Sullivan R. Marin, "Introduction: Meshworks and Networks", in Sculptural Materiality in The Age of Conceptualism

Sculptural Materiality in
the Age of Conceptualism

International Experiments
in Italy
Marin R. Sullivan
First published 2017
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2017 Marin R. Sullivan
The right of Marin R. Sullivan to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification
and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Names: Sullivan, Marin R., author.
Title: Sculptural materiality in the age of conceptualism : international
experiments in Italy / by Marin R. Sullivan.
Description: New York : Routledge, 2016. |
Series: Studies in art historiography ; 13 |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016029527 | ISBN 9781472465986 (alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Kusama, Yayoi. Narcissus garden. | Pistoletto, Michelangelo,
1933- Sfera di giornali. | Smithson, Robert. Asphalt rundown. | Beuys, Joseph.
Arena. | Sculpture, Modern—20th century. | Arts—Experimental methods.
Classification: LCC NB198 .S85 2016 | DDC 735/.236—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016029527
ISBN: 978-1-4724-6598-6 (hbk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK
Contents
List of figures ix
Acknowledgments xiii
Introduction: Meshworks and networks 1

Sculptural materiality 3
Action and circulation in postwar Italy 10
1 Reflective acts: Yayoi Kusama in Venice 18

“Sideshow” sculpture and the XXXIII Venice Biennale 20
Photographic mirrors 31
Self, sculpture, and photograph 37
Remnants and residuum 49
2 With time action: Michelangelo Pistoletto in Turin 56

Mirror images and Minus Objects 60
Con temp l’azione 68
The city as material 77
From the street to the cage 81
3 Slow dissolves: Robert Smithson in Rome 90

Exhibiting process 94
The flow of sculpture 102
Photography is action 109
The age of conceptualism 118
4 The sculptural arena: Joseph Beuys in Naples 126

The Mediterranean situation 128
Transmitters 136
Between object and image 146
Sculpture as multiple 159
Conclusion: Material dispersions 165

Re-creations and replicas 167
Inert monuments and enlivened objects 176
Bibliography 181
Index 192
Introduction
Meshworks and networks
In December 1968, the American artist Robert Smithson exhibited Nonsite,

Oberhausen, Germany (1968) at the Konrad Fischer Gallery in Cologne. A curious
sculptural configuration, the work consisted of five white-coated steel bins that
recalled minimalist sculptures of the mid 1960s, each a little shorter than the next
so that when placed side-by-side they took on a pyramidal form within the gallery
(Figure I.1). Inside the containers were piles of slag, the waste product created during
the refining of steel. Smithson collected these discarded chunks of matter from a
mining area he visited with the German photographers Bernd and Hilla Becher in
the Ruhr District of what was then West Germany, shortly before creating the work.
The sculptural elements alone created a powerful statement about the materiality and
the various life stages of steel, but Smithson also hung five framed photodocuments
on the wall behind the bins, lining them up to give the work an overall L-shape. An
enlarged detail of a map showing the site where Smithson collected the slag dominates
the documents, but each also included a short text written by the artist along the
bottom and five different square black and white photographs depicting the slag heaps
and industrial landscape of Oberhausen taken by Smithson during the collection of
the material.
Smithson’s work, like much of that created by his contemporaries on both sides
of the Atlantic during the late postwar period, complicated the traditional categor-
ization of sculpture as a singular, autonomous object. Nonsite, Oberhausen, Germany
is a sculpture, but one that presents a different conception of sculptural materiality—
created through the simultaneous, egalitarian staging of multiple objects and images.
The emphasis on materiality, in this case of steel, was not bound to one object, but
expressed through the connective threads woven between two- and three-dimensional
phenomena comprising the work.
Smithson referred to this oscillating effect, between the visible and invisible, the
object and the image, as the Site/Nonsite Dialectic, an artistic framework he theorized
and put into practice in a series of increasingly complex works in 1968–69. There
was an outdoor Site, often some remote, disused industrial location and a corres-
ponding Nonsite, an indoor display, similar to the one in Germany, comprised of
photographs, documents, and materials taken from the site. Smithson wrote of the
“Dialectic of Site and Nonsite,” in 1969:
The range of convergence between Site and Nonsite consists of a course of

hazards, a double path made up of signs, photographs and maps that belong to
both sides of the dialectic at once. Both sides are present and absent at the same
2 Introduction: Meshworks and networks
Figure I.1 Robert Smithson, Nonsite, (Oberhausen, Germany), 1968. Steel, slag, with each
bin a map with five photographs, dimensions unknown. © Holt-Smithson
Foundation/Licensed by VAGA, New York. Courtesy of James Cohan Gallery,
New York/Shanghai.
time . . . Two dimensional and three dimensional things trade places with each
other in the range of convergence. Large scale becomes small. Small scale becomes
large . . . Is the Site a reflection of the Nonsite (mirror), or is it the other way
around? The rules of this network of signs are discovered as you go along
uncertain trails both mental and physical.1
Smithson’s Site/Nonsite Dialectic testifies to the tremendous charge created by the

simultaneous presence of multiple materials coalescing within a single work and the
intermedial dialogues created between them. None of Smithson’s contemporaries in
the late postwar period—even those similarly invested in the possibilities of new
or unconventional materials, processes, and physical spaces, however fleetingly
constituted—adopted his particular terminology or dialectical framework, but his
theory does suggest an alternative method by which to read the history of modern
sculpture, or rather histories of modern sculpture.
This is a book about sculpture and its materiality in the age of Conceptualism. It
focuses on four primary sculptural projects created in Italy during the late postwar
period (1965–1975): Yayoi Kusama’s Narcissus Garden (1966), Michelangelo
Pistoletto’s Sfera di giornali (Ball/Sphere of Newspapers) (1966), Robert Smithson’s
Asphalt Rundown (1969), and Joseph Beuys’s Arena: Dove sarei arrivato se fossi
stato intelligente! (Arena: Where would I have got if I had been intelligent!) (1972).
Each of these works was created and exhibited in Italy, but also shaped by the
geographical and historical context of that country during the period. They reveal
different concerns and approaches, but collectively, they constitute a rich and
interconnected cross-section of sculptural practice, and thus vanguard artistic practice,
between 1996 and 1972. These projects share similar circumstances of production
and material exploration, and while all four complicated established definitions of
sculpture, they also persisted as physical, three-dimensional objects. These four
projects provide a way to explore how and why sculpture became something that
remained firmly tethered to its status as material object and yet no longer bound to
a singular, permanent form. As Smithson understood, the most interesting, vanguard
art in the 1960s no longer operated in either two or three dimensions, but oscillated
between, in a “range of convergence.”
Sculptural materiality
This study takes as its starting point two distinct definitions. First, while this book
examines the vanguard or experimental artistic practices that emerged between the
mid 1960s and early 1970s often loosely classified under Conceptual Art, here that
label designates two-dimensional works of art made between approximately 1966
and 1972 comprised primarily of text or photographic components. This is a widely
accepted date range within art history, having been codified for example by Lucy
Lippard’s annotated bibliography of the era, Six Years: the dematerialization of the
art object . . . even though such chronological parameters remain admittedly tenuous.2
Conceptually oriented practices appeared much earlier in the century, in work by
artists such as Marcel Duchamp, and many of the approaches that emerged during
these six years continue in the contemporary moment. However, a distinct sea change
occurred during the late postwar period, and this book follows a more recent trend
among artists, historians, and critics calling for a more focused “linguistic definition”
of Conceptual Art or Conceptualism, exemplified in the text-based work of artists
such as Joseph Kosuth, Lawrence Weiner, and Art & Language, as opposed to “a
more historically and critically inclusive approach.”3 In this view, Conceptualism
distinguishes itself through a shared, self-reflexive critique of the established structures
of art. As Tony Godfrey writes, “the object refers back to the subject, as in the phrase
‘I am thinking about how I think,’ ” and privileges this thought process above any
formal element of the work.4
Second, sculpture—understood as a distinct medium—did come under tremendous
strain in the 1960s. Writing in 1979, just two years after publishing her landmark
text Passages of Modern Sculpture, Rosalind Krauss claimed that the medium had
become an “ontological absence,” defined not by what it was, but by what it was
not.5 Strain and reconfiguration, however, did not mean the collapse or cessation of
sculpture as a distinct category of artistic practice within vanguard art. Whether the
sculptural object in the second half of the twentieth-century was—to use the phrase
coined by Lippard and John Chandler in 1968—dematerialized or not is no longer
the substantive or interesting debate that it is often assumed to be.6 What remains
to be examined, however, is how artists retained the specific boundaries of sculpture
while engaging and manipulating both registers, both its tangible and intangible
aspects, at once. The rise of Conceptualism proved a powerful foil to sculptural
practice, throwing into sharp relief the defining characteristics of the medium.7
Sculpture does not have a singular history. It operates along multiple, equally valid
and sometimes intersecting trajectories—through histories of the figure, the body, the
monument, the object, and the viewer—but its intrinsic connection to matter anchors
the analysis of the medium throughout this book.8 As the American artist Robert
Morris suggested in his series of essays on new tendencies of sculpture in the second
half of the 1960s, what was under attack was not the tangible, the material, or the
physical, but the fixed and the rigid.9
This history of sculpture—the story of how it continued to function within the age
of Conceptualism without perpetuating binary frameworks that have come to dominate
historical analyses of postwar art—is starting to be explored. Jo Applin, in her
Eccentric Objects: Rethinking Sculpture in 1960s America, takes up Morris’s dis-
tinction between the tangible and the fixed, by examining the messy, unsettled quality
of sculptural work from the period as well as its positioning within the complicated
web of criticism and exhibition histories. Using the work of artists such as Lee
Bontecou, Bruce Nauman, and Lucas Samaras to assess what she refers to as “the
uncertain condition of ‘sculpture’,” Applin shows how artists within the diverse New
York art scene “articulated a radical renegotiation—rejection, even—of contemporary
paradigms of sculptural practice.”10 Applin attends to the objectness of sculpture,
though exclusively within the American context, and by focusing on what might be
described as its “bodily” characteristics. Sculpture’s relationship to the human body
has long been a part of its history, an emphasis only amplified by an increased interest
in the role of the viewer and the application of phenomenological theory as exemplified
in Krauss’s Passages in Modern Sculpture. As Anne Wagner suggests, sculpture
“cannot help but be bodily. Its purpose lies in the establishment of substance, it deals
directly in forming, it brings distinct objects to be.”11
For Wagner, Krauss’s subsequent expansion of the field of sculpture—with its
structural diagrams and neat linear trajectory—did not adequately account for “how
works mean.”12 Wagner writes that American sculpture from the late postwar period
was not only “resistant to the diagrammatic impulse,” but also aimed “to redefine
the psychic and bodily experiences of sculpture and bring both into new spatial play,”
since “a bodily sculpture needs at some point to exist in time and space.”13 This
book also considers sculpture’s corporeality, but more explicitly takes into considera-
tion something even more fundamental: the raw materials that make up its form.
What has been overlooked is this most basic, if also most substantial, characteristic
of sculpture; what Alex Potts has referred to as the “troublesome facticity” of the
object, or sculpture’s refusal to disappear or relinquish its “insistent materiality.”14
Materials have always shaped the practice of sculpture, if not art in general,
but the twentieth century saw the utilization of a diverse range of new substan-
ces and processes within sculptural practice that directly changed the medium’s
formal and conceptual parameters. In the first half of the century alone, Julio González
pioneered the use of welded iron, Pablo Picasso assembled found objects, and Naum
Gabo experimented with Perspex, to name but a few examples. The embrace of
unconventional materials only increased during the postwar period. Artists used a
range of industrial metals and plastics, fluorescent lighting, felt and other fibers, active
chemicals, live animals, organic matter such as soil and coal, and various fluids and
gases in their sculptural projects. These substances enabled artists to more fully
consider and manifest instability, action, and dynamic processes into their work.
The creation of works made from capricious, often ephemeral materials also led
to an increased dependence on another material or rather another medium altogether:
photography. In some cases, photographs are the only existent element of a sculpture,
but these images do not simply function as documents for posterity nor are they
adequate replacements for the other physical components of the work they depict.
The simultaneous presence of both object and image creates a complex web, an
endlessly oscillating “range of convergence,” to return to Smithson.
Since the advent of photography in the nineteenth century, the histories of both
mediums have been intertwined, and the existence of multiple images or views of a
single work is certainly not unique to the sculpture of the postwar period. From the
moment photographs appeared, sculpture appeared within them, and sculptors used
photography to display and disseminate their work. The connection between photog-
raphy and sculpture continues to generate scholarly attention, though it is largely
divided among chronological periods, with studies examining the photographing of
“traditional” and/or classical sculpture; the use of photography within modernist
practices from the late nineteenth through the first half of the twentieth century; and
finally the photographic turn within vanguard artistic practice that began in the late
1960s that saw a widespread application and integration of photography within
other forms and mediums. Many of the foundational texts within this field of inquiry
appeared in the immediate wake of photography’s invention—including Heinrich
Wölfflin’s “How One Should Photograph Sculpture (1896)”—while other essays
have approached the broader discussion of how art history has been shaped by
mechanical reproduction.15
The majority of scholarship on the relationship between sculpture and photography,
however, has tended to focus on work from the modern period, examining how artists
such as Auguste Rodin, Medardo Rosso, and Constantin Brancusi, among many
others photographed their work, particularly within studio or exhibition contexts.
These sculptors all documented their work photographically, but more importantly,
also utilized the medium to shape how people saw and understood their sculpture.16
For these sculptors, photography simultaneously contextualized and decontextualized
their work, both connecting it to a particular place, display, or time while pushing
the material limits of the object in question, perhaps even visually dematerializing
the experience of their sculpture.
While this body of literature proves indispensable to any study relating to the
relationship between sculpture and photography, references to it appear only
intermittently throughout this book because the circumstances of postwar period
demand a different approach. As modernism gave way to late modernism, the
parameters of sculpture itself shifted, as did the medium’s engagement with photog-
raphy. This book contributes to a growing number of recent studies examining
the specific conditions of this relationship during the waning years of modernism.17
In David Smith in Two Dimensions: Photography and the Matter of Sculpture, Sarah
Hamill examines the relationship through what she describes as sculpture’s
homelessness and fragmentation. She writes that for Smith and his contemporaries
“the disconnection of sculpture from the here and now appears as a positive
condition,” one that is “felt most deeply in photographs that stage a separate yet
unstable world for sculpture, forging new relationships.”18 Kate Nesin likewise picks
up on the notion of the fragment, or rather detail, in her discussion of Cy Twombly’s
sculptural output and the photographs depicting them. Attending closely, as does
Hamill, to the specific material conditions of sculpture and the photograph, she writes
of Twombly’s Sculptural Detail (2002) that “the grain of the photograph can almost
be as tactile as the daubs, drips, and stains of paint and plaster that coat the sculpture
itself, yet those distinct materials and textures are utterly obfuscated by the
photograph’s own velvety blur.”19 The increased reliance or at least appearance of
photography during the late postwar period contributed to a reconfiguration of
sculpture’s materiality. As Nesin writes of the photographs of Twombly’s sculptures,
“they are only partial, only details, only incomplete and imperfect registrations of
the sculptures, a fact that could be thought through in the interests of photography’s
limits or of sculpture’s.”20
While chronologically speaking Smith or Twombly operated in a very different
context from Rodin or Brancusi, they still perpetuated a vision of sculpture grounded
in the creation of a single, autonomous object—even if those objects presented new
conceptions of materiality and display. This book contributes to a larger conversation
about sculpture’s materiality in the postwar period and the role played by photog-
raphy, but focuses on projects that radically reassessed the very parameters of
sculpture. Between 1966 and 1972, photography was pervasive across heterogeneous
artistic practices. Photographs appear, as they did in Smithson’s Nonsite, Oberhausen,
Germany, alongside text and maps in two-dimensional photodocuments framed and
hung on gallery walls pointing to sculptures elsewhere. They helped disseminate
artworks through reproductions in art journals and other mass media outlets around
the world, but photographs also operated within sculptural practice as intermedial
oscillators, connecting an ever-increasing number of material elements comprising
the work.
Multimedia may be better known today, but intermedia offers a more specific
alternative to the former term that now encompasses postmodern pastiche, hybrid
installations, art school and institutional departments, as well as a diverse range of
practices including new media, film, video, and digital art. Intermedia is also more
contemporaneous to the period, having gained some traction during the mid 1960s,
but more importantly, it provides a better framework in which to analyze sculptural
materiality during the period and assess why photography proved a crucial component
to its reconfiguration. Whereas multimedia denotes something that uses or encom-
passes several media, intermedia is not a mixing of media, but rather designates a
dialogue between them. The term appeared in international arts criticism throughout
the late postwar period, but became most associated with an essay by the Fluxus
artist Dick Higgins published in 1966 entitled, “Intermedia.”21 Higgins wrote, “Much
of the best work being produced today seems to fall between media.” Intermedia, he
stated, was distinct from “pure mediums” such as painting or “precious objects,” in
that it drew on several media to grow into a new medial hybrid, naming the
“combines” of Robert Rauschenberg and the happenings of Allan Kaprow as key
examples.22 Intermedia could also, according to Higgins, develop into distinct
mediums in their own right, as would prove to be the case for performance art, mail
art, and video art.
Higgins’ notion of a liminal space between mediums and the creation of new
mediums reflected the diverse range of vanguard art in the 1960s, but the term, as
used here, does not follow his precise definition or suggest a transformation of
sculpture into some other hybrid form or expanded medium. Rather, the term
intermedia provides a means to examine how one medium engages or dialogues with
another.23 Smithson’s sculptural projects, along with the others examined in this book,
could be described as multimedia, mixed media, or even proto-installation pieces,
but more can be gained by considering how and why multiple mediums and materials
were incorporated within sculptural practice.
This book is neither about intermediality nor explicitly about the relationship
between sculpture and photography. Instead, it examines how sculpture expanded
its material boundaries while maintaining its medial ones. Photography was integral
to this expansion, but functioned as a connective thread, weaving together the
multiple materials—including the photographic image, film, exhibition display, and
the dynamic elements of everyday life—constituting the sculptural work. In integrating
photographic components, sculpture became a node, an active pulsing thing.
In acknowledging that the photographs operate within the sculptural phenomena
they depict, a fuller, more complex definition of sculpture develops, productively
complicating the established notions of what constitutes a work of art. As Lawrence
Alloway recognized in his 1966 essay, “Art and the Communications Network,” the
dependence on photography was not a negative aspect of contemporary artistic
practice, but enabled art to circulate and be distributed in “a network of communi-
cations.”24 By the late postwar period, there were more venues to view art—more
galleries, more periodicals and more published catalogues.25 More importantly, there
was a new kind of mobility that allowed for greater and wider circulation, both
literally in terms of the physical movement of art and artists and in the dispersion
of the work through photographic reproductions.
For Alloway, the work of art itself was an “organization,” consisting of at least
two registers of information: the original channel and the one translatable into
another medium. The “cross-channel transmissions,” or aspects of the work graspable
across space and time via reproductions were not supplemental or secondary
information of the work but essential, intermedial aspects of it.26 In Alloway’s
formulation, the “communications network” was not about the “personal and
biographical complexities of the people involved, but a general diffusion of the
activity of agents and institutions beyond that of strict professional limits.” He
continued, “We are all looped together in a new and unsettled connectivity.”27
The framing of the four primary case studies examined in this book as entangled,
polymorphous entities is grounded in both the concepts of action and multiplicity
that emerged in the criticism of the postwar period as well as more recent theories
of materiality originating in the fields of anthropology and sociology. This framework
allows for a more comprehensive analysis of what occurred materially within each
project alongside a mapping of their movement across Italian and international
artistic networks. Whether Smithson’s “range of convergence,” Alloway’s “communi-
cations network,” or even Harold Rosenberg’s exaltation that a canvas had become
an “arena in which to act—rather than a space to reproduce,” the evocation of
plurality and interconnectivity became prevalent in the criticism and theoretical texts
of the period.28
A discussion of networks—interconnected systems of galleries, institutions, arts,
and events in cities on both sides of the Atlantic—became intertwined with allusions
to metaphorical networks, in attempts to give a structure to or make sense of the
diverse, vanguard practices of the period. Though writing about a much longer
history of art and artifacts and the space between, the art historian George Kubler
developed one of the more influential methodological approaches to what can be
understand broadly as the connections between things, or as he wrote, “all materials
worked by human hands.”29 In The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things,
a book that quickly became popular among vanguard artists in the 1960s, Kubler
argued that a “net of another mesh . . . different from any now in use,” was required
to capture the shapes of time.30 He proposed a new “system of metaphors drawn
from physical science” that could better account for the “transmission of some kind
of energy; with impulses, generating centers, and relay points; with increments and
losses in transit; with resistances and transformers in the circuit.”31
In attempting to trace the development of a new mode of sculptural materiality
in the 1960s, Kubler’s evocation of “generating centers” and “relay points” provides
an evocative language contemporaneous to the work itself. His sentiments, however,
also reverberate within a more recent material turn, or rather return, within the
humanities. There are as many trajectories of materiality as there are of sculpture.
This book is informed by this recent scholarship that has not simply refocused
attention on materials as such but also grapples with its potential to exert power, to
possess agency independent of human agents. As Diana Coole and Samantha Frost
write in the introduction to their edited volume, New Materialisms: Ontology,
Agency, and Politics:
Perhaps most significant here is the way new materialists ontologies are
abandoning the terminology of matter as an inert substance subject to predictable
causal forces . . . For materiality is always something more than ‘mere’ matter:
an excess, force, vitality, relationality, or difference that renders matter active,
self-creative, productive, unpredictable. In sum, new materialists are redis-
covering a materiality that materializes, evincing immanent modes of self-
transformation that compel us to think of causation in fare more complex terms;
to recognize that phenomena are caught in a multitude of interlocking systems
and forces.32
Materiality as used throughout this book follows a similar understanding of
matter, not as some inert lump of marble or steel, but as active, connected substances.
Numerous scholars have offered alternative and often conflicting theories of
materiality and object-based ontology: Arjun Appadurai’s “social life of things”; Jane
Bennett’s “vibrant matter”; Bill Brown’s “thing theory”; Alfred Gells’ agency of art;
Tim Ingold’s “meshwork”; Bruno Latour’s actor–network theory (ANT); and
Christopher Tilley’s phenomenological materiality, to name just a few.33 Latour’s ANT
has become a driving force within this area of scholarship, proving influential across
numerous disciplines, generating countless articles, edited volumes, and even entire
journals dedicated to the topic.34 Latour’s notion of the “network” holds potential
in assessing a multifaceted materiality of sculpture, but Ingold’s counterproposal of
the “meshwork” proves the most helpful as a methodological foundation in which
to examine the complex relations between materials, mediums, and sculptural things.
The intent here is not to become an acolyte of either Ingold or Latour, or weigh in
on the validity of one over the other, but to use the differences highlighted by Ingold
in order to present sculpture—a traditionally inanimate, inert object—as a vital,
pulsing thing.
For Ingold, a network is an accumulation of connected points, straight lines
connecting “point a” to “point b.” While the notion of a network, he argues, is
applicable to systems of transportation or commerce, he instead offers the term
meshwork, adapted from Henri Lefebvre, to get at a similar idea, while more intently
formulating a relational field comprised of interwoven, enmeshed lines. The distinction
is, as he puts, it “critical.” The agent–object network theory of sociologists such as
Latour or the “web of life” models from ecology, rightly argue that the connections
between things need to be accounted for, but as Ingold writes such approaches
distinguish the “elements connected” from “the lines of their connection.” For Ingold,
“Things are their relations.”35
Both network and meshwork offer a means to assess materiality and the possibility
of agency embedded within it. The use of Ingold’s meshwork, while perhaps a
somewhat awkward term, provides a methodological foundation for considering
sculpture as an entangled web of dynamic substances that coalesce like “knots in a
tissue of knots.”36 As Ingold writes:
Things are alive and active not because they are possessed of spirit—whether
in or of matter—but because the substances to which they are comprised
continue to be swept up in circulations of the surrounding media that alternately
portend their dissolution or—characteristically with animate beings—ensure their
regeneration.37
This study proposes that materials are crucial to understanding the developments
of sculpture in the 1960s, but that their circulation, within a single work, across
multiple mediums, and throughout a greater system of artistic exchange, is of equal
importance. Thus, while meshwork is used to designate sculpture’s materiality in the
age of Conceptualism, network is deployed throughout this book not exclusively in
the manner that Latour and other actor–network theoreticians intend, but also to
designate the actual movements and points of connection within the European and
American art world during the late postwar period.
Action and circulation in postwar Italy
The new materiality of sculpture in the 1960s—with its unorthodox substances,
incorporation of other mediums, and new modes of staging—was dependent on a
complex, collaborative support structure. The artist no longer worked in solitary
isolation, carving or casting a distinct studio-made object. He or she became a
creative director, orchestrating a highly collaborative event. Sculpture became defined
by the interconnectivity of its multiple parts and players, but such changes were
equally shaped through an active engagement with the space and matter of the
everyday world. Numerous group exhibitions took place in the United States and
Europe throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, creating a lively artistic circuit. These
events brought together artists of various nationalities, providing an opportunity to
create work in situ and experiment with scale, materials, and site.
New York and the greater American art market continued to be the driving force
of the international art world in the 1960s, but opportunities for artists wanting to
work in a more experimental sculptural mode were scarce. Artists on both sides of
the Atlantic during the late postwar period simultaneously became invested in using
new materials and subverting established modes of art making, and European galleries,
exhibition spaces, curators, critics, and collectors proved far more supportive of this
kind of work than their counterparts in the United States. The American sculptor,
Dan Flavin recalled in 1972, “There are critics in New York who profess familiarity
with what I do . . . They probably only know 25% of what I’ve done since most of
the large installations have been done in Europe.”38 In the preface to Six Years,
Lippard echoed Flavin’s sentiments, describing what she referred to as Europe’s
“reawakening.” She wrote:
There is a gallery and museum structure [in Europe], but it is so dull and
irrelevant to new art that there’s a feeling that it can be bypassed, that new things
can be done, voids filled. Whereas in New York, the present gallery-money
power structure is so strong that it’s going to be very difficult to find a viable
alternative to it.39
Italy offered just such an alternative, and serves today as a particularly rich frame-
work to examine not only the rapidly shifting and expanding role of sculpture in the
1960s, but also the medium’s relationship to photography. The Italian art scene of
the 1960s was diverse and marked by an inquisitive, self-reflexive spirit informed by
both the rich cultural tradition and the dramatic socio-political shifts taking place in
the country in the postwar period. As the noted Italian filmmaker Federico Fellini
remarked, “I have already said that I love shipwrecks. So I am happy to be living at
a time when everything is capsizing. It’s a marvelous time, for the very reason that a
whole series of ideologies, concepts and conventions is being wrecked.”40
Often overlooked and marginalized in the art historical scholarship on the late
postwar period, Italy became a significant place of contest within an increasingly
globalized art world. A small if vibrant social and professional network produced
an explosion of cultural output in film, literature, criticism, and the visual arts in
Italy during the 1960s. Groundbreaking films by Michelangelo Antonioni, Fellini,
Sergio Leone, and Pier Paolo Pasolini, among many others, were released throughout
the decade, exploring the implications of the new modern, postwar condition in Italy.
Umberto Eco, Italo Calvino, and Antonio Negri made significant contributions in
literature. Criticism devoted to architecture, design, visual arts, literature, theater,
and film was published in the numerous journals and magazines active during the
decade including B’it and Domus.
Eco’s Opera aperta (The Open Work) (1962) is often referenced in regards to this
period, its influence seen across a wide range of disciplines. For Eco, modern art was
“deliberately and systematically ambiguous,” operating at the center of a “field of
possibilities,” and offering a “plurality of possible readings.” In short, the “open
work” is a “work in progress.”41 Reverberating through much of the art produced
in 1960s Italy was a utopian desire to break down conventions, to allow meaning
to be fluid, and to explore ambiguity as an artistic strategy. As Eco stated decades
later, “The 1960s were extraordinary, for we thought that a revolution of the
languages of art could transform the world. And this conviction brought down the
boundaries between the genres, between word, image, object.”42
The Italian art scene was especially primed to receive foreign artists interested in
sculpture due to the development of what has become known as Arte Povera.43 With
its long artistic tradition stretching back to Antiquity as well as the Grand Tour and
more modern events such as the Venice Biennale, Italy has always welcomed foreign
artists, but the emergence of Arte Povera gave Italian artists equal footing among
their international postwar contemporaries. Like the parallel Postminimalist or Process
art tendencies that appeared on the other side of the Atlantic, Arte Povera remains
difficult to define as a distinct movement, especially in light of the critical stronghold
of the curator and critic Germano Celant, who coined the term in 1967.44 As Claire
Gilman writes, what united the artists associated with the label was not “specific
materials and processes, but rather the radically unstable terrain that each occupies,
a terrain that exists somewhere between materiality and immateriality, or with the
perpetual exchange between opposing forces or conditions.”45
The newly formed network of galleries across Italy that helped Arte Povera flourish
provided new kinds of exhibition spaces, creative freedom, and financial support to
both Italian and non-Italian artists alike. Also present in Italy was a pervasive
collaborative patronage model in which the commissioning agent(s) organizing the
sculptural event played a central role in the creation of the work. That so many notable
sculptures were produced in Italy during this time speaks not only to an emerging
and fluid international art scene, but also to one that was increasingly affected by
the specifics of place.
The proliferation of transient sculptural projects in Italy during the 1960s created
a demand for photographers able to capture the scope of such work. Italian gallerists
and artists were conscious of the need for photographic documentation as well as
the complex issues it raised in determining the parameters of what constituted a work
of art. Artists of all nationalities within the burgeoning international avant-garde of
the late 1960s relied on a small group of photographers to capture the “spirit” of
their work. While there were notable photographers of the international art scene in
the United States, France, and Germany, including Ute Klophaus who worked with
Beuys, some of the most iconic images of experimental sculpture projects of the period
were taken by Italian photographers. Ugo Mulas photographed the American and
European art scenes during the postwar period as well as shooting many of the major
group exhibitions in Italy including the Venice Biennale. Gianfranco Gorgoni worked
with many of the top vanguard artists on both sides of the Atlantic, frequently
publishing his photographs in key texts from the period and working with Smithson
during the installation of Spiral Jetty in 1970. Claudio Abate and Paolo Mussat Sartor
served as the in-house photographers at the Galleria L’Attico in Rome and the
Galleria Sperone in Turin, respectively, photographing the exhibited work and the
artists represented by the galleries. These photographers quickly gained a reputation
for documenting works of art, but also for collaborating with other artists to help
shape the conceptualization, execution, and subsequent installation(s) of their projects.
Structured around four distinct but interrelated projects initially realized in Italy
during the late postwar period, this book tells a story in which sculpture acts a node,
a center of transaction comprised of multiple material phenomena, including objects,
images, and actors. Kusama’s Narcissus Garden (1966), Pistoletto’s Sfera di giornali
(1966), Smithson’s Asphalt Rundown (1969), and Joseph Beuys’ Arena—dove sarei
arrivato se fossi intelligente! (1972) all utilized nontraditional materials, collaborative
patronage models, and innovative display tactics. In these projects sculpture was much
more than a mere autonomous, static thing or vehicle for a concept. When seen as
an interconnected, dynamic web of materials, sculpture instead becomes a spatially
and temporally dispersed arena of matter and action, with photography serving as
a connective, material thread within the sculpture it reflects. Together, these works
suggest not a dematerialization of art in the 1960s and early 1970s, but rather a
multiplicity of materializations.
Chapter 1 examines the impact of the Venice Biennale and the Japanese artist Yayoi
Kusama’s creation of Narcissus Garden, an officially sanctioned if highly unusual
sculptural environment created in conjunction with the thirty-third staging of the
exhibition during the summer of 1966. Italian artist Lucio Fontana and Carlo
Cardazzo, an important Italian gallerist, helped facilitate the creation of Narcissus
Garden, but the work gained much of its resonance from the illustrious international
setting and Kusama’s shrewd insertion of herself into what was a variable work.
Installed on the lawn in front of the gallerist Cardazzo’s Book Pavilion on the main
grounds of the Biennale, the work’s core sculptural component was a dynamic
configuration of 1500-mirrored plastic balls. The work, however, was dependent on,
and continuously shaped by, the interaction between artist, viewer, and environment.
Kusama implicated herself within Narcissus Garden, with almost every photograph
taken during the Biennale showing the artist interacting with and almost disappearing
into her work.
Related to both other pieces Kusama made in the mid 1960s and larger trends in
international contemporary art, Narcissus Garden presents sculpture as a mode of
performative action and a means to extend material space. The chapter establishes
the work within the context of the Biennale, which served as a pivotal platform for
bringing together international artists in the postwar period, while also exploring
how Kusama physically and conceptually integrated a wide array of materials into
the project, including reflective surfaces, climatic factors, photographic images, and
her own presence. Taking into account Kusama’s precise staging, this chapter
considers how the performance of the artist became a crucial element in activating
sculptural practice during the period.
Like Kusama, the Italian artist Michelangelo Pistoletto exhibited a work at the
XXXIII Venice Biennale and established his artistic reputation through the use of
reflective materials, but 1966 also marked a significant turning point in his career.
Chapter 2 begins with a discussion of the exhibition of a diverse group of sculptures
created and displayed at Pistoletto’s Turin studio, collectively entitled the Oggetti in
Meno (Minus Objects). Considered a landmark moment in the development of late
1960s vanguard Italian art, often classified under the label Arte Povera, the exhibition
included Sfera di giornali, a large papier-mâché sculpture made of pressed local
newspapers. Unlike Kusama’s orbs, Sfera consisted of a single element, but almost
immediately after its creation, spawned multiple identical or closely related sculptures
in various sizes, with titles, sometimes modified, and additional physical components
added. Pistoletto moved and on a few occasions even rolled these spheres throughout
Italian cities during the late 1960s.
The concurrent and continued existence of so many various Sfere, multiplied even
further by subsequent photographs, films, and display components, complicates the
notion of an autonomous or complete work. This chapter also more broadly discusses
the shared interest among many Italian artists during the late 1960s in dynamic
materials and action within sculptural practice, characteristics that came to define
the Arte Povera tendency. Pistoletto’s work, like that of his contemporaries,
materialized alongside and with the assistance of the emergent network of Italian
gallerists, artists, and institutions during the period. Chapter 3 examines the role
played by this network in both the creation and dissemination of work on an
international scale, and its underlying principles that made Italy a particularly
innovative context for sculpture in the 1960s.
Pioneering Italian gallerists also proved instrumental to the execution of Smithson
and Beuys’ projects. Chapter 3 examines the circumstances surrounding the Smithson’s
Asphalt Rundown, realized in October 1969 with the assistance of Fabio Sargentini,
the owner of Galleria L’Attico. The work was a physical manifestation of entropy
and process, the central action being the dumping of several tons of molten asphalt
down a hillside in an abandoned quarry just outside of Rome. The specifics of mater-
ials both gave form to the work and caused its eventual, irrevocable disappearance.
Today there is no antecedent or physical copy, and as a result, of all the projects
analyzed in this book, Asphalt Rundown remains the most dependent on photography
for its continued dissemination.
Even when Asphalt Rundown existed in situ, however, it became known primarily
through a single, iconic photograph that denied the multiple temporalities inherent
in its continually changing material form. The privileging of a single view over a
multiplicity was a common occurrence in the presentation of many remote or
ephemeral projects during the period. Like Pistoletto, Smithson and his work
circulated within a burgeoning, short-lived international avant-garde in the late 1960s
and early 1970s, united through a shared interest in contingency, energy, and process.
These artists utilized photography in their work, while expressing uneasiness with
the consequences of doing so. This chapter considers Smithson’s approach to materials
and looks closer at the role of photography in the materiality of sculpture during the
period, from its creation in conjunction with a given work to its ability to disperse
a work in both time and space.
Created in 1972, Beuys’s Arena provides a means to evaluate the developments
within sculptural practice from the previous decade. Created at the request of Lucio
Amelio who first showed the piece in his Naples gallery, Modern Art Agency, and
proved a major force in the work’s continued international exposure, Arena conveyed
a profound sense of materiality and active processes. Comprised of multiple materials,
including over two hundred photographs depicting many of Beuys’ previous actions
and sculptures, the work simultaneously functions as a collection of photographic
images of sculpture and a sculpture made from photographs. As material, the par-
ticular style and surface treatment of the photographs in Arena emphasize the artist’s
sustained investigation of matter, and yet they equally deny any sense of temporality
or physicality.
Arena is one of the more potent examples of sculpture from the period to collapse
boundaries between image and object, but like the works discussed in the previous
chapters, it has a complex history beyond its first appearance in Naples. Chapter 4
discusses the conditions of its creation as well as its subsequent installations as it
moved throughout Italy during 1972, accumulating and expelling additional actions,
agents, and objects into its constitutive meshwork. Arena’s circulation enlivened the
work’s static images, and as a result, the photographs in and of Arena do not simply
preserve work for posterity, but animate it in a dynamic present.
The book concludes with a reflection on how these projects have evolved over the
past four decades, and what their relationship may or may not be to more
contemporary artistic practice. 1972 marked a terminus for many of the experimental
approaches that emerged in the postwar period. Sculpture in the previous decade
helped codify new modes of collaborative patronage and international exchange that
remain in use today, but the belief in the transformative power of materials soon lost
currency. The phenomenon exemplified in the case studies of this book is not the
same mode of plurality visible in the multipart, multimedia, spectacular installations
of the 1980s and 1990s. Far from nostalgically celebrating the 1960s as a significant
if failed moment, however, this book closes by questioning what recent remakes,
reconstitutions, and reinstallations of works from this period mean and what they
continue to say about sculpture.
The sculptural materiality of the late postwar period was not just about the
incorporation of unconventional or dynamic matter, but also an acknowledgment
that the material constitution of sculpture, even in the moment of its creation, was
heterogeneous and interminable. The charge of sculpture in the late postwar period
came from its concurrent existence as both three-dimensional phenomena and
photographic image, from its status as something comprised of multiple, intertwined
strands of material. Whether envisioned as a fibrous bundle, a range of convergence,
or an undulating meshwork, understanding sculpture along these lines allows for the
full life of the art object, its dissemination within both space and time, to be taken
into consideration.
Notes
1 Robert Smithson, “Dialectic of Site and Nonsite,” in Land Art. Fernsehgalerie Gerry
Schum, Television Gallery (Hanover: Hartwig Popp, 1970), n.p.
2 Lucy Lippard, ed., Six Years: the dematerialization of the art object from 1966 to 1972:
a cross-reference book of information on some esthetic boundaries . . . (New York: Praeger,
1973; Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997).
3 Peter Osborne, Conceptual Art (London: Phaidon, 2002), 10. For other recent texts taking
this approach to Conceptual Art, see, Alexander Alberro, Conceptual Art and the Politics
of Publicity (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003); Alexander Alberro and Blake Stimson,
Conceptual Art: An Anthology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999); Michael Newman
and Jon Bird, Rewriting Conceptual Art (London: Reaktion Books, 1999).
4 Tony Godfrey, Conceptual Art, Art & Ideas (London: Phaidon, 1998), 12.
5 Rosalind Krauss, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field,” October 8 (Spring 1979): 35. This
text appeared less than two years after her landmark study of postwar sculpture, Passages
in Modern Sculpture (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977/1981).
6 Lucy Lippard and John Chandler, “The Dematerialization of Art,” Art International 12,
no. 2 (February 1968): 31, 36. In a new foreword written for the 1997 edition of Six
Years, Lippard reassessed the label “dematerialization,” as did Materializing Six Years:
Lucy R. Lippard and the Emergence of Conceptual Art, an exhibition held at the Brooklyn
Museum of Art between September 14, 2012 and February 17, 2013. Lippard, Six Years,
vii–xxii; Catherine Morris, Materializing “Six Years”: Lucy R. Lippard and the emergence
of conceptual art (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012).
7 According to Jeff Wall, Conceptualism applied similar pressure to and helped define the
medium of photography. See, Jeff Wall, “ ‘Marks of Indifference’: Aspects of Photography
in, or as, Conceptual Art (1995),” in Reconsidering the Object of Art: 1965–1975, ed.
Ann Goldstein and Anne Rorimer, 247–67 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995).
8 For more on the history and developments of sculpture in the twentieth century see Krauss,
Passages in Modern Sculpture; Alex Potts, The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative,
Modernist, Minimalist (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press); Jon Wood, David Hulks,
and Alex Potts, Modern Sculpture Reader (Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2007).
9 See, Robert Morris, “Anti Form,” Artforum 6 (April 1968): 33–35; Robert Morris, “Notes
on Sculpture, Part 4: Beyond Objects,” Artforum 7 (April 1969): 50–54.
10 Jo Applin, Eccentric Objects: Rethinking Sculpture in 1960s America (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2012), 5.
11 Anne Middleton Wagner, Mother Stone: The Vitality of Modern British Sculpture (New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), 245.
12 Anne Middleton Wagner, A House Divided: American Art Since 1955 (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 2012), 52.
13 Ibid., 53.
14 Potts, The Sculptural Imagination, 4.
15 Heinrich Wölfflin, “How One Should Photograph Sculpture (1896–97),” trans. Geraldine
A. Johnson, Art History 36, no. 1 (February 2013): 52–71. Originally published, Heinrich
Wölfflin, “Wie Man Skulpturen Aufnehmen Soll (How one should photograph sculpture),”
pt. 1, Zeitschrift für Bildende Kunst 7, no. 10 (July 1896): 224–28, and pt. 2, Zeitschrift
für Bildende Kunst 8, no. 12 (September 1897): 294–97. Also see, Gegossenes Licht/Cast
Light: Sculpture in Photography, 1845–1860 (Munich: Galerie Daniel Blau, 2008); Robert
S. Nelson, “The Slide Lecture, or the Work of Art ‘History’ in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction,” Critical Inquiry 26, no. 3 (Spring 2000): 414–34; Joel Synder, “Nineteenth-
Century Photography of Sculpture and the Rhetoric of Substitution,” and Henri Zerner,
“Malraux and the Power of Photography,” in Sculpture and Photography: Envisioning
the Third Dimension, ed. Geraldine Johnson, 116–130 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998).
16 See for example, Friedrich Teja Bach, Margit Rowell, and Ann Temkin, Constantin
Brancusi: 1876–1957 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995); Sharon Hecker and Harry
Cooper, eds., Medardo Rosso: Second Impressions (New Haven: Yale University Press,
2003); Geraldine A. Johnson, ed., Sculpture and Photography: Envisioning the Third
Dimension (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Dorothy Kosinski, ed., The
Artist and the Camera (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999); Roxana Marcoci,
ed., The Original Copy: Photography of Sculpture, 1839 to today (New York: Museum
of Modern Art, 2010); Paul Paret, “Picturing Sculpture: Object, Image and Archive,” in
Bauhaus Construct: Fashioning Identity, Discourse and Modernism, eds. Jeffrey Saletnik
and Robin Sculdenfrei (London: Routledge, 2009), 163–180; Hélène Pinet, “The Studio
of Alberto Giacometti in the Photographer’s Eye: Coming Full Circle,” in The Studio of
Alberto Giacometti (Paris: Centre Pompidou and Fondation Alberto et Annette Giacometti,
2007); Kirk Varnedoe, “Rodin and Photography,” in Rodin Rediscovered, ed. Albert Elsen
(Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1981); and Jon Wood, Close Encounters: The
Sculptor’s Studio in the Age of the Camera (Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2001).
17 See for example, Darsie M. Alexander, “Reluctant Witness: Photography and the
Documentation of 1960s and 1970s Art,” in Work Ethic, ed. Helen Molesworth (University
Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2003), 53–65; Sarah Hamill, David Smith in Two
Dimensions: Photography and the Matter of Sculpture (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 2015); and Kate Nesin, Cy Twombly’s Things (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2014); Alex Potts, “The Minimalist Object and the Photographic Image,”
in Sculpture and Photography: Envisioning the Third Dimension, ed. Geraldine A. Johnson
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 181–96; Matthew S. Witkovsky ed., Light
Years: Conceptual Art and the Photograph, 1964–1977 (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2012).
18 Hamill, David Smith in Two Dimensions: Photography and the Matter of Sculpture,
107–108.
19 Nesin, 202.
20 Ibid., 203.
21 See Chapter 2 for a further discussion of the term intermedia as it appeared in Italy during
the mid 1960s. Dick Higgins, “Intermedia (1966),” reprinted in Intermedia: The Dick
Higgins Collection at UMBC, ed. Lisa Moren (Baltimore, MD: Albin O. Kuhn Library
and Gallery, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 2003),
22 Ibid., 38, 41.
23 This conception of “intermedia” is perhaps closer to what Jens Schröter has described as
“transformational intermedia.” Schröter provides one of the best recent reassessments of
history and theoretical underpinnings of intermediality, but the inclusion of the qualifier
“transformational” within the context of my greater argument would be misleading. Jens
Schröter, “Four Models of Intermediality,” in Travels in Intermediality: Reblurring the
Boundaries, ed. Bernd Herzogenrath (Hanover: Dartmouth College Press, 2012), 17.
24 Lawrence Alloway, “Art and the Communications Network (1966),” in Imagining the
Present: Context, Content, and the Role of the Critic, ed. Richard Kalina (London:
Routledge, 2006), 113.
25 In the 1940s there were approximately forty galleries in New York. By the 1960s this
number had quadrupled and by the mid 1970s that number had doubled. Joan Marter,
The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
The late postwar period also saw the founding of numerous art periodicals including Art
International in 1957, Artforum in 1962, and Avalanche in 1968. See Gwen Allen, Artists’
Magazines: An Alternative Space for Art (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011).
26 Lawrence Alloway, “Art and the Communications Network (1966),” 116.
27 Ibid., 115.
28 Harold Rosenberg, “The American Action Painters (1960),” in The Tradition of the New
(New York: De Capo Press, 1994), 25.
29 George Kubler, The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1962), 9.
30 Ibid., 32.
31 Ibid., 9.
32 Diana Coole and Samantha Frost, “Introducing the New Materialisms,” New Materialisms:
Ontology, Agency, and Politics (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 9. Also see,
Rick Dolphijn and Iris van der Tuin, New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies (Ann
Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press, 2012).
33 Arjun Appadurai, The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter: A Political
Ecology of Things (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010); Bill Brown, Things
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004); Alfred Gell, Art and Agency: An
Anthropological Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); Tim Ingold, Being Alive:
Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description (London: Routledge, 2011); Bruno
Latour, Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Act-Network Theory (Oxford: Oxford
University press, 2007); Christopher Tilley, The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in
Landscape Phenomenology (Oxford: Berg, 2004). For a discussion of theories of materiality
as it applies more directly the field of art history, see the collection of short essays in “Notes
from the Field: Materiality,” The Art Bulletin 95, no. 1 (April 2013): 10–37.
34 In addition to Latour’s own substantial bibliography, a keyword search of “actor network
theory” results in hundreds of articles and books, across disciplines, related to the topic.
The International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation pub-
lished its first issue in 2009.
35 Ingold, 70.
36 Ibid.,16.
37 Ibid., 29.
38 As quoted in, Phyllis Tuchman, “That was Then, and This is Now: The View from New
York,” in Painting, Object, Film, Concept: Works from the Herbig Collection (New York:
Christie’s, 1998), 21.
39 Lippard, ed., Six Years: the dematerialization of the art object from 1966 to 1972, 8.
40 Federico Fellini, Fellini on Fellini, ed. Anna Keel and Christian Strich (London: Eyre
Methuen, 1976), 157.
41 Umberto Eco, The Open Work, trans. Anna Cancogni (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1989), 14–23.
42 Umberto Eco, “You must remember this . . .” in The Italian Metamorphosis, 1943–1968,
ed. Germano Celant (New York: Guggenheim Museum, 1994), xiv.
43 For a more complete discussion of Arte Povera see Chapter 3 as well as Germano Celant,
Arte Povera (Milano: G. Mazzotta Editore, 1969); Carolyn Christov-Bakargiev, Arte
Povera (London: Phaidon, 2005); Richard Flood and Frances Morris, Zero to Infinity:
Arte Povera, 1962–1972 (Minneapolis: Walker Art Center, 2001); Robert Lumley, Arte
Povera (London: Tate 2004); Rainald Schumacher, Arte Povera from the Goetz Collection
(München: Sammlung Goetz, 2001).
44 Germano Celant, “Arte Povera: Appunti per un’arte di guerriglia,” Flash Art 5
(November–December 1967, 3. For a discussion of Celant’s involvement in the emergence
of Arte Povera see Jacopo Galimberti, “A Third-worldist Art? Germano Celant’s Invention
of Arte Povera,” Art History 36, no. 2 (April 2013): 418–441.
45 Claire Gilman, “Introduction,” October 124 (Spring 2008): 7.
Bibliography
Ackermann, Marion, and Isabelle Malz, eds. Joseph Beuys: Parallel Processes. Düsseldorf:
Kunstsammlung Nordrhein-Westfalen, 2010.
Alberro, Alex. Conceptual Art and the Politics of Publicity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2003.
Alberro, Alex, and Blake Stimson. Conceptual Art: An Anthology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
1999.
Alexander, Darsie M. “Reluctant Witness: Photography and the Documentation of 1960s and
1970s Art.” In Work Ethic, edited by Helen Molesworth, 53–65. University Park, PA: Penn
State University Press, 2003.
Allen, Gwen. Artists’ Magazines: An Alternative Space for Art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2011.
Alloway, Lawrence. “Art and the Communications Network (1966).” In Imagining the Present:
Context, Content, and the Role of the Critic, edited by Richard Kalina, 113–20. London:
Routledge, 2006.
––––. “Art in Escalation, The History of Happenings: A Question of Sources.” Arts Magazine
(December 1966–January 1967): 40–43.
––––. “Artists and Photographers (1970).” In The Last Picture Show: Artists Using
Photography, 1960–1982, edited by Douglas Fogle, 20–21. Minneapolis, MN: Walker Art
Center, 2003.
––––. The Venice Biennale, 1895–1968: From Salon to Goldfish Bowl. Greenwich, CT: New
York Graphic Society, 1968.
Amelio, Lucio, and Pamela Kort. “The Neapolitan Tetralogy: An Interview with Lucio Amelio.”
In Arena: Where Would I Have Got if I Had Been Intelligent!, edited by Lynne Cooke and
Karen Kelly, 34-51. New York: Dia Center for the Arts, 1994.
Appadurai, Arjun. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Applin, Jo. Yayoi Kusama: Infinity Mirror Room—Phalli’s Field. London: Afterall Books,
2011.
––––. Eccentric Objects: Rethinking Sculpture in 1960s America. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 2012.
Armstrong, Richard, and Richard Marshall. The New Sculpture 1965–75: Between Geometry
and Gesture. New York: Whitney Museum of Art, 1990.
Assante, Dario. Carlo Scarpa: Il Padiglione del Libro all Biennale di Venezia, La Galleria del
Cavallino, 1942 e 1949. Venice: Cavallino, 2000.
Atkinson, Terry. “Concerning the Article ‘The Dematerialization of Art’ (1968).” In Conceptual
Art: A Critical Anthology, edited by Alex Alberro and Blake Stimson, 52–58. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1999.
Bach, Friedrich Teja, Margit Rowell, and Ann Temkin. Constantin Brancusi: 1876-1957.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
182 Bibliography
Baker, Kenneth. “Talking with Robert Smithson (1970).” In Robert Smithson: Spiral Jetty,
True Fictions, False Realities, edited by Lynne Cooke, 147–58. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press, 2005.
Barbero, Luca Massimo. Carlo Cardazzo: A New Vision in Art. Milan: Electa, 2008.
Barletta, Riccardo. “Una Biennale per gli occhi.” Prospetti, no. 2–3 (June–September 1966):
261–66.
Basualdo, Carlos, ed. Michelangelo Pistoletto: From One to Many, 1956–1974. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 2010.
Baudrillard, Jean. “For Illusion is not the opposite of reality. . .” In Photographies 1985–1998,
129–42. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz, 1990.
Bear, Liza, and Willoughby Sharp. “Discussions with Heizer, Oppenheim, and Smithson.”
Avalanche, no. 1 (Fall 1970): 48–70.
Belting, Hans, Andrea Buddenseig, and Peter Weibel, eds., The Global Contemporary and the
Rise of New Art Worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013.
Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations, edited by Hannah Arendt. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1969.
––––. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Illuminations, edited by
Hannah Arendt, 217–252. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1969.
Bennett, Jane. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 2010.
Beuys, Joseph, Bernd Klüser, and Jörg Schellmann. “Questions to Joseph Beuys (1977).” In
Modern Sculpture Reader, edited by Jon Wood, David Hulks and Alex Potts, 316–24. Leeds:
Henry Moore Institute, 2007.
Claire Bishop, Installation Art: A Critical History. New York: Routledge, 2005.
––––, ed. Participation. London: Whitechapel, 2002.
Blair Dumbadze, Alexander and Suzanne Hudson, Contemporary Art: 1989 to the present.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
Blazwick, Iwona, Janna Graham and Sarah Auld, eds. Gerhard Richter Atlas: The Reader
London: Whitechapel Gallery, 2003.
Blume, Eugen. “Joseph Beuys and Photography.” In Joseph Beuys: Make the Secrets Productive,
45–51. New York: PaceWildenstein, 2010.
Boatto, Alberto. “Lo spazio dello spettacolo.” In Fuoco, Immagine, Acqua, Terra, n.p. Rome:
L’Attico, 1967.
Bonito Oliva, Achille. Installation and Performance Art: Claudio Abate, fotografo. Milan:
Photology, 2007.
––––. Joseph Beuys: Il Ciclo del suo lavoro. Milan: Studio Marconi, 1973.
––––. “Tempo concreto (A Roma Achille Bonito Oliva Intervista Robert Smithson).” Domus,
no. 481 (December 1969).
Bonuomo, Michele. Warhol, Beuys: Omaggio a Lucio Amelio. Milan: Mazzotta, 2007.
Bourriaud, Nicolas. Relational Aesthetics. Dijon: les presses du reel, 1998.
Brin, Irene. “Milledue cadauna (Twelve Hundred a Piece).” L’Europeo June 23, 1966, 71.
Brown, Bill. Things. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Brown, Gordon. “Yayoi Kusama.” D’Ars 7, no. 1–2 (1966): 140.
Brown, Robert. Pino Pascali: Ponte, The Italian Sale, 20th Century Art. London: Christie’s,
2008.
Buchloh, Benjamin H.D. “Beuys: The Twlight of the Idol, Preliminary Notes for a Critique
(1980).” In Joseph Beuys: Mapping the Legacy, edited by Gene Ray, 199–211. New York:
D.A.P., 2001.
––––. “Reconsidering Joseph Beuys, Once Again.” In Joseph Beuys: Mapping the Legacy, edited
by Gene Ray, 75–89. New York: D.A.P., 2001.
––––, Rosalind E. Krauss, and Annette Michelson. “Joseph Beuys at the Guggenheim.” October
12 (Spring 1980): 3–21.
Burton, Johanna. “Repeat Performance,” Artforum 44, no. 5 (January 2006): 55
Bibliography 183
Cabutti, Lucio, Denis Curti, and Marisa Vescovo. l giocoliere elettronico: Nam June Paik e
l’invenzione della videoarte. Turin: Hopefulmonster, 2002.
Calvesi, Maurizio. “Lo spazio degli elementi.” In Fuoco, Immagine, Acqua, Terra, n.p. Rome:
L’Attico, 1967.
Campany, David. Art and Photography. London: Phaidon, 2003.
––––. “Conceptual Art History or, A Home for Homes for America.” In Rewriting Conceptual
Art, edited by Michael Newman and Jon Bird, 123–39. London: Reaktion, 1999.
Carter, Holland. “Art’s Future Meets Its Past: Prada Foundation Remounts a 1969 Exhibition,”
New York Times, August 13, 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/arts/design/prada-
foundation-remounts-a-1969-exhibition.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed May 1, 2014).
Catalogo della XXXIII Esposizione Biennale Internazionale d’Arte Venezia. Venice: La Biennale
di Venezia, 1966.
Cederena, Camilla. “Quel dito dipinto di blu.” L’Espresso, June 26, 1966, n.p.
Celant, Germano. “Arte Povera: Appunti per un’arte di guerriglia.” Flash Art 5 (November–
December 1967): 3.
––––. Arte Povera. Milano: G. Mazzotta Editore, 1969.
––––. Arte Povera = Art Povera. Milan: Electa, 1985.
––––. Arte Povera: History and Stories. Milan: Electa, 2011.
––––. Arte povera più azioni povere. Salerno: Rumma Editore, 1969.
––––. Conceptual Art, Arte Povera, Land Art. Torino: Galleria civica d’arte moderna, 1970.
––––. When Attitudes Become Form: Bern 1969/Venice 2013. Milan: Fondazione Prada, 2013.
––––. “Yayoi Kusama.” Interview (June 2005): 76–80.
Che Fare? Arte Povera—The Historic Years. Heidelberg: Kunstmuseum Lichtenstein, 2010.
Chevrier, Jean-Francois. “The Minus Objects: Dimensions of Time.” In Michelangelo Pistoletto:
From One to Many, 1956–1974, edited by Carlos Basualdo, 51–80. New Haven, CT: Yale
Christov-Bakargiev, Carolyn. Arte Povera. London: Phaidon, 2005.
Clark, T.J. “Modernism, Postmodernism, and Steam,” October 100 (Spring 2002): 160.
Collezione Christian Stein: Una storia dell’ arte italiana. Milan: Electa, 2010.
Collins, Douglas. The History of Kodak (New York: H.N. Abrams, 1990.
Colpitt, Francis. “The Photograph and the Photographed.” Southern California Art Magazine,
no. 24 (1979): 30–34.
Cooke, Lynne. “Installing Arena: An Introduction.” In Arena: Where Would I Have Got if I
Had Been Intelligent!, edited by Lynne Cooke and Karen Kelly, 12–17. New York: Dia
Center for the Arts, 1994.
––––. “Joseph Beuys: Introduction.” Dia Art Foundation, www.diacenter.org/exhibitions/
introduction/77 (accessed May 15, 2015).
––––, and Michael Govan. Dia: Beacon. New York: Dia Foundation, 2003.
––––, and Karen Kelly, eds. Arena: Where Would I Have Got if I Had Been Intelligent! New
York: Dia Center for the Arts, 1994.
Coole, Diana, and Samantha Frost, eds. New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010.
Crispolti, Enrico, and Jan van der Marck. Lucio Fontana. Brussels: La Connaissance, 1974.
Cutler, Jody B. “Narcissus, Narcosis, Neurosis: The Visions of Yayoi Kusama.” In
Contemporary Art and Classical Myth, edited by Isabelle Loring Wallace and Jennie Hirsch,
87–109. Surrey: Ashgate, 2011.
De Domizio Durini, Lucrezia. The Felt Hat: Joseph Beuys, a Life Told. Milan: Charta,
1997.
Deleuze, Gilles. Difference and Repetition. London: Continuum, 2001.
de Lima Greene, Alison. “Dennis Oppenheim: No Photography.” Spot 12, no. 1 (Spring 1993):
5–6.
“Deposito D’Arte Presente a Torino.” Flash Art 2, no. 7 (March–April 1968): 103–104.
184 Bibliography
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology, translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.
Di Martino, Enzo. The History of the Venice Biennale,1895–2005: Visual Arts, Architecture,
Cinema, Dance, Music, Theatre. Venice: Papiro Arte, 2005.
“Doctor Adds His ‘Touch’ to Artist’s Work.” Montreal Star, July 5, 1966.
Dolphijn, Rick and Iris van der Tuin. New Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies. Ann
Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press, 2012.
Dreisphoon, Douglas. “Sculptors and Critics, Arenas and Complaints.” In Action/Abstraction:
Pollock, de Kooning, and American Art, 1940–1976, 215–230. New Haven, CT: Yale
Eco, Umberto. The Open Work, translated by Anna Cancogni. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
––––. “You must remember this . . .” In The Italian Metamorphosis, 1943–1968, edited by
Germano Celant, xii–xv. New York: Guggenheim Museum, 1994.
Fanelli, Franco. “The Prada Biennale Show: Creative Energy turned into Dead Fetishism,” The
Art Newspaper, June 3, 2013, www.theartnewspaper.com/reviews/The-Prada-Biennale-
show-Creative-Energy-turned-into-Dead-Fetishism/29836 (accessed May 1, 2014).
Farano, Marco. “Chronology of Michelangelo Pistoletto, 1956–74,” Michelangelo Pistoletto:
From One to Many, 358.
Fellini, Federico. Fellini on Fellini, edited by Anna Keel and Christian Strich. London: Eyre
Methuen, 1976.
Fer, Briony. The Infinite Line: Re-making Art after Modernism. New Haven, CT: Yale
––––. “The Somnambulist’s Story: Installation and the Tableau.” Oxford Art Journal 24,
no. 2 (2001): 75–92.
Flood, Richard, and Frances Morris. Zero to Infinity: Arte Povera, 1962–1972. Minneapolis,
MN: Walker Art Center, 2001.
Foote, Nancy. “The Anti-Photographers.” Artforum 15, no. 1 (1976).
Foster, Hal. Return of the Real: The Avant-garde at the End of the Century. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 1996.
Friedel, Helmut, ed. Atlas. New York: D.A.P./Distributed Art Publishers, 2006.
Galimberti, Jacopo. “A Third-worldist Art? Germano Celant’s Invention of Arte Povera.” Art
History 36, no. 2 (April 2013): 418–441.
Gegossenes Licht/Cast Light: Sculpture in Photography, 1845–1860. Munich: Galerie Daniel
Blau, 2008.
Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998.
Gilman, Claire. “Introduction.” October 124 (Spring 2008): 3–7.
––––. “Pistoletto’s Staged Subjects.” October 124 (Spring 2008): 53–74.
Godfrey, Tony. Conceptual Art: Art & Ideas. London: Phaidon, 1998.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Italian Journey, trans. By W.H. Auden and Elizabeth Mayer.
London: Penguin, 1962.
Goodnough, Robert. “Pollock Paints a Picture.” Art News 50, no. 3 (May 1951): 38–41, 60–61.
Green, David, and Joanna Lowry. “Splitting the Index: Time, Object, and Photography in the
Work of Joseph Beuys and Yves Klein.” In Sculpture and Photography: Envisioning the
Third Dimension, edited by Geraldine A. Johnson, 148–65. Cambridge: Cambridge
Hamill, Sarah. David Smith in Two Dimensions: Photography and the Matter of Sculpture.
Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2014.
Hamilton, Richard “Joseph Beuys (1921–1986).” Art Monthly (March 1986): 10–11.
Heathfield, Adrian and Amelia Jones, eds., Perform Repeat Record: Live Art in History.
London: Intellect, 2012.
Bibliography 185
Hecker, Sharon and Harry Cooper, eds. Medardo Rosso: Second Impressionisms. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 2003.
Heckert, Virginia, ed., Light, Paper, Process: Reinventing Photography. Los Angeles, CA:
J. Paul Getty Museum, 2015.
Hickey, Andria. “Man, Myth, and Magic: Yves Klein and Photography.” In Yves Klein: With
the Void, Full Powers, edited by Kerry Brougher and Philippe Vergne, 287–331.
Minneapolis, MN: Walker Art Center, 2010.
Higgins, Dick. “Intermedia (1966).” In Intermedia: The Dick Higgins Collection at UMBC,
edited by Lisa Moren, 38–42. Baltimore, MD: Albin O. Kuhn Library and Gallery, University
of Maryland, Baltimore County, 2003.
Hobbs, Robert. Robert Smithson: Sculpture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981.
Hoptman, Laura. “Down to Zero: Yayoi Kusama and the European ‘New Tendency.’ ” In
Yayoi Kusama: I want to live forever, edited by Akira Tatehata, 30–45. Milan: Federico
Motta, 2009.
––––. “Down to Zero: Yayoi Kusama and the European ‘New Tendency’.” In Love Forever:
Yayoi Kusama, 1958–1968, 43–59. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Museum of Art,
1998.
––––. Yayoi Kusama. London: Phaidon, 2000.
Hulme, T.E. “Cinders: A Sketch of a New Weltanschauung.” In Speculations: Essays on
Humanism and the Philosophy of Art, edited by Herbert Read, 215–48. London: Routledge,
1924.
Imponente, Anna. “The Ephemeral Material Existence of the Works of Pino Pascali,” Pino
Pascali: La reconstruccion de la naturaleza, 19667–1968. Valencia: IVAM Centre Julio
Gonzalez, 1992, 97–98.
Ingold, Tim. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London:
Routledge, 2011.
––––. Lines: A Brief History. London: Routledge, 2007.
––––. “Toward an Ecology of Materials.” Annual Review of Anthropology 41 (2012): 427–441.
Jachec, Nancy. Politics and painting at the Venice Biennale, 1948–64. Manchester: Manchester
Johnson, Geraldine A. “The Very Impress of the Object”: Photographying Sculpture from
Fox Talbot to the Present Day. Leeds: Henry Moore Centre for the Study of Sculpture,
1995.
––––, ed. Sculpture and Photography: Envisioning the Third Dimension. Cambridge: Cambridge
Johnston, Jill. “Reviews and Previews: Kusama’s One Thousand Boats Show.” Art News 62,
no. 10 (February 1964): 12.
Jones, Amelia. After the Act: The (Re) Presentation of Performance Art. Vienna: MUMOK
Museum Moderner Kunst Siftung Ludwig, 2007.
––––, “Performance, Live or Dead,” Art Journal 70, no. 3 (Fall 2011): 33.
Joseph Beuys: Diverging Critiques, edited by David Thistlewood. Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press; Tate Gallery Liverpool, 1995.
Judd, Donald. “In the Galleries: Yayoi Kusama.” Arts Magazine 38, no. 10 (September 1964):
68–69.
Kaiser, Philipp and Miwon Kwon, eds. Ends of the Earth: Land Art to 1974. Los Angeles,
CA: Museum of Contemporary Art, 2012.
Kaprow, Allan. Assemblage, Environments, & Happenings. New York: H.N. Abrams,
1966.
––––. Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life, edited by Jeff Kelley. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press, 2003.
––––. “Happenings in the New York Scene (1961).” In Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life,
edited by Jeff Kelley, 15–26. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003.
186 Bibliography
––––, and Richard Schechner. “Extensions in Time and Space: An Interview with Allan
Kaprow.” The Drama Review: TDR 12, no. 3 (Spring, 1968): 153–59.
Karia, Bhupendra. Yayoi Kusama: A Retrospective. New York: Center for International Art,
1989.
Kelsey, Robin. “Hazard into the Blue: John Baldessari and Photography in the Early 1970s,”
in Light Years: Conceptual Art and the Photograph, 1964–1977, ed. Matthew S. Witkovsky,
133–44. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 2011.
––––. Photography and the Art of Chance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.
Klein, Yves. “Some Excerpts from my Journal.” In Overcoming the Problematics of Art: The
Writings of Yves Klein, edited by Klaus Ottmann, 13–15. Putnam, CT: Spring Publications,
2007.
Klophaus, Ute. “Being and Remaining: Photography to Joseph Beuys (1985).” In Live Art on
Camera, edited by Alice Maude-Roxby, 111–13. London: John Hansard Gallery, 2007.
Kocur, Zoya, and Simon Leung, eds., Theory in Contemporary Art since 1985. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
Kort, Pamela. “Joseph Beuys’ Aesthetic 1958–1972.” In Joseph Beuys: Diverging Critiques,
edited by David Thistlewood, 67–80. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press; Tate Gallery
Liverpool, 1995.
––––. “Joseph Beuys’s Arena: The Way In.” In Arena: Where Would I Have Got if I Had Been
Intelligent!, edited by Lynne Cooke and Karen Kelly, 18–33. New York: Dia Center for
the Arts, 1994.
Kosinski, Dorothy, ed. The Artist and the Camera. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1999.
––––. “Moore Looking: Photography and the Presentation of Sculpture.” In Henry Moore:
Sculpting the 20th Century, edited by Dorothy Kosinski, 287–296. New Haven, CT: Yale
Kramer, Hilton. “Art: No Sun in Venice,” New York Times, June 18, 1966, 19.
––––. “Le Parc Takes Painting Prize for Kinetic Works at Venice.” New York Times, June 19,
1966, 84.
Krauss, Rosalind E. “A Voyage on the North Sea”: Art in the Age of the Post-Medium
Condition (London: Thames & Hudson, 1999);
––––. Passages in Modern Sculpture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.
––––. “Reading Photographs as Text.” In Pollock Painting, edited by Barbara Rose, n.p. New
York: Agrinde Publications, 1980.
––––. “Sculpture in the Expanded Field.” October 8 (Spring 1979): 30–44.
––––. The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1985.
Kultermann, Udo. “Focus: Driving Image.” In Yayoi Kusama, edited by Laura Hoptman,
85–93. London: Phaidon, 2000.
Kubler, George. The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1964.
Kusama, Yayoi. Infinity Net: The Autobiography of Yayoi Kusama, translated by Ralph
McCarthy. London: Tate Publishing, 2011.
Kuspit, Donald. “Joseph Beuys: Between Showman and Shaman.” In Joseph Beuys: Diverging
Critiques, edited by David Thistlewood, 27–49. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press; Tate
Gallery Liverpool, 1995.
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007.
L’Attico 1957–87: Trent’anni di pittura, scultura, musica, danza, performance, video. Milan:
Mondadori, 1987.
Levin, Kim. “Introduction.” In Energy Plan for the Western Man: Joseph Beuys in America,
edited by Carin Kuoni, 1–5. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1990.
Bibliography 187
Lingwood, James, ed. Bernd & Hilla Becher, Robert Smithson: Field Trips. Turin:
Hopefulmonster 2002.
Lippard, Lucy. 955,000: An Exhibition. Vancouver: Vancouver Art Gallery, 1970.
––––. Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972 . . . Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, 2001.
––––, and John Chandler. “The Dematerialization of Art.” Art International 12, no. 2 (February
1968): 31–36.
Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form: Works, Concepts, Processes, Situations,
Information, edited by Harald Szeemann. Bern: Kunsthalle Bern, 1969.
Lonzi, Carla. “I Pretend to Make Sculptures. Interview with Pino Pascali, 1967.” In Arte Povera
from the Goetz Collection, edited by Rainald Schumacher, 146–56. Munich: Sammlung
Goetz, 2001.
Lumley, Robert. “Arte Povera in Turin: The Intriguing Case of the Deposito d’Arte Presente.”
In Marcello Levi: Portrait of a Collector, From Futurism to Arte Povera, 89–107. Turin:
Hopefulmonster, 2005.
––––. Arte Povera. London: Tate Publishing, 2004.
––––. “Between Pop Art and Arte Povera: American Influences in the Visual Arts in Italy in
the 1960s.” In Across the Atlantic: cultural exchanges between Europe and the United States,
edited by Luisa Passerini, 173–85. New York: P.I.E.P. Lang, 2000.
––––. “Make-Believe: The Invented World of Pino Pascali,” in Pino Pascali, 12–35. New York:
Gagosian Gallery, 2006.
––––. “Spaces of Arte Povera,” in Zero to Infinity: Arte Povera 1962–1972, 41–66.
Minneapolis, MN: Walker Art Center, 2001.
Lütticken, Sven. Life, Once More: Forms of Reenactment in Contemporary Art. Rotterdam:
Witte de With, Center for Contemporary Art, 2005.
McShine, Kynaston. Information. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1970.
Marcoci, Roxanna, ed. The Original Copy: Photography of Sculpture, 1939 to today. New
York: Museum of Modern Art, 2010.
Marter, Joan. The Grove Encyclopedia of American Art, Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2011.
“Merchants of Venice,” Newsweek 17, no. 26 (June 27, 1980): 90.
Meyer, James. “Nostalgia and Memory: Legacies of the 1960s in Recent Work.” In Painting,
Object, Film, Concept: Works from the Herbig Collection, 26–35. New York: Christie’s,
1998.
Michelangelo Pistoletto. Genoa: Galleria La Bertesca, 1966.
Michelangelo Pistoletto: oggetti in meno. London: Camden Arts Centre, 1991.
Minola, Anna, Maria Cristina Mundici, Francesco Poli, and Gian Enzo Sperone.
“Torino–Roma–New York 1963–1999.” In Luci in galleria, da Warhol al 2000. Gian Enzo
Sperone 35 anni di mostre fra Europe e America. Turin: Hopefulmonster, 2000.
Morris, Catherine. Materializing “Six Years”: Lucy R. Lippard and the Emergence of
Conceptual Art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.
Morris, Robert. “Anti Form.” Artforum 6 (April 1968): 33–35.
––––. Continuous Project Altered Daily: the Writings of Robert Morris. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1993.
––––. “Notes on Sculpture, Part 4: Beyond Objects.” Artforum 7 (April 1969): 50–54.
Mulas, Ugo. Ugo Mulas. Immagini e testi. Parma: Instituto di storia dell’arte, 1973.
Narotzky, Norman. “The Venice Biennale: Pease Porridge in the Pot Nine Days Old.” Arts
Magazine (September–October 1966): 42–44.
Nelson, Robert S. “The Slide Lecture, or the Work of Art ‘History’ in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction.” Critical Inquiry 26, no. 3 (Spring 2000): 414–34.
Nesin, Kate. Cy Twombly’s Things. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2014.
Newman, Michael, and Jon Bird. Rewriting Conceptual Art. London: Reaktion Books, 1999.
188 Bibliography
Norvell, Patricia. Recording Conceptual Art: Early Interviews with Barry, Huebler, Kaltenbach,
LeWitt, Morris, Oppenheim, Siegelaub, Smithson, and Weiner. Edited by Patricia Norvell
and Alexander Alberro. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2001.
“Notes from the Field: Materiality.” The Art Bulletin 95, no. 1 (April 2013): 10–37.
Obici, Giulio. “Uno spillo mette in crisi la Biennale di Venezia.” Paese Sera 5 July 1966, n.p.
O’Doherty, Brian. Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space. San Francisco,
CA: Lapis Press, 1986.
Op losse schroeven: situaties en cryptostructuren, edited by Wim Beeren. Amsterdam: Stedelijk
Museum, 1969.
Oppenheim, Dennis, and Alana Heiss. Dennis Oppenheim: Selected Works, 1967–1990. New
York: Institute for Contemporary Art, P.S. 1 Museum, 1992.
Osborne, Peter. Anywhere or Not At All: Philosophy of Contemporary Art. London: Verso,
2013.
Osborne, Peter. Conceptual Art. London: Phaidon, 2002.
Ovid. The Metamorphosis. London: Penguin, 2002.
Palazzoli, Daniela. Con temp l’azione. Turin: Christian Stein, 1967.
––––. “Italy.” Studio International 175, no. 896 (January 1968): 44.
Paret, Paul. “Picturing Sculpture: Object, Image and Archive,” in Bauhaus Construct:
Fashioning Identity, Discourse and Modernism, edited by Jeffrey Saletnik and Robin
Sculdenfrei, 163–180. London: Routledge, 2009.
––––. “Sculpture and Its Negative: The Photographs of Constantin Brancusi.” In Sculpture and
Photography: Envisioning the Third Dimension, edited by Geraldine A. Johnson, 101–15.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Penn, Suzanne. “The Complicity of the Materials’ in Pistoletto’s Paintings and Mirror
Paintings.” In Michelangelo Pistoletto: From One to Many, 1956–1974, edited by Carlos
Basualdo, 142–67. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010.
Peyton-Jones, Julia and Hans Ulrich Obrist. “Interview with Michelangelo Pistoletto.”
In Michelangelo Pistoletto: The Mirror of Judgement. London: Serpentine Gallery, 2011.
Phillips, Christopher. “Arena: The Chaos of the Unnamed.” In Arena: Where Would I Have
Got if I Had Been Intelligent!, edited by Lynne Cooke and Karen Kelly, 52–62. New York:
Dia Center for the Arts, 1994.
––––. “The Judgment Seat of Photography.” October 22 (Autumn 1982): 27–63.
Pinet, Hélène. “The Studio of Alberto Giacometti in the Photographer’s Eye: Coming Full
Circle,” in The Studio of Alberto Giacometti. Paris: Centre Pompidou and Fondation
Alberto et Annette Giacometti, 2007.
Pistoletto: Palazzo Grassi. Milan: Electa, 1976.
Pistoletto, Michelangelo. A Minus Artist. Florence: Hopefulmonster, 1988.
––––. “Senza titolo (Between) (1968).” In Michelangelo Pistoletto: A Minus Artist, 22. Turin:
Hopefulmoster, 1988.
Politi, Giancarlo, and Fabio Sargentini. Fabio Sargentini. Milan: G. Politi, 1990.
Popper, Frank. Art—Action and Participation. New York: New York University Press, 1975.
Potts, Alex. “Autonomy in Post-War Art, Quasi-Heroic and Casual,” Oxford Art Journal 27,
no. 1 (2004), 45–59.
––––. “Introduction: The Idea of Modern Sculpture.” In Modern Sculpture Reader, edited by
Jon Wood, David Hulks and Alex Potts, xiii–xxx. Leeds Henry Moore Institute, 2007.
––––. “Tactility: The Interrogation of Medium in Art of the 1960s.” Art History 27, no. 2
(April 2004): 282–304.
––––. “The Minimalist Object and the Photographic Image.” In Sculpture and Photography:
Envisioning the Third Dimension, edited by Geraldine A. Johnson, 181–96. Cambridge:
––––. The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist. New Haven, CT: Yale
Bibliography 189
Rattemeyer, Christian. Exhibiting the New Art: “Op Losse Schroeven” and “When Attitudes
Become Form” 1969. London: Afterall Books, 2010.
Ray, Gene, ed. Joseph Beuys: Mapping the Legacy. New York: D.A.P., 2001.
Restany, Pierre. “La Biennale Vista da Pierre Restany: ‘L’Homo Ludens Contro L’Homo
Faber.’ ” Domus, no. 441 (August 1966): 37–51.
Ribal, Pilar, and Christoph Schreier. Joseph Beuys: Múltiples. Valencia: IVAM Institut Valencià
d’Art Modern, 2008.
Maude-Roxbury, Alice. Live Art on Camera: Performance and Photography. Southampton:
John Hansend Gallery, 2007.
Riches, Harriet, Sandra Plummer, and Duncan Wooldridge, “Photography’s New Materiality,”
Photoworks, no. 18 (2011), 29.
Rose, Barbara. Pollock Painting. New York: Agrinde Publications, 1980.
Rosenberg, Harold. “The American Action Painters (1960).” In The Tradition of the New.
New York: De Capo Press, 1994.
––––. “The Art Object and the Esthetics of Impermanence.” In The Anxious Object, 88–96.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1966. TX
––––. “Preface (1960).” In The Tradition of the New, 3–11. New York: Da Capo Press,
1994.
Rosenthal, Mark, ed. Joseph Beuys: Actions, Vitrines, Environments. Houston: The Menil
Collection, 2004.
––––. “Joseph Beuys: Staging Sculpture.” In Joseph Beuys: Actions, Vitrines, Environments,
edited by Mark Rosenthal, 10–135. Houston, TX: The Menil Collection, 2004.
Rosenthal, Nan. “Assisted Levitation: The Art of Yves Klein.” In Yves Klein, 1928–1962:
A Retrospective, 89–135. Houston, TX: Institute for the Arts, Rice University, 1982.
Rothfuss, Joan. “Circulation Time.” In Joseph Beuys, The Multiples: Catalogue raisonné of
multiples and prints, edited by Jörg Schellmann, 522–23. New York: Edition Schellmann,
1997.
––––. “Joseph Beuys: Echoes in America.” In Joseph Beuys: Mapping the Legacy, edited by
Gene Ray, 37–53. New York: D.A.P., 2001.
Rubiu, Vittorio. “Pascali, from A to Z,” in Pino Pascali: La reconstruccion de la naturaleza,
1967–1968, 99–102. Valencia: IVAM Centre Julio Gonzalez, 1992.
Ruscha, Edward, and John Coplans. “Concerning ‘Various Small Fires’: Edward Ruscha
Discusses His Perplexing Publications.” Artforum 3, no. 5 (February 1965): 25.
Rylands, Philip and Enzo di Martino. Flying the Flag for Art: the United States and the Venice
Biennale, 1895–1991. Richmond, VA: Wyldbore & Wolferstan, 1993.
Sargentini, Fabio. Album: 9/68–2/71. Rome: L’Attico, 1971.
Sargentini, Fabio, Roberto Lambarelli, and Lucia Masina. L’Attico 1957–87: Trent’anni di
pittura, scultura, musica, danza, performance, video. Milan: Mondadori, 1987.
Schneede, Uwe M. Joseph Beuys: Die Aktionen. Stuttgart: Verlag Gerd Hatje, 1994.
Schröter, Jens. “Four Models of Intermediality.” In Travels in Intermediality: Reblurring the
Boundaries, edited by Bernd Herzogenrath, 15–36. Hanover: Dartmouth College Press,
2012.
Schumacher, Rainald. Arte Povera from the Goetz Collection. München: Sammlung Goetz,
2001.
Sharp, Willoughby. “An Interview with Joseph Beuys.” Artforum 8, no. 4 (December 1969):
40–47.
Silleck, Joan. “Venice Amused.” The Daily American, June 29, 1966, n.p.
Smith, Terry. What is Contemporary Art?. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Smithson, Robert. “Art through the Camera’s Eye (1971).” Kunst & museumjournaal 5, no.
6 (1994): 15–23.
––––. “A Sedimentation of the Mind: Earth Projects.” Artforum 7, no. 1 (September 1968):
44–50.
190 Bibliography
––––. “Dialectic of Site and Nonsite.” In Land Art. Fernsehgalerie Gerry Schum. Television
Gallery. Hannover: Hartwig Popp, 1970.
––––. Robert Smithson: Slideworks, edited by Guglielmo Bargellesi-Severi. Verona: Carlo Frua,
1997.
––––. Robert Smithson: The Collected Writings, edited by Jack Flam. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press, 1996.
Sommer, Ed. “Letter from Germany.” Art International 10, no. 8 (October 1966): 46–49.
Sue Spaid, “The Treasure Map,” Domus, no. 901 (March 2007): 88–91.
Stallabrass, Julian. “Michelangelo Pistoletto.” Tate: the Art Magazine, no. 25 (Summer 2001):
42–49.
Storr, Robert. “The Idea of the Moral Imperative in Contemporary Art.” Art Criticism 7, no.
1 (1992): 38–39.
Synder, Joel. “Nineteenth-Century Photography of Sculpture and the Rhetoric of Substitution.”
In Sculpture and Photography: Envisioning the Third Dimension, ed. Geraldine Johnson,
21–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Szeemann, Harald. Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form. Bern: Kunsthalle Bern,
1969.
Tatehata, Akira. “Reconsidering Yayoi Kusama.” In Yayoi Kusama: I want to live forever,
18–29. Milan: Federico Motta, 2009.
Thistlewood, David. “Joseph Beuys’ ‘Open Work’: its Resistance to Holistic Critiques.” In
Joseph Beuys: Diverging Critiques, edited by David Thistlewood, 1–19. Liverpool: Liverpool
University Press; Tate Gallery Liverpool, 1995.
Tilley, Christopher. The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology.
Oxford: Berg, 2004.
Tisdall, Caroline, and Joseph Beuys. Joseph Beuys. New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim
Museum; Thames & Hudson, 1979.
Trini, Tommaso. “The Last Interview Given by Fontana (19 July 1968).” Studio International
(November 1972): 164.
––––. “Mostre a Milano e a Roma.” Domus, no. 453 (August 1967): 40.
––––. “No Man’s Mirror.” Domus, no. 449 (April 1967): n.p.
––––. “Nuovo alfabeto per corpo e material.” Domus, no. 470 (January 1969): 45–48.
––––. “Robert Smithson: un libro.” Domus, no. 599 (October 1979): 52–53.
Tuchman, Phyllis. “That was Then, and This is Now: The View from New York.” In Painting,
Object, Film, Concept: Works from the Herbig Collection, 20–25. New York: Christie’s,
1998.
“Uno de fori di Ay-O chiuso per consiglio medico.” Il Gazzettino, July 5, 1966, n.p.
Varnedoe, Kirk. “Rodin and Photography.” In Rodin Rediscovered, edited by Albert Elsen,
203–48. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1981.
“Venice Biennale Work Hard to Put a Finger On.” New York Times, July 5, 1966, 33.
Vergine, Lea. Body Art and Performance: The Body as Language. Milan: Skira, 2000.
Wagner, Anner Middleton. A House Divided: American Art Since 1955. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 2012.
––––. Mother Stone: The Vitality of Modern British Sculpture. New Haven. CT: Yale University
Press, 2005.
Wall, Jeff. “ ‘Marks of Indifference’: Aspects of Photography in, or as, Conceptual Art (1995).”
In Reconsidering the Object of Art: 1965–1975, 247–67. Los Angeles, CA: Museum of
Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, 2003.
Widrich, Mechtild. “Can Photographs Make It So? Repeated Outbreaks of VALIE EXPORT’s
Genital Panic Since 1969.” In Perform Repeat Record: Live Art in History, edited by Adrian
Heathfield and Amelia Jones, 100–101. London: Intellect, 2012.
Witkovsky, Matthew S. Light Years: Conceptual Art and the Photograph, 1964–1977. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.
Bibliography 191
Wölfflin, Heinrich, “How One Should Photograph Sculpture (1896–97).” Translated by
Geraldine A. Johnson, Art History 36, no. 1 (February 2013): 52–71.
Wood, Jon. Close Encounters: The Sculptor’s Studio in the Age of the Camera. Leeds: Henry
Moore Institute, 2001.
Wood, Jon, David Hulks, and Alex Potts, eds. Modern Sculpture Reader. Leeds: Henry Moore
Institute, 2007.
Yayoi Kusama, 441a mostra del Naviglio. Milan: Naviglio, 1966.
Yoshimoto, Midori. Into Performance: Japanese Women Artists in New York. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2005.
Zelevansky, Lynn. Love Forever: Yayoi Kusama, 1958–1968. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles
County of Museum of Art, 1998.
Zerner, Henri. “Malraux and the Power of Photography.” In Sculpture and Photography:
Envisioning the Third Dimension, edited by Geraldine Johnson, 116–30. Cambridge:

Sullivan R. Marin, "Introduction: Meshworks and Networks", in Sculptural Materiality in The Age of Conceptualism

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Sullivan R. Marin, "Introduction: Meshworks and Networks", in Sculptural Materiality in The Age of Conceptualism

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Sculptural Materiality in

the Age of Conceptualism

Introduction: Meshworks and networks 1

1 Reflective acts: Yayoi Kusama in Venice 18

2 With time action: Michelangelo Pistoletto in Turin 56

3 Slow dissolves: Robert Smithson in Rome 90

4 The sculptural arena: Joseph Beuys in Naples 126

Conclusion: Material dispersions 165

In December 1968, the American artist Robert Smithson exhibited Nonsite,

The range of convergence between Site and Nonsite consists of a course of

Smithson’s Site/Nonsite Dialectic testifies to the tremendous charge created by the

S-ar putea să vă placă și