DOCSLIB.ORG

Benjamin Buchloh Replies to Joseph Kosuth and Seth Siegelaub Author(S): Benjamin Buchloh Source: October, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Benjamin Buchloh Replies to Joseph Kosuth and Seth Siegelaub Author(S): Benjamin Buchloh Source: October, Vol Benjamin Buchloh Replies to Joseph Kosuth and Seth Siegelaub Author(s): Benjamin Buchloh Source: October, Vol. 57 (Summer, 1991), pp. 158-161 Published by: MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778877 Accessed: 28-02-2016 21:04 UTC 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]. MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 129.96.252.188 on Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:04:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Benjamin Buchloh Replies to Joseph Kosuth and Seth Siegelaub I am a bit disappointed that Joseph Kosuth refused to take me up on the critical and scholarly exchange that seemed possible after our original interview/ discussion conducted during the research in preparation of my essay. It was in a spirit of critical debate that I had written this essay concerning historical and theoretical questions within the complex field of activities that is now inevitably and irreversibly compounded under the stylistic epithet "Conceptual Art." I had deliberately refrained from provocative polemics in both tone and information in order to continue that critical exchange. The careful reader can easily recognize that my essay does not in fact contain any accusations or polemics directed specifically at Joseph Kosuth or his work (unless one would consider it an insult to voice a very hesitant doubt that is buried in a footnote and introduced with the explicit proviso that ". for the time being and until further evidence may be produced ..."). Instead of responding to the proposal to look at the history of conceptual art from a position of critical distance, Kosuth has reacted with a massive assault consisting of blackmail (of the curators who originally published my essay in the exhibition catalog, whom he threatened with withdrawing his work from the exhibition unless they would cede the most important space in the exhibition to his work and glue his printed reply, supplied on the day of the opening, into the already printed catalog) and ad hominem insults to which I have no reason to respond. What I would like to respond to, however, is the evidence of a common art-world attitude in Kosuth's reaction that is symptomatic in its fusion of paranoia and the compulsion to control. Artistic practice from this perspective is not a dialogic enterprise where critical questions can be asked, challenges and provocative hypotheses can be posed, and answers and counterchallenges can be returned. By contrast, it is an enterprise of the culture industry and its products, whose international dissemination has to be protected (like corporate products in general) from any challenge by critics-the leftover nuisance from the old days when artistic practice still aspired to operate in the public sphere. It seems that in the mind of artists like Kosuth, artistic practice is a matter of image control and product protection, of territorial strategies, networked or, if necessary, extorted in the various institutional and commercial venues that facilitate the work's continued circulation and guarantee its mythical status. This content downloaded from 129.96.252.188 on Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:04:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Buchloh Replies to Kosuth and Siegelaub 159 Historical insight and critical communication have to be silenced and blocked in order to buttress a support system dependent on the blind faith of curators, collectors, dealers, and disciples. The violence of Kosuth's response cannot possibly have been triggered by the one inference and two factual mistakes that he has found in my fifty-five- page manuscript. The first factual mistake is my suggestion that Kosuth called his exhibition space on occasion the Lannis Museum, which is in fact an error; he called it the Lannis Gallery, as I do call it; and he called it also the Museum of Normal Art. The second mistake-noticed by Kosuth after more than a year had passed and pointed out in his addendum to the original rebuttal, here published upon his request-is a patent misconstruction. The interested reader will easily notice that in my footnote 28 (footnote 29 in the October version of the essay), I do not at all refer to Kosuth's Proto-Investigations as "paintings," but as "definitions of words on large black canvas squares." Obviously I do know that the Proto- Investigations were not painted, but that they were photostats. But I have to admit that I was under the erroneous assumption that these paper photostats were mounted like valuable posters on canvas to protect them from damage during installation when the truth is that they are mounted on cardboard. The main accusation leveled by Kosuth against the curators at the time was that he had only two days before the opening to read my essay and respond to it. Now, more than a year later, it is astonishing that all Kosuth can come up with is a second partial error in one of my footnotes. I had been looking forward particularly to hearing some retrospective thoughts from Kosuth about his infatuation with tautological thought in the mid-to-late sixties-which seems a crucial subject for the study of that moment-or to further clarifications of the interaction between the minimalists and the emerging conceptualists. But quer- ies about relationships between artists and their shared information can only be misconstrued by Kosuth as an attempt to sabotage the idea of the protean originality of the artist prodigy. Kosuth therefore seems to have decided that he must shore up his territory and status against even the slightest gesture of critical doubt with a totally disproportionate rebuttal, a strike of deterrence, so to speak, that would settle questions once and for all and would make future critics think twice about even wanting to ask a question or two. But moreover -and paradoxically-it seems that his outrage and insults were motivated perhaps even more by the fact that he could not resist the temptation to display once again his status as a master by deploying the institutional power of the museum to stage a public retaliation similar to the famous Guggenheim affair when he co-initiated the censoring of Daniel Buren's work from the Guggen- heim International Exhibition in 1971. This content downloaded from 129.96.252.188 on Sun, 28 Feb 2016 21:04:52 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 160 OCTOBER Seth Siegelaub's polemical response to my essay seemed less surprising to me than that of Joseph Kosuth: after all, ambitious art dealers in the twentieth century have often claimed that they make art history more than that they make money. Their exclusive identification with one particular moment of artistic production is both the condition of their success and the cause of their failure to recognize any other activity within that moment, let alone the development of the work of a subsequent generation (one could think of Kahnweiler's vitu- perative attacks on the emergence of nonrepresentational art, for example, and his simultaneous devotion to minor post-cubist artists like Manolo). It seems that my article has awoken Mr. Siegelaub from his historical sleep, as he seems startled by the prospect that somebody might dare to question both the immaculate conception of the movement whose New York debut he man- aged and the subsequent canonization of its players as the true conceptual artists of 1968. Now Siegelaub wakes up in the role of the Marxist poseur, counseling me on how to write a truly dialectical history, rather than the conventional formalist one he ascribes to me. I have to admit I have much more respect for Siegelaub the art dealer, exhibition organizer, and the publisher of International General than for Sie- gelaub the Marxist counsel. First of all, I have always considered it an honor to be accused of being a formalist by vulgar Marxists and to be accused of being a vulgar Marxist by conservative voices in the art and art history world. But after a twenty-year debate on the relative autonomy of the aesthetic from the ideological and the political sphere and the concomitant difficulties for writing a social art history, even the most radical and orthodox Marxist art historians would not advocate the methodological simplicity of Siegelaub's argument. Ac- cusing me of having failed to recognize that conceptual art was born first and foremost from the political oppositions of these artists to the war in Vietnam and their sympathy with the student rebellions of 1968 seems only one of the inevitable results of the mechanistic determinism Siegelaub considers to be dialectical. This argument appears all the more dubious in the light of my discussion of Kosuth's work, with its continuous emphasis on the analytic nature of art and its inability to make synthetic propositions. More absurd yet, it is Kosuth that Siegelaub feels particularly compelled to defend (of all participants in the Siegelaub group certainly the least convincing candidate for the political causes of Conceptual Art, then and now). I can only suspect that this engagement results more from the loyalty to the numerous objects by this artist in Siegelaub's collection than loyalty to the Marxist cause.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Joseph Kosuth in Conversation,” 3Rd Dimension Magazine, February 20, 2017
    “Joseph Kosuth in Conversation,” 3rd Dimension Magazine, February 20, 2017 Monument/Man: Art-historian Ramsay Kolber discusses memory and the making of meaning with the artist. In 1964 Joseph Kosuth, a proclaimed patriarch of Conceptual Art, was a teenage student at the Cleveland Institute of Art in Ohio. The artist lived with three other male students in what had once been a ‘luxe’ building turned by time from splendid residential accommodation into college lodgings. In front of this building stood a large monument, which had remained unnoticed by the young artist for a term and a half. Many of us who live in the urban landscape, recognise this as familiar behaviour, because all too often monuments, which were intended to be highly visible, gradually merge into their surroundings as result of their permanence — consumed by the very space they were intended to lift out of the everyday. 1. András Tóth, Memorial to Lajos Kossuth, bronze, erected 1902 at University Circle, Cleveland, Ohio. This a replica by Tóth of his Kossuth Memorial at Nagyszalonta, Hungary and was commissioned to commemorate the Hungarian patriot’s visit to Cleveland, USA, 1851-52 (photo: courtesy of Ann Albano The Sculpture Center) One day when the young artist met up with his friend Charles in front of his lodgings they noticed spray-painted gold laurels strewn around the monument. Looking up the two boys read the inscription on the plinth, which identified the statue as Lajos (Louis) Kossuth, the national hero of Hungary, and Joseph Kosuth’s great-great uncle (fig.1). The immediate irony of this encounter would only augment when Kosuth recounted this story to me in his London studio, some 50 years after the fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Art and Language 14Th November – 18Th January 2003 52 - 54 Bell Street
    Art and Language 14th November – 18th January 2003 52 - 54 Bell Street Lisson Gallery is delighted to announce an exhibition by Art & Language. Art and Language played a key role in the birth of Conceptual Art both theoretically and in terms of the work produced. The name Art & Language was first used by Michael Baldwin, David Bainbridge, Harold Hurrell and Terry Atkinson in 1968 to describe their collaborative work which had been taking place since 1966-67 and as the title of the journal dedicated to the theoretical and critical issues of conceptual art. The collaboration widened between 1969 and 1970 to include Ian Burn, Mel Ramsden, Joseph Kosuth and Charles Harrison. The collaborative nature of the venture was conceived by the artists as offering a critical inquiry into the social, philosophical and psychological position of the artist which they regarded as mystification. By the mid-1970s a large body of critical and theoretical as well as artistic works had developed in the form of publications, indexes, records, texts, performances and paintings. Since 1977, Art and Language has been identified with the collaborative work of Michael Baldwin and Mel Ramsden and with the theoretical and critical collaboration of these two with Charles Harrison. The process of indexing lies at the heart of the endeavours of Art and Language. One such project that will be included in the exhibition is Wrongs Healed in Official Hope, a remaking of an earlier index, Index 01, produced by Art & Language for the Documenta of 1972. Whereas Index 01 was intended as a functioning tool in the recovery and public understanding of Art and Language, Wrongs Healed in Official Hope is a ‘logical implosion’ of these early indexes as conversations questioning the process of indexing became the material of the indexing project itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Art in Britain 1964–1979 Art & Language Large Print Guide
    Conceptual Art in Britain 1964–1979 12 April – 29 August 2016 Art & Language Large Print Guide Please return to exhibition entrance Art & Language 1 To focus on reading rather than looking marked a huge shift for art. Language was to be used as art to question art. It would provide a scientific and critical device to address what was wrong with modernist abstract painting, and this approach became the basis for the activity of the Art & Language group, active from about 1967. They investigated how and under what conditions the naming of art takes place, and suggested that meaning in art might lie not with the material object itself, but with the theoretical argument underpinning it. By 1969 the group that constituted Art & Language started to grow. They published a magazine Art-Language and their practice became increasingly rooted in group discussions like those that took place on their art theory course at Coventry College of Art. Theorising here was not subsidiary to art or an art object but the primary activity for these artists. 2 Wall labels Clockwise from right of wall text Art & Language (Mel Ramsden born 1944) Secret Painting 1967–8 Two parts, acrylic paint on canvas and framed Photostat text Mel Ramsden first made contact with Art & Language in 1969. He and Ian Burn were then published in the second and third issues of Art-Language. The practice he had evolved, primarily with Ian Burn, in London and then after 1967 in New York was similar to the critical position regarding modernism that Terry Atkinson and Michael Baldwin were exploring.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Art: a Critical Anthology
    Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology Alexander Alberro Blake Stimson, Editors The MIT Press conceptual art conceptual art: a critical anthology edited by alexander alberro and blake stimson the MIT press • cambridge, massachusetts • london, england ᭧1999 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval)without permission in writing from the publisher. This book was set in Adobe Garamond and Trade Gothic by Graphic Composition, Inc. and was printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Conceptual art : a critical anthology / edited by Alexander Alberro and Blake Stimson. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-262-01173-5 (hc : alk. paper) 1. Conceptual art. I. Alberro, Alexander. II. Stimson, Blake. N6494.C63C597 1999 700—dc21 98-52388 CIP contents ILLUSTRATIONS xii PREFACE xiv Alexander Alberro, Reconsidering Conceptual Art, 1966–1977 xvi Blake Stimson, The Promise of Conceptual Art xxxviii I 1966–1967 Eduardo Costa, Rau´ l Escari, Roberto Jacoby, A Media Art (Manifesto) 2 Christine Kozlov, Compositions for Audio Structures 6 He´lio Oiticica, Position and Program 8 Sol LeWitt, Paragraphs on Conceptual Art 12 Sigmund Bode, Excerpt from Placement as Language (1928) 18 Mel Bochner, The Serial Attitude 22 Daniel Buren, Olivier Mosset, Michel Parmentier, Niele Toroni, Statement 28 Michel Claura, Buren, Mosset, Toroni or Anybody 30 Michael Baldwin, Remarks on Air-Conditioning: An Extravaganza of Blandness 32 Adrian Piper, A Defense of the “Conceptual” Process in Art 36 He´lio Oiticica, General Scheme of the New Objectivity 40 II 1968 Lucy R.
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph Kosuth - Art After Philosophy
    U B U W E B :: Joseph Kosuth - Art After Philosophy UbuWeb | UbuWeb Papers Art After Philosophy (1969) Joseph Kosuth The fact that it has recently become fashionable for physicists themselves to be sympathetic toward religion . marks the physicists’ own lack of confidence in the validity of their hypotheses, which is a reaction on their part from the antireligious dogmatism of nineteenth-century scientists, and a natural outcome of the crisis through which physics has just passed. –A. J. Ayer. once one has understood the Tractatus there will be no temptation to concern oneself anymore with philosophy, which is neither empirical like science nor tautological like mathematics; one will, like Wittgenstein in 1918, abandon philosophy, which, as traditionally understood, is rooted in confusion. –J. O. Urmson. Traditional philosophy, almost by definition, has concerned itself with the unsaid. The nearly exclusive focus on the said by twentieth-century analytical linguistic philosophers is the shared contention that the unsaid is unsaid because it is unsayable. Hegelian philosophy made sense in the nineteenth century and must have been soothing to a century that was barely getting over Hume, the Enlightenment, and Kant.1 Hegel’s philosophy was also capable of giving cover for a defense of religious beliefs, supplying an alternative to Newtonian mechanics, and fitting in with the growth of history as a discipline, as well as accepting Darwinian biology.2 He appeared to give an acceptable resolution to the conflict between theology and science, as well. http://www.ubu.com/papers/kosuth_philosophy.html (1 of 24)3/16/2008 9:54:36 AM U B U W E B :: Joseph Kosuth - Art After Philosophy The result of Hegel’s influence has been that a great majority of contemporary philosophers are really little more than historians of philosophy, Librarians of the Truth, so to speak.
    [Show full text]
  • The Language of Art: an Interview with Joseph Kosuth.” Artdependence Magazine, June 6, 2018
    Sauer, Jennifer, “The Language of Art: An Interview with Joseph Kosuth.” Artdependence Magazine, June 6, 2018. A foremost pioneer in Conceptual and Installation art, Joseph Kosuth is well-noted for the language-based artworks and appropriation techniques defining his oeuvre since the 1960s. Throughout his career, Kosuth’s practice has centered on the role of language and meaning within art. A foremost pioneer in Conceptual and Installation art, Joseph Kosuth is well-noted for the language- based artworks and appropriation techniques defining his oeuvre since the 1960s. Throughout his career, Kosuth’s practice has centered on the role of language and meaning within art. His study of anthropology and philosophy, particularly the ideologies of Ludwig Wittgenstein, greatly impacted the development of his artistry. Kosuth devoted his work to exploring the use of words in place of visual imagery, as well as the relationships between ideas, words and the images themselves. Investigating these connections directly, his seminal artwork, One and Three Chairs represents a chair in three distinct ways: a manufactured chair, a photograph and a copy of a dictionary entry for the word “chair.” In his series piece Art as Idea as Idea, Kosuth removes all objects and images in favor of definitions clipped from dictionary entries, to emphasize how language can purely convey meaning. He further believes that any traces of the artist’s hand should be eliminated from production so that ideas may be expressed directly, immediately and wholly. Over more than five decades, Kosuth has created a substantial body of artwork that speaks to how we experience, comprehend and respond to language.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Art in Britain 1964–1979 the New Art Large Print Guide
    Conceptual Art in Britain 1964–1979 12 April – 29 August 2016 The New Art Large Print Guide Please return to exhibition entrance The New Art 1 From 1969 several exhibitions in London and abroad presented conceptual art to wider public view. When Attitudes Become Form at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in 1969 or Seven Exhibitions at the Tate Gallery in 1972, for example, generated an institutional acceptance and confirmation for conceptual art. It was presented in such exhibitions in different contexts to encompass both an analytical or theoretical conceptual art largely based in language and philosophy, and one that was more inclusive and suggested an expansion of definitions of sculpture. This inclusive view of conceptual art underlines how it was understood as a set of strategies for formulating new approaches to art. One such approach was the increasing use of photography – first as a means of documentation and then recast and conceived as the work itself. Photography also provided a way for sculpture to free itself from objects and re-engage with reality. However, by the mid-1970s some artists were questioning not just the nature of art, but were using conceptual strategies to address what art’s function might be in terms of a social or political purpose. 2 1st Room Wall labels Clockwise from right of wall text John Hilliard born 1945 Camera Recording its Own Condition (7 Apertures, 10 Speeds, 2 Mirrors) 1971 70 photographs, gelatin silver print on paper on card on Perspex Here, Hilliard’s Praktica camera is both subject and object of the work.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Hobbs Joseph Kosuth's Early Works
    ‘There is no world when there is no mirror’ is an absurdity. But all our relations, as exact as they may be, are of descriptions of man, not of the world : these are the laws of that supreme optics beyond which we cannot possibly go. It is neither appearance nor illusion , but a cipher in which something unknown is written – quite readable to us, made, in fact, for us: our human position towards things. This is how things are hidden from us. Friedrich Nietzsche A Selection of Early Works from the 1960s by Joseph Kosuth Sean Kelly Gallery 528 West 29 Street 212 239 1181 New York, NY 10001 www.skny.com “Joseph Kosuth’s Early Work” © Robert Hobbs, 2008 Joseph Kosuth’s Early Work by Robert Hobbs , The Rhoda Thalhimer Endowed Chair of American Art, Virginia Commonwealth University & Visiting Professor, Yale University Artworks . describe how they describe . What art shows in such a manifestation is, indeed, how it functions. Joseph Kosuth, “Intention(s),” Art Bulletin , 1996 With such pieces as ‘Glass Words Material Described’ and his One and Three series, Joseph Kosuth initiated the new artistic category, conceptual art. He conceived (or thought through) 1 these and other conceptual pieces in the fall of 1965 and had a few of them fabricated at that time, even though he was beginning his first year at New York’s School of Visual Arts (SVA) and was working with limited funds. Representing an intensification of Marcel Duchamp’s well-known preference for epistemology over ontology and a recognition of the profound importance of his notes, Kosuth’s extraordinary advance came two years before Sol Lewitt’s famous “Paragraphs on Conceptual Art” was published in Artforum in June 1967, and three years before Lawrence Weiner started his widely recognized conceptually based practice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Robert C. Morgan Conceptual Art Collection of Correspondence
    The Robert C. Morgan Conceptual Art Collection of Correspondence, Interviews, Artists’ Books, Monographs, Catalogs, and Ephemera Featuring John Baldessari, Robert Barry, Douglas Huebler, Sol LeWitt, and Lawrence Weiner Robert C. Morgan (b. 1943) is an internationally renowned American art critic, art historian, curator, lecturer, poet, and painter. He completed his dissertation, “The Role of Documentation in Conceptual Art: An Aesthetic Inquiry,” at New York University (School of Education) in 1978. It was the first dissertation on Conceptual Art in the U.S. and was later rewritten, updated and published as Conceptual Art: An American Perspective (McFarland & Company, 1994). The present collection springs from Morgan’s assiduous research and writing, and provides copious evidence of and discerning insight into the enduring phenomenon of Conceptual art, with particular attention to Lawrence Weiner, Robert Barry, Peter Downsbrough, John Baldessari, Dan Graham, Douglas Huebler, Seth Siegelaub, Allan Kaprow, Joseph Kosuth, Sol LeWitt, and Ed Ruscha, to name a few. The collection includes artists’ books, monographs, catalogs, cards, posters, recordings, correspondence, manuscripts, typescripts, and so forth, and represents the work of more than 100 artists, writers, curators, and editors. From John Baldessari’s Throwing Three Balls in the Air to Get a Straight Line (Best of Thirty-Six Attempts). Morgan has curated retrospectives of Allan Kaprow and Komar and Melamid, as well as many other exhibitions including such artists as Carolee Schneemann, Robert Barry, Douglas Huebler, Mel Bochner, and Muntadas. In addition to Conceptual Art: An American Perspective, Morgan is the author of Art into Ideas: Essays on Conceptual Art (Cambridge University Press, 1996), Between Modernism and Conceptual Art (McFarland, 1997), The End of the Art World (Allworth Press, 1998), Robert Barry (Karl Kerber Verlag, 1986), and Bernar Venet 1961–1970 (Éditions des Cahiers intempestifs,1999), among many other articles and books.
    [Show full text]
  • A&L PR English
    ART & LANGUAGE ‘HOMELESS STUFF’ 7 JUNE – 15 JULY 2017 Rob Tufnell presents a retrospective of posters, prints, postcards, journals, jigsaws, records, video and ephemera produced by Art & Language between 1969 and 2017. In 1968 ‘Art & Language’ was adopted as the nom de guerre a group of artists teaching at Coventry College of Art. The initial group of Terry Atkinson, David Bainbridge, Michael Baldwin and Harold Hurrell had a shared interest in producing what is now understood as Conceptual Art (a movement Mel Ramsden has since characterised as ‘Modernism’s nervous breakdown’). Their practice, was informed by broad interests including philosophies of science, mathematics and linguistics. They embraced Paul Feyerabend’s notion of “epistemological anarchy” to find new ways of producing, presenting and understanding art. They sought to replace Modernism’s ambitions of certainty and refinement with confusion and contradiction or a state of ‘Pandemonium’ (from John Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ (1667)). In 1969 they published the first of 22 issues of the journal ‘Art-Language’ with texts by Terry Atkinson, David Bainbridge and Michael Baldwin and others alongside contributions from Dan Graham, Sol Le Witt and Lawrence Weiner. After they were joined in 1970 by Ian Burn and Mel Ramsden the group quickly expanded forming around two nuclei in the small town of Chipping Norton in Oxfordshire, England and in New York. In the following years they were joined by Charles and Sandra Harrison, Graham Howard, Lynn Lemaster, Philip Pilkington, David Rushton and Paul Wood (in England) and Kathryn Bigelow, Michael Corris, Preston Heller, Christine Kozlov and Andrew Menard (in New York).
    [Show full text]
  • Art in the Information Age: Technology and Conceptual
    S A I N G D Art in the Information Age: G R C A U P L H T Technology and Conceptual Art U A R R E T A B S T R A C T Edward A. Shanken Art historians have generally drawn sharp distinctions be- tween conceptual art and art- and-technology. This essay reexamines the interrelationship of these tendencies as they developed in the 1960s, focus- n the mid-1960s, Marshall McLuhan prophesied protocols of computer software and ing on the art criticism of Jack I Burnham and the artists in- that electronic media were creating an increasingly intercon- the increasingly “dematerialized” cluded in the Software exhibition nected global village. Such pronouncements popularized the forms of experimental art, which that he curated. The historiciza- idea that the era of machine-age technology was drawing to a the critic interpreted, metaphori- tion of these practices as close, ushering in a new era of information technology. Sens- cally, as functioning like informa- distinct artistic categories is ing this shift, Pontus Hultén organized a simultaneously nos- tion processing systems. Software examined. By interpreting talgic and futuristic exhibition on art and mechanical included works by conceptual artists conceptual art and art-and- technology as re¯ections and technology at the Museum of Modern Art in New York such as Les Levine, Hans Haacke constituents of broad cultural (MOMA) in 1968. The Machine: As Seen at the End of the Me- and Joseph Kosuth, whose art was transformations during the chanical Age included work ranging from Leonardo da Vinci’s presented beside displays of tech- information age, the author 16th-century drawings of !ying machines to contemporary nology including the "rst public ex- concludes that the two tenden- cies share important similarities, artist-engineer collaborations selected through a competition hibition of hypertext (Labyrinth, an and that this common ground organized by Experiments in Art and Technology, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art & Language Group
    THE ART & LANGUAGE GROUP: 1966 to 1973 by 'DAVID BRIAN MITCHELL B.A., University of Victoria, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF ARTS (Dept., of Fine Arts) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1976 0David Brian Mitchell, 1976 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of FINE ARTS The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date April 26, 1976 ABSTRACT The history of Post-Object art can be dated from about 1966. The term Post-Object describes two classes of art activity: Post-Minimal and Concep- tual. Post-Minimal art (ie. Earthworks, Bodyworks, Process, and Systems art) derives from the phenomenological interests of some of the major Minimalist figures (ie. Morris, Andre, leWitt, and Smithson). Conceptual art, stringent- ly defined, entails the use of word language to state artistic intentions. % 1969, r..sny of the more progressive Conceptualists in America and England became associated with the "Art & Language group" (hereafter cited as A & L).
    [Show full text]