Sites of Subjectivity: Robert Morris, Minimalism, and Dance Author(S): Virginia Spivey Reviewed Work(S): Source: Dance Research Journal, Vol

Home , Dance (Matisse)

Sites of Subjectivity: Robert Morris, Minimalism, and Dance Author(s): Virginia Spivey Reviewed work(s): Source: Dance Research Journal, Vol. 35/36, Vol. 35, no. 2 - Vol. 36, no. 1 (Winter, 2003 - Summer, 2004), pp. 113-130 Published by: Congress on Research in Dance Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30045072 . Accessed: 21/01/2013 06:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Congress on Research in Dance is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Dance Research Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sites of Subjectivity:Robert Morris, Minimalism,and Dance VirginiaSpivey

Robert Morris's dance Site (Fig. I) premieredin February 1964 at the Surplus Dance Theaterin New York City. Choreographedand performedby Morris,Site also fea- turedthe visualartist Carolee Schneemann and severalsheets of four-by-eightfoot plywood. Although it may seem odd to includethese wooden panels among the performers, they assumedan active role in the choreography.Ironically, it was Schneemann who providedthe backgroundscenery. Nude and coveredin white paint, she sat mo- tionless throughout the performance,recreating the pose and persona of Edouard Manet'sfamous 1863 painting of Olympiawhile Morris manipulatedthe largewooden boards.In a gracefulduet with inanimatepartners, Morris spun the rectangularplanes from a point on the ground, maneuveredthem aroundhis body, lifted them over his head, caressedtheir even form as he slowly moved his hand acrossone edge, and bal- anced the panels on his back as he moved acrossthe stage. Not only did Morris never dancewith Schneemann,he did not even seem to notice her. In a careerspanning over forty years, RobertMorris has producedtheoretical articles, paintings,videos, installations,and environmentalart in addition to his work in dance;nevertheless, the Americanartist remains best known for his Minimalistsculp- tures of the i96os (Figs. 2 and 3). Like the works of his colleaguesDonald Judd and Carl Andre, Morris'sspare, geometrical objects of that periodwere three-dimensional and called attentionto issues of site and artisticcontext. They also resistedpast artistic conventionsbased in subjectivemethods of composition, expressivity,and metaphor. Morris, however,distinguished himself among this group of visual artistsby the emphasis he placed on the viewer'sbodily relationshipwith the art object, a distinction that derivesdirectly from his uniqueinvolvement in avant-gardedance.'

Virginia B. Spivey is an arthistorian special- Museum and the ClevelandCenter for Con- izingin modernand contemporary art. Dr. temporaryArt (nowMOCA Cleveland).Her Spivey,who holdsdegrees in arthistory from researchfocuses on the intersectionsof visual DukeUniversity (B.A.) and Case Western art,dance, and feminist performance, as well ReserveUniversity (M.A., Ph.D.), is cur- as moretheoretical issues concerning ques- rentlyAssistant Professor of Art at theUni- tionsof identity,embodiment and gender versityof NorthCarolina, Asheville. Prior to expression.She is currentlywriting a book joining the facultyat UNCA, she workedat examiningsculptor Robert Morris's involve- the ClevelandMuseum of Art, the Akron Art ment with avant-gardedance of the 1960s.

113

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Figure 2: Robert Morris, Columns, 1961.© 2004 Robert Morris/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York.

Figure3: Robert Morris, "The Plywood Show," Installation at the Green Gallery, New York,1964. O 2004 Robert Morris/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York.

114 Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004)

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Morris's first wife, dancer and choreographerSimone Forti, introduced him to movementimprovisation in San Francisco.After movingto New York in 1960, Morris and Forti became a vital part of that city's active performancecommunity. Although the couple divorcedthe following year, Morris continued his interest in dance, and soon became affiliatedwith the JudsonDance Theater, the loose collectiveof dancers, musicians,poets, and visualartists based at the JudsonMemorial Church in Greenwich Village.The period from 1963to 1966 marksthe time when Morris producedhis own choreographicworks, all of which were presentedeither with the Judson'ssupport or with its membersin differentcontexts. Notably, these yearsof Morris'sclose involvement with dance also correspondwith his emergenceas a leadingartist associated with Minimalism. It is my contention that Morris'sknowledge of dance directlyinformed his sculp- turalpractice, and moreover,was fundamentalto his theoreticalunderstanding of the viewer'srole in art. I want here to expand our understandingof Morris'sMinimalist sculptureby consideringhow this influenceof dance contributedto these objects'per- formativefunction. By comparingMorris's structuresof the early I960s to Yvonne Rainer's1965 dance TrioA, in which she emphasizedthe body as an object, I explore the relationshipof Morris'swork to questionsof gender, suggestingthat male and female viewersmight experiencehis sculpturesin radicallydifferent ways based on sub- jective experienceand genderednotions of identity.To supportthis position, I rely on methodologicalapproaches that explore conditions of embodiment and gender per- formanceas well as questionthe psychologicalprocesses involved in establishingindi- vidualidentity.

Objectnessas Subjectivity Performativitytheory posits that identity is establishedthrough a form of role playing in which we presentourselves according to our perceptionsof the culturalexpectations of what we shouldbe (see Bennett 1998,265-269). According to literarytheorist Judith Butler,gender is performedin this way through repeatedacts similarto those carried out in a theatricalcontext. Butler distinguishesthis performancefrom the popularbe- lief that genderresults from particularcharacteristics and activitiesbased on biological differencesbetween the sexes. Rather,she arguesthat genderis not obviousprior to the "variousacts, postures,and gesturesby which it is dramatizedand known"(1997, 411). In taking this stance, Butler exposes the role of performanceto maintaincultural ex- pectationsand stereotypesabout gender. Dance providesan interestingmodel for examiningthe performativenature of gender because the dancer'sexperience of subjectiveunderstanding comes through an awarenessof physical presence and movement. This bodily recognition of the self, however,is alteredby the performancecontext, which places the subjecton stage before a viewing audience,thus transformingthe dancerinto an object of the spectator's gaze. As scholars such as Leslie Satin, Ann Daly, and Ann Cooper Albright have shown, Yvonne Rainerestablished in her dancesan alternativerelationship that resists

Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004) 115

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions this subject/objectdualism in favorof an intersubjectivemodel. Rainer'schoreography exposedthe artificeof her performanceby treatingthe dancingbody as a materialob- ject. She downplayedthe dancer'spersonality, neutralizing the dramaticappeal of the performerand focusinginstead on the body'smovement alone. Basedon her own experience as a dancerwith remarkable"stage presence," Rainer wanted to developa chore- ographicpractice to disruptthe dynamicof power and desiretraditionally existing between performerand audience.This interestin eliminatingpersona from dance offers cues to the selfs representationin performance.Her work allows us to explore how the dancerperforms him/her self on stage and how the viewerregards that performa- tive act. In a 1997 dissertationon gender and autobiographyin the Judson Dance Theater, Leslie Satin discussedhow many artistsof the I960s employedthe trope of the body as object (6o-6i). Satin talks aboutthe practice,in dance, of readingthe unadornedbody as an object,not as an individualsentient being, but in termsof its materialqualities of mass and volume, as well as its spatial relationshipsto other objects/bodies.As she points out, such inquiryheld implicationsfor artistswho were rethinkingthe concept of the body, as well as for those exploringthe natureof objects.Furthermore, consider- ing the body as an objectsuggested new questionsabout the relationshipof the body to the self, and the body'ssignificance regarding the performingself. In other words, one must wonder how the self is representedwhen the body is treatedas an object. This questionis complicatedfurther by consideringdance in termsof the dancer'sembodied experience.Understood dually as an objectof the spectator'sgaze and as an activesubject awareof her or his own agencyto enact the dance,she/he must reconcilea sense of personalidentity within this shiftingterrain of performance. Paradoxically,Rainer's treatment of the dancingbody as an object also allowedher to highlight her subjectivityas a dancer.Ann Daly has addressedthis contradictionin Rainer'swork saying,"[she] was able to seize objectnessas her subjectivitywhere other performers(such as ballerinas)were trained to subordinatetheir subjectivity--their personality,their style, their thoughtfulinterpretation-to furthertheir role as object, as display"(quoted in Satin 1997,95). Daly here refersto the traditionin ballet to char- acterize the performeras an idealized fantasticalbeing--the Swan Queen in Swan Lake,or TheNutcracker's Sugar Plum Fairyor NutcrackerPrince-who then performs for the viewer's visual pleasure (see Alderson 1987, 290-304; Novack 1993, 34-47). By contrast,Rainer's practice of focusingon her body as an objectresisted any such trans- formation,thus she was able to retainher own identity,and not performin character. In a 199o articleentitled "Miningthe Dancefield:Spectacle, Moving Subjectsand FeministTheory," Ann CooperAlbright demonstrates that strategiesof contemporary dance,such as those used by Rainer,challenge the traditionalrelationship between performer and audience in order to assert the dancer's subjectivity (33). To support her thesis, Albright draws on the ideas of Jessica Benjamin, a clinical psychoanalyst who proposed an alternative to previous models of establishing individuality and self (see Benjamin 1986, 78-o10i;I998). Instead of a dualistic opposition between desiring subject and the object desired, Benjamin posits an intersubjective model of desire in which two

116 Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004)

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions individualsmight acknowledge each other's subjectivity while maintainingtheir own (I986,92). This modelis radicalin thatit discardsthe beliefthat separation is necessary forestablishing subjectivity. According to Benjamin,the subjectdoes not haveto con- trol or dominatethe otherin orderto affirmhis or her independence.While the self existsa priori,it musthave the other'sresponse and recognition to develop.As Ben- jaminexplains however, the self is not realizedin oppositionto the other,instead it emergeswithin a contextof connectionand relatedness. She writes, "The intersubjec- tivemode assumes the paradoxthat in beingwith the other,I mayexperience the most profoundsense of self' (1986,92). ApplyingBenjamin's theory to the performancecontext, Albright finds intersubjectivespace to existbetween the audienceand dancer: "Once the performershave slipped outsideof the frameof spectacleto moveinto the audience'sphysical and emotional space... the audiencebecomes aware of the performeras an activeparticipant who can engage,comment on, and directthe audience'sfocus" (1990, 33). The performerthus engagesin a dialoguewith the viewer through which both are able to developa senseof selfin relationto the other'sactions and presence. Benjamin'smodel of intersubjectivespace offers a usefultool to studythe connection betweenthe viewerand RobertMorris's sculpture in a gallerycontext. I considerthe spacewhere his Minimaliststructures were exhibitedcomparable to a performance venue.As I will discuss,Morris intentionally displayed his workin waysmeant to em- phasizethe viewer'sphysical encounter with the individualobjects as well as theirsur- roundingenvironment. Like Rainer's choreography in TrioA, Morris'sstructures sug- gesteda similarrelationship between self andpersona, body and object, each of which mustbe understoodthrough connection to the other.

Morris,Rainer, and Judson Dance Theater The groupknown as JudsonDance Theater grew out of workshopsled by the com- poserRobert Dunn fromthe fall of 1960 untilspring 1962 (see Banes1983). After the secondyear of Dunn'sclass, his studentswanted to holda publicperformance to show theirwork to a broaderaudience. Rainer suggested the Judson Memorial Church, lo- catedon the southside of WashingtonSquare Park, as a possiblesite for the concert. The churchwas already home to theJudson Poet Leagueand Judson Art Gallery,and had been a popularsite for artists'Happenings.2 Rainer and StevePaxton visited Al Carmines,the church'sperforming arts coordinator, to inquireabout using its gymna- siumfor the event.Carmines auditioned the dancersand consentedto hostingtheir firstperformance on July 6, 1961. WhenDunn decided to discontinuehis workshop,his studentscontinued meeting, first at Rainer'sstudio and laterat the JudsonChurch. The Judsonworkshops, as these sessionsbecame known, replacedDunn's class as a forumwhere participantscould ex- change ideas, perform their own choreography,and receive feedback from others. Foundedon the model of a collective,the JudsonDance Theater adheredto a policy of inclusion,allowing anyone who wantedto participatein its activitiesto do so and mak-

Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004) 117

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ing decisionsbased on consensus.Over the next two years,this groupof performers- althoughthey did not use the nameJudson Dance Theateruntil April i963-held over twentypublic concerts at the churchand othervenues. Throughoutthe history of the Judson Dance Theater, non-dancerswere welcome participants.Visual artists-such as Morris-as well as poets and composers,had par- ticipatedin earlierperformance events at the ReubenGallery, the Living Theater, and Yoko Ono's ChambersStreet Loft, and often visited their friendsin Dunn's workshop (see Banes 1993).3 After the largergroup began meeting at the JudsonChurch, partici- pantswho were not trainedas dancersproliferated. These ostensiblenon-dancers contributedto the music, stage, and lighting design of the concerts,as well as producing their own choreographyand performingin worksby others (see Banes I983).4By Janu- ary1964, program notes for the group'sConcert at New Paltz State UniversityCollege explained: In the curiousway in which the artsworld changes,painters have made inroads into theatricalperformances. Artists find that there areno unacceptablesources for material.The repertoireofJudson Dance Theaterreflects the latest of this recenttendency to allow freerplay. Dancers, mixed with painterson stage, point out how there is anotherquality to bodies thanjust the arrived-atdifferences dancershave discoveredin themselves-there is the whole look of the body, which knows a lot on its own, and whether"trained" or not, relaysmuch of its historywith action. (n.p.) This mutual exchangebetween dancersand visual artistsindicates that the group recognizedthe body'sfunction both as an objectof spectacle,and as a physicalinstru- ment able to executemovement. Throughoutthe JudsonDance Theater'sinception and development,Robert Mor- ris remainedan importantpart of its artisticand social community(see Banes 1993). Dance historianSally Banes quotesMorris's written comments on a lectureseries held in fall 1962that had been organizedby choreographerJames Waring and poet Diane diPrima.According to Banes, Morrispraised the program,which featuredRainer and others involvedwith Judson,as an attemptto move beyond the problemof communi- cating about an art form so impermanentand often undocumented.He encouraged dancersto attend subsequentlectures because, as importantas what was said, he ar- gued, was the fact that a situationexisted where such ideas could be expressed.To con- clude his remarks,Morris raisedthe possibilitythat, "Perhapsdance is moving toward dance, towardits own free identity and does not have any historicalobligation to sub- mit to a metamorphosisinto theater"(quoted in Banes1983, 79)- Morris'sallusion to theaterrefers to dance'straditional role to serve a metaphorical or narrative function, a practice that members of the Judson Dance Theater adamantly resisted. Their use of found movements, reliance on chance, and impersonal methods of production is comparable to the vernacular assemblage aesthetic adopted by such "Proto-Pop" artists as Robert Rauschenberg, Ray Johnson, and Wallace Berman, who have been associated with the Beat literary movement of late 1950s (see Phillips 1995).

118 Dance Research journal 35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004)

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions This connectionis furthersupported by the relationshipof Diane DiPrima and other Beat poets to these dancersthrough their activityat the Judson Poets League. How- ever, unlike these Beat artists and writers who culled imagery from marginalized sourcesfor poetic effect, the Judsondancers' opposition to the emotionalexpressivity of danceparallels the move awayfrom subjectivityand illusionismin visual art by Morris and his Minimalistcolleagues. After his divorcefrom Forti, Morris and Rainerbecame romanticallyinvolved and the couple lived togetherfrom around1964 until 1968(Morris 20oo; Rainer 1974, 9). It was duringthis time that Rainerbegan to exploreideas associatedwith Minimalismin art in her choreographicwork. For Rainer,Minimalism implied neutrality,a removal of the dramaand theatricalitythat had characterizedprevious modern dance. Instead of representingthe danceras a persona,she saw that the dancer'sbody could be "handled like an object, picked up and carried-and that objects and bodies could be inter- changeable"(quoted in Bearand Sharp1972, 50). Unlike other dancersinterested in the body-as-object,Rainer's attitude toward this conceptdid not focus on concernsof spatial interactionand phenomenologicalperception; rather, for her, interpretingthe body as an object allowedthe dancerto rejectthe projectionof a personaand act simply as "neutralpurveyor of information"(quoted in Bearand Sharp1972, 50). Rainer'ssearch for what she describedas a "differentway to move"began in Septem- ber 1964,while in Diisseldorfwith Morris who was there preparingfor an exhibition. Morris'spresence at this time does not imply causalityor directinfluence, but demon- strateshow the circumstancesof Morris'srelationship with Rainerallowed for oppor- tunitieswhere ideas could be exchangedeither specifically or in more generalterms. In her own work, Rainerhoped to abandonthe eccentrictypes of found actions she had previouslybeen using, and she looked to her body for inspiration.She recalls: [I] wiggled my elbows,shifted from one foot to the other, looked at the ceiling, shiftedeye focus within a tiny radius,watched a flattened,raised hand moving and stopping,moving and stopping.Slowly the things I made began to go to- gether, alongwith suddensharp, hard changes in dynamics.But basically,I wantedit to remainundynamic movement, no rhythm,no emphasis,no ten- sion, no relaxation.You just do it. (1974,50) Rainer initially applied these ideas in Parts of SomeSextets of 1965,performed in March, first at the WadsworthAtheneum in Hartford,Connecticut and then at the JudsonMemorial Church. Structured according to a chartthat orderedmovements and temporalduration, this danceincluded varied types of movements,activities with mattresses,static actionssuch as sitting or layingdown, and continuous,as well as simulta- neous motions that changedabruptly at set intervals. Another influencehad been Robert Morris'sdance Check,which premieredat the Moderna Museet in Stockholmin August 1964. Originallyperformed in a vast space measuringioo by 300 feet, Checkinvolved over forty performersand seven hundred spectators(Morris 1965, I85).sThe performersmingled within the audienceuntil a sig- nal indicatedthat they should split into two groupsto performa seriesof simple simul-

Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004) 119

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions taneous actions.At one end of the hall, a man ran back and forth on a platformwhile, at the other, Rainer moved slowly before an image of verticallines projectedon the wall. When these activitieswere completed, the performersagain dispersedinto the crowdwhere, accordingto Morris, they "resume[d]wandering, talking, observing as a kind of proto-audience" (1965, 185). What impressedRainer about Checkwas that, althoughthe action was completely visible to the audience,the piece remainedinaccessible. "Simple, undistinctive [sic] activities,"she explained,"made momentous through their inaccessibility... anotherde- vice designedto counterthe venerableconvention of servingit all up on a platter"(1974, 45). In addition to the spectacleof performanceitself, the "it"that Rainerreferences may remarkon the conventionof danceto communicatea storyor emotion for the audience to shareor appreciate.In light of Rainer'sinterests, however, she seems to suggest furtherthat the danceralso "servesherself up" to the spectatorfor displayand de- liberateconsumption. Trying to replicatethe effect of Check,Rainer decided to avoid any sense of continuity or progressionbetween movementcombinations in Partsof SomeSextets. She relied insteadon interruptionand repetition,devices she had used before,to breakthe flow of the piece. As Rainer explained,"both factorswere to produce a 'chunky'continuity, repetitionmaking the eye jump back and forth in time and possiblyestablishing more stronglythe differencesin the movementmaterial. ... Interruptionwould also function to disrupt the continuity and prevent prolonged involvementwith any one image" (1974,47). Viewerswere thus denied the powerof the extendedgaze and forcedto focus attentionon other componentsof the dance, such as the interactionbetween body and object,or the body'smovement itself. Rainer described the development of Parts of Some Sextets in the Tulane Drama Re- view in 1965.Writing a postscriptto the article,she explicatedher goals in a statement that criticshave calledher "nomanifesto" (Phelan 1999, 3). Rainerwrote: All I am inclinedto indicatehere arevarious feelings about Parts of SomeSextets and its effortin a certaindirection-an areaof concernas yet not fully clarifiedfor me in relationto dance,but existingas a verylarge NO to manyfacts in theater today. (This is not to say that I personallydo not enjoymany forms of theater.It is only to definemore stringentlythe rulesand boundariesof my own artistic game of the moment.) NO to spectacleno to virtuosityno to transformationsand magic and make- believe no to the glamourand transcendencyof the starimage no to the heroic no to the anti-heroicno to trashimagery no to involvementof performeror spec- tatorno to style no to camp no to seductionof spectatorby the wiles of the performer no to eccentricity no to moving or being moved. (1974, 51)

Rainer's statement reveals the extent of the correspondence emerging between her choreography and Minimalism in art. Her rejection of "magic," "make-believe," and "transcendency" denounces the illusionism of traditional dance in a way that recalls Frank Stella's famous quip about his Minimalist paintings: "What you see is what you

120 DanceResearch Journal 35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 andSummer 2004)

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions see" (quoted in Lippard1966, 59).6 Like theoreticaltreatises by visual artists such as Morris and Donald Judd, Rainer'stext contributedto the public'sknowledge of work that was often found bafflingor discountedas too banal.Rainer's remarks furthermore alludeto a transformativeprocess witnessed in performance.On stage,the dancerappears differentlyto her audience.She (or he) assumesa distinctivepersona, which, as Rainer involvesthe "seductionof the wiles of the notes, spectatorby performer"(1974, 51).

Intersubjectivityin Trio A andMorris's Minimalism Rainer'saspiration to breakthe eroticbond between dancerand spectatorled in 1965to her creationof TrioA, a four-and-ahalf-minute sequence of movementsfor three people.' She choreographedthe dance accordingto specific rules she established.Signi- ficantly,she decidednever to allow herselfto look at the audience.Believing her face to be the sourceof her charisma,Rainer thought she could eliminateits seductivepower by denyingit to the viewer (quoted in BlumenthalI999, 6263).8Instead she closed her eyes or blockedher face whenevershe turnedtoward the audience.At other times, she relied on movementswith her head-twisting away, looking upwardor offstage-to preventherself from meeting the spectators'gaze (Blumenthal1999, 63). She also chose movementsthat did not mimic everydayactivities, but which came from the body's naturalrange of motions, such as shifting weight from one leg to another,bending at the waist or tilting the head. Although all three dancersperformed the same movements simultaneously,their timing fell in and out of synchronicitybased on how long each took to performa particularstep. Most radically,there were no transitionsbe- tween gesturesor changes in tempo of the performance,thus suggestingthat no one movementwas more importantthan any other. Rainer'sachievement in TrioA parallelsRobert Morris'sgoal for sculpture.Like Morris, who wanted the viewer to focus on the object'sessential properties of scale, mass and weight, Rainer reduced dance to its fundamentalelements-the physical movementof the body through space over time. Rainereven adoptedthe criticallan- guage of Minimalismto explainher ideas in the essay,"A Quasi Surveyof Some 'Min- imalist'Tendencies in the QuantitativelyMinimal Dance ActivityMidst the Plethora, or An Analysisof TrioA" (1974,63-69).9 Introduced with a well-knownchart in which Raineridentified similarities between contemporarysculpture and choreographicprac- tice, the text not surprisinglycorresponds to Morris'sseries of articles"Notes on Sculp- ture, I-IV"published in Artforum(1993, 170). In these importantessays, Morris arguedthat an object'sphysical qualities are para- mount for sculpture.He attackedthe use of sculpturalrelief format because it obscured sculpture's"autonomous and literal nature;"adding that "[o]ne of the conditions of knowing an objectis suppliedby the sensing of the gravitationalforce actingupon it in actualspace" (1993, 4) To summarizehis theoreticalposition, Morris proposedsculp- tures that would effect a Gestalt sensation,encouraging the viewerto perceivethem as conceptuallywhole. Such "unitaryforms," he noted, "donot negate the numerousrela- tive sensationsof colorto texture,scale to mass,etc., they do not presentclearly separate

Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004) 121

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions partsfor these kinds of relationsto be establishedin termsof shapes.... Their partsare boundtogether in such a way that they offera maximumresistance to perceptualsepara- tion"(1993,6). Morrisbelieved that, only when seen as a whole Gestalt,could an object's physicalcharacteristics in relationshipto space,light, and time be appreciated. In a February26, 2ooi email, Rainersuggested that her ideas aboutdance's relationship to sculptureprobably developed in conversationwith Morris as they "discussedall kinds of things aesthetic,dance, sculpture,the artworld, etc."Indeed she cites Morris, as well as art critic BarbaraRose, as importantinfluences on her writing, saying that they providedmore analyticalmodels than contemporarydance critics such as JillJohn- ston (February26, 2ooi). As Morrisdid with sculpture,Rainer explains in her text that, in orderto establishits artisticautonomy, dance must acknowledgeits uniquequalities through their literal presentation.To this end, TrioA revealsaspects of dance tradi- tionally hidden from the spectator.For example,Rainer points to the convention of "phrasing"in dance as a way to conceal the effort necessaryto execute a particular movement. She writes, "[this]particular distribution of energy:maximal output or 'at- tack'at the beginningof a phrase,recovery at the end, with energyoften arrestedsome- where in the middle . . . means that one part of the phrase-usually the part that is most still-becomes the focus of attention,registering like a photographor suspended moment of climax"(1974, 59). Rainerpoints out that, ironically,traditional dance oper- ates in such a way as to call attentionnot to the movingbody, but to the staticpose: the suspendedleap, the balancedposture, the extendedarabesque. Phrasing thus effectively pausesthe continuousmotion of dancejust long enough to framethe dancer'sbody for the spectator'spleasure and enjoyment. By contrast TrioA's presentationof distinct actions in an unbroken,even manner cancelsout this effect, callingattention instead to the actualtime and energy,given his or her individualweight and mass, that the dancerneeds to expend in order to com- plete the motion. Everystep presentedas equallyimportant forces the viewerto watch each gesturewith the same amount of attention. Furthermore,Rainer's emphasis on the literalpresentation of movementchallenged the appearanceof danceas effortlessor transcendent,and her refusalto look at the audiencedisrupted the usual dynamicsof desireand seductionin danceperformance. By revealingthese elementspreviously hidden from the viewer,Rainer called attention to the artificialityof performanceitself. In TrioA, she effectivelydefied the processof transformationthat typicallycharacterizes a danceron stage by refusingto "perform"for her audience.Rainer danced according to the rules of the compositionand the materialconditions of weight, gravity,time, and space.Most importantly,she did not try to seducethe audiencemembers into believing they were looking at somethingother than a body movingthrough space and time. Morrislikewise emphasized the viewer'sperception of his work.In "Noteson Sculp- ture, Part 2," Morris expanded his theory of sculpture in phenomenological terms:

The object is but one of the terms in the newer esthetic. It is in some way more reflexive, because one's awareness of oneself existing in the same space as the work is stronger than in previous work, with its many internal relationships. One is

122 Dance Research journal 35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004)

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions more awarethan beforethat he himselfis establishingrelationships as he appre- hends the objectfrom various positions and undervarying conditions of light and space. (1993, I5) Morris thus posited that the viewer understandsreal space physically,constructing internalknowledge based on the phenomenologicalapprehension of other objectsshar- ing the same space,architectural surroundings, and conditions. The interplaybetween Morris'sMinimalist objects and bodily experiencewas first demonstratedby Column(1961) (Fig. 3). Two-feet square,eight-feet high and painted gray, this sculpturedebuted, not in an art gallery,but at the Living Theater in New York in 1962.10Placed vertically on an empty stage, Columnremained on end for three- and-a-halfminutes before being pulled overby a stringheld off stage. It then lay hori- zontally for anotherthree and a half minutes before the lights went out and the per- formanceended. Wanting the objectto appearto move of its own volition, Morrishad intendedto standinside the hollow structureand fall over, causingit to topple. During a rehearsal,however, he suffereda head injuryfrom the fall and he chose to substitutea pull-stringin the actualperformance. In Column,built to human scale,Morris devised an object which served as a surrogatefor himself, or some other live performer,by seeming to execute fundamentalpostures of standing tall and lying prostrate.Like a dancingbody, it "performed"a sequenceof choreographedmovements over a set period of time, reactingto conditionsof materialweight, gravity,and space. In subsequentdances, Morris used objectsto generatemovement because they did not dominate other aspectsof the performance.He explainedthat, in dances such as Arizona (1963) and Site (1964) (Fig. I), the items themselves were not important, but providedthe "meansfor dealingwith specificproblems" such as time and space (1965, i8o). In a November9, 2000 fax, Morris linked his use of objectsto determinedance sequencesto his methodologyin makingsculpture: Findingways to get the body moving--and havingthis movementbe generated by the manipulationof objectsso that the resultantmovement became the dance was the challenge... pacethe comparablea priorimethods involved in construc- tion to generatemy sculpturalobjects of the earlyi96os. This new structuralar- matureopened up the makingfor me on both fronts-i.e., a kind of automation that foreclosedthe 'expression'involved in pointing the toe (dance),or addinga little more on the left (sculpture)offered a new freedom. Thus, for Morris,objects used as propshelped him solve the problemof intentional- ity in artistic-decisionmaking. Accordingly, he believed the processof art-makingno longer to be a consciousindividual undertaking; the interactionbetween artistand ma- terials could yield a final product without any visible trace of the artist's presence. Looking closer at Morris's work of the sixties, however, suggests that the constructed object held a more ambiguous place in relation to subjectivity than simply as a result of artistic labor. While the artist's indexical trace is seemingly absent, the objects Morris produced still imply a clear relationship to the human body in both their scale and struc-

Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2oo3 and Summer 2004) 123

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ture. In addition to Column, Mor- ris's early works such as Passageway (196I), and Box for Standing (1961, Fig. 4) similarly hinted toward human involvement. Indeed, Morris appears with some of these objects in photographs from the period, making explicit their connection to the body and moreover, reestablish- ing his own physical presence as in- tegral to the sculpture's display. In his dances, Morris reiterated the equivocal status of the body seen in his sculpturalproduction. In Site, described at the beginning of this article, Morris, like Rainer in Trio A, challenged the authority of the spectator's gaze by problematiz- ing the relation between bodies and objects on stage. In her performance as Manet's Olympia, Schnee- mann was subsumed by her status as an object--both as a passive female body displayed for the viewer's gaze and as a re-creation of a famous painting, an object of art. On the other hand, Morris's panels acted anthropomorphically as performers. Ironically, they implied a Figure4: RobertMorris, Box for Standing,1961. human presence that the character Robert © 2004 Morris/ArtistsRights Society (ARS), of Schneemann as Olympia lacked New York. completely. Morris pushed this am- biguity fuirtherby concealing his fa- cial expressions with a mask that replicated his own features. Site thus forced its viewers to reconcile the anthropomorphism of the plywood panels with the neutral presence of the living performers. Morris's Minimalist objects of the mid-I960s likewise engaged the viewer in the gallery. For example, his installation at New York's Green Gallery in 1964 (Fig. 3) involved the display of each sculpture in a way that called attention to the physical environment and surrounding space. Known as the "The Plywood Show" for Morris's choice of material, this was the artist's second solo show in the city and the first devoted entirely to the spare geometric constructions he had begun building in 1961.As visitors entered, they passed beneath Untitled (CornerBeam) which, like all of the objects in the

124 Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004)

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions show, was made of plywood and nails, hand-paintedMerkin Pilgrimgray, and lacked any notable surfacetexture or detail. The shape and placementof Morris'ssculptures createda heightened sense of spatialawareness among visitors.But, more than simply articulatingtheir contingencyto the architecturalsetting, these objects assertedtheir presencethrough the phenomenologicalencounter with the viewerthat Morrishad de- scribedin "Notes on Sculpture,Part 2."Morris posited the object'smeaning to be de- pendant on this interactiveexchange between it and its viewer. The visitor in the gallerythus engagedin a reflexiveprocess of self-awarenessbased on the physicalpresence of the objectthat, like anotherperson, shared his or her environment.

Gender,Experience and Meaning in MinimalistArt The viewer'sencounter with Morris'sobject approaches Albright's conditions for intersubjectivespace within performance.His sculptureis no longer objectifiedby the viewer'sdisinterested gaze; rather,the vieweris forcedto recognizethe artwork'sability to directhis or her experience,and even to challengehis understandingof the environment. Morris'sviewer is comparableto a memberof Rainer'saudience watching TrioA. He or she must acknowledgethe danceras an independentsubject, distinct from him or herself.In this analysis,I am trying not to projecthuman subjectivityon objects that remaininanimate. Rather, I takethe positionthat the viewerof Morris'sMinimalist objects definesa sense of self within the intersubjectivecontext of performancethat occurs in the gallery.This intersubjectivityis founded in the viewer'sperception of the object as anotherphysical presence, comparable to his/herbody. The sculpturalencounter thus forcesthe viewerto recognizethe object'sshared material characteristics of scale, mass, and weight, and to acknowledgetheir mutualexistence in realspace and time. Writing for Arts Magazinein April 1967, Rainercalled attention to the interactive natureof the viewer'sexperience with Morris'ssculpture by asking:"Does it existwith- out my presence?"Rainer described the effect Morris'swork had on her, challenging her own sense of space and temporalreality: "It includesme in its space but defies all attemptsto know any more aboutit than what a single glance can gather.It can be en- compassedinstantly, but seduces me into drawn-out contemplationsand reflections about its nature"(47) Rainer'slanguage suggests an almost mysticallink between the viewerand the objectitself: We take up spacetogether ... The exquisitecontainment of my body. I can't say it's euphoriaor ecstasy... But yet still I have this strangesense of limits- physicallimits-and it seems such an exquisiteknowledge. Perfect containment. Somethingto do with a finely-tunedawareness of just how, what, somethingto do with my own particularmass and volume.It (or my body) occupiesexactly as much spaceas it needs .... (1967,46) Morris'ssculptural seduction of Rainer recalls her own charismaticappeal to the spectatorof her dances. But, like her strategyto eliminate desire between performer and audience, Morris's objects, she observes, also resist the viewer. While Morris's

Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004) 125

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions work demandsher participation,it refusesto reciprocate.Rainer furthermore assigned Morris'sobjects anthropomorphic qualities such as "silence,"describing them as "non- committal,"and "non-communicative"to explaintheir resistance.She concludes,"In front of a Morris,I have a reverie;I wait for the objectto 'lookback' at me, then hold it responsiblewhen it doesn't"(1967, 47). Rainer'sremarks may be interpretedin light of her intimate involvementwith the artist.Describing a sculptureby her lover of three years as "non-committal"and "non-communicative"could imply more than a critical attemptat poetic metaphor.Rainer's comments may reflecther feelingstoward Morris directlyand referto concernsshe had about their personalrelationship. Nevertheless, the exchangeRainer describes demonstrates the altereddynamics she perceivedin the viewer'ssculptural encounter. Furthermore, her remarksare key to understandingthe relationshipof Morris'ssculpture to the performanceof gender. Within Jessica Benjamin'smodel of intersubjectivity,gender remains fluid. The concept of identity formationBenjamin proposes challengesa heterosexualstructure based on the differencebetween a child'smother and father;rather, Benjamin demon- stratesthat ideallythe individualintegrates male and female aspectsof selfhood. This variabilityis particularlyimportant to understandinggender performance in dance be- causeboth male and femaledancers perform on stage. Indeed, althoughRainer created TrioA based on her own body's movements, she performedit with two men: Steve Paxton and David Gordon. TrioA thus problematizesthe assumptionof the spectator's gaze to signify male heterosexualprivilege, and calls for a more flexiblemodel to theo- rize gender performanceand subjectiveexperience in dance (see Copeland, 133-150). Likewise,visitors to Morris'sexhibitions include men and women, raisingthe question: How does genderperformance intersect with the processof establishingidentity in all viewing encounterswith his objects? The experienceof dance again offers a possible explanation.Like the performeron stage who is awareof his or her body as being objectifiedby the spectatorialgaze, the spectatorin the gallerybecomes increasinglyconscious of his or her body'sobjectness in relationto the sculpture.For the dancer,as Rainerexplained, performance is charac- terizedby a kind of narcissisticexhibitionism, a displayof the body for the scopophilic pleasurethat is culturallyassociated with the performanceof femininity.In the gallery, the self-reflexiveprocess of the encounterwith Morris'ssculpture is thereforeshaped accordingto the viewer'sgender identificationand performancebased on culturalexpectations.In otherwords, male and femaleviewers will interactphysically and psycho- logicallywith the objectbased on theirparticular understanding of what constitutesap- propriatebehaviors for their own gender identification.For Rainer-identifying as female-she expectedthe object to "lookback at her"in her sculpturalencounter. By contrast,male artistsat the time observedthat the physicalpresence of Morris'sobjects called attention to their architecturalsetting. For example,Donald Judd commented, "Morris'sworks are minimalvisually, but they'repowerful spatially.... The occupancy of space, the access to or denial of it, is very specific"(1965, 54). Morris'ssculptures forced Judd-a male viewer-also to consider his relationshipto the objects in the

126 Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004)

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions gallery.But, insteadof objectifyinghim for display,they challengedhis autonomyas an activesubject to move throughthe spaceitself. These opposing examplessuggest that, at least in the case of Morris'ssculpture, the female viewer, more accustomedto being the object of the male gaze, might accept a comparablerole in the gallery;while, for a man, these same structuresmight challenge his independentagency. Michael Fried'sfamous observationabout Minimalist sculpture, however,reveals such a dualisticstance to be overlysimplified. Fried, like Rainer, perceiveda distinct threat in the Minimalist object's"presence" that implies a weak- ened, or less authoritativeposition, than typicallyafforded the (male)critic. In his well-known article entitled "Art and Objecthood,"Fried applied Morris's ideas about the viewer'sphenomenological encounter broadly to denounce all Mini- malist art for its failureto meet the aestheticpurity that modernismdemanded (1967, 12-23). Because of the object's"presence," Fried concludedthat minimalist sculpture departedfrom the realmof visualart and enteredinto the theatrical.Fried wrote: Somethingis said to havepresence when it demandsthat the beholdertake it into account,that he take it seriously---andwhen the fulfillmentof that demand consistssimply in being awareof it and, so to speak,in actingaccordingly ... the experienceof being distancedby the work in questionseems crucial:the beholder knows himselfto standin an indeterminate,open-ended-and unexacting- relationas subjectto the impassiveobject on the wall or floor. In fact, being distancedby such objectsis not, I suggest,entirely unlike being distanced,or crowded,by the silent presenceof anotherperson.(1967, 127-128. Italicsoriginal.) Fried's comments expose the psychologicalrelationship with the object, through which the viewerperceives him or herselfin the presenceof anotherperson. The critic's own responsedemonstrates clearly how his personalencounter challenged the stability of his own masculineprerogative as objective,detached, and independent. In the intersubjectivespace of the gallery,visitors who encounterMorris's Minimal- ist sculpturesestablish selfhood by reconcilingsubjective agency with their own body's "objectness."This experienceis necessarilydifferent for men and women, based on variablesincluding individualidentifications and perceived social expectations.The close connectionsbetween Morris'ssculpture and his extensiveparticipation in avant- garde dance suggest that the dynamicsof performanceare essentialto understanding the significanceof his oeuvre.Moreover, Rainer's innovations in choreography--which Morris certainlyknew quite well-provide an appropriatemodel for examininghow genderperformance is relevantto the viewer'sencounter with the objectsthat he produced. The Minimalist object'seffect on the viewer revealsgender to be a changeable category,determined according to particularcircumstance and culturalunderstanding of individualgender performance.The performativestrategies seen in both Morris's choreographicand sculpturalproduction show gender to be integrallyinvolved in his artisticproject, and demonstratethat by moving criticalfocus awayfrom the art object alone to consideralso the uniquelived experienceof the male or femaleviewer, Mini- malistart may be understoodto conveygendered meaning.

Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004) 127

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Notes

I. General sources on Robert Morris's face out in an earlierwork called Partially involvement with dance include Haskell ImprovisedNew UntitledSolo with Pink T- 1984, 617, Ioo3; Berger 1989, 81-105,and Shirt,Blue Bloomers,Red Ball, and Bach's Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum 1994, Toccataand Fugue in D Minor (Blumenthal 18-33. 1999, 62-63). Rainer'suse of blackface 2. The Judson Gallery began exhibiting holds obvious significance for the question performanceand installation pieces by of how race intersectswith issues of specta- artists such as Jim Dine, Tom Wessel- torial desire and the performer'ssubjectiv- mann, Daniel Spoerri, Red Grooms and ity. Although Rainerinsists that neither Claes Oldenburg around 1959.For activities did she intend any racial reference, nor did by visual artists at the Judson Memorial the audience interprether action in such Church, see Haskell 1984 and Marter, ed. terms, the assumption that a white woman 1999. could be made less powerful over her audi- 3 These were popularvenues for many ence by painting her featuresblack deserves of the activities of New York's avant-garde to be discussed in more detail than appro- community of this period. Performances priate here. and exhibitions included work by dancers, 9. Rainerwrote her text in 1966, but it musicians, poets, actors and visual artists. was not published until 1968 when it ap- 4. Among the more famous non-dancers peared in Battcock 1968. associatedwith the Judson were Robert io. Column'sorigins in the Living Rauschenberg,Carolee Schneemann, Theater performancehave been well docu- James Tenney, Philip Corner, Alex Hay, mented although contradictorydates have and William Linich, who later became been posited for both the original construc- known as Billy Name at Andy Warhol's tion and performance.See, for example, Factory. Paice 1994, 90; Chave fn. 47, 162;and 5. Morris did not feel that Checkwas as Strickland1993, 263-264. successful in its second performance,which took place in the smaller space of the Jud- son Church on March 24, 1965. WorksCited 6. As noted in Lippard, Stella originally made this comment during the radio inter- Albright, Ann Cooper. 1990. "Mining the view, conducted by Bruce Glaser on Febru- Dancefield: Spectacle, Moving Subjects, ary 15,1964 and broadcaston March 24, and Feminist Theory." ContactQuarterly 1964 on WBAI-FM in New York as part of (Spring/Summer):33. a series entitled "New Nihilism or New Alderson, Evan. 1987."Ballet as Ideology: Art." Giselle,Act II." Dance Chronicle,10: 7. TrioA, which became the first part of 290-304. Rainer'slarger work, TheMind is a Muscle Banes, Sally. 1983.Democracy's Body:Judson (1968),was originallyperformed by Rainer, Dance Theater1962-1964. Ann Arbor: Steve Paxton, and David Gordon at the UMI Research Press. Judson Memorial Church on Januaryio, -. 1993. GreenwichVillage:Avant- 1965. gardePerformance and the Effervescent 8. To eliminate the charismaticeffect of Body.Durham: Duke University her features, Rainer first tried blacking her Press.

128 Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004)

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Bear, Liza and Willoughby Sharp. 1972. Copeland, Roger. 1993."Dance, Feminism, "The Performer as Persona:An Inter- and the Critique of the Visual."In view with Yvonne Rainer."Avalanche, 5 Dance, Gender,and Culture.Edited by (Summer): 50. Helen Thomas, 133-50. New York: St. Benjamin, Jessica. 1986. "A Desire of Martin's Press. One's Own: Psychoanalytic Feminism Daly, Ann. 1987.'Yvonne Rainer'sChore- and IntersubjectiveSpace." In Feminist ography:The Power of Paradox." Studies/CriticalStudies. Edited by Transcript of presentation, Graduate Teresa de Lauretis, 78-ioi. Blooming- Women's Studies Conference, Prince- ton: Indiana University Press. ton University, March 28. -. 1998. Shadowof the Other:Intersub- Fried, Michael. 1968. "Art and Object- jectivity and Genderin Psychoanalysis. hood." In MinimalArt:A CriticalAn- New York: Routledge. thology.Edited by Gregory Battcock. Bennett, Susan, 1998. "Introductionto Part Berkeley:Univ. of California Press. Eight: Reception and Reviewing."In First published in 1967Ariforum 5 TheRoutledge Reader in Genderand Per- (June):12-23. formance.Edited by Lizbeth Goodman, Haskell, Barbara.1984. Blam!: The Explo- 265-269. London: Routledge. sion of Pop, Minimalism,and Perfor- Berger, Maurice. 1989. "MorrisDancing: mance,1958-1964. New York: The Whit- The Aesthetics of Production."In ney Museum of Art. Labyrinths:Robert Morris, Minimalism, Judd, Donald. 1975."In the Galleries: and the 1960s.New York: Harper and Robert Morris."In CompleteWritings Row. i959-i975. Halifax: Press of the Nova -. 1994. "WaywardLandscapes." In Scotia College of Art and Design, 165. RobertMorris: The Mind/Body Problem, First published in 1965Arts Magazine 39 18-33.New York: Guggenheim Museum (February):54. Foundation. Judson Dance Theater Program, Concert Blumenthal, Lyn. I999. "Profile:Interview for New Paltz State University College, by Lyn Blumenthal."In A WomanWho: New Paltz, New York, January30, 1964. Essays,Interviews, Scripts,47-84. Balti- Judson Archives, The Fales Libraryand more, MD: The Johns Hopkins Univer- Special Collection, New York Univer- sity Press. First published in 1984 "On sity, New York. Art and Artists,"Profile, 4.6 (Fall); tran- Lippard, Lucy. 1966. "Questions to Stella scription of taped interview for the and Judd."Art News, 65 (September):59. Video Data Bank of the Art Institute Marter, Joan, ed. 1999. OffLimits:Rutgers of Chicago (June 1984). and theAvant-Garde1957-1963. New Butler, Judith. 1997. "PerformativeActs Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University and Gender Constitution." In Writing Press. on the Body:Female Embodiment and Morris, Robert. 1965."Notes on Dance." FeministTheory. Edited by Katie Con- TulaneDrama Review io (December): boy, Nadia Medina, and Sarah Stan- I85- bury, 4II. New York: Columbia Univer- - 1993. "Notes on Sculpture,""Notes sity Press. on Sculpture, Part 2," "Notes on Sculp- Chave, Anna. 200ooo."Minimalism and ture, Part 3: Notes and Non Sequiturs," Biography,"Art Bulletin, 82 (March): "Anti-Form,""Notes on Sculpture,Part 149-63. 4: Beyond Objects."In ContinuousPro-

Dance Research Journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004) 129

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions jectAlteredDaily: The Writingsof Robert tatively Minimal Dance Activity Midst Morris. Cambridge:The MIT Press. the Plethora or an Analysis of TrioA." First published in 1966 "Notes on Sculp- In Work1961-73. Halifax: The Press of ture."Artforum 4 (February):42-44; 1966 the Nova Scotia College of Art and De- "Notes on Sculpture,Part 2."Artforum 5 sign. First published in 1968Minimal (October): 20-23; 1967"Notes on Sculp- Art:A CriticalAnthology.Edited by Gre- ture, Part 3: Notes and Non Sequiturs," gory Battcock, 263-73. Berkeley:Univer- Ariforum5 (June):24-29; 1968 "Anti- sity of California. Form."Artforum 6 (April): 33-35;1969 - "Some retrospectivenotes on a "Notes on Sculpture,Part 4: Beyond dance for io people and 12 mattresses Objects,"Ariforum 7 (June):50-4, 68. called 'Parts of Some Sextets,' performed Novack, Cynthia. 1993. "Ballet, Gender at the Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, and Cultural Power."In Dance, Gender, Connecticut, and Judson Memorial and Culture.Edited by Helen Thomas, Church, New York, in March, 1965." 34-47. New York: St. Martin's Press. In Work1961-76. Halifax: The Press of Paice, Kimberly.1994 "Columns, 1961" the Nova Scotia College of Art and (catalogue entry). In RobertMorris: Design. First published in 1965 Tulane The Mind/BodyProblem, 90. New York: Drama Review io (December): 168-77. Guggenheim Museum Foundation. Satin, Leslie. 1997. Legacies of the Judson Phelan, Peggy. i999. 'Yvonne Rainer: Dance Theater: Gender and Performing From Dance to Film." In A WomanWho: Autobiography. Ph.D. Dissertation, Essays,Interviews, Scripts,317. Baltimore, New York University. Ann Arbor: UMI MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Press. Strickland,Edward. 1993.Minimalism: Phillips, Lisa. 1995.Beat Cultureand the Origins.Bloomington: Indiana Univer- New Americai950-i965 (exhibition cata- sity Press. logue). New York: Whitney Museum of American Art. Rainer, Yvonne. 1967. "Don't Give the PersonalCommunications Game Away."Arts Magazine 41 (April): 47- Morris, Robert. Fax to the author, Novem- -. "An reminiscence 1974. imperfect ber 9, 2000. of studies and the of a my beginning -. E-mail to the author. August 3, careerand contingent events."In Work 2001. 1961-73.Halifax: The Press of the Nova Rainer. Yvonne. E-mail to author. Febru- Scotia of Art and College Design. ary 26, 2001. -. I974. "A Quasi-Survey of Some 'Minimalist' Tendencies in the Quanti-

13o Dance Research journal35/2 and 36/1 (Winter2003 and Summer 2004)

This content downloaded on Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:00:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions