PHENOMENAL CALIFORNIA LIGHT, SPACE, SURFACE

EDITED BY Robin Clark Essays by Michael Auping, ROBIN CLARK, Stephanie Hanor, Adrian Kohn Foreword by Hugh M. Davies AND Dawna Schuld

Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego

University of California Press BERKELEY LOS ANGELES LONDON

PUBLISHED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE GETTY FOUNDATION

Work and words the wall behind an Irwin disc. Something like illuminated shadows, maybe. And the right prepositions and verbs are tough to pick out when saying what Bell’s glass does. As you look at or into or through a panel, it both reflects and trans- mits light and obscures the distinction implied there. Such phenomena strain Work and Words the language, and the resulting verbal muddle offers the chance to see, for a Adrian Kohn change, without reading or reading into.

Learning Esoterica It is hard to keep clear how words work as you hold forth on strange art. Meta- Making an art object provides new knowledge about the piece itself, of course, phor, analogy, and other abstract conceits tend to treat a piece under examination but also to some extent about the world in which it exists—about, attested Larry as already well enough understood that it can be tellingly likened to something Bell, “light, physics, matter in general.”1 “As I look back on the early pieces,” he else, another artwork perhaps or a theoretical concept, that is itself regarded as wrote years later, “the thing that is most dramatic about them to me is how much well enough understood to anchor the suggested correlation. Such a structure I learned from them, how much I learned on my own about things that I never presupposes considerable knowledge of both entities to be compared and, for before even considered relevant.”2 That realization prompted another in turn, a that reason, seems unpromising if you are just beginning to learn about either of broader claim on behalf of both his own creations and creative activity at large. them. Other approaches also have problems. A more direct report of the similari- “Art is the manifestation of learning,” pronounced the artist. “We can perform in ties and differences between two paintings, two sculptures, or two phenomena any way we see fit, as long as our work teaches us something every day.”3 rests upon the premise of their essential commensurability, a sometimes That formulation undercuts how most of us engage art, however. Critics and tenuous assumption that this and that share enough for their comparison to yield historians in particular may affect a studied assurance in likening unaccustomed some insight. And even straight description of a single piece, art journalism at pieces and phenomena to what they have seen before and already learned. Or its most precise and prosaic, emphasizes certain material and visual properties this move may prove unwitting: prior experience can mask to others and to and not others, thereby conjuring resonances, evoking, alluding. The risk here is oneself a natural and blameless ignorance amid what is, in truth, a very different that in experiencing art through language, we may allow words and their logic to encounter. For once why not seek out the oddity of art? View an image, a thing, supplant the work and its. an act, a space in itself. Try to make discoveries instead of reconfirming what Larry Bell and Robert Irwin, like other artists in this exhibition and many other you know. Again, Bell insisted, art will inform if you let it: “The importance of the artists beyond it, have written about writing on art. Yes, we invariably lose visual work is in whether it teaches you something, and leads to the next step,” that is information and inherit vernacular connotations in going from work to words— to say, further experimentation in the studio or the gallery and yet another unfa- that much is obvious. But time and again Bell and Irwin reiterate the point. So miliar conclusion.4 And if at first a piece seems not to do so, well, Bell proposed often, in fact, that one starts to think it through with greater care. The asser- remaining open anyway. “I am in a position of having a lot of esoteric knowl- tion that follows may come across as both simpleminded and pigheaded, but edge,” he noted. “I learned a great deal about all kinds of things that I wasn’t the rediscovery seems key: sensations are nonverbal. The perceptual input that able to assimilate until much later in my life.”5 Previous: Robert Irwin, untitled, 1963–65 (detail). Oil on canvas on shaped wood veneer frame, makes up the reality we respond to each day just does not feel like language The trouble, one soon finds, is that language falls short of communicating 82 1/2 × 84 1/2 × 8 in. The Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles. Gift of the Lannan Foundation. at root. After all, English lacks good adjectives and nouns for what occurs on the esoteric with much clarity. Take a moment to inspect the canvas support of

152 153 the wall behind an Irwin disc. Something like illuminated shadows, maybe. And the right prepositions and verbs are tough to pick out when saying what Bell’s glass does. As you look at or into or through a panel, it both reflects and trans- mits light and obscures the distinction implied there. Such phenomena strain Work and Words the language, and the resulting verbal muddle offers the chance to see, for a Adrian Kohn change, without reading or reading into.

Learning Esoterica It is hard to keep clear how words work as you hold forth on strange art. Meta- Making an art object provides new knowledge about the piece itself, of course, phor, analogy, and other abstract conceits tend to treat a piece under examination but also to some extent about the world in which it exists—about, attested Larry as already well enough understood that it can be tellingly likened to something Bell, “light, physics, matter in general.”1 “As I look back on the early pieces,” he else, another artwork perhaps or a theoretical concept, that is itself regarded as wrote years later, “the thing that is most dramatic about them to me is how much well enough understood to anchor the suggested correlation. Such a structure I learned from them, how much I learned on my own about things that I never presupposes considerable knowledge of both entities to be compared and, for before even considered relevant.”2 That realization prompted another in turn, a that reason, seems unpromising if you are just beginning to learn about either of broader claim on behalf of both his own creations and creative activity at large. them. Other approaches also have problems. A more direct report of the similari- “Art is the manifestation of learning,” pronounced the artist. “We can perform in ties and differences between two paintings, two sculptures, or two phenomena any way we see fit, as long as our work teaches us something every day.”3 rests upon the premise of their essential commensurability, a sometimes That formulation undercuts how most of us engage art, however. Critics and tenuous assumption that this and that share enough for their comparison to yield historians in particular may affect a studied assurance in likening unaccustomed some insight. And even straight description of a single piece, art journalism at pieces and phenomena to what they have seen before and already learned. Or its most precise and prosaic, emphasizes certain material and visual properties this move may prove unwitting: prior experience can mask to others and to and not others, thereby conjuring resonances, evoking, alluding. The risk here is oneself a natural and blameless ignorance amid what is, in truth, a very different that in experiencing art through language, we may allow words and their logic to encounter. For once why not seek out the oddity of art? View an image, a thing, supplant the work and its. an act, a space in itself. Try to make discoveries instead of reconfirming what Larry Bell and Robert Irwin, like other artists in this exhibition and many other you know. Again, Bell insisted, art will inform if you let it: “The importance of the artists beyond it, have written about writing on art. Yes, we invariably lose visual work is in whether it teaches you something, and leads to the next step,” that is information and inherit vernacular connotations in going from work to words— to say, further experimentation in the studio or the gallery and yet another unfa- that much is obvious. But time and again Bell and Irwin reiterate the point. So miliar conclusion.4 And if at first a piece seems not to do so, well, Bell proposed often, in fact, that one starts to think it through with greater care. The asser- remaining open anyway. “I am in a position of having a lot of esoteric knowl- tion that follows may come across as both simpleminded and pigheaded, but edge,” he noted. “I learned a great deal about all kinds of things that I wasn’t the rediscovery seems key: sensations are nonverbal. The perceptual input that able to assimilate until much later in my life.”5 Previous: Robert Irwin, untitled, 1963–65 (detail). Oil on canvas on shaped wood veneer frame, makes up the reality we respond to each day just does not feel like language The trouble, one soon finds, is that language falls short of communicating 82 1/2 × 84 1/2 × 8 in. The Museum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles. Gift of the Lannan Foundation. at root. After all, English lacks good adjectives and nouns for what occurs on the esoteric with much clarity. Take a moment to inspect the canvas support of

152 153 the physical relationship of enclosure—one thing within another, a brick inside a box—to two immaterial images. The mismatch of incorporeal illusions and real-world positioning in the painting is difficult to describe, out of the ordinary, esoteric. The red solid and beige cube sit uneasily askew, wrenching the space they appear to share. Discrepant projections of both forms alternate and then suddenly flatten out. Images of things and of space inLittle Blank Riding Hood no longer behave like the things and the spaces we have grown used to. And so one must make do, as Bell did, with “geometric illusionary volume” and other verbal constructions that announce their own inadequacy by approaching abstraction. Volumetric paintings soon gave way to pictorial volumes. A solid ellipse inside a transparent ellipse may stay flat and still on the panels of Bell’s untitled 1964 cube (see fig. 4.3).10 Also, though, a curious integration of pictorial illu- sion and parallax can occur: “As your eye moved,” Bell noticed, “the ellipse divided into combinations of interlocking shapes.”11 First off, the solid and trans- parent ellipses call to mind foreshortened circles, two intersecting discs tipped half within the cube and half without.12 The challenge then is to resolve other aspects of this pictorial configuration. From one position and line of sight, the left edge of each form extends backward. From another, their right edges seem to tilt away. Or it could be the solid shape’s right edge and the transparent form’s left edge that recede. “Which side was forward, which side was back?” Bell and the red shape in Little Blank Riding Hood (see fig. 4.1).6 Now, Bell explaining mused. “By putting a thinner ellipse, say 25 degrees, with the same major axis what he was up to: “The painted colored area was an attempt to alter the volume inside the 40-degree ellipse, you created a spatial or visual flip-flop . . . that was within the canvas plane.”7 “I started painting a simple volume with one color quite similar visually to what the flat diagrams of the cubes had done.”13 Similar onto the shaped canvas”—itself already a “geometric illusionary volume”—and, visually but different spatially. The brick and box in Little Blank Riding Hood only in so doing, “altered the space inside to create a volume in a volume.”8 Words ever appear in pictorial depth since the actual depth of the painting support is perform in various ways here. Some convey straightforward detail, as when Bell shallow, less than three inches. In the untitled 1964 cube, however, the swiv- reports painting forms “with one color onto the shaped canvas.” The phrase is eled discs appear to breach the cubic foot of actual interior space. This is a literally true. Elsewhere, language hews to visual interpretation more than to puzzling phenomenon, a pictorial depth coextensive with real depth. material reality. Each time Bell mentions “volume,” for example, he really means Other peculiarities arise as three types of space intersect. If you crouch

4.1. Larry Bell, Little Blank Riding Hood, 1962. either the red “painted colored area” or the unpainted beige “canvas plane,” down and face the cube from a certain distance, your reflection appears that Acrylic on shaped canvas, 65 × 65 x 2 1/4 in. Collection Museum of Contemporary Art San both conceived as perfectly flat shapes that suggest axonometric projections of same distance beyond the glass or even, impossibly, inside it—a bright, crisp Diego, Gift of Murray Gribin. a red bricklike form and a beige boxlike cube, respectively (see figs. 4.2a–4.2d).9 image off or in the mirroring, and a dim, hazy image off or in the transparent 4.2 a–d. Schematic reproductions of Larry Bell, 14 Little Blank Riding Hood, 1962, with alterations. Fair enough, but then this: a volume “in” a volume. That preposition assigns areas. These reversed and reflected images of everything in front of the pane

154 WORK AND WORDS 155 the physical relationship of enclosure—one thing within another, a brick inside a box—to two immaterial images. The mismatch of incorporeal illusions and real-world positioning in the painting is difficult to describe, out of the ordinary, esoteric. The red solid and beige cube sit uneasily askew, wrenching the space they appear to share. Discrepant projections of both forms alternate and then suddenly flatten out. Images of things and of space inLittle Blank Riding Hood no longer behave like the things and the spaces we have grown used to. And so one must make do, as Bell did, with “geometric illusionary volume” and other verbal constructions that announce their own inadequacy by approaching abstraction. Volumetric paintings soon gave way to pictorial volumes. A solid ellipse inside a transparent ellipse may stay flat and still on the panels of Bell’s untitled 1964 cube (see fig. 4.3).10 Also, though, a curious integration of pictorial illu- sion and parallax can occur: “As your eye moved,” Bell noticed, “the ellipse divided into combinations of interlocking shapes.”11 First off, the solid and trans- parent ellipses call to mind foreshortened circles, two intersecting discs tipped half within the cube and half without.12 The challenge then is to resolve other aspects of this pictorial configuration. From one position and line of sight, the left edge of each form extends backward. From another, their right edges seem to tilt away. Or it could be the solid shape’s right edge and the transparent form’s left edge that recede. “Which side was forward, which side was back?” Bell and the red shape in Little Blank Riding Hood (see fig. 4.1).6 Now, Bell explaining mused. “By putting a thinner ellipse, say 25 degrees, with the same major axis what he was up to: “The painted colored area was an attempt to alter the volume inside the 40-degree ellipse, you created a spatial or visual flip-flop . . . that was within the canvas plane.”7 “I started painting a simple volume with one color quite similar visually to what the flat diagrams of the cubes had done.”13 Similar onto the shaped canvas”—itself already a “geometric illusionary volume”—and, visually but different spatially. The brick and box in Little Blank Riding Hood only in so doing, “altered the space inside to create a volume in a volume.”8 Words ever appear in pictorial depth since the actual depth of the painting support is perform in various ways here. Some convey straightforward detail, as when Bell shallow, less than three inches. In the untitled 1964 cube, however, the swiv- reports painting forms “with one color onto the shaped canvas.” The phrase is eled discs appear to breach the cubic foot of actual interior space. This is a literally true. Elsewhere, language hews to visual interpretation more than to puzzling phenomenon, a pictorial depth coextensive with real depth. material reality. Each time Bell mentions “volume,” for example, he really means Other peculiarities arise as three types of space intersect. If you crouch

4.1. Larry Bell, Little Blank Riding Hood, 1962. either the red “painted colored area” or the unpainted beige “canvas plane,” down and face the cube from a certain distance, your reflection appears that Acrylic on shaped canvas, 65 × 65 x 2 1/4 in. Collection Museum of Contemporary Art San both conceived as perfectly flat shapes that suggest axonometric projections of same distance beyond the glass or even, impossibly, inside it—a bright, crisp Diego, Gift of Murray Gribin. a red bricklike form and a beige boxlike cube, respectively (see figs. 4.2a–4.2d).9 image off or in the mirroring, and a dim, hazy image off or in the transparent 4.2 a–d. Schematic reproductions of Larry Bell, 14 Little Blank Riding Hood, 1962, with alterations. Fair enough, but then this: a volume “in” a volume. That preposition assigns areas. These reversed and reflected images of everything in front of the pane

154 WORK AND WORDS 155 veil everything actually behind it.15 Real space vies with reflected space here; For some idea of what in the catalogue had miffed Plagens, consider a elsewhere the shapes’ apparent withdrawal into the cube’s interior amounts to passage from Wight’s discussion with Bell. At the Museum of Modern Art in late pictorial space rivaling real; and finally, since the shiny glass surfaces consist of 1969, Bell had modified a gallery by painting the walls, floor, and ceiling black ellipses and other discrete shapes, reflected space clashes with pictorial. Need- and then installing two glass rods at the far end of both narrow corridors formed less to say, a cube’s insides can appear startlingly disjointed. “A jungle of beau- by a lengthwise interior wall (see fig. 4.4).21 He set out to construct a similar tiful things . . . happened within,” as Bell put it. “It was hard to tell which [glass] environment at the Tate a few months later, only to judge the glass segments was mirror and which wasn’t mirror.”16 You see straight through a cube in some unsatisfactory. At last Bell removed the rods altogether, which, strangely spots. In others, the inner faces of the panes reflect light entering from the adja- enough, restored the feel of the perceptual experience offered by the original cent sides: looking in, you turn to a given panel and see one catercornered. Or room that had had the glass. Here is Bell in conversation with Wight, struggling an area may reflect the glass opposite it, and that area the glass opposite it, and to articulate that improbable outcome: “All the elements of discovery and intu- so on, as light rebounds around the interior, expanding the space you see to well ition were right there”—a confident start, but language began to give out—“I beyond the material confines of the object. mean they just, you know, I recognized the option, the ability to”—he muscled “Representing volume, created with light, reflected and transmitted, was now on—“I mean that finally what was the art was not the rods, wasn’t even the part of my process,” declared Bell.17 And yet a space originating in the interplay room, it was the ability to say this”—searching for the word least unfit—“this of light and glass is not a representation in the usual sense of that word. Mirrors presence is what I’m, this is my art”—exasperated—“you see I don’t know how reflect and reverse; they do not depict or pictorialize. Bell was writing casually, to say it.”22 Bell learned by sensing. He could not verbalize exactly how he had but the detail is significant insofar as an ability to differentiate pictorial, reflected, discerned his space’s initial unresponsiveness, attributed this problem to the and real space constitutes discovery of a sort. Familiar words cannot help but glass, and then resolved to do away with those previously indispensable forms complicate comprehension of such raw findings, however. Often enough, new in order to restore the sought-after “presence.” Saying it, Bell found, could only knowledge outpaces your ability to communicate it to others and even to ponder misrepresent a logic rooted in how things felt. it yourself. New terms, distinctions, lines of inquiry, and principles need to be Even so, art-critical assessment and art-historical recording take place in developed alongside. “The fact that mirrors could contain the depth of whatever language, and artists are obliged not only to endure but to assist in the translation they reflected was something that was intriguing,” Bell realized, “although I of their nonverbal insights. Such expectations of explanation can chafe at times. wasn’t quite clear about what that meant.”18 As you might expect, the esoteric After a few questions from Wight, Bell thought a caveat necessary. “It doesn’t is apt to skirt customary meanings and available vocabulary. have to do with words. What I say now comes second to what I feel.” But One wonders, then, whose words best fit art. In the case of the 1971 exhibi- even that seemed off, a little too literal. “It’s not what I feel, it’s another set of tion Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space,Frederick Wight, the show’s curator, symbols.”23 By and by Bell had the vowels eliminated from his responses in the 4.3. Larry Bell, untitled, 1964. Coated glass with 19 chrome-plated brass frame, 14 1/4 × 14 1/4 × 14 1/2 in. held that it must be those of the artmakers themselves. But Peter Plagens, a published interview transcript, leaving many parts close to illegible: “ t d sn’t h v Collection Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego, Museum purchase. critic for Artforum, objected: “The catalogue essays are interviews, with the t d w th w rds . . .” instead of “It doesn’t have to do with words . . .” (see fig. 4.4. Larry Bell, untitled, 1969. Installation view of thought that ‘self-criticism is more interesting than criticism’; maybe so, but it’s 4.5).24 In short, Bell refused to abide by the constraints of language, to pretend the exhibition Spaces, December 30, 1969–March 1, 1970. The Museum of Modern Art, New York. also less concise, more rambling, more circuitous, and in the end, since artists that words suffice. The point was to answer nonsense with near-nonsense, to Photographic archive. The Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York. Photo: James Matthews. put most of their energies into their works and not explanations thereof, less act out for art critics, curators, and historians in their favored medium of language Digital Image © The Museum of Modern Art/ Licensed by SCALA/Art Resource, NY. enlightening.”20 the incoherence of having artists put their works into words.

156 WORK AND WORDS 157 veil everything actually behind it.15 Real space vies with reflected space here; For some idea of what in the catalogue had miffed Plagens, consider a elsewhere the shapes’ apparent withdrawal into the cube’s interior amounts to passage from Wight’s discussion with Bell. At the Museum of Modern Art in late pictorial space rivaling real; and finally, since the shiny glass surfaces consist of 1969, Bell had modified a gallery by painting the walls, floor, and ceiling black ellipses and other discrete shapes, reflected space clashes with pictorial. Need- and then installing two glass rods at the far end of both narrow corridors formed less to say, a cube’s insides can appear startlingly disjointed. “A jungle of beau- by a lengthwise interior wall (see fig. 4.4).21 He set out to construct a similar tiful things . . . happened within,” as Bell put it. “It was hard to tell which [glass] environment at the Tate a few months later, only to judge the glass segments was mirror and which wasn’t mirror.”16 You see straight through a cube in some unsatisfactory. At last Bell removed the rods altogether, which, strangely spots. In others, the inner faces of the panes reflect light entering from the adja- enough, restored the feel of the perceptual experience offered by the original cent sides: looking in, you turn to a given panel and see one catercornered. Or room that had had the glass. Here is Bell in conversation with Wight, struggling an area may reflect the glass opposite it, and that area the glass opposite it, and to articulate that improbable outcome: “All the elements of discovery and intu- so on, as light rebounds around the interior, expanding the space you see to well ition were right there”—a confident start, but language began to give out—“I beyond the material confines of the object. mean they just, you know, I recognized the option, the ability to”—he muscled “Representing volume, created with light, reflected and transmitted, was now on—“I mean that finally what was the art was not the rods, wasn’t even the part of my process,” declared Bell.17 And yet a space originating in the interplay room, it was the ability to say this”—searching for the word least unfit—“this of light and glass is not a representation in the usual sense of that word. Mirrors presence is what I’m, this is my art”—exasperated—“you see I don’t know how reflect and reverse; they do not depict or pictorialize. Bell was writing casually, to say it.”22 Bell learned by sensing. He could not verbalize exactly how he had but the detail is significant insofar as an ability to differentiate pictorial, reflected, discerned his space’s initial unresponsiveness, attributed this problem to the and real space constitutes discovery of a sort. Familiar words cannot help but glass, and then resolved to do away with those previously indispensable forms complicate comprehension of such raw findings, however. Often enough, new in order to restore the sought-after “presence.” Saying it, Bell found, could only knowledge outpaces your ability to communicate it to others and even to ponder misrepresent a logic rooted in how things felt. it yourself. New terms, distinctions, lines of inquiry, and principles need to be Even so, art-critical assessment and art-historical recording take place in developed alongside. “The fact that mirrors could contain the depth of whatever language, and artists are obliged not only to endure but to assist in the translation they reflected was something that was intriguing,” Bell realized, “although I of their nonverbal insights. Such expectations of explanation can chafe at times. wasn’t quite clear about what that meant.”18 As you might expect, the esoteric After a few questions from Wight, Bell thought a caveat necessary. “It doesn’t is apt to skirt customary meanings and available vocabulary. have to do with words. What I say now comes second to what I feel.” But One wonders, then, whose words best fit art. In the case of the 1971 exhibi- even that seemed off, a little too literal. “It’s not what I feel, it’s another set of tion Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space,Frederick Wight, the show’s curator, symbols.”23 By and by Bell had the vowels eliminated from his responses in the 4.3. Larry Bell, untitled, 1964. Coated glass with 19 chrome-plated brass frame, 14 1/4 × 14 1/4 × 14 1/2 in. held that it must be those of the artmakers themselves. But Peter Plagens, a published interview transcript, leaving many parts close to illegible: “ t d sn’t h v Collection Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego, Museum purchase. critic for Artforum, objected: “The catalogue essays are interviews, with the t d w th w rds . . .” instead of “It doesn’t have to do with words . . .” (see fig. 4.4. Larry Bell, untitled, 1969. Installation view of thought that ‘self-criticism is more interesting than criticism’; maybe so, but it’s 4.5).24 In short, Bell refused to abide by the constraints of language, to pretend the exhibition Spaces, December 30, 1969–March 1, 1970. The Museum of Modern Art, New York. also less concise, more rambling, more circuitous, and in the end, since artists that words suffice. The point was to answer nonsense with near-nonsense, to Photographic archive. The Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York. Photo: James Matthews. put most of their energies into their works and not explanations thereof, less act out for art critics, curators, and historians in their favored medium of language Digital Image © The Museum of Modern Art/ Licensed by SCALA/Art Resource, NY. enlightening.”20 the incoherence of having artists put their works into words.

156 WORK AND WORDS 157 Rather than glib irony or perversity, Bell’s tactics seem to spring from genuine Importance and Impermanence frustration, less with language itself perhaps than with others’ entreaties that he For Robert Irwin, the practice of art comes down to observation and inquiry, 4.5. Reproduction of p. 44 of Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space: Four Artists—Peter sum up his art on its terms.25 “If I take the position of explaining or clarifying the looking and wondering above all else. He was surprised to find that other artists Alexander, Larry Bell, Robert Irwin, Craig Kauffman, exhibition catalogue, January 11–February 14, generalities of what you see when you confront my work, it would be a disser- did not always comply with the implications of this stance although ostensibly 1971, UCLA Art Galleries (Los Angeles: UCLA Art Galleries, 1971), showing the altered transcript of vice to both the reader and myself,” he protested earnestly. “I cannot explain agreeing with it. A sort of inattention, whether willful or complacent, prevailed at Bell’s interview with curator Frederick Wight. the energy that is created by your eye contact with these words, or the light times. Frank Stella, for one, said of his own paintings that “what you see is what 4.6. Robert Irwin, untitled, 1962. Oil on canvas, 83 × 84 × 1/2 in. Collection Museum of reflecting off this paper. To me the joy of the specifics of the work has to do with you see,” but Irwin detected deviation from this principle during a conversation Contemporary Art San Diego, Museum purchase with funds from the Bobby Short Benefit. this non-verbal energy and information transference.”26 In a sense it is absurd with him in the early 1970s.28 “He said to me, ‘Why do you go to so much trouble

4.7. Frank Stella, Concentric Squares, 1966. Oil on to search for words when the art sits right there, ready to be looked at. You in finishing your paintings, for example, in making the edges on your frames so canvas, 63 x 126 in. Promised gift to the Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego. end up cornered, converting real phenomena into vague constructions such as perfectly straight?’ ” Irwin’s answer: “Why don’t you? How can you not? . . . Why

4.8. Frank Stella, Untitled, Two Sets of Eleven “energy,” “information transference,” and, to use Bell’s phrase, other “abstract don’t you make your paintings like your sketches [with perfect, ruled edges]? . . . Concentric Squares, ca. 1963. Graphite and 27 opaque watercolor on reverse side of graph paper, symbols.” Only when we resist the seductive intelligibility of such words can Or, if not, why don’t you have wobbly edges in your sketches [as they are in the 19 1/4 × 25 1/4 in. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Gift 29 of Susan W. Paine, 1999. we learn something truly esoteric from the work. actual paintings]?” Stella: “ ‘It’s not important’ ” (see figs. 4.6–4.8).

158 WORK AND WORDS 159 Rather than glib irony or perversity, Bell’s tactics seem to spring from genuine Importance and Impermanence frustration, less with language itself perhaps than with others’ entreaties that he For Robert Irwin, the practice of art comes down to observation and inquiry, 4.5. Reproduction of p. 44 of Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space: Four Artists—Peter sum up his art on its terms.25 “If I take the position of explaining or clarifying the looking and wondering above all else. He was surprised to find that other artists Alexander, Larry Bell, Robert Irwin, Craig Kauffman, exhibition catalogue, January 11–February 14, generalities of what you see when you confront my work, it would be a disser- did not always comply with the implications of this stance although ostensibly 1971, UCLA Art Galleries (Los Angeles: UCLA Art Galleries, 1971), showing the altered transcript of vice to both the reader and myself,” he protested earnestly. “I cannot explain agreeing with it. A sort of inattention, whether willful or complacent, prevailed at Bell’s interview with curator Frederick Wight. the energy that is created by your eye contact with these words, or the light times. Frank Stella, for one, said of his own paintings that “what you see is what 4.6. Robert Irwin, untitled, 1962. Oil on canvas, 83 × 84 × 1/2 in. Collection Museum of reflecting off this paper. To me the joy of the specifics of the work has to do with you see,” but Irwin detected deviation from this principle during a conversation Contemporary Art San Diego, Museum purchase with funds from the Bobby Short Benefit. this non-verbal energy and information transference.”26 In a sense it is absurd with him in the early 1970s.28 “He said to me, ‘Why do you go to so much trouble

4.7. Frank Stella, Concentric Squares, 1966. Oil on to search for words when the art sits right there, ready to be looked at. You in finishing your paintings, for example, in making the edges on your frames so canvas, 63 x 126 in. Promised gift to the Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego. end up cornered, converting real phenomena into vague constructions such as perfectly straight?’ ” Irwin’s answer: “Why don’t you? How can you not? . . . Why

4.8. Frank Stella, Untitled, Two Sets of Eleven “energy,” “information transference,” and, to use Bell’s phrase, other “abstract don’t you make your paintings like your sketches [with perfect, ruled edges]? . . . Concentric Squares, ca. 1963. Graphite and 27 opaque watercolor on reverse side of graph paper, symbols.” Only when we resist the seductive intelligibility of such words can Or, if not, why don’t you have wobbly edges in your sketches [as they are in the 19 1/4 × 25 1/4 in. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Gift 29 of Susan W. Paine, 1999. we learn something truly esoteric from the work. actual paintings]?” Stella: “ ‘It’s not important’ ” (see figs. 4.6–4.8).

158 WORK AND WORDS 159 Donald Judd, too, minimized the importance of some visual facts by fiat, that looked at, [and] the Morrises were meant to be thought about.”35 Whereas Irwin is to say, by deploying words. The play of light upon Plexiglas and the shadows recognized material and visual continuity in Judd’s objects, he noticed inconsis- his pieces cast are to be regarded as inevitable and therefore negligible, “just a tencies throughout Morris’s forms and, because of these, concluded that Morris by-product,” as he put it (see fig. 4.9).30 Robert Rauschenberg, whose fiveWhite could have only intended a more abstract and conceptual engagement. Visually, Paintings of 1951 act as screens for like phenomena, found himself unable the pieces did not cohere: to edit out such sights when viewing a work by Judd. In a 1966 symposium, Rauschenberg challenged Judd on the point (see fig. 4.10): “What about the [Morris] would have a large volume that would seem to have a certain distortion when the light passes through the glass and hits the wall and all of a amount of physicality to it, okay? But in making it he would allow the edge sudden you have the illusion that this box is closer to you than that one, because to turn up slightly which would belie the weight of the thing, in other 4.9. Donald Judd, untitled, 1966 (DSS 80). Stainless steel and amber Plexiglas; four units, of the size or density of its shadow? . . . The shadows were really quite extraordi- words, would actually contradict what the volume was telling you. This was each 34 × 34 × 34 in., with 8-in. intervals, total 31 width 160 in. Chinati Foundation, Marfa, Texas. nary and I tried to ignore them, but they certainly defeated what you wanted.” not intentional, this was strictly a matter that he was not interested in on Art © Judd Foundation. Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY. Courtesy Judd Foundation Archive. Judd shrugged off these aspects of his objects, as Stella had his edges. “You that level, the demand placed on your eye was not severe. Now if that had 32 4.10. Robert Rauschenberg, White Painting, are bound to have a certain amount of reflection,” he replied to Rauschenberg. become critical to him, he might have had to go to great physical lengths to 1951. Oil on canvas, 48 × 48 in. Art © Estate 36 of Robert Rauschenberg / Licensed by VAGA, And while Judd declared that his “pieces are meant to be looked at,” somehow make sure that that little thing didn’t happen. New York, NY. Collection of the estate of Robert 33 Rauschenberg. he could also hold that “the shadows are unimportant.”

4.11. Donald Judd, untitled, 1969 (DSS 194). Not so for Irwin. He owned a 1969 wall piece by Judd and saw it differ- As Irwin implies, Morris seems to have viewed the upturned edges as Clear anodized aluminum and purple lacquer on aluminum, 8 1/4 × 161 × 8 in. The Museum of ently, as suggested by his impromptu distinction between Judd’s art and that of decidedly unimportant, since he exhibited the work without fussing over those Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, Gift of Robert W. Irwin. Art © Judd Foundation. Licensed by VAGA, another so-called minimalist, Robert Morris, in a 1971 interview (see figs. 4.11 details. There is little doubt that the distinction Irwin proposed between his two New York, NY. and 4.12).34 “There is a great difference between Morris and Donald Judd,” contemporaries afforded an ad hoc judgment more than thoroughgoing analysis; 4.12. Robert Morris, exhibition at Dwan Gallery, Los Angeles, March 15–April 9, 1966. Irwin contended, “and the key to this is the Donald Judds were meant to be Irwin’s real concern lay in clarifying his own positions instead of those of either

160 WORK and words 161 Donald Judd, too, minimized the importance of some visual facts by fiat, that looked at, [and] the Morrises were meant to be thought about.”35 Whereas Irwin is to say, by deploying words. The play of light upon Plexiglas and the shadows recognized material and visual continuity in Judd’s objects, he noticed inconsis- his pieces cast are to be regarded as inevitable and therefore negligible, “just a tencies throughout Morris’s forms and, because of these, concluded that Morris by-product,” as he put it (see fig. 4.9).30 Robert Rauschenberg, whose fiveWhite could have only intended a more abstract and conceptual engagement. Visually, Paintings of 1951 act as screens for like phenomena, found himself unable the pieces did not cohere: to edit out such sights when viewing a work by Judd. In a 1966 symposium, Rauschenberg challenged Judd on the point (see fig. 4.10): “What about the [Morris] would have a large volume that would seem to have a certain distortion when the light passes through the glass and hits the wall and all of a amount of physicality to it, okay? But in making it he would allow the edge sudden you have the illusion that this box is closer to you than that one, because to turn up slightly which would belie the weight of the thing, in other 4.9. Donald Judd, untitled, 1966 (DSS 80). Stainless steel and amber Plexiglas; four units, of the size or density of its shadow? . . . The shadows were really quite extraordi- words, would actually contradict what the volume was telling you. This was each 34 × 34 × 34 in., with 8-in. intervals, total 31 width 160 in. Chinati Foundation, Marfa, Texas. nary and I tried to ignore them, but they certainly defeated what you wanted.” not intentional, this was strictly a matter that he was not interested in on Art © Judd Foundation. Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY. Courtesy Judd Foundation Archive. Judd shrugged off these aspects of his objects, as Stella had his edges. “You that level, the demand placed on your eye was not severe. Now if that had 32 4.10. Robert Rauschenberg, White Painting, are bound to have a certain amount of reflection,” he replied to Rauschenberg. become critical to him, he might have had to go to great physical lengths to 1951. Oil on canvas, 48 × 48 in. Art © Estate 36 of Robert Rauschenberg / Licensed by VAGA, And while Judd declared that his “pieces are meant to be looked at,” somehow make sure that that little thing didn’t happen. New York, NY. Collection of the estate of Robert 33 Rauschenberg. he could also hold that “the shadows are unimportant.”

4.11. Donald Judd, untitled, 1969 (DSS 194). Not so for Irwin. He owned a 1969 wall piece by Judd and saw it differ- As Irwin implies, Morris seems to have viewed the upturned edges as Clear anodized aluminum and purple lacquer on aluminum, 8 1/4 × 161 × 8 in. The Museum of ently, as suggested by his impromptu distinction between Judd’s art and that of decidedly unimportant, since he exhibited the work without fussing over those Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, Gift of Robert W. Irwin. Art © Judd Foundation. Licensed by VAGA, another so-called minimalist, Robert Morris, in a 1971 interview (see figs. 4.11 details. There is little doubt that the distinction Irwin proposed between his two New York, NY. and 4.12).34 “There is a great difference between Morris and Donald Judd,” contemporaries afforded an ad hoc judgment more than thoroughgoing analysis; 4.12. Robert Morris, exhibition at Dwan Gallery, Los Angeles, March 15–April 9, 1966. Irwin contended, “and the key to this is the Donald Judds were meant to be Irwin’s real concern lay in clarifying his own positions instead of those of either

160 WORK and words 161 Judd or Morris. And whereas Morris serves as something of a straw man in the with white contact paper.”46 Irwin himself recalled how “one of the things that comparison, Judd gets off too easily.37 After all, Irwin echoed Judd word for was very nice about it was that all the light in there was reflected.”47 Sun rays word—the pieces are “meant to be looked at”—without taking him to task for ricocheted off an adjacent red building or green grass nearby, shone in through his disavowal (possibly unknown to Irwin) of the shadows, reflections, and other the windows, and tinted the interior accordingly. “At a certain time of the day it phenomena that add up to much of what one sees when looking at clear anod- was violet, and another time of the day it was green, and another time of the day ized aluminum and purple lacquer.38 it was a subtle mixture of colors.”48 All this may sound commonplace when put In Irwin’s own art, beginning with his dot paintings and then plainly in the into words, but you have to look long enough for the eyes to recalibrate and then subsequent discs, the reappearance of the shadow counts as a central lesson register such phenomena. At least Stella and Judd had done that much—what (see figs. 4.13 and 4.14). “I could no longer confine my eye to what was in the they ended up dismissing they had perceived in the first place. Irwin surmised frame of my paintings,” he came to realize. “I discovered for the first time the that their ensuing deliberate disregard, as well as the more typical case of unin- world of the phenomenal immersed in the heretofore incidental shadow.”39 And tentional inattention, stemmed from the transience of many potential stimuli. when shadows receive attention, when impermanent phenomena are taken to “One of the problems with phenomena is that they don’t last,” he submitted. be important, one starts to see the richness of the visual flux all around all the “We’ve never allowed those things really to be in our art because they are not time: “If you begin to assume that the object is no more real than the space physically transcending enough, they’re not permanent enough.”49 around it, no more important than the shadows, it is simply one of a series At first Irwin had trouble reconciling his practice with the impermanent of events, and you begin to try to deal with the consequences of that, then phenomena that it revealed. In Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space, he was it becomes obvious you can’t make an object any longer or you can’t make teaching himself and learning on the fly. “I think I probably made an error,” he anything that is not relative to the circumstances that it exists in.”40 admitted, “[when] I put a piece of scrim material up near the second floor, up Five years before this 1976 statement, when so succinct and confident a high, and stretched it out flat.”50 This addition concentrated and accentuated the conclusion must have been more of an intuitive hunch, Irwin altered a utility tints of sunlight as planned, but in a way it also resembled an art object, some- stairway in UCLA’s Dickson Art Center as his contribution to the Transparency, thing akin to a Rauschenberg White Painting. Viewers too readily glommed on Reflection, Light, Space show.41 “My intention,” he wrote, “is to condition the to the exotic element and ignored how the same colors spilled throughout the spaces so as to attend the qualities of the ambient light.”42 workaday stairwell. “ ‘Oh, that’s it,’ ” most said upon noticing the sheet of fabric, It may well be that no photographs of Irwin’s UCLA work exist.43 All we have as Irwin remembered. “[They] dealt with the scrim as though it were the art. . . are words, and those reports from art critics and others vary a bit as to what . It enhanced the situation, but not enough to warrant its being there. It failed in exactly was there. One writer identified a “dense, translucent net fitted in the the sense that it distracted.”51 The stretched scrim amounted to a self-defeating stairwell.”44 Another described “an ordinary stairwell [modified] by slightly altering solution in this case, a fixed frame for chromatic ephemera and, as such, a picto- its scale (through a small semi-translucent ceiling) and by minutely controlling rial convention that enfeebled fresh sights. Coming to terms with the miscal-

4.13. Robert Irwin, untitled, 1963–65. Oil on the shade of white in which everything relating to the space, including a window culation, Irwin concluded, “I made it too visible, I did a thing which was not canvas on shaped wood veneer frame, 82 1/2 × 45 52 84 1/2 × 8 in. The Museum of Contemporary Art sash, is painted.” And a third wrote of “a stairwell painted white, with a finely necessary.” Lesson learned: the impermanent phenomena were important; Los Angeles. Gift of the Lannan Foundation. woven white scrim stretched across the area of the stairwell at some distance the scrim was not. 4.14. Robert Irwin, untitled, 1969. Acrylic lacquer on formed acrylic plastic, 53 in. diameter × 3 in. from the ceiling[;] the area was painted a white particularly sensitive to ambient Failure by distraction also aptly summarizes the basis for Irwin’s reluctance deep. Collection Museum of Contemporary Art 53 San Diego, Museum purchase. color and light, and some moldings and fixtures were also painted or covered to allow images of his art. “What is lost when you make the photograph?”

162 WORK AND WORDS 163 Judd or Morris. And whereas Morris serves as something of a straw man in the with white contact paper.”46 Irwin himself recalled how “one of the things that comparison, Judd gets off too easily.37 After all, Irwin echoed Judd word for was very nice about it was that all the light in there was reflected.”47 Sun rays word—the pieces are “meant to be looked at”—without taking him to task for ricocheted off an adjacent red building or green grass nearby, shone in through his disavowal (possibly unknown to Irwin) of the shadows, reflections, and other the windows, and tinted the interior accordingly. “At a certain time of the day it phenomena that add up to much of what one sees when looking at clear anod- was violet, and another time of the day it was green, and another time of the day ized aluminum and purple lacquer.38 it was a subtle mixture of colors.”48 All this may sound commonplace when put In Irwin’s own art, beginning with his dot paintings and then plainly in the into words, but you have to look long enough for the eyes to recalibrate and then subsequent discs, the reappearance of the shadow counts as a central lesson register such phenomena. At least Stella and Judd had done that much—what (see figs. 4.13 and 4.14). “I could no longer confine my eye to what was in the they ended up dismissing they had perceived in the first place. Irwin surmised frame of my paintings,” he came to realize. “I discovered for the first time the that their ensuing deliberate disregard, as well as the more typical case of unin- world of the phenomenal immersed in the heretofore incidental shadow.”39 And tentional inattention, stemmed from the transience of many potential stimuli. when shadows receive attention, when impermanent phenomena are taken to “One of the problems with phenomena is that they don’t last,” he submitted. be important, one starts to see the richness of the visual flux all around all the “We’ve never allowed those things really to be in our art because they are not time: “If you begin to assume that the object is no more real than the space physically transcending enough, they’re not permanent enough.”49 around it, no more important than the shadows, it is simply one of a series At first Irwin had trouble reconciling his practice with the impermanent of events, and you begin to try to deal with the consequences of that, then phenomena that it revealed. In Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space, he was it becomes obvious you can’t make an object any longer or you can’t make teaching himself and learning on the fly. “I think I probably made an error,” he anything that is not relative to the circumstances that it exists in.”40 admitted, “[when] I put a piece of scrim material up near the second floor, up Five years before this 1976 statement, when so succinct and confident a high, and stretched it out flat.”50 This addition concentrated and accentuated the conclusion must have been more of an intuitive hunch, Irwin altered a utility tints of sunlight as planned, but in a way it also resembled an art object, some- stairway in UCLA’s Dickson Art Center as his contribution to the Transparency, thing akin to a Rauschenberg White Painting. Viewers too readily glommed on Reflection, Light, Space show.41 “My intention,” he wrote, “is to condition the to the exotic element and ignored how the same colors spilled throughout the spaces so as to attend the qualities of the ambient light.”42 workaday stairwell. “ ‘Oh, that’s it,’ ” most said upon noticing the sheet of fabric, It may well be that no photographs of Irwin’s UCLA work exist.43 All we have as Irwin remembered. “[They] dealt with the scrim as though it were the art. . . are words, and those reports from art critics and others vary a bit as to what . It enhanced the situation, but not enough to warrant its being there. It failed in exactly was there. One writer identified a “dense, translucent net fitted in the the sense that it distracted.”51 The stretched scrim amounted to a self-defeating stairwell.”44 Another described “an ordinary stairwell [modified] by slightly altering solution in this case, a fixed frame for chromatic ephemera and, as such, a picto- its scale (through a small semi-translucent ceiling) and by minutely controlling rial convention that enfeebled fresh sights. Coming to terms with the miscal-

4.13. Robert Irwin, untitled, 1963–65. Oil on the shade of white in which everything relating to the space, including a window culation, Irwin concluded, “I made it too visible, I did a thing which was not canvas on shaped wood veneer frame, 82 1/2 × 45 52 84 1/2 × 8 in. The Museum of Contemporary Art sash, is painted.” And a third wrote of “a stairwell painted white, with a finely necessary.” Lesson learned: the impermanent phenomena were important; Los Angeles. Gift of the Lannan Foundation. woven white scrim stretched across the area of the stairwell at some distance the scrim was not. 4.14. Robert Irwin, untitled, 1969. Acrylic lacquer on formed acrylic plastic, 53 in. diameter × 3 in. from the ceiling[;] the area was painted a white particularly sensitive to ambient Failure by distraction also aptly summarizes the basis for Irwin’s reluctance deep. Collection Museum of Contemporary Art 53 San Diego, Museum purchase. color and light, and some moldings and fixtures were also painted or covered to allow images of his art. “What is lost when you make the photograph?”

162 WORK AND WORDS 163 he asked. “A great deal.”54 A photographic reproduction stands in as a depth- and viewer is all first hand now experience, and there is no way that it can be less and still document of visible electromagnetic radiation—light without real carried to you through any kind of secondary system,” be it “writing, reading, space or time. Such a facsimile may present negligible drawbacks for some photography, [or] video tape.”61 practices, for others a calculated sacrifice, but for Irwin a senseless conces- To be sure, Irwin provokes some unease in the art historian by insisting upon sion. “It’s leaving out too much information,” he decided.55 “The real actual what one forfeits when transposing phenomena into language. Academics, after phenomenon, the thing itself, the scale of it, the event itself . . . does not really all, have a tendency to start from, think with, and produce in words. Although exist in the photograph.”56 That fact, so straightforward as to verge on platitude, visual or otherwise perceptual observation underpins most writers’ regimens, in truth tends to escape deliberation. In an odd twist, the sheer obviousness verbal and photographic midwifery predominate. “[In] photography . . . there is of a photograph’s irresolvable inaccuracy diverts attention from this very short- a lot of incredible distortion.”62 Deaf to Irwin’s warning, the essay before you coming. And because of that, an image may not be better than nothing. Flat, presumes to offer precisely these images in place of the actual work. “In the split-second snippets of radiant light—whether imprinted by the photochemical art world incredible amounts of decisions are based on the artist’s words.”63 If reduction of silver ions or by sampling the photoelectrical charge of pixels on anything, the present account exacerbates that predicament with its reliance on a microchip—transform more than reproduce the real phenomena before the Bell’s and Irwin’s remarks. “When you write about it, it just gets screwed up.”64 aperture. Granted, cameras capture something of appearances. But it bears And yet here we are once again amid words. repeating that most features of visual stimuli (to say nothing of impressions on the other faculties) elude existing apparatuses designed to record and represent How Words Work Well the world as perceived.57 That rather dour conclusion has an upside of sorts. We stand before an artwork— Much the same goes for writing, a method beset with compromises whereby Bell’s, Irwin’s, anyone’s—and blunder about for insight when the piece proves one unsatisfactorily reproduces works of art. Irwin’s word for such verbiage: too inscrutable for analytical shortcuts and verbal shorthand. Such a struggle midwifery. “The ability to pass information on without ever knowing the original is invigorating, or can be. An encounter outside common concepts and terms experience,” in other words, “that assumption that by the use of symbols or confirms that, sure enough, much yet remains to see, to feel, and to understand marks one can portray or illuminate or illustrate or even talk about something that even after decades of looking at art. To put it another way, if the words we actually exists. . . . It’s what a critic often does. Here’s an experience and you’re already have exist because prior examples have come about, then the degree over there, so he midwifes it to you.”58 Irwin scrutinized the convenient but to which art wards off ideas intelligible in language hints at how esoteric a piece deceptive endurance of language, as he had with photographic documentation. once was and may still be. It would seem from this that an artist is onto some- “You gain this permanence,” he allowed, “by putting it down in a written word. thing whenever words do not quite work. But you lose a great deal in terms of the essence when you go to writing.”59 Of course, nothing defies language for long. Words inevitably catch up to art “While language is our connection to the accumulative records of other people’s and take hold, sometimes determining from then on what one sees in it and of experience—it is not the extent of knowing.”60 Self-evident perhaps but, as it. Over the years, Irwin has made reference here and there to Zen Buddhism before, belabored out of necessity: the actual phenomenon, the thing and the (“I had a minor-league interest and involvement in Zen”), and over the years, event, its scale and its essence, are all lost to words. Irwin’s art demands your art historians and others have dwelled on that fact, teasing out associations presence. “Re-presentations are never the things per-se,” he emphasized, and between the artworks and the philosophy.65 Bell too has offered interviewers “midwifing experience is absurd for this reason: the relationship between art an abstraction on occasion. He considered but decided against “sexy” and

164 WORK AND WORDS 165 he asked. “A great deal.”54 A photographic reproduction stands in as a depth- and viewer is all first hand now experience, and there is no way that it can be less and still document of visible electromagnetic radiation—light without real carried to you through any kind of secondary system,” be it “writing, reading, space or time. Such a facsimile may present negligible drawbacks for some photography, [or] video tape.”61 practices, for others a calculated sacrifice, but for Irwin a senseless conces- To be sure, Irwin provokes some unease in the art historian by insisting upon sion. “It’s leaving out too much information,” he decided.55 “The real actual what one forfeits when transposing phenomena into language. Academics, after phenomenon, the thing itself, the scale of it, the event itself . . . does not really all, have a tendency to start from, think with, and produce in words. Although exist in the photograph.”56 That fact, so straightforward as to verge on platitude, visual or otherwise perceptual observation underpins most writers’ regimens, in truth tends to escape deliberation. In an odd twist, the sheer obviousness verbal and photographic midwifery predominate. “[In] photography . . . there is of a photograph’s irresolvable inaccuracy diverts attention from this very short- a lot of incredible distortion.”62 Deaf to Irwin’s warning, the essay before you coming. And because of that, an image may not be better than nothing. Flat, presumes to offer precisely these images in place of the actual work. “In the split-second snippets of radiant light—whether imprinted by the photochemical art world incredible amounts of decisions are based on the artist’s words.”63 If reduction of silver ions or by sampling the photoelectrical charge of pixels on anything, the present account exacerbates that predicament with its reliance on a microchip—transform more than reproduce the real phenomena before the Bell’s and Irwin’s remarks. “When you write about it, it just gets screwed up.”64 aperture. Granted, cameras capture something of appearances. But it bears And yet here we are once again amid words. repeating that most features of visual stimuli (to say nothing of impressions on the other faculties) elude existing apparatuses designed to record and represent How Words Work Well the world as perceived.57 That rather dour conclusion has an upside of sorts. We stand before an artwork— Much the same goes for writing, a method beset with compromises whereby Bell’s, Irwin’s, anyone’s—and blunder about for insight when the piece proves one unsatisfactorily reproduces works of art. Irwin’s word for such verbiage: too inscrutable for analytical shortcuts and verbal shorthand. Such a struggle midwifery. “The ability to pass information on without ever knowing the original is invigorating, or can be. An encounter outside common concepts and terms experience,” in other words, “that assumption that by the use of symbols or confirms that, sure enough, much yet remains to see, to feel, and to understand marks one can portray or illuminate or illustrate or even talk about something that even after decades of looking at art. To put it another way, if the words we actually exists. . . . It’s what a critic often does. Here’s an experience and you’re already have exist because prior examples have come about, then the degree over there, so he midwifes it to you.”58 Irwin scrutinized the convenient but to which art wards off ideas intelligible in language hints at how esoteric a piece deceptive endurance of language, as he had with photographic documentation. once was and may still be. It would seem from this that an artist is onto some- “You gain this permanence,” he allowed, “by putting it down in a written word. thing whenever words do not quite work. But you lose a great deal in terms of the essence when you go to writing.”59 Of course, nothing defies language for long. Words inevitably catch up to art “While language is our connection to the accumulative records of other people’s and take hold, sometimes determining from then on what one sees in it and of experience—it is not the extent of knowing.”60 Self-evident perhaps but, as it. Over the years, Irwin has made reference here and there to Zen Buddhism before, belabored out of necessity: the actual phenomenon, the thing and the (“I had a minor-league interest and involvement in Zen”), and over the years, event, its scale and its essence, are all lost to words. Irwin’s art demands your art historians and others have dwelled on that fact, teasing out associations presence. “Re-presentations are never the things per-se,” he emphasized, and between the artworks and the philosophy.65 Bell too has offered interviewers “midwifing experience is absurd for this reason: the relationship between art an abstraction on occasion. He considered but decided against “sexy” and

164 WORK AND WORDS 165 “sensual” during a 1972 conversation before settling on a way to say that his pieces “feel soft.”66 Since they do not in reality feel soft, one may take that comment as a metaphorical turn of phrase, an allusion to commonplace things that do feel soft, such as the human body (recall that “sexy” and “sensual” were also in the running), all of which amounts to an enticing invitation to elabo- rate on how the strange work of art before you resembles something much more familiar. But one can learn from a metaphor in other ways. One can make discov- eries by pinpointing its inaccuracies rather than by complying with its plea to look for explanation elsewhere, in an object or a concept thought to be better understood. When Irwin mentions Zen, for instance, he is actually trying to describe specifics of his practice: his introduction to raku (“pottery earthenware . . . with very simple Zen gestures in them, like a thumbmark or a break”), his try at gestural painting (“you got yourself into a good Zen mood and emoted”), his meticulous finishing of the supports of the dot paintings (as with “the Zen pottery ware[,] if you’re involved in it as more than a gesture or an idea, [it] should read all the way through”), and his resolution to apply lessons learned in the studio to his perception of and participation in the outside world (“Why did the Zen monk live on a mountain? . . . When I walk out of that door I’m in an Our everyday expertise with the clear-cut assertions and easygoing allu- objective society and I must function accordingly”).67 Zen evokes a great deal sions of language can pose problems if we try to learn something very new or more than these uses by Irwin, and, in following those rich connotations on and very strange from art. Literal or abstract, any conclusion expressed in words on, one’s account becomes more an exploration of Zen’s rich connotations and conceals the resistance of visual phenomena to verbal logic. This gap provides less a thinking through of how the artist’s experiences, developments, tech- one possible starting point for thinking about a piece. In meditating upon which niques, and principles affect the art. And so when Bell talks of a soft feel, we words to assign to it, you come to see precisely how in each case the best avail- might remain wary of diversion and try to see or to sense exactly which aspects able ones fall short. Self-defeating constructions may be entirely appropriate of the glass he could not communicate without the abstract language. The hazy in such circumstances. More than anything, Irwin’s inclusion of translated Zen appearance of areas that are partly reflective and partly transparent? How the poetry in a small 1959 exhibition catalogue ends up reinforcing the impasse hard-edged panes blend away into their surrounds? The tendency to want to between his paintings and the poems (see fig. 4.15).68 Bell’s thinking of his touch the surfaces in hopes of confirming visual input with tactile? It is hard to canvas support as a “geometric illusionary volume” and his notion that panes know. A figurative trope attests to the difficulty of saying plainly what was to be of glass can “feel soft” prompt you to stop and assess the validity of those 4.15. Inside front cover of exhibition brochure from Recent Paintings by Robert Irwin, Ferus said more than it fulfills its promise of explaining through substitution. Treated as formulations. Likewise, in one’s own engagement, picking words and testing Gallery, Los Angeles, March 23–April 18, 1959, showing lines from two poems written by a shortcoming of description rather than as a revelatory key, metaphor alerts us them helps you to look harder and to see more. While words may obscure art’s Hashan and translated by Gary Snyder. The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (940081). to that which we comprehend the least and ought most to reexamine directly. strangeness at first, their failings—if noticed—restore it.

166 WORK AND WORDS 167 “sensual” during a 1972 conversation before settling on a way to say that his pieces “feel soft.”66 Since they do not in reality feel soft, one may take that comment as a metaphorical turn of phrase, an allusion to commonplace things that do feel soft, such as the human body (recall that “sexy” and “sensual” were also in the running), all of which amounts to an enticing invitation to elabo- rate on how the strange work of art before you resembles something much more familiar. But one can learn from a metaphor in other ways. One can make discov- eries by pinpointing its inaccuracies rather than by complying with its plea to look for explanation elsewhere, in an object or a concept thought to be better understood. When Irwin mentions Zen, for instance, he is actually trying to describe specifics of his practice: his introduction to raku (“pottery earthenware . . . with very simple Zen gestures in them, like a thumbmark or a break”), his try at gestural painting (“you got yourself into a good Zen mood and emoted”), his meticulous finishing of the supports of the dot paintings (as with “the Zen pottery ware[,] if you’re involved in it as more than a gesture or an idea, [it] should read all the way through”), and his resolution to apply lessons learned in the studio to his perception of and participation in the outside world (“Why did the Zen monk live on a mountain? . . . When I walk out of that door I’m in an Our everyday expertise with the clear-cut assertions and easygoing allu- objective society and I must function accordingly”).67 Zen evokes a great deal sions of language can pose problems if we try to learn something very new or more than these uses by Irwin, and, in following those rich connotations on and very strange from art. Literal or abstract, any conclusion expressed in words on, one’s account becomes more an exploration of Zen’s rich connotations and conceals the resistance of visual phenomena to verbal logic. This gap provides less a thinking through of how the artist’s experiences, developments, tech- one possible starting point for thinking about a piece. In meditating upon which niques, and principles affect the art. And so when Bell talks of a soft feel, we words to assign to it, you come to see precisely how in each case the best avail- might remain wary of diversion and try to see or to sense exactly which aspects able ones fall short. Self-defeating constructions may be entirely appropriate of the glass he could not communicate without the abstract language. The hazy in such circumstances. More than anything, Irwin’s inclusion of translated Zen appearance of areas that are partly reflective and partly transparent? How the poetry in a small 1959 exhibition catalogue ends up reinforcing the impasse hard-edged panes blend away into their surrounds? The tendency to want to between his paintings and the poems (see fig. 4.15).68 Bell’s thinking of his touch the surfaces in hopes of confirming visual input with tactile? It is hard to canvas support as a “geometric illusionary volume” and his notion that panes know. A figurative trope attests to the difficulty of saying plainly what was to be of glass can “feel soft” prompt you to stop and assess the validity of those 4.15. Inside front cover of exhibition brochure from Recent Paintings by Robert Irwin, Ferus said more than it fulfills its promise of explaining through substitution. Treated as formulations. Likewise, in one’s own engagement, picking words and testing Gallery, Los Angeles, March 23–April 18, 1959, showing lines from two poems written by a shortcoming of description rather than as a revelatory key, metaphor alerts us them helps you to look harder and to see more. While words may obscure art’s Hashan and translated by Gary Snyder. The Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (940081). to that which we comprehend the least and ought most to reexamine directly. strangeness at first, their failings—if noticed—restore it.

166 WORK AND WORDS 167 Notes have some slight physical thickness. Strictly speaking, then, the inner corner allows us to see ourselves as others see us (see additional discussion later in this section). In 1980, Bell iceberg, to look like an iceberg,” Bell stated. “I thought of the He’s joined this idea, but it isn’t really in him, because I thank colleagues and peer reviewers for their comments on in both cases we see an extremely thin tridimensional volume rather than in the mirror image to which we are so accus- maintained that “I couldn’t really talk about my work very number of combinations of possibilities that were inherent in if it was in him, he simply couldn’t do those things. You drafts of this essay. Also, for help with research, my thanks approximating a depthless bidimensional image of a thick tomed.” Henry J. Seldis, “Four Artists in Space Exploration well. . . . I just found myself not able to talk at all, about things the entire thing as being sort of like an iceberg in the sense simply couldn’t leave those things unresolved. to Geri Aramanda, Lisa Barkley, Marisa Bourgoin, Charlotte tridimensional volume. at UCLA Galleries,” Los Angeles Times, January 24, 1971, in my mind. . . . If I knew what I was doing, I knew it only to that at any given view of it, you were only seeing the tip of Irwin, in Frederick S. Wight, “Robert Irwin,” interview tran- Brown, Jeanette Clough, Alexis Curry, Judith Hastings, Ali 10. Both Bell and Irwin confirmed that their untitled works Calendar section, 49. myself, I couldn’t externalize it any way except through the what was possible.” De Angelus, “Larry Stuart Bell” (note script, Los Angeles, 1975–76, “Los Angeles Art Community: Hennessey, Harriet Hutton, Mary Kadish, Damian Lavoice, should not be labeled Untitled. “No capital U. No italics. Don’t 16. Bell, in Artists Documentation Program interview work.” See De Angelus, “Larry Stuart Bell” (note 1), 24, 85 1), 79. Earlier, Bell had called his 1960 painting My Montauk Group Portrait,” Oral History Program, University of California, and Lois Rodin. The Charlotte Faculty Fellowship from the perpetuate the mistake [of using Untitled],” as Irwin put it. (note 14), at 19:50 (phrases reordered). (phrases reordered). Alastair Mackintosh closed the 1972 in honor of Willem de Kooning’s 1958 Montauk Highway; Los Angeles, 46. Massachusetts College of Art and Design and the Vivian Bell, letter to the author, December 10, 2010; Irwin, phone 17. Bell, “In Reflection,” Zones of Experience (note 12), 54. printed version of his interview with Bell by noting that “Larry Lux at the Merritt Jones borrowed the name of a hotel near 30. Judd, in “Don Judd: An Interview with John Coplans,” L. Smith Foundation Fellowship from The Menil Collection conversation with the author, December 10, 2010. 18. Bell, “First Person Singular” (note 1), 16. seemed glad that the interview was over. One felt that words Bell’s studio; and Bette and the Giant Jewfish got its title Don Judd, exh. cat. (Pasadena, CA: Pasadena Art Museum, contributed financial support. 11. Bell, “On the Ellipse” (note 3), 3. 19. “The artists were interviewed,” wrote Wight, “in the did not come naturally to him and that he distrusted them. from an old postcard. See Larry Bell: The Sixties (note 6), 1971), 41. The art historian Rosalind Krauss also used the 12. “We view most circular objects from an oblique angle of thought that self-criticism is more interesting than criticism.” And his works are possibly less easy to describe and discuss 6, 12, 20. In the late 1980s, Bell titled a series of collages word by-product in her extrapolation of a general principle Short citations below include a parenthetical reference to the about forty degrees,” Bell remarked. “The tires of our car, the Foreword to Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space: Four than those of any other artist working today.” “An Interview according to “whatever came to mind,” such as Chicago for the “capital M” Minimalism of Stella and Robert Morris, note that includes the full citation. dishes on our dinner table, are rarely viewed directly at ninety Artists—Peter Alexander, Larry Bell, Robert Irwin, Craig with Alastair Mackintosh” (note 5), 40. Attempt, Tarantula!, Daisy’s Bedroom, Measles, and Kiss My as opposed to the “small-m’d” minimalism of Ad Reinhardt, degrees.” “In Reflection,” Zones of Experience: The Art of Kauffman, exh. cat. (Los Angeles: UCLA Art Galleries, 1971), 8. 23. Bell, in Wight, “An Interview with Larry Bell” (note 22), 44 Bass. See “In Reflection,” Zones of Experience (note 12), Irwin, and James Turrell: “Whatever gorgeousness was 1. Bell, “First Person Singular,” Larry Bell: Works from New Larry Bell, exh. cat. (Albuquerque: Albuquerque Museum, 20. Plagens, draft of an exhibition review of Transparency, (vowels restored). Bell made sure to identify graphical depic- 61. And a list of the titles of Bell’s vapor drawings translates to film the surfaces of Minimalist work, both paintings and Mexico, exh. cat. (Lyon: Musée d’Art Contemporain, Lyon, 1997), 55. As with the forms in Little Blank Riding Hood, the Reflection, Light, Space: Four Artists, Peter Plagens Papers, tions as likewise unsatisfactory. He warned in one document ED as “eccentric diagonal,” MELTIN as “medium ellipse on objects, whatever the halations and reflections of light, the 1989), 16. See also Michele D. De Angelus, “Larry Stuart Bell,” ellipses on the panes of the untitled 1964 cube only suggest “Art Writing 1971” folder, box 2, Archives of American Art, that “the representations in this folder are approximate, tan paper with insert,” and SMMSHFBKX as “eccentric small opalescent splays of color, the gleams and sheen of bur- interview transcript, Taos, NM, 1980, Archives of American Art, foreshortened shapes in linear perspective (see note 9). There Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, page B. See also general and speculative, as it is impossible to reproduce the multiple stripe horizontal fade on black paper.” “Vapor Drawing nished metal, it was always to be bracketed as by-product: so Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 50–51. are no cues of diminution or converging from a front edge to Plagens, “Los Angeles,” Artforum 9, no. 7 (March 1971): 68–69. infinite and varying visual activity of these surfaces by graphic Definition List,” n.d., studio archives, Taos, NM; “Glossary of much industrial trash, the ephemeral waste thrown off in the 2. Bell, “First Person Singular” (note 1), 16. a back edge to a vanishing point, which would unambiguously 21. Bell substituted glass rods for the glass “panels” one means.” Proposal for the San Antonio Museum Association, Vapor Drawing Titles,” Larry Bell: Light on Surface (note 3), 20; process of shaping matter. Color was a part of Minimalism’s 3. Bell, “In Reflection,” Larry Bell: New Work, exh. cat. convey recession in depth. finds mentioned in the exhibition catalogue and in two 1979, studio archives, Taos, NM, 12. and letter to the author, February 11, 2010. irony. There was no way it could be taken straight.” (Yonkers, NY: Hudson River Museum, 1980), 77 (phrases 13. Bell, “First Person Singular” (note 1), 17 (phrases reordered). advance press releases for Spaces (Museum of Modern Art, 24. Bell, in Wight, “An Interview with Larry Bell” (note 26. Bell, handwritten statement, reproduced in Larry Bell, “Overcoming the Limits of Matter: On Revising Minimalism,” reordered). Elsewhere Bell wrote that “it has always been 14. It is usually necessary to bend down a bit if you want to New York, December 30, 1969–March 1, 1970). Materials in 22), 44. The curator Frederick Wight acknowledged the act exh. cat. (Rome: Marlborough Galleria d’Arte, 1974), fourth American Art of the 1960s (New York: Museum of Modern my opinion that art is a teacher,” a view he attributed to the see straight through the sides of Bell’s cubes. Asked about the museum archives confirm this change: two memos from without further comment: “It is my opinion the vowels were page (n.p.). Art, 1991), 124–25. artist John Chamberlain. See statement in a letter from Bell the height at which a cube should be exhibited, he replied: April Kingsley, a curatorial staff member, refer to rods and not deleted intentionally” (41). Bell’s altered text also drew 27. Bell, handwritten statement (note 26), fourth page. 31. Rauschenberg, in “Is Easel Painting Dead?,” sympo- to the art critic R. C. Kenedy, October 19, 1971, transcribed “It should be something that a child might look up to and an to panels, and a letter from Richard L. Palmer, Coordinator of attention from art critics reviewing the exhibition. Melinda 28. Stella, in “New Nihilism or New Art,” audio recording, sium transcript, New York, November 1966, Barbara Rose in Kenedy, “London Letter,” Art International 15, no. 10 adult look down on. . . . Fifty inches seems to be about the Exhibitions, acknowledges that the piece Bell actually showed Terbell in Arts Magazine: “Audience participation is required New York, February 15, 1964, Pacifica Radio Archives, North Papers, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, (December 20, 1971): 88; Bell, “In Reflection,” Larry Bell, best for any of them, but I have gone up a little more where “was not . . . the one which was described in the catalogue.” to decipher Bell’s interview in which he chose to leave out all Hollywood, California, Archive Number BB3394, at track 3, Washington, DC, 33. Rauschenberg specified that he was 76; Bell, “On the Ellipse,” On the Ellipse, exh. cat. (Newport people thought they were too low.” Bell specified a range See memo from Kingsley to “Security,” January 12, 1970, the vowels.” “Los Angeles,” Arts Magazine 45, no. 5 (March 1:42. See also Bruce Glaser, “Questions to Stella and Judd,” describing a work by Judd with “glass” and “box[es]” “at Leo Harbor, CA: Newport Harbor Art Museum, 1982), 3; and Bell, of “between fifty inches and fifty-five inches” from the top Curatorial Exhibition Files, exhibition #917b, “Spaces—Larry 1971): 47. Plagens, Artforum: “I thought I saw the point, after ed. Lucy R. Lippard, Artnews 65, no. 5 (September 1966): 59. Castelli’s against the wall” (33). The piece in question seems “Light vs. Weight,” Larry Bell: Light on Surface, exh. cat. of the piece to the floor “for pieces that are roughly twenty Bell” folder, Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York; an initial slow burn at another cutie-pie-ism, in Bell’s omitting 29. Irwin quoted in Lawrence Weschler, Seeing Is Forgetting to be an untitled 1966 work consisting of four thirty-four-inch (Laguna Beach, CA, Laguna Beach Museum, 1988), 22. inches square.” For works whose sides are shorter than memo from Kingsley to Joseph Chapman, January 13, 1970, all the vo[we]ls from his answers in the interview.” Draft of the Name of the Thing One Sees: A Life of Contemporary cubes, with amber Plexiglas sides and stainless steel tops, 4. Bell, “In Reflection,” Larry Bell (note 3), 74. twenty inches, the suggested height remains the same: “[It Curatorial Exhibition Files, exhibition #917b, “Spaces— an exhibition review (note 20), page B. Seldis, Los Angeles Artist Robert Irwin (Berkeley: University of California Press, bottoms, and fronts, hung on the wall one after the other at 5. Bell, in “An Interview with Alastair Mackintosh,” Art is] irrespective of the size of the piece. So, a ten-inch piece General (Chronological)” folder, Museum of Modern Times: “Luckily Bell’s piece does not reflect his penchant for 1982), 78 (emphasis in original). In Weschler’s account of eight-inch intervals. The work was exhibited in Don Judd, at and Artists 6, no. 10 (January 1972): 40; Bell, “First Person should also be at fifty inches. . . . What changes is the height Art Archives, New York; and letter from Palmer to Kerry truculence and showmanship demonstrated by the sopho- Irwin’s retelling, Stella disputed the importance but not the Leo Castelli Gallery from February 5 to March 2, 1966. See Singular” (note 1), 18. of the base.” That being said, works whose sides are larger Brougher, Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, July morically ‘coded’ catalog piece.” “Four Artists” (note 15), 49. accuracy of the disparity that Irwin identified between the Brydon Smith, Donald Judd: Catalogue Raisonné of Paintings, 6. The reproduction of Little Blank Riding Hood is backward than twenty inches should not be as high: “Thirty-six-inch 23, 1982, Registrar Exhibition Files, exhibition #917b, “917B 25. Bell’s apprehension accompanied but never subdued precise edges in the sketches and the wobbly edges of the Objects, and Wood-Blocks, 1960–1974 (Ottawa: National in Claudine Humblet, The New American Abstraction, [cubes] actually want to be a little bit lower; they want to be Spaces” folder, Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York. his obvious verve for language. He composed an homage paintings. That tacit confirmation notwithstanding, most of Gallery of Canada, 1975), 137 (DSS 80). 1950–1970, 3 vols. (Milan: Skira Editore S.p.A., 2007), 2:1142. about forty-eight inches [from] the top of the piece to the For the initial references to glass panels, see “Advance to his 1975 glass structure The Iceberg and Its Shadow by Stella’s drawings are quite rough. See Frank Stella: Working Rauschenberg made five pieces titled White Painting, Compare that mirror image with the reproduction of the piece floor.” See Bell, in Artists Documentation Program interview, Information on SPACES Exhibition,” Museum of Modern making substitutions for the main nouns and verbs in a list of Drawings, 1956–1970, exh. cat. (Basel: Kunstmuseum all oil on canvas, all in 1951, with one, two, three, four, in Larry Bell: The Sixties, exh. cat. (Santa Fe: Museum of Fine video recording, Houston, April 18, 2006, Conservation Art press release no. 160, December 15, 1969, Registrar celebrated quotations: Wilde’s “There is luxury in icebergs Basel, 1980); and Frank Stella: Working Drawings 1956–1982 and seven panels. See Roberta Bernstein, introduction, Arts, Museum of New Mexico, 1982), 12. While altering the Department archives, item TMCD-2008.004 #11, The Menil Exhibition Files, exhibition #917b, “917B Spaces” folder, [self-reproach]”; Chesterton’s “Iceberg [Progress] is the from the Artist Collection, exh. cat. (Kitakyushu: Kitakyushu Rauschenberg: The White and Black Paintings, 1949–1952, painting’s orientation on the wall cannot duplicate Humblet’s Collection, Houston, at 22:45 (phrases reordered). One Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York; “Spaces mother of shadow [problems]”; Chekhov’s “If you are afraid Municipal Museum of Art, 1982). For additional commentary exh. cat. (New York: Larry Gagosian Gallery, 1986), second photographic reversal, Bell has confirmed that he permits exception to these guidelines was Bell’s first solo exhibition in Exhibition Opens at Museum of Modern Art,” Museum of of shadows [loneliness], don’t iceberg [marry].” Untitled on this passage, see Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe, “Expression: page (n.p.). Rauschenberg acknowledged the importance the rotation of paintings with the same height and width. New York (Larry Bell, Pace Gallery, November 6–December 6, Modern Art press release no. 162, December 30, 1969, composition, Vision 1 [“California”] (September 1975): 37. Lines, Dots, Discs; Light,” in Robert Irwin, ed. Russell of shadows as part of his broader interest in viewers’ “There is no prescribed orientation to the works,” he wrote. 1965), where “all the pieces stood 60 [inches] from the top to Registrar Exhibition Files, exhibition #917b, “917B Spaces” Bell also titled catalogue essays from 1980 and 1997 “In Ferguson, exh. cat. (Los Angeles: Museum of Contemporary participation: “They had to go all the way across town to “I have always striven for that kind of symmetry. In the case the floor.” See Larry Bell: The Sixties (note 6), 26. folder, Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York; and Reflection,” a pun on his thoughtful consideration of the work Art, Los Angeles, 1993), 96–97; and Andrew J. Perchuk, see a shadow of themselves. I can see that they might of horizontal images [paintings wider than they are tall], they 15. Bell reviewed the basics to establish some grounding Jennifer Licht, Spaces, exh. cat. (New York: Museum of and the physical bending of light integral to it (a conceit in “From Otis to Ferus: Robert Irwin, Ed Ruscha, and Peter resent it. Think of the happy few, though, who really thought work flipped 180 degrees but do not work so well flipped 90 for himself and his viewers. “Rays [of light that reflect off Modern Art, 1969), sixth page (n.p.). which these rebounding interpretations of the title—first this Voulkos in Los Angeles, 1954–1975,” 2 vols., doctoral dis- it was worth it. You’d really go away holding your head degrees.” Letter to the author, January 11, 2008. an object and then off mirrored glass] create a picture that The glass rods are just visible in the single photograph reading, then the other, and back once more—instantiate the sertation, Yale University, 2006, 1:95, 1:123. up.” Rauschenberg, in Dorothy Seckler, “Interview with 7. Larry Bell: The Sixties (note 6), 12. looks just like the original object and appears to be just as far of Bell’s work in the museum archives; they were not yet pun yet again, as does his reuse of the same title). See “In Compare Irwin’s exchange with Stella to his hypothetical Robert Rauschenberg,” transcript, New York, December 8. Bell, “First Person Singular” (note 1), 15 (phrases reor- behind the mirror as the object is in front of it,” he observed, installed in the exhibition catalogue’s image of the partially Reflection,” Larry Bell (note 3), 74–77; and “In Reflection,” critique of a painting student: 21, 1965, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, dered); Bell, in an interview with Melinda Wortz, July 1979, before pointing out the familiar deviations of reflections. completed work. See photograph #IN917b.4, original nega- Zones of Experience (note 12), 53–63. You see a kid in school doing a hard-edge painting, say, Washington, DC, 40. quoted in Melinda Wortz, “In Consideration,” Larry Bell: New “There is, however, a subtle difference between object and tive #Mathews 3946, Curatorial Exhibition Files, exhibition As for the titles of Bell’s artworks, they often invite on a canvas which is slightly askew or has a slightly 32. Judd, in “Is Easel Painting Dead?” (note 31), 33. Work (note 3), 11, 26n2. mirror-image, as we all know: you brush your teeth with your #917b, “Spaces—Installation Photographs” folder, Museum associations without providing much in the way of explana- curved edge, as a lot of times homemade stretcher bars Rauschenberg saw shadows in Judd’s work as evidence of 9. The red area and the canvas plane may resemble left hand, but that mirror person seems to be a righty.” Bell, of Modern Art Archives, New York; and Licht, Spaces, four- tion. For starters, most of the glass cubes have no title. do. There’s an inconsistency there. In other words, on pictorial illusionism, but Judd disagreed: “[The boxes] don’t axonometric projections but not foreshortened perspectival Chairs in Space: The Book of the Game (Taos, NM: Webb teenth page. The much larger work The Iceberg and Its Shadow consists the canvas, he’s being a hard-edge painter, but in the seem illusionistic in that sense to me. You are bound to renderings, since their sides stay parallel rather than Design Studio, 1984), 22. One art critic pointed out how Bell 22. Bell, in Wight, “An Interview with Larry Bell,” of fifty-six rearrangeable panels of clear and grayish glass, world, he’s able to leave these unfinished, unresolved, have a certain amount of reflection, and you are changing converging on one or more vanishing points. Also, as actual then reversed this reversal with “two monumental sheets Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space (note 19), 57. This cita- resulting in a loose suggestion, but not a depiction, of an un-hard-edge aspects to the painting. Which means position when you look at a three-dimensional thing. In a matter in the world, the red “area” and the canvas “plane” of mirror installed at right angles to each other”: “A look at tion restores the vowels missing in the published transcript iceberg and its shadow. “I wasn’t really thinking of it as an simply that it’s an intellectual idea which he’s joined. sense that is an illusion just in the technical meaning of the

168 WORK and words 169 Notes have some slight physical thickness. Strictly speaking, then, the inner corner allows us to see ourselves as others see us (see additional discussion later in this section). In 1980, Bell iceberg, to look like an iceberg,” Bell stated. “I thought of the He’s joined this idea, but it isn’t really in him, because I thank colleagues and peer reviewers for their comments on in both cases we see an extremely thin tridimensional volume rather than in the mirror image to which we are so accus- maintained that “I couldn’t really talk about my work very number of combinations of possibilities that were inherent in if it was in him, he simply couldn’t do those things. You drafts of this essay. Also, for help with research, my thanks approximating a depthless bidimensional image of a thick tomed.” Henry J. Seldis, “Four Artists in Space Exploration well. . . . I just found myself not able to talk at all, about things the entire thing as being sort of like an iceberg in the sense simply couldn’t leave those things unresolved. to Geri Aramanda, Lisa Barkley, Marisa Bourgoin, Charlotte tridimensional volume. at UCLA Galleries,” Los Angeles Times, January 24, 1971, in my mind. . . . If I knew what I was doing, I knew it only to that at any given view of it, you were only seeing the tip of Irwin, in Frederick S. Wight, “Robert Irwin,” interview tran- Brown, Jeanette Clough, Alexis Curry, Judith Hastings, Ali 10. Both Bell and Irwin confirmed that their untitled works Calendar section, 49. myself, I couldn’t externalize it any way except through the what was possible.” De Angelus, “Larry Stuart Bell” (note script, Los Angeles, 1975–76, “Los Angeles Art Community: Hennessey, Harriet Hutton, Mary Kadish, Damian Lavoice, should not be labeled Untitled. “No capital U. No italics. Don’t 16. Bell, in Artists Documentation Program interview work.” See De Angelus, “Larry Stuart Bell” (note 1), 24, 85 1), 79. Earlier, Bell had called his 1960 painting My Montauk Group Portrait,” Oral History Program, University of California, and Lois Rodin. The Charlotte Faculty Fellowship from the perpetuate the mistake [of using Untitled],” as Irwin put it. (note 14), at 19:50 (phrases reordered). (phrases reordered). Alastair Mackintosh closed the 1972 in honor of Willem de Kooning’s 1958 Montauk Highway; Los Angeles, 46. Massachusetts College of Art and Design and the Vivian Bell, letter to the author, December 10, 2010; Irwin, phone 17. Bell, “In Reflection,” Zones of Experience (note 12), 54. printed version of his interview with Bell by noting that “Larry Lux at the Merritt Jones borrowed the name of a hotel near 30. Judd, in “Don Judd: An Interview with John Coplans,” L. Smith Foundation Fellowship from The Menil Collection conversation with the author, December 10, 2010. 18. Bell, “First Person Singular” (note 1), 16. seemed glad that the interview was over. One felt that words Bell’s studio; and Bette and the Giant Jewfish got its title Don Judd, exh. cat. (Pasadena, CA: Pasadena Art Museum, contributed financial support. 11. Bell, “On the Ellipse” (note 3), 3. 19. “The artists were interviewed,” wrote Wight, “in the did not come naturally to him and that he distrusted them. from an old postcard. See Larry Bell: The Sixties (note 6), 1971), 41. The art historian Rosalind Krauss also used the 12. “We view most circular objects from an oblique angle of thought that self-criticism is more interesting than criticism.” And his works are possibly less easy to describe and discuss 6, 12, 20. In the late 1980s, Bell titled a series of collages word by-product in her extrapolation of a general principle Short citations below include a parenthetical reference to the about forty degrees,” Bell remarked. “The tires of our car, the Foreword to Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space: Four than those of any other artist working today.” “An Interview according to “whatever came to mind,” such as Chicago for the “capital M” Minimalism of Stella and Robert Morris, note that includes the full citation. dishes on our dinner table, are rarely viewed directly at ninety Artists—Peter Alexander, Larry Bell, Robert Irwin, Craig with Alastair Mackintosh” (note 5), 40. Attempt, Tarantula!, Daisy’s Bedroom, Measles, and Kiss My as opposed to the “small-m’d” minimalism of Ad Reinhardt, degrees.” “In Reflection,” Zones of Experience: The Art of Kauffman, exh. cat. (Los Angeles: UCLA Art Galleries, 1971), 8. 23. Bell, in Wight, “An Interview with Larry Bell” (note 22), 44 Bass. See “In Reflection,” Zones of Experience (note 12), Irwin, and James Turrell: “Whatever gorgeousness was 1. Bell, “First Person Singular,” Larry Bell: Works from New Larry Bell, exh. cat. (Albuquerque: Albuquerque Museum, 20. Plagens, draft of an exhibition review of Transparency, (vowels restored). Bell made sure to identify graphical depic- 61. And a list of the titles of Bell’s vapor drawings translates to film the surfaces of Minimalist work, both paintings and Mexico, exh. cat. (Lyon: Musée d’Art Contemporain, Lyon, 1997), 55. As with the forms in Little Blank Riding Hood, the Reflection, Light, Space: Four Artists, Peter Plagens Papers, tions as likewise unsatisfactory. He warned in one document ED as “eccentric diagonal,” MELTIN as “medium ellipse on objects, whatever the halations and reflections of light, the 1989), 16. See also Michele D. De Angelus, “Larry Stuart Bell,” ellipses on the panes of the untitled 1964 cube only suggest “Art Writing 1971” folder, box 2, Archives of American Art, that “the representations in this folder are approximate, tan paper with insert,” and SMMSHFBKX as “eccentric small opalescent splays of color, the gleams and sheen of bur- interview transcript, Taos, NM, 1980, Archives of American Art, foreshortened shapes in linear perspective (see note 9). There Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, page B. See also general and speculative, as it is impossible to reproduce the multiple stripe horizontal fade on black paper.” “Vapor Drawing nished metal, it was always to be bracketed as by-product: so Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 50–51. are no cues of diminution or converging from a front edge to Plagens, “Los Angeles,” Artforum 9, no. 7 (March 1971): 68–69. infinite and varying visual activity of these surfaces by graphic Definition List,” n.d., studio archives, Taos, NM; “Glossary of much industrial trash, the ephemeral waste thrown off in the 2. Bell, “First Person Singular” (note 1), 16. a back edge to a vanishing point, which would unambiguously 21. Bell substituted glass rods for the glass “panels” one means.” Proposal for the San Antonio Museum Association, Vapor Drawing Titles,” Larry Bell: Light on Surface (note 3), 20; process of shaping matter. Color was a part of Minimalism’s 3. Bell, “In Reflection,” Larry Bell: New Work, exh. cat. convey recession in depth. finds mentioned in the exhibition catalogue and in two 1979, studio archives, Taos, NM, 12. and letter to the author, February 11, 2010. irony. There was no way it could be taken straight.” (Yonkers, NY: Hudson River Museum, 1980), 77 (phrases 13. Bell, “First Person Singular” (note 1), 17 (phrases reordered). advance press releases for Spaces (Museum of Modern Art, 24. Bell, in Wight, “An Interview with Larry Bell” (note 26. Bell, handwritten statement, reproduced in Larry Bell, “Overcoming the Limits of Matter: On Revising Minimalism,” reordered). Elsewhere Bell wrote that “it has always been 14. It is usually necessary to bend down a bit if you want to New York, December 30, 1969–March 1, 1970). Materials in 22), 44. The curator Frederick Wight acknowledged the act exh. cat. (Rome: Marlborough Galleria d’Arte, 1974), fourth American Art of the 1960s (New York: Museum of Modern my opinion that art is a teacher,” a view he attributed to the see straight through the sides of Bell’s cubes. Asked about the museum archives confirm this change: two memos from without further comment: “It is my opinion the vowels were page (n.p.). Art, 1991), 124–25. artist John Chamberlain. See statement in a letter from Bell the height at which a cube should be exhibited, he replied: April Kingsley, a curatorial staff member, refer to rods and not deleted intentionally” (41). Bell’s altered text also drew 27. Bell, handwritten statement (note 26), fourth page. 31. Rauschenberg, in “Is Easel Painting Dead?,” sympo- to the art critic R. C. Kenedy, October 19, 1971, transcribed “It should be something that a child might look up to and an to panels, and a letter from Richard L. Palmer, Coordinator of attention from art critics reviewing the exhibition. Melinda 28. Stella, in “New Nihilism or New Art,” audio recording, sium transcript, New York, November 1966, Barbara Rose in Kenedy, “London Letter,” Art International 15, no. 10 adult look down on. . . . Fifty inches seems to be about the Exhibitions, acknowledges that the piece Bell actually showed Terbell in Arts Magazine: “Audience participation is required New York, February 15, 1964, Pacifica Radio Archives, North Papers, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, (December 20, 1971): 88; Bell, “In Reflection,” Larry Bell, best for any of them, but I have gone up a little more where “was not . . . the one which was described in the catalogue.” to decipher Bell’s interview in which he chose to leave out all Hollywood, California, Archive Number BB3394, at track 3, Washington, DC, 33. Rauschenberg specified that he was 76; Bell, “On the Ellipse,” On the Ellipse, exh. cat. (Newport people thought they were too low.” Bell specified a range See memo from Kingsley to “Security,” January 12, 1970, the vowels.” “Los Angeles,” Arts Magazine 45, no. 5 (March 1:42. See also Bruce Glaser, “Questions to Stella and Judd,” describing a work by Judd with “glass” and “box[es]” “at Leo Harbor, CA: Newport Harbor Art Museum, 1982), 3; and Bell, of “between fifty inches and fifty-five inches” from the top Curatorial Exhibition Files, exhibition #917b, “Spaces—Larry 1971): 47. Plagens, Artforum: “I thought I saw the point, after ed. Lucy R. Lippard, Artnews 65, no. 5 (September 1966): 59. Castelli’s against the wall” (33). The piece in question seems “Light vs. Weight,” Larry Bell: Light on Surface, exh. cat. of the piece to the floor “for pieces that are roughly twenty Bell” folder, Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York; an initial slow burn at another cutie-pie-ism, in Bell’s omitting 29. Irwin quoted in Lawrence Weschler, Seeing Is Forgetting to be an untitled 1966 work consisting of four thirty-four-inch (Laguna Beach, CA, Laguna Beach Museum, 1988), 22. inches square.” For works whose sides are shorter than memo from Kingsley to Joseph Chapman, January 13, 1970, all the vo[we]ls from his answers in the interview.” Draft of the Name of the Thing One Sees: A Life of Contemporary cubes, with amber Plexiglas sides and stainless steel tops, 4. Bell, “In Reflection,” Larry Bell (note 3), 74. twenty inches, the suggested height remains the same: “[It Curatorial Exhibition Files, exhibition #917b, “Spaces— an exhibition review (note 20), page B. Seldis, Los Angeles Artist Robert Irwin (Berkeley: University of California Press, bottoms, and fronts, hung on the wall one after the other at 5. Bell, in “An Interview with Alastair Mackintosh,” Art is] irrespective of the size of the piece. So, a ten-inch piece General (Chronological)” folder, Museum of Modern Times: “Luckily Bell’s piece does not reflect his penchant for 1982), 78 (emphasis in original). In Weschler’s account of eight-inch intervals. The work was exhibited in Don Judd, at and Artists 6, no. 10 (January 1972): 40; Bell, “First Person should also be at fifty inches. . . . What changes is the height Art Archives, New York; and letter from Palmer to Kerry truculence and showmanship demonstrated by the sopho- Irwin’s retelling, Stella disputed the importance but not the Leo Castelli Gallery from February 5 to March 2, 1966. See Singular” (note 1), 18. of the base.” That being said, works whose sides are larger Brougher, Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, July morically ‘coded’ catalog piece.” “Four Artists” (note 15), 49. accuracy of the disparity that Irwin identified between the Brydon Smith, Donald Judd: Catalogue Raisonné of Paintings, 6. The reproduction of Little Blank Riding Hood is backward than twenty inches should not be as high: “Thirty-six-inch 23, 1982, Registrar Exhibition Files, exhibition #917b, “917B 25. Bell’s apprehension accompanied but never subdued precise edges in the sketches and the wobbly edges of the Objects, and Wood-Blocks, 1960–1974 (Ottawa: National in Claudine Humblet, The New American Abstraction, [cubes] actually want to be a little bit lower; they want to be Spaces” folder, Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York. his obvious verve for language. He composed an homage paintings. That tacit confirmation notwithstanding, most of Gallery of Canada, 1975), 137 (DSS 80). 1950–1970, 3 vols. (Milan: Skira Editore S.p.A., 2007), 2:1142. about forty-eight inches [from] the top of the piece to the For the initial references to glass panels, see “Advance to his 1975 glass structure The Iceberg and Its Shadow by Stella’s drawings are quite rough. See Frank Stella: Working Rauschenberg made five pieces titled White Painting, Compare that mirror image with the reproduction of the piece floor.” See Bell, in Artists Documentation Program interview, Information on SPACES Exhibition,” Museum of Modern making substitutions for the main nouns and verbs in a list of Drawings, 1956–1970, exh. cat. (Basel: Kunstmuseum all oil on canvas, all in 1951, with one, two, three, four, in Larry Bell: The Sixties, exh. cat. (Santa Fe: Museum of Fine video recording, Houston, April 18, 2006, Conservation Art press release no. 160, December 15, 1969, Registrar celebrated quotations: Wilde’s “There is luxury in icebergs Basel, 1980); and Frank Stella: Working Drawings 1956–1982 and seven panels. See Roberta Bernstein, introduction, Arts, Museum of New Mexico, 1982), 12. While altering the Department archives, item TMCD-2008.004 #11, The Menil Exhibition Files, exhibition #917b, “917B Spaces” folder, [self-reproach]”; Chesterton’s “Iceberg [Progress] is the from the Artist Collection, exh. cat. (Kitakyushu: Kitakyushu Rauschenberg: The White and Black Paintings, 1949–1952, painting’s orientation on the wall cannot duplicate Humblet’s Collection, Houston, at 22:45 (phrases reordered). One Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York; “Spaces mother of shadow [problems]”; Chekhov’s “If you are afraid Municipal Museum of Art, 1982). For additional commentary exh. cat. (New York: Larry Gagosian Gallery, 1986), second photographic reversal, Bell has confirmed that he permits exception to these guidelines was Bell’s first solo exhibition in Exhibition Opens at Museum of Modern Art,” Museum of of shadows [loneliness], don’t iceberg [marry].” Untitled on this passage, see Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe, “Expression: page (n.p.). Rauschenberg acknowledged the importance the rotation of paintings with the same height and width. New York (Larry Bell, Pace Gallery, November 6–December 6, Modern Art press release no. 162, December 30, 1969, composition, Vision 1 [“California”] (September 1975): 37. Lines, Dots, Discs; Light,” in Robert Irwin, ed. Russell of shadows as part of his broader interest in viewers’ “There is no prescribed orientation to the works,” he wrote. 1965), where “all the pieces stood 60 [inches] from the top to Registrar Exhibition Files, exhibition #917b, “917B Spaces” Bell also titled catalogue essays from 1980 and 1997 “In Ferguson, exh. cat. (Los Angeles: Museum of Contemporary participation: “They had to go all the way across town to “I have always striven for that kind of symmetry. In the case the floor.” See Larry Bell: The Sixties (note 6), 26. folder, Museum of Modern Art Archives, New York; and Reflection,” a pun on his thoughtful consideration of the work Art, Los Angeles, 1993), 96–97; and Andrew J. Perchuk, see a shadow of themselves. I can see that they might of horizontal images [paintings wider than they are tall], they 15. Bell reviewed the basics to establish some grounding Jennifer Licht, Spaces, exh. cat. (New York: Museum of and the physical bending of light integral to it (a conceit in “From Otis to Ferus: Robert Irwin, Ed Ruscha, and Peter resent it. Think of the happy few, though, who really thought work flipped 180 degrees but do not work so well flipped 90 for himself and his viewers. “Rays [of light that reflect off Modern Art, 1969), sixth page (n.p.). which these rebounding interpretations of the title—first this Voulkos in Los Angeles, 1954–1975,” 2 vols., doctoral dis- it was worth it. You’d really go away holding your head degrees.” Letter to the author, January 11, 2008. an object and then off mirrored glass] create a picture that The glass rods are just visible in the single photograph reading, then the other, and back once more—instantiate the sertation, Yale University, 2006, 1:95, 1:123. up.” Rauschenberg, in Dorothy Seckler, “Interview with 7. Larry Bell: The Sixties (note 6), 12. looks just like the original object and appears to be just as far of Bell’s work in the museum archives; they were not yet pun yet again, as does his reuse of the same title). See “In Compare Irwin’s exchange with Stella to his hypothetical Robert Rauschenberg,” transcript, New York, December 8. Bell, “First Person Singular” (note 1), 15 (phrases reor- behind the mirror as the object is in front of it,” he observed, installed in the exhibition catalogue’s image of the partially Reflection,” Larry Bell (note 3), 74–77; and “In Reflection,” critique of a painting student: 21, 1965, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, dered); Bell, in an interview with Melinda Wortz, July 1979, before pointing out the familiar deviations of reflections. completed work. See photograph #IN917b.4, original nega- Zones of Experience (note 12), 53–63. You see a kid in school doing a hard-edge painting, say, Washington, DC, 40. quoted in Melinda Wortz, “In Consideration,” Larry Bell: New “There is, however, a subtle difference between object and tive #Mathews 3946, Curatorial Exhibition Files, exhibition As for the titles of Bell’s artworks, they often invite on a canvas which is slightly askew or has a slightly 32. Judd, in “Is Easel Painting Dead?” (note 31), 33. Work (note 3), 11, 26n2. mirror-image, as we all know: you brush your teeth with your #917b, “Spaces—Installation Photographs” folder, Museum associations without providing much in the way of explana- curved edge, as a lot of times homemade stretcher bars Rauschenberg saw shadows in Judd’s work as evidence of 9. The red area and the canvas plane may resemble left hand, but that mirror person seems to be a righty.” Bell, of Modern Art Archives, New York; and Licht, Spaces, four- tion. For starters, most of the glass cubes have no title. do. There’s an inconsistency there. In other words, on pictorial illusionism, but Judd disagreed: “[The boxes] don’t axonometric projections but not foreshortened perspectival Chairs in Space: The Book of the Game (Taos, NM: Webb teenth page. The much larger work The Iceberg and Its Shadow consists the canvas, he’s being a hard-edge painter, but in the seem illusionistic in that sense to me. You are bound to renderings, since their sides stay parallel rather than Design Studio, 1984), 22. One art critic pointed out how Bell 22. Bell, in Wight, “An Interview with Larry Bell,” of fifty-six rearrangeable panels of clear and grayish glass, world, he’s able to leave these unfinished, unresolved, have a certain amount of reflection, and you are changing converging on one or more vanishing points. Also, as actual then reversed this reversal with “two monumental sheets Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space (note 19), 57. This cita- resulting in a loose suggestion, but not a depiction, of an un-hard-edge aspects to the painting. Which means position when you look at a three-dimensional thing. In a matter in the world, the red “area” and the canvas “plane” of mirror installed at right angles to each other”: “A look at tion restores the vowels missing in the published transcript iceberg and its shadow. “I wasn’t really thinking of it as an simply that it’s an intellectual idea which he’s joined. sense that is an illusion just in the technical meaning of the

168 WORK and words 169 term. I distinguish between that, [an] illusion which I think is 38. See notes 33 and 35 above. to a preview of the show, on a flyer for the exhibition, in forty-ninth page (n.p.); Robert Irwin, exh. cat. (Chicago: 60. Irwin, statement in an unlabeled Memos notebook with Papers, “Lecture Notes” folder, box 15 Adds, Getty Research a perfectly matter-of-fact illusion and has no connection to 39. Irwin, in “Robert Irwin with Marianne Stockebrand: A newspaper articles and art magazine reviews, or in the art- Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, 1975), 16; and a green cover, n.d., Robert Irwin Papers, folder 1, box 15, Institute, Los Angeles. the other kind, [and] the other kind of [pictorial] illusion” (33). Dialogue, Part 2,” Chinati Foundation Newsletter 7 (2002): 23. ist’s collected papers. See Transparency, Reflection, Light, Critical Perspectives in American Art, exh. cat. (Amherst: Fine Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, n.p. Irwin focused on For other mentions of Zen in discussion of Irwin’s art, (The edited symposium transcript appears to be errant here. 40. Irwin, in Lyn Blumenthal and Kate Horsfield, “On Art and Space (note 19); “Four L.A. Artists to Do Space, Environment Arts Center Gallery, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the imprecision of language in his contributions to the First see Terbell, “Los Angeles” (note 24), 47; Peter Plagens, It reads, incoherently: “In a sense that is an illusion just in the Artists: Robert Irwin,” video recording, Chicago, 1978, Video Exhibit at UCLA,” press release, Office of Public Information, 1976), 21. National Symposium on Habitability, held in Venice, California, Sunshine Muse: Contemporary Art on the West Coast (New technical meaning of the term. I distinguish between that, Data Bank, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, at 27:45. University of California, Los Angeles, December 16, 1970, In correspondence with potential buyers, galleries May 11–14, 1970: “I feel in some sense that the idea of York: Praeger Publishers, 1974), 129–130; Weschler, Seeing and illusion which I think is a perfectly matter-of-fact illusion See also Horsfield, “On Art and Artists: Robert Irwin,” Profile and other miscellaneous materials in the “Transparency, representing Irwin acknowledged the artist’s position and the verbal communication—putting forth ideas abstractly—is Is Forgetting (note 29), 57–59; Melinda Farris Wortz, “Radical and has no connection to the other kind. The other kind of 2, no. 4 (July 1982): 11–12. Reflection, Light, Space: Four Artists 1/11/71–2/14/71” folder, difficulty of photographing his works. See a letter from Fred somehow the seat of the problem in making progress in Emptiness: The Spiritual Experience in Contemporary Art,” illusion.”) 41. During a series of taped and transcribed interviews in box 52, Wight Art Gallery Exhibit Files, 1952–1994, Record Mueller, the director of Pace Gallery, New York, to the col- habitability. . . . The idea of abstract words or verbalization doctoral dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 1990, 33. Judd, in “An Interview with John Griffiths,” Art and 1975 and 1976, Irwin took pains to emphasize the intuitive Series 665, University of California, Los Angeles; “Show Set lector Giuseppe Panza, December 7, 1966, Giuseppe Panza has strength—the ability to externalize information. . . . 280, 292; Klaus Kertess, “The Architecture of Perception,” Design 5, no. 7/8 [“New York New Art”] (1989): 48; Judd, in nature of his practice for fear that the verbal format would on Space, Environment,” Los Angeles Times, December Papers, item 1, folder 3, box 115, Getty Research Institute, Verbalization eliminates excess information, so as to zero in Robert Irwin, ed. Ferguson, 119; Sally Yard, “Deep “Don Judd” (note 30), 41. The context of Judd’s statement suggest otherwise: 27, 1970, Calendar section, 52; Ivan Gerson, “Avant-Garde Los Angeles; a letter from Rudolf Zwirner, the director of in on that information relative to the action at that particular Time,” in Robert Irwin, ed. Ferguson, 60; Craig Vista Svare, on shadows requires additional comment. Responding to There’s a lot of naiveté there in the beginning. In other Works Displayed,” UCLA Daily Bruin, January 14, 1971, 7; Galerie Rudolf Zwirner, Cologne, to Panza, June 16, 1971, time. . . . But at the same time, on the human side it is very “Theology and Visual Art: Faith and Art Making: A Theological Coplans’s question about the “difficulty . . . with the amount words, most of these ideas, as I look back now—I could Seldis, “Four Artists” (note 15); Terbell, “Los Angeles” (note Giuseppe Panza Papers, item 1, folder 3, box 114, Getty much a weak tool, since from the perspective of this side it Consideration of Interviews with Artists Stephen De Staebler, of shadows cast” by the pieces, Judd replied, “It has to do be very much more lucid and make it sound as if I had 24); Plagens, “Los Angeles” (note 20); and Robert Irwin Research Institute, Los Angeles; and a letter from Zwirner to eliminates too much information.” “First National Symposium Robert Irwin, James Melchert, Manuel Neri and William T. with the fact that museum lighting is pretty bad. The Whitney been very clear and that I really knew what I was doing. Papers, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (in particular: Panza, July 20, 1971, Giuseppe Panza Papers, item 2, folder on Habitability,” 4 vols. (Los Angeles: Garrett Airesearch Wiley,” doctoral dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, show [Don Judd, February 27–April 14, 1968] was especially But I want very much to maintain the impression to box 18, “1970–1980,” in “Series III. Projects, 1970–1996”; 3, box 114, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles. Manufacturing Company, [1971]), 4:63, 4:66. See also Irwin, 1993, 44; Perchuk, “From Otis to Ferus” (note 29), 1:96–106, bad because of the spotlights. All my pieces are meant to be someone who would read this, somebody young who box 31, “ca. 1960–1977,” in “Series IV. Clippings and By 1976 or so Irwin felt that he had made his point. statement in Artforum 3, no. 9 (note 53), 23; Irwin, “Notes 1:112–113, 1:117n45, 1:141–142; and Rebecca Ann Weller, seen in even or natural light. The shadows are unimportant, might listen to this thing, that my whole process was ephemera, ca. 1960–1992”; box 36, “1971–1973,” in “Series He decided to accept reproductions in the catalogue for toward a Model” (note 41), 26; and Irwin, “Some Notes “Los Angeles Look(ing): Process, Perception, and Popular they are just a by-product.” This last clause remains ambigu- really very much of an intuitive activity, in which all the V. Photographs, ca. 1969–ca. 1993”; and roll 1, “Early his Whitney Museum of Art exhibition (Robert Irwin, April on the Nature of Abstraction,” in Perception and Pictorial Culture in the Art of Larry Bell, Craig Kauffman, and John ous since Judd could be saying that the shadows are just time I was only putting one foot in front of the other, Installation Projects,” in “Series VII. Project drawings, ca. 16–May 29, 1977) and wrote to Panza to ask the collector for Representation, ed. Calvin F. Nodine and Dennis F. Fisher McCracken,” doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, a by-product of the poor lighting or just a by-product of the and that each step was not that resolved. . . . In many 1970–1993”). images of the works at his property in Varese, Italy. See a let- (New York: Praeger Publishers 1979), 217–27. 2008, 79, 190, 203. integral, material artwork. In either case, it seems clear that cases, I didn’t really even know where I was going; I had 44. Plagens, draft of an exhibition review (note 20), page B. ter from Irwin to Panza, December 5, 1976, Giuseppe Panza 61. Irwin, statement on a loose sheet inserted in an unlabeled 66. In his interview with Alastair Mackintosh, Bell explained, he viewed the shadows as ancillary to the object. Earlier, in no real clarity about some intellectual assumption, about See also Plagens, “Los Angeles” (note 20), 69; and Plagens, Papers, items 64 and 65, folder 1, box 115, Getty Research Herald Square notebook with a blue cover, n.d., Robert “I’ve been preoccupied with that certain sort of ‘look’ of 1969, Judd discounted optical phenomena in his pieces when what I thought I was doing. Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space: Four Artists exhibition Institute, Los Angeles. Irwin Papers, folder 4, box 15, Getty Research Institute, Los mine, if ‘look’ is the right word. I can’t really describe it as distinguishing his artistic goals from those of Dan Flavin: Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 61–62 (ellipsis in notes in an unlabeled Spiral Sight Saver notebook with a red 54. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 128. Angeles, n.p.; Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview with Robert sexy or sensual. The word I’m trying to think of is a word “I want a particular, definite object. I think Flavin wants, at original). See also Wight, “Robert Irwin,” 92–93, 180–81, cover, n.d., Peter Plagens Papers, “Notes—Contemporary Art 55. Irwin, in “An Interview with Alistair Mackintosh,” Art and Irwin” (note 35), 88 (emphasis in original); Irwin, in Horsfield, which would be contradictory to what the pieces actually least first or primarily, a particular phenomenon.” See Judd, 194–97; and Irwin, “Notes toward a Model,” Robert Irwin, c. 1971” folder, box 3, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Artists 6, no. 12 (March 1972): 24. The published title mis- “On Art and Artists” (note 40), 6. See also Blumenthal are—‘soft,’ for instance. The pieces feel soft but you don’t “Aspects of Flavin’s Work,” in fluorescent light, etc. from exh. cat. (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, Institution, Washington, DC, n.p. spells the interviewer’s name, Alastair Mackintosh. and Horsfield, “On Art and Artists” (note 40) at 14:04; and have to touch them to have that feeling.” Bell, in “An Dan Flavin, exh. cat. (Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1977), 28. 45. Seldis, “Four Artists” (note 15), 49. 56. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 128. Irwin, statement in notebook 1, 1976–77, otherwise labeled Interview with Alastair Mackintosh” (note 5), 40. 1969), 27. The exhibition Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space: 46. Terbell, “Los Angeles” (note 24), 48. 57. Compare James Turrell’s notes from his and Irwin’s initial “Hegel 76 / Husserl 77 / Notes for a Model Dec 76,” Robert 67. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 16, 25, 46; 34. Judd fabricated the piece he had promised to Irwin Four Artists took place from January 11 to February 14, 1971, 47. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 145. collaboration as part of the Art and Technology program Irwin Papers, folder 4, box 15, Getty Research Institute, Los Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview with Robert Irwin” (note 35), only after Irwin said he was donating it to the Museum of in the UCLA Art Galleries, which were located within the 48. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 145. organized by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art: Angeles, n.p.: “There is only one real time . . . present time . . 87 (phrases reordered). Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. See Irwin’s comments then–Dickson Art Center. Designed by William L. Pereira and 49. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 112–113. “Technology is merely a means—not an end. Technological . now experience” (emphases and ellipses in original). 68. In the catalogue for the exhibition Recent Paintings by to the author, audio recording, San Diego, October, 24, Associates, this 1964 structure was renamed the Broad Art 50. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 145. instruments are extensions of ideas, i.e.: they measure 62. Irwin, in “An Interview with Alistair Mackintosh” Robert Irwin (Ferus Gallery, March 23–April 18, 1959), Irwin 2006; and information for DSS 194 in Smith, Donald Judd: Center in 1995 and renovated by Richard Meier and Partners 51. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 146–147. what you already think is there, what you have decided to (note 55), 24. See also Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note selected and combined lines from two poems written by Catalogue Raisonné (note 31), 199. Conversely, Judd owned from 1999 through 2006. “Stairway No. 4” in Pereira’s plans 52. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 147. measure.” See “Project with Garrett 1-21-69” notes, Art 29), 236–37; Blumenthal and Horsfield, “On Art and Artists” Hanshan and translated by Gary Snyder. The four paintings a 1965–67 aluminum disc by Irwin. See Angeli Janhsen, seems to be the “utility stairwell” Irwin describes. See 53. Irwin refused to allow photographic reproductions of and Technology exhibition archives, folder 28, Los Angeles (note 40), at 20:13; and Horsfield, “On Art and Artists” reproduced in black and white in the catalogue are Daisetz “Discussion with Donald Judd,” Donald Judd, exh. cat. (St. William L. Pereira and Associates, “First Floor Plan—South his works in the following articles and catalogues (as well County Museum of Art. See also Jane Livingston, “Robert (note 40), 8. (1959), The Lucky U (1959), Sawtelle No. 11 (1958), and Gallen, Switzerland: Kunstverein St. Gallen, 1990), 56; Judd, Wing” / Plan G3.2, “Second Floor Plan—South Wing” / Plan as others): “Wide Open and Way Out,” Life 53, no. 16 Irwin / James Turrell,” in A Report on the Art and Technology 63. Irwin, in “An Interview with Alistair Mackintosh” No. 17, Murphy (1958). See Recent Paintings by Robert “Una stanza per Panza, part II,” Kunst Intern 5 (July 1990): G3.3, and “Stairway Sections & Plans” / Plan G6.2, “Art Unit (October 19, 1962): 89, with a photograph of Irwin holding up Program of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (note 55), 24. Irwin, exh. cat. (Los Angeles: Ferus Gallery, 1959), in Robert 8; and Post-War and Contemporary Art (Afternoon Session), II, University of California, Los Angeles Campus,” October a painted surfboard for the camera in lieu of the backward- 1967–1971, ed. Maurice Tuchman (Los Angeles: Los Angeles 64. Irwin, in “An Interview with Alistair Mackintosh” Irwin Papers, folder 1, box 31, Getty Research Institute, Los Wednesday 10 May 2006 (New York: Christie’s 2006), 24–25, 14, 1963, Capital Programs, Design and Construction depart- facing painting that he did not permit to be photographed; County Museum of Art, 1971), 131. (note 55), 27. Angeles. See also Neff, “Hands-On” (note 65), 90n9; and lot 412. ment archives, University of California, Los Angeles. See also Irwin, statement in Artforum 3, no. 9 (June 1965): 23; The 58. Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview with Robert Irwin” (note 65. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 16. Irwin Perchuk, “From Otis to Ferus” (note 29), 1:98n9, where 35. Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview with Robert Irwin,” “Dickson Art Center” and “Broad Art Center” subject file fold- United States of America, exh. cat (Pasadena: Pasadena Art 35), 89; and Irwin, in “An Interview with Alistair Mackintosh” downplayed his interest, but the Ferus gallery direc- Perchuk cites what seems to be the 1959 Ferus Gallery exhi- Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space (note 19), 68. ers, Record Series 746, University of California, Los Angeles, Museum, 1965), forty-fifth page (n.p.); Robert Irwin, Kenneth (note 55), 24. After discussing Irwin’s 1971 stairwell piece tor Walter Hopps recalled that Irwin “read everything in bition catalogue as “Robert Irwin, Zen Paintings (Los Angeles: 36. Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview with Robert Irwin” (note University Archives; and Wight, “Robert Irwin,” 143–44. Price, exh. cat. (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum at UCLA, the art critic Henry Seldis concluded that “we can English he could get his hands on about Zen.” Hopps, in Ferus Gallery, 1958).” 35), 68. Determining exactly which Morris piece that Irwin 42. Irwin, letter to the collector Giuseppe Panza, n.d., of Art, 1966), eighth page (n.p.); Irwin, statement in Artforum cheerfully accept the evident limitation of words or other sym- an interview with John Hallmark Neff, September 1992, saw is difficult, but he seems to have had in mind the largish, Giuseppe Panza Papers, item 29, folder 10, box 115, Getty 7, no. 2 (October 1968): 4, objecting to the reproduction of a bols when it comes to actually describing the unprecedented quoted in John Hallmark Neff, “Hands-On: Irwin and Abstract hollow, plywood or Fiberglas forms from the mid- to late Research Institute, Los Angeles. Irwin was addressing his disc painting on the cover of Artforum 6, no. 9 (May 1968); sensations offered to us by Irwin’s almost imperceptible Expressionism,” in Robert Irwin, ed. Ferguson (note 29), 80, 1960s. Irwin may have viewed the work in question during intentions for a project at the Castello di Rivoli in Turin, but West Coast, 1945–1969, exh. cat. (Pasadena: Pasadena Art transformations of an ordinary space.” Seldis, “Four Artists” 89–90n8. Irwin’s collected papers include photocopies of Morris’s solo exhibition at Dwan Gallery, Los Angeles, March he explicitly likened that work to the UCLA piece: “This is my Museum, 1969), 12v; The George Waterman Collection, (note 15), 49. Of the works in this same exhibition, Melinda two scientific studies: B.{ths}K. Anand, G.{ths}S. Chhina, and 15–April 1, 1966. plan for Castello di Rivoli . . . it is referenced to my installation exh. cat (Providence: Museum of Art, Rhode Island School Terbell found Irwin’s “the most difficult to deal with verbally.” Baldev Singh, “Some Aspects of Electroencephalographic 37. Irwin avoids the final assessment of Morris’s work that he for the exhibition ‘Transparency, Reflection, Light + Space’ of Design, 1969), thirty-second page (n.p.); 69th American “For years,” she continued, “Irwin has deprecated the role of Studies in Yogis,” and Akira Kasamatsu and Tomio Hirai, seems to invite: “The Morris physically belied itself, there are at the Univ of Calif, Los Angeles . . . January 11–February Exhibition, exh. cat. (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1970), the critic, who, by attempting to translate the direct sensate “An Electroencephalographic Study of the Zen Meditation constant contradictions as a physical object which there are 14[.] My intention in Rivoli as in Los Angeles is to condition 19; 11 Los Angeles Artists, exh. cat. (London: Arts Council experience of a work of art into a verbal medium, dilutes its (Zazen).” These articles appear to be chapters 34 and 35 of not in the Judd. Now that doesn’t make the one better than the spaces so as to attend the qualities of the ambient light” of Great Britain, 1971), thirty-second page (n.p.); USA West original impact. One becomes painfully aware of the validity of Deane H. Shapiro Jr. and Roger N. Walsh, eds., Meditation: the other, it just has to do with the kind of reality in which (ellipses in original). Coast, exh. cat (Hamburg: Kunstverein in Hamburg, 1972), his premise here.” Terbell, “Los Angeles” (note 24), 48. Classic and Contemporary Perspectives (New York: Aldine each man views his work.” Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview 43. Images of the work do not appear in the exhibition 66–67; The State of California Painting, exh. cat (New 59. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 126. Publishing Company, 1984), 475–79 and 481–92. Robert Irwin with Robert Irwin” (note 35), 68. catalogue, in a university press release, on the invitation Plymouth, New Zealand: Govett-Brewster Art Gallery, 1972),

170 WORK and words 171 term. I distinguish between that, [an] illusion which I think is 38. See notes 33 and 35 above. to a preview of the show, on a flyer for the exhibition, in forty-ninth page (n.p.); Robert Irwin, exh. cat. (Chicago: 60. Irwin, statement in an unlabeled Memos notebook with Papers, “Lecture Notes” folder, box 15 Adds, Getty Research a perfectly matter-of-fact illusion and has no connection to 39. Irwin, in “Robert Irwin with Marianne Stockebrand: A newspaper articles and art magazine reviews, or in the art- Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, 1975), 16; and a green cover, n.d., Robert Irwin Papers, folder 1, box 15, Institute, Los Angeles. the other kind, [and] the other kind of [pictorial] illusion” (33). Dialogue, Part 2,” Chinati Foundation Newsletter 7 (2002): 23. ist’s collected papers. See Transparency, Reflection, Light, Critical Perspectives in American Art, exh. cat. (Amherst: Fine Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles, n.p. Irwin focused on For other mentions of Zen in discussion of Irwin’s art, (The edited symposium transcript appears to be errant here. 40. Irwin, in Lyn Blumenthal and Kate Horsfield, “On Art and Space (note 19); “Four L.A. Artists to Do Space, Environment Arts Center Gallery, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, the imprecision of language in his contributions to the First see Terbell, “Los Angeles” (note 24), 47; Peter Plagens, It reads, incoherently: “In a sense that is an illusion just in the Artists: Robert Irwin,” video recording, Chicago, 1978, Video Exhibit at UCLA,” press release, Office of Public Information, 1976), 21. National Symposium on Habitability, held in Venice, California, Sunshine Muse: Contemporary Art on the West Coast (New technical meaning of the term. I distinguish between that, Data Bank, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, at 27:45. University of California, Los Angeles, December 16, 1970, In correspondence with potential buyers, galleries May 11–14, 1970: “I feel in some sense that the idea of York: Praeger Publishers, 1974), 129–130; Weschler, Seeing and illusion which I think is a perfectly matter-of-fact illusion See also Horsfield, “On Art and Artists: Robert Irwin,” Profile and other miscellaneous materials in the “Transparency, representing Irwin acknowledged the artist’s position and the verbal communication—putting forth ideas abstractly—is Is Forgetting (note 29), 57–59; Melinda Farris Wortz, “Radical and has no connection to the other kind. The other kind of 2, no. 4 (July 1982): 11–12. Reflection, Light, Space: Four Artists 1/11/71–2/14/71” folder, difficulty of photographing his works. See a letter from Fred somehow the seat of the problem in making progress in Emptiness: The Spiritual Experience in Contemporary Art,” illusion.”) 41. During a series of taped and transcribed interviews in box 52, Wight Art Gallery Exhibit Files, 1952–1994, Record Mueller, the director of Pace Gallery, New York, to the col- habitability. . . . The idea of abstract words or verbalization doctoral dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 1990, 33. Judd, in “An Interview with John Griffiths,” Art and 1975 and 1976, Irwin took pains to emphasize the intuitive Series 665, University of California, Los Angeles; “Show Set lector Giuseppe Panza, December 7, 1966, Giuseppe Panza has strength—the ability to externalize information. . . . 280, 292; Klaus Kertess, “The Architecture of Perception,” Design 5, no. 7/8 [“New York New Art”] (1989): 48; Judd, in nature of his practice for fear that the verbal format would on Space, Environment,” Los Angeles Times, December Papers, item 1, folder 3, box 115, Getty Research Institute, Verbalization eliminates excess information, so as to zero in Robert Irwin, ed. Ferguson, 119; Sally Yard, “Deep “Don Judd” (note 30), 41. The context of Judd’s statement suggest otherwise: 27, 1970, Calendar section, 52; Ivan Gerson, “Avant-Garde Los Angeles; a letter from Rudolf Zwirner, the director of in on that information relative to the action at that particular Time,” in Robert Irwin, ed. Ferguson, 60; Craig Vista Svare, on shadows requires additional comment. Responding to There’s a lot of naiveté there in the beginning. In other Works Displayed,” UCLA Daily Bruin, January 14, 1971, 7; Galerie Rudolf Zwirner, Cologne, to Panza, June 16, 1971, time. . . . But at the same time, on the human side it is very “Theology and Visual Art: Faith and Art Making: A Theological Coplans’s question about the “difficulty . . . with the amount words, most of these ideas, as I look back now—I could Seldis, “Four Artists” (note 15); Terbell, “Los Angeles” (note Giuseppe Panza Papers, item 1, folder 3, box 114, Getty much a weak tool, since from the perspective of this side it Consideration of Interviews with Artists Stephen De Staebler, of shadows cast” by the pieces, Judd replied, “It has to do be very much more lucid and make it sound as if I had 24); Plagens, “Los Angeles” (note 20); and Robert Irwin Research Institute, Los Angeles; and a letter from Zwirner to eliminates too much information.” “First National Symposium Robert Irwin, James Melchert, Manuel Neri and William T. with the fact that museum lighting is pretty bad. The Whitney been very clear and that I really knew what I was doing. Papers, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (in particular: Panza, July 20, 1971, Giuseppe Panza Papers, item 2, folder on Habitability,” 4 vols. (Los Angeles: Garrett Airesearch Wiley,” doctoral dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, show [Don Judd, February 27–April 14, 1968] was especially But I want very much to maintain the impression to box 18, “1970–1980,” in “Series III. Projects, 1970–1996”; 3, box 114, Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles. Manufacturing Company, [1971]), 4:63, 4:66. See also Irwin, 1993, 44; Perchuk, “From Otis to Ferus” (note 29), 1:96–106, bad because of the spotlights. All my pieces are meant to be someone who would read this, somebody young who box 31, “ca. 1960–1977,” in “Series IV. Clippings and By 1976 or so Irwin felt that he had made his point. statement in Artforum 3, no. 9 (note 53), 23; Irwin, “Notes 1:112–113, 1:117n45, 1:141–142; and Rebecca Ann Weller, seen in even or natural light. The shadows are unimportant, might listen to this thing, that my whole process was ephemera, ca. 1960–1992”; box 36, “1971–1973,” in “Series He decided to accept reproductions in the catalogue for toward a Model” (note 41), 26; and Irwin, “Some Notes “Los Angeles Look(ing): Process, Perception, and Popular they are just a by-product.” This last clause remains ambigu- really very much of an intuitive activity, in which all the V. Photographs, ca. 1969–ca. 1993”; and roll 1, “Early his Whitney Museum of Art exhibition (Robert Irwin, April on the Nature of Abstraction,” in Perception and Pictorial Culture in the Art of Larry Bell, Craig Kauffman, and John ous since Judd could be saying that the shadows are just time I was only putting one foot in front of the other, Installation Projects,” in “Series VII. Project drawings, ca. 16–May 29, 1977) and wrote to Panza to ask the collector for Representation, ed. Calvin F. Nodine and Dennis F. Fisher McCracken,” doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, a by-product of the poor lighting or just a by-product of the and that each step was not that resolved. . . . In many 1970–1993”). images of the works at his property in Varese, Italy. See a let- (New York: Praeger Publishers 1979), 217–27. 2008, 79, 190, 203. integral, material artwork. In either case, it seems clear that cases, I didn’t really even know where I was going; I had 44. Plagens, draft of an exhibition review (note 20), page B. ter from Irwin to Panza, December 5, 1976, Giuseppe Panza 61. Irwin, statement on a loose sheet inserted in an unlabeled 66. In his interview with Alastair Mackintosh, Bell explained, he viewed the shadows as ancillary to the object. Earlier, in no real clarity about some intellectual assumption, about See also Plagens, “Los Angeles” (note 20), 69; and Plagens, Papers, items 64 and 65, folder 1, box 115, Getty Research Herald Square notebook with a blue cover, n.d., Robert “I’ve been preoccupied with that certain sort of ‘look’ of 1969, Judd discounted optical phenomena in his pieces when what I thought I was doing. Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space: Four Artists exhibition Institute, Los Angeles. Irwin Papers, folder 4, box 15, Getty Research Institute, Los mine, if ‘look’ is the right word. I can’t really describe it as distinguishing his artistic goals from those of Dan Flavin: Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 61–62 (ellipsis in notes in an unlabeled Spiral Sight Saver notebook with a red 54. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 128. Angeles, n.p.; Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview with Robert sexy or sensual. The word I’m trying to think of is a word “I want a particular, definite object. I think Flavin wants, at original). See also Wight, “Robert Irwin,” 92–93, 180–81, cover, n.d., Peter Plagens Papers, “Notes—Contemporary Art 55. Irwin, in “An Interview with Alistair Mackintosh,” Art and Irwin” (note 35), 88 (emphasis in original); Irwin, in Horsfield, which would be contradictory to what the pieces actually least first or primarily, a particular phenomenon.” See Judd, 194–97; and Irwin, “Notes toward a Model,” Robert Irwin, c. 1971” folder, box 3, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Artists 6, no. 12 (March 1972): 24. The published title mis- “On Art and Artists” (note 40), 6. See also Blumenthal are—‘soft,’ for instance. The pieces feel soft but you don’t “Aspects of Flavin’s Work,” in fluorescent light, etc. from exh. cat. (New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, Institution, Washington, DC, n.p. spells the interviewer’s name, Alastair Mackintosh. and Horsfield, “On Art and Artists” (note 40) at 14:04; and have to touch them to have that feeling.” Bell, in “An Dan Flavin, exh. cat. (Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1977), 28. 45. Seldis, “Four Artists” (note 15), 49. 56. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 128. Irwin, statement in notebook 1, 1976–77, otherwise labeled Interview with Alastair Mackintosh” (note 5), 40. 1969), 27. The exhibition Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space: 46. Terbell, “Los Angeles” (note 24), 48. 57. Compare James Turrell’s notes from his and Irwin’s initial “Hegel 76 / Husserl 77 / Notes for a Model Dec 76,” Robert 67. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 16, 25, 46; 34. Judd fabricated the piece he had promised to Irwin Four Artists took place from January 11 to February 14, 1971, 47. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 145. collaboration as part of the Art and Technology program Irwin Papers, folder 4, box 15, Getty Research Institute, Los Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview with Robert Irwin” (note 35), only after Irwin said he was donating it to the Museum of in the UCLA Art Galleries, which were located within the 48. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 145. organized by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art: Angeles, n.p.: “There is only one real time . . . present time . . 87 (phrases reordered). Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. See Irwin’s comments then–Dickson Art Center. Designed by William L. Pereira and 49. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 112–113. “Technology is merely a means—not an end. Technological . now experience” (emphases and ellipses in original). 68. In the catalogue for the exhibition Recent Paintings by to the author, audio recording, San Diego, October, 24, Associates, this 1964 structure was renamed the Broad Art 50. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 145. instruments are extensions of ideas, i.e.: they measure 62. Irwin, in “An Interview with Alistair Mackintosh” Robert Irwin (Ferus Gallery, March 23–April 18, 1959), Irwin 2006; and information for DSS 194 in Smith, Donald Judd: Center in 1995 and renovated by Richard Meier and Partners 51. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 146–147. what you already think is there, what you have decided to (note 55), 24. See also Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note selected and combined lines from two poems written by Catalogue Raisonné (note 31), 199. Conversely, Judd owned from 1999 through 2006. “Stairway No. 4” in Pereira’s plans 52. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 147. measure.” See “Project with Garrett 1-21-69” notes, Art 29), 236–37; Blumenthal and Horsfield, “On Art and Artists” Hanshan and translated by Gary Snyder. The four paintings a 1965–67 aluminum disc by Irwin. See Angeli Janhsen, seems to be the “utility stairwell” Irwin describes. See 53. Irwin refused to allow photographic reproductions of and Technology exhibition archives, folder 28, Los Angeles (note 40), at 20:13; and Horsfield, “On Art and Artists” reproduced in black and white in the catalogue are Daisetz “Discussion with Donald Judd,” Donald Judd, exh. cat. (St. William L. Pereira and Associates, “First Floor Plan—South his works in the following articles and catalogues (as well County Museum of Art. See also Jane Livingston, “Robert (note 40), 8. (1959), The Lucky U (1959), Sawtelle No. 11 (1958), and Gallen, Switzerland: Kunstverein St. Gallen, 1990), 56; Judd, Wing” / Plan G3.2, “Second Floor Plan—South Wing” / Plan as others): “Wide Open and Way Out,” Life 53, no. 16 Irwin / James Turrell,” in A Report on the Art and Technology 63. Irwin, in “An Interview with Alistair Mackintosh” No. 17, Murphy (1958). See Recent Paintings by Robert “Una stanza per Panza, part II,” Kunst Intern 5 (July 1990): G3.3, and “Stairway Sections & Plans” / Plan G6.2, “Art Unit (October 19, 1962): 89, with a photograph of Irwin holding up Program of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (note 55), 24. Irwin, exh. cat. (Los Angeles: Ferus Gallery, 1959), in Robert 8; and Post-War and Contemporary Art (Afternoon Session), II, University of California, Los Angeles Campus,” October a painted surfboard for the camera in lieu of the backward- 1967–1971, ed. Maurice Tuchman (Los Angeles: Los Angeles 64. Irwin, in “An Interview with Alistair Mackintosh” Irwin Papers, folder 1, box 31, Getty Research Institute, Los Wednesday 10 May 2006 (New York: Christie’s 2006), 24–25, 14, 1963, Capital Programs, Design and Construction depart- facing painting that he did not permit to be photographed; County Museum of Art, 1971), 131. (note 55), 27. Angeles. See also Neff, “Hands-On” (note 65), 90n9; and lot 412. ment archives, University of California, Los Angeles. See also Irwin, statement in Artforum 3, no. 9 (June 1965): 23; The 58. Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview with Robert Irwin” (note 65. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 16. Irwin Perchuk, “From Otis to Ferus” (note 29), 1:98n9, where 35. Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview with Robert Irwin,” “Dickson Art Center” and “Broad Art Center” subject file fold- United States of America, exh. cat (Pasadena: Pasadena Art 35), 89; and Irwin, in “An Interview with Alistair Mackintosh” downplayed his interest, but the Ferus gallery direc- Perchuk cites what seems to be the 1959 Ferus Gallery exhi- Transparency, Reflection, Light, Space (note 19), 68. ers, Record Series 746, University of California, Los Angeles, Museum, 1965), forty-fifth page (n.p.); Robert Irwin, Kenneth (note 55), 24. After discussing Irwin’s 1971 stairwell piece tor Walter Hopps recalled that Irwin “read everything in bition catalogue as “Robert Irwin, Zen Paintings (Los Angeles: 36. Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview with Robert Irwin” (note University Archives; and Wight, “Robert Irwin,” 143–44. Price, exh. cat. (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum at UCLA, the art critic Henry Seldis concluded that “we can English he could get his hands on about Zen.” Hopps, in Ferus Gallery, 1958).” 35), 68. Determining exactly which Morris piece that Irwin 42. Irwin, letter to the collector Giuseppe Panza, n.d., of Art, 1966), eighth page (n.p.); Irwin, statement in Artforum cheerfully accept the evident limitation of words or other sym- an interview with John Hallmark Neff, September 1992, saw is difficult, but he seems to have had in mind the largish, Giuseppe Panza Papers, item 29, folder 10, box 115, Getty 7, no. 2 (October 1968): 4, objecting to the reproduction of a bols when it comes to actually describing the unprecedented quoted in John Hallmark Neff, “Hands-On: Irwin and Abstract hollow, plywood or Fiberglas forms from the mid- to late Research Institute, Los Angeles. Irwin was addressing his disc painting on the cover of Artforum 6, no. 9 (May 1968); sensations offered to us by Irwin’s almost imperceptible Expressionism,” in Robert Irwin, ed. Ferguson (note 29), 80, 1960s. Irwin may have viewed the work in question during intentions for a project at the Castello di Rivoli in Turin, but West Coast, 1945–1969, exh. cat. (Pasadena: Pasadena Art transformations of an ordinary space.” Seldis, “Four Artists” 89–90n8. Irwin’s collected papers include photocopies of Morris’s solo exhibition at Dwan Gallery, Los Angeles, March he explicitly likened that work to the UCLA piece: “This is my Museum, 1969), 12v; The George Waterman Collection, (note 15), 49. Of the works in this same exhibition, Melinda two scientific studies: B.{ths}K. Anand, G.{ths}S. Chhina, and 15–April 1, 1966. plan for Castello di Rivoli . . . it is referenced to my installation exh. cat (Providence: Museum of Art, Rhode Island School Terbell found Irwin’s “the most difficult to deal with verbally.” Baldev Singh, “Some Aspects of Electroencephalographic 37. Irwin avoids the final assessment of Morris’s work that he for the exhibition ‘Transparency, Reflection, Light + Space’ of Design, 1969), thirty-second page (n.p.); 69th American “For years,” she continued, “Irwin has deprecated the role of Studies in Yogis,” and Akira Kasamatsu and Tomio Hirai, seems to invite: “The Morris physically belied itself, there are at the Univ of Calif, Los Angeles . . . January 11–February Exhibition, exh. cat. (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago, 1970), the critic, who, by attempting to translate the direct sensate “An Electroencephalographic Study of the Zen Meditation constant contradictions as a physical object which there are 14[.] My intention in Rivoli as in Los Angeles is to condition 19; 11 Los Angeles Artists, exh. cat. (London: Arts Council experience of a work of art into a verbal medium, dilutes its (Zazen).” These articles appear to be chapters 34 and 35 of not in the Judd. Now that doesn’t make the one better than the spaces so as to attend the qualities of the ambient light” of Great Britain, 1971), thirty-second page (n.p.); USA West original impact. One becomes painfully aware of the validity of Deane H. Shapiro Jr. and Roger N. Walsh, eds., Meditation: the other, it just has to do with the kind of reality in which (ellipses in original). Coast, exh. cat (Hamburg: Kunstverein in Hamburg, 1972), his premise here.” Terbell, “Los Angeles” (note 24), 48. Classic and Contemporary Perspectives (New York: Aldine each man views his work.” Irwin, in Wight, “An Interview 43. Images of the work do not appear in the exhibition 66–67; The State of California Painting, exh. cat (New 59. Irwin, in Wight, “Robert Irwin” (note 29), 126. Publishing Company, 1984), 475–79 and 481–92. Robert Irwin with Robert Irwin” (note 35), 68. catalogue, in a university press release, on the invitation Plymouth, New Zealand: Govett-Brewster Art Gallery, 1972),

170 WORK and words 171