here between Morris’s and Judd’s diverging programs can be seen in a comparison with Judd’s show at the Castelli Warehouse in 1970. The show featured a re-visitation of Judd’s stacks and rows in new materials, colours, and in different augmentations [fig.72]. Reviewing the show, Robert Pincus-Witten offered these reissues were refinements – ‘a kind of self-testing’, he wrote, ‘in the same way that a Brancusi polished brass is more refined than the same subject carved in wood or stone.’50 This refinement in Judd’s mature work likens him to the eminent modernists before him, illuminating new complexities and more gradated resolutions to formal problems in their work. In this context and in its contrast to Morris’s postminimalism, Judd’s work is held in defence of the art object and paradoxically, artistic modernism.51 While Judd’s aesthetic program hastened the rupture of modernist art, his work stressed the primacy of the art object and mainly dealt with art’s formal concerns. Artists operating beyond this

49 Rosalind Krauss, Passages in Modern Sculpture (London: Thames & Hudson, 1977), 269- 70. See also: Kenneth Baker, Minimalism: art of circumstance (New York: Abbeville Press, 1988), 123. Baker makes a similar observation to Acconci and Krauss in relation to Serra’s work. He writes: ‘Serra’s sculpture is pivotal because it brings into focus the ‘human’ content of minimalism … In the way that it deflects our attention back upon ourselves, the inertia of minimal sculpture orients us to one of the great human mysteries: our ability to originate our own actions.’ 50 Robert Pincus-Witten, ‘Fining it Down: Don Judd at Castelli’, Artforum (June 1970), 47. 51 Robert Pincus-Witten, ‘Fining it Down: Don Judd at Castelli’, Artforum (June 1970), 47 & 49: ‘They [Judd and Andre] saw the period’s hardest problem most clearly – how to deal with, in fact, how to protect, the solidity, the tangibility of the ‘recognisable’ formal vocabulary of Cubism and Constructivism while reforming and renewing the spectator’s sense of relationship to this legacy… What Judd, and Andre too, block with their intransigent barricades, is the notion of that dreary Rauschenberg-Cage kid stuff should pass for high art. I think that ultimately Judd and Andre are going to fail in this ambition – if it is their ambition – but in their failure, should it come to this, they will have created the most important work of the late ‘60s.’ 198

point of rupture, as Krauss below explains, largely rejected the object and the theoretic apparatus which sustained modernist art:

It seems fairly clear that this permission (or pressure) to think the expanded field was felt by a number of artists at about the same time, roughly between the years 1968 and 1970. For, one after another Robert Morris, Robert Smithson, Michael Heizer, Richard Serra, Walter De Maria, Robert Irwin, Sol LeWitt, Bruce Nauman … had entered a situation the logical conditions of which can no longer be described as modernist. In order to name this historical rupture and the structural transformation of the cultural field that characterizes it, one must have recourse to another term. The one already in use in other areas of criticism is postmodernism. There seems no reason not to use it.52

The appeal here is to label Judd the last of the modernists and Morris the first of the postmodernists within the canon of twentieth-century American art. This reads implicitly in Krauss’s reading of minimalism and postminimalism. Krauss’s notion of the expanded field brooks no place for Judd, although this field is somewhat foreshadowed by his specific object or at the very least, the dematerialisation of it. Krauss above points to a wider transformation occurring in the cultural sphere that concurs with postmodernism. The period of 1968 and the immediate years adjacent to it, is noted for profound cultural schism and disruption. In the context of this thesis, this disruption can be localised to the protests and politics of the New York art world. And herein, examining Judd’s and Morris’s individual practices through the prism of politics and protest can offer a more nuanced dissimilation between them than the labels of modernist and postmodernist offer.

52 Krauss, ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, 41. 199

Politics and Practice

1968 is universally and symbolically marked as a year of violence and protest. For the United States, this year of acute social turmoil witnessed the severe escalation of hostilities and atrocities in Vietnam with the Tet Offensive and its bloody counterpoint in the My Lai massacre. An increased, mobilised, and agitated public opposition against the war materialised at home. The assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy left the nation bereft. Disillusionment and disenfranchisement fuelled race and political riots, triggering violent police suppression at flashpoints across the country. Student protests within the United States and abroad voiced a revolution which was never realised and was too, violently dealt with by police. The febrile and pervasive mood of 1968 was the culmination of dawning dejection and rising anger at the disconnect between the decade’s promise at its start and its reality at its end.53 A longer historical view of the symbolic 1968, which begins in 1967 and runs through 1970, allows the cultural undercurrents that informed the New York art world’s responses to Vietnam, Civil Rights, and women’s rights to be gauged more sagaciously. Herein, Judd and Morris, as highly-visible leaders not only of minimalism but more broadly the new art of the 1960s, were scrutinised for their responses.

In her gender and political critique of minimalism, Anna C. Chave charges Judd, Morris, along with Flavin, Serra, and other minimalists with producing art that speaks more to the power of the military-industrial complex and corporate America than it does against.54 Chave finds minimalist art’s valorisation of power reinscribed the domineering discourses of American capitalism, militarism, and imperialism. Incongruently, minimalism’s ascendency was occurring at a time when widespread denunciation and protest of hegemonic power was coalescing. Chave’s charge is two-fold, in that firstly the minimalists’ use of industrial materials and manufacturing processes – and their resulting slick-surfaced,

53 Sally Banes, Greenwich Village 1963: Avant-garde performance and the effervescent body (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1993), 4. 54 Anna C. Chave, ‘Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power’, Arts Magazine (January 1990), 44-63. 200

precise, and geometrically uniform objects – affirm the visual language of the modern technocracy. Secondly, Chave argues minimalism is inherently hostile towards viewers with its ‘obdurate blankness’ and the ‘minimalist’s categorical refusal of the humanist mission of art.’55

Referencing the writings of Judd and Morris, Chave draws out a rhetoric for minimalism where materials are described as strong and aggressive, colour as bold and powerful, and size and scale is termed in the impassive consideration of bodies and objects. Chave’s analysis is persuasive, highlighting the construct of art historical discourse on minimalism through language that affirms existing dominant power structures. Yet, Chave’s reading is also blunt, staking cumulative and historical claims that decontextualizes the writings of Judd and Morris from their personal political beliefs and actions in the late 1960s. This is not to absolve Judd and Morris from some of the criticisms Chave’s makes and they were criticised for their perceived and privileged alignment with the establishment at the time by critics like Cindy Nemser and Lucy Lippard.56 Rather, here, it is to tease out the complexities, contradictions, and paradoxes of a fraught time in the New York art world and to re-contextualise Judd’s and Morris’s political attitudes with their practices.

In her analysis of the political debates within the New York art world in the late 1960s, Francis Franscina finds many of the period’s seeming contradictions arose from the split of the political Left.57 The emergence of the New Left in the 1960s was received and engaged with by the younger artists of that decade. The Old Left, which had emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, was associated with older artists, critics, and intellectuals like Greenberg, Rosenberg, and Kozloff. The Old Left was sustained in the certainty of modernism’s institutions, structures, and grand narratives and maintained belief in the radical activities of an avant-garde which challenged convention and ultimately spurred progress from within. Generally, the

55 Chave, ‘Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power’, 51&54. 56 Francis Franscina, Art, Politics and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), 140. 57 Franscina, Art, Politics and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America, 109. 201

Old Left viewed art and politics as two discrete realms of activity. The achievements of high culture were necessarily inoculated from debasement by capitalism’s kitsch, or the mass-spectacle of Fascism and Socialist Realism. It is the dialectic which underscores Greenberg’s ‘Avant-Garde and Kitsch’ (1939). The younger artists aligned with the New Left sought to destroy artistic convention, tradition, and ‘the established intellectual and institutional criteria’ for assessing value and quality.58 Artists of the New Left found concern with inclusive political discussions around race and gender, and argued the invisibility of these voices within an exclusive modernism. The artistic agitation of the New Left was expressed in practices of protest and dissent. Art and politics merged. Collective practice became a political statement as seen in examples like the ‘Artists’ Tower of Protest’ in Los Angeles, 1966, the New York Angry Arts Week in 1967, and the formation of the Art Workers’ Coalition in 1969.59

The Art Workers’ Coalition (AWC) was formed in response to several concerns of younger artists. These included the war in Vietnam, the rights of artists both in museum exhibitions and in the resale of artworks, and the institutional representation of women artists and artists of colour.60 Owing to these varied and differing interests, the AWC unravelled in 1971 with numerous splinter groups emerging in its place.61 One of these groups, the New York Art Strike against Racism, War, and Repression, was co-chaired by Morris. The most visible actions by the AWC was the first Art strike on 15 October 1969, in which the Whitney, MoMA, the Jewish Museum and most of the city’s private galleries closed. The Met postponed the opening of a large exhibition of American painting and sculpture, though with the Guggenheim, it remained open. As a result, both museums were picketed by the AWC. And secondly, the furore over sponsorship for the My Lai protest poster (Q: AND BABIES? A: AND BABIES), that the AWC waged against the

58 Franscina, Art, Politics and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America, 134. 59 Matthew Israel, Kill for Peace: American Artists Against the Vietnam War (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013), 70. See also: Miguel de Baca & Makeda Best (eds.), Conflict, Identity, and Protest in American Art (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015), xiv. 60 Lucy Lippard, ‘The Artworkers’ Coalition: Not a History*’, Studio International, 180.927 (November 1970), 171-174. 61 Franscina, Art, Politics and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America, 131. 202

board of MoMA.62 In her account of the activities of the AWC, Lippard, whilst acknowledging the disparate and competing interests of the coalition, singles out Judd for criticism over his apparent silence on the organisation and activities of it. A closer look at Judd’s personal political views reveal aspects that did not necessarily align with the aims of the AWC. Even though Judd was a highly visible attendee at early AWC meetings and a central figure within the New York artworld, Lippard claims Judd remained silent on critical issues and indeed, was silently disgusted with how the AWC operated.63

Unlike many of the young artists associated with the New Left, Judd’s art and politics remained relatively discrete.64 This is not to say that Judd’s political views were developed in strict separation from his art. Judd’s writing on his art suggests a meditative sense of his individual politics, while his writing on politics is resonant with his aesthetic practices. Yet Judd viewed art and politics as two distinct fields of activity that demanded different focus and actions. Judd’s work was not overtly political in statement or sentiment, as Lippard and more militant agitators seemed to demand. And, it was not archly conservative or authoritarian as Chave’s criticisms alludes to, but nor was it devoid of a political consciousness or awareness. Rather, Judd held the view that art distinct from politics acted as a site of resistance and that art overtly engaged in politics tended towards propaganda.65 In response to a symposium question posed by Artforum’s editor Philip Leider in 1970 on art’s relationship to politics, Judd wrote:

62 A detailed history of this incident is found in ch.4: ‘My Lai, Guernica, MoMA and the Art Left, New York 1969-70’ in: Franscina, Art, Politics and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America. 63 Lucy Lippard, ‘The Artworkers’ Coalition: Not a History*’. The AWC was also involved in an unseemly quarrel with MoMA and the painters of the first New York School over an exhibition on Abstract Expressionism in which the AWC called on the older painters to withdraw their works and boycott MoMA. This drew the ire of several of these artists, especially Barnett Newman who Judd was particularly close too. See ch.3: ‘Angry Arts, the Art Workers Coalition and the Politics of “Otherness”’, in: Franscina, Art, Politics and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America. 64 For accounts of Judd’s involvement in political causes, see: David Raskin, ‘Specific Opposition: Judd’s art and politics’, Art History, 24.5 (November 2001), 682-706. And Franscina’s case study on Judd in: Art, Politics and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America, 137-142. 65 Franscina, Art, Politics and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America, 139; Raskin, ‘Specific Opposition: Judd’s art and politics’, 683. 203

My attitude of opposition and isolation, which has slowly changed in the last five years or so, was in reaction to the events of the fifties: the continued state of war, the destruction of the UN by the Americans and the Russians, the rigid useless political parties, the general exploitation and both the Army and McCarthy… So, my work didn’t have anything to do with the society, the institutions and grand theories. It was one person’s work and interests; its main political conclusion, negative but basic, was that it, myself, anyone shouldn’t serve any of these things, that they should be considered very sceptically and practically.66

Certain beliefs of Judd’s politics are revealed in the above statement and these do not easily reconcile with either the prerogatives of the Old or New Left. Judd was wary of central government and institutional structures which propagated hierarchies. Politically, in the 1960s and 1970s, Judd was active in localised political groups including Citizens for Local Democracy and Artists Against the Expressway (which had successfully opposed the construction of new expressway through lower Manhattan where Judd lived). David Raskin suggests that this political concern of localism and the rejection of centralism and hierarchy aligns Judd with the tradition of anarchism, rather than contemporary Marxism to which much of the New Left identified.67 In his aesthetic practices, this suspicion of centralism is found in Judd’s rejection of hierarchical or rationalist composition. Instead, Judd advances an art where the work’s elements are independent, polarised, and non-relational. Judd was further a pacifist and involved with the War Resisters League, joining in protest marches against the Vietnam War, and donating art to the ‘Artists’ Tower of Protest’. Judd had earlier served with the Army in Korea and held a pessimistic view of dominant political ideologies and the Cold War. As an anarchist and pacifist, Judd believed that war impeded upon individual liberty. Raskin proposes that in his art and politics Judd ‘promulgated a radical individualism’ and in: ‘Subordinating political demand to aesthetic

66 Donald Judd, in: ‘The Artist and Politics’, Artforum, 9.1 (September 1970), 36. 67 Raskin, ‘Specific Opposition: Judd’s art and politics’, 687. 204

principle, he restricted his works of art to conveying only a generalized oppositional attitude, a practice built around an empirical core.’68

Raskin’s implication here is that Judd maintained separation between his art and politics, and within the realm of his art, aesthetic concerns were foremost. More indistinctly, Judd’s art expressed the artist’s individualist and anarchist politics. This is seen through Judd’s objects’ conceptual and formal concerns of independence, singleness, non-hierarchical order, and primacy of experience. Judd was sceptical towards models of knowledge that were not based on an individual’s quantifiable experience. This is evident in his identification with empiricism and his frank rejection of Cartesian rationalism. An encounter with one of Judd’s objects necessitates the rejection of all preconceived notions of what the object should be and instead experiencing the object wholly and anew in the here and now. Judd’s art holds no reference or tangible connection to the politics and ‘moral values of actual life’ and stresses autonomy.69 This autonomous field and the viewer’s experience of the object herein, acts as site of isolation from and opposition against political populism, propaganda, and kitsch.70 In spaces where Judd exerts near complete control over the display context of his objects, this sense of isolation and opposition is heightened. This is most readily seen in Judd’s permanent installation of his objects in sites in Marfa, Texas. In 1973, Judd began purchasing buildings, including decommissioned military sheds, in the isolated desert town to permanently install his objects and those of artists he collected. Here we see Judd, who remained based in Marfa until his death in 1994, resolute in his isolation and opposition to the centrality of the New York art world.

68 Raskin, ‘Specific Opposition: Judd’s art and politics’, 702. 69 Franscina, Art, Politics and Dissent: Aspects of the Art Left in Sixties America, 139. 70 Raskin, ‘Specific Opposition: Judd’s art and politics’, 687. Raskin here suggests that: ‘By testing experiences against beliefs, Judd thought his art provided an avenue through inductive generalisation to liberty.’ That is, moving from specific observations of the object, the viewer through inductive reasoning at more general comprehension of its meaning. This contrasts with a deductive process that moves from the general to the specific and bears the traces of rationalist thinking. 205

The relationship between Morris’s politics and practice was much more entwined than that of Judd’s. Morris engaged with high-profile political actions and in his practice, was polemically concerned with labour. Morris was not involved with the AWC, but became a central figure of artist activist circles when he shut down his 1970 exhibition at the Whitney Museum. The U.S. government had been bombing Cambodia and the day after Morris closed his exhibition, a meeting of artists gathered to organise a political response to the bombings. From this meeting, The New York Art Strike against Racism, War, and Repression was formed with Morris elected as co-chair with Poppy Johnson. The strike was called for 22 May 1970 and the group demanded that New York’s museums and galleries close for the day. While some museums did close, The Metropolitan refused and was picketed by hundreds of angry artists [fig.73]. The crowd was led by Morris who addressed them from the steps of the museum.71

To understand how Morris became the voice and face of The New York Art Strike against Racism, War, and Repression, it is necessary to explore the increasing political nature of Morris’s practices through the 1960s. The Whitney show was the culmination of Morris’s interrogations into art and labour and the notion of artist as worker. The minimalists had valorised production with their factory- produced objects crafted by blue-collar metalworkers. Now, in his turn from minimalism to postminimalism, Morris not only sought to reclaim production and process for the artist but occupy the role of worker too. This identification as worker, rather than artist, was inherently political. Maurice Berger’s writings on Morris examine the artist’s engagement with process and how this situates Morris within the New Left’s desired political alignment with the working class.72 In the late 1960s, the writings of Herbert Marcuse circulated through artist activist circles and very likely had an impact upon Morris. In his widely-circulated essay, Marcuse reasoned that scientific and technological advancement would herald a ‘new sensibility’ and ‘aesthetic ethos’, with a revolutionary art as praxis bringing

71 For detailed history of the strike, see: Julia Bryan-Wilson, ‘Robert Morris’s Art Strike’ in her book, Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era. 72 See: Maurice Berger, Labyrinths: Robert Morris, minimalism, and the 1960s, New York: Harper & Row, 1989. And: Maurice Berger, ‘Have mind, will travel’ (c.1994), in: The Mind/Body Problem, [exh. cat.], New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1994. 206

about the structural change of society. 73 The artist, working in cooperation with the working class, would be the necessary catalyst for the revolution.74

In Morris’s exhibition at the Whitney this concept of art as praxis and solidarity with workers is played out. The show, initially planned as a retrospective, involved the dispersal of raw and rough materials throughout the gallery space by Morris and a gang of construction workers over a period of weeks. Concrete blocks and lengths of steel and timber were manoeuvred throughout the space on tracks and by a series of hoists and pulleys. The art in the show was the theatre of work and the performance of the workers. Visitors looked on as Morris and his crew pushed, pulled, dropped, scattered and rolled heavy industrial materials around the gallery. The materials were left where they fell, Morris allowing chance and gravity to determine the outcome of the work process. Then, before the show was scheduled to close, Morris called a stop to the work – an art strike. In the catalogue accompanying the show, which was curated by Marcia Tucker, it states:

The present exhibition, which consists of approximately a dozen works by Robert Morris made especially for the occasion, bypasses the historicizing function of a retrospective show. Morris has integrated space and sculpture in his own manner; the installation and choice of works have been determined by the artist. By dispensing with a formal opening and allowing the public access to the museum floor during the installation of the exhibition, environment and work become elements in a continuous process which is crucial to the body of Morris' work. These pieces, therefore, will not have been seen prior to their installation.75

73 Herbert Marcuse, ‘An Essay on Liberation’ (1969), 22. 74 Herbert Marcuse, ‘An Essay on Liberation’ (1969), 40: ‘The radical transformation of a social system still depends on the class which constitutes the human base of the process of production. In the advanced capitalist countries, this is the industrial working class. The changes in the composition of this class, and the extent of its integration into the system alter, not the potential but the political role of labour. Revolutionary class “in-itself” but not “for-itself”, objectively but not subjectively, its radicalization will depend on catalysts outside its ranks.’ 75 Marcia Tucker, Robert Morris, New York: Praeger and Whitney Museum of American Art, 1970, [in preface]. 207

In this show, Morris theatricalises work and presents himself as a construction crew leader or foreman. As Julia Bryan-Wilson surmised in her thorough research of this exhibition: ‘By circumventing the studio and fabricating the work wholly on the floor of the museum, Morris figured the art itself as a specific kind of work, performed at a specific kind of work site.’76 Does this though really figure Morris as worker? Certainly, the show had its dangers like a construction site and Morris was forced, much to his consternation, to alter some of the materials (concrete blocks as opposed to granite); engineers feared the floor could not hold the weight.77 There is no doubt that Morris was physically involved in the construction process, photographs show Morris alongside the workers heaving and hefting large blocks and beams.78 Yet, the realities of work experienced by construction workers was vastly different to that of Morris as an artist. The labourers’ work may be viewed politically from the New Left perspective’s, though it is unlikely that the workers themselves shared this outlook. Morris’s work was a conscious political statement that the labourers, cognisant to it or not, were part of.

Bryan-Wilson points out that the New Left’s desired solidarity with the working class was somewhat naïve and even misguided. Citing the hard-hat riots on 8 May 1970, in which construction workers in lower Manhattan came into violent confrontation with students protesting the bombing of Cambodia, Bryan-Wilson claims: ‘More than any other single event, the hard-hat riots served to redefine publicly the position of the labourer as politically conservative.’79 As is the case broadly, the working class were disproportionally conscripted into the armed forces and generally held a pro-war sentiment. Obviously, this was in dire contrast to the artist activists of the New Left and their anti-war protests. The hard-hat riots, which occurred at the time of Morris’s show at the Whitney, brought this contrast into sharp focus and this would have been a difficult realisation and reconciliation for Morris. Indeed, Morris’s political interest in work and labour, as

76 Julia Bryan-Wilson, Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era, 85. 77 Julia Bryan-Wilson, Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era, 86. 78 As Julia Bryan-Wilson research points out there is little documentary evidence of this show, bar a few photographs of which are re-published in Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era. 79 Julia Bryan-Wilson, Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era, 110. 208

a critical inquiry of it, somewhat retreats after the Whitney show. Morris’s next notable focus in his oeuvre is his Blind Time series (1973), where he created drawings blindfolded with his hands dipped in oil and graphite. Here, Morris’s focus is again with process, but the concerns are more formal – the physical interaction between body, materials, and medium – than they are political.

The relationship between art and politics was broached differently by Judd and Morris. Judd made distinction between his art practices and his political actions, although his writings suggest that the two spheres influenced each other. In this aspect, Judd aligns more with Greenberg or Rosenberg and of the intellectual traditions of the Old Left in their belief that art and politics should remain discrete concerns. Yet, Judd was indifferent to dominant political structures and ideologies. He remained fiercely independent, leaning politically towards anarchism rather than Marxism. On the other hand, Morris’s art practices became resoundingly political through the 1960s. Morris was the embodiment of the artistic New Left with his polemic interrogations of work, art, and labour championed by his critical allies in Artforum and October. With Morris’s art and political concerns intermeshed, when the energy of the protest era of the New Left dissipated, Morris’s practice shifted into an exploration of diverse media that included drawing, painting, performance, earth art, steam, and conceptual writings. While aspects of Morris’s practice in the 1970s still engaged critically with political concerns, including war and gender, these were mediated more through art than political actions or protest. The engagement with broader cultural themes and the move beyond formalist art, suggests Morris’s work also responded to the new critical paradigm which Krauss described as the postmodernist, expanded field. The contrast to Judd at this point is severe. Judd’s mature work approached a certain linearity. Based in Marfa, Judd pursued his formal interrogation of the specific object. The formal tensions in Judd’s work remained somewhat constant, but were resolved with heightening aesthetic refinement and conceptual complexity. Morris’s mature work unfolds like a matrix, with different points therein constituting different media and thematic concerns.

209

Examining the mature practices of Judd and Morris through the 1970s is beyond the scope of this dissertation. Further, given the widening fissure of the practices in the 1970s, such a comparative investigation would prove difficult to quantify or sustain. Indeed, an examination of Morris’s practices during the 1970s would find more fitting comparative analysis with the postminimalist, process, and performance artists who have been considered in this chapter. These artists include Serra, Beuys, Acconci, and Nauman. A similar examination of Judd’s practices through the 1970s would offer interesting relative analyses with Andre, Flavin, John Chamberlain, or Claes Oldenburg – artists who remained committed to the object’s integrity.

Broadly, this thesis scrutinises the historical snapshot of minimalist sculpture in the mid-1960s which presents a nearer aesthetic unity of Judd and Morris. As detailed in this chapter, this seeming unity sees Judd and Morris situated together within the major canon-affirming exhibitions at the end of the 1960s. The acceptance of minimalism into the canon of modern art proved fatal to it, owing to minimalism’s conceptual legitimisation of various practices which were hostile towards artistic modernism. This historical rupture positions Judd and Morris at the terminus of modern art. Though, as has been explored in this chapter, Morris’s practice after this rupture moves through sculpture’s expanded field. The latter parts of this chapter examined the political currents in Judd’s and Morris’s aesthetic practices in the late 1960s. This time period is defined by intense societal and political discordance, and both Judd and Morris were highly-visible within the debates on art and politics coursing through the New York art world. The relationship between art and politics was treated differently by both artists and this difference helps inform the distance between them in the 1970s. Judd’s late practice was defined by his opposition and isolation to dominant political and institutional authority, while Morris’s practices in the 1970s were concerned with the agitation and critical enquiry of them.

210

211

Conclusion

This thesis has discriminated the aesthetics of Donald Judd and Robert Morris within minimalism to renegotiate difference between their competing interventions into modernist art and criticism. As minimalism emerged as a discursive threat to modernist art in the early1960s, notable contemporary critics missed the conceptual divergences between Judd’s and Morris’s three-dimensional objects. In mapping both the dissonances and resonances across the artists’ minimalist works and theory, this thesis investigates the oppositional relationship between them and against Clement Greenberg’s modernist paradigm. Principally, this thesis has contended that the conceptual dissonance between the pair’s three- dimensional objects originates in their differing paths towards minimalism. For Judd, this was through painting and art criticism, while for Morris it was through painting and dance.

Through chronology, this thesis interrogates the artists’ early aesthetic explorations beginning in the mid-1950s paintings up until Judd’s and Morris’s first minimalist shows in the early1960s. For Morris, this involved passage through experimental dance and performance. This thesis then comparatively analyses Judd’s and Morris’s respective three-dimensional works in the mid-1960s at the height of minimalism’s contest of modernist discourse. This analysis examines the treatment of formal concerns in the respective work of Judd and Morris, including consideration of size, scale, shape, colour, materials, and modes of facture. The final chapter of this thesis scrutinises the acceptance of Judd, Morris, and minimalism into the canon of modern art at a time when modernist thought was fracturing aesthetically and politically. A broader consequence of minimalism was an emerging context for diverse postminimalist and postmodernist practices that necessarily moved beyond modernism. This site of fracture and subsequent artists’ responses to it, is framed as an area for future enquiry extending from this dissertation.

212

Chapter One of this thesis, titled ‘Modernist Painting and its Challenge’, establishes the critical paradigm of artistic modernism as it is informed by Greenberg’s formalist narrative. Greenberg’s teleology of modernist painting begins with Édouard Manet, then the advance of one hundred years of graduating flatness and abstraction to culminate in the Abstract Expressionism of Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Barnett Newman, and Clyfford Still. This trajectory, while shaped by broader historical circumstance, accorded centrality to the New York art world. Herein, Greenberg’s critical authority was resolute and the critic policed the modernist canon rigorously. Artists and practices that did not conform to the strictures of discipline and medium were excluded for their perceived transgressions. In painting, the artist’s driving concern was reduced to the flattening and abstraction of the image in relation to the two-dimensionality of its support. The primary painters of the New York School see this formal problem at its nearest resolution, leaving little space for the subsequent generation of American painters to navigate within. This is a crucial point in the context of both Judd’s and Morris’s moves into three-dimensionality that instruct the early chapters of this thesis.

While Greenberg’s critical formalism sustained the status of paradigm through the 1940s, ‘50s, and into the 1960s, a theatrical and Duchampian challenge emerged in the 1950s to strike discord. The individual and collaborative works of John Cage, Merce Cunningham, and Robert Rauschenberg upset conformist notions of medium purity and confused artistic distinctions of form and content. Rauschenberg’s White Paintings (1951) and Cage’s 4’33” (1952) focus Chapter one’s aesthetic enquiry. These silent masterpieces served as stark counterpoints to the crises and climax of Abstract Expressionism and were vital antecedents to minimalism in the 1960s. The emerging and influential painters, Jasper Johns and Frank Stella in the late1950s, are also given analytic attention in the first chapter. For differing reasons, both Johns and Stella offer conceptual entry points into the interrogative relationship between late modernist painting and minimalism. Johns’s combines and assemblages (along with Rauschenberg’s), blended the mediums of painting and sculpture. The use of found objects in these works blurred distinctions between art and life. The Duchampian tendencies in the 213

practices of Rauschenberg and Johns, resonated with Morris’s early three- dimensional work. Stella’s shaped canvases were, in the context of this thesis and in relation to Judd, the end game of modernist painting. At a time of the medium’s exhaustion, Stella’s paintings pushed out from the gallery wall and broke the rectilinear format of painting. Content and form were collapsed and became coincident. To Judd, Stella’s paintings are the conclusion to Greenberg’s unrelenting march towards flatness and abstraction. From here, the only place painting could go was into three dimensions.

The early painting practices of Judd and Morris were examined in Chapter Two of this thesis – ‘Movement through Painting’. The primary painters of the New York School loomed large for Judd, Morris, and other younger contemporary artists. The formal problems that the younger artists encountered, that were framed by the innovations of the earlier painters, spurred the new artists’ movements into different disciplines. This movement was most pronounced with Morris. Morris’s driving concern in painting was the interrogation of physical process; he had been inspired by the work of Pollock and Still. Impressed by Pollock’s physicality and his sense of being in the painting, Morris started painting from the floor in search of the all-over image. This move opened-up to Morris the perceptual distinctions between a painting produced on the floor and one in a perpendicular position or an easel picture. This concern with perception was developed and exploited by Morris in his minimalist sculpture. Ultimately for Morris, he was unable to reconcile the split between the physical process with the finished painting, and so soon abandoned painting to work in dance and performance with his then partner, Simone Forti.

Judd’s engagement with painting was defined by his working through formalist and philosophical problems. Across his early paintings, Judd grappled with tensions between realism and the real, relational composition and non- anthropomorphic order, illusionistic space and spatial arrangement, and the general and specific treatment of forms and colour. Judd’s interrogation of these formal problems was contextualised by his questioning of and tensions between

214

Cartesian rationalism and Humean empiricism. Seen with a certain linearity, Judd’s painting from the mid-1950s through to the early 1960s, gradually became less representational and expressive and more tactile and object-like. Judd’s final paintings in this span, approached the eloquent sparsity and minimal palette of Newman. Yet, unlike Newman’s abstract expression of the sublime, metaphysical experience, Judd’s paintings appeared more concerned with spatial structure and physical presence.

For Judd, Morris, and their contemporaries the question of Pollock was central to their respective practices. To many, indeed most, Pollock had created paintings so singular in their radical abstraction and so transcendent over earlier stylistic conventions and analytical concerns, that their revelations proved insurmountable to successive artists. Allan Kaprow noted that the legacy of Pollock was that he forced younger artists to address the formal problems his art created through different mediums. For Kaprow, this field was Happenings. For Judd, it was pushing painting into the three-dimensional field of objects. While for Morris, his interrogation of Pollock’s physical process led him to the field of dance. Morris returned to Pollock in his exploration of soft materials in his postminimalist phase.

Chapter Three of this dissertation, ‘Modern Dance and Minimalist Interventions’, addresses Morris engagement with dance and performance within the disciplinary history of modern dance. American modern dance was established foremost through the dance and choreographic theories of Martha Graham and Doris Humphrey. As an expressive art form, modern dance viewed the dancer’s movement as the outward, physical expression of an interior, emotive state. This physical expression of the dancer’s internalisation of the dance’s emotive content, compelled a sympathetic response of emotions within the viewer. Graham and Humphreys’ theories on dance further stressed correspondence between the dancing body and the modern consciousness. Humphrey counselled the archetypal modern city of New York as a source of inspiration. Although their practices were unrelated, Judd too took visual cue from the changing landscape of Manhattan in the 1960s.

215

Into the 1940s, modern dance was on the wane. A young Merce Cunningham, who had danced in Graham’s company, sought to reinvigorate the mode by coolly incorporating the technical lexis of ballet. Cunningham rejected the expressive content of modern dance, employed chance as a choreographic strategy, and through his collaborations with Cage and Rauschenberg, upset the conventional relationships between dance, music, and visual décor. Cunningham brought to dance an unprecedented, highly analytical, and high-modernist concern with technique. He isolated the body’s parts and articulated their movement into a performance structure that was focused on precision and constant movement. Freed from the relational arrangements with music and visual décor, Cunningham’s radical choreography stripped dance back to its irreducible elements – the body and its movement. Cunningham’s revolutionary notion of dance as movement in time and space, foreground many of the experimental practices and minimalist interventions of the Judson Dance Theatre in the 1960s.

Morris began his performance explorations in the movement workshops of Ann Halprin. Halprin encouraged her students to move beyond dance clichés and expressive responses to explore the body and its movement freed from the rules of modern dance. Halprin used games and tasked-based activities to generate movement that was not expressive nor dramatic. Many of Halprin’s ideas on pedestrian movement and non-compositional strategies were developed by some of her students that formed the Judson Dance Theater. These students included Morris, Yvonne Rainer, and Trisha Brown while other members of the group included Rauschenberg, Steve Paxton, and Carolee Schneemann. In the early to mid-1960s, Morris collaborated with Forti and Rainer who were both vital to the articulation of minimalism in dance and performance. During this period, Morris created some of his most distinguishing choreographic works which he developed coextensively with his early, large-scale minimalist sculpture. In his key works performed with the Judson Dance Theater – Arizona (1963), Site (1964), and Waterman Switch (1965) – Morris explored the interrelationships between objects,

216

bodies, time, and space. The theatrical staging of these formal relationships was focal to Morris’s conception of minimalism.

The fourth chapter of this thesis titled ‘Objects and Sculpture’, analyses Judd’s and Morris’s initial minimalist periods which began with their solo shows at the Green Gallery in 1963 and 1964 respectively. Within the narrative of modern art, minimalism is announced with these two shows. Judd’s Green Gallery show was instructive to his origination of three-dimensional specific objects out of painting. In his last paintings prior to this show, Judd incorporated a series of found objects into his canvases. The use of found objects proved fatal to his painting practice, as these paintings became unsustainable within the two-dimensional medium – both conceptually and physically. Judd’s first three-dimensional objects were, somewhat incidentally, the result of paintings that failed to exist on the wall and had to stand alone on the floor. Judd’s first show of objects at the Green, was revelatory in this regard. Featuring a suite of objects painted bright Cadmium red and containing metal pipes and other found materials, these early objects opened to Judd a new art form that was neither painting or sculpture, but what he termed specific objects. This chapter traced Judd’s theorisation of his specific objects through his critical work, most principally his manifesto-like essay ‘Specific Objects’ (1965) and in his radio interview accompanied by Stella with Bruce Glaser and published as ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’ (1964).

Morris’s first minimalist show at the Green Gallery in 1964 consisted of a series of large, grey polyhedrons strategically positioned throughout the gallery. Visually spare, the large forms combined to sculpt the space of the room and contend the perceptual field of the viewer. Reviewing Morris’s show, Judd noted that Morris’s forms were minimal in their visual appeal. This term used intuitively by Judd set in train the shibboleth of minimalism that came to encompass his work as well. In his Green Gallery show, Morris presented sculpture as a haptic and phenomenological proposition over a visual experience. He articulated his conception of minimalist sculpture in his primary essays, ‘Notes on Sculpture, parts I & II’ (1966). Morris’s essays defined his minimalism in antagonism to Judd’s ‘Specific Objects’. As this

217

dissertation has stressed however, the fundamental dissonance between Judd and Morris was discernible in these seminal Green Gallery shows. With his brightly coloured specific objects, Judd resolved the formal problems from his painting, by devising a non-compositional order and overcoming representation through a turn to real objects. In this early showing of his minimalist sculpture, Morris’s interrogation of objects and bodies in time and space was evident and paralleled a similar focus in his dance.

Chapter Five, ‘Formalist Concerns: Gestalts and Seriality’ examines the formal distinctions between Judd’s specific objects and Morris’s minimalist sculpture. While expounding the dissonance between Judd’s and Morris’s work, this chapter also considers them collectively in their separation from other contemporary groupings of artists. The ‘Primary Structures’ show at the Jewish Museum in 1966, was notable for marking out the key artists that defined minimalist sculpture. This included Judd, Morris, Carl Andre, Dan Flavin, Sol LeWitt, and the younger artist Robert Smithson. Within this significant exhibition of large-scale sculpture, the works of these six artists stood apart from the rest in the show. Their works challenged conventional understandings of art and sculpture. There was little sign of anthropomorphic or rationalist composition in these works. The simple cubes, ‘L’ shapes, fluorescent tubes or firebricks, were devoid of a conceptual interior – the inner life of a work of art which imbues it with meaning from a critical perspective. These objects stated externality. They were arranged by repetition or in basic configurations to create Gestalt effects. The simple forms and their uncomplicated order, negated the significance attached to artistry and composition. Moreover, these aspects confounded modernist criticism.

The use of rectilinear shapes and basic polyhedrons was a common to Judd’s and Morris’s practices, as it was with all the key minimalists. These simple forms precluded a priori knowledge and spoke to an experience of art based on empirical observation. The structural arrangement and placement of these forms within a display space then became imperative. Morris articulated this aspect of his minimalist sculpture as phenomenological formalism; he created puzzle-like

218

configurations to produce Gestalt effects as experienced by the viewer. This engagement of the viewer by way of their perceptual field was condemned by the critic Michael Fried for being inherently theatrical. Fried’s charge of theatre suggested that Morris’s sculpture demanded the participation of an audience, as with dramatic theatre, for it to function as art. Fried further declared the experience of Morris’s sculpture was temporal in nature and that this temporality of experience was endless – it could go on and on. Fried directed the charge of theatre against Judd as well. Fried claimed that the endlessness of experience in Judd’s work was in its repetition, suggesting that Judd’s repetition could go on ad infinitum, at least conceptually. Judd used repetition and mathematical sequences in the structural organisation of his works to circumvent artistic compositional choices. Judd and Morris left their works untitled as another inhibition to personal meaning being conferred upon their works. This practice of not naming their works, common between the artists, was indicative of their aims to break from aesthetic tradition.

Following on, ‘Formalist Concerns: Red and Grey’ – the sixth chapter of this thesis, continued the comparative formal analysis of the work of Judd and Morris. Colour was the main site of theoretical contest between the artists. Judd’s principal minimalist practice was defined by the intense experimentation of colour and this was partly responsive to the innovations of Abstract Expressionism. Judd’s formal concern with colour was heightened through his use of industrial materials that were embedded with colour, such as anodised steel and tinted Plexiglass. These materials enabled Judd to treat colour as a structural property. The juxtaposition of materials gave Judd’s highly-coloured works the specificity and polarity he esteemed in the work of the primary painters of the New York School. Contrastingly, Morris declared colour as an extraneous concern to sculpture and that it detracted from its tactile aspects. Morris’s neutral palette of greys and whites lessened the visual appeal of his work as he emphasised it physical claims. The attack on sculpture’s visual presentation was part of Morris’s questioning of the nature of art. Morris used the distinction between the optic and haptic to create division from Judd. This divide affirms an interrogative thrust of this thesis, that Judd’s and Morris’s minimalist objects are conceptually dissonant because they 219

stem from dissimilar early practices. Judd’s movement towards the specific object was through a formal interrogation of modernist painting, where he broke down the discipline’s aesthetic conditions to arrive at objects. This formalist or rather empirical interrogation of the two-dimensional medium was necessarily concerned with optical experience. On the other hand, Morris’s earlier explorations in painting were more centred on the artist’s physical movement. Morris pursued his investigation of physical process in dance. Here, Morris developed his haptic concern of bodies and objects which he coextensively developed in his large-scale sculpture.

One of the main criticisms by adverse critics and the competing Park Place group artists against the minimalists, was that the execution of their works was performed by contracted metal workers. The use of industrial materials and manufacturing processes opened a new horizon of possibilities to the minimalists in the 1960s. Both Judd and Morris wrote in depth on using unconventional materials and technical forming processes. Traditionalists claimed that because they did not make the work with their own hands, the minimalists could not claim the role of real artists. Arguably, in freeing the artists from the physical or mechanical production of the work, minimalism was more cerebral and conceptually-laden than other sculptural practices. For Judd, industrial processes meant that his art could be mass-produced; his stacks and rows of cubes were pressed out in countless variations of colours, materials, sizes, and units. Yet for Morris, being removed from the production of the artwork eventually became problematic, as it conflicted with his long-held concern with the artist’s physical engagement. Morris returned to this concern in his performative interrogation of soft materials, thereby marking his movement into postminimalism.

The final chapter of this thesis ‘The Canon and Critical Afterthoughts’, examines the fatal elevation of minimalism into the canon of modern art. This elevation occurred through major exhibitions at the end of 1960s. Here, Judd and Morris were positioned alongside the pre-eminent Abstract Expressionist painters. Somewhat paradoxically, Morris at this stage was moving through postminimalism and

220

producing process works that were politically informed and challenged the integrity of art’s object. Morris’s critiques on the institution of art and unravelling of the minimalist object resonated with younger artists engaging in conceptual, performance, and process art. This chapter considers the splintering of modern art and identifies some of the conceptual tributaries flowing from this fractious period as areas of future research. In contrast to Morris, Judd pursued a late modernist interrogation of the specific object concentrating on conceptually expansive resolutions to it and creating an environment of pure art in Marfa. To the younger artists who followed, the question of Judd was pertinent, much like Pollock had been to Judd’s generation.

Chapter Seven further analyses the mediation of art and politics in the work of Judd and Morris at the end of the decade. Politically, Judd was sceptical towards dominant political ideologies and models of knowledge. His political inclination was towards pacifism and conscientious anarchism. Mediated through his work, these political themes emerge generally as notions of opposition and isolation. Judd’s move to Marfa and his creation of an environment of permanent art can be read in this context. Throughout the 1960s, Morris performed Marxist interrogations of art and labour that culminated in his major exhibition at the Whitney Museum of American Art in 1970. In this show, Morris led a construction gang hauling, spilling, and tipping large concrete blocks and timbers across the galleries. Morris then abruptly stopped work on his show calling a strike. He then led an anti-war protest and sit-in by artists on the steps of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In this era of protest, Morris’s art and political practice were enmeshed, unlike Judd who sought to keep his art and politics discrete.

The investigative scope of this thesis is limited to the historical period c.1955- 1970. Herein, the focus has been on the early aesthetic practices of Judd and Morris through to the effective end of minimalism and their acceptance into the canon. As such, the necessarily narrow focus of this thesis does not permit a more lateral view of minimalism. A broader, but historically shorter view of minimalism could consider in depth the practices of Flavin, Andre, or LeWitt. Having

221

articulated difference between Judd and Morris, and determining their respective conceptions of minimalism, further research branching from this dissertation can seek out dissonances and resonances with these other key minimalists. Similarly, this thesis’s historical scope limits the study of divergent practices which stemmed from minimalism after 1970. In the last chapter of this thesis, it is noted that pursuing Morris’s diverse concerns beyond this point necessitates comparative analysis with artists who were engaged in similar practices and critical enquiries. These artists include Joseph Beuys, Bruce Nauman, and Richard Serra. On the other hand, Judd’s single-minded pursuit of the specific object beyond 1970 could be analysed in relation to John Chamberlain, Claes Oldenburg, and even aspects of Andre’s practice. These artists were committed to the continuing integrity of the art object.

What the potential expansion of this thesis proves is that the nearer aesthetic alignment of Judd and Morris in the mid-1960s, belied their disparate trajectories towards minimalism. Beyond minimalism and into the artists’ late and mature periods, the disparity witnessed in their earlier trajectories re-emerges more resolute and pronounced. After minimalism, Judd pursued his interrogation of the specific object and his articulation of a permanent art environment in Marfa. Morris’s corporeal concern with process and his concerns of theatre and temporality extended across mediums, disciplines, and thematic interests during the 1970s. The conceptual distance between Judd and Morris in the 1970s, that is evident in their closer aesthetic associations with the artists mentioned above, can therefore be traced back to their engagement with painting and criticism and painting and dance respectively. Seemingly then, Judd’s and Morris’s practices are only tangent for a brief period in minimalism in the mid-1960s. The dissonance between Judd and Morris within minimalism has been the main explication of this dissertation.

222

223

224

Bibliography

Articles and reviews

Agee, William C. (1975). ‘Unit, Series, Site: A Judd Lexicon’, Art in America, 63: 40- 49.

Alloway, Lawrence (1976). ‘Site inspection’, Artforum, 15.2 (October): 49-52.

Andre, Carl, et al. (1970). ‘The Artist and Politics: A Symposium’, Artforum, 9.1 (September): 35-9.

Antin, David (1966). ‘Art & Information, 1 Grey Paint’, ARTnews, 65 (April): 22-24; 56-58.

Archias, S. Elise (2010). ‘The Body as an Everyday Material in the 1960s: Yvonne Rainer and Steve Paxton, Wreck (3.1): 1-5.

Armand, Octavio & C Maier (1978). ‘Robert Morris: Mirage, Reflection (A Small Tribute to Vision), October, 6 (Autumn): 74-80.

Arnheim, Rudolf (1943). ‘Gestalt and Art’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Criticism, 2.8 (Autumn): 71-75.

Baigell, Matthew (1969). ‘American Painting: On Space and Time in the Early 1960s, Art Journal, 28.4 (Summer): 368-401.

Baker, Kenneth (1977). ‘Donald Judd: Past Theory’, Artforum, 15.10 (Summer): 46- 47.

225

Banes, Sally & Noel Carroll (2006). ‘Cunningham, Balanchine, and Postmodern Dance’, Chronical, 29.1: 49-68.

…… (1982). ‘Working and Dancing: A Response to Monroe Beardsley’s “What Is Going on in a Dance?”’, Dance Research Journal, 15.1 (Autumn): 37-41.

Banes, Sally (1981). ‘Democracy’s Body: Judson Dance Theater and Its Legacy’, Performing Arts Journal, 5.2, American Theater: Fission/Fusion: 98-107.

…… (1982). ‘The Birth of the Judson Dance Theater: “A Concert of Dance” at Judson Church, July 6, 1962’, Dance Chronicle, 5.2: 167-212.

Bannard, Darby (1966). ‘Present-day art and ready-made styles, Artforum, 5.4 (December): 30-35.

Barnes, Curt (1991). ‘Travels along the Dialectic: Hit-and-Run Observations on Interdimensionality’, Art Journal, 50.1, Constructed Painting (Spring): 26-32.

Beardsley, Monroe (1982). ‘What is Going on in a Dance?’, Dance Research Journal, 15.1 (Autumn): 31-36.

Beidler, Paul G. (1995). ‘The Postmodern Sublime: Kant and Tony Smith’s Anecdote of the Cube’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 53.2 (Spring): 177-186.

Bélec, Danielle M. (1997). ‘Robert Ellis Dunn: Personal Stories in Motion’, Dance Research Journal, 30.2: 18-38.

Bernard, Jonathan (1993). ‘The Minimalist Aesthetic in the Plastic Arts and in Music’, Perspectives of New Music, 31.1 (Winter): 86-132.

Berrigan, Ted (1965). ‘Reviews and Previews – Robert Morris’, ARTnews, 63.10 (February): 11-20.

226

Beveridge, Karl & Ian Burn (1975). ‘Don Judd’, The Fox, 2: 128-142.

Bickers, Patricia (1986). ‘Scaled-down Judd: Donald Judd and Waddington’s’, Art Monthly, (April): 20-22.

Bochner, Mel (1966). ‘Primary Structures’, Arts Magazine, 40.8 (June): 32-5.

…… (1967). ‘Serial art, systems, solipsism’, Arts Magazine, 41.8: 39-43.

Bois, Yve-Alain, et al. (1981). ‘The Sculptural Opaque’, SubStance, 10.2.31, The Thing USA: View of American Objects: 23-48.

Bois, Yve-Alain & Rosalind Krauss (1996). ‘A User’s Guide to Entropy’, October, 78 (Autumn): 38-88.

Bourdon, David (1966). ‘E=MC2 a Go-GO’, ARTnews, 64.9 (January): 22-25, 57-59.

Brannigan, Erin (2017). ‘Performance, Choreography, and the Gallery: Materiality, Attention, Agency, Sensation, and Instability’, Performance Paradigm, 13: 1-6.

Buchloh, Benjamin (1990). ‘Conceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of Institutions’, October, 55 (Winter): 105-143.

…… (1970). ‘Three Conversations in 1985: Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Robert Morris’, October, 70, The Duchamp Effect (Autumn): 33-54.

Burnham, Jack (1970). ‘Robert Morris: Retrospective in Detroit’, Artforum, 8.7 (March): 67-75.

…… (1968). ‘System Esthetics’, Artforum, 7.1 (September): 30-35.

Campbell, Lawrence (1956). ‘Reviews and Previews – Judd and Raisen’, ARTnews, 55 (September): 17.

227

Cannell, Michael (1984). ‘An Interview with Lee Krasner’, Arts Magazine, 59: 87-89.

Cardew, Cornelius (1964). ‘Cage and Cunnigham’, The Musical Times, 105.1459 (September): 659-660.

Carrier, David (1992). ‘”Artwriting” Revisited’, Leonardo, 25.2: 197-204.

…… (1998). ‘Danto and His Critics: After the End of Art and Art History’, History and Theory, 37.4, Danto and His Critics: Art History, Historiography and After the End of Art (December): 1-16.

Chave, Anna C. (2000). ‘Minimalism and Biography’, The Art Bulletin, 82.1 (March): 149-163.

…… (1990) ‘Minimalism and the Rhetoric of Power’, Arts Magazine (January): 44- 63.

Clarke, David (1993). ‘The All-Over Image: Meaning in Abstract Art’, Journal of American Studies, 27.3, American Art and Music (December): 355-375.

Clark, T.J. (1982). ‘Clement Greenberg’s Theory of Art’, Critical Inquiry, 9.1, The Politics of Interpretation (September): 139-156.

Cohen, Marshall (1971). ‘Notes on Modernist Art’, New Literary History, 3.1, Modernism and Postmodernism: Inquiries, Reflections, and Speculations (Autumn): 215-223.

Colpitt, Frances (1985). ‘The Issue of Boredom: Is It Interesting?’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 43.4 (Summer): 359-365.

…… (1991). ‘The Shape of Painting in the 1960s’, Art Journal, 50.1, Constructed Painting (Spring): 52-56.

228

Cooke, Lynne (2002). ‘Review: Donald Judd. Bielefeld’, The Burlington Magazine, 144.1194 (September): 571-573.

…… (1989). ‘Sculpture Shows. New York’, The Burlington Magazine, 131.1030 (January): 65-66.

Copeland, Roger (1983). ‘Postmodern Dance Postmodern Architecture Postmodernism’, Performing Arts Journal, 7.1: 27-43.

Coplans, John (1971). ‘An Interview with Donald Judd’, Artforum, 9.10 (June): 40- 50.

…… (1970). ‘Early Warhol: The systemic evolution of the impersonal style’, Artforum, 8.7 (March): 52-29.

Craven, David (1991). ‘Abstract Expressionism and Third World Art: A Post- Colonial Approach to “American” Art’, Oxford Art Journal, 14.1: 44-66.

Crimp, Douglas (1981). ‘The End of Painting’, October, 16, Art World Follies (Spring): 69-86.

Crowther, Paul (1984). ‘Barnett Newman and the Sublime’, Oxford Art Journal, 7.2, Photography: 52-59.

…… (1984). ‘Kant and Greenberg’s Varieties of Aesthetic Formalism’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 42.4 (Summer): 442-445.

Daly, Ann, et al. (1992). ‘What Has Become of Postmodern Dance? Answers and Other Questions by Marcia B. Siegel, Anna Halprin, Janice Ross, Cynthia J. Novack, Deborah Hay, Sally Banes, Senta Driver, Roger Copeland, and Susan L. Foster’, TDR (1988-), 36.1 (Spring): 48-69.

Danto, Arthur C. (1964). ‘The Artworld’, The Journal of Philosophy, 61.19, American Philosophical Eastern Division 61st Annual Meeting (15 October 1964): 571- 584.

229

Davis, Whitney, et al. (1994). ‘The Subject in/of Art History’, The Art Bulletin, 76.4 (December): 570-595.

De Duve, Thierry & Rosalind Krauss (1994). ‘Echoes of the Readymade: Critique of Pure Modernism’, October, 70, The Duchamp Effect (Autumn): 60-97.

Dworkin, Craig D. (2001). ‘Fugitive Signs’, October, 95 (Winter): 90-113.

Factor, Donald (1966). ‘Los Angeles, Dwan Gallery, Robert Morris’, Artforum, 4.8 (April): 13.

Fer, Briony (1999). ‘Objects beyond Objecthood’, Oxford Art Journal, 22.2, Louise Bourgeois: 27-36.

Fineberg, Jonathan (1980). ‘Robert Morris Looking Back: An Interview’, Arts Magazine, 55.1: 110-115.

Foster, Hal (1994). ‘What’s Neo about the Neo-Avant-garde?’, October, 70, The Duchamp Effect (Autumn): 5-32.

Foster, Susan (1998). ‘Choreographies of Gender’, Signs, 24.1 (Autumn): 1-33.

…… (1985). ‘The Signifying Body: Reaction and Resistance in Postmodern Dance’, Theater Journal, 37.1, Theory (March): 45-64.

Fried, Michael (1982). ‘How Modernism Works: A Response to T.J. Clark’, Critical Inquiry, 9.1, The Politics of Interpretation (September): 217-234.

…… (2001). ‘Response to Caroline A. Jones’, Critical Inquiry, 27.4 (Summer): 703- 705.

…… (1966). ‘Shape as form: Frank Stella's new paintings’, Artforum, 5.3: 18-27.

230

Friedman, B. H. (1966). ‘Towards the Total Color Image’, ARTnews, 65.4 (1966): 31-33.

Greimas, A.J. & F Rastier (1968). ‘The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints’, Yale French Studies, 41: 86-105.

Goldberg, RoseLee (1975). ‘Space as Praxis’, Studio International, 190.977: 130- 135.

Goldman, Danielle (2004). ‘Steve Paxton and Trisha Brown: Falling in the Dynamite of the Tenth of a Second’, Dance Research: The Journal for the Society for Dance Research, 22.1 (Summer): 45-56.

Hahn, Otto (1968). ‘Ingres and Primary Structure: Curious Anatomies, Mechanisation, Impersonal Execution, Anonymity, Arts Magazine (February 1968): 24-26.

Henning, Edward (1974). ‘Structure, Color, and Content’, The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 61.7 (September): 223-239.

Jachec, Nancy (1998). ‘Modernism, Enlightenment Values, and Clement Greenberg’, Oxford Art Journal, 21.2: 123-132.

…… (1991). ‘”The Space between Art and Political Action”: Abstract Expressionism and Ethical Choice in Postwar America 1945-1950’, Oxford Art Journal, 14.2: 18- 29.

Jencks, Charles (1987). ‘Postmodern and Late Modern: The Essential Definitions’, Chicago Review, 35.4: 31-58.

Johnston, Jill (1963). ‘Reviews and Previews – Robert Morris’, ARTnews, 62 (October): 10-15.

…… (1965). ‘Reviews and Previews – Robert Morris’, ARTnews, 64 (May): 10-19.

231

Jones, Caroline A. (1993). ‘Finishing School: John Cage and the Abstract Expressionist Ego’, Critical Inquiry, 19.4 (Summer): 628-665.

…… (2000). ‘The Modernist Paradigm: The Artworld and Thomas Kuhn’, Critical Inquiry, 26.3 (Spring): 488-528.

Jones, Amelia (1995). ‘”Clothes Make the Man”: The Male Artist as a Performative Function, Oxford Art Journal, 18.2: 18-32.

…… (1997). ‘”Presence” in Absentia: Experiencing Performance as Documentation’, Art Journal, 56.4, Performance Art: (Some) Theory and (Selected) Practice at the End of This Century (Winter): 11-18.

Joseph, Branden W. (2013). ‘Negative Capabilities: Claes Oldenburg and Jackson Pollock’, Artforum, 51.8 (April): 230-9; 282-3.

…… (1997). ‘Robert Morris and John Cage: Reconstructing a Dialogue’, October, 81 (Summer 1997): 59-69.

…… (2000). ‘White on White’, Critical Inquiry, 27.1 (Autumn): 90-121.

Kandinsky, Wassily (1912). ‘On the Problem of Form’, Der Blaue Reiter, 168.10: 74- 100. [Trans. Kenneth Lindsay].

Keller, Alexandra & Frazer Ward (2006). ‘Matthew Barney and the Paradox of the Neo-Avant-Garde Blockbuster’, Cinema Journal, 45.2 (Winter): 3-16

Kirstein, Lincoln (1937). ‘Crisis in Dance’, The North American Review, 243.1 (Spring): 80-103.

Kohn, Adrian (2005). ‘Judd on Politics, Judd on Phenomena’, Art Journal, 64.4 (Winter): 131-133.

Kostelanetz, Richard (1970). ‘The State of the Art of Painting’, The North American Review, 255.4 (Winter): 52-60. 232

Kostelanetz, Richard & John Cage (1987). ‘The Aesthetics of John Cage: A Composite Interview’, Kenyon Review, New Series, 9.4 (Autumn): 102-130.

Kotz, Liz (2001). ‘Post-Cagean Aesthetics and the “Event” Score’, October, 95 (Winter): 54-89.

Kozloff, Max (1969). ‘9 in a warehouse: an attack on the status of the object’, Artforum, 7.6 (February): 38-42.

Kramer, Milton (1966). ‘”Primary Structures” – The New Anonymity’, The New York Times (1 May): 147.

Krauss, Rosalind (1972). ‘A view of modernism’, Artforum, 11.1: 48-51.

…… (1966). ‘Allusion and Illusion in Donald Judd’, Artforum, 4.9 (May): 24-26.

…… (1990). ‘Bachelors’, October, 52 (Spring): 52-59.

…… (1979). ‘Grids’, October, 9 (Summer): 50-64.

…… (1978). ‘LeWitt in Progress’, October, 6 (Autumn): 46-60.

…… (1977). ‘Notes on the Index: Seventies Art in America’, October, 3 (Spring): 68- 81.

…… (1971). ‘Problems of Criticism, X: Pictorial Space and the Question of Documentary’, Artforum, 10.3 (November): 68-71.

…… (1979). ‘Sculpture in the Expanded Field’, October, 8 (Spring): 30-44.

…… (1973). ‘Sense and Sensibility: Reflection on post ‘60s Sculpture’, Artforum, 12.3 (November): 43-53. 233

…… (2004). ‘”Specific” Objects’, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 46 Polemical Objects (Autumn): 221-224.

…… (1990). ‘The Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalist Museum’, October, 54 (Autumn): 3-17.

Kuspitt, Donald B. (1971). ‘The Illusion of the Absolute in Abstract Art’, Art Journal, 31.1 (Autumn): 26-30.

Kwon, Miwon (1997). ‘One Place after Another: Notes on Site Specificity’, October, 80 (Spring): 85-110.

Lascia, Shelley (1987). ‘Writing the Past Dance Ideologies’, Writings on Dance, 2, Critical Issues (Spring): 23-25.

Lambert, Carrie (1999). ‘Moving Still: Mediating Yvonne Rainer’s “Trio A”’, October, 89 (Summer): 87-112.

Legg, Joshua (2006). ‘Cunningham Technique’, Dance Spirit, 10.10 (December):96- 98.

Leider, Philip (1970). ‘How I spent my Summer Vacation or, Art and Politics in Nevada, Berkeley, San Francisco and Utah’, Artforum, 9.1 (September): 40-49.

…… (1970). ‘Literalism and Abstraction: Franks Stella’s Retrospective at the Modern’ Artforum, 5.5 (April): 44-51.

…… (1969). ‘New York: Richard Serra at Castelli Warehouse’, Artforum, 8.6 (February): 68-70.

Levine, Edward (1971). ‘Abstract Expressionism: The Mystical Experience’, Art Journal, 31.1 (Autumn): 22-25.

234

Lewis, Philip E. (1966). ‘Merleau-Ponty and the Phenomenology of Language’, Yale French Studies, 36/37, Structuralism: 19-40.

Linsley, Robert (2000). ‘Mirror Travel in the Yucatan: Robert Smithson, Michael Fried, and the New Critical Drama, Anthropology and Aesthetics, 37 (Spring): 7- 30.

Lippard, Lucy (1966-67). ‘After a Fashion: The Group Show’, The Hudson Review, 19.4 (Winter): 620-626.

Mack, Roxie Davis (1994). ‘Modernist art criticism: Hegemony and Decline’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 52.3 (Summer): 341-348.

Mariño, Melanie (1999). ‘Body as Place: Vito Acconci’s Gaze’, A Journal of Performance and Art, 21.1 (January): 63-74.

Marranca, Bonnie, et al. (1994). ‘Ages of the Avant-Garde’, Performing Arts Journal, 16.1 Bodies of Work (January): 9-57.

McClain, Jeoraldean (1985). ‘Time in the Visual Arts: Lessing and Modern Criticism’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 44.1 (Autumn): 41-58.

Meyer, James (1999). ‘Ronald Bladen’, Artforum International, 37:9 (May), 174.

Meyer, Ursula (1969). ‘De-Objectification of the Object’, Arts Magazine (Summer): 20-22.

Mitchell, W.J.T. & Robert Morris (1994). ‘Golden Memories’, Artforum, 32.8 (April): 86-87.

Monte, James (1971). ‘Looking at the Guggenheim International’, Artforum, 9.7 (March): 28-31.

Muller, Gregoire (1973). ‘Donald Judd, Ten Years’, Arts Magazine, 47: 35-42.

235

Munro, Eleanor (1960). ‘Art news from San Francisco – Morris and Morris’, ARTnews, 58 (February): 46.

Mussman, Toby (1968). ‘A Comment on Literalness’, Arts Magazine (February): 14- 17.

Nemser, Cindy (1970). ‘Art Criticism and Perceptual Research’, Art Journal, 29.3 (Spring): 326-329.

Newman, Barnett (1948). ‘The Sublime Is Now’, Tiger’s Eye, 1.15 (December): 51- 53.

Nodelman, Sheldon (1966). ‘Structural Analysis in Art and Anthropology’, Yale French Studies, 36/37, Structuralism: 89-103.

Nonas, Richard (1994). ‘Robert Morris: At the Guggenheim, Performing Arts Journal, 16.3 (September): 47-51.

O’Doherty, Brian (1963). ‘Recent Openings’, The New York Times (21 December): 20.

Owens, Craig (1979). ‘Earthwords’, October, 10 (Autumn): 120-130.

Paulson, Ronald (1985). ‘Versions of a Human Sublime’, New Literary History, 16.2, The Sublime and the Beautiful: Reconsiderations (Winter): 427-437.

Paxton, Steve (1987). ‘Improvisation is…’, Contact Quarterly, 12.2 (Spring/Summer): 15-19.

Perreault, John (1967). ‘Union-Made: Repost on a Phenomenon’, Arts Magazine (March): 26-31.

Perrone, Jeff (1976). ‘Seeing through Boxes’, Artforum, 15.3 (November): 45-47.

236

Perry, Jeffrey (2005). ‘Cage’s Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano: Performance, Hearing and Analysis’, Music Theory Spectrum, 27.1 (Spring): 35- 66.

Pincus-Witten, Robert (1970). ‘Fining it Down: Don Judd at Castelli’, Artforum, 8.10 (June): 47-49.

…… (1973). ‘Theater of the Conceptual: Autobiography and Myth’, Artforum, 11.2 (October): 40-46.

Polcari, Stephen (1994). ‘Barnett Newman’s Broken Obelisk’, Art Journal, 53.4 Sculpture in Postwar Europe and America, 1945-59 (Winter): 48-55.

Pollock, Jackson (1947-48). ‘My Painting’, Possibilities, 1 (Winter): 78-83.

…… (1944). ‘Jackson Pollock: A Questionnaire’ [interview by anon.], Arts and Architecture, 61.2 (February): 14.

Porter, William S. (1957). ‘Dance Chronicle’, The Hudson Review, 10.3 (Autumn): 430-439.

Potter, Michelle (1993). ‘”A License to Do Anything”: Robert Rauschenberg and the Merce Cunningham Dance Company’, Dance Chronicle, 16.1: 1-43.

Proweller, William (1972). ‘American Painting of the 1960s: The Failure of Criticism and the Need for an Alternate Aesthetics’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 30.3 (Spring): 319-326.

Quigley, T. R. (1987). ‘Orthodox Formalism and the Metaphysics of Pictorialism’, The Kenyon Review, New Series, 9.4 (Autumn): 146-150.

Rainer, Yvonne (1965). ‘Some Retrospective Notes on a Dance for 10 People and 12 Mattresses Called “Parts of Some Sextets”, Performed at the Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut, and the Judson Memorial Church, New York in March 1965, The Tulane Drama Review, 10.2 (Winter): 168-178. 237

Rainer, Yvonne & Ann Halprin (1965). ‘Yvonne Rainer Interviews Ann Halprin’, The Tulane Drama Review, 10.2 (Winter): 142-167.

Rainer, Yvonne & Trisha Brown (1993). ‘Trisha Brown’, BOMB, 45 (Fall): 28-33.

Raskin, David (2001). ‘Specific Opposition: Judd’s art and politics’, Art History, 24.5 (November): 682-706.

…… (2006). ‘The Shiny Illusionism of Krauss and Judd’, Art Journal, 65.1 (Spring): 6-21.

Rampley, Matthew (1996). ‘Identity and Difference: Jackson Pollock and the Ideology of the Drip’, Oxford Art Journal, 19.2: 83-94.

Reichardt, Jasia (1966). ‘Structures/objects/assemblages’, Studio International, 172 (December): 278-279.

Rose, Barbara (1965). ‘ABC Art’, Art in America (October/November): 57-69.

…… (1965). ‘Looking at American Sculpture’, Artforum, 3.5 (February): 29-36.

…… (1969). ‘Problems of Criticism, V: The Politics of Art, part II’, Artforum, 7.5 (January): 44-49.

…… (1967). ‘The value of didactic art’, Artforum, 5.8 (April): 32-36.

…… (1974). ‘Twilight of the Superstars’, Partisan Review, 41.4: 563-571.

Rosenberg, Harold (1952). ‘The American Action Painters’, ARTnews, 5.5 (December): 22.

Rosenblum, Robert (1961). ‘The Abstract Sublime’, ARTnews, 59.10: 38-41; 56; 58. 238

Sandler, Irving (1980). ‘Modernism, Revisionism, Pluralism, and Post-Modernism’, Art Journal, 40.1-2, (Autumn/Winter): 345-347.

Seckler, Dorothy Gees & Barnett Newman (1962). ‘Frontiers of Space’, Art in America, 50 (Summer): 82- 87.

Seitz, William C. (1972). ‘Mondarin and the issue of relationships’, Artforum, 10.6 (February): 70-75.

Shannon, Joshua A. (2004). ‘Claes Oldenburg’s “The Street” and Urban Renewal in Greenwich Village, 1960’, The Art Bulletin, 86.1 (March): 136-161.

Singerman, Howard (2003). ‘Noncompositional Effects. Or the Process of Painting in 1970’, Oxford Art Journal, 26.1: 125-150.

Siegel, Marcia B. (1983). ‘The Death of Some Alternatives’, Contact Quarterly, 8.2 (Winter): 24-27.

Smith, Constance (1946). ‘Dance Letter’, The Kenyon Review, 8.4 (Autumn): 689- 693.

Smith, Roberta (1982). ‘Multiple Returns’, Art in America, 70 (March): 112-114.

…… (1976). ‘Two Critics Collected’, Art in America, 64 (November/December): 35- 36.

Smithson, Robert (1968). ‘A Sedimentation of the Mind: Earth Projects’, Artforum, 7.1 (September): 44-50.

…… (1966). ‘Entropy and the New Monuments’, Artforum, 9.10 (June): 26-31.

Spivey, Virginia (2003-04). ‘Sites of Subjectivity: Robert Morris, Minimalism, and Dance’, Dance Research Journal, 35/36.2/1 (Winter/Summer): 113-130.

239

…… (2009). ‘The Minimal Presence of Simone Forti’, Woman’s Art Journal, 30.1 (Spring/Summer): 11-18.

Still, Clyfford (1959). ‘A letter to Gordon Smith, Director’, (1 January 1959), published in the exhibition catalogue, Paintings by Clyfford Still, The Buffalo Fine Arts Academy, Albright-Knox Art Gallery (5 November – 13 December 1959).

Swenson, G. R. (1964). ‘Reviews and Previews: New Names this Month – Donald Judd’, ARTnews, 62 (February): 20.

Theys, Emily Macel (2011). ‘Modern Masters’, Dance Spirit, 15.4 (April 2011): 66- 69.

Tillum, Sidney (1963). ‘Letters to the Editor: Apples and Essences’, Arts Magazine (March): 7.

…… (1963). ‘Month in Review’, Arts Magazine (March): 59-62.

Todd, George F. (1983). ‘Art and the Concept of Art’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 44.2 (December): 255-270.

Tuchman, Phyllis (1977). ‘Minimalism and Critical Response’, Artforum, 15.5 (May): 26-31.

Waldman, Diane (1965). ‘Cornell: the compass of boxing’, ARTnews, 64 (March): 42-45; 49-50.

Ward, Frazer (1995). ‘The Haunted Museum: Institutional Critique and Publicity’, October, 73 (Summer): 71-89.

Zimmer, Elizabeth (1983). ‘Working the Room’, Village Voice (27 December): 38.

240

Books

Archer, Michael (1997/2002). Art since 1960, London and New York: Thames & Hudson.

Art Institute of Chicago (1922). Exhibition of Paintings from the Collection of the Late Arthur Jerome Eddy from September 19 to October 22, The Art Institute of Chicago, 1922.

Baker, Kenneth (1988). Minimalism: art of circumstance, New York: Abbeville Press.

Banes, Sally (1993). Democracy’s Body: Judson Dance Theater, 1962-1964, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

…… (1993). Greenwich Village 1963: Avant-garde performance and the effervescent body, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

…… (1977/1987). Terpsichore in Sneakers, Middleton: Wesleyan University Press.

Basualdo, Carlos, et al. (2013). Dancing Around the Bride: Cage, Cunningham, Johns, Rauschenberg, and Duchamp, New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Battcock, Gregory, ed. (1966). The New Art: a critical anthology, New York: E. P. Dutton.

…… (1968). Minimal Art: a critical anthology, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bell, Kristine, et al. (2011). Donald Judd, [exh. cat.], Göttingen: Steidl/David Zwirner.

241

Berger, Maurice (1989). Labyrinths: Robert Morris, minimalism, and the 1960s, New York: Harper & Row.

Best, Makeda & Miguel de Baca (2015), Conflict, Identity, and Protest in American Art, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Bochner, Mel (2008). Solar System & Rest Rooms: Writings and Interviews, 1965- 2007, Cambridge and London: October and the MIT Press.

Bordo, Susan (1987). Flight to Objectivity: essays on Cartesianism and Culture, Albany: State University of New York Press.

Bürger, Peter (1984). Theory of the Avant-Garde, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Burke, Edmund (1757). A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful [ed. and intro. Adam Phillips, 1990], Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Breitwiesser, Sabine, ed. (2014). Simone Forti: Thinking with the Body, Museum der Moderne Salzburg, Munich: Hirmer Verlag.

Brennan, Marcia (2004). Modernism’s Masculine Subjects: Matisse, the New York School, and Post-Painterly Abstraction, Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

…… (2001). Painting Gender, Constructing Theory: the Alfred Stieglitz Circle and American formalist aesthetics, Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

Brown, Jean, ed. (1998). The Vision of Modern Dance, Princeton: Princeton Book Company.

Bryan-Wilson, Julia (2009). Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era, Berkeley: University of California Press.

242

Butler, Christopher (1994). Early Modernism: Literature, Music and Painting in Europe 1900-1916, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cage, John (1961). Silence: lectures and writings, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.

…… (1993). John Cage, writer: previously uncollected pieces, [ed. and intro. Richard Kostelanetz], New York: Limelight Editions.

Chipp, Herschel B. (1968). Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists and Critics, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cohen, Marshall & Roger Copeland (1983). What is Dance?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. (1934). The Transformation of Nature in Art: Theories of art in Indian, Chinese, and European medieval art; iconography, ideal representation, perspective and space relations, New York: Dover Publications.

Ellis, Willis D., ed. (1938). A source book of Gestalt psychology, London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co.

Descartes, René (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy: with selections from the Objections and Replies [ed. and trans. John Cottingham, 1986/1996], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

De Duve, Thierry (2010). Clement Greenberg between the lines, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

…… (1996). Kant after Duchamp, Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

Dickinson, Peter, ed. (2006). Cage Talk: Dialogues with and about John Cage, Rochester: University of Rochester Press.

Dietmar, Elgar, ed. (2000). Donald Judd: Colorist, Bonn: Hatje Cantz Publishers. 243

Doss, Erika (2002). Twentieth-Century American Art, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fried, Michael (1998). Art and Objecthood: essays and reviews, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Friedman, B. H. (1972). Jackson Pollock: Energy Made Visible, New York: McGraw- Hill.

Franscina, Francis (1999). Art, politics and dissent: aspects of the art left in Sixties America, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Forti, Simone Handbook in Motion, Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design, 1974.

Foster, Hal (1996). The Return of the Real, Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

Foster, Hal, ed. (1983). The Anti-Aesthetic: essays on postmodern culture, Seattle: Bay Press.

Foster, Susan Leigh (1986). Reading Dancing: Bodies and Subjects in Contemporary American Dance, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Foulkes, Julia L. (2006). Modern Bodies: Dance and American Modernism from Martha Graham to Alvin Ailey, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Geldzahler, Henry, ed. (1969). New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970, New York: E.P. Dutton.

Goldberg, RoseLee (1979). Performance Art: From Futurism to the Present, New York: Thames & Hudson, 2001.

244

Goossen, E.C. (1968). The Art of the Real: USA 1948-1968, New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

Graham, Martha (1991). Blood Memory, New York: Doubleday.

Greenberg, Clement (1961). Art & Culture: Critical Essays, Boston: Beacon Press.

…… (2000). Homemade Esthetics: Observations on Art and Taste: Observations on Art and Taste, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

…… (1986). The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol.1: Perceptions and Judgements, 1939-1944, [ed. John O’Brian], Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

…… (1986). The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol.2: Arrogant Purpose, 1945-1949, [ed. John O’Brian], Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

…… (1993). The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol.3: Affirmations and Refusals, 1950-1956, [ed. John O’Brian], Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

…… (1993). The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol.4: Modernism with a Vengeance, 1957-1969, [ed. John O’Brian], Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Haskell, Barbara (1988). Donald Judd, New York: Whitney Museum of American Art 1986 in association with Norton.

Hassan, Ihab & Sally Hassan, eds. (1983). Innovation/Renovation: new perspectives on the humanities, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Hodgson, Moira (1976). Quintet: five American dance companies, New York: William Morrow & Co.

Humphrey, Doris (1959). The Art of Making Dances, [ed., Barbara Pollack], Princeton: Dance Horizons, 1987.

245

Israel, Matthew (2013), Kill for Peace: American Artists Against the Vietnam War, Austin: The University of Texas Press.

Jowitt, Deborah (1988). Time and the Dancing Image, New York: William Morrow & Co.

Judd, Donald (1975). Complete Writings 1959-1975: gallery reviews, book reviews, articles, letters to the editor, reports, statements, complaints, Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design.

…… (1987). Complete Writings 1975-1986, Eindhoven: Van Abbemuseum.

Kaprow, Allan (1993). Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kellein, Thomas, ed. (1992). Clyfford Still: The Buffalo and San Francisco Collections, Munich: Prestel-Verlag.

…… (2002). Donald Judd, 1955-1968, A catalogue of the exhibition ‘Donald Judd. The Early Work, 1955-1968’ from 5 May to 21 July 2002 in the Kunsthalle Bielefeld and from 31 January 2002 to 27 April 2003 in the Menil Collection, Houston. New York: D.A.P.

Kleeblatt, Norman, et al. (2009). Action/abstraction: Pollock, de Kooning, and American art, 1940-1976, [exh. cat.], New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

Kostelanetz, Richard, ed. (1971). John Cage: An Anthology, London: Allen Lane.

Kostelanetz, Richard, et al. (1998). Merce Cunningham: Dancing in Time and Space: Essay 1941 – 1992, New York: Da Capo Press.

Kosuth, Joseph (1991). Art After Philosophy and After: Collected writings, 1966- 1990, [ed. and intro. Gabriele Guercio], Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

246

Krauss, Rosalind (1977). Passages in Modern Sculpture, Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

Kusama, Yayoi (2013). Infinity Net: The Autobiography of Yayoi Kusama, New York: Tate Enterprises Ltd.

Kuspit, Donald (1988). The New Subjectivism: Art in the 1980s, Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press.

Lippard, Lucy (1973). Six Years: the dematerialisation of the art object from 1966 to 1972, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Lucie-Smith, Edward (1969). Movements in Art since 1945, London and New York: Thames & Hudson, 2001.

Lüscher, Max (1969). The Lüscher Colour Test, [trans. and ed. Ian Scott], London: Jonathan Cape, 1970.

Manning, Susan A. (1993) Ecstasy and the Demon: Feminism and Nationalism in the Dances of Mary Wigman, Berkely: University of California Press.

Mele, Christopher (2000). Selling the Lower East Side: culture, real estate, and resistance in New York City, Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1960). Signs, [trans. and intro. Richard C. McCleary], Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1964.

…… (1969). The Prose of the World, [trans. John O’Neill], Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973.

Meyer, James (2000). Minimalism, London: Phaidon Press.

…… (2001). Minimalism: Art and Polemics in the 1960s, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

247

Mitchell, W.J.T., ed. (1994). Landscape and Power, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Moody, Howard (2009). A Voice in the Village: A Journey of a Pastor and a People, New York: Howard Moody.

Morris, Robert (2000). From Mnemosyne to Clio: The Mirror to the Labyrinth (1998- 1999-2000), Lyon: Musée d’Art contemporain.

…… (2008). Have I Reasons: Work and Writings, 1993-2007, [ed. and intro. Nena Tsouti-Schillinger], Durham and London: Duke University Press.

…… (1969). Robert Morris, [exh. cat.], Corcoran Gallery of Art & Detroit Institute of Art.

…… (1994). The Mind/Body Problem, [exh. cat.], New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation.

…… (2012). Untitled (Scatter Piece) 1968-69, [exh. cat.], New York: Leo Castelli.

Morse, Meredith (2016). Soft is Fast: Simone Forti in the 1960s and After, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Nietzsche, Friedrich (1872). Geburt der Tragödie, [The birth of tragedy, trans. Douglas Smith], Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

O’Doherty, Brian (1976). Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space, Santa Monica: Lapis Press.

Patterson, David. W., ed. (2002). John Cage: Music, Philosophy, and Intention, 1933- 1950, New York: Routledge.

248

Panofsky, Erwin (1955). Meaning in the visual arts: papers in and on art history, Garden City: Doubleday.

Pritchett, James (1993). The Music of John Cage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rainer, Yvonne (2006). Feelings are Facts, Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

…… (1974). Work 1961-73, Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design.

Raskin, David (2010). Donald Judd, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Reich, Steve (1974). Writings About Music, Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design.

Rose, Barbara, ed. (1980). Pollock Painting: photographs by Hans Namuth, New York: Agrinde Publications.

Rosenberg, Harold (1959). The Tradition of the New, London: Thames and Hudson.

…… (1973). Discovering the Present: Three Decades in Art, Culture, & Politics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rosenblum, Robert (1975). Modern Painting and the Northern Romantic Tradition: Friedrich to Rothko, New York: Harper and Row.

Ruskin, John (1857). The Elements of Drawing: Three Letters to Beginners, New York: Maynard, Merril, & Co., 1893

Schneider, Rebecca (1997). The Explicit Body in Performance, London: Routledge.

Serota, Nicholas, ed. (2004). Donald Judd, London: Tate Publishing.

249

…… (2000). Donald Judd: late work, [exh. cat.], New York: PaceWildenstein.

Shannon, Joshua (2009). The Disappearance of Objects: New York and the rise of the postmodern city, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Smith, Brydon (1975). Donald Judd: a catalogue of the exhibition at the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, 24 May-6 July, 1975: catalogue raisonné of paintings, objects, and wood-blocks, 1960-1974, Ottawa: The Gallery for the Corporation of the National Museums of Canada.

Stein, Judith E. (2016). Eye of the Sixties: Richard Bellamy and transformation of modern art, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Steinberg, Leo (1972). Other Criteria: Confrontations with twentieth-century art, New York: Oxford University Press.

Sylvester, David (2001). Interviews with American Artists, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Tomkins, Calvin (1968). The Bride and the Bachelors: Five Masters of the Avant- Garde, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976.

Tucker, Marcia (1970). Robert Morris, New York: Praeger and Whitney Museum of American Art.

Welchman, John C. (1977). Invisible Colours: a visual history of titles, New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

Wertheimer, Max (1945). Productive Thinking, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1945.

Worringer, Wilhelm (1908) Abstraction and Empathy: A Contribution to the Psychology of Style, [trans. Michael Bullock], New York: International Universities Press, 1953.

250

…… (1912). Form in Gothic, [trans., ed. and intro. Herbert Read], London: Alec Tiranti, 1964.

Selected chapters and articles in edited books and anthologies

Auping, Michael (1992). ‘Clyfford Still and New York: The Buffalo Project’, in: Thomas Kellein, ed. Clyfford Still: The Buffalo and San Francisco Collections, Munich: Prestel-Verlag, 1992.

Berger, Maurice (1994). ‘Have mind, will travel’, in: The Mind/Body Problem, [exh. cat.], New York: The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1994.

Bryan-Wilson, Julia (2009). ‘Robert Morris’s Art Strike’, in: Art Workers: Radical Practice in the Vietnam War Era, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.

Copeland, Roger (1979). ‘Merce Cunningham and the Politics of Perception’ (1979), in: Roger Copeland and Marshall Cohen, eds. What is Dance?, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Cage, John (1956). ‘[Letter to Paul Henry Lang]’, in: Richard Kostelanetz, ed. John Cage: An Anthology, London: Allen Lane, 1971.

…… (1982). ‘More on Paik’, in: John Cage, John Cage, writer: previously uncollected pieces, [ed. and intro. Richard Kostelanetz], New York: Limelight Editions, 1993.

Cunningham, Merce (1952). ‘Space, time and dance’, in: Richard Kostelanetz and Jack Anderson, eds. Merce Cunningham: Dancing in Space and Time, Pennington: A Capella Books, 1992.

Durand, Regis (1983). ‘Theatre/SIGNS/Performance: On Some Transformations of the Theatrical and the Theoretical’, in: Ihab Hassan & Sally Hassan, eds. Innovation/Renovation: new perspectives on the humanities, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983. 251

Fried, Michael (1965). Three American Painters: Kenneth Noland, Jules Olitski, Frank Stella, Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, 1965; reprinted in: Michael Fried, Art and Objecthood: essays and reviews, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Glaser, Bruce, et al. ‘Questions to Stella and Judd’, ARTnews (September 1966), reprinted in: Gregory Battcock, ed. Minimal Art: a critical anthology, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.

Graham, Martha (1937). ‘Graham 1937’, in: Jean Brown (ed.), The Vision of Modern Dance, Princeton: Princeton Book Company, 1998.

Humphrey, Doris (1937). ‘What a Dancer Thinks About’, in: Jean Brown (ed.), The Vision of Modern Dance, Princeton: Princeton Book Company, 1998.

Kaprow, Allan (1958). ‘The Legacy of Jackson Pollock’, in: Kaprow, Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Kaprow, Allan (1961). ‘Happenings in the New York Scene’, in: Kaprow, Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Köhler, Wolfgang (1920). ‘Physical Gestalten’, in: Willis D. Ellis, ed. A source book of Gestalt psychology, London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co., 1938.

Kuspit, Donald (1988). ‘The Subjective Aspect of Critical Evaluation’, in: Kuspit, The New Subjectivism: Art in the 1980s, Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1988.

Leepa, Allan (1966). ‘Anti-Art and Criticism’, in: Gregory Battcock, ed. The New Art, New York: E.P. Dutton, 1973.

Maletic, Vera & Ann Halprin (1967-68). ‘The Process Is The Purpose’, in: Jean Brown (ed.), The Vision of Modern Dance, Princeton: Princeton Book Company, 1998.

Michelson, Annette (1969). ‘Robert Morris: An Aesthetics of Transgression’, in: Robert Morris, [exh. cat.], Corcoran Gallery of Art; Detroit Institute of Art, 1969. 252

Patterson, David W. (2002). ‘The Picture That Is Not in the Colours: Cage, Coomaraswamy, and the Impact of India’, in: Patterson, ed. John Cage: Music, Philosophy, and Intention, 1933-1950, New York: Routledge, 2002.

Paxton, Steve (2014). ‘The Emergence of Simone Forti’, in: Breitwiesser, Sabine, ed. (2014). Simone Forti: Thinking with the Body, Munich: Hirmer Verlag.

Rainer, Yvonne (2014). ‘On Simone Forti’, in: Breitwiesser, Sabine, ed. (2014). Simone Forti: Thinking with the Body, Munich: Hirmer Verlag.

Rainer, Yvonne (1966). ‘The Mind is a Muscle: A Quasi Survey of Some “Minimalist” Tendencies in the Quantitatively Minimal Dance Activity Midst the Plethora, or an Analysis of Trio A’, in: Rainer, Work 1961-1973, Halifax: The Press of the Novia Scotia College of Art and Design, 1974.

Raskin, David (2004). ‘Judd’s Moral Art’, in: Nicholas Serota, ed. Donald Judd, London: Tate Publishing, 2004.

Rosenberg, Harold (1966). ‘Virtuosos of Boredom’, in: Rosenberg, Discovering the Present: Three Decades in Art, Culture, & Politics, Chicago: The University of Press, 1973.

Harold Rosenberg, ‘Defining Art’, The New Yorker (25 February 1967); reprinted in: Battcock, ed. Minimal Art: a critical anthology, 304-5.

Shiff, Richard ‘Fast Thinking’ (2000), in: Donald Judd: late work, [exh. cat.], New York: PaceWildenstein, 2000.

…… (2004) ‘Donald Judd, Safe from Birds’, in: Nicholas Serota, ed. Donald Judd, London: Tate Publishing, 2004.

…… (2011). ‘What Judd Knows’, in: Donald Judd, [exh. cat.], Göttingen: Steidl/David Zwirner, 2011.

253

Weiss, Jeffrey (2010). ‘Things Fall Apart’, in: Robert Morris, Untitled (Scatter Piece) 1968-69, New York: Leo Castelli, 2012.

Wertheimer, Max (1925). ‘Gestalt Theory’, in: Willis D. Ellis, ed. A source book of Gestalt psychology, London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co., 1938.

…… (1945). ‘The Famous Story of Young Gauss’, in: Wertheimer, Productive Thinking, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959.

254

Online articles, interviews, and transcripts

Donald Judd interview by Bruce Hooton (1965). Transcript of oral history interview with Donald Judd conducted on 3 February 1965 for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. [Online and no pagination], accessed: 5 March 2009. Available from: http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-donald- judd-11621

Flavin Judd, ‘The Glasshouse Conversations, 18 July 2001’, [online]. Accessed 10 November 2011. Available from: http://glasshouseconversations.org/

Frank Stella interview by Sidney Tillum (1969). Transcript of oral history interview with Frank Stella conducted in 1969 for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

John Cage interview by Paul Cummings (1974). Transcript of oral history interview with John Cage conducted on 2 May 1974 for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. [Online and no pagination], accessed: 5 March 2009. Available from: http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history- interview-john-cage-12442

Robert Morris interview by Simon Grant (2008). [Online and no pagination], accessed: 12 July 2010. Available from: https://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue14/interviewmorris.htm

Robert Morris interview by Paul Cummings (1968). Transcript of oral history interview with Robert Morris conducted on 10 March 1968 for the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. [Online and no pagination], accessed: 5 March 2009. Available from: http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-robert- morris-13065

Robert Rauschenberg video interview by David A. Ross, Walter Hopps, Gary Garrels and Peter Samis, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, 6 May 1999 (Unpublished transcript at SFMOMA Research Library and Archives [6537]), R:18.

255

Yayoi Kusama interview by Midori Matsui (1998). ‘In Conversation with Yayoi Kusama’, Index, [Online and no pagination], accessed: 8 November 2016. Available from: http://www.indexmagazine.com/interviews/yayoi_kusama.shtml

Writings of Clement Greenberg

From Art and Culture: Critical Essays:

‘Abstract, Representational, and so forth’ (1948, 1958): 133-138.

‘”American Type” Painting' (1955, 1958): 208-229.

‘Avant-Garde and Kitsch’ (1939): 3-21.

‘Cezanne’ (1951): 50-58.

‘The Crisis of the Easel Picture’ (1948): 154-157.

‘The New Sculpture’ (1949): 139-145.

From The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol.1:

‘Abstract Art’, The Nation (15 April 1944): 200-201.

‘Review of the Whitney Annual and the Exhibition Romantic Painting in America’, The Nation (1 January 1944): 171-174.

256

‘Study in Stieglitz: Review of The Emergence of an American Art by Jerome Mellquist’, The New Republic (15 June 1942): 106-108.

‘Towards a newer Laocoön’, Partisan Review, (July-August 1940): 23-38.

From The Collected Essays and Criticism, vol.2:

‘Review of an Exhibition of Georgia O’Keefe’, The Nation (15 June 1946): 85-87.

‘Review of Exhibitions of Jean Debuffet and Jackson Pollock’, The Nation (1 February 1947): 122-125.

‘Review of an Exhibition of John Marin’, The Nation (25 December 1948): 268-270.

‘Review of the Whitney Annual’, The Nation (28 December 1946): 117-118.

‘The Present Prospects of American Painting and Sculpture’, Horizon (October 1947): 160-170.

‘The Role of Nature in Modern Painting’, Partisan Review (January 1949): 271-275.

‘The Situation at the Moment’, Partisan Review (January 1948): 192-196.

Other writings:

‘After Abstract Expressionism’, Arts International, 6.8 (October 1962), revised and reprinted in: Henry Geldzahler, New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970 (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1969): 360-371.

257

‘Modernist Painting’ (1960), Forum Lectures (Voice of America, Washington); revised and reprinted in: Art and Literature (Paris, spring 1965) and Gregory Battcock (ed.), The New Art: a critical anthology (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1966): 67-77.

‘Necessity of “Formalism”’, New Literary History, 3.1, Modernism and Postmodernism: Inquiries, Reflections, and Speculations (Autumn 1971): 171- 175.

‘Recentness of Sculpture’ (1967), in: American Sculpture of the Sixties [exh. cat.], Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1967; reprinted in: Gregory Battcock (ed.), Minimal Art: a critical anthology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968): 180-6.

Writings of Donald Judd

From Complete Writings 1959-1975:

‘Barnett Newman’, Studio International (February 1970): 200-202.

‘Claes Oldenburg’, exhibition catalogue for the Oldenburg exhibition, Moderna Museet, Stockholm: 191-193.

‘Complaints: part I’, Studio International (April 1969): 197-199.

‘In the Galleries – 79 Park Place’, Arts Magazine (February 1964): 112-113.

‘In the Galleries – Boxing Match’, Arts Magazine (May/June 1963): 90.

‘In the Galleries – Kenneth Noland’, Arts Magazine (May/June 1963): 92-93.

‘In the Galleries – Robert Morris’, Arts Magazine (February 1965): 165. 258

‘In the Galleries – Robert Rauschenberg’, Arts Magazine (May/June 1963): 86-88.

‘In the Galleries – Ronald Bladen’, Arts Magazine (February 1963): 75.

‘In the Galleries – Yayoi Kusama’, Arts Magazine (September 1964): 134-135.

‘Jackson Pollock’, Arts Magazine (April 1967): 193-195.

‘John Chamberlain’, exhibition catalogue for ‘7 Sculptors’, ICA, Philadelphia, November 1965 – January 1966: 190.

‘Lee Bontecou’, Arts Magazine (April 1965): 178-180.

‘Letters’, Arts Magazine (April 1963): 81.

‘Local History’, Arts Yearbook 7, (1964): 148-156.

Nationwide Reports: Hartford – Black, White and Gray’, Arts Magazine (March 1964): 117-119.

‘New York Letter’ Art International (April 1965): 172-177.

‘Specific Objects’, Arts Yearbook 8, 1965: 181-189.

‘Statement’, for: Primary Structures: Younger American and British Sculptors, The Jewish Museum, New York, April – June 1966: 190.

259

Other writings:

‘Portfolio: 4 Sculptors’, Perspecta, 11 (1967): 44-53.

‘Some Aspects of Color in General and Red and Black in Particular’ (1993), in: Nicholas Serota (ed.), Donald Judd, London: Tate Publishing, 2004: 144-161.

‘Yale Lecture, September 20, 1983’, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 7/8 (Spring – Autumn 1984): 147-154.

Writings of Robert Morris

‘Aligned with Nazca’, Artforum, 14.2 (October 1975): 26-39.

‘Anti Form’, Artforum, 6.8 (April 1968): 33-35.

‘From a Chomskiam Couch: The Imperialistic Unconscious’, Critical Inquiry, 29.4 (Summer 2003): 578-694.

‘Letters to John Cage’, October, 81 (Summer 1997): 70-79.

‘Notes on Art as/and Land Reclamation, October, 12 (Spring 1980): 87-102.

‘Notes on Dance’, The Tulane Drama Review, 10.2 (Winter 1965): 179-186.

‘Notes on Sculpture, Part I’, Artforum, 4.6 (February 1966): 42-44.

‘Notes on Sculpture, Part II’, Artforum, 5.2 (October 1966): 20-23.

260

‘Notes on Sculpture, Part III: Notes and Nonsequitors’, Artforum, 10.10 (Summer 1967): 24-29.

‘Notes on Sculpture Part IV: Beyond Objects’, Artforum, 7.8 (April 1969): 50-54.

‘Notes on Simone Forti’ (2014), in: Breitwiesser, Sabine, ed. (2014). Simone Forti: Thinking with the Body, Munich: Hirmer Verlag.

‘Portfolio: 4 Sculptors’, Perspecta, 11 (1967): 44-53.

‘Professional Rules’, Critical Inquiry, 23.2 (Winter 1997): 298-322.

‘Size Matters’, Critical Inquiry, 26.3 (Spring 2000): 474-487.

‘Solecisms of Sight: Specular Speculations’, October, 103 (Winter 2003): 31-41.

‘Some Notes on the Phenomenology of Making: The Search for the Motivated’, Artforum, 5.5 (April 1970): 62-66.

‘The Idle Idol, or Why Abstract Art Ended up Looking Like a Chinese Room’, Critical Inquiry, 34 (Spring 2008): 440-466.

‘The Labyrinth and the Urinal’, Critical Inquiry, 36 (Autumn 2009): 76-99.

‘Threading the Labyrinth’, October, 96 (Spring 2001): 61-70.

‘Three Fold ins in the Fabric and Four Autobiographical Asides as Allegories Or…’, Art in America (November 1989): 142-151.

‘Words and Images in Modernism and Postmodernism’, Critical Inquiry, 15.2 (Winter 1989): 337-347.

261

262

Dissonance and Resonance: Theory and Theatre in the Art of Donald Judd and Robert Morris

Appendix of Illustrations

Appendix has been removed due to copyright restrictions

Luke Diggins June 2017