Unseencontexts How To Look At _Invie! by Ralph Rugort Index of Artists wes Klein Yoko Ono Clses Oldenburg Apt & Language Robert Barry Janes Lee Byars Chrte Burden Andy Warho! Tehening Hsten Horet Honesse Gianni Mott Maurizio Cattelan ‘Ton Priedan Jochen Gera Bruno Jakob Song. Dong. Carsten Holler Terese Margolles Jay Chung Ceal Ployer Mario Garcia Torres Jeppe Hein Bethan Huws Glenn Ligon Roman Ondék Lsi Chih-steng List of works Picture Credits Acknowledgzents Colophonsible — and this 1s certainly open to debate ~ that the history fe we might cail ‘invietbie art’ began on May 14, 1957. On ite at Galerie Colette Allendy in Paris, Yves Klein opened an feion that included a seemingly empty room. According to the | however, the white walls of that space were infused with sence of ‘pictorial sensibility in the raw state’. Klein's tation of blank walls ss an artwork arguably kicked off a jfile tradition that has gone on to span seven decades fe: Art about the Unseen, 1957-2012 brings together key sonents Ghis Fich history in order to reflect on the myriad motives and that have led artists to engage the invisible, the unseen he hidden. in famously went on to explore the invisible in numerous ways fing with Jean Tinguely in 1958, he Investigated the possibility king sculptures out of air. And until his death in 1962, ne iaborated with architects and engineers on a utopian schene freating an architecture de l’air. Klein envisioned collective tats protected from the elements by invisible walls and ceilings ited with jets of forced air. To his thinking, air architecture fid not only nurture ‘a constant awareness of space’, but would jp dissolve repressive social mores and conventions. Humanity ld live in a state of grace, free from concealment and secrets. Klein, who applied for s patent for his ‘air roof’, regarded air hitecture as a hugely significant project, but in teras of the istory of invisible art, his empty 1958 exhibition at the Galerie is Clert created a more far-reaching legacy. Entitied The ectalisation of Sensibility in the Raw Material State of abil ised Pictorial Sensibility, also knows as “The Void", it consisted ‘an apparently unoecupied gallery in which every surface had been inted white. Klein, however, maintained that the space was actu- ily saturated with s foree field so tangible that some people were Gnable to enter the exhibition ‘as 1f an invisible wall prevented then’. Otner visitors may Rave been unable to enter the gallery ‘sinply because the exhibition's widespread press coverage ensured Ene presence of a constant eroWd of spectators searching for sone- thing to look at. ‘The Vold, which has provoked hugely divergent interpretations over the years, 1s a landaark if the Bistory-of the invisibie, but its impact for subsequent art has had less to do with Klein's stated concerns than with {ts form: its audaetous framing of empty space ss fa work of art. Its influence was paralleled, meanwhile, by another Set of developments that anticipated Klein's sustained romance with the unseen. In the suaaer of 1951, Robert Rauschenberg had produced a series of Wiiite Paintings while ensconced as part of the artistic conmunity at Blaek Mountain College, near Asheville, North Carolina. These nodular monochrome canvases were the antithesis of the Abstract Expressionist painting that then reigned in New York.gr John Cage, and colle Rauschenberg yntsin College, their unin faces as ‘land~ js? for ambient fghadox. (Partly iby their exanple, ged his fanous 952, a work unten a pianist sitting jp at a plano for ites and 33 seconds, the only ‘music’ fence heard were Widentel sounds in pironaent). In 1953, henberg began fing ways to create ye without imeges, he initially aid king drawings and erating them. Unsat- with the results, eventually deter fA that ne needed to something that was jeady considered a stantial work of art. fended up persuading flen de Kooning, one the giants of the New York School of painting, to give him a ying for this purpose. The result, after # month of hard work ith « rubber, was Erased de Kooning Drawing (1953) 2 contrarian ierpiece created by making an existing work invisible. Wot coincidentally, both Rauschenberg and Cage had been influm jeed by the thinking and art of Marcel Duchamp. Duchamp, who took jeption to wnat he called ‘retinal art" — the idea that art was dimartly aimed at the eye — nad made a sculpture out of air and jase in 1919 - 50 cc of Paris Air, which consisted only of @ glass jpoule that, despite ite title, may have contained something more fike 125 cubic centimetres of air. In other works from around this time, [Duchamp made reference to invisible phenomena including radio waves. (rays, magnetism, and tne fourth dimension, Besides reflecting yhis antagoniem tovards ‘retinal art’, these works also drew on the General interest at the time in the unseen @imenstons of existence, OT (A) Marcel Duohanp, $0 <0 of Paris Air, 1919ies and other sciences were then dramatically revealing. iB beck on that period in an essay on Duchamp and Francis Inritten in 1949, Gabrielle Buffet-Picabia observed, ‘It would reover, that in every field, a principle direction of the fh century was the atteapt to capture the *non-perceptibie"." fhd Duchanp’s intrigue with the unseen, nis most profound ion the future of invisible art was his notion that an artwork ever fully realised in the mind of ite audience. In a speech American Federation of Artists in 1957, Duchamp declared that eative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator The work in contact with the external world by deciphering fterpreting ite inner qualifications and thus adds his (ner) bution to the ereative act’. This creative work undertaken by i@tence ensures that even the most consplouously visible types fe have an added, unseen dimension. Tt may also lead us to wonder yr art necessarily requires a physical object. It ts worth fing here the exemplary practice of St Petersburg's Hermitage iS during the Second Vorld War: having stashed its invaluable Ieol lection for safe-keeping, the museum continued to operate its janne of guided tours, with docents describing the absent art enory whilst leading soldiers through rooms ccupied only by yy frames and plinths, be early 1960s, only a few years after Duchamp's memorable job, Yoko Ono invented new art form that specifically addressed Wiewer’s imagination as its intended site of creation. In 1962 he Sogetsu Art Center in Tokyo, she displayed a series of feruction Paintings that consisted of paper sheets with typed feructions” that asked the reader to think about particular fons, images and imsginary scenarios. Ono explaines that ner iStruction Paintings ‘can be realised by different people in many ifferent ways. This allove infinite transformation of the work that artist himself eannot foresee." Ono's works, whose realisation 4 only take place in the mind of ts reader, entailed a radical farture from traditional ideas about the role of the artist. They fiso noved away from the conventional requirement that art take fisuel form, On the contrary, her instruction paintings, in ner fords, made “it possible to explore the invisible, the world beyond fe concept of tine and space’. Ono's text pieces looked forward to pects of Conceptual Art, which in the late 1960s would usher in, to jorrow Lucy Lippard’s sweeping phrase, a ‘dematerialisation of art’ fet even before Conceptual Art came of age, the idea of invisibility as siready in the air, turning up in sone unlikely places. In 1963, Mandy Warhol, wno was already well on his way to becoming a highly Misible media celebrity, produced @ couple of ‘pornographic’ paint- Kings, using fluorescent inks, that appeared to be blank canvases, revealing their hidden content only when seen under ultraviolet 1ight.along witn films ike Blow Job (3963) (wnten depicts Gace of nan on the receiving end of the eponymous sex act) festions that Warhol aimed at tne harsh anti-pornography je tine, whicn tightly controlled what could be made visibie hhaa to be left unseen je sphere of public art, meanvhile, disiilustonment with jai political monumente gave birth to what art historian Michalski nas im ‘new art form: fis which tried to Apvisibility as fof engendering fiion on the limi- js of monumental , Curiously, Claes gburg, better known js ‘sort’ sculptures Weryday objects, 's pioneering role fie ares. His Proposed ground Nenorial and Tor Presiaent John gnnedy (1965), called i huge hollow casting j@ on a photograph ‘the assaseinated Pres int to be buried head~ mm; @ tiny hole in the ound offering = view fo the statue's inte jor would provide the ly access point for ula-be spectators. Far jacia civic Monument 967) the artist mired @ grew of municipal grave= [ggers to dig a hole in jew York's Central Park, just benina the Metro~ fpolitan Museum of Art. Made at a monent when the Wictnan War was escalating, the rectangular pit briefly conjured an inverted plinth as well as an open grave before tt: was filled in only ours after deing dug. The provocative low profile of Oldenbure’s Meounter-sonumente’, and the ides of conjuring trauma and tragedy ‘through absence, would be taken up 20 years later in commemorative projects addressing the holocaust and civil violence by artistsHloheisel, Jochen derz and tie econd half of the 19608, a ber of artists associated iE strains of Conceptual Art Iueing work that defied the JAI notion thet an art object Hing you can look st. In 1967, Baldwin, co-founder with Terry Of the Britisn collective art jge, published an article in azine entitled "Remarks on Air— Ming: An Extravaganza of Bland- hat proposing @ volume of air in iy, air-conditioned gallery could tute a work of art. Physically ged in 1972 at the Visual Arts ry in New York, Art & Language’s Air - conditioning show was accos— By a lengtny and difficult text ing the case for its status as fiven that there was nothing else jok at in the gallery, the reading text essentially comprised the view- fof the artwork. As Baldwin explaine Wanted to suggest that fundamental @ultural production 1s description: ft things are noticed and attended fot in virtue of sone “naturally” ous assertiveness but in respect of fturally, instrusentally and astertally conditioned discursive vit.” This ‘critical’ wing of Conceptual Art tended to focus on the eituttonal framevorks and structures that shape the production presentation of artworks. Across the Atlantic, Los Angeles-based bist Michael Asher produced 2 series of works between 1966 snd 1969 fat used industrial air blowers to create ‘walls’, ‘curtains’, and jlunns’ of accelerated air that were placed in relation to particu- yp elenents in a gallery's areniteeture in order to subtly modify, ind perhaps make more self-conscious, the visitor's experience of lnoving through the exhibition space. For a 1978 show st Claire Copley IGaiiery in Los Angeles, Asher’s sole intervention consisted of taking Jout the walls that separated the gallery office fron the exhibition Ispace. Rather than aerely presenting an empty gallery, Asher’s piece Eby revealing the otherwise unseen work of the gallerist at ner Gesk — put on display teeues related to labour and the selling of lart. As Asher’s work makes evident, the display of a vacant gallery ~ 12 (6) Arts Language, toning show, 1967imerely being a display of ‘nothingness’ ~ always involves Ioncerns about = particular context and set of intentions Hmpuise to nove avay from making tangible objects also i fora of resistance to wnat many artiste at that time sav Mneressing pover of the marketplace to determine the signifi YE works of art. It may also have been a response, in part at Eo the energence of a burgeoning ‘culture industry’ fueled media and advertising. Against the background of a society Gages held vay, artiste like Barry Le Va maintained that fe 4s something that can’t be seen’. Lawrence Weiner, meanvhile, Sted s radical ‘declaration of intent’ regarding the execu IGE his ovn language-pased art, that included the stipulation fice conceived, » work did not have to be made. The proposition Ben artwork does not have to take material forn — that its being ie is merely an option - ealls into question the prerogatives of jehip. By limiting their work to a purely speculative or theo- fal condition, artiste might defy the exclusivity and control fly exercised by those who can afford to possess it, wnetner tutions or inaiviauals. iE the same tine, the development of intangible artworks signaled firt avay from the notion of the art object as a self-containe Bitory of meaning. It also re-directed attention from the Mist's role as ‘author’ to that of the fiver’ — a term that perhaps connotes passive @ position, especially as (Of the most compelling invisible & from this period invitea very five (mental) participation from ite fence. This vas certainly the case fen the work of Robert Barry. For nis rt Gas Series (1969), Barry released jimercially available ‘noble’ gases, jeh a helium and neon, into the fmosphere at sites around Southern @iifornia, With regards to his using ff undetectable aaterisl! to cre- fie an environmental scuipture of iReasurable dimensions, Barry remarked that sn sudience's Aderstanding of the work and appreciation really liad to be jotally mental. One would have to use one’s imagination." Indeed, jarry’s photographie documentation of these works — banal inage lof the different sites where he released gases — leaves everything ko the imagination, while underscoring the limitations of visual representation (in addition, Barry publicised his actions with a poster advertising an exhibition of the Inert Gas Series st Seth IStegelaub's Gallery — sn ‘invisible’ gallery which existed only as fa telephone number and an answering machine)fhe late 1960s, Barry produced gallery-based works using of immaterial media, including electromagnetism, radio and ultrasonic sound ~ forms of energy that, as ne noted, Outside the narrow arbitrary Limite of our own senses’ je of these works, visitor participation was involuntary: Carrier Wave pieces (1968), for instance, which consisted Ho Waves generated by @ hand-engineered transmitter, the ible) form of the plece was affected by the presence of people Bellery, inasmuch as radio waves can be absorbed, reflected Fracted by the human body. iFry summed up ancther approach to the unseen with nis 1969 iehic Piece, which appeared only as a Dracketed statement in fibition catalogue: Ping the exhibition, I w1l1 try to conmunteste telepathically work of art, the nature of whieh 16 a series of thoughts that yre nlot applicable to language or image. FFY'S paradoxical conmunteation ostensibly prepares us to re- fan impossible message: what kind of ‘thoughts’, after all, can gE outside of verbal and visual representation? Much of Barry's isible art plays on this kind of dialogue between presence and fence. It conjures the unknowable as a space of possibility that Hes our desire to pin down meanings and fix things in place, At the time, it underscores the subjective nature of interpretation. jerviewed in the catalogue for the exhibition Prospect “69 at Diisseldorf Kunsthalle, Barry stated that hia piece in the show sists of the ideas that people will have from reading this view. The piece tn its entirety 1s unknowable because it ex- js in the minds of so many people. Each person can really know ft part which ts in his own mind.” The motif of absence also played a Key role in the work of jes Lee Byars, who — not unlike Klein — persistently questioned relationship between physicality and immateriality. In nis fnimal and ephemeral performances and installations, Byars regu- ly conjured absence by evoking his own mortality (in the 19708 would organise a ‘Death Lottery’ to prematurely mark his own ise, and once invited Salvador Dali to Hollywood to film nis wh, an invitation Dali refused). In 1969, at the Eugenia Butler Dery in Los Angeles, the artist presented This te the Ghost of yes Lee Byars Calling, an installation that consisted of a red mm with a small hole in the ceiling providing the only source Light. Like a commemorative exercise aimed at reconstructing je presence of the absent artist, participants were invited to fad aloud letters sent Into the gallery by various acquaintances, lescribing Byars. Lert to mentally shuffle through the competing lescriptions, visitors to the exhibition could only arrive at an inconclusive portrait of thelr unseen subject:Pyapproach in this work is a long way from Klein's notion @ space with ‘inssterial sensipility', as it foregrounds bsence, rather than an occult presence. In the 19708, iden created a nusber of works that further developed the KEhe artist's absence as a carrier of content, in lieu of nal soulptural forn. For nis first performance, Pive ~ Day Mece (1971), Burden spent five consecutive days concealed While remaining inside a 2x 2 x 3 - feet locker at the lity of california, Irvine. Later that same year for a ince entitled You'll Never See My Pace in Kansas city, ne ME moving for three hours behind a panel that concealed yk and head; in conjunction with the performance, he wore fk at all times during the three days he spent in Kansa: jPden’s interest in hiding reached a climax with his 1975 fEion White Light / White Heat, for which the artist spent Ineeks at the Ronald Feldman Geilery in New York lying on an fed platform, high enough so that visitors could not see nia enained in a prone position at the back of the platform feonnented at the tine thst he was curious to discover whether s to the gallery ould be able to sense his presence even fy could not actually observe hin. But rather than comprising iPentric experiment testing uncharted areas of human percep- White Light / Wnite Hest sens sore like a esleulated gesture FPeplaces the avant-garde's traditional hostility towards its ee with @ paseive-aggressive withholding. Burden had already ived extensive press coverage in his brief career, appearing in Magazine as well as on the cover of Artforum, and his unseen mice in the gallery might well have been aimed at frustrating ffors drawn by hts notoriety. ar before Burden’s exhibition, London-based artist Gustav ger had proposed @ worldwide withholding of artistie production. n by his conviction that capitalism had ‘smothered’ art (and made “real art’ invisible), Metzger formulated nis proposal Art ke 1977-1980, which called for a three-year period during which fete will not produce work, sell work, permit work to go on fibitions, and [vill] refuse collaboration with any part of the Giicity machinery of the art world’. Metager’s proposal for global fon was never realised, but @ Little over @ decade later in New York Mist Tenening Hsien created a personal, and markedly different, ion of an art strike, On New Year’s Eve in 1986, Hsieh began hi ishing Hsieh 1986-1999, a type of invisible performance during jen, so he declared in a signed statement, he would continue make art but would not show 4t. Rather than making a political ftement, Hisien’s undertaking seems closer to an exercise In huntlity, eg0-stripping practice designed to force artist and audience fike to rethink the desire to exhibit, and to question the valueiBce on public approbation in general. Designed so that it eon- fon the artist's 50th birthday and the end of the millennium, ling sich 1986-1999 offerea the tonte example of someone acting jan unseen but deeply felt systen of values, rather than seeking IReacure of hinself from the external world.” Wer the past 20 years, artists have continued to experiment the ides of invisible srt, fashioning new approaches and Mloring conceptual verritories that range from the Hosophical to the pointedly humorous, the meditative to the polities! aps more than any other artist during IS period, Bruno Jakob has concentrated Me inviesbie as the central focus of work. A painter, Jakob has developed jerai methods of making invisible lures: instead of pigment, he paints ih various types of water, as well as geen colours’, He has exposed canvases rain and sun, and has used thes to ord the faint trails left by snails. iBeesting s link to photographic pro- ses, he has also brought canv ito close proximity with individual jople and animals in order to capture jae transferable form of their energy. lent be expected, most of nis canvases (2 drawings look more or less blank, gE rather than being characterised by Jack of visible elements, Jakob's work js built around the disappearance o Images: the canvas 1s the scene of a vanishing (as the pictures ne jas dravn with water have evaporated). We are left to reconstruct jelr different subjects by responding to the titles of the works, fhe lists of materials used, and the faint traces of activity left paper or canvas. Our experience of Jakob’s art 1s inseparable from our knoviedge lof how it is made. Tne same holds true for an astonishing trio of Drorks that Tos Friedman created in 1992 during a flurry of 1 Abie activity. Priedman’s Untitled (A Curse) appears at first leven second) glance to consist only of an unoeeupied plinth, yet ents sculpture enacts a distinctly non-utopian revival of Kiein's Practice of ‘sensibilising* empty space. Subcontracting the nystical Bepect of producing such a work, Friedman nired a practs itch and instructed ner to cast a curse on a spherica larea, 11 inches in diameter and positioned 11 inches over the Surface of the plinth. For another invisible work begun in the same ear (and completed five years ister), the artist epent 1,000 hoursBt an 82.6-continetre-square piece of paper, whose blank f after ali that invisible labour, remains vietbly unalteres. B for 11 x 22 x .005, Priedman assiduously erased = Playboy leentrefold, reducing it to a blank and slightly creased Blossy paper. In revisiting Rauschenberg’s Erased de Kooning p the artist pointedly targeted not at an artwork but a mass image designed to solicit and exploit voyeuristic impulses ing designed to be stared at, in other words, which he has W@ invisible vith a repetitive sotion that in light of the fal, Suggests 4 kind of a1l-consuming masturbation lke Jakob'c, thece vorks drax attention to the way that our jpetation and experience of an artwork 1s often contingent formation that exists apart from the object itself. They also Questions about the relative importance of veracity. We cannot really know whether Priedaan did, in fact, stare at that fof paper for 1,000 hours, but perhaps that very uncertainty Key elenent of our experience of this kind of art. Since we fE definitively disprove any of the artist’s claims, issues of hor belief may be beside the point: the speculative idea alone, fPdless of its verifisbility, seems to offer all the purchase we require. Fone instances, the use of invisible media accommodates an sneely personal and private form of artistic practice. In 1995 Dong began a daily routine of writing diary entries witn water i& stone tablet, s ritual he has documented with photographs ever jee. Aso child ina family of modest means, he had been taught bie father to practice calligraphy in this way, to save paper Ank. Over the years, his Invisible diary writing has become Meditative means of expressing his feelings and thoughts in jal privacy, without leaving any legible record. At the same time, Reflects the ephemeral nature of much of the work associated ith the ‘Apartment Art’ movement that emerged in China in the 0s, at a time when artiste nad limited material resources and gnibition opportunities Other artists have explored the Invisible while addressing lsrec-scale political and social scenarios. As if repurposing jodert Barry's Telepathic Piece (1969) a8 a form of social protest, Hann Motti organised a public performance in Bogoté, Coluabia, in 1992 in which he attempted to telepathically eommunicate a message urging iene country's unpopular president to resign. Entitled Nada por 1a Fuerza, Everything through the Power of the Mind, Motti’s invisible IRessece was docunented only through dts coverage by Colombian Inewspapers. Tereea Margolles, a8 part of her ongoing attexpts to lconnenorate and dra attention to the epldente of civil violence Hin Mexico, caused in large part by drug cartels and the climate lof political corruption they have instigated, has created severalfilations in wnich otherwise empty rooms are humidified with that has been used to wash bodies in a Nexieo City morgue. fing visual forms of representing the victims of violence, flies instead crestes a mich wore intimate experience of human By s8 visitors feel the moist air on their skin and mentally fre their connection to the absent bodies of the dead. whose work has often eritically scanned American history and identity, obliquely comments on the repre- ation of race in He tells we Tam His Own (2005), a Cibachrone iE that resembles s piece of Blank photographic paper. With its fle borrowed fron the popular 1912 hymn, In the Garden, which ides a personal encounter with Jesus Christ, Ligon's picture HMhiteness calls to mind the way thet the divine presence is pently represented in movies, a8 well ae in Christian theatre @ blinding light. He tells me 1 am His Own quietly prompts us Peflect on how such conventions are never neutral, but express reinforce the biases of the (white) culture that produces then jan Ondak's More Silent Than Ever (2006), addresses anotner yressive social landscape: the pervasive culture of surveillance it existed under the former Gonnunist regimes in Eastern Europe. jak’s installation consists only of an empty room with « single jpance and exit, and a wall label indicating the presence of a jeealed listening device. Wnetner or not we choose to take this Bit st face value, we sre led to at least consider the possibility of fPvetiiance, and 11 1s precisely this diffuse state of uncertainty, feher than full-blown paranoia, that effectively recalls the faosphere of doubt that infects everyday situations in societies IRE spy on their own citizer T hope it is clear by now that there 1s no Limit to the potential genings constructed around invisibility in art. Works that seea- fpgly share similar blankness turn out to conjure and convey jmarkably varied content. An empty room or unoeoupied plinth can jecessively operate as a sign of mystical sensibility, a haunting sence, or s cursed presence. The difference does not have to do ith the inherent characteristice of the object — something that invisible art makes obvious — but with how 4t 4s positioned witnin, larger symbolic network. Invistble art thus helps us to grasp pe clearly the acute contingency of art's meaning (and 1t 1s worth jot ing in this regard that before we ean ‘see” an invisible work, 1 lust Tirst be framed as such by one means or another). Rather than merely comprising a conceptual end game or a rhetorica! prank designed to flout the expectations of gallery visitors ipvisibie works of art nave played a oritioal role in expanding he limits of contemporary art over the past half century, while BBalling into question how such limits are maintained and function En presenting paintings, sculptures and photographs that cannot be Been, artists have asked us to think differently about what engagingOf art entails. clearly, tt 18 not just about looking at Art 1s about paying attention, and invisible art asks us ffention in a different way. It invites us to forego ‘tne fey of seeing’, to borrow Leonie von Oppenneia's phrase, Stead observe the ways in which our perception, far from Gated, 1s shaped by various Kinds of fiiters, Including fUmptions snd assumptions, our cultural conditioning ani History, and the institutional structures, both physical ierial, that ehape our relationship vo art. Jeiprocess, this kind of work leads us to wonder about our usual fs for engaging with pictures and sculptures, and whether IBiss the mark. If we tgnore any part of wnat art has to iS, we effectively render tt invisible, With our ceaseless round of international art fairs and the headline-grabbing le of auction nouses selling works for mind-boggling sums, Rot already rendered invisible « great deal of contenpo frt? Or consider the vay that museum bulldings are now often fed as architectural showpieces that attract more sttention IS artworks they nouse. Under these conditions, art disappears BRere backdrop for flamboyant displays of eocial capital. In context the ides of invisible art can be # much-needed tonte. provoke us to eee through the art world’s extravagance and fe, and to remind us that the meaning of art 1s not framed by fea objects, but develops through our responses to a given work, feelings and tnougnts and all that we make of them. Whether fie or not, art ultinately cones to life tn our menories and in onversations with others, where it activates and 1lluatnates bless other cultural references. That tnvisible process 1s the lity of art, to which we may draw closer through engaging 1 f like those in this exhibition.ges exnivivion at Indica Gallery, London fon Boke, | ber 2967, 0.22 quotes f pass eens sum, January/February, 1994. uary 1969, 9.22 Br sacrys rotepatnte Pisce appeared tn the catalogue for en untttin My reprinted tn tucy Lippard (ed), S1x Years: The Denatertetisats object from 1966 Bit sccording to the gallery's bene, ne fees path of Braet fF tine vutlatng, and “Sout 19 austay Netager