Asher Michael Writings 1973 1983 on Works 1969 1979

5/26/2018 Asher Michael Writings 1973 1983 on Works 1969 1979

1/125

. . .


2/125

l l lllm3 32 6 7 8

Dale DueJUffl 9i O /

i:II

eM No 3 ... OS

JUN 9... . .

I

fI,

Writings 1973- 1983 on rks 1969 979


3/125

Michael Asher

Writings 1973 1983 on Works 1969 979

Wri tten in collaboration with Benjamin HD Buch loh

Edited by Benjamin HD Buch loh


4/125

The Nova Scotia SeriesSour ce Materials of the Contempora ry ArtsEditor: Benjamin H. D. Buchloh CONTENTSBernhard LeitnerClaes OldenburgYvonne RainerSimone FortiSteve ReichHans HaackeDonald JuddMichael SnowPaul-Em ile BorduasDanGrahamearl Andre/Holl is FramptonDaniel BurenLeslie SheddenSerge Guilbaut (ed.)

The Architecture of L Udwig W ttgensteinRaw Notesork 1961 1973Handbook in MotionWr t ings About MusicFraming and Being FramedComplete Wrtings 1959 -1975Cover to CoverEcritslWritings 1942 19 58Vd eo-Arch itecture-Television12 Dialogues 1962-1963Les Couleurs: sculptures Les Formes: peinturesMining Photographs and other Pictures 194819 68Modernism and Moderniiy - TheVanvouverConference Papers

Volumes 1-8 were edited by Kasper Koenig Editors Note

AuthorsIntroduction

VII

ix

February 13 March 8, 1970Gladys K. Montgomery Art Center atPomona CollegeClaremont California 3 1

Published byThe Press of the Nova Scotia Colege of Art and Desgn5163 Duke StreetHalifax, Nova Scotia ,CanadaB 3 J 3 J 6Co-published byTheMuseum of Contemporary Art Los Angeles414 Boyd StreetLos Angeles, California 900 13

Copyright by Michael Asher and The Presso f the NovaScotiaCollegeof Art and Design, Hal ifaxA ll rightsreservedPrinted and bound in Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaDesgn: MichaelAsher andGerald PryorCove Destgn: Sarah PughProduct ion: Allan ScarthPrinted by Guy Harrison

CANADIAN CATALOGUINGIN PUBLICATION DATAAsher, Michael.Writi ngs 1973 -1983on WOfks 1969-1979(The Nova SCot ia series: 15)Bibliography: p.ISBN 0-919616-27-51. Asher, Michael. 2. Conceptual art- UnitedSlates. 3. Art, Modern- 20th century U ni tedStates. I. Buchloh, Benjamin H.D. II. NovaScotia Colegeof Artand Design. II I. Till e. IV. Series: The Nova SCotia series: sourcematerialso f theccotempceery arts: 15.N6537.A83A4 1983 709 ' .2'4 C83098835-1

Aprit l l May 3, 196918'6x69x 112 12 x47 x 1136x29 8x 31 931,6San Francisco Art InstituteSan Francisco CaliforniaMay I1-June 28, 1969TheAppearing/Disappearing Image /

ObiectNewport Harbor Art MuseumNewport Beach California

May 19 July 6, 1969Antilllusion : Procedures /MaterialsWhitney Museum of American ArtNew York New York

September 4 ctober 5, 1969557087Seattle Art Museum Pal/ilionSeattle WashingtonNOl/ember 7 December 31 1969La Jolla Museum of ArtLa Jolla CaliforniaDecember 30 1969 March I , 1970SpacesMuseum of Modern ArtNew o rk New York

1

5

8

12

18

24

May I I July 4 197124 Young Los Angeles ArtistsLos Angeles County Museum of ArtLos Angeles California 43March 22 April16 1972Market Street ProgramVenice California 50June 30-0ctober 8, 1972Documenta VMuseum FridericianumKassel WestGermany 57

January 8January 11, 1973Gallery A 402California Institute of the ArtsValencia California 64

May 14 May 18, 1973TheUnil/ersity of California at IrvineGallery 167Irvine California 70Augusl 18, 1973Project Inc .Boston Massachusetts 72

August 24 September 16, 1973Lisson GalleryLondon England .... . 76

_Al.lfOItNIA STAlt: 1 ttt.Y1 :CHNIC UN I\ EIb Y. I VlWo INA~ O N CAUfClftHA ?7 8


5/125

April 19 May 22 197795

Faculty Exh;bWon and StudentExhibWonCalifornia Institute of the ArtsValencia CaUfornia

July 3 November 13 19771 1 SkulpturWestfaJisches Landesmuseumtii r Kunst und Kulturgeschichte

Miinster West Germany1 4 August 3 August 29 19 77StedeJijk Van AbbemuseumEindhoven Netherlands

October 9 November 2 19771 8 Los Angeles in the SeventiesFort Worth Art MuseumFort Worth Texas

Marc h 1-ApriJ 15 1979Los Angeles in the Seventies112 Joslyn Art MuseumOmaha Nebraska

June 8 August 121979118 The Museum of Con temporary ArtChicago Illinois

June 9 August 5 197973rd American ExhibitionThe Art Institute of Chicago125 Chicago Ill inois

Exhibitions

138 Bibliography

September 4 5eptember 28 1973Heiner Friedrich Gallery ologneWest Germany

September 13October 8 1973Galleria ToselliMilan Italy

September21 ctober 12 1974Claire Cop ley Gallery Inc .Los Angeles Cali forn ia

October 7 ctober 1 1974Anna Leonowens GalleryNova Scotia College of Artand DesignHalifax Nova Scotia Canada

February 24 March 9 1975The Gallery of Otis Art InstituteLos Angeles California

September 1975Vision, Number 1edited by Tom Mar;oni published byKathan Brown Crown Point PressOakland California

January February 8 1976Via Los AngelesPortland Center for the Visual ArtsPortland Oregon

May I May 22 1976Floating MuseumSan Francisco California

March 2 April 1 1976The ClocktowerThe Institute for Art and UrbanResources Inc.

Hew York New York

July 18 cto ber 16 1976Ambiente erte dal futurismo ad ogg;Venice BiennaleVenice /laly

January 15 February 1 1977Los Angeles Institute of Contemporary ArtLos Angeles California

82

88

146

February 8 26 1977Morgan Thomas at Claire CopleyGallery Inc.Claire Copley Gallery Inc. a tMorgan Thomas918 North LaCienega Bou levardLos Angeles California2919 Santa Mon ica BoulevardSanta Monica csu tom i 154

16

164

174

184

19

196

2 7

223

226

Edito rsNote

Thisvolume th efifteenth in the NovaScot ia Series- presents thework by Michael Asher f rom 969 to 979 and t hedescript ions and commentarieson t hiswork thatwere written by Mi chaelAsher forth is bookfrom 197 3 wit h mycollaboration from 19 78 ) to19 8 3 . It is an attempt on th e side of t he author andt he editor to makeaccessibl e to readers and viewerst he documents of an art ist ic practice that onecou ldcharacterizeasbeing both extremely ephemeral andtransient and t ha t is n t he view of t he e di tor tt hesametime among the mostconcrete and materialistaesthet ic producti onso f the Sixtiesand Seventies.Ashers work comm it t ed it self to the development o f a p ract iceof situational aesthet ics thatinsisted o n a cri tic al refusal t o provide an existingapparatus with legi ti m izing aesthe tic information ,whileat the same t ime revealing, if not changing, t heexisting condi tions of th e apparatus . More th an anyot her artist of hisgenerat ion that I am awa re o f did hemai ntai n th at stance once it had been defined afterthe shortcomings and compromises of Minimal arthadbecome apparent in t he l ate Sixties and Conceptual art had revealed its idealist fallacies.Whennot ions such assite specificity or dernaterialization and the denial t ocommodify thework hadalready become myths that were used bythe inst itu tions to rejuvenate the ir l egitimation at ahistoricalmoment when t h ei r liberal humanist public imagehad come under scrutiny by philosophersand artistsalike,A sher s wo rk increased the speci fici ty of itscri tical analysis of t he conditio ns of aesth etic product ion and reception with everyw ork that heinscri bedinto t heinstitu tion al framework . It ls as a result of theradi cality o f t ha t speci fic analysis its emphas is oninstitutional and spatial cont iguity, and a sense oft emporality that isoperational) t hat Asher s work- with t he exception of one wo rk in a p ub liccollec tio n and another work that wasco mm issioned by aprivate collectorh sceased to exist without anyvestige whatsoever. In that respectalone it differsalready f ro m most other work of theconceptualperiod that objectified itself after all in the photo -

document, t he written defin ition or t he arch ive asa rt object ).The books paradoxical func tion - to documentas discourse what operated as practiceat one t imeor, to be moreaccu rate, as bot h, practi ce anddiscou rse}- result s part ial ly from thefac t that thework seems to havegenerated th e sameresistanceont he si de o f t he inst itutions and the historians andcritics and col lectors) that i t p erformed it self withrespect to t henotion of visual cul ture t hat th eyreprese nt . Or, what is more appropriate historically,the def inition of aestheti c producti on as it is inherentin Asher s work couldnot be accomodated cult urall yas t he wo rk of most art ists in the twent iet h centurywho profound ly affected, i f not outrightl y dismantledt he modern ist f ramework). Qu i t e to the opposite, assoon as t he legit im ation crisis of th e insti tu t ionsthatconta in the discou rse of visual culture seemed to beovercomenot by a resolutionof t heir increasinglyapparent contradictions and confl icts of interest, ofcourse, but by a rigid socio-pot it ical reconst itutionoftra dit ional hierarchiesand the aesthetic myt hsthatadorn t hem, the radical practice of artistsof Ashersgeneration could be marginalized to t he extent th at thework wasmade toappear historical before it hadevenproperly entered t he cultu re. I hope it will be one ofthe fun ctionsof thisvolume t o publiclyco ntradictt hat tendency and todenega te the falsification ofhistory that goesalong wit h i t.If it is one of t he paradoxes of t hi s book totran sfer from practi ce to discourse what was definedas atemporally and spatially specificand efficientoperation , anoth er one is its attempt to reconstructt he material da ta of the work as accurately as possib le w he n i n f ac t t he work s strategiesrequ ired asystematic abste nt i on from aqua nt if iable enduringconstruct . In fact , one of t he ambitionsof the aut horand one of the most difficult and time consumingtasks in t he formation of th e manuscri pt for t hispubl icat ion wastherender ing and reconstruction oft heactua l data architectural size, di mensions ofareasaffect ed by the part icular work, placement,


6/125

VIII

location, etc .) which indicate the problems of thattransformationtha t thebook tries to perform.It might well t urn out to be the most cumbersomeaspect of the writ ings and onfirst glance theleast att ract ive for readers working their waythroughthe accumulat ion of minutely specified data andmeasurements of each individual installation. If thi scondition reflects certa inly the author s concern tomaintain the material element o fh is practice evenwithin its transformation intod iscourse (andi t mightindicate his relatived isregard for the latter), I wouldall the moreemphasizethat it is in th is rigorousdevotion to themateriality of his deconstruct ive practic e that Ashers position might best be understood .I might go further and saythat among the manyrewarding experiences that working with MichaelAsheron this project imp lied, the most important hasbeenthe recognition to what extent of material deta ilthe contemplat ion and analysis of history and ideology canbe (andhaveto bel developed in ordertogenerateknowledge through the construction of perceptualmodels. To put i t simply: if the tradition ofsculptural production upon which Asher has obviously founded the development of his work couldhave a meaningful continuation and evolution (andthat mode of product ion couldclaim aut hent ici ty andval idity) it would be in that devotion to all the material cond itionswith in which anaesthe tic construct isproduced and perceived.I wou ld l ike to thank Michael Asher forhavingoffered methe experience to work with himonth isbookand to haveconf ronted me with those attitudesin hi s work and dur ing th e preparation of themanuscript . Among the many ind ividua ls who havebeeninvolved at some stageof t he planning, preparat ionand production of this volume (their namesareacknowledged separately) I would li ke to thank especially l awrence Kenny, the architect who has produced most of the drawin gs and plans for t hedocumentation with aclearunderstanding and acommitment to the project, and , resultingf rom thatwith excellence that not many contemporaryarchitectswould be wil l i ng to provide in their ambi tion tocompetewi th , if not replace, the art ist.Furthermore, th is volume of the Nova Scot iaSeries, probably morethan any other before it , in thetime and means that the product ion of the manuscript and the book requ ired, has put considerabledemands on Garry N. Kennedy, the president of theNova Scotia Collegeof Art Design. For his continued support,and for his generous patience with andinterest in a longand complicated project, I would liketoexpress my sincere thanks.Final ly I would like to thankGerald Pryorwhohasdesigned the book in col laborationw ith MichaelAsher.Benjamin H. D. BuchlohNewor , July1983

uthor ntroduction

Late in 973 Kasper Koenig, theneditorof the Pressof the NovaScotia College of Art and Design , proposed that I should publish adocumentat ion of mywork for the Nova Scotia Series. The projected volume shouldcomprise writ ingsand detailed documentat ion (photographs and architectural drawings) oneach individualwork that I had completed by the timeof publication . I accepted the condi tions set forth byth is proposal sincethe book would provide mewit han opportunity to documentand problematize myproduct ion and It wou ld offer a coherent reading ofmy work that would haveremained otherwise isolatedand dispersed.From 973 97 6 I developedthe first writtendraft s while Iwas teachingandwhile I continued toproduce work. In 976Kasper Koenig le ft the Pressof the NovaScotia College tocommit himself todifferentprojects, and in 978Benjamin H.D. Buchlohwasappoin ted asthe newedi tor of the Press. Prior tohis appointment , Benjamin Buchlohand I had corresponded ona contr i u tion for the j ournal that hewasedi tingat that time. Wefirst met in 976 at theVenice Biennale and weagreed that hewould write anessay for the catalogue of my forthcoming exh i i tionat t he Stedelij kvan Abbe Museum in Eindhoven. In 978 Benjamin Buchloh proposed the cont inuationof the bookproject. suggesting that the few initi lwrit ings and ll futurewr itingsshould bedevelopedbeyond the i r l imi ts ofmaterial descript ion and thatthey should includeelements of aperceptual andtheoretical analysis of my work.I agreed to this proposal in spite of the risk inherent in suchan approach. Becauseof the change inapproaching the project , the editor had to invest asignificant amount of t ime in the development of thewrit ings. Thisbook is therefore the result of a closecollaborationbetween author andeditor; the writi ngsare of ten the resultof a joint authorship. Nevertheless the reader should know that all proposalsfordescr ipt ion and analysis t hat were cont ributed bytheeditor, wereexamined carefully un til I optedto include or exclude those proposals.

Although the readermightexpect otherwise, thistechn ique of writing in collaboration is most likely theslowestp rocess, but both author and editor considered it to be themethod that would guaranteeasprecise a documentation as currentlypossible.Inretrospect Icansaythatthe nature of ourworking relati onship was partly defined by BenjaminBuchloh s crit ical and historical interest inmy practice.Hiscontribut ions to the format ion of this textaffected the outcome of the project considerabl In myexperience I do not know of any publicat ion where anartistand acri tic have shared authorsh ip t o thisdegree. Our collaboration has been essent ial for theanalysis of theindividual works aswell asfor anunderstandingof the general historical context . Yet Ihope that the fusion of the twoapproaches has notresul tedina seamless text , but rather reveals theparallelism that exists within the twoenterprises ofart production and criti cism that are generally considered separate if not opposit ional.As th ismanuscript wasbeing proofread, BenjaminBuchloh and I were stil l di scussing whether toadd orsubtractwrit ings. Also, due tothe circumstancesofjoint ly writi ng the textsfor this book, we had to agreeto an arti f icialc ut-off date for the writ ing and thedocumentation of my production. It would havemeantto delay thepublication of th is volume endlesslyi fwehadattempted toinclude everynewworkthatI produced while the documentation was established forthi s publication . Thedate that wechosewas 979Eventhough the more recent work since 979seemsless removed in t ime and more accessible , Iwould very much hopet o publish ata laterdateasecond volume. Inthe meantimethe reader is encouragedto view the operation of my presentwork and compareit tothe wor in this documentation and itstexts.This book s fin ished product will have amater ial permanence that contradicts the actual impermanenceof theart-work,yetparadoxically funct ionsasa testimony tothat impermanence of myproduction.Only thoseworkswere included in \he documentat ion thatwereactually installed at some t ime in an


7/125

Theaut hor and editor woul d like to thank the follow-ing for having assisted in variousways in the prepara-t ion of the manuscript of th is book:

x

inst itutional context of a museum, commercial gal-lery or exhibit ion. Al l proposalsor projects t ha t Imight have submi tt edor consideredand tha t tu rnedout to be unfeasible or were refused by the insti tutionfor otherreasons, are not considered to be work andhave therefore been excluded from the documentation.Each chapter t riest o assemble as accuratelyaspossible the documentation of the individual work orthoseaspects of it that can be represented inoneform or another): text. photographs, drawingsandarchitectural plans. Even though this will at bestapproximate certain aspects of the actual work, Ihope the reader wil l beable to developa criti calexamination of thework on the grounds of this material.I am indebted to Benjamin Buch loh for hisadvice, the insight that he has invested into thisbookproject,o f the ti me he spent assisting mewithwritin g and for his edit ing of the book.I would also like to thank Kasper Koenig for thecommitment and guidance during the initia l phase ofthi s project. Equally, my thanks should go to Garry N.Kennedy, t he president of the Nova Scoti a College ofArt and Design, who has supported this project withgenerositya nd pat ience for an extended period oft ime. I wish to thank also the various persons whowere on the staff of thePressof t he Nova ScotiaCollegeduringthe years of the preparationof th isbookfor their dedicated attention to thedi ffere nt stages ofits manuscript preparation and production.Michael Asherl osAngeles, March 9 3

,

Anna AstnerDaniel BurenDorit CypisCourtney DonnellThierry de DuveGerald FergusonGretchen GlicksmanMarge GoldwaterDan GrahamIan Hazl ittKim HubbardThan HyunGary KibbinsJohn Knight

Connie LewallenJennifer LichtSarah PughSteve PrinaThomas RepensekAnne RorimerCora RosevearAllan ScarthMark StahlBarbara TaylorJohn VincBob WilkieChris Williams


8/125

April May3, 196918 6 x 6 9 x 2 x 47 x 11316x 29 8 X 31 9 316San Francisco Art InstituteSan Francisco, California

Poster andannouncement lor theexhibinon 186 X6 9 X11 h ~ X47' X X29 'SW X31'9 3/ 16 at the an FranciscoArt Institute, 1969.

The wor k a t the San Franci sco Art Inst itute was definedexclusively by the gallery s preexisting architectural elements and visible equipment. Givens wereconsidered to be thoseelements thatwerenot prefabricated or produced and not inserted fromoutside intotheexisting institution for the production of t he work.The given elements were: t he whole real galleryspace whose aggregate wa ll dimensionswere 41 feet2 i nches by 29 feet B h inches, with a maximum cei ling height of 36 feet. The gallery hadthree doors- oneused for entry/exit, the second leading to an off ice,and the th ird one b locked off. Natural ambient lightwas diffused mainly from a skyl ight t ha t bisected thelengthof the gallery, and from four windows,20 feet offthe floor;in addit ion, shielded fluorescent lights l inedthe perimeter of t hegallery 10 feet from the f loor.Theactual consti tuent elements of the work wereinterlocking modular wal l panels. Nine of the panels(each 10 feet high by 4 feet wide) wereattached together to form a 36 foot partit ion which wasabuttedagainst the 29 toot Bva inch south structural wall.Installed 10 feet from theentry the partition extendedthe length of the 41 root z inch wa ll, forming a passageway to the larger area 5 feet 2 inches wide. Twoth irds of the gallery were light arid airy, but had noreal exit; one-thirdwas essentially a hallway, slightlydarker, invit ing the visitor to walk aroundthe partitioninto the more open area.Installati on took less than ha lf a day and wasaccompl ished with the assistance of students from theart school. Once the panels were joined together, theverti cal seamswere finished with tape andpainted tocreate a continuous wall, similar to the preexistingexhibi t ion walls. The struct ural wal ls were 26 feethigher than the partit ion walls.Modular walls are designed to function as a backdrop for the presentation of paint ingsand objects usingreal space. Theyare successfullyemp loyed in exhibit ion inst itut ions to vary interior architectural designand to increase the existing amount of wal l surface.They are support and decoration for , he work as opposed to being par tof t hework. Modular walls involve

1


9/125

South wall durmg tne consrrucucn of partitionwall. Photo-graph by Michael Asher.South wall wrthopenentry/exi t of gallery space and smallerbisec ted area on the lell with partition wal l Insteuencn dUringconstruc tion.Northwal wsthendof parnnon weumstaua tlcnduongccn-suucncn. Closed curta ins behind thenorthwall cover muralbyDi egoRivera

] .

1 a structural ambiguity : they const itute a static struc-ture, whereas. in fact. they are movable; they appearto be archi tectural surfaces when they are reall yplanar objects.Thedecision to useexisting elements asdetermi-nants for the work s opposed to prefabricatedmaterials was basedon the assumption that theviewer w most l ikely be famil iar with certain pre-existing characteristics of theinstitutional context. Thework related, therefore, more directl y to the viewerspriorexperience of that context, making it less likelyto be read as an arbitrary abstract ion.

NORTHELEVATION , t ;, ,

PLAN

,,, ,.. .. 7

m ,s lrm

2

SOUTH ELEVT ON

} r

Groundptan and elevation of theInstallation m the Diego RiveraGall erv. OrawtnQbv l awrenceKennv. 3


10/125

Completed partition wal l installation photographed from thepassagewaybetween theentry ext zoneareaon theleft andtheopena rea onther ight. Photograph by Phl Liners.

May June 28 1969The AppearingDisappearing ImageObjectNewport Harbor rtMuseumNewport Beach California

4

oster/Announcement for theexhibition TheAppearinglisappearing lrnage/Gbject at theNewportHarborArtMuseum,1969

In response to Joe Goode's window paintings of themid-sixties, and wondering why he would not use theactual windows as he claimed to be interested in thewindow phenomenon, I decided to open my own window and sit beside it, and feel the air as it passedthrough. This was the fi rst step that eventually led totheair works.Next I opened various windows in the apartmentin east-west directions and observed the air as it condensed and accelerated in corridortike zones of theapartment (Venturi effect). Finally, I bought a standard fan f rom Sears and placed i t on the f loor.In the airworks I attempted to avoid specific, formally ordered art-object materiality. Mos t of the airworks were ready for public exhibit i on by the end of1967. A group of pressuredair works had already beeninstalled in 1967 in a garageadjacent to myapartment.The production of these works is documented in thesales receipts for materials bought for their construc tion. On August 2, 967, I purchased a simple f ixedfan from Sea rs.On August 4 I returned the fi xed fan and purchased two oscil lating floor-model fans. On August 8I bought a Dayton airblower to seewhat it would do incombination wit h t he oscillating f loor fans. I decidedthat I wanted the air-generating units concealed, soon August 27 I purchased from L M Lumber sometwo-by-fours to frame-in the cei ling, and, a litt lelater,enough drywall to f in ish the garage walls and construct four-by-four movable panelsto be placed abovetheceil ing frame. The air blower was installed abovethe ceil ing to generate a vert ical column of acceleratedair from ceil ing to floor. Thediameterof the ceil ing outlet was approximately 4 inches, the columndiameter gradually increasing toward the fl oor. Theair units were moved around to d iff erent ceiling outlets to p roduce linear, ambient, and planar bodies ofair for a more efficient and versatile air-deliverysysem.On October 31 of the same yearI purchased two largeair-conditioning blowers and mounted themon adjustable platforms suspended above the ,ceiling. t constructeda plenum chambertoequalize the air generated

5


11/125

by the blowers. Duet ing attached to theblowers madeit possib le to create a continuous planar body of airand to insert it like a wa ll across the fu ll width of thegarage from floor to cei ling.Subsequently I extended the dueting so that itdelivered air simultaneously to four out lets approximately 4 inchesin diameter, located inall four corners,which directed air at an angle to converge atthe centerof the gar g f loor. Finally, I installed thetwooscillat ing fans above the ceiling at opposite ends on thesame side to generate randomly phased light air currents throughout the space. A fine mesh screen fitover the ceil ing out let to diffuse the air.All the hardware was given away or sold in thesummer of 9 8 , except the Dayton blower with itsflexible tubing. Further development in the areas ofnoise reduction and columniation based on greatertechnical know-how and improv d equipment resultedin the exhibition The Appearing/Disappearing ImageObject , and later. a t the Whitney Museum of American Art , New York, in the exhibit ion Ant i-Ill usion:Procedures/Materials.In the Newport Harbor installation, a planar bodyof air was located just insidethe main p ss g w y tothe inner gallery of the museum. The pressured airextended across the entranceway so that visitors encountered it on entering or leaving the museum. Atpoint of origin the plane was 3 feet wide (parallel tothe doorw y) and 3 feet f inches thick, anddispersedgradually in both dimensions unt il it reached the floorand spread into ambient air.The planar air body was generated by a selfcontained blower unit (rented from Curta inaire ofCalifornia). The blower was centered- with approximately 1 foot on either side- between the joists of asuspended ceiling (4 feet by 7 feet) . which hadbeenconstructed and attached to the exist ing west wall atthe height of thedoorheader, 6 feet 7 inchesf rom thefloor. The length of theconstructed ceiling concealedthe blower unit from view.

\,

\

,

///

Diagramfor a seriesofair works 1965 -1966. This isone atfourair works which werei nstalled in MIchael Asher'sgaragein 1965 -1966 . Drawng byMichaelAsher.

/

/

7

AIR ECONOMY CORPORATION11 'ttDUSnJAl laIVi1 Dm)N, iI. I .


12/125

End View

Bottom VewSecion01Installation

i

I6, Vew j

r

II v..-;. - St JOf Ol 1- 1- ~ I - - f - - - - t - - I l - - I - - , - t

I l ii , S U /W L, II I I- I ,- ), I


13/125

10

I J

/ ,\\\I

-

t: I I II I II I I I, , I. .: I , I I I I.., ,, ,, ,, ,

- - I

I

l, .-, ,, ,

I, ,, -,. - ,, , , , .-,,,

- l-- I

- lz0>WWI0Z

o--

11


14/125

September 4 ctober 5 1969557 87Seattle Art useum PavilionSeattleWashington

Drawing by Michael Asher. documenting the elementsand their placement in the installationfor theSeatt leArt Museum Pavlion, September 196 9.

12Index cardsa nd envelope functi oning as catalogue of theexhbition 557087 at the Seattle Art Museum Pavili on,

Unt il now I had not attempted to investigate the funct ion of a space in its ownterms. In all instances, mywork i ke that of most contemporary artists that Iknewofw s involved with adding an element intoagiven architectura l context. Even thoughthe work atthe San Francisco Art Institute had reduced thi s pract i ce of adding objects to a given space to the use ofobjects already found wit hin the given space, theSeattlei nstallat ion was the first t ime the actual enti respace was incorporated in the work.After accepting an invitation to part icipate in agroup exhibiti on at the Seat t le Art Museum Pavil ion,my original proposal turned out to be unreal izable.I submi t ted no further proposal on arr ival, and wasgiven a place in the exhibit ion area and five days todo the work.Throughout the museum the ceili n gheight was15 feet; inthearea allocated for my work, which measured 18 feet by 30 feet, the ceili ng was 9 feet high.The v iewer could reach the area from the main entrance of thepavilion by crossing the adjacent largeexhibition space, where numerous works by other artists were on display. This exhibition spacewas illumi nated primari ly by natural light enteringfrom the southfacade s glass curtain wall.I partitioned the space with two movable wal ls(9 feet by9 feet) to bisect i ts wid th and to reduce itssize to approximately a squarelike format . The areas14 -foot width was formed bytwo parallel preexist ingwalls. The preexisting wall adjacent to the large gallery was 11 feet long, thus leaving an s- toot access tothe area. Parallel to thi s wall I placed a th ird movablewall (8 f eet by 9 feet) in front of the accessway, 2feet into the large gallery.The th ird movable wa ll also funct ioned as a lightbaffl e for the large gallery s glass curtain wall. It servedsimultaneously asascreen for art ifi cia l light from theinterior of the partial lyenclosed area, where two 150 watt blue spotlightswere installed in preexisting ceiling sockets that were directed toward the screen. Therest of the fluorescent and incandescent l ight f ixturesof the enclosed space were not used.

The natural l ight converged at the baff le andmerged with the artificial light in the partially enclosedarea. The artificial light did not passthrough thescreen.The surface of the structural walls of the enclosedspace and the movable walls were all covered in thesame light bur lap. Both static and movable wallswereframed by anodized alum inum angles. The movablewalls were weighted at the bottom so that they couldstand without being secured to the floor. The color ofthe floorwas approximately the same as the color ofthe walls. Where the movable walls were joined andwhere they joined the structural walls in the partia llyenclosed room, I fabricated threewooden blockswhichwere inserted into the wall s at their bases. The verti cal seambetween the two movable walls was coveredwith masking tape to make a continuous wall similarto the continuity of the permanent wal ls.The three wooden blocks, the masking tape, andthe two blue ligh t bulbswere the only objects addedto the 14 footby IS foot area.The two movable wallsas object s c reated the partial l y enclosed space. Thecondi t ion of the third movable wall was clearly defined :it served as a partition for entry/exit; connected to theceiling, it was visible from both sides. Each part oftheenclosed area coul d be seen in terms of its priororJemporary functi on.Can space itself become an object of percepti on?I would have created an enclosu re in a given encloSure because thatwas theonly way to adapt the proposit io n t o the given conditions of the group show.It is very clear tha t I was creati ng a space in relat ion toa ll theseobjects. If you create an enc losure inan enclosure, it is considered a more int imate space.Either everybody in the show objectified his workor t he artists closed thei r works off .I had always asked myself ; Wh y put stu ff on thewall , y put stuff on the floor? And then I ended upfacing the fact that what I was doing wasprobably anobject. Looking at blue l ight , I wanted people to seethat they were lookingat blue light.What is the difference between making a roomwith nothingin i t and inserting an objec t in to a room?

What is a room with nothing in it? After al l, it wasmade out of a lot of stuff, but people treated it asthough it wasan empty, leftover room of the museumthat had not been fi lled, with blue light s in it . Therewas sti ll the question: W hy place anything at all in aroom, in a space, in an area?The work emerged historicallyat precisely the moment when Minimal sculptu re developed into Conceptual ar t. The work tr ied to come to terms with both,without being partof either. At the t ime of t he Seattleshow I st ill thought ofthe artistas being an innovator.So I asked; Why are a ll these artists conti nui ng toproduce objects? I wasn t aware of what I was doing:I wasdoing objects. Real space for me was defined asthe space between the object and the viewer.The work is accepting the concrete materiality ofpreexistinggivens, or responding to the aesthetic pract i ce of the moment ; which is to sa that the work isessentially an inquiry into aesthetic practi ce.Traditional practice had been to insert somethinginto a space rather than to comment on that insertion.A space with an objectin it is dominated by the object,rather than by itself .So the idea in thi s work was to use the partia ll yenclosed area as the object.The work could be analyzed in terms of i ts speci f ic situat ion, or its ent ire cultural context. It wasn tthe walls that were objectified , fo r they were treatedas secondary objects. Nor could they be conceived ofas a support system, since I used them for somethingelse. Any analysis assumed either a sculp tural o r architectural determinant. Yet a sculp tural approachwould have defeated the purpose.The walls were stil l par t o f the bu ilding for me; Iwanted to incorporate their use in to my work; onceincorporated into the work, they would be read dif ferent ly, as long as they did not have anything on them.Their use is a culturaldefini tion, so once again I wasresponding to a cultu ral definiti on.By concretizing the work you automatically havesome material analysis, and a theoret,ical analysis atthe same time. Why would an analysis always have to

13


15/125

Detail- viewof theinstallat on showing passagewayand part Inon wall camera viewingnorth-easl dIrection .

14

precede the fact? I first felt that an analysis partlyprecedes, and partly comes af ter the fact. My feeli ngis nowthat onecould pose the analysis oneself, but itwou ld be a very self-consciousact. ne might saythatthe fact tha t the work re lates to othe r works dire t lymakes it a response.

et eu-vewInto the mstauanon from p ss gewaycameraviewmg south-west.


16/125

16

Jr II

o

cce-

eattle rt MuseumPavilion InteriorElevalion Drawing bylawrenceenny

WEST L VATION FRO M G LL Y

LW ST EL VATION OF INSTALLATION

J I I I 123 45 1 ft.

17


17/125

November December31, 1969La Jolla Museum of ArtLa Jolla California

Frst floorgroundplan of theLaJolla Museumof Art.

:, II Ii

_ -,,

_ J

II

:.-1- f. , I\/

_ _ _ 1 ___ - =

.....c:=:1111 ==::11 = - - - --- - d--- -- - --r---:-, T -; -M ; ~ , ..J-.,... , I.. - :j\t

Two fabricated alum inum shields each 48 incheslong were attached to the functi oning perimeter lightsat the center point 14 fee t 6 VI inches of the north south axis.Behind the glass face of the perimeter fixt ures,bluegels, diffu sers, and polarizers were attached toproduce a low level of t inted light.All ot her incandescent lights with in the perimeter fixtures were disconnected. Therefore the l ightshield s directed light towards the center of the floorwhere the light dispersed evenly across the gallery.The intensi ty of the l ight gradually decreased fromthe center to the wal l surfaces.The walls appeared as though they were evenlygenerating light , creating an illusion, on first observat ion, of changing spatia l depth .Existingand newlyconstructed wall surfaces weremade of drywall and finished with white paint. Theoriginal white sound-dampening f inish of the cei lingsurface wasleft untouched. The f loor was covered forth is exhibi t ion wi th a white wall- to-wall carpet so thatboth of the horizontal surfaces in the room had a sounddampening quali ty. I also attempted in thi s way toestablish a visual conformi ty between the wal ls, floor,and cei ling of the gal lery.The sound equipment consisted of a n audiooscil lator, an amp lifier, and a speaker . This equi pmentgenerated a constant tone at a very low frequencyapp roximately 85 cps wh ich was amplif i ed onl yenough to be audible. The vertical surfacesrespondedto the sound frequency, whi ch caused them to resonate as i f t hey were tuned , wh i le t he horizon talsurfaces, due to their sound-dampening effect, reducedthe frequency. The cancellation of the sound wavesoccurredwhen thesefrequencies coincided. The soundwaves cancelled each other out at a point exactl y inthe center of the gal lery and, on a diagonal axi s, onthe righthand side of each corner. Up toeach poi nt ofsound wave cancellation , the sound increased gradually in intensity; whereas at the exact cancellat ionpoint none of the generated sound was heard.The work which I haddone just previous to th is

r ly in 1969, Lawrence Urrut ia, then Curator at theLa Jolla Museum of Art in Cali fornia, invit ed me to doa one-person exhibit ion which was to be open to thepublic from November 7 to December 31, 1969.The Meyer Gallery, where the exhib it ion waslocated, was a room in a private house designed byIrvingGil l in 1915, which hadbeen modified by Mosherand Drew in 1948, and again modified in 1960 toserve as a museum. Theactual dimensionsof the roomwere 37 feet 8 inches on the north-south axis and 23feet on the east-west axis.The cei ling was 8 feet 11 inches high, recessedall around 4 inchesdeep and 35 inches wide. Abovethe perimeter of the lower ceiling, incandescent lightswere installed and covered with glass at a 45 -degreeangle. At the centers of the east and south wall s weretwo passageways, each 5 feet wide: the south-wallpassageway was 6 feet 10 inches high and the eastwall pass gew y, which led into a small room that sincethen has been closed off , was approximately the sameheight.For the purposes of this exhibiti on a completef loor-to-ceiling wall was constructed 3 feet 6 inchesin from, and paral lel to, the passageway of the southwall , stopping short of the west wall by 3 feet. Thisresulted in an entrance part it ion andan 11 feet hall way between the constructed space and the existingspace . The area withi n the gallery when completedmeasured 23 feet by 29 feet 2 1/ 4 inches.A third and fourt h wall were butted at 9 -degreeangles to the east side of the south-wall entry-passage:one closing off the 3 Ih -foot-wide hallway in order todirect the viewer to the ent ry/exit passage; and theother extend ing 52 inches into the outside corridor,to function as a baff le against noise and light filteringinto the room.A speaker was installed into the east-wall entrypassage and this entry was surrounded by a drywallconstruction, closing it flush with thegallery wall. Also,flush with the white surface of the drywall , a matching whi te clothwas attached to cover theopenspeakerelements.

18 19


18/125

V ew ingnortheast: entry/ext of installationand constructedlightand sound baff le.Viewmg eastdown theconsructedhallwayandta ard entryexI .

Northwes corner ofconstructedwallandexisting wall.View01north wallon east-westaxs showng detail of o -structed tightbaffle(aluminum shields).

I

20

at the Seatt le Art Museum could be considered anoutline t the La Jolla work, which d iffered from it inthe labor andmaterials that were needed to achieve avisual and spatial cont inuity.Aswith light , the use of sound had the capacityto confront the viewer' s understanding of space asstat ic. tactile, and formally structured (a dominanttrendin art during this periodi n Sou thern California),wi th the notion of its temporality and dynamics.Regional conditionswere exemplified in the discpaintings of Robert Irwin whose exhibi tion had pre.viously been in thesame gallery. This work's presenceas a highly fi nished object seemed to deny its interdependence on general external condi tio ns. Whilebeing interdependent and pretending to be disconnected, it set up a ritualized event which could onlybe perceived from one posit ion on a bench in front ofthe presentation, thereby making the presentation moreimportant than the person viewing it. The symmetryof presentation and object were idealized and abstracted from the viewer's perception . In response toworkssuch as this, mywork employed a formally comparable point of departure, but wasmanifested in realspace and time. The materials and the structure prevented the work f rom being perceived in exclusivelyvisual and objectif ied terms. The constructed spacefunct ioned as a container for perceptual phenomenaleading beyond the usual wall and floor references inthe placement of works of a rt i na gal lery.The light in thi s installation, rather than high.lighting any one point of the display walls o f the container, was directed away from them and dispersedoverthe floor into the room. All of the elements hespread of tinted light, the walls, and the equipmentgenerating the light- were equally visible and accessible and existed on thesame spatiallevelas the viewer.Thiswas incontradistinction to installat ion workwherecolored light emanated from speci i objects andmaterials, and where the light source was containedin objects or concealed in constructions.I tbecomes apparent to me in retrospect that theexperience of thework was based on a contradi ction

2 1


19/125

I OSCILL TO R,AM PL I F I ER ,SPE KER

NOR TH ELEV TIO N

. .... ,,,.,

-

L- mmmisz

-..

,..

PL N

n

,. LIGHT BA FF LEA ve

r

I

,,

, ,-

zQ>wwnw

I

of principles; nonvisual material had been treatedandorganized according to principles that had been derived from formal-visual aesthet ics. The work servedto aestheticize those contradictions. At the same t imet he work became problematic: instead of the work sbeing developed from and contingent upon existingmaterial conditions. it was basedon, and developedby the use of preselected materials and principles.

Soundequipment lor installation inthe adjacentroomon theeast side.

Axonometlcdrawingollhe Charles MeyerGall ery Illustrat ing the installat ion 01t he tight bafflesand the soundgenerating equ ipment. Drawmgby la wrence Kenny. 0 I ,522

..


20/125

December 3 969 March 1 197SpacesMuseum of Modern ArtNew YorkNew York

24

In the late summer of 1969 , I was invited to part icipate in a group exhib it ion curated byJennifer Lich t atthe Museum of Modern Art entitled S paces. Theexhibit ion areaal located for mywork ocated in thesoutheast part of the rden Wing of the museum- measured 20 lJ2 feet by 23lf2 fee t. Corridors 6 feetwide extended along the north-south and east-westaxes, while t he north and west sideswere def ined bytwo f loor-to-cei ling walls which had been previouslyconstructed for the installation of work byother participating arti sts.I h d two walls constructed: one on the northsouth axis (22 feet long) and the other on the eastwes axis08 lf2 feet long), from the floor to the ceiling0 4 feet high). These were posit ioned in the corridor,reducing it to a width of 4 feet 10 inches. Both wallsstopped 3 feet short of the two preexist ing walls toleave an entry/exit opening . All of the walls were ofstandard-grade wood-f rame construction.Then, awood-joist cei l ing was cons tructedbelowthe 14 foot ceiling at a height of 8 feet , spanning theentire 2 foot-by-23 h foot area. All c ei ling andwall surfaces were covered with drywall.To make the area high ly sound absorbent, I hadtwo addi tional layers of wal l added to the interior surfaces of all four wal ls. The existing walls had beenfil led with fiberglass insulati ng material. The two addi t ional wall layers were separated by a one-inch areawhich funct ioned as a n acousti cal plenum. The firstlayer was adjacent to the exist ing wall surface, andconsisted of a wood-frame const ructio n f il led with f iberglass insulation and covered with drywall. The second layer, set adjacent to th e ai r plenum , was awood-frame construct ion filled with f iberglass insulat ion and covered with textured fiberglass acousticalpaneling.These sound absorption layers extended from thefloor to the height of the 8-foot ceiling and the lengthof the existing walls.This resulted in f inal interior area dimensions of22 feet 10 inches (north-south)by 19 feet 10 inches(east-west).

Once finished, the compositet hicknessof the walland plenum on the west side was 1 foot 4 inches,while the composite thicknesso f the three otherwall swas 1 foot 3 inches. The open edgesof the constructedwall layers were covered with drywall at the point ofentry/exit.Each o f thecompleted wall sections stood on arubber pad to isola te them f rom subsonic soundscaused by vibrations affect ing the buildi ng. Fiberglassacoustical insulation material 2 inches thick was placedabove the constructed ceil ing.Finally, two layers of textured acoust ical paneling were installed to cover the ceili ng and f loor completely. This reduced the cei ling height to 7 feet 10inches.The finished work absorbed sound , as opposedto the previous work at the La Jolla Museum whichreflected it.Ambient sou nd from the exterior, such as st reettraffi c, the interior, such as movement and voices ofpeople in the corridor of the museum , as well as mechanical noises, suc h as the air deli very-and-returnsystem of the Garden Wing,all merged and condensedon a diagonal axis at the two entry/exit openings. Because of the increased absorption on the entr y/exitaxis, the sound reached its lowest level toward thecenter of the install ation. On the opposite diagonalaxis sound steadily decreased, gradually approachingcomplete absorpt ion where the walls met in the corners of the installation.Two lights illuminated the north -south corridor,serving also as a light source for the installat ion. Theeast-west corridor was il luminated by incandescentligh t and , in addition, by the ffuorescent l ight of DanFlavins contribution to the exhibition. Af te r passingthrough the two entry/exits, the light spread out acrossthe textured surfacesof the installation, causinga progressively lower light level toward the center andcorners. The areas where sound was almost total ly absorbed were also the areas with the least amount oflight.The highly secluded installat ion space was juxta-

l

F .E _WA LTHERI

ROB ERT MORR IS

LARR Y BEL L

--

-DAN FLAV IN

MICH AEL AS HER

a . 5 10 ft.

Groundplan of the garden wingof the Museum 01Modern Art. N.Y and lay-outof exhibi tion areas lor the Spaces exhibi t ion. Drawing by Lawrence Kenny. 25

Installat ion during construction process.Photograph byClaudePcasso.


21/125

,I , r , 0I ry ,. , r; ,

P , t , Jf . J,l , : - VI t I l-

I, 1 j I EX IST ING CE ILING Sectionof acoustic w ll construction Detail). Drawingbylawrence Kenny

,

\I \

oc umen tarysketch torecordd imensions.constructionandlocation of compleled installation. Drawingby Michael Asher. 27

/ 4 RU ER P D - ,I il e A I f

,


22/125

Viewofthe jns teua n n andme northea st en tryl exit Pbcto-graph byClaodeP icasso ewof the insta llation and thesoothwes t entry}n t Photo-graph byClaude Picasso

28 29


23/125

February 3 March 8, 1970Gladys K Montgomery Art Center at Pomona CollegeClaremont California

posed with theopenhallway continually receivinganddirecting all soundsand light in its vic inity. The workwas i tself isolated from themuseum yet funct ionedby simultaneously integrating thesound and light produced within the museum. Once these sounds hadentered the work they were structured ona diagonalaxis and were ult imately dissolved within the conf inesof the instal lation.Asa rectangular containerw ith all of its surfacestreated in the same way thework crea tedacontinuitywith no singular point of perceptual objectificationunlike phenomenologically determined works whichattempted to fabrica te a highly control led area of visualperception. The va riousconstituent elementsandfunct ionsof the space were made accessible to theviewers experience. This was in contradistinction toan instal lation that would insert a predetermined object between the viewers and their perception of thespace whi le at thesame t ime attempt to control theviewers percept ion eventually creating a hierarchybetween the object and the viewers where the viewerssubsequently became subservient to the object. IlConllary to mlormat l fl m the S paces cata logue, ed ited by JenmteeLht. Museum 01Modern Art. New Yolk. 1969 . the plan to use sound-generallng eqUpment in the WOl k (speakers. noise generatOf osclllal fwas eventually dropped. Thedead space allocated Of the installat ion 01thesound equ ipment. which is depicted in the catalogue. was thefefOfenot used. Furlhel'more. IIghlingsystem as installed ith in the con-suueted area . Finally the pefspechve diagram reprod uced the care -logue IS upside down.

MICHAEL ASHER S PROJECTat Pomon a Co lleg e Ar t Ga lle ry

is now completed and will be ope n

day a nd night until Ma rch 8, 197 .

In 196 9. Hal Glicksman the curator of the Gladys K.Montgomery Art Cen te r a t Pomona College offe redme the opportunity to stage a work in the centerslarge exhibit ion gallery. After vis it ing and inspect ingthe center I considered using a location in thebuild ing that wasoutside of the area normally all ocated forexhibit ion purposes.Only after I had taken up residence in a dorrnitory at the college to pl an and install the work did Idec ide to use the large exhibi t ion gallery the lobbyand the main entrance from the street.The art center is situated at one end of thecampus. There is an intersection of publ ic streets on itssouth and west sides. The main ent rance is on thewest side of the gallery. On the northeast side thegallery isopen to a pat io which is surrounded by othercol lege bu ildings.A portico at the front entrance leads in tothe gallery lobby which is flanked on t.he south by an enclosed off ice space. The lobby is 27 feet square withan 11 toot-S inch ce iling. At the southeast corner ofthe lobby a corridor 6 feet wide opens into the largeexhibition space. The dimensionsof the space are 41feet 3 inches in length and feet 9 inches in widthwith a cei ling height identical to that of the lobby.For th is exhib it ion th ree walls were constructedone in thelarge gal lery and two in the lobby. The wallin the large gallery a three-part construction incorporating two already existing walls delineated a triangular area. One wal l was adjacent to the west edge ofthe passagewayand extended 43 feet 4 inches acrossthe gallery to its southeast corner. The other two alreadyexisting walls measured 8 feet 5 inches onthenorth side and feet 9 inches on theeast side.A second constructed wall adjacent to the eastedge of the passageway ran paral lel to the fi rst walland extended 7 feet in to the lobby. I had a third wallconstructed adjacent and perpend icula r to t he existing north wa ll o f t he main ent rance. It ran paral lel tothe gal lerys westwall and extended 8 feet 9 inchesjoining the end of the second construc ted wal l at anacute angle.

31


24/125

Gladys K MontgomeryArt Center Gallery; man entryexitviewed fromstreet during exhibition Photo taken withday lightDetail of entryexit and view into constructed triangularareaPhetc taken with daylight

V ewingout of gallerytoward street rromsmaili riangular areaPhoto taken w t dayl ght


25/125

34

Together with the two const ructed w a ll s, anotherexist ingwal l measuring 2 1 feet 4 in ches on th e sout hside of th e lobby and ma in ent rance, comp le ted asmaller tr iangulararea. A fl ush door const ruct ion wasadded t o the off i ce d oor of th e ex i st i n g wall for asmooth, unbroken wall surfa ce.Thetwo glass doors that normally parti tioned themain entryway and lobby, and which were hinged tot he no rt h and sout h wall s at a point 5 fee t 2 inchesfrom t he out er wall , were removed for the du ration oft he exhi bi tio n, leavi ng an ope n e nt ry/ex it 6 f eet 4inc hes i n widt h. The do orj am b and hardware werecovered.A 6 foot- l0 inch-high cei ling was constructed thatt otal ly covered the two tr iangutar areas, and turn edth e 6 foot-4 -inch -wid e entry int o a perfect square. ttextended through t he mai n e nt ry p assage an d e ndedoutside , f lush wit h t he exterior fr ont wal l of t he gal lery where t he gap was boxed in w ith a d ry wall panel.The construct ed ceil ing and walls were drywall mountedon wood fra ming. All drywall surfaces we re f inishedwith off-white paint . The li noleum fl oor, whi ch hadbeen covered wi th a protect ive tape , was painted thesame off white color.The cei l in g, lowere d t o a height of 6 f eet 10inches, became as int egral a part of t he works spatia lcontinuity as t hewall s and t he fl oor. As S h, t he ceiling d irect ed the vi ewer s awar ene ss t o st an dardarchitectura l usage within an exhibit ion space, simil ar to t he way i n w hich t he const ructed walls alteredpercept ion of t he sta ndard rect i l inear areas.As th egroun d p l an ind icates, each triangular areawas positi oned in reve rs e of t he other. Eac h side ofone triangula r area had a correspond ing parallel wal lin the ot her. Therefore, bot h t ri angu lar areas had aright angle and tw o ide n t ic a l acut e angles. Final ly,th e parallel hypot enuses of each tr iangu lar area overlapped for a distance of 5 feet , resulting in a corridor2 fee t in width .Th e i nterior of the archi tectural container, housing the office and add it io na l gallery space, could bereached f rom a courtyard behind t he gallery build ing.

From this area t he vi ewer could see t he const ructionan d t he support of th e smal l er t riangular space, includ i ng struct ural details i.e. , the two-by-four fram ing,the sandbag props tha t w ere used to stabi lize the walls,th e joists hol d in g th e c e i ling a nd walls together, andt h e b ack of t he drywall panels see photosp.40 41 .Whi le in t he off ice/gallery space, viewers couldobserve t he backside of t he con structi on , and at thesame time th e frontsid e and t he outdoor element s int heir formali zed context.In th is case, as i n many others, t he archi tecturalsi te d id not exclusively determ ine how th e work wasst ructu red o rp erceived . However, it d id give the vieweran opport u ni ty to see w hat could be accommodatedwithin th e parameters of a mu seum s arc hite cturalst ruc ture.With t h e t wo glass doors removed, t he install at ion waso pen to anyonet wenty-four hours a da y. Exterior light, sound , and ai r became a perma n en t p art oft h e e xhibi tion. Daylight saturated all the surfaces oft he f irst small triangu lar area. It condensed in the corrid or and gradual ly di spersed over all t he surface s oft he large tri angular area. Only the back wall facingth e corri dor was fa irly evenly l it by t he project ed d aylight f r om the corridor. li ght intensity, color,and shad ow s varied, depend ing on t he sun s posit ion in t hesky. Refl ected lig h t h ad a ye ll o w t int due to t he ot twh ite color of t he int erior.N ightt im e light entere d fro m streetlights whic hcast a low, t int ed blue lig ht into t he install at ion. Alsoa 7 5-watt bulb in t he lobby ceil ing, wh ich was covered wit h a c lear blue Plexiglass sh ee t and severallayers of f iberglass diffusers in order to match t he colorof th e streetlights, cast a d im , t int ed bl ue ligh t intothe t riangul ar areas, produci ng an extent and degreeof ill umination sim i la r to t hat of daylight.Sound was generated from such sources as str eettraffi c, people walki ng past th e g al lery, and peoplewit h in t he installation. Exterior and interio r soundswere collectedand ampli fied in th e smaller triangularspace and transmi tted th rough t he corridor. Channeledand intensi fi e d i n t he corridor, soundwas fu rther am -

,,,,,,,

Axonometric drawing of t he installationfor theGladys K.MontgomeryArt Center Gallery. Drawing by Lawrence Kenny.


26/125

he constru t ionular space , inby-four framing,bilize the walls,is together, andhotos p. 40- 41)., viewers couldi on, and at th eoor elements inhe r hite tu ralw the work wasgive the viewer ommod ted r hite tu rald, the installaurs aday. Extermanent part ofthe surfaces ofnse in the cor-

f : ) f O f f

he constructionular space , inby-four framing,bilize the walls ,is together, andhotos p.40-41).

, viewers cou ldtion , and at th eocr elements inhe r hite tu ralw the work wasgive the viewer ommod ted r hitecturald, the installa urs a day. Exterrn nent part ofthe surfaces ofnsed in the cor-

,

IIIIIIIJ


27/125

Camera in smal l t r iangular area facing passageway into largetr iangular area. Photo taken with art ificial light.

Detail of construc ted entry/ex it to offices south 01ms ationPhoto taken with art ifi cial light as mdi ated byetectrcp w r cord .View from trent small triangular areawith constructed officedooronthe farrrght . viewmg Into passageway Al lphotos byFrank Thomas.

plified in the larger triangular sp ces reaching its highest level at the back wal l. With the removal of themain-entry doors, the installation wasalsodirectlyventila ted from outdoors, and t herefore subject to varyingcl imatic conditions.I originally intended the installation at PomonaCollege to deal with air movement generated fromnatu ral, outdoor sources ra ther than mechanicalmeans, and to direct tha ta ir movement through thegallery. In thi s regard, theinstallation wasan amplification andvariation on my early air works and, specifically, my more recent air works at Newport HarborArt Museum and the Whitney Museum of AmericanArt, all of which had employed mechanical devices togenerateai r flow into the exhibit ionarea. The Pomonawork was similar to the installation a t the Museum ofModern Art in that it col lected ands tructured givenexterior elements and integrated them into the work.While working on the Pomonai nsta llation, I rearized that it was impossible to focus on one singularelement such as the movement of air. A ll of the vanous elements, once thespace had beenliterally openedto them, had to become inherent determinants in theproduct ion and recept ion of the work.Theinstallation shifted formal control fromasingular object toa seemingly neutral givenarchitecturalstructure previously contain ing that object. The induced and false neutrali ty of the object had been dependent upon the false neutral ity of the container.The triangular shapesweredefined in opposit ionto the usual architectural context surrounding a workof art . As right triangles. they simultaneously adaptedand referred to the conditions of the archit ecturalcontainer.The arbitraryway in which theexterior elementsentered the triaogular spaceswas as important to thework as the material construct ion of the installation,if on ly as a contradiction of the installations formalcontrol over those elements.Enteringandmoving through the installat ion, theviewer became increasinglyremoved from the exteriorreality, at thesame t ime perceiving gradual abstrac-

9


28/125

4

Detail of prop eonstru tlonand sandbags fromt heservicearea of the gallery af ter the conprencn of theins tallation Photo byHalGlic ksmanSmall tr iangular area facing toward passageway PhototakenwithdaylIght Photoby Frank Thomas

Detail of celltng and wall jun t i on undemeath i s t t n ~ eilingafter thecompletion of the installation Photo by Hal GlicksmanPhoto taken frombackwafl of largetriangulararea vlewtngonto front wall of smal l t riangulara rea Photo taken withrtif iclili light byFrankThomas

4

May July4 97


29/125

-. . ,

,. ,

24 Young Los Angeles Art istsLos Angeles County Museum of ArtLos Angeles California

42

Isometric drawingofwallso f installation byMichael Asher

tions of t ha t reality wi thin a formally determined andcontrolled space.Graduall y walking back through the two tria ngularareas, the viewersreconstructed what had prevouslybeen abstracted. reaching the po int of total reconstruction at themome nt they returned to theoutdoors.This view of exterior reality was framed by the squareentry/exit which was combined and juxtaposed withthe f inal element of the installation s formal abstraction: the 6 foot-4-inch-by-B-foot-9 inchwall panelto the right of the entry/exi t square.The twenty-four-hour tim e order, a popularstructure inthe Los Angelescommunity wastransposed tothe operatio n of the work. This tim e structure introduced a temporal configurat ion of reality, openingthework temporally as the entry structure had opened itspatially. Some of my earl ie r works had also developed a formal temporal structure through the use ofsound: sound as a temporal structure determined byits mechanical generation with in the work (as in thework at LaJolla), or by the viewers l imited access tothe work, whi ch was ult imately determined by themuseum s operat ing hours (as in the work a t the Museum of Modern Art).The sound inthi s work was the sound of theactivity o f the community surrounding the work as well asthat of viewers who entered it. Becauseo f the twentyfour-hour time structure, viewers activated the work

by entering at a t ime determined by them, rather thanaccord i ng to the museums usual daytime schedule.The three-week duration of twenty-four-hour accessi bility focusedon a more generalized understanding oftemporal experience.The visual , spat ial , and formal cont inuity of t heinstallation was dialectically in opposit ion to the actual continui ty of t ime, sound , l ight , and climat icconditions . To stagea work that would express theseoppositions wi th ideal clarity, it seemed that certainfacetso f the real ity of the work- its various levels ofsupport, for example- had to be suppressed. Thework s specific reality - what it sharesw ith the instit ution that contains it- remained elusive. This apparent absence der ived from conditions created i n thework s construction: the demarcation of the existingspace and the partial concealment of the acti vitie swithin that space.

This exhibition, organized by Maurice Tuchman, Senior Curator of Modern Art , and Jane Livingston, Associate Curator of Modern Art, inc luded, in addit ion tomyself, the following artists: JohnAlberty, James Bradley, Vija Celmins, Ron Cooper, Mary Corse, RobertCumming, David Deutsch, Guy Dill , LaddieJohn Dill ,Frederick John Eversley, Jack Goldstein , Scott Grieger,Patrick Hogan, Richard Jackson, Peter Lodato, AllanMcCollum, Barbara Munger, Peter Plagens, Joe Ray,Allen Ruppersberg, Wolfgang Stoerchle, John White,and Will iam Wegman.Since th e exh ibit ion was sched uled to opensimultaneously withthe Art and Technology exhibi t ion at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art , thearti sts were given three weeks to conceiveand const ruct t heir works. My proposal was accepted at theend of the f irst week, so thatw it h the assistance ofTahn Hyun- I had two weeks to br ing the work tocompletion.Twocomplete rooms and several partitioned, carpeted areas on the four th floor of the Ahmanson Building were allocated for the exhibition. Mywork wouldbe in the smaller of the two rooms, which measured30 feet 6 inches by 29 feet by 15 feet 6 inches,I had three wal ls constructed in an area to theright o f the passageway leading to the installationarea,runningon a north-south axis, parallel to the exist ingwest wall of the museum and parallel to oneanother.These three walls were 5 feet, 10 fee t , and 2 feetrespect ively in length, 15 feet 3 inches high , and 4inches thi ck . The 5-foot wall was closest to the preexist ing wall , followed by the -footwa ll , which wasfollowedby the 20-foot wall , each wal l separated fromthe preceding wall byadistance of 4 inches. The wallsprojected into the passageway at inc rements of 5inches (the shortest wal l projecting 5 i nches,a nd thelongest wall 15 inches).The 2 -foot wall stopped 1 foot 11 inches shortof the existing south wall of the installation area, leaving that length of theexist ing west wa ll visib le, andproviding a verynarrow access to observet he interiorwalls. The constructed wal ls stopped 3 inches short

of the cei ling, to which they were held in place byseveral angle bars.The walls were constructed on a piece of plywoodflooring whic h was cut in on one end to conform tothe projections of the wallsand extended onthe otherend to the fu ll length of the 20- foot wall. The wallswere two-by-tour framescovered in plywood. The eastand west sides of the walls were covered with drywall.All seams were fi lled with wood compound and theplywood was treated with a coat ing to stabil ize thegrain.All constructed surfaces, inc lud ing the plywoodflooring, werefi nished with the same white pain t normal ly used to cover the museum walls, therebyestab lishing an internal continuity and similari ty betweenthe constructed surfaces and the existing walls.As the viewer approached the passage, theedgesof theconstructed walls appeared as a serial sculp tural relief; abreast of the edges the depth of the wal lswas revealed against the background of the existingsouthwall , which they appeared to fragment.The p lane of the 20 -foot wall , wh ich faced intothe installation area, blocking the view of the interiorwall elements aswell as most of the existingwest wall,appeared to beanother full-sized exhibition wall.The preexisting exhib it ion wall , recessed 2 feetbehind the outer constructed wall , could be seenthrough the foot 11 inch vert ical opening in thesouthwest corner. The outer wall was thereforeo ftenperceived asan integralstructural elementwhereworksof art were normal ly installed. Visitor s f reque ntlythought it was an unused wall , and they would leanagainst it to view other works in theexhib ition.As a response to the use of part it ion walls in museum design, the constructed walls ranparallel to otherpartit ion wall s in the area where the exhibit ion wasinstalled; the project ing reliefof the constructed wallscould on ly be viewed from the passageway, however.The solid edges of the constructed wal ls alternating with the intersti ces resulted in seven vertical li nes,parallel and equidistant. As these edges formed a visual rel ief, theyalso const ituted the beginning of each

43


30/125

I f\ -a

I 1 J T T r I 7J 1 \\ l \ .

- o

\

-


31/125

of the planar wall sect ions.The rel ief structure disappeared when the wallplanes wereviewed frontally. The outer wall was seenas a white rectangular archi tectural plane. This outerplane not only covered the internal elements butseemed to compress the internal space against theexisting west wall. The in ternal progression of constructed walls complemented the highly visible progression of what appeared to be a sculptural exteriorrelief. Through the narrowvertical opening at the southwest corner, the edges of the three walls could beviewed as progressing inward, the 5-foot wall receding furthest into the interior space. The edge of the5-foot wall within the exterior relief structure was thef irst to extend 5 inches into the passageway.Viewed from the exhibition area , the vertical andhorizontal edges of the outer wall seemed to coverand frame all other planes and edges of the work.The outer wall and the internal elements deniedthe complete 36 degreeview tradit ionally applied tofreestanding sculpture, by compressing it against theexisting architectural wall and combining it with internal Upt ural space and its structural elements.My previousworks- those at La Jolla Museum ofAr t see p. 18) , the Museum of Modern Art in NewYo rk see p. 2 , and Pomona College see p. 31)had made use of the complete interior space- walls,floor, and ceiling- to create a full y integrated installat ion. This work, howeve r, negated the architectural totality of thoseinstallations bynegating any senseof its own three-dimensionality as a sculptural relief.The completed work was given to the Los AngelesCountyMuseum of Art for their contemporary collec tion in exchange for a Young Ta lent Purchase Award,which I had received in 196 7. The work was later dismantled byt he museum, and since that time has notbeen reconstructed .

View 01museum atr ium and passagedirected towardtnsteuanon area and edges of wall construct ion. PhotographbyMichael Asher.vrewc t waifconstruct ion Irom Installation area Intopassageand general extnbucn area.Photograph by Michael Asher.

Detail 01progressivelyrecessing edgesof wall construc tion asseen rom westside of installat ionarea. Photograph by MIchael Asher.DetalllOter lOfvtewol wall mstauenon asseen Irom east-srceotm stettanon area. Photographby Edward Comeco. Courtesy01l osAngelesCounty Museumo f Art , l osAngeles, ca .

7


32/125

Viewof edges01threeconstructed walls as s from hallway

Vewof outerconstructedwall asseenf rom msrcethe Installa-tionareaat 45 angle.Frontalv iewof wal mstauenco . Photographs ad byEdward Comacio. courtesyLosAngelesCounty Museumof Art,LosAngeles, Ca.

I

8

I


33/125

0 ,, 5 l ll

I

< I

ing any of the given planes; and the integrity of theoriginal interior plan was therefore maintained. Thiswas unlike thelater work at Documenta V in 1972see p. 57), in which the space was divided by bisecting planes. At thesamet ime this design allowedfor disjunctive surfacesA wall was constructed from floor to ceiling in apassageway in the north wall to make thatwall appearas even and continuous as the other three walls. Astandard-sized door was fittedflushwith in this newlyconstructedwall, andwas butted up asc lose aspossible to thedoorframe soas to crea te theappearanceofa seamless surface.The northwall containingthe doorconstruction was painted black to further conceal thedoor and the seam.Therewere twoskylightsmeasuring 7 feet 8 inchesby 5 feet. Theywere the only sourcesof natural lightinthe installati on area . Several piecesof whiteclothwere stretched across thebottom of the skylight wells,f lush with the ceiling surface, in order to reduce theintensityof the lightandtodiffusethelight moreevenlythroughout the installation area . Two rows of tracklights, which hadbeen installed for theprogram, wereremoved for this installat ion.The viewer entered through the door in the northwall, which wasone of the two blackwalls. Since thedoorway waslocated neartheadjacent whiteeast wallthe viewer tended to feel lessvisually compressed uponentering.Theview from the twoadjacent white walls lookingdiagonally into theinstallat ion, produced anunintended effect an illusion of a hazespanned the twoadjoining black walls, sometimes causing the cornerto drop out completely, depending on the intensity ofnatural light entering through the skylights. The viewfrom the adjoining black corner looking diagonallyacross to the two adjoining white walls made the installation area appear highly focused and sharplydetailed.Each group th e threeblack planesandthethreewhiteplanesw sviewed asself-contained yet interdependent, internally continuousandadjacent. At the

Facade of exhIbition spaceat 72 MarketStreet. Ven ice.Photograph byMIchael Asher

TheMarket Stree t Programwasa nonprofit, artist-runexhibi t ion program that operated for approximatelytwelve months in an artist s studio space- later tobecome a commercial gallery t 72 Market Street,Venice, California. Market Street Programdefined itsown aimsas followA comprehensive research project classfying andexhibiting the work of professional artists according to the ir own criteria. The objective of the project was tofulfill the need in any art community foran exh ibition program to tie together existingexhibit ion facilities under a decentralized museum planwhile acting as a laboratory for procedures used inthe selection and evalua t ion of art. I

The program wa s set up and participants wereselected based on Southern Californ iaartists responsesto computer-processed questionnaires. This methodof artist se lf-selection was conceived by Robert Irwinand Joshua Young, who was theadminstrator and organizer of theexhibit ion program . One questionsoughtthe namesof artists then workingin the area; anotherasked which artists one would be most interested inshowing with.2 This procedure resulted in m y beinginvited to prov ide a work for the exhibition.The existing exhibition areawas 49 feet 1 inchby 29 feet 1 inch by 13 feet 4 lJ2 inches. Between thenorth wa ll of the exhibit ion container and the southwall, where the main entrance was located, was anoffice foyer area which measured 29 feet 1 inch by15 feet 10 inches.My proposa l for the programwasapproved. It consisted of painting theent ire planes of the west wallandthe north wall and the entire floorwith a matteblack house paint . The entire planesof the east wallandthesouth wall,aswellas theceili ng, were paintedwi th a matte-white house paint. Each painted planewasdefined bythe floor, wall, andceiling juncturesofthearchitectural container.Because theworkwas determined by the preexisting architectural planes, I found that I could dividethe space into a black and awhite half without divid-

March 22 Apri 16 972Market Street ProgramVeniceCalifornia

50

Altonometnc drawmgof 72 Market Street, thebUlkhng usedlor theMarketStreet Program x nbmcn Drawmgby LawrenceKenny. 51


34/125

52

same time, the three interlock ing omplementa ryplanes appeared to form a rectangular architecturalcontainer.Unl ike the work at theLos Angeles County Museum (see p. 43), the re lief plane and the architectural support plane in th is work were compressed tothe point of coalescing. Thearchitectural planes, however, remained juxtaposed.This installation of painted planes was completelydetermined bythe preexisting architectural dimensions.The work thereby clearly contradi t ed the modernisttradition in painting which claimed tha t awork s structure was determined by the framing edges of its int ernal support. Even if t his were granted, the scale ofthe work was totally arbitrary, with one qual if icationthe painting always had to fi t in to a specific whitearchitectural container. The edgesorframe of the paint ingattempted to create a discrete mark, and whetheror not that mark was posit ioned on the floor, wall , orceili ng, it manifested its own separate existence whileignoring the architectu ral container.To create or materialize a work, conventional practice dictated putting as much material and/or perceptual bulk as possiblebetweenthe viewer and the displaystructure in ordert o identi fy theautonomous aestheticobject and to dist inguish i t f rom it s nonaestheticsurround ings. In the Market Street instal lat ion, I wasquestioning the requirement of visual bulk.By defining the planar elements in terms of thequant ity of pain t that it would normally take to prepare the architectural container for an exhibition, Idirectl y objectif ied thespace with a mater ial whichwas fami l iar to the viewer by common experience . Inth is way I disengaged the aesthetic objec t from itssupporting surfaces by coalescing it s mater ial construction with the support structure i tself.The paint used to coverthe surfaceswas the standard commercial type used for interior and exteriordecoration and protection, and was app l led by professional painters using an airlesscompressor. The paintwasunli ke industrial materials that havebeen adaptedfor art product ion . (For example, using this paint on a

canvas would have transformed it from a stock iteminto a found material object. ) This was also true ofother materials that were especially designed , manu factured , and appl ied to coverwall surfaces ina rel ief,and that negated thei r inherent painterly characteristics which had existed previous to the instal lat ion ofsuch materials on a wall.This installation physically made use of a f lat orplanar surfaceas in traditional painting. Yet , the wall sizeddimensions of the painti ng were predeterminedbythearchi tec tural context rather than by a stretcheror armature, which are used to hold paint away fromthe wall to ensure that its material manifestation isdisclosedand framed as a spectac le autonomous andseparate from its supporting structure.

IMlchael Leopold, Computer Mating/Los Angeles The Ar t GallerySummer. 1972 s.p.2Peler Plagens, L SAngees, The Markel Street Program, rt orumJanuary, 1972 p. 77 fl.

vlewmg south west corner.v wmg north eastcorner.vr wmgsoutheast corneVewngnorth-east corner.Detail of east wall and skylight .Detail of westwall and skylight.Phoographsby Frank Thomas

53


35/125

Vewingsouth Viewingnorth hoographsby r nk Thomas

June 3 c tober 8 1972


36/125

56

Linedrawingaftercompletion of installation.Draw ingby Michael Asher.

II

_ l

- -I

J1I ..

.

ocumenta VMuseum FridericianumKassel st Germany

Docu menta, one of the largest group exhibit ions ofcontemporary art, is staged in Kassel, WestGermany,every four to six years . Approximately eighty artistsparticipated in Documenta V wh ich was held in1972 , withi n the confines of the Museum Fridericianumand the Neue Galerie. The director of Documenta V was Dr. Harald Szeemann.In Ju ly 1970, Dr. Szeemann wrote to me expressing interest in my work, and in Decemberof the following year invi ted me to par tic ipate in the exhibition.On February 2 , 1972 Jean-Christophe Amman , a curator representi ng Documenta V, showed me a planwith the assigned space for my instal lation during hisvisit to Venice, California . The areathat would be available formy work was part o fa long hallway, 3.66 meters high, 4 .25 meters wide , and 10 .97 meters long.At the t ime, I was unable to go to Kassel, eitherto inspect the location, or for the final installation ofthe work. It occurred tome then to see if another artist cou ld manage to construct my work and modify i tif necessary in order to adapt it to i ts location. It was achallenge to design an installationon paper that wouldlater be constructed in a place I was unfamiliarwi th. Iasked John Knight , an artist and friend, and he agreedto go to Kassel to construct the work. I didn t knowthen whether I would eversee the finished installation.So, in late March 197 2, I made my final plans for aproposal. 1My proposalwasdetermined, in part, b the lengthand width of the available space. The workwou ld be awood-frame construction of walls, f loor, and ceilingmeasur ing 9 .6 5 meters by 3 .8 6 mete rs by 2 .28meters. The floor would be 10 centimeters from themuseum floor andthe ceiling 2.28 meters high, sothatit woul dbe in the normal perceptual field of personsof average height. Walls, floor, and cei ling were covered with partic le board and drywall and were treatedwith vinyl lat ex paint.This proposal focused on issues similar to thoseaddressedat the Market Street Program. HereI wantedto visually div ide the interior of theenclosure in hal f,along the centerl ine of its longest axis, by painting

the north half black, and the south half white . Thismeant that the ceil ing, floor, and two end wal ls werehalf bl ack and half white. Whereas theentire northwallwas painted black, andthe entire south wall white.Twolight wells were constructed in the white halfof the container at the east and west corners. Thesewere cut out of the ceiling where the cei l ing met theadjacent sout h wall. Each light well measured 1.83meters in length and 7.6 centimeters in width . Ughtfrom the museum interior passed through the lightwells and was di ffused, due to a polarizer and ap ieceof translucent clot h which stretched across the bot tom of the light well , f lush wit h the cei ling. I wantedenough light tocomethroughthese wells so that , aftera short t ime of eyeadjustment , everysurface in theenclosure could easi ly be seen.Theconstruction was completed by using a 9 1.5centimeterswide, light-t ight door, mounted flushon theblack sideof the interior container, for entry and exit. 2The standard-grade construction for the wall s,floor, andceiling followed the configuration of the available space, making it long and narrow an unusualshape, contraryt o any enclosure which would normallybe used for an exhibit ion area for the display of artworks. But , by integrating the shape of the hallwayinto the constructio n, I was revealing a frameworkwhich defined the internal structu re of the work. As aleftover architectural elementw hichhad beenassignedto me for the execution of a work, t he 10 .97 meterwalkway was incorporated in the determinat ion of thewor k. The hallway due to its formalization, was convertedinto a function of bodilyand visual perception,st ill mirroring the external architectural structure towhich it was bound .On August 19, 1972 , I arrived in Kassel to seethe finished workand realized that it was verybeauti-fully constructed. While the white surfaces were immediately visible on entering, the black surfaces inthe distance remained below thevisual threshold. Eventually, asthe eye adapted, the black surfaces couldbe visually established as contiguous. The black halfof the installat ion absorbed light and was therefore

57

/ /r,. ,-Detaildrawingof lightwell. planandelevation by John Knightfor the purposes of hissuperv ision ofthe installation.Drawingbyexhibitionarchitect Oombois indicatingposition


37/125

59

rr c...

3 :::- r l

---

.. 0 .

Q

q I -

..

D

- - - -6- -_AU J

A o ... 01 = .3 60 I NDICATS C: lI Sl'K


38/125

60

fairly dim; while the white half, i llumina ted by thelightwells at each end, reflected light.While the viewer wasstanding in the white half ,the work appearedt o be all white, although it seemedas if a sheet of smoked glass ran the entire length ofthe space. Theblack half seemed to bedenser thanthe white half . Whi le standing in the white half , theviewer formed a strong perceptua l image of spatialmass in theopposite black half . Whereas, whilestanding in the black half , the illusion disappeared.Althougheach architectural planewasd ividedperceptually by paint, there were no physica l obstaclesto prevent the viewers from walking across the floorplane in any direction they chose.Bisected andencompassing the viewer, this enclosure could not beseen in its enti rety from anyonepoint of view. Each view fromzone to zone, aswell aseach diagonal view found its complementary spatialand chromatic perception in the projection of the visual axis behind the viewer.All of theplanesi n this installation wereassembled nd distinguished asadjacent pictorial planes.Therefore theyalso became planes or elements constltut ing a sculpture. Theinstallation was not, however,viewed in the round as conventi onal sculpture rather,the sum of the six planes consti tuted a volumetric,rectangu la r body, fo rm ing an enclosure around theviewer. The entire sculptural volume was viewed fromwithin, waswalked through, over, and upon. By beingan enclosure or housing, the assembled planes weresimultaneously experie nced as an r hite tur lcontainer.The door defined a transition from the actual exhibit ionspace intothe actual sculptural and pictorialspace. Upon returning to thegeneral exhibitionspace,the viewer was cut off from the formalized perceptualmode which equated bodily and visual perception.Once outside, the viewer s perception was once againfragmented into its various functions.The wood-frame constructionwas a stage ormediation for the paint. Thepaint was not applied to thegivenarchitecture, as in theMarket Street work. Rather,

it was applied to the works separately constructedsurfaces, thereby contradic ti ng t he work s original intention as a method of directly art iculating the givenarchi tectural support .By formalizing itsown purpose with in the exhibit ion. thi sinstallation- asa stage eflected the cultural stagewhich Oocumenta - as a n exhibitionoccupied. s a spatial enclosure, it occupiedanautono -mous positio yet the enclosure did not define themore general conditions of the viewer s experience attheexhibition. The implied autonomyof thework couldonly be seen within the context of most of the otherworks, each of which operated within their own separate framework. Thework seemed to seclude itself fromthe rest of the exhibi tion . while itwasactually subjectto and receptive of its conditions.

IThiswork is extenstve y reviewed In Carter Ratcliff dvers ry SpacesArtforum October 1972. pp. 4 44.2 Jhe docf was shipped from the Marllet Slreet Program

Viewof installationfromwestwall.


39/125

6

ewo f mstauancn from northwest orn r View01instaltanon fromsouthw st orner

63

January January 11 1973


40/125

64

Gallery A 402California Institute of the ArtsValencia California

a llery A 402 was a student-run gallery where exhibit ions were organized by Suzan ne Kuffler, who was atthat t ime a graduate student at the California Insti tute of the Arts. The gallery funct ioned as an exhibi tion space for both artists and students to make theirwork accessible to the Institute community. In late97 I was invited to exhibit a work there.Thegallery measured 27 feet 7 inchesby 16 feet8 inches. wi th a ceiling height of 9 feet. Two rows offluorescent light fixtures he gallerys only source ofl ight- extended the entire length of theroom. Thefloorwas covered with brownwan-to-wen carpeting. Aseriesofrectangular w

Asher Michael Writings 1973 1983 on Works 1969 1979

Documents

Transcript of Asher Michael Writings 1973 1983 on Works 1969 1979