The Benefit of the Doubt: Regarding the Photographic Conditions of Conceptual Art, 1966-1973
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Benefit of the Doubt: Regarding the Photographic Conditions of Conceptual Art, 1966-1973 by Heather A. Diack A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Art University of Toronto © Copyright by Heather A. Diack 2010 The Benefit of the Doubt: Regarding the Photographic Conditions of Conceptual Art, 1966-1973 Heather A. Diack Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Art University of Toronto 2010 Abstract This dissertation offers a reconsideration of the uses of photography under the aegis of Conceptual Art between 1966 and 1973 by analyzing the ways photography challenged epistemological limits, and, despite the claims regarding the medium’s inherent indexicality, emphasized experience over exactitude, and doubt in place of certainty. By focusing on four American practitioners, I argue for the “benefit of the doubt;” in other words, for the value of disbelief and hesitation, marking the reorientation of art at this time towards critical methods which oppose all orthodoxies, including but not limited to formalist dogmas, and instead are committed to the denial of autonomy in favor of understanding meaning as infinitely contingent. The dissertation is divided among four key case studies, including Mel Bochner (n. 1940), Bruce Nauman (n. 1941), Douglas Huebler (1924-1997), and John Baldessari (n. 1931). Each chapter argues for the unique contribution of photography in relation to conceptual art practices, while also situating the projects of these individual practitioners within the broader history of the medium of photography. I explore specifically the concepts of seriality, transparency and theory in Bochner; performance, “worklessness,” and failure in Nauman; portraiture, mapping and impossibility in Huebler; humor, didacticism, choice and chance in Baldessari. This project looks back continuously to significant precursors, in particular the work of Marcel Duchamp ii (1887-1968), as a means of engaging the status and function of art after the Readymade, particularly as concerns de-skilling, disinterest, affirmative irony, and nominalism, as well as the dialectic between inclusivity and inconclusivity. iii Acknowledgments Though this dissertation is preoccupied with doubt—the one thing of which I am certain is that it would not have been conceivable without the insight, support, and tenacity of so many people. First I would like to thank my dissertation committee: Elizabeth Legge, Mark Cheetham, and Louis Kaplan. In particular my supervisor Louis is without a doubt the index that underscores this project. This dissertation project was developed under his guidance and scholarly influence. I will always be grateful for his remarkable intellectual generosity as well as his contagious enthusiasm, humour and friendship. I am also grateful to John Paul Ricco and Blake Stimson who joined the committee in the final stage and thoughtfully shared their insights. I have been fortunate to be inspired by the work, commitment, and wit of each of my committee members. This project also owes extensive theoretical and philosophical debt to Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, for his kindness and critical seriousness during my time as a Rubenstein Fellow in the Independent Study Program of the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. This program was absolutely instrumental in my thinking through the politics of photography. In addition, the invaluable dialogue with my colleagues in the 2006-2007 Whitney Independent Study Program, in particular Brendan Fernandes, Marisa White-Hartman, Minnie Scott, Martin Braathen, Elisabeth Byre, Michael Sperlinger, Elaine Gan, Christine Davidson, Jesper Nordahl, Soyoung Yoon, and Alex Kitnick, and the generosity of Ron Clark, have encouraged and stretched my ideas and my thinking in immeasurable ways. I would like to thank the Art department of the University of Toronto for many years of support, and thank my colleagues in the program, especially Alex Hoare, Sarah Stanners, Alma Mikulinski, Sarah Guerin, Carolina Mangone, Betsy Purvis, Elena Napolitano, Margo Beggs, Irmgard Emmelhainz, and David Alexandre. I will always cherish our years together. I am also grateful for the numerous entities that have funded this project, including the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Jackman Humanities Institute, and the Centre for the Study of the United States. I am forever grateful for my many close friendships, my muses, especially Angela MacDonald who has been kicking it old school with me for as long as I can remember, Lisa DiQuinzio who knows me way too well, Nancy Clarke whose compassion always seems to have room for more, iv Farah Malik who is one of the strongest women I know, and Celine Heinbecker who motivates me constantly by her example and her vision of the world. You all mean so much to me. I am also thankful to Jennifer Murphy, Erinn Beth Langille, Melissa Shiff, Michael LeBlanc, Seth Bloom, Miriana DiQuinzio, John Turner, and Josh Thorpe. I love you all. I am thankful beyond belief for my big-hearted family, especially Grandma and Grandpa Diack, Rob and Lori Diack, Carol and Jim Bradley Williams, Jeff Thurlow and Cari Barrett, Jessica Thurlow and Todd Koffler, and Grandma Dee. To my brother, the best brother in the world, Ian Diack, I cannot think of a better model of determination and love, and I thank both you and Rocky Balboa for seeing me through. I thank my husband Erin Thurlow for his tireless support, for being a constant confidant, for spurring me to new questions, and for loving me without question. This project is absolutely indebted to you. I owe my deepest gratitude to my parents, Bruce and Rachelle Diack. I have been so immensely blessed by your love, counsel, and encouragement throughout my life. You have always compelled me to strive forward and to keep my priorities clear while maintaining a serious commitment to experiencing the joy in life. There is no doubt that this project is dedicated to you. Heather Diack, Toronto, April 2010. v Table of Contents Introduction: Marks of Contingency ……………………………………………..……………1 Chapter One: Dead Certainties: Mel Bochner Takes Photographic Measures ……………22 Picture This………………………………………………………………………………..……..24 No Thought Exists Without a Sustaining Support …………………………………………...….28 Preposterous Transparence/ Incredible Transcendence …………………………………………37 “There is a labyrinth which is a straight line…” ……………………………………… ………..47 Misunderstandings and Understatements ………………………………………………………. 59 Chapter Two: Performance Proof: Bruce Nauman and Photography ………………. …...72 The Incredible Lightness of Being and the Gravity of the Task ………………………………...94 Easy Does It ……………………………………………………………………………………104 Fountain of Doubt ……………………………………………………………………………...115 Chapter Three: Definitely Dubious Documents: On Douglas Huebler’s Photographs … 125 On the Dialectics of Art and Photography ……………………………………………………..126 Mapping the Subject: Limits and Dislocations ………………………………………………...139 Counter-Figurations ……………………………………………………………………………165 Familiar Resemblances and Irreconcilable Differences ……………………………………….176 Bodies in Motion Remain in Motion …………………………………………………………..180 Chapter Four: Suspension of Belief: John Baldessari’s Skeptical Photography ...……… 184 I Think Therefore I Art ……………………………………………………………………….. 186 On Painting, Pointing, and the Laws of Looking ………………………………………………205 Various Small Fires and Other “Art Signals” ………………………………………………….224 C-A-L-I-F-O-R-N-I-A ………………………………………………………………………... 231 Doubt and Didacticism ……………………………….………………………………………. 240 Between Choice and Chance ….………………………………………………………………..243 Who Laughs Last? ……………………………………………………………………………. 246 Conclusion: Beyond the Shadow of Doubt? ……………………………………………….. 248 Bibliography …………..………………………………………………………………………251 Appendix ……………...……………………………………………………………………… 282 vi List of Figures Figure 1. Mel Bochner, Working drawings and other visible things on paper not necessarily meant to be viewed as art (1966). Figure 2. Mel Bochner, 36 Photographs and 12 Diagrams (1966). Figure 3. Mel Bochner, H-2 (1966-67). Figure 4. Mel Bochner, Perspective: One Point (Positive) (1967). Figure 5. Mel Bochner, Perspective: Two Point (Negative) (1967). Figure 6. Mel Bochner, Viscosity (Mineral Oil) (1968). Figure 7. Mel Bochner, Grid (Shaving Cream) (1968). Figure 8. Mel Bochner, Transparent and Opaque (1968). Figure 9. Mel Bochner, Singer Lab Measurement (#1) (1968). Figure 10. Mel Bochner, Singer Lab Measurement (#2) (1968). Figure 11. Mel Bochner, Singer Lab Measurement (#3) (1968). Figure 12. Mel Bochner, Singer Lab Measurement (#4) (1968). Figure 13. Mel Bochner, Singer Lab Measurement (#5) (1968). Figure 14. Mel Bochner, Actual Size (Face and Hand) (1968). Figure 15. Mel Bochner, Measurement Room (1969). Figure 16. John Baldessari, Measurement Series: Measuring a Chair with a Coffee Cup (Top- Bottoms) (1975). Figure 17. John Baldessari, Three Metaphorical Measurements (1980). Figure 18. Mel Bochner, Misunderstandings (A Theory of Photography) (1967-70). vii Figure 19. Marcel Duchamp, Fresh Widow (1920). Figure 20. Mel Bochner, Surface Dis/Tension (1968). Figure 21. Bruce Nauman, Holograms (1968-69). Figure 22. Bruce Nauman, Grimaces (1970). Figure 23. Bruce Nauman, Grimaces (1970). Figure 24. Bruce Nauman, Composite Photograph of Two Messes on the Studio Floor (1967). Figure 25. Brassai and Salvador Dali, Sculptures Involontaires (1933). Figure 26. Victor Burgin, Photopath (1967). Figure 27. Bruce Nauman, Eleven Color Photographs (1966-67/1970).