<<

Form and Content: a Deconstruction of the

Contemporary Cube

Extended Essay

Alicia Clooney

In partial fulfilment of the Limerick School of and ,

Limerick Institute of Technology, Bachelor of (Honours)

Degree in and Combined Media

2020

Abstract

The cube as a device of sculptural language is discussed in relation to both form and content through 1960’s and extending into contemporary practice. The aim of this discussion is to establish the formal functions of the cube as an embodiment of order and objectivity, resulting in the depersonalisation of the form. Through an analysis of works by , this essay constructs an understanding of the cube, in the Post-Minimalist era, as a renewed framing site for issues of the self; mind and body. Works by

Mona Hatoum will be used to extend this discussion towards the contemporary cube, outlining the role of interior and exterior relationships as an essential component in the cubes functional transition.

.

Contents

Figures List…………………………………………..………………………p.1

Introduction…………………………………………………………………..p.2

Minimalism as a Strict Parameter……………………………………………p.3

The Formal Cube; Functionality and Perception…………………………….p.8

Towards Interior; The Post-Minimalist Cubes of Eva Hesse……………....p.13

Entry and Exile; Soto and Hatoum in Dialogue with the Body…………….p.20

Internal/External Distinction and the Non-Physical cube………………….p.27

Conclusion……………………………………………………………….....p.30

Reference List………………………………………………………………p.31

Bibliography……………………………………………………………..…p.34

Figures List

Figure 1. Berecz, Á. (2020). Little Sister. [online] Guggenheim. Available at: ​ ​ https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/5653 [Accessed 4 Jan. 2020].

Figure 2. . (2004). ‘Untitled’, Robert Morris, 1965, reconstructed 1971 | ​ Tate. [online] Available at: ​ https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/morris-untitled-t01532 [Accessed 4 Jan.

2020].

Figure 3. Swartz, A. (1997). Accession II: Eva Hesse's Response to

Minimalism. Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts,, 71(1/2), ​ ​

Figure 4. Publicdelivery.org. (2019). What are Jesús Rafael Soto's ​ Pénétrables?. [online] Available at: ​ https://publicdelivery.org/jesus-rafael-soto-penetrables/#Who_was_Jesus_Rafa el [Accessed 4 Jan. 2020].

Figure 5. Hinkson, L. (2020). Impenetrable. [online] Guggenheim. Available ​ ​ at: https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/30304 [Accessed 4 Jan. 2020]

1

Introduction

The cube, an equal sided, three-dimensional form, is referenced throughout as an embodiment of geometric precision. Used as both method and motif, it has been countlessly recycled at the hands of artists and designers. In the early the cube is found at the heart of abstraction as Picasso and Braque develop the Cubist movement and is constructed and reconfigured in the grid like of . Later in the 1960’s the resilient form becomes key to the development of formal language as it is explored and interrogated for its physical properties through the practice of

Minimalism. Throughout the following discussion, the Minimalist language and its directed focus towards physical actuality, will be used as a lens to examine the functions of the cube as a sculptural device. The aim of this discussion is to establish a foundational understanding of the cube as operating with such structural efficiency that it has been described as being to sculpture, what grammar is to language (Batchelor, 2004). The value of its symmetry, its decisive fabrication and its relevance to the visual principles of Gestalt theory will all be examined as supporting this claim, made in relation to Minimalist sculpture of the 60’s. The cube will then transition towards a contemporary practice through the works of Eva Hesse, Jesús Rafael Soto and finally, Mona

Hatoum. Hesse’s work, commonly termed as Post-Minimalist, opens up the formal cube to its translation as a vessel or box. Soto, also working within the

Post-Minimalist sphere, introduces the viewers body physically to this containing space with his ‘Penetrables’ series. In the context of this essay, ​ ​ these works function to bridges the discussion of the cube between Hesse and

2

Hatoum as the viewers body gradually emerges as an important point of navigation. The cube’s transition towards its contemporary understanding is analysed through a focus on the physical and metaphorical implications of interior and exterior values. The strict parameters are deconstructed and the form becomes a framing site for each artist’s personal expressions of mind and body within the now reciprocal vessel.

Minimalism as a Strict Parameter

To firstly understand the cubes functionality as a formal device, the Minimalist environment from which it emerged will be briefly outlined. ,

Donald Judd, Sol LeWitt, and Robert Morris are the primary artists to which the first definitive works of Minimalist art are attributed (Batchelor,

2004). Despite rejecting that they participated in one specific movement, their concerns were largely sympathetic to each other and more initially obvious, their work appeared to be embodying one aesthetic. However, key to the framing of Minimalist artworks is an awareness that despite the repeated clean and geometric appearance, this was not an expression of a pre-determine style but an engagement with a highly logicised, conceptual practice that would prove to have lasting impact on the progress of fine art. They replaced self-expression, emotion and representation with structure, system and an overall objectivity which eliminated the artist’s physical and emotional presence from the work. The objects produced were not intended to refer back to the artist, or even back to aspects of the human condition like the preceding

3

Abstract Expressionists who explored their mediums as sensational, extended gestures of the body (Golub, 1955). Instead LeWitt, Judd, Morris and others began to view their works strictly respective to their material surfaces and their occupation of space as affecting the room and the viewer. In other words, they were concerned only with physical reality and not with metaphor; the form became the content. This negation of emotional or biographical connection from the artists meant the works created were not termed in the traditional fashion as sculptures and paintings, a work of Minimalist art is referred to as an object or for Judd and LeWitt simply as structures (Batchelor, 2004). This non-conventional ascribing of the works identity does not only function to differentiate it from previous movements and methods but also aids in focusing the language around Minimalism and its analysis towards its spatial and perceptual functionality and not its creative or aesthetic innovations.

The terminology was also reinforced by their production process, which was decidedly one of construction and not evolution. The materials of choice were industrial - plywood, metal sheeting and fluorescent tubes - sourced from standard building suppliers and not from art supply shops. The materials would rarely be interfered with past a coating of acrylic paint and so this led to a uniformity in surface finish that became recognisable as distinctly

Minimalistic; flat, undecorated and anonymous. The materials, with their hard and un-pliable qualities, intrinsically lent themselves to the kind of decisive construction that eliminated interpretive manipulation and produced clean,

4 linear forms (Karmel, 2012). The creative process became systemised and logicised in order to allow for a level of experimentation and development that would be sympathetic to the material and importantly not to the makers physical or emotional experience. Linearity, the grid, repetition and modular units became the central focus from which deviation and variability could be tested. These systems all served to keep the parameters of creativity within the conscious as they require a coherent and rational engagement and disallow the involvement of a subjective and interfering subconscious. These systems, with their inherent geometric nature, also functioned to dispel organic or anthropomorphic associations in the finished form of the Minimalist objects.

This can be largely attributed to the symmetry of the objects as it brings with it a level of precision and rigour that is distinctly un-bodily. The Grid, a prominent motif in Minimalist art for its perfect right angles, repetition and endless possibility to expand found itself as the focus of ’s life work and was continuously reiterated in three dimensions as the open cube structures explored by Sol LeWitt.

5

Figure 1. Little Sister, Agnes Martin, 1962, Oil, ink, and brass nails on canvas ​ ​ over wood, 25.1 x 24.6 cm (Berecz, 2020).

6

The configuration of the grid is a perfect example of maintaining objective symmetry and system as it largely dictates itself, literally drawing out strict parameters within which experimentation can take place. Speaking of Grids extensively in her 1979 essay simply, and aptly titled ‘Grids’ Krauss deems it

“what happens when art turns its back on nature” (Krauss, 1979). In other words, these symmetrical pictorial planes and objects can be recognised as constructed, fabricated and systemised and not in any way organically developed in terms of both their physical manifestation and their conceptualisation. For Robert Morris’ the importance of this symmetry and order could also be afforded to the visual principles of Gestalt Theory. As highlighted in his seminal essays ‘Notes on Sculpture’, now considered a kind of manifesto of Minimalism, he discusses the influence of Gestalt theory on a

Minimalist practice and how it was key to viewing their works (Morris, 1967).

The viewer is encouraged to see a whole or unit as uninterrupted as possible in its perception. The viewer is not asked to find peculiarities, hidden detail or search for implied relationships but to experience the very physical reality of the object. Therefore, works existing in symmetry were essentially fulfilling the ambition of a strong Gestalt by creating a stable, visual unity and aided the

Minimalist intention, like the grid, by reinforcing a palpable sense of order, system and symmetry.

The cube as a perfect three-dimensional manifestation of this unity and symmetry soon became a prominent trope of the time and can be seen to

7 contain and reveal each concern in the most economic and unrelenting nature.

The discussion will now focus on the cube as a perfect manifestation of the formal language of system and symmetry. The form will now be dissected for the level of functionality, that above others, has maintained itself throughout continuous reiterations. The understanding of its functionality as a formal

Minimalist object is dependent on the evaluation of its construction and visual perception in relation to its symmetry.

The Formal Cube; Functionality and Perception

To construct a cube only one single measurement must be decided upon and it is then repeated in length, breadth and width until a perfect form with six faces, twelve edges and eight vertices is created. For the Minimalists, this one decision of measurement subsequently dictating the overall scale of the object, would be considered objectively and rationally. The physical reality of the object being the main concern, the cubes scale would be considered in terms of the availability of the material chosen, the room of display or how a viewer would physically be affected by its occupation of space. With such limited criteria to consider there was no opportunity for the object to gather complications of personal meaning throughout its design phase. The symmetrical form and geometrical vocabulary thereby functioning to focus the language on simplicity and order (Cason Barrot, 1996). The challenges of the cube’s construction are not of beauty or representation but are its perfect symmetry- uniform sides, sharp distinct corners and level surfaces. While the

8 organic subjects or formless materials of other sculptural endeavours would allow for intuitive and emotionally engaging interactions this need for symmetry required only precise, pre-determined methodologies of fabrication

(DeLosSantos, 2015). In the case of many Minimalist artists, this meant outsourcing their fabrication to trained technicians; a decision of necessity for some works in order to attain the standard of geometric perfection required of a Minimalist object, but was also informed by their focus on logic as process.

With signs of imperfection and variation often being seen as gestures of the artist, if there was no need for personal involvement during construction then the autographic trace could be said to lie in the decisions made around the object.

Not only did the cube allow for a removal of self in its conception and construction process but its symmetrical form functioned in terms of its visual perception to uphold the concerns of Minimalism with more success than other forms. As mentioned previously in relation to Morris’ ‘Notes on Sculpture’ the cube with its unrelenting equality and visual continuity could easily be grouped together to form a strong Gestalt and therefore perceived as a whole in a phenomenological experience. Gestalt theory states something is different

(and not greater as often mistranslated) than the sum of its parts (Sabar, 2013).

The facts of the cube are its six faces, twelve edges and eight vertices, but what ​ ​ is observed is a full unit. Conscious thought is not given to the interactions of line and surface that are taking place in our visual perception. It behaves as an

9 almost continuous surface and so when we view the form from even one angle and perceive that each side is uniform, we establish a recognition of a pattern that is key to a strong Gestalt forming. These theories of visual perception aid the objectivity of a Minimalist work and a visual relationship is immediately established. Focus then turns towards its spatial reality rather than a viewer engaging in a process of investigation and interpretation of surface appearance that would allow for personal connections to develop with the objects. The cube would then become inscribed with meaning and no longer considered an objective reality.

The symmetrical nature of the cube not only aids in its phenomenological experience but allows it be a point of reference or template from which other variation can be measured. The cubic metre is a standard measure of volume from which we can understand a vessels capacity and so the objects were presented in the very form that standardises volume and thus the physical reality of occupying space (Hedlin Hayden, 2003). For the Minimalists, it functioned as this kind of template, or in terms of scientific experimentation as a constant. The cube is constant in its construction, constant in its visual perception, and as per its function as a measurement, constant in its occupation of space. To briefly adopt these languages of maths and science, the

Minimalist cube’s form and capacity can then be termed as a known or predetermined value and so the focus of the art work becomes the idiosyncrasies of its external values. These values would be the material

10 choice, the surface finish or the spatial relationships developing outside of the cube regarding viewer and exhibition space. While the scale of the cube was constantly varied this was a manipulation of these external relationships, not of its capacity as a container and the viewer finds themselves purposefully being directed away from its interior. This was an intentional direction of focus by the Minimal artist as a visual relationship established to the inside or centre of the cubes form could lead to a physical or metaphoric journey into the internal and in doing so opening up a potential plethora of connotations including mental and emotional space.

In Robert Morris’ ‘Untitled (Mirrored Cubes)’ 1965, we see this purposeful ​ ​ separation from interior and direction of the viewer into surrounding space.

They display clearly the formal functioning of the Minimalist cube as a fixed measure of volume with the intention for the viewer to consider their physical external reality, not the potential for metaphor in the object. Morris has taken the hard industrial materials of Minimalism a step further with the reflective surfaces, directing the viewer’s gaze away from the interior of the cube and out towards the room’s occupants. The viewer is confronted by the reflection of the lower half of their body, the object thereby directing the focus towards their own physical relationship to the surrounding space and preventing a search for personalised meaning. “I wish to emphasize that things are in a ​ space with oneself, rather than a situation where one is in a space surrounded by things.” (Morris. R in Cason Barrot, 1996). ​

11

Figure 2. Untitled (Mirrored Cubes), 1965 (reconstructed 1971), mirror, glass ​ ​ and wood. Each cube: 914 × 914 × 914 mm - overall display dimensions are variable (Tate, 2004).

12

To highlight the cubes functionality as measure and therefore of depersonalisation of an object, if the artist were to repeat the same experimentation of surface value with for example a rectangle, a new set of decisions would present itself as to where it would be placed in the room. As stated previously, the formal cube’s symmetry allows it to exist equally in the gallery setting, while a rectangle’s long versus short sides introduce variation in its visual and spatial behaviour. This allows more room for personalised decision making for the artist and personalised relationships to form for the viewer. Robert Morris’ ‘Hanging Slab’ of 1964, was an aluminium rectangle ​ ​ hung from the ceiling and painted light grey so it was “only barely present” ​ ​ (Judd, 1964 in Ward, Lawrence and Grudin, 2018). This still functioned as an ​ objective intervention in space, disallowing personalised meaning. However, space being an occupiable thing, and wishing for variations of material/surface/scale to be the focus, the cubes form as a measure became a way of holding volume and condensing space into units so that the multitude of variations the cube underwent at the hands of the Minimalists existed as self-contained comparisons of external values (Hedlin Hayden, 2003).

Towards Interior; The Post-Minimalist Cubes of Eva Hesse

The formal cube now set out as something independent of its maker, rigorous and unrelenting, gives an idea of how this depersonalised, objective relationships between the artist, the object and the viewer was formed.

However, naturally as with other movements, the artists operating within

13

Minimalism began to find that with each iteration and experimentation, knowledge was acquired and as a result their parameters became more and more restrictive; the unknown becoming known. Artists began to challenge the nature of the relationships that had developed and the limitations of a solely functional focus were felt. A shift began to take place towards a more flexible Post-Minimalist era. Working to expand the boundaries of the cube and progress the formal language of Minimalism, Eva Hesse engaged decisively in this shift, using the ‘Accession’ series to bring the maker, the ​ ​ viewer and the cube back to interior and the self.

The ‘Accession’ series was produced between 1967 and 1968 and consists of ​ ​ five variations of a perforated cube form. Each iteration uses a combination of a personalised material language and the formal principles of the Minimalist cube, to invite the viewer into its interior and question the significance of the purposeful shift in focus from the exterior to the interior of the cube. It is

‘Accession II’ produced in 1967 that is most prominently discussed as Hesse’s ​ ​ direct response to Minimalism. This cube is a five sided construction of galvanised steel with a total of 30,670 rubber tubes hand woven into its faces

(Swartz, 1997). Through the surface contradictions and the repetitive process that Hesse physically engaged with, the rigour of Minimalism is combined with a unique material language to incite a psychological and bodily engagement from the form. This served not to contradict its previously established formal functions but to open up the cube to self-expression.

14

Figure 3. Accession II, Eva Hesse, 7; galvanized steel and rubber tubing, 78. 1 ​ ​ x 78. 1 x 78.1 (Swartz, 1997)

15

In 1967 Hesse became concerned with the potential for the cube as a container or enclosure. She began her investigation in the summer of 1967 with two papier-mâché works titled ‘Inside I’ and ‘Inside II’, now considered test pieces ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ for the ‘Accession’ series. They are a key stepping stone in understanding the ​ ​ cube’s re-focus towards interior and gradual transition to ‘box’ as understood in the later works. ‘Inside I’ and ‘Inside II’ served to first challenge the ​ ​ ​ ​ relationship between the viewer and the cube by adjusting the dynamic of the cubes surfaces from one of exclusion to invitation. The closed cube created barriers between the viewer and the volume of space it surrounds, thereby visually excluding the viewer from any interaction that could be taking place within. ‘Inside I’ and ‘Inside II’ with their organ-like mounds of string, ​ ​ ​ ​ demonstrated that by opening up the form and revealing the contents, the language of the cube can adjust to that of box, imbuing it with a new function of containment.

This transition from cube to box gives the interior a new connection to the human psyche as it is no longer logically evaluated but interpreted in relation to the associations built up through everyday interaction. The cube as an art object presents itself as the form and content. However, the box serves a more intimate purpose as it is used to house objects of importance with the intention of concealment or protection. The box suggests something valuable or vulnerable is at the centre of its form and when used in the context of an art object invites a very literal invasion of the interior as the space provided within

16 must be considered for its visual, physical and metaphoric possibility. By opening up the cube in ‘Inside I’ and ‘Inside II’ Hesse creates a new spatial ​ ​ ​ ​ opportunity for her material masses as they must find their function within the strict boundaries of the Minimalist cube. She also opens up a new dialogue as to their personal significance as their potential value or vulnerability is now being examined.

‘Accession II’ shows a further awareness and deliberate exploitation of the ​ ​ cube as box. As stated in her diaries “the formal principles are understandable ​ and understood, it is the unknown quantity from which and where I want to go” (Hesse, 1979). The visual principles of the cube are employed on the ​ exterior with its even, undisrupted pattern made by the woven tubes and the exact measure of its form. However, now considered a box, the interior presented an opportunity to enter the unknown and created a new site to explore the personal language of self that was developing in the wake of objective Minimalism. The system and seriality of the mass production machine was subverted in ‘Accession II’ with its repeated tube forms being ​ ​ inserted by hand, the process this demanded served to exaggerate the artists tendency towards anxiety and compulsion. While the fabrication of many works such as ‘Repetition 19’ and even the later three ‘Accession’ boxes were ​ ​ ​ ​ outsourced, Hesse used the weaving process of her second version as an opportunity to engage in the physicality of the construction, thereby revealing the nuances of process and material that could only be experienced first hand.

17

This led to an accumulation of personal meaning for the object as its development can be considered a kind of self-analysis, with the artist evaluating their own behaviour in tandem with the gradual visual and physical effects of accumulating material- an engagement with artistic process that marked Hesse’s individual evolution of Minimalism.

The tendency towards repeated form and action was not an entirely subconscious compulsion for Hesse. When describing her developing works in letters to close friends she discusses in detail the fastidiousness of her processes and the enjoyment it gave her. She also discusses her use of repeated form as a means of exaggeration “if something is meaningful, maybe it is more ​ meaningful said ten times” (Hesse, 1975). If a material quality, process or ​ object was discovered that could hold both formal functionality and allow room for psychological or bodily connotations, then by repeating it the translations would strengthen. She defines the word “accession” (sic.) in her ​ ​ diaries as “increased by something added” which acutely describes this ​ ​ tendency (Hesse 1979). The work does not contradict the formal functionality of the Minimalist cube but through the purposefully exaggerated use of inherent material quality- the corporeal effect of the hundreds of tubes- Hesse expands its definition to include the bodily connotations of its visual representation and the psychological implications of a habitual process. The very title of the work is thereby being used to strengthen the idea of a personal rather than objective experience of the work.

18

With Minimalism being a predominantly male space, the overt physicality of the tubes used in the ‘Accession’ cubes, not only challenged the notions of a ​ ​ formal repetition but led to a discussion of the object as a feminist expression.

The tubes being a soft and sensual form juxtaposed against the rigidity of

Minimalism, hints at Hesse’s early interest in the Surrealist connections between body and mind (Chadwick, 1991). Through a fetishized reading of satisfaction, the sexual nature of the subconscious can be seen as being expressed through the gratifying process of the repeated insertion of the tubes.

The interior displaying the cluster of material as a frenzied compulsion rather than restrained system, and visually behaving as a group of organisms, growths or even fur, drawing the eye to the centre. Mel Bochner when discussing the

‘Accession’ series aligns his opinions with a Freudian reading of box as ​ ​ relating to the female reproductive system and asserts that the cubes “hairy ​ interiors are sexual puns on the word box” (Lippard, Roberts and Swenson, ​ 2014). This confining the complex metaphors of the interior to one of gender and an innuendo. While the legitimacy of this reading and the intention of the artist to assert her femininity can long be debated, the tubes undoubtedly call attention to a connection between the bodily and the containing functions of the cube. In her discussion of ‘Accession’, Lucy Lippard notes that at the time ​ ​ of the works development, Hesse had moved her studio to the two lower floors of her apartment to avoid the loneliness of the open, spacious, top floors and preferred instead to literally surround herself with her work (Lippard and

Hesse, 1992). Hesse’s actions speak of a self-imposed containment, showing a heightened awareness of her own relationships to the spaces she inhabited and

19 invertedly, connects her to the Minimalist focus of the body in a physical reality, external to the cubes surface.

The reading of the ‘Accession’ series as an embodiment of feminist rhetoric ​ ​ and as a deliberate reaction against the male domination of Minimalist art leads to a reading of the ‘Accession’ cubes that are somewhat dismissive to the ​ ​ importance of Hesse’s work as directly engaging with and progressing

Minimalism. However, with a focus on her material choices and process, the cubes ability to hold the self- body and mind- can be more directly connected to her understanding of the formal cubes functions and the possibilities she revealed by inverting the internal and external relationships of the viewer and its form. Hesse used the focal transition towards the interior of the Minimalist cube as a visual metaphor for the personal re-connections that she was creating, an important step in reinstating the body as an active sensory receptor for a piece of work after the more cerebral work of the early to mid sixties.

Entry and Exile; Soto and Hatoum in Dialogue with the Body

In 1967 Jesús Rafael Soto, a Venezuelan artist, was also engaging in a similar deconstruction of the formal interior that led to further developments for the cube extending even further to contemporary practice. Soto began the

‘Penetrables’ series which continued for almost fifty years until his death in ​ ​ 2009. These installations consist of hundreds of strands of brightly coloured

20 resin tubing or string hung from supporting frameworks (White, 2018). Soto invited the audience to enter the labyrinth of strands, creating a socially engaged narrative around the work and reflecting his political and sculptural beliefs of emphasising the role of the active participant (Brodsky 2009). The body, in these instances, is responsible for a constant re-adjustment of the works composition, thereby activating the installation in the artists eyes and framing the participants within a shared architectural and social space. Like

Hesse’s ‘Accession’ cubes, there is an immediate connection between the ​ ​ viewers psychological and physical state to the interior of the cube as they are implicated by Soto in a political conversation as well as being mapped and connected by the formal composition of the installations. These works served to question the objectivity of the cube and challenge the seemingly fixed relationship of the interior and exterior. Soto’s death in 2009 did not mark the end of this investigation and saw his linear, open composition re-enter contemporary sculpture as the direct influence for ’s

‘Impenetrable’. Opposed to the allure of ‘Accessions II’ and the playfulness of ​ ​ ​ ​ Soto’s installations, this work inverts the cubes ability to implicate the body through a sense of danger and threat and further challenges the absolute nature of the cube as it is presented as an ephemeral suggestion.

21

Figure 4. Pénétrable, Jesús Rafael Soto, 1990, installation view, Los Angeles ​ ​ County Museum of Art, 2013 (Publicdelivery.org, 2019)

22

‘Impenetrable’ is a 300cm x 300cm x 300cm cube comprising of hundreds of ​ ​ barbed wire lengths suspended by fishing line above the gallery floor. The work was included as part of Hatoum’s solo show with the Menil Collection in

2018 titled ‘Terra Infirma’. This title references both her Surrealist and ​ ​ Minimalist influences. Its translation as unstable ground connects to her knowledge of the Freudian feeling of the uncanny; a sense that what should be known, is suddenly unfamiliar (, 2007). The feeling of sudden destabilisation can also connect to the perceptual shifts taking place through the phenomenological readings of the work that is an important aspect of a

Minimalist framing. Hatoum’s work is often read with a heavy-handed emphasis on the social/political issues of displacement due to her own history as an immigrant (Brett, 1997). However, when considered in relation to the more experiential focuses presented by this exhibition’s title, the thematic cues of ‘Impenetrable’ can be considered multi-functional keys, unlocking many ​ ​ possibilities of abstract thought in relation to the psychological, the physical and the spatial. This allows a consideration of the literal metaphors as present and valuable but not necessarily the singularly intended function of the work.

Room is given for discussion of the subtler formal devices that have been employed in ‘Impenetrable’ that connect its viewer back to the cube’s ​ ​ functionality.

23

Figure 5. Impenetrable, Mona Hatoum, 2009, steel and nylon monofilament, ​ ​ 300cm x 300cm x 300cm (Hinkson, 2020)

24

The sparse configuration of material is as an ephemeral suggestion of the cubes usually defiant form. The linear nature of the barbed wire creates an illusionary effect in which a volume of space is being mapped out and occupied, rather than the cube being constructed into a definitive object. From a distance delicate, light and airy but upon closer inspection, what weight it lacks in material density it makes up for in psychological and bodily impact. The barbed wire that makes itself evident in close proximity, brings numerous ominous connotations to the work that create the initial cognitive impact. The material immediately brings forth themes of separation and containment relating to the larger bodies of government, nation and law enforcement which use it en-masse to reinforce their borders. It has become a symbol of systematic oppression, reinforced by the politically charged discourse around

Hatoum’s work. The danger of the barbed wire in ‘Impenetrable’ can also be ​ ​ felt on a more intimate level as its ergonomic dimensions and spatial arrangement seemingly invites entry and creates a visceral connection for the viewer. It has been said of the individual body’s role within the parameters of

Hatoum’s themes of separation that “bodies are the materialisation of conflict. ​ They are its targets, its boundaries violated through the blunt instruments of war.” (Jabri, 2019). The mind immediately identifies the potential threat but is ​ also being drawn in to its centre as the vulnerable body is implicated by the deceivingly occupiable form.

25

The grid, which plays a huge role in Hatoum’s repertoire, allows the material to organise itself into a visual format that is easily identified and understood with only a small sample of iteration. The work can be seen as a decisive and imposing cube form while still allowing for the large amounts of open space which gives ‘Impenetrable’ its ephemeral and inviting qualities. These open ​ ​ spaces framed by the barbed wire, create, in Krauss’ terms a symbolist window in which the viewer is invited into and simultaneously impeded by the grid; like the reflection of our image in a mirror, we see ourselves within the framed situation while at the same time recognising it as an impossible reality (Krauss,

1979). This replicates the thought process of the viewer tempted by the interior of ‘Impenetrable’. ​ ​

The grid in this case and the open space it affords creates a psychological displacement that further skews the relationship between the interior and exterior of the cube form. The expected formal functions are manipulated as there is no tangible division of inside/outside except for the perceived sense of space. There is a purposeful lack of construction that would have marked the separation between object and individual as in the Minimalist cube, instead

Hatoum lets the content and not the form create this divide. The

Post-Minimalist ideas of interior as a site for body as mentioned in relation to

‘Accession II’, are reversed. The viewer instead finds themselves in a state of ​ inbetweeness. The interior neither concealed nor penetrable and the exterior neither segregating or uniting. This follows through on the artists expressed

26 desires to “psychologically entrap” her audience, enveloping them not ​ ​ physically as in Soto’s ‘Penetrables’ or as in Hesse’s containing interior, but ​ ​ rather in a set of relations that refuses to adhere to the previous definitions set out by the formal cube (C. Chave, 2018).

Internal/External Distinction and the Non-physical Cube

As discussed in relation to Morris’, Hesse’s and Soto’s cubes, and made even more strikingly evident by Hatoum’s, the conceptual understanding and relationships developed between the viewer and the cube does not come from an observation of its form as six faces, twelve edges and eight vertices. The metaphor, content and subject instead are dependent on the relationship between the internal and external values of the object and the viewers experience as they make connections to their own existence. According to theories of relational attributions, an orientation between internal and external

(mind and body/self and other) is how the human mind navigates its existence and there is a struggle to find cause or meaning from either in isolation (Eberly ​ et al., 2011). An understanding between the two must be formed that is not a ​ blending of the internal or external but is outside it completely as something relational. These theories, when abstracted to apply to a physical art work which lacks an autonomous sense of self, then become focused on the surface and contents of the form. It implies an interdependence between the interior and exterior that as discussed through the examples of the cube, can now be seen as vital to its conceptual evaluation, as only in a relational context they

27 form meaning for the viewer. Through an examination of the cubes transition from a Minimalist trope to a device of contemporary sculpture, the structural values of the cube have been gradually dismantled. The set of ideas that culminated as the formal cube still remain present in objects due to their existence as a relational attribution and not as a solely physical reality dependent on the materialistic representation of a divisive inside/outside. The cube thereby becomes a functional framework. A space within which we can encounter and mediate the internal and external relationships of its form, reflective of a natural human thought process. The interdependence of the cube lies therein not just between its own values, but as a developing relationship with its viewer, creating a situation of self and other where meaning only exists in the exchange between the two. In treating the formal cube now as a set of ideas and not as a definitive physical presence, the interdependency of the interior with exterior is no longer a structural, but a conceptual one. The

Minimalist cube claimed to exclude the viewer from its centre and place the awareness on the physical reality of the body navigating it in surrounding space. The viewer, however subconsciously, is still aware of the existence of an interior value hidden within and the state of being resigned to its exterior is dependent on a pre-existing knowledge of its opposite; the notion of the interior. While in visual perception, the object relies on its surface or exterior value, an interdependent conceptual relationship has now been established.

28

As Hesse opened up the cube to box, the appeal of its contents is also dependent on the possibility that it could be, or perhaps should be, hidden, contained and removed from view - an idea reinforced by the precise, organised exterior that conforms to the familiar Minimalist aesthetics and attempts to prevent personal connection. In ‘Impenetrable’, the ephemeral ​ ​ representation of the cube suggests even further a lack of necessity for structural values in order for the viewer to attribute meaning. The conceptual relationship established becomes dependent on the mediation of mind and body in relation to the form as inviting, but, as titled, impenetrable. Thereby reiterating a symbiosis between interior and exterior as its relational value, the simultaneous desired but impossible entry, becomes our conceptual relationship to this cube. The interdependent nature of the now contemporary cube, seen as a conceptual framework, lies not only within its own exchanges of internal and external, but in a relational existence to its viewer as possessing a mind and body. Without these elements from which to draw the comparison of internal and external existence, the cube as form and even as framework, becomes devoid of content and would exist solely in fact as six faces, twelve edges and eight vertices, holding a measure of volume, in a room, entirely objective, but completely without purpose as the viewer is resigned to a state of irrelevance.

29

Conclusion

Through the process of this discussion an understanding of the cube has been formed, deconstructed and rearranged to fit within a contemporary sculptural language. Beginning with an outline of the Minimalist intentions and the cube as fulfilling the need for an objective, purely logical form a picture is painted of a resolutely physical existence with no room for speculative knowledge.

However as ‘Accession II’ continues with the cubes formal exterior and opens ​ ​ up its interior to the possibility of containing the bodily and the psychological, a shift occurs and we are introduced to a Post-Minimalist idea in which form and content can intertwine to create a plethora of personal meanings with the use of an innovative and intuitive personal language. With the values of interior and exterior gradually emerging, and through an evaluation of works by Soto an Hatoum, firmly establishing themselves as fundamental to the contemporary cube, the viewer is given agency to experience rather than evaluate. These artists introduce the form as close as possible to formlessness, reinforcing an idea of the cube that is conceptual and not structural. The cube, in this essay, as in its manifestation in the gallery setting, acts as a framework within which the sculptural language of present day can be examined in direct connection to its formative moments. Thus, bringing with it not only the functionality of its unchanging form, but the opportunity to analyse the relationship between artist, object and viewer as a continuously challenged dynamic.

30

Reference List

Batchelor, D. (2004). Minimalism. : Tate Gallery Publishing, p.6-12, p.70-74

Beck, N. (2007). Discussing the 'uncanny' from 's essay ​ "Uncanny" in relation to . München: GRIN Verlag GmbH. ​

Brett, G. (1997). Survey. pp.34. in Archer, M., Brett, G. and Zegher, C. (1997). ​ ​ Mona Hatoum. London: Phaidon. ​

Brodsky, E (2009) ‘Latin American Artists in Postwar : Jesús Rafael Soto and Julio Le Parc, 1950–1970’, Doctor of Philosophy, Institute of Fine Arts

New York University, New York. p.16-18

Cason Barratt, C. (1996). Form as Content: Minimalist Cube as Institutional

Critique (1960-1969), BA, University of Florida, 1996 MLS, University of

South Carolina, 2003, p.17

Chadwick, W. (1991). and the surrealist movement. New York: ​ ​ Thames and Hudson, p.20.

C. Chave, A. (2018). The Devices of Mona Hatoum. Heuston: The Menil ​ ​ Collection, p.54. in

DeLosSantos, F. (2015). The Cube in Minimalist Art. ​ ​

Eberly, M., Holley, E., Johnson, M. and Mitchell, T. (2011). BEYOND

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL: A DYADIC THEORY OF RELATIONAL

ATTRIBUTIONS. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), pp.731-753. ​ ​

31

Golub, L. (1955). A Critique of Abstract . College Art Journal, ​ ​ [online] 14(2), pp.142-147. Available at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1543-6322%28195524%2914%3A2%3C142%3

AACOAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z [Accessed 8 Dec. 2019].

Hedlin Hayden, M. (2003). Out of Minimalism. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis ​ ​ Upsaliensis, p.61 and p.81-83

Hesse, E. (1979). Eva Hesse: Sculpture. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery, ​ ​ p.14.

Hesse. E (1975) as quoted in Swartz, A. (1997). Accession II: Eva Hesse's

Response to Minimalism. Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts, 71(1/2), p.41 ​ ​

Jabri, V. (2019). MONA HATOUM: EXILED ART AND THE POLITICS OF

RESISTANCE. Social Alternatives. Oct2001, 20(4), pp.37-40. ​ ​

Judd, D. (1964) in Ward, L., Lawrence, J. and Grudin, A. (2018). American ​ Masters 1940-1980. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia. ​

Karmel, P. (2012) An Art of Negation: Reductive and Minimal

Sculpture in Forde, G., Coelewij, L. and Adrichem, J. (2012). Stedelijk collection reflections, Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, pp.481-500.

Krauss, R. (1979). Grids. October, 9, pp.58-60. ​ ​

LeWitt, S., Baume, N., Flatley, J. and Lee, P. (2001). Incomplete open cubes. ​ ​ Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

32

Lippard, L. and Hesse, E. (1992). Eva Hesse. New York: Da Capo Press, ​ ​ p.105.

Morris, R. (1966). Notes on Sculpture in Battcock, G. (1995). Minimal art. ​ ​ ​ ​ Berkeley: University of California Press, pp 223-233.

Sabar, S (2013), What's a Gestalt?, Gestalt Review, 17(1): 6-34 ​

Swartz, A. (1997). Accession II: Eva Hesse's Response to Minimalism.

Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts,, 71(1/2), p.36. ​

White, M. (2018). Mona Hatoum. Terra Infirma. New Haven: Yale University ​ ​ Press, p.101.

33

Bibliography

Arnheim, R. (2010). Entropy and art. Berkeley: University of California Press. ​ ​

Batchelor, D. (2004). Minimalism. London: Tate Gallery Publishing, p.6-12, p.70-74

Beck, N. (2007). Discussing the 'uncanny' from Sigmund Freud's essay ​ "Uncanny" in relation to surrealism. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH. ​

Brett, G. (1997). Survey. pp.34. in Archer, M., Brett, G. and Zegher, C. (1997). ​ ​ Mona Hatoum. London: Phaidon. ​

Brodsky, E (2009) ‘Latin American Artists in Postwar Paris: Jesús Rafael Soto and Julio Le Parc, 1950–1970’, Doctor of Philosophy, Institute of Fine Arts

New York University, New York. p.16-18

Cason Barratt, C. (1996). Form as Content: Minimalist Cube as Institutional

Critique (1960-1969), BA, University of Florida, 1996 MLS, University of

South Carolina, 2003, p.17

Chadwick, W. (1991). Women artists and the surrealist movement. New York: ​ ​ Thames and Hudson, p.20.

C. Chave, A. (2018). The Devices of Mona Hatoum. Heuston: The Menil ​ ​ Collection, p.54. in

DeLosSantos, F. (2015). The Cube in Minimalist Art. ​ ​

34

Eberly, M., Holley, E., Johnson, M. and Mitchell, T. (2011). BEYOND

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL: A DYADIC THEORY OF RELATIONAL

ATTRIBUTIONS. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), pp.731-753. ​ ​

Fer, B. (1994). Bordering on Blank: Eva Hesse and Minimalism. Art History, ​ ​ 17(3), pp.424-449.

Golub, L. (1955). A Critique of . College Art Journal, ​ ​ [online] 14(2), pp.142-147. Available at: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1543-6322%28195524%2914%3A2%3C142%3

AACOAE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z [Accessed 8 Dec. 2019].

Hedlin Hayden, M. (2003). Out of Minimalism. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis ​ ​ Upsaliensis, p.61 and p.81-83

Hesse, E., LeWitt, S., Roberts, V., Lippard, L. and Swenson, K. (2014).

Converging lines. Austin, TX: . ​

Hesse, E. (1979). Eva Hesse: Sculpture. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery, ​ ​ p.14.

Hesse. E (1975) as quoted in Swartz, A. (1997). Accession II: Eva Hesse's

Response to Minimalism. Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts, 71(1/2), p.41 ​ ​

Jabri, V. (2019). MONA HATOUM: EXILED ART AND THE POLITICS OF

RESISTANCE. Social Alternatives. Oct2001, 20(4), pp.37-40. ​ ​

Judd, D. (1964) in Ward, L., Lawrence, J. and Grudin, A. (2018). American ​ Masters 1940-1980. Canberra: National Gallery of Australia. ​

35

Karmel, P. (2012) An Art of Negation: Reductive Painting and Minimal

Sculpture in Forde, G., Coelewij, L. and Adrichem, J. (2012). Stedelijk collection reflections, Amsterdam: Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam, pp.481-500.

Krauss, R. (1979). Grids. October, 9, pp.58-60. ​ ​

Krauss, R. (1979). Sculpture in the Expanded Field. October, 8, p.30. ​ ​

LeWitt, S., Baume, N., Flatley, J. and Lee, P. (2001). Incomplete open cubes. ​ ​ Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Lippard, L. (1973). Six Years: the Dematerialisation of the Art Object from ​ 1966 to 1972. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ​

Lippard, L. and Hesse, E. (1992). Eva Hesse. New York: Da Capo Press, ​ ​ p.105.

Malone, M. (2012). The Porous Practice of Drawing: System, Seriality, and ​ the Handmade Mark in Minimal and . ​

Merleau-Ponty, M. (2010). Phenomenology of Perception. London [u.a.]: ​ ​ Routledge, pp.77-84.

Morris, R. (1966). Notes on Sculpture in Battcock, G. (1995). Minimal art. ​ ​ ​ ​ Berkeley: University of California Press, pp 223-233.

Sabar, S. (2013), What's a Gestalt?, Gestalt Review, 17(1): 6-34 ​

Sexton, S. (2013) ‘The Inbetweenness of Casting: Louis Bourgeois, Eva Hesse and Rachel Whiteread’, Master of Arts, University of Illinois, .

36

Swartz, A. (1997). Accession II: Eva Hesse's Response to Minimalism.

Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts,, 71(1/2), p.36. ​

Verhaegh, S. (2016). Blurring Boundaries: Carnap, Quine, and the

Internal–External Distinction. Erkenntnis, 82(4), pp.873-890. ​ ​

Warner, M. (2004). Marina Warner on Art and Illusion, Eyes Lies and ​ Illusions: Optical Wizardry through Time in Biddle, L. (2018). Fifty Years of ​ ​ ​ Great Art Writing. London: Hayward Gallery Publishing. ​

White, M. (2018). Mona Hatoum. Terra Infirma. New Haven: Yale University ​ ​ Press, p.101.

37