Art and

Objectbocd

117

ART AND OBJECTHOOD" by Michael Fried

In thb essay Michse] Fried criticizes Minimal Arl-()r a..~ he rolls it, "Iiremlist" 'Irl-fOl what he dcs('rih~ :IS its inherent theatricality. At the '-1II1t! tune, he nr~llCS lh~t the modernist nrts, indlldillg painting :lnd
);('uIPlurc:, have come Incr~sin.~ly
to depend

[01' their very (.'()Jltil\U:IIICI;!

on their ability to dryl'ttt titt!:llte. Fried ch:\m(.1.NE-I,.(:~tile theatrical in terms of a pa.rtiC'Ul."y rclatinn between the beholder (a .mbj4rct and the work (IS 01>1'."(.':, ;'I relnuon that takes place in tim~, t!t:lt has duration. Wltt:re.'1) defeattng theatre ~'nlail~ t1t:ft!lIling Of suspl.'ndinp. h<lth ohjecthood and lcmpor,1lily. Fried W:b bOIn 10 'lc'w York Cil), in 1939. J 1(' 1(1<11: IIi.. B.A. at Pnnc'('fcUi Univt:r.,ity .lIId was :\ HllC1dcs Sd~)ktr at ~~erton Colh~l~C, Ox[ord. I lc ~ :\ (;onl:ihutil\~ Edito: Ior I'.rtiarum, und itt: c)rgm)izcd the Threr .\",..riC(1/I Pdlnfcr.s exhibition nt lht: FIlgg AIt Museum. 11:\I'v",<! i.. .nivcrsitv in 190;;. He 1$ currently a jUlliOT Fellow in the Harvard Slll.it'I)' (If FI..llIo\\'s.

words, and in fact has been formulated by some of its lending practitionc~. If this distinguishes it from modernist painting and sculpture on the one hand, it also marks :Ill important diflcrellC(! between Minimal Art-or, as I prefer to call it, litef'(i/ist art--and Pop or Op Art on the oeher. From its inception, IIter;)lisl art has amounted to something more than an episode in the history of taste. It belongs rather to the history-s-almost the not ural histOf),-of sensibility; and il is not an isolated episode but the expression of a general and pervasive condition. Tis seriousness is vouched for by the fact that it is in relation both to modernist painting and modernist sculpture thnt literalist art define::; or locates the position it aspires to occupy. (This, 1 suggest, is what makes what it declares something that deserves to IX! called ,I position.) Specifically, literalist art conceives of itself as neither one nor the other; on the COI1!r<lr),.it is motivated b)' specific reservauons, Or worse, about both; and it aspires, perhaps not exactly, or not immediately to displace them, but in Any CAse to estahlish itself as M independent art on a Iooting with cit her. The literalist case n~aiMt paillting rc.. l~ mainly On two counts: the s relational character of almost all painting; and the ubiquitousness, indeed the virtual inescapability. of pictorial illusion. In Donald

Edwards's journals frequently explored and tested a meditation he ~clt!r\:n ;dl()"'t:d II) reach print; if all the wOI'I<1 were annihilated, he wrote .. , and a 11t:\\' world were freshly created, though it were to exist in ever)' particular in the same manner $IS this world, it would not he the same. Therefore. because there is continuity, which is time, "it is cerl.till with me that the world cxixlx anew every mo1II1'lll, that the existence of thing$ ever)' moment ceases and is every moment renewed." The abiding assurance is tl,at "we every moment ~ee the same proof of " Cod as we should have seen if we had seen Him create the world at first."-Pony Miller, [oaosha 1<:<1words

J udd's

view,

when you ;jol,)r! rdating pnrts. in the first place, you're a~~umir)g )'011 h;)vc a vague whole-c-the rectangle of the canvas-s-and definite parts) which is ,III screwed up. because yon should have :i definite u;/role and maybe no parts, 01' very few. I
I This WM ~'icl hy Jm!1! in ..n Intc:vtc\\' with Bruce C!:u;(:r. edited h)' J.uC')' R. Lippard and pllbh~I~<i 01> "QUt<){it>l\!I 10 Siena ;mc.! Jtuiri," Art N0l4\~, Vol. L.;';'V. :-\0. 5, SUI)ll>Jllbcr !966. 'ill! T(!m;ark~nlttlbtttoo ill the present e~:t)' to Judd ",l.1 M(JrTi~h'IVC been t~k(:n from lhilj illtl!l'vie w, Irmn J\ldd'~ ~~O>' "~pccifie Obieees," Art\' )'11'0'0001., ).(). 8, 1965, M from R{)bcll '\1tlrris') t!~a)'$" ":-\()t('.~ 011 ~~11plur~~ and "Nores (Ill S<~"JlIII'l!. Part 2." published In Art[orum, VI)]. IV, 1\0. 6, February 196B, and vo\. 5, No.2, Octobt:r 1900, TC)])C:Clively. (1 ha\'t' :IUO Ial:= one )'emAtk by Marrh [mill tht:: ('-'I\AIO~Ntr to thl' C\hlbilioll "Eir.ht Scnlpton-; 1110A1I1biJt\1ou~ I~gc," h('i:t at the Walker .. rt \ CClIlM', Octchcr-Deeember 1966.) I ~hollitl ndd thlil ill l:e~'iIlS out whal ~l'(:m)' III me 11,1..' I)(lljilioll Judd 1nd ~fo. fi~ hold ill com IIIon J hnvr- 11.I'Otod various dHrC"C'lIt't'$ between them, nlld haV'tJused Ctrlain rernnrks ill t"tllllt'~b for which Ifll:)' m~y not have be'CII intended. .\forcovc,., I hAW' 1)t>1 al\\,lI)'< i!ldl.;ntoo whtch of them Rl'(U:,JI y )aid or \H(ltc n pnru""lar phrase; lite nltcrnoliv6 would have bl'~'11 10 litter the tc~t with fOt>~IIOlt'<.

I
The enterprise known vuriously as ~hnim:ll Art, ABC Art, Primary Structures, and Specific Objects is largely ich'ologic3L It seeks to declare anel C)(.'CIII' a position-c-one that can be formulat(,~1 in
t\el>rilll~tl from
,\l'//tl({'lII.

}Ime, 1007.

Michael Fried
TIll: more

118
,IS

Art and Objecthood ill recent

119

modernist

the shape of the support is emphasized, painting, the! lighter the situation becomes:

'111(:clements ill.. ..idl~ the rectangle are broad and simple nod correspond closely to the rl.,.'CI:Hl~le. he shapes IIl1d surface are only T those tlmt (,.~III occur plausibly within alld on a rectangular plane. The parts arc few arid so subordinate to unity as not to he parts in lUI ordinary sense. A pain ling is nearly an entity, one tiling, and not the indefinable SIIIO of a group of entities and references. The one thing overpowers the CMlier paint in~. II also eS~lblishc.. .. IIII~rt:ctall~lc as a definite funn; il is no longer a fairly neutral limit. A Iorm (~n he used only in so man)' ways. The reetan!tul:\r plane L~given Il life SL);III. The! simplicity required to emphasize the rectangle limits the arrtlllgl!lnt:llts possible within it.
P';lilllillJ{ is here seen as all arl 011 Ihe verge of exhaustion. one in which the range aooeptablc solutions to it haste problem-how to organize the surface of the pi ctu re-i.." severely restricted. 11le lise of shaped rather tlmll redangular supports (;:111, Irom the literalist point of view, merely prolong the :lgony. The obvious response is to s:tivc lip workillg on a slngle plane in favor of three dimensions. That, moreover, automatically

or

within the work:' (They would include the work of David Smith and Anthon)' Caro under this deseription.) It is worth remarking th'll tile "part-by-part" and "relational" character of mo sculpture is nssoclated by Judd with what he calls ontilrQP(mwrpltism,' "A beam thrusts: a piece of iron follows a gesture; together they form a nalllwlistic and anthropomorphic image, The space corresponds." Against such "multipart, inflected" sculpture judd and Morris assert the vnllles of wholcn<.'SS. singleness, find indivisibiliry-s-of :l work's beina, as "earl), ,1S po~"ihle. "one thilig," n single "Specific Object." Morris devotes considerable attention to "the 1I~ of strong gestalt or of IInit:lf)' type forms to avoid divisiveness": while Judd is chiefly interested in the kind of wholeness that <.'~IU 00 achieved through the repetition of identical units. 11lC order at work in his pieces, <IS he Once remarked of that in Stella's stripe p(lintings. "is simply order. like th.H of continuity. OUe thing after another," 1'01' both Judd and 'Murris. however, the critical factor 11>lwpc. Morris's "unitary forms" s are polyhedron. .. that resist being grasped other ehan ns a :;ing)c !(h,Ii><": the gestalt simply is the "constant, known shape." And shape itself is, in his system, "the most important sculptural value." Similarly. speaking of his own work, Judd has remarked that the hig problem is that anything Ihat is not absolutely plain hegins to have parts in some \~lr, The thing is to he able to work and do differcnt things and yct not break tiL>the wholeness that a piece has. To me the piece with the brass and the 6ve verticals is

gets rid of the problem of illusionism :Ind or literal space, space ill and around marks <If\(I ~'()~of~-which is riddauee of OIl(: of the salient and most objectionable relics of Ellropean art. The several limit.\; of p:lintillg are no longer present. A work can be 3S powerful :IS it can 00 thought to he. Actual 51),1.00 is intrinsically more powerful and speeiflc than paint 01) n .I;'Ilstirface. The literalist attitude toward sculpture is more ambiguous. Judd. for cxumplc, SC(:I'Tl~ h) think of what he calls Spccific Objects a~ something other than SCuIPlUf'C, while Hobert Morris conceives of lli!t own Ulllnistakahly literalist work IlS resuming the lapsed lradition of Constructivlst sculpture established by Tatlin, Rodchenko, Cabo, Pevsncr, and Yantongcrloo. But thi!'>and other disagreements :UX! I(~ illlp()rt~\IIt ,ball the views Judd and Morris hold in common. Above all they arc opposed to sculpture that, like most painting, is "nuule part hy part, by addition, ("'Omp()(5(..'(I'" in which -spe<:iric and elements ... separate from the whole, thus ~ellin~ up relationships

above

~111"(Jf $11(11'(;.

TIle shape i.~the object: (It IlII)' rate, what secures the wholeness of the object is the Singleness of the shape. II is. I believe, this emphasis on shape tit,lt accounts for the impression, which numerous critICS hove mentioned, thnt Judd's and Morris's pieces are hollos,

II
Shape has also been central to the mOM Important painting of the past several years. r Il several recent essays- r have tried to show
; "Shape- as Form: frank Stdb's r\cw rnll'li/l~S," Arlf(1f'(l1n, Vol. V. ~o. 3. Nm'cmht'f HJ66: "JulC';~Olit:<I..;," the C;'\lall)~ue introduction to un exhibition of hl~ wo;'x ut the Coreoren CIlUery. WIllIhington, D.C . Aprll-June, 1007; and ~KOllald D,wls: Surrace Wid Illusion," A,'/orullf. VoL V. No. S. ApllI H161.

Michael Fried

120

how, in the work of Xoland, Olitski, 11I1(1 Stella, Q conflict has gradu~II>' emerged between shape us :t Fundamental property of objects rind shape as a medium of paillting. HOlIj{hly, the success or failure of a givcn painting ha~ come to depend on its ability to hold or ~1.:lJnp ltsell out or compel conviction as shape-s-thnt, or somehow to stave off or e-lude the question of whether or not it does SQ. Olitski's early spray vaillhll~s arc tlH~ purest example of painting.<; that either hold or !"liI to hold a~ shapes: while in his more recent pictures. :t!' w(.11as in the lHst of Noland's and Stella's recent work, the demand that a give!) picture hold as shape is staved oil or eluded in vnrluus ways. \Vhat is at stake in this conflid is whether tht" p~i"tillgs 01' objects ill question :ll-t' experienced as painlings Or as objects: ;tnd what decides their id(.'lllit} as poillting is their confronting of the dl'Jnttlld that they hold as shapes. Otherwise they arc experienced as nothing more than objects. This (:.'111 he smlllne<1 up by saying that m()(lcl'Ilist pl\iJ)\in~ has come to find it unperative that it deft'al or suspend its own objccthood. and that the crucial factor in this underraking is shape, but shape that must belong to I)()ilttlllg-it mllst he pict(tr-i:ll, not, or not merely. literal. Whereas [iteralist :u1 stakes ever}tthing on shape as a given property of object!', if not, indeed, ..~ a kind of t1hject in its own right. 1l aspires. not to defeat or suspend its own objl.!cthood. but on the contrary to discover anti project objeethood ns such. In his CSSl\)' "Recentness of Sculpture" Clement Greenberg disCllo;~l~ the effect of nresence, which, from the start, has been associatcd with ltterallsr \vork.J This comes up in connection with the: work of Anne Truit]. an art-ist Creenbcrg believes anticipated th.e ]iterali"ts (he calls them Xlinirnalists}: Truitt's art did tlirt with the look of non-art, and her 1963 show was till' first in \\'hidl 1 noticed. how this look could confer an effect of prc,Y(>llce. '111Ht presence as nchievcd through size was :wstiletic:llly extraneous, 1 :ilrt-:tdr knew. Ttmt pn'scncc os achieved through the look of non-art was likewise tll'sthetiC:llly
1 l'lh!bltt'd ill the ('..It:llo~ue 10 the i,.(l~ AlI~d.t':> Q,,1I1ty :-.tlL~I!Un'l of Ali'S (.\:hiblli,I. "Aillcrit<l'\ Sculpture or the Sixtf~." nit! ...... '"PfOject" IU 1 have ,,~ iusl 'hl'el II is l~kt!1l from C:rcr.JlhC1~!(statement, "The onenssblc nirn of the :\'1inima1iSb i~ II' projc.-cl obkcl~ :md ensembles of (lh~ct< thnt nre iu~l illidge-

An;hony York.

Coro:

Bltnn;ng/C)II.

colloctPoI'I of Ju os Olink],

196.1, S'cer painted black. 3'4" x 13' x 11'. In the Phot09roph COUnO$Y of AI'\;lrtl ElI'meri:h Gallery, New

Anthony COlO: flo,.. 1966. Stool peinsed blue. 2"1" )( 6'9" x 5'4". In the (oll.,ctiorl e! ,,"'. ond litts. Henry Foiwell. PhOI(;9ropn (ourresy of Andre E'T:"Tlericn Gallery,
New
a __

Yon.
_ ~ " _. __ ._. _ __ __~

"hI. IrlCI)

nrt."

Art and Objscthood

123

or

extraneous, 1 did not yet know. Truitt's sculpture had this kind of presence hut did not hide behind it. '111at sculpture could hide behind it-jllsi as l)''linling did-T found out only after repeated ucquaintaucc with Minimal works of :u-t: Jlldd'!5, Morris's. Andre's, Steiner's, some but not all of Smuhson's, some but not nit [..,eWitt's. ~1ittjmal art can also hide he hind presence as size: 1 think of Bladen (though T am not sure whether he is a certified Minimalist) as well as of some of the artists jllst mentioned.

Presence can be conferred by size or by the look of non-art. Furthermore. what non-art means loony, and has meant ('Or several years, Is fairly specific, In "Afler Ah"lract Expressionism" Greenberg wrote that "a stretched or tacked-up canvas already exists as a picturc-s-thougb not necessarily (IS a successiul one."! For thal TC<lSOn,
i "Aflc:r Arn.lrlll't Exr~:u:luDl." Art /ntc;mtItiml(.l, Vtll. VI. r\(l. S. OctPbllr 25. 19(~. p. 30. The p!lJ..~g(' from wlli~'" this }H!lI been taken r~;,d~,,~ !(lIII),,,g;

:>onold Judd! Unlilled. o resel ICf'9lh of 25'4".

1966. Goh'OlI;ad "eel. Each bOlCl 40" J( 40" x 40" Phol09roph coutle.y of Owon Vol.ery. N~ .... York.

lor

Under the I<.-still~ 01 modernism more nnd mottO or the C'OIIVeJlti<lIIlO o.! the nrt (If p*illtin~ ~vc' shown thcm~clv(S (0 be lli:!pensal,lt:. ~mc..~Cf1l1;)1. But now it It:U" heen ~tothll~hod. It would seem. thut chI' lncdUC"iblc essence of pktorial urt CQn<;i<.(s ill but two conHihltivc CQllv("lIli01~~ ur norms: Bntnr;s:.o:; and th~ dcllmitftti(ll1 of a,tnC$l; finO thnt the observanee (If mercly these two f1()rlYl~ h t'1lough to crmtc- Sin obJuct that ('.111 be I'xpl'r/l'fl~1 a) a pichue; thus a stretched or rncked-up C:lOv.u alrc:.cI)' CX~1bas ;t p:clun:.lbvu~h 11(11 nC"OCU:lflly !l~ a $IICCl<t.sjll! one, III it~ hronc! outlil.c lhh is undoubtedly correct. 'fhl!7(: nrr-, however. certain qunllflC-:Hioll!< Illat can he m;td(t To 1ICttin with, II is Iwt quite c!lbOugh til 13y thllt a Lelr!! O::UI\'IIS I.<lck.. o to a \V31l is no( "Il('ce~:trii)''' a Hloc<:ssflli picture: it would. I think, be less (l! an (':mrJ!l~ti<Jn I :<11)' thnl it b not '~lIctric;d1!y one. It IYIlI)' be countered thnt Iuture cirCllmsl<ilo('e) mighl "be ';:11<:11l< til llUJ/.:e it :1 ~lI(l(l(:~dul pnlnUJIj.!: but 1 < would "("ue that, for thAt 10 I\IIPPI:JI, 11,,=cfltcrpn:o;l' (If J)<1illtill~ wodd have to dlallS~ >0 dl';l~tl<'.lUy lh.1t lIoliling more thall lllll 11:1111(;would rcmaln. (It woulrl require a faT srcntC\r <:h;~I)lttl lh:'lIIl thut LII.:!I }XllnUn1! I~ undergone from Mnl1.ct 10 N'c>lnncl, Olltsl:i. aod ~teU:I!) Mmf'O\'l'r, SCCilll: :IoH:thing a<, a pl\intin~ in thl' " ."(~ Ihal Olll' sees thr- tSlc:kl.ldup moV'd.< II~ n Jnintinj.!, and being CIlIIVIn<'<'O that .t parhC\II4!1 work call ~t:llld t.'()mp."lr~on With th.: Iminting of th~ on~t whose qunllt), fs I)u( ill doubt, are Qlt(lgcllwl' differe:lt C\'pCrl.<JIlCIlS: it ill. 1 want II) STlY, ns tbough 1I111e:o;.< ~omC(fl'nlr compels conviction ns to il.) qurt.!ic)' it I~ no more dian trivlnlly 1.# II(lfflil ..,IIy a pamring. 11ii8 lSUI!J.!Cll!:<hat fbh)('~ t and lIw delimitntion of lIf1lll~"t ougltt not 10 hI! thougbt v! us til<: "Irreducible &S<:occ (If I)ictori:tl art" but mllier tb)()fI}ethin8 Ilk(' the minimal ccndtrlm" fc>r srmletltil1g'" buill; secn lU a pairllillS: lind that the erucinl questlcn is not

Michael
.IS

Fritld

124

Art and Objecrhood

115

lie remarks in "Recentness of Sculpture," tile "look of non-art \\~ no 1<)Jl~('ravailable 10 painting." Instead, "th~ borderline between art and non-art had to he sought ill the thrce-diruensional, where sculptUI'(' was, and where evcr)'thing material that was not art also was .... Greenberg g<H!S on to say: The look of machinery is shunned now because it does uor go far enough towards the look of non-art. which is presumably :111 "inert" look that ollers the eye u minimum of "interesting" incident-unlike the machine look, which is arty b)' comparison [und when I think of Tinguely 1 would agree with this}. SliII, no matter bow simple the object Ina)' he. there remain the relations and intcrrcluuons of surface. <-ontonr, and spatial interval. ~1inimal works an.' readable .IS ;HI, as almost '1r1)'tbing i:- today-including u door, a table, or a blank sheet of paper ... , Yet il would :.(,(:111 that a kind of ,11'1 nearer the condition of non-art could not be envisuged or ideated at lllite moment.
wh:.t Illest miuimul and. ~(l to ~l1~k. timt!I~'S) ,:ooditlom nre, ~mt rather what, nr II snven JOI.lImt!llt. u C".I,~IJI(; r.f compcUinJ; t.,(lI'Ivictioll. of succeeding IL< pnint11111. ht~ " not to My t1~l pailllinr, T has no C$~eOCc: il :.$ 10 claim that that cclluu-i,t.'. thr.t which CQlllJ)d!S C(lIiv;l;til')~l~ Inrgd)' dt:'tt:'rmillot.l b)', and thenofort! dIU 1I)!~"'S (l(Jnt1nuolly in re.~POll:SC 10, tho vitnl work (If the recent J)tls!. TIle C~)I.;'IK'C of P:tilltillt ts nl)t <l)Jncthllll: irreducibl. nather, tlw t.:t)~ of ll", mndemis~ puinte-r b 10 di<.OOV<lr rhose conventior Inrlt, M rI gi\'t!1l momeut, <1(1Jfl.l: nrc capnble II! dtab4I')';IIi't his \\or~,. idcntil)' a~ ,):tilltillt ern"'''' 'l! npproaches eMs J)O~lio" whrn he ndds ... A:s it l1l1C}111> 10 me, ~C':w. 11'1;111. Kud'ko. :\11>11 Stlll h.rv e :(\\UII)!. the l>clr-<:dtlC1~m of modemi!-l pnilltinr. In :1 new direction )Illlph' hy ("(lntinuiu)!, it ill it> old O,W. The que-stirm now usked through their art i~ 00 IOIlJ!M' whnt constitutes "It. of tI'l" clrt of pnlnting, :I, such. 1)\11wl"'l fN('(tuclbl), t.'<Ill)titut~,> Itarxi :nl as euch, Or rather, wJ", I is ultimate sourco of v ..111(: (II qllJilily ill art?" But} would nrguc that wh!ll mod-

pousal or objccthood-e-alrnost, il seems, as all art in its ov.... righln and modernist p:lioting'~ sell-imposed imperative that It defeat Or suspend its own objccthood through the medium of shape. r n fact, from the perspective or recent modernist painting, the literalist position evinces a sensibility not simply alien but antithetical to its own: as though, fl'OlIl thal perspective, the demands of art and the eondilions of objeethood arc in direct cOll/lict Here the question ;lrI.se": Whut is it about objecthood as projected and h),po:ttatiud by the Iileralbls thut makes it, ir only from the perspective of recent modernist painting, antithetical to art?

The meaning in this context of "the condition of non-art" is what I have been calling objecrhood. It is as though objecthood :\J011(; can. in the present circumstances, secure something's identity, if not as non-art, at 1C:l~t as neither painting not' sculpture; or <1$ though a work of art-more accurately, .. work of modcrnist painlillg or sculpture= were in some essential respect not (In ohiect, Therc is, in an)' case, a sharp contrast between the litt:ralist es-

III
The ar...... wer 1 want to propose is this. the literalist espousal of objecthood amounts to nothing other than :1 plea for a new ~enr<: of theatre, and theatre is now the negation of art. Literalist sensihilit)' is theatrical because, to begin with, it is cuncorned with the actual ciT'("Umst'1J1CCS in which the beholder en. counters literalist WOrk. Morris makes this explicit. Whereas in previous lllt "what is to be had from the work is located strictly within rill," the experience of literalist art is of an objeet in a situation- one Ihat. virtually by deflnilion) includes the beholder:

Inc

ernisrn ha..1 meant i~ thaI lhl! rwe qllCSti<nl> \V1",l ()(Ju>tilulcs til(' art of paintinl(? Anel whnt CQnstitute> ~lJ()r.I 1XJtnlin~?~rc no IOIl!;C!r $t!jlu:lbltl; th\l Rr<e di>JIpp~'IN. or ioll.'r('.)1lngiy tcnch to di>3I)I>C.lI, Into the second. (1 :lUI, C:fMIr.C. t.,k.in~ h>'I(' j,('r(' with the version of II'<H,krni<m pHI Ioewnrd in my Thrc AlJu:rfG'tJn J'aintc;r:y.) If"t u,()(v 1)11 ,hI' nnrun- I eS~'It<:1! :... c1 1,'l::II\vM\t/(m in thl' 111(I\k~lli>t ,,,b see !fir C~lI,$ 011 Stelln aoo Olitski lI'It'1lti<lflcd "hfW." n~ well ;\~ St .. nley Cavell. "xtusic 1)j)~tHl'IPOOId: .-00 "Rl'jollldcn:" W (Tili<.> of 11 t ~)', .... to he publi~h('rl ...5 part of II ~YlIllX,,":m h)' Iht! UniveNitr of Pitlsbul~h Pt(<.~ In n 11m, entitled Art, ~1.jrid "1#1 Itt:iff!illf1. (' wdr.~pieces will "blo uppeur ill MuM ; Wc' ,HM!; W/IIZI We Smi'. a l!oo!.. of his ~~n)'( to 1)(' pllhli~llICrl in the tlt-af

or

,,.

u tllTe! II)' S<"Tihllt:'1''.

Tile better new work takes relationships out of the work and makes them t\ function of SpOlCC. light, and the viewer's fleld of vision. '111C ohject is but one of the terms in the newer aesthetic. It is in some way more l'eOexive bec.IUSC one's awareness of one. self existing in lht: sumo space :1$ the work is stronger than in previous work, with its man)' internal relationships. One is more aware than before that ht' himself is cltahlishing rclatioMhips 9S he apprehends the object from various positions and under varying conditions of light and spatial context.

Michael Fried

126

Art and Objccthood

127

Mon'is believes that this awareness is heightened by "the strength of the const:lI1l, known shape, the gestalt.'" against which the appearHrlCC of the piece from diJl'crt.:nt points of view is constantly being compared, It is intcnsifled also hy the large si';lIe of much literalist work: The nwareuess of scale is a function of the comparison made between that constant. onc s body .~i~.e,and the object. Space between the subject and the object is implied in such a compariSOI1.

by the presence of the object. It is not controlled in the sense of being ordered h) un aggregate of objects or by some shaping of the space surrounding the viewer. The object, not the beholder, must remain the center or focus of the situation; but the );itu:lHOIt it,,,elf belon/ to the beholder-it is his situation. Or us Morris has remarked. "I wish to emphasize that things are in a space with oneself. rather than .. , [that) one is in a space surrounded by things." A~ajn, there is no clear or hard distinction between the two states of .i.ffaus: one is, after all, alu.;lQlJs surrounded by things. nut the things thnt are literahst works 01 art must somehow confront the beholder-they must, One might almost say, he placed not just in his space but in IDS u,"l1Y. None of this, MOrris maintains. in the object itself. Rill the concerns of ... [he entire situation. Control is necessary if tht! va.riahles of object. light, space, body, are to funelion. The object has not become less important, II has merely become less self-important. indicates of interest
IIOW Me for more control

The larger the object the more we arc forced to keep om' distance

r rom

it:

It is this necessary, greater distance of the object ii' space from our bodies. in order that it be xeen at nil, that structures the
nonpcrsonal Of puhlic mode [which :Morris advonates]. However, it i:; ju:-I this distance bct\\'(;(f) object and subject that creates a more cxtended situation, because phystcal participation bcoomes rWI.'eSsary. The theatricality of Morrts's notion of the "nonpcrsonal or public mode" se-ems obvious: the largeness of the piece, in conjunction with its nonrelatioual, unitary character, distances the beholder-not just physically but psycbi~llly. It bo, one might ~I)" precisely this distancing that makes the beholder a subject and the piece in question ... an object. But it docs nol follow that the larger the piece the more securely its "public" character is established: on the (.'Ul'trM)" "berond a certain si'l.c the object can 'Overwhelm and the gigantic scale becomes the loaded term." ~torris wants to achieve: presence thro\l~h objecthuod. which requires a ccrt~lin largeness of scale, rather than through :size alone. But he is also aware lll:'1t this distinction is anything hut hard find fast:
FOI' the space of the room it:self is a structuring factor both in its cubic shape and in terms of the kind of comprcss~ol\ different SL-l.Cd and proportioned rooms can effect upon the objeet-.mh$ect terms. That t\1(' spare of the room becomes of such importance docs not mean that an environmental situation is being established. The tot,11 :-'l).'1CC is hopefully altered in certain desired ways

,I lack

that "the entire situation" m<.'8DS it seems, the beholder's body. There is nothing within his field of vision-nolhiJIg that be takes note of in any w<I}'-that, as it were, declares its irrelevance to the situation, and therefore to the experience, in question, On the contrary, for something to be perceived at ;111 is for it to he perceived ;)S part of tflat situation. Everyihing counts-not as part of the object. but 3S part of the situation in which it~ objecthood is establish cd and on which that objcctbood at least partly depends.

It is, J think,

worth

remarking

exactly that:

aU of it-includi,)!).

IV
Furthermore, the presence: of literulist art, which Crccuberg was the flrst to analyze, is basically a theatrical effect or quality-a kind of SUlgc presence, It i... ~I function, not just of the obtrusiveness and, l often, even a~r(:.'>Sivcncss of lHeral~1 work, but of the special compliclty that that work extorts from the beholder. Something is said to have presence when it demands that the beholder take il into account, that he take it scriously-and when the fulfillment of that

Art and Objecthocd Michael Fried 128

129

demand consist-, simp), in being uwmC of it and. so to speak, ill act ing t\c()(mlingly. (CcI'l:1in modes ul SCl'iOUSII(.,l;lI are dosed to the beholder' by the wor], itself, i.('., those established b)' the !inest paintill~ and s(."Ull)tuTc of tilt' recent past. Hili, of course, those arc hardly lIIodes of seriousness in which llIost pcopk' I(,c\ at home, UI' that they even find toh-rnblc.) Here again the experience of being dist:1ll('ro by lilt' work ill (l'lt"~tion seems crucial: the beholder knows himself to stand ill nn indctcrtninnte, ope\l.ended-and uoexacting-e-rclntion (1.$ Sfll'it>ct to the impassive uhject on the wall or floor. Tn fact. l>t:in~ distanced hy such ahjeds is not. 1 suggest. entirely unlike being dlstanced, or crowded, by the silent presence of unothet perS()Il; the experience {If coming upon litcrulist objects uncvpectedly-efor l'x;lmp\t. in somewhat darkened rooms-e-c .. n be strongly, if s lfIunwlltarily. uis/luieting in jll.~tlhis way. There nre three Irwin reasons why this is $0. Ftrst, the size of t)lII(h literalist work, as }..torr1s's remarks iUlp1r. compares fairly dos(,I), with that of tht: human hlldy. In chis context Tony Smith's replies to <pl(')o,hons about hi:. six-foot culx-, Die, are high ly suggcstivc-:

IhaC most closely approach the literalist ideals of the nonrclational, the unitary and the wholistic are otll(~r persons. Silnilarly. the literalist predilection (or S)'III111 etry . and in ~encral for" kind of order that '<is simply order ... one thillg after another." is r()ot('(I, Hot. as Judo seems to believe, in new philosophical and scientific prill('lpll~S. whatever he takes these to be, but in nature, And third. the: apparcnt hollowness of most literalist work tIle quality of h;I\'lI\g an in$'idc-i$ o Imost blatan t ly ;.IIl( h ropornorphic. It is, as numerous commentators have remarked approvingly, as though tilt' work in question has an imler> even secret, Iife-:'In efFect that is perhaps made most explicir in Morris's Ull/illed (ltl65-6G). a large ringlike form in two halves, with fluorescent light glowing Irom within at the narrow gap between the two. In the same spiril TOllY Smith has said, "I'm intel~ ..ted ill the inscrutablllty lind mysteriousness of the tltin~."t; H(, has also been quoted ItS saying: -'Jore and u mre I've become Interested in pncumutk, structures. In th(:<I{'. \11of the mnterlul is in tension, Bllt it is the characte-r of 1 lilt' form tll:ll appeals to me. Tilt' biomorphic f()rm~ that result (rom tlt(' eonsrrucuon have.: ,I dreamlike quality for me, at least lih what iii "aid to be a laidy common type of American

Q: Why didu't
observer? A: I was Q: Then could see A: J was

)'011

make it larger

so th'lt

il

would 100m over the

d rerun.
$lIlilh's int('I'('sl in pneumatic SlIlIctlltes may seCII) surprising, hilt it is eonsbt('nt both with hi~ Own work and with literalist sensibility gent-r.lll}'. Pnt'lIlil~tk'structures (';lll he described as hollow wilh a vcngcance-c-the Iact that they are not "obdurate, solid masses" (~10rris) being illsisted em insl<":lcl of taken for grunted, And it reveals something. I think. about what hollowness m-ans in literalist ,III thl\t thr- forms that result ar(' "hiomorphic."

not making It monument, why didn't yOll lIIake it smaller over tltt: top? not making om object."

SO

that

the observer

might he somethillg like a surr<)g~lll' \wrson-thOll is, a kind of statue. (This reading Ilnds support' in the caption to a photograph of another or Smith's pieces, 1'Iw mack Box, published in the December 1967 issue of Art/ownl, in which Samuel \\'ait-"taff, Jr., pn.'StIJl\lIhly with the nrtist\ sanction. observed, "One can sec the two- by-fours under the piece, which keep it from appearing lile architecture 01' .. monument. and set it off as eculpture." The twoby.fotlrs are, in cRect, a rudimentary pedestal. and thl~rd' reinforce the statue-like quality of the piecc.) Second, tlw entities or beings encountered in everyday experience in terms
'. ()lwII!U by Morr~~ IU the o:pil!wJ)i, to hi~ "Note)
UII

(1 ne way of d('';'<(;tihin~ what Smith Icas making

V I am suggcstinl{. then, that a kmd of latent or hidden naturnlism, in<i(.'(.>d :mthropomorphi~lll, lies at the core of literalist theory and practie. 111C concept of presence all bill says us milch. though
rcrr<"'lr so nakedly as in Tony Smith's statement, "I didn't think of
oJ Ex('('pl fot the :\fOTrfl> ~pi~r:tph .. Ir(".~ll) QUilted, 311 stntemcnts ur Ton). Smilh h:lv<, Lt:'('ll InkCt) Irom Samuel Wa):)<l~tt. Jr:<. "Talking 10 'fUll)' Smlth," Arlforum. Vol. V. No.4. December 1966.

Scllll'>l\lrc. Purt 2."

Art and Objecthood Michoel Fried 130 them [i.e., the sculptures he "always" madc 1 as sculptures but as presences of ~l sort." The Itlten(,'Y or hiddenncss of the nnthropomorphism h3S been such that the literalists thcll1seh,cs have, as we have seen, felt rreo to characterize the modernist oTt they oppose, e.g., the sculpture of O'lvicl Smith and Anthony Caro, M anthropomorpbio=e ell:\ractcri'l~tion whose teeth, ima~intlry 10 begin with, have just been {)ulll:d. 'R)' the same token, however, what is wrong with literalist work is not th~tl it .ill anthropomorphic hut that the meaning :1IId, equally, the hiddcuncss of its ~_lIlhropomorphisJJ) are incurably theatrical. (Not all literaliS1 art hides or masks its anthropolllot'pbislIl; the work of lesser flgllrcs like Steiner wcnrs anthropomorphislII on its slccvc.) The (;nJci(li (/i.${inctioll that 1 am pr()lK>Sing :5"0 far is beuace work that is fllndamelltally theatrical 011(/ work that is not. It is thctltTlcality that. whatever the differences between them, links artists like Bladen and Grosvenor,' both of whom have allowed "gi.gontie seale Ito become] the loaded tcnn" (Moms). with other, more rc:strailled figures like Judd. Morris, Andre, McCrnckcn. J.eWitt 3Jld-<l<:spite the size of some of his picccs-e- Tony Smith." And it is in the interest, though not explicitly in the IUJ(M, of theatre that literalist Ideology rcj{.'Cls hoth modernist painting and. at ica,st in the hands of ito; most distill~tlished recent practitioners, modernist sculpture. Til this t:ont1ectioll Tony SlIIith's d~ptiolt night on the New Jersey TUn1l)iKC before <:()rnpelling reading: Wbun 1 W{I$ teaching at Cooper Union in the first ~lT or two of the fifties, someone told me how 1 could get onto the w)finished New [ersey 'Turnpike. 1 look three students and drove from somewhere in the Meadows to New Brunswick, It was a dark
, 111the catalogll_(! to h'll q)TUIS:'~ Primal)' :)lrllcturl."S ~ldhlti()ll al the Jc:wUh MUl>Cum. Blnden wrote. "How do you make the ilt<idc the outside?" and Crosvenor, "I don't w'I,,1 my ",'{)f\: 10 he: thO'lsht 1)1 l\,. 'lru~e lScl1lpt\Jr(!: 1I14,lYnre idcu.~ that operate ill the )lX1CIS between lIollC' and eeiling," '111c rdev:LIlOl: of Ih<".Sl! :.1alClI1cnl3 W what I 11:1\'\:adduced a,</ cvj(kooll fOT tbe tl\oCo11r'1caliCy .. f lit~T.<Ii(t 111I.'ol)' find practice s:ct!Uls otwlOlllS. I> It i" 11W-,lItricality, 101). 1I1:.llIInk'l all these a.rthts to Otllt'T Gp;llrll$ ;\$ tlb"nr\ltu a~ Kaprow, Gnmdl. nnwcillJ:lIOOrg. Oldcnburg. ll"lt\vln. SlUillisor" Kjt!nhob, Sc)!a'. $;lUl:lr.I~, Christ!). K\,I.mJl~ . the llit could S;I) (Ill Indc::ft.nittlly.

131

night and there were 1'10 lights or shoulder markers, lines, railings, or anything at all except the dark pavement moving through the landscape of the Hots, rimmed by hills in the distance, but 1'110<:tuated b)' stacks, lowers, fumes, and colored lights. This drive was a revealing experience. The 103<1 and much of the landscape W:LS artifkial, lind yet it couldn't be called a work of art. On the other hand. it did something for me that .1rt had never done. At first l didn't know what it was, but its effect was to liberate me from man)' of the views J had had about art. It seemed that there had been a reality there that had not had aor expression in art, The experience on the road was something mapped out but not socially recognized. I thought to tn)'sclf, it ought to be clear that's the end of art. MoS"l painting looks pretty pictorial :'tfte)' that. There is no way you can frame it, you just have to experience it. Later T discovered some abandoned airstrips in Europe-s-abandoned works. Surrealist landscapes, something that had nothing to do wilh ;IIIY Function, created worlds without tradition. Ar-lifi. cial landscape without cultural precedent began to dawn on me. There i:s ;1 drill ground in Nuremberg large enough to ncoommodure two million men. The entire field is enclosed with high embankments and lowers. TIle concrete approach is three sixteeninch steps. one above the other. stretching for a mile or so. What seems to have been revealed to Smith that night was the pictorial nature of painting-e-even. one might sa)', the conventional nature of art. And this Smith seems to have understood not ~IS laying hare the essence of art, but as announcing its end. In comparison with thc unmarked, unlit, all but unstructured turnpike-more precisely, with the turnpike as experienced from within the car, travel. in~ 011 it-art appears to have struck Smith as :'llmosl absurdly small ("All art today is an ali of postage stamps," he hos suid ), circumscribed, conventional. ... There was, he seems to have felt, no way to "frame" his experience on the road, that is, no way to make sense of it in terms of art, 10 make OFt of it, at least as art then was. Rather, "you jllst have 10 experience it"-as it hap-pens. as it merely is. (The experience alone is what mattcrs.) There is no suggestion that thIs is problemnttc in an}' way. rJ'hc experience is clearly regarded by Smith as wholly accessible to everyone, not j\l~t in prinel-

of a car ride mken ut it was finished makes

Robelt Morris. Ulltitlcd. 1965. Oroy fiberg!o~ Ifl the coJlecli:)n of II\c DW<:fI Oolle:ry. Pho;ograph NC!.... Yo:'.:.

wi'"

lighl. 2.4" )( 96" diameter. COI/rlosy o! leo Castelli C;~II(lry,

Tony Slrith: Tho Bleck Box. 1963-65.

~ointed wood. 2W It 3'. Pho~c.g(oph cour-e,y oS Fhchboch Gal!ory, New York.

Jules ~it$l.;; Dvngo .4~. 1967, AlUMinum PQit\lcd with oc,ylic rosin. 10' )( .44". h'l Inc col I.Icl'On of Robe.1 Rowan. Photograph COu,IC$Y of And ... EMme:rich Gal.
Icry. N&W York.

Michael

Fried

134

Art and Objcetbocd

135

plc but III fact, and lilt' question of whether Or 001 one has really lwei it does not arise. That this appeals to SlIlith can be seen from his praise of 1;.; Corbusier as "more available" than Michelangelo: "The direct and primitive experience of the High Court Buikhng at Chandigarh i-, lik(' the .Pilch los of UlC Southwest under a Iantastic oV(.'rh;lIl~ing cliff. It'!\ something everyone C:\1) understand:' 1t is, I think, hardly necessary to add that the availability of modernist art is !lot of this kind. and thut the ri~htncss or relevance one's conviction about specific modernist works, ;1 conviction thnt begins and ends in one's experience of the work itself, is always open to question. But wha] u:as Smith's c'xl~ericn<.'C on the turnpike? Or to put the same question nuother wn}'. if the turnpike, airstrips. and drill ground an' lint works of ;ll'I, what (I/'(> tht'>'?-What, indeed, if not <.'mpty. or "abandoned". sitIUlJi()tlS? And what was Smith's experiCIlN' if not the experts-nee of what 1 huve been ealllng theatre? It is as though the turnpike, airstrips, and drill ground reveal tilt! thcatri(.",\1character of likralist art, 001)' without the object, that is, It>ilhout the art jlsdf-as though till: object is needed only within a room" (01', perhaps, ill ail>' circumstances less extreme thnn these}. In each of the above cases the object is, so to speak, replaced b)' something: for example, on the turnpike by the constant onrush of the road. the simultaneous recc-sion of new reaches of dark pavement illumlned by the onrushing hcltdlighb. thc sense of the turnpike it~1f as something enormous, abandoned, derelict, existing (01' Smith alone and for those in the <:31' with him '" Thi~ last point is tmpoitant. Ou Ilu~ one hand, Ilw turnpike. nirstrlps. and drill ground belong to no one: on the oilier. the situation t:st<lblished hy Smith's presence is in each case fclt b) him to be hi. Moreover. in each ease being nble to go on and on illddinitf'lr is of the e..,._,ence. What replaces the objcctwhat do<!!>the same joh of distancing or isolating the beholder'. of making him ;, subject, that the object did in the closed room-i~ above all the cndles ..ness, or objcetlesxness, of the apprcnch or onrush Of' perspective. II is till;! explicitncvs. th;lt is to say. the sheer

persistence, with which the experience- presents itself as directed M him from otlt~i<k~ (on the turnpike from outside the (~ar) that simulhllleo~lsly makes him a subjccr-e--mnkcs him subject-and establishes UlC experience itself 'IS something like that of an object. Or rather, or obiccthood. No wonder Morris's specular iOIl~ about how to pul literalist work outdoors rumuin !>tr~tngdy inconclusive: Wh)' not Ptlt the work outdoors and further change the terms? :\ real need exists to allow this next step to become practical. Architeetumlly designed sculptllre courts are not the answer nor is thc placement of work outside cubic architectural forms. Ideally, it is a space, without architecture as h:ICkgrolll'<i and reference, that would give {Iiffen:nt terms 10 WOI k with. Unlc- the pit'c'(', art' set down in a wholly nntural conti-x], and Morris does not seem to be ndvocatlng this, some sort of artificial but !lot tIllite architectural setting must be constructed. \Vhal Smith's remarks St-em to suggest is 1l1,1t the more eflecrive-e-mcaning effective as tlw(/tre-the setting is made, the more 'lIl't!tlluous the works themselves become.

or

VI
Smith's uccount of hl1> experience on the turnpike bears witness to theatre's profound hostility to the art"" ;Ind discloses. precisely in the al).~t:nCt: of the object and in what takes its pillet" what might be calico the theatricality of ohjcc:thood. R}' the same token, however. the imperative that modernist painting defeat or suspend its objecthood is at bottom the impcrativl! th;tI it dejc(ri or .$1I,vr>etul theatre. And this means that there is a war going On between theatre and modernist painting. between the tht',ltric:al and Ihc pitlorial-~I war that. despite the literalists' explicit rejection of modernist painting and sculpture, is not basically a matter of program IlIId ideology but of experience. conviction, !>t'nsibilit)'. (For example, il was n pnrticular experience that (mgclltierc.:ci Smith's conviction that painting-in f:let. that the arts a....such-were flnished.) The starkness <'IUd apparent irrcconcilnbility of this conflict is something new. I remarked earlier that objeeehond has become an issuc for modernist painting only within the past se ..-cral years. This, however, is not to say th~t before the present situntion came into

'nl1:

~'(Ifll~1)(

.lIln

of

:t

mom i:!.

IIII)('/ll)'

clnndesrinely,

iJl1I>()fI~'lt

10

11tC"l':oli>t arl

:sub.tIIHIC'(! tor the word "~rj''' in the I.,UN: somethiru; h )aid II) h~' 10 III)' spuoe if it t~ in till' :o.:\m~loom with me (111l<i if It i. 11incccl so that 1 <:;\11 hfl1~1>' fnil to 1ItCIIi<.xit).

Ih<'<lr). Iu Iact, it (~1.1of~(:n

be

Micho~l

Frie~

1;$6

Art ond

Objccthood

137

being, l),dll(in~s, or sculptures for thut matter, simply I~cm obiccts. 1t would. I think. be closer to tile tnlth to say that the)' .'iimply were not.!" The risk. even the possibility, of seeing works of ,1I't as nothill~ /liMe than objects did not exist That this pOx'~ibilily began to present itself nround 1960 was l:u~cl)' rhe rt'!\\l1t of developmonts within modernist 1J<lilltillg. nou~hl)', lht! more nearly assimilable to
objects

entire

cl'rt.lill advanced p(dl\hn~ had come to seem. the more tIll' lliSlOI,), of pllilltinlC since \tallt't could 1)(, nnderstood-edelusively. 1 1,..ltt'\,e-ils ('<mslstingill the progressive (though ultlmutely inadequate] revelation of its essential objecrhocd.!' ,Ind the mOH' urqcnt 00(:41111<.' need (m' modernist paintint; to make exthe plicil lIs eonvcurionulspecifically, Its l)iciorilli-cssene<> by defeating or suspending il<; own objccthood through the IIIt'di\lm of shape. The view of modernist t>i'inting Its tending toward ohjecrhood is implicit in judd's remark. "The new [Le., literalist] work obviously resemble- sculpture more than it dol's patnting, but it j" nearer to painting"; and it is in this view that likrnli$t sensibility ill gc.>nert\l is grounded. Llteralist sCIl"ihility is. therefore, a response 10 the same developments that have \;1I'gdy compelled modernist p;'i"tin~ to undo its objeethood-c-more precisely. the same developments seen c1iJjrm:llt1y, that is. in tht'alric::al terms. by a M"nsihility alm(lt/!I thcatrical, already (to say the worst) corrupted or perverted b)' theatre. Sla"lt'y Cavell h~< remarked JIIIIr:ITl.mt a \\'(JI~ of MI is nll(
14

Similarly, what has compelled modernist painting to defeat or susP(:II<I its own objeethood is not just developments internal to itself. hilt the same general. enveloping. infectious theatricality that corruptcd litcrulist senslhtlity in the first place and in the grip of which the developments in question and modernist painting in geut'ra)are seen (IS nothing more than an uncompclling and preseneeless kind of theatre. It was the need Io break the fingers of this grip that made objccthocd OIl) issue (or modernist painting. Ohjecthood has also become an issu!;' for modernist sculpture. This is true despite the r,u:t that sculpture, being thrcc-dimousional, resembles both I)rdinary objects and litcrallvt wurk ill ,I way that l);linting doe." not, Almost ten years ago Clement Greenberg SllIIlITIl,<1 up what he saw as the emergence of (l new sculptural "style," whose master is undoubtedly David Smith, in the following terms: To render substance entirely optical. and for,", whether pictorial, sculptural, or architectural, as an illte~ral part of ambient space-sthis brings anhillllsionism full circle. Instead of the illuxion of

things, we arc
mnth'r

!lOW

is incorporeal,

offered the illusion of modalities: namely that weightless, and exists only optically like n

mirage.!" Since 1000 thi~ development has been carried to a sU<XX.'SSion of climaxes by the English sculptor Anthon)' Caro. whose work is far more specifically resistnnl 10 ht"ing seen in terms of objccthocd than that of David Smith. :\ characteristic SCtllplllT(' hy Can) (~on~lsts, T W<If)! to say, in the mutual and naked jllX/(lpositioll of the I-beams. ~ifdcrs. cylinders, lengths of piping, sheet metal, and grill that il
comprises rather thnn ill the compound 0/)1('(:'1 that tlwy compose. 11\t: mutual inflection of one element by another, rather than the identity of each. is what i" cntdal-lho\,gh or course alt~rillg tht: ici('IHily of :my dement would be al least as drastic :IS altering its placement. (The identity of each elc;lllent matters in somewhat the same wa), :'Is the fact that il is an arm, or this arm, that makes a particular gesture. or as thc Iact th,lt il ix this word Or this note and not another that occurs in 3 particular place in a sentence or melody.) The individual elements bestow significanCe OJ) One an1 ~ "'(1le

~j'mhur lh31 COt ({fll) I in lhj' Critiquc .)/ .11'1 (,LjI'Cl. T \\;11 take Ihi- ('.'.~()(tunit) (0 al'ImowIN\sjt' the Ca(.'l 11..-l wilh.ot.1t IlUlJlt.-TOU> ~'I.).WM"<!tI\ml~ with Ca\,1'1i durinl: tlld P;Ht tew ),(.1r.<. :IIlU \\Hlto". whut 1 It:w,: hr.u",(t from him i" c,,"'<~ and ~t!lHil"1I". 11ll' tln'~>f'nl ~"'<1I)" altd I\~ It nlooL-would 1~'i\'(' hN-n ilwelllC't'iv bl. 1 want abo 10 1:<\\)(('<" 11\) I-!r..litu~lc :11\0 Inn,-llt.!<lll~~> to 11,(, compll~cr Jol,,) 11mh,{of) who, lc~dhcr \\ ilh hts wife, tIl!:! \'iull"i~1 Ro<C''TOOIry 1!:\ll.moll. hOl~ ~i''('n IlW wh"I('V('Y Initillll(lII into 1IW,<iCrIl rnude 1 I"wt' l\.'Id. both f(l: dial initt,ltInn .md fur lIunWIU'" In.:;ights hearill)o! ,)0' the <\lhjcct t,f Ihi. c ......)'. :: One' \\'11)' m dt'.<uibilljo! 111;~ view lIli~ht lx In 'in)' that it dr.1\\'~ ~l)lIwthln~ 11k" '" f"h .... ;"f"f('/K'C' fnlln dlt~ ('.(1 11\.'11the iIlCft'.,.incl)' l."Xl)I!C'lI11('\;110,,1cdJ!'
ill

of lilt! IIkrol chnracter rI! the )"['{IOrt hll~ been cenuul to the dC'\t..rop~ mr-ne of modernist I>: .. "tjllg: n ..mely, lhal lit'II.,,"w<<. OJ' ludl i.< ;\11 artivtie v .lhl(' 'Jf slIpr{'ll'\C- Ilnpl)1l.111cl;. III "Shape liS Form" 1 .-1ll'1I'c! Ihllt this lllft'rcI'('C is UJi.d tn ~C'lt:lh) vttal (.'(NI>idcr.lli .... <: nncl implied 11,;.1 litt;'nlll~<-m.~t' . pre'l$cl). lIk' Iile~lnt~~ of the ~UI)potl--iS \';\h~(' onl)' Witlllll IIw(k"mt,,1 puintillE:. mel the-n 0111y L~~',I\I>c il hn~ hl'O'll Imlll,- \>11,' h)' till' hisIOI)' II! that Cllt"' prill'.
trlL'111

,I

XI:NI Sculpture,"

:\rt

tIIld Culture,

131>.<11)11. 19B1,

p. 14'\.

Michocl

Fried

138

At! and Objccthood

139

other precisely h)' virtue of their [uxrnposition: it is in this sense', a ~1'1I"1' mevtricably involved with the COIICCl)t vf meaning, that every thin~ in Care's art thai is worth looking :It is in its S}'nlMC, Care's (.'OIl(:\"lIlratioll upon syntax amounts. U1 Crcenberg's view, to "an emphasis 011 abstractness. OD radical unlikeness to nature."I:! And Gr('("nbt:I'g p;ocs 011 to remark, "No other sculptor has "~one us fill' [rom the structural lo~ic of ordinary ponderable things:' It is worth t'lllpha:;\zin<:. however. (h;1I this is a function or more than the low. IWSS, openness. pnrt-by-partncss, abscuoe of enclosing profile." and centers of iuterest , unpcrspioucusness, etc . of C;lI'()S sculptures. Rather they defeat. or allay, objeethood by inlitating, not gestures exactly, but IlIl' cifiNl('!J of gesture: like certain music and poetry. they ,II"(~ possessed by the knowledge of the hum .. 'I body and how, H in innumerable wa)'s and moods. it makes meaning. It is ,I::' though Carn's sculptures essentialize meaningfulness (I:> such--.'l~ though the possibility of "waning what we s:\y ;11)0 do alone makes his sculptun; possible. All this. il is hardly necessary to add, makes Caw's aft n fountainbeud of antilitcralist ancl antithcatricnl sen<:ihihty. TIII>I'e is another, more general respect in which objccthood has become ;111 iSSlI1;! for the most ambitious recent modcmlst sculpture nnd that is in regard to color. This is " large and difficult subject, wluch I cannot hope to do more than touch on hert>"~ Briefly. however. color h;l:-: become problematic for modernist sculpture, not because one senses that it has been apptied, but because the color of a given sculpture, whether applied or in the natural state of the material, is iclenticn] with its surface: and inasmuch 3$ all objects have surface, awareness of the sculpture's surface irnpliex its objecthood-e-thcrcby threatening to q\l(\lif)' or mitigate the undermining
.-.Thtc ~nd the foUnwin>! t':H\<1f'" nrf' rnken [Tom Crt!l!nut.'1'll~ C~fI)', "Antoon)' CIIII)." .\r/) )','nrfwok. Xo. S. 19~. Caro's filsl ~Cl.j) in Ihls direction, tilt! dilni n.-lion (If the 1)l'd\!~t"l. 1>\Wm,; In retrospect to have b\!\."l' mottvnred not br the d('<H, to provr-nt his wml.: w ithlJlUl :,rliRcl;l1 ;!l(l~ S(l milch as ~. !lIt! llood to \,,,(krlnill!; it, ohjrcthoon. llis wnrk }l~ 1(''1(. 1(''(1 th .. ('xtcnt to which Int!Tt<I), . puttin~ '>.(l1l1l!thio~ (It! " VC(!I.'l't;l1 CQllfirrru' it in its obicethood: chour,h merely removing Ih.. flo:ddlal doc.$ 1101 in It~c!lf uodermioe obio:-c!llood. :o~ Iit('YlllllOt work 1''''\1\'''-"""" ,. Scc \.fco,;tibcrs~ "Anlhool)' Cnro" :\1\ thl' In!ct ~ccdoo lilY "Sh~I)C F(,nll" for more. thou)!tl not n grc.,t deal moee. about color \11 <(1'\0111(1'.

of object hood achieved b), opticaliry and. in Cure's pleces, by their syntax as well. It is in this connection, I believe, that a very recent sculpture, Bung, by Jules Olitski ought to be seen. Bwrg(J consists of between fifteen and twenty metal tlll)e:.... ten feel long and of vilrious diameters, placed upright, riveted together and then sprayed with point of diflel'(!nt colors: the dominant hue is yellow to yellow. orange, but the top aud "rear" of the piece arc suffused with (\ deep rose, and close looklOg reveals flecks and even thin trickles of green Mel reel ,IS well. A rather wide red band has bern painted around the top of the piece, v..hile a milch thinner band in two different blues (one at the "front" and another at the "rear"] circumscribes the vel')' bottom. Obviously. Hllrlga relates intimately to Olltski's spray paintings, especially those of the past year Or so, in which he has worked with paint and brush at Or near the limits of the support. At the same time, it amounts to something Iar more thall an attempt slrnply to make or "translate" his 1}.."Iillhng_, into sculptures, namely, an attempt to establish surface=-rhe surface, so to speak, of paInting -as a medium of sculpture, The use of tubes, each of which one sees, incredibly. as jfaJ-thnt is, Ilat hut r()f/ed-ma};(.'$ RU1tg.a~ surfa('C more like that of a painting than like that of ::H'I object: like painting, and unlike both ordinary objects and other S<.'1J11)tul'e, Rtm::a i:. all surface. And of course what declares or establishes that surface is color, Olitski's sprayed color.

VII
At this point I want to make a claim that I cannot hope to prove or substantiate bUI thaI I believe nevertheless to be true: viz., that theatre and theatricality arc at war today. )10t simply with modernist painting (or moderntst p:1infing and sculpture), but with art as such-s-and to the extent that the different arts CUn be described as modernist, with modernist sensibility ;lS !'tllch. This claim can be broken down into three propositions or theses: their more evident than wh<lt I have been need to establish a
011

1) The to dcueml

$UC~~,

soen

In

the suroioal, 0/ the arts has come increasi1lgly ubility to <ic/cat theatre. This IS perhaps nowhere within theatre itself. where the need to defeat

a.s

c.111illg theatre has chiefly made itself felt as the drastically different relation to its audience. (The

Michoel

Fricxl

1~O

Art end

Objccfho<>d

1~1

relevant texts are, Or course, Brecht and Art3I1d.I:') For theatre has an audi('llcl-it exists for Onl.,--10 ;\ \va)' the other arts do not; in f'l('I, 11Hsmore than anyllung else is what modernist se-nsibiliry finds intoler.rblc in theatre ~ener.111)'. Here il should be remarked that litcr.;dbt :II'l, too, possesses an audience, though n solllcwhOlt special one: that the be-holder is confronted hy literalist work Within a situation that he experiences :\..\Itls means that there is an important sense in which thl! work in question c-.:ist:. for him alone. even if Iw is nut ;wtually alone with the work at the time. It lila)' seem pamdoxical to claim holh that literalist scn"ihliily aspires to :111 ideal of "somcthlng everyone can undcrstaud" (Smith) and thot Iitt'ralist art addresses itself to th{ heholrle r alone, out the p'II:.do:.: is only apparent. SOIlll'()IW ha~ merely to enter the rOOlI) in which a literalist work ha.s been plated to heroine that beholder, that audience of 011(,'uhnoxt a.; Ihou~h the work in cjlll':.hon has been wa;(lJIg for hun. And inasmuch as litcmhst work depends 011 Itw beholder. is ;11C;(III1 plell' without him. it has been \\"lilin~ for him. And once he i~in the room tlw wor], rd\L"CS, obstinately. to It'! him alonc-s-which is to say, it refuses to stop confronting him. distancing hiln, i~iating him. (Slid, isol;lIioll is not solitude ail}' more than such <'''OlIfr(nltation is communion. ) Tt b the overcoming of tiw:ltl't' that modernist s('nsihilily finds most exalting and that it experiences ." the hallmark of high art in our time. There is, however, one' art that. b)' ils ver)' nature, escapes theatre entirely-e-thc movies,H: This hdps explain why movtex ill
:. "11\ 111'1'(1to ochit\(, a new r'\:'Jaliv/I to the Wt,"1nlor, which Br c-chl fdt aud wl u dl he d"t\" ... c1 nmr- ;md Il~ill t in llis writill)t) on d'l",llft WAS.nnt ~Im pI)' til" result of hb \1:lf~l,m. On the- contrury. di><''O\~IY (If 1\1<11" '(,f'ln~ to huvr- 1><'.'11 10 part the uisll>v,~y of "hfll this rclntion might bc like-, ",1\;lt it m1r.h. rm-nn: "\\'0('11 1 nxul :-tur.\\ C(t)lir,d I ,m,w,<Jood my plny, ~ntllr.llI)' 1 \\';allt ,,, w, thi, I)""k wid,'ly dr'(11Inlctl. It wa~II't of course Il,,,t I f')110<l 1 Iwd UUl'OlI~i()l1>h' \\fin," .1 wholr pill' of Manist plny~: but 1111>111:\11\1:\(-.; w .. , the- unl)' '11<"<'1.111)1' for rll~ pl.,y> I'd C'VC'( corm- :1('1'0<'." (IJl'f'dlt tnl Theau, rcitlc..t md h'~n<:'trd h)' 101m WiIlr.-II. "'l"\~ '1'(111... I<)(U. 1)1). 23-~N.) , I' "'~'II) I.e.", IIw Ill(W/," ('CCIlII(' lhcalr., i..:a bt-.,utiful qlll"<ti,,... :Clld 11""1"\' 1< "" d.)uhl l",{ tl.,., ~ Ilhc'n<lmmol()l,ty .li! the c inemu dIal (~IlCltlll:tlt'el elel rhr)illlliarilw> ano ..lilT ,'I't'I Io\,'c" h," \\'1'('Jl It allll the tlu-atree.c .. llial ill the IJl/'lVil'~ thr- .II-tm< are 1101 it~tr>l~;tllr Jl'~C'IlI. the- IlIm hl'rlf l~ PI"OI('('I<,I ur.oof( frulli us; 111,. '\-(('/'11 t< /\('It <,xlwricnccd ;1> .. kind of obJn1 c;xi-tillq. <.0 to ~1X'nk, In 1\ ~pcdflc ~1.lj'li(.,1 rd:\I/l)n milS, Ck WIl'Illd be o:xtrelOdy rt'\\'~rtlilll!. Cavell,

general, including frankly appcliling ones, arc acceptable to modernist sensibtlily whereas all but tht- most successf 1I1painting, sculpture. music, and poetry is oot. Because cinema escapes thcatro=-automatically, as it were-s-It provides a welcome and absorbing refuge to !wll:.lhilitics at Will' with theatre and tlW;ilrit'alit). At the same time, the automatic, gl,arantecd character of the refuge-more accurately, the fact that what is provided is a refuge (rom theatre and not a triumph over it. absorption not ccnviction-e-means that the cinema, even at its most e~rirnc;'tal, is not a modernist art. 2) Art dcgcnerote as it approaches the condition of theatre. Theatre is the common denominator thai binds n Jorge and seemingJ}' disparate variety of activities to one another. and that distinguishes those :ldi"iti('s from the radically different enterprtscs of the modernist arts. J Iere as elsewhere the question of value or level is central. For example, a failure 10 register the enormous difference in clllaHt)' between, sa}', the muslc of Carter and tJ. ...l of Cage or between the p.dntings of Louis and those of Hauschcnbcrg means that the 1'e31 distinctions-between music and theatre in the first instance and between palllling and theatre ill thc second-are displaced by the iII\1sion that the barriers between the arts nrc in the process of crumbling (Cage and Hauschcnbcrg bl'ing seen, correctly as similar} and that the arts themselves arc at last sliding towards some kind of fin:II, implosive, bugel)' {/{':\irahlc: syntbesis.!" Whereas in

"is

;:tlt',lill, Ia~~ cnll<'d ,ttc:ntinn, in COIIVeNation, to thl' SMt nf r'C'Inc;ml)l!7ill~Lllal s..'<I~ into I!i\'inj! :III 3\,'(;~nt of <I movie, and more S!t!n~lally to the nnlllTC of the ditfi<:ult:('.$that lire involved ill )(i\'inp, such an n('C(I\IJlt. .t This t~ th .. view at SU)3n SOl'lta$:. whose Y:\rl(lll< ~or<. (XI1IC{1('(1 in .-\~ajMr Intc;l'ptcturiotl. m'IIount 10 J1("Yh~ps the purest- -t:crbiuly 11 ..-, l'I\(I~t ('gr('ltll)lI~prrs~nn of what 1 have been \,wJllinll I it(,.ltft<,...1 ~('Jl~hility in rCCl"I! ~rilh:i>nr I .. tJ.\{ ScMC 1111')'nre indeed the "case :.tudjc~ for :1)1 l'csl1telic, a Ih~Jo:'Y ItI)' own !It!n)ibiilt)'' that she tnkr~ them tn be. ln a charueteristic l~SQg(' ~h~~ Snnt,lg ('(Intends!

Instrument for nwclifyin); oonJYlot*.e~of ~Ml~lh'Jfty. And Ill<- mennx (or prncticlng nrt have been rudic:illy extcntlt'd.. V:)illtCI' Il() long('r fool Ilu:ln,;{'I\'I'<; rn.nllncd to CADV,u und paint, but t!lIlP1oy h... air. l)lt<ltOm',\DJ~, \\';1X. sand, b:~ydl! tires, their own tontbbrushes, and socks .... All kiml$ ~ (.'mwcnliol)3Uy aC't.'C!ptud bound:\f('.) l~\!tr th{rcn), been C'hl\llcn~oo: not )U~t the one between the N:<ci.enliSc" .lDd lh~ "literary-artistic" cultures, IX'
:I )dl~ jI\Stl\II11CI1I, all

.<\."1 to!b)' h

new

(.If

:<clClmne:t( and OI"$:ani'LiJl); lIew

 . .......

14,i

Art end Obleetheod

1~3

facl the individual arts have never been more explicitly concerned with the conventions that constitute their respective essences.

3) The concepts

0/

quality und v(I/uC-<llld

to the exten! that

they are used diroctlr. the}' arc more specific. Also, the}' ure usually aggressive. There is an objectivity to the obdurate identity of a material. Llke the shape of the object, the matenals do not represent. signify. or allude to :lnything; they are wh;lt they are and n()thing more. And what they are is not, strictly speaking, something that is ~I'asp'cd or intuited Or recognized or even seen OI1W and for nil. Hathe:r, the "obdurate identity" of a specific material, like the wholeness of the shape, is simply stilted or given or established at the- wry outset, if not before the outset; accordingly, the experience of both is one of endlessness, of inexhaustibility. of being able to go on and on Jetting, for example, the material itself confront one ill all its literalness, its "objectivity," its absence of anything beyond itself. In a similar vein Morris has written: Charactortstic of il gcSI<l}t is that once it is established all Ilia iuformation "bout it, qua gestalt, is exhausted. (One does not, for example, seck the gestalt of a gestalt.) ... One is then both free of the shape and bound to it. Free or released because of the exhaustion of information about it, us shape, and bound to it because it remains constant and indivisible. The same note is struck by TOllY Smith sentence of which Tquoted earlier: in a statement the

these are central to art, the COIIC(:pt of art ilsell-{lre sncaningjul, 01' wholly mcanill:!ful. 01l11j within th iru!ividual arts. Whnt ltes hetween 'he ons is theatre. fl is. 1 think, sigui.6cnnt that in their various statements the liternhsts hnve largely avoided the issue of value or qu ..lily at the snme time :IS they have shown considerable uncertainty as to whether or not what they are making is 1U't. To describe their enterprise ,15 an attempt to cst ..bllsh a lieu; art does not remove the uncertalnty, at most it points to its source. Judd himself has as much as acknowledged the prohlcmutlc character lite literalist enterprise by hi.; claim, "A work needs only to be interesrtng." For Judd. 8. . for literalist sensibility gcncrnlly. all that mat. rers i~ whether or ot a gi\'cn work is able lo elicit and sustain (his) interest. Whel'(,'1l~within the modernist arts J)othing short of cOIu;ic1I00t~1)eeifically. the conviction that a pnrticular painting or sculpture or poem or piece of music can or cannot support comparison with past work within that art whose quality is not in doublmatters :It all (Lttcrnhst work is often condemned-c-whcn it is condemned-for being boring. A tougher charge would he that it is merely interesting.) The interest a given work resides, in Judd's view, both in its character as a whole and in the: sheer slXJcI1rcitlj of the materials of which it is made:

or

or

flrst

~lost of the work involves new materials, either recent inventions or things not IISC(\ before in art. ... Msterinls vary greatly and are simply materrals-e-Ionnica, aluminum. cold-rolled steel. l)lc:<iglas, red and common brass. and so forth. The)' are specific. }(

--

IllI.' (1f)U

--- "art" and -----also -------between ~,t; but C>tahli~ht!d ciistinClioru

NJ10Jl ...

within the world of ('1111111'\." irwlf--(lint 1011:<:ut<f thu s~i()l1". anti (a f.1vorite -II)'\~" culture. (Clp. 296-97)

tn:my hrlw('('tJ fonn flucl content. the Irivo(If literary intellccreols) "hljlh" and

I'm interested in the iuscrutabiltry and mysteriousness of the thing. Something obvious OJ) the race of it (like a washing mao chine Or a pump) is of IlO further interest. A Bennington earthenware jar, for instance, has subtlety of color, largeness of form, a general suggesrion of substance, generosity. is calm and reassuring-e-qunlltles that take it beyond pun: utility. It continues to nourish us time and time agnln. \\le can't see it in a second, we continue to read it. T1H.:reis something absurd in the fact that you can go hack to a cube in the same way, Like judd's Specific Objects and Morris's gestalts or unitary forms, Smith's cube is always of further interest: one never fools that one has come to the end of it; it is inexhaustible. It is inexhaustible,

Tl't' truth ~ that the- distill(.'llo)lI between 01(' (ri\,,(I'O~~ .:m:1 Ihe ,.\'ri<M'~ beeomes mere ur;:T.t!nt.even nOs<llllle. 0"1:1')' dny, :lit<! the MltN'prifCj of the mOO<:1'11i:<t arts lI)tlT(J p"rei)' moU\,;llt:o by tbe Ide 1IC'C'd to Pe1})Ch~'1IC Ill(' ~t.lll<klrd.s nud values or tho llil!JI :ll t (lr (hI! 1l\'\.S(.

Michacl Fricd

146

Art and Objcclhcod

147

sculpture is, so to speak. eclipsed by the sculpture itself-which it is plainly meaningless to speak of .IS onl}' 1wltiy prescnt.) It is thh conunuous and entire presentness, amounting. :15 it were. to the perpetual creation of itsdf, that one experiences as a kind of instunfaneoustless: 4IS thou~h if only one were infinitely more acute. a single infinitely brief instant would he long enough to sec everything, to experience the work in all its depth and flllIl1~, to be forever convinced hy iI. [Here it is worth noting that the concept of interest implte s temporality in the form of continuing attention directed 51 the object. whereas the concept of conviction (foes not.) I want to claim that it is by virtue of their presentness and instantaneousness that modernist painting and sculpture defeat theatre. In Iaot, I am tempted Jnr beyond my knowledge to suggest that, faced with the need to defeat theatre, it is 81)0\'e all to the oondition of painting and sculpture-s-the condition. that is. of existing in. indeed of seereung or eonsthuting. a continuous and perpetual present-sthat the other contemporary modcmlst arts. most notably poetry and music, aspire.'O
WI!.:It thi:< Il)<."ill~ in each Arl will n~lw:t")' be difIt:rC'11. For (';\~mplc. mwi.c> sillMtlOll i.~~~F'ially dim~lll in tbut n.u~ic ~bur('.s widl 11'("llre the eonventton, If j mil)' eoll il 11'3t, o! durarion-s-u couvenuen that. r am <\I$:'J;~lillg. h.3_<Ibelf become !n~~s-ill~)' IIte"hk~1. Bu~;t1M', the I>hy,;iC:lJ drown lOl.lDC(') (I( " t.'Ol'll"e'ftclosely resomble those of 1\ Ih~mtrlC:l1 p('riorm.)llce. It mny have bel:" the dt':<irc fOl ~ornl'thing like J)lc)cnllle:.~ that, nt Ieust to some ('.~tent. led Brecht 10 advocate a nOlulllllliulli<Ck thcntre. iI' whk:h [(II' example thl! ~t,llI(Clrclltin{! wmdd I~ visible to (he nudience, in whkh tIle nctors WIXI!d IIOt ilil!11l1f)' wid, the (hnl;tclc:.r~ th(',Y pIli)' but ...\tlW.1 would sbow LItem forth, lind in which tt.'f11Jl(Jmlit}, itJ;(:lI would be 1)1('<('"1110(\ ill a new ",.1)';
1"

VIII
This essay will he read as an attack 011 certain ;utisl<; (and critics) and ax a defense of others. Alld of course it is true that the desire to diselnguish between what is to me the authentic art of our lime> and other work. which, whatever the dedication, passion, und intclligence of its creators. seems to me to share certain characteristics nssocintcd here with the concepts of lltcralisrn and th,,nt((. has largely motivated what I have written. In these 1,ISl sentences. hnwever, 1 want to ~1I attention (0 the utter pcrvasiveucss-s-the virtual uuiversality-s-of the sensibility or mode of boing that I have characterized as corrupted or perverted b)' theatre. \Vc are all JilcraJists most or ~IU of OUI' lives. Presentness is grace.
But illst ;as the ('\I)()<('(I lightinl_( Otccht adVOI'MC':< 1\l4~ lX'(l()(II(' 1llt:1d)' unoiher kind of tl~ntrlC:ll oonvcntion (Ol~, moreover. th:ll art",) pln}'~ ;1Il illlpn.tilnt role in the ptt:.sl:ntalion of III<.<wl!lOt ork, a~ tile i~l;lllariofi w "I('\V of Judd'" ii.\-eube ~I'~ in the 0",.... 11 Cnll('IY $ht)w~), It i.~not elcnr wll<'th.:r Ille hnu<Ilinr. of rlrne Breoht call:; (or h tanturnount 10 alltllt:lI~k !lXt~s(."ntrle)::\,or merely to .mudtl'r 1:1".0 II! 1'''M;m;-e-i..c .. to tl,(, 1"l')lClltll\ent d lime il!<rlf :Il' though It were some sort o! IIIt'raJist (lbf<'Cl. In Jloct1')' the n~et! pr('j;('lIll1~~ manif~ls itl'('\( in tll(! lyrh: poem: thts i): iI whjcrt th..,t retlllirn it" own heatm<mL For dlb<CII.~(it>llj;(If theatre muV:tnt to chfll ~~y see C;lvcll':. ~'<n)' (In neckMt's E,lcT-('.cIJlt), '"EJldllll,t till' ""alllll).! C::llIlC," fllIO oul'l)!! Avoidnuce nl Love: A HC:lwng of KII,}! Lear." to be published in .\fuft Wt' Mf'~1II W/,"/ We Sa!!?

---------

-- --

--

------

ro:

1\1,1(1)01'5

J lL~t I\~ tho actor nn longer hn-, ttl pl:n<II"de thl' nudlr-uee t1'al it u thl' cbnracter nnd not himself that i<; sbndlnl: on the <;I"gc, ';0 also III~:

need nM pretend I I!.:It the events wking place Oil the S(:\.I:(' have oever been rebenrsed, Rod nlm bUPP('''1linl! for the 6r<:t and ()lIly time. Schiller's distincti(ln ill no )t>ngcr valid: lnoat (he rl~p$odi!St has to treat hi~ IOnteti:lI 01\ w)lolly in the pust ; the mime hi..~, os whcJll)' here and now. lt should be IlPP:HCtlt IIJI tbrollg)1 h!~ I)ed(lrm.'1ncc tlt:tt 'even at the start nnd in thl! DI/ddle he klt(l\\'~ how [t ends' and lit:' must 'th\IS mnintain n c-alm tudepcndenec througbout.' He n:iTfnt~ tbe story of his charactrn by vivid porlr3Y.lI, always \;n()\vin? 010r(' than It docs :lIld lI<."iltinjt 'IIm'" and 'here' not a..1 n pretence mnde prno~lbll!by (be fIII~ <If tlle ~me but as .~MIlClhing to br- di~tinp:uWlod (lOin }'C$lerdn)' and soiee otJl('T place, so liS to mnke visible the knotting togcthur of the events. (p, 194.)

"t~

Michael

fried

14.4

At1 and

Objecrhocd

145

however, not because of any fullncss-awt is the inexhaustibility of art-but hCC:1I1~c there is nothing there to exhaust, It is endless the W,I)' a road might be: if it were circular, for example, Endlessness, being able to go on and on, even having to go on and on, is central both to the COIH,'ept of Interest and to th .. t of objecthood, In fact. it seems to DC the experience that most deeply excites literalist ~nsibility, and that literalist artisL~ seck 10 ohjedify il) their work-for example, by the repetition of idcntil'ltlllnits (Jlldd's "one thing after another"), which cnrrics the implicatiou that the units iu question could be multiplied at! illfi'l!lum,l'" Smith's account of his experience on the unfinished turnplkc records thtlt excitement all but explicitly. Similarly, ~rorris'~ claim that in the l~t new ' .... ork the beholder is m ..dc aware that "he himself i..; establishing relationships ;1$ he apprehends the object from various positions and under varying conditions of light and spatial context' amounts to the claim that the beholder L~made aware of the endlessness and lncxhnustihility if not of the ohjcct itself at 311)' rate of his experience of it. This awareness is furl her exacerbated by what might ht' called the incluSit)(;1I8SS,of his situation, that is, by the fact, remarked earlier, thut everything he observes counts ns part of that situation and hence is felt to bear in some W~>'that remains undefined On his experience of the object. Here finally 1 wont to emphasize something that rna)' already have become clear: the experience in question persists III time, and the presentment of endlessne ..... that, I have been claiming, is central s to literalist art and theory is essentially n presentment or endless. 01' indefinite, durauon. Once again Smith's account of his ui~ht drive is relevant, <'IS well as his remark, "'"II.'e('.'\I)'t see it (I,~ the jar :\1\<1, by .. implication. the cube] in a second, we continue to read it," Morris. too, has stated explicitly. "The experience of the work necessarily exists in tilllC" -though it would make no difference if he had not.
'rbut i<. the &lr.luCl[ number of ~uch \11,[\$ in .l Io:i~'en pieee I~ (dt to Iw :lrbi. and the plece itsdf-de<l)itt! the litC'r.1ti<1 preocC\lS'alilm willi whnlbtic fOlln_i ... een :t~ a rlllj!l)~nt s 0(, or cut into, ,:,on1t!IJlillg IIIll1litd)' l:tr~("T, 'llli.s j~ one 01 lhe- m~t Important di/Te:rcnCt:~ hch veen htNa)i~1 W(lt~ and motkrnlst poh,tillt;. which /1:1.> rnnde i~'dr lX'~pon.dhJ~ for IN phy).i('lll limit,; I'" never \>e. [ore. Kobnd's ~1IIr;l()lit~ki'< pWlltin!lS are tWI) obvious, alld dlffurt'lIt, coses in point. It is in this conll('ctwLI. too, thut the itllpOTt,'nc~ I)f th~ puinl('<l h.md< around 1l1I: hottern nnd tho top 0( Olilsl:i'!I scu.lpture, lJllrtJ,!fJ. tw(.'OmeJ; clttllr.
I

The literalist preoccupation with time-s--moro precisely, wilh th{' duration of tlu: c:qWI'i<:ncl'-is, I suggest, l)tU'aciigtnati('.ullr thentrical: a.c; though thc.itre confronts Ihc beholder, and then-by 1\()late~ him, with the ...ndlessncss not just of objcethood but of timt:, OJ .1$ though the sense which, al bottom. theatre :tddrt:sscs i:o. n S(>IlSt' uf temporality, of time both passing and 10 come, simllitllll(:()IMly (/p. ]>rQ(lClritl!!, and recedsn, as if apprehended in an inlinite perspective ,Ill This, preoccupation marks n profound Ct.flCfC'Il(l between literalist work and modcrmst painting and sculpture. It is ~1SIboll~h one's experience of the latter Iw~ no duration-e-nct because 011(' lit fact cxpertcnees a picture by Xolancl 01' Olitski or a sculpture by Dav id Smith 01' Ca1'O in no time at all, but becaus at (>w~rlJ l1lfHllClli lilG uiot]: it.sdf is wholly /lwn.i/l'.#, (This is true of sculpture despite the obvious f:l<.'t that, being three-duncnsional, It can he seen (rom an infinite number of POIl1tS 01 view. One's experience of :l C<lTO IS not incomplete. and OI)("S convictlon :1:0. to it:.- quahty i$ Hot :-'IIS peuded, simply because one has seen it ollly from where one I'; standing. Moreover, ill the grip of hi~ best work OIW'S view of the
Uo1'I.~ CQulleI'llon between ~1>ati;!1 n:<.,('Hioll '11lt1 ~Im(' -ueh ,''(p~.,.itlIl~ (Ir tcmporal.t)'-almo..<t n... if rhl:' 6",,1 we-re :. :"incl of nntural m('I~phor fOT IIiit' )'OOOtlu-i~ llrr<;'(!lIt In mild. Sum-Alht Illli"lin~ (0,;':,. I)., <';hil'il-v, Dnlr, Tan.,'!', M:I~rillt' , , .}. ;\(lXt'I)\"". lcmJl(lOlhty-:n.lni(".ltd, for exnmple. M ~xprct:lCiun, drend an~it!tr. vrl~lllilllC'nt. 111C'mtJry, Iln,l.lIIo:I<I, ~\..;t.Sl<--i> (lrlll! the' (:xpUcit .n,lJltlCt (_,( tllt"lt painlilll!;I, TIlu,: is, ill (IWI. .1 ell.. V .lffinity Il<'h,,t'1I IiIe't~lli~ lll"u Sum'lllbt ,.''1,lJlllhl) ( .. I .my mh.!, ns the lnuer makn it-.:c'l( rdl in th~ \\'(~ I)r thl' :rL(J~'(' painters}. \\ lrich otl~ht 1(1 1)1' 1I('tt!U, Bill!. MIll!!}' InM\!Crr Ill:It i< nl nllt't! whoH.<r~: .. il. ill :1 <cuse. IrJll!lnl'nlarv, m jll~'()l'Ilpl" ... ~ bntn ,.. 1I1 I., .1 :.;Imi ~ tar ,llllhtllIlOIIIOrt,hiring ,,( obl('(.'1!\ 01 cOIlIo:I(lml;'t:ltloOll> II! c>hjl~l< t III Snrr lism thr- II'>!! of d.t!ls .mel mnlllllkl'l<) I'II,l\;1"< thl~ .",p!idt}; bI..eh ,lit' CilP:IQ!t nf ",chiC'V. Inj.! remurk.ible 4'ff("I~ of "presence". ,md hOlh tcnd 10 41q,Ioy ;10.1 hot,,,, o;'iec:to< "lid (II r:SIlnj; III A;lI.wlwn,<-thc ('\'h"d rollOI\ unrl the .11~IIlII)n('(1 afllikt.lll l:'IILI-C",ll)~ ,lrC' M Iml)O)rlOlnl co SIUll-.l1i<m til lit"'I'~Ii<r\l (Tour Smith, it will h._' r ...cnlk-d, (i('<C""ibccl tht! rrln.lrip:<. e-k., II> "SurTcnll,,\ IIIndst"l>t.'<," ) "h1> nmllity (".\11 be i,unlmed lip h) $01)'101: that SUrTcnll<t , .. tI>1bllit)'. 3( 111.1mC'<t..<I in d ... . work (,<."tain JI,ti~t.s. !lilt! lih'r.,Ii>t 'C'II'<ihilily "r~ both thC<Jltir.n1. ] do "l)t wl~h, hlm'\""tl, to b ... understood " ... :urlnp: 11m! h,"("Il.<c tt... ~ nre' 111('.1lriC'nl. ;,11 Slll...,..tli~t \\'m'\;~ .Iut ,.hore the nbove chllr.1ctN'I<"('~ mil ,.'" 31t; :\ lOIl~'P"'\'''Il.'< C'l:~mJll~ of m,ljur wnr], thllt C1l11he cl'''''Il.'rilx(.l ." tlll'lICril "I i, Ci,wmlwll i'" Surrt!.llht "ttlll'lut~, 0" the (lth,'1' lunn, it i!l 11('/)):11'not wilJllIll1 sis.:ni6r:III1:C ihot SmitJ ..~ supreme ~.xamJlIt! of ., Sll.fn:nl~l l:IIIt1S.c.1I)C \\11:< Ih~ pnrade ~'I'(l'"ltl

:I"

::r.try,

or

:it

~"r~tnb~S!