LeWitt in Progress

Author(s): Rosalind Krauss

Source: October, Vol. 6 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 46-60
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778617
Accessed: 24-03-2015 15:31 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LeWitt in Progress

ROSALIND KRAUSS

The process of "algebrization," the over-automatizationof an object,

permits the greatesteconomy of perceptiveeffort.Either objects are
assigned only one properfeature-a number,forexample-or else they
functionas though by formulaand do not even appear in cognition.

Victor Shklovsky
"Art as Technique"

Consider the followingthreedocuments:The firstis an articleentitled"Sol

LeWitt-The Look of Thought," by the criticDonald Kuspit. The second is a
book-lengthessaycalled Progressin Artby the artistand writerSuzi Gablik. The
thirdis the critic Lucy Lippard's contributionto the catalogue for the LeWitt
retrospectiveat the Museum of Modern Art.
Taken togethertheseessaysput forwarda setofclaims,addressedinitiallyto
the work of a specificartist,but extendedto the largercontextof abstractart in
general,or at least to the abstractart of LeWitt's generation.What theseclaims
amount to is a declarationof themissionand achievementof thisabstraction.It is,
theycollectivelyassert,to serveas triumphantillustrationof thepowersofhuman
reason. And, we mightask, what else could Conceptual Artbe?
Kuspit signals this grand themewith the titleof his essay. "The Look of
Thought" is what staresback at us fromthe modular structures,the openwork
lattices, the serial progressionsof LeWitt's sculputure. Thought, in Kuspit's
terms,is deductive,inferential,axiomatic. It is a process of findingwithin the
manifold of experience a central, organizing principle; it is the activityof a
transcendentalego.
"In LeWitt," Kuspit writes,"there is no optical induction; thereis only
deduction by rules, which have an axiomatic validityhowevermuch the work
created by their execution has a tentative,inconsequential look." And, he
continues,"rationalistic,deterministicabstractartlinks up with a largerWestern
tradition,apparent in both classical antiquity and the Renaissance, viz., the
Sol LeWitt. Floor Piece #4.1976. Painted wood, 43 1/4
by 43 1/2 by 43 1/4 inches.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 :. ii-:
:-ii
owWA:ii::'iiiiii-W
MMO
M:
iiiiM ii-i
iiilii-?~-i~i
iiiiiiiMiWiii:iiiiiii..
iiiii:-:.i~i:i~::-~iiii
a"Now
ONmw vaam
.jn:~* "m
--:,: *No NowAWAW wow
-?ili?'i:-:
-ii:.:_ aw tow
-::_~~,_:_:i
::~::::i
0
w* 4*lw m~~Ci~-I~::
o
ow woow 41"*
iilwoi-~ wowA a *o
_:
-:-_:_::-
. :...::--::::
R:
M

.iii
-iiil
i ii- :i~
i?~?i-
.i :~li~-`:
N4ii-*ar::i
~-dx~??liii
?ji iiii i~-zi i:.-:
1::- .-_:? -:--:::--
?:::

ci~ ~

O~iii
a~ii
ii~~~-
~~:~
~
~3,~ mwr::-:::
::::::
-?:-
OWibl
??Bf~i~''
0 Ia
"Woom
No
--
I:--:::::::-:
:iilii-ii-iii::
::_:::::-
:_:-:::
:-:-:w
-.'-
--
i---::..:::: _i::
ii:--:::
ii:
w:?:::-:..
:_-~-:ii
ii-~~iii~i-~:
i~:~:
~: ~
wmw
~::::::n~r:::-a::i::s~wWWOWNAA
-~l
;ii.:i~~s~i':i
:-';i~~iiiiiiii~~i~ii~ii
?;i'i~-~~iiii":
:::::~----::S:;
:':;':
: .ll~iii~mmm-wi
. -''l'i?-ii-:i-:-:il: M:

"Womb-
:-_::-- __i
soon*--
j:::~1:-:~~l:~li-
~~--~:::

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
48 OCTOBER

pursuit of intelligibilityby mathematicalmeans. This traditionis profoundly

humanisticin import,forit involves thedeificationof thehuman mind byreason
of its mathematicalprowess."'
The specificworkin which Kuspit sees thisdeificationof thehuman mind in
operation is called Variationsof Incomplete Open Cubes (1974). It is a modular
structurecomposed of 122 units,each a memberofa finiteseries,theseriesordered
in termsof a numericalprogression.Throughout the seriesthe "cube" as such is
given only inferentially,initially by providing the least possible information
(threeedges set perpendicularto one another),and then progressively supplying
more of the missing edges, ending with thegreatestpossible information(eleven
edges). Each of the modules in the seriesis eightinches on a side; each is painted
white; and the 122 skeletalstructuresare assembledon a vast platform.
"The viewer," Kuspit informsus, "completed the incomplete cubes by
mentallysupplying the missing edges, and experiencedthe tensionbetweenthe
literallyunfinishedand the mentallyfinishedcubes-between what Kant would
call the phenomenal cube and the idea of the cube." 2
For almost no writerwho deals with LeWittis thereany question thatthese
geometricemblemsare theillustrationof Mind, thedemonstrationofrationalism
itself."At times," one critic writes,"the most elaborate of these constructions
resemble translationsof complete philosophical systemsinto a purely formal
language. If anyone could perceive the structuralbeauty of, say, Descartes'sor
Kant's treatisesand thengo on to recreatethemas exclusivelyvisual metaphor,it
is surelyLeWitt."3
There may of course be readers of this kind of criticismwho balk at
statementsof this sort. They may findit strangethat in the last quarter of the
twentiethcenturythere should have arisen an art dedicated to a triumphant
Cartesianism,that when almost everythingelse in our cultural experiencehas
instructedus about thenecessityof abandonning thefantasyof thetranscendental
subject, LeWitt should be capable of reassuringus about its powers.
For if I see myselfputtingto sea, and thelong hourswithoutlandfall,I
do not see thereturn,the tossingon thebreakers,and I do not hear the
frailkeel gratingon the shore. I took advantageof being at the seaside
to lay in a storeof sucking-stones.They werepebbles but I call them
stones.Yes, on thisoccasion I laid in a considerablestore.I distributed
themequally among my fourpockets,and sucked themturnand turn
about.4
But thepowerof human reasonhas capturedtheimaginationof a numberof
contemporarywriterson art,forwhom abstractionis necessarilythe outcome of
1. Donald Kuspit, "Sol LeWitt: The Look of Thought," Art in America, LXIII (September-
October 1975), 48.
2. Ibid., p. 43.
3. Robert Rosenblum, in Sol LeWitt, New York, The Museum of Modern Art, p. 14.
4. Samuel Beckett,Molloy, New York, Grove Press, 1965,p. 69. All subsequentextractedpassages
appear on pp. 69-72.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ...........
.
..
iii ..
...
....
.
OWN:~?ii-:ii::~~:_i::i::l:ii ?
"::''::::::::::ii-iiii~sis?-':~
::::::::,::,
. . . . . . . . . . .:i::::::::j::::::::::::i~jiiiii~jji~ii~ii
~~?~

i~ili?i~ii-i-i-
ism;~ii~"4B:~'l'~::~: :'''

.-
'''''-''""''
19 '''''
~i'?l'liii~a
iii~iii'':''' A L
SAW=?::i::j-:-
A
':-~:"''~::~ii~~i:.:-::
noti:.iiii:?':i:::i
iii-iiiiiii
iiiia.j::
a 11-10:_
:-I-:::?::::?:?:?:?::
.....::i
??:?:
i~i::i':::i~'i..... :: OMAR~iiiiil~iiiiii-ii

Sol LeWitt. 122 VariationsofIncompleteOpen Cubes.

1974. 122 structures,painted wood, each 8 by8 by8
inches; base, 182 plywood squares, each 2 by 12 by 12
inches; 131 pen and ink drawingsand photographs.
(Installation,Museum of Modern Art,New York.)

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50 OCTOBER

the triumphantprogressof rationality.It is instructive,therefore, to thinkabout

theclaims thatare made forLeWittin thecontextofa broaderargumentabout the
natureof abstraction.Suzi Galik's Progressin Art,forexample, views the entire
range of the world's visual cultureas a problemin cognitivedevelopment.And
abstractart, set within this problematic,appears as the necessaryfruitsof some
kind of world intellectualgrowth.
Put verybriefly,her argumentis that the historyof art divides into three
distinct periods, the firstconsisting of all visual representationprior to the
discoveryof systematicperspective,the second, beginningwith the Renaissance,
definedby the masteryof perspective,and the third,thatof modernism,heralded
by the onset of abstraction.As one might gatherfromthe titleof her book, the
arthor'scontentionis thatthesedivisionsmarkoffstagesin a radical progression,
each stage outmodingand supersedingtheone thatcame beforeit. The model for
this idea of "progressin art" is thatof human cognitivedevelopment,beginning
with themostchildlikemodes of thoughtand movingforwardtowardsthegreater
complexity of operational, formal reasoning. Projecting this developmental
model of the individual, takenfromtheworkof Piaget,onto theentirecorpus of
world art, Gablik speaks of the historyof stylesas a matterof "advance"-a
processof "evolution" towardsstagesofincreasinglyhigherintellectualorganiza-
tion. "The historyof art exemplifiesfundamentalpatternedprinciplesof mental
growth," she writes.5Thus the Renaissance superseded all previous formsof
representationbecause of the axiomatic, deductivenatureof perspective,so that
the space of the phenomenal world could be understoodas unifiedby a systemof
coordinatesindependentof "raw" perception.But themodernperiod (beginning
with Cubism) cognitivelyoutdistances the Renaissance by withdrawingthis
powerofcoordinationfromthereal worldentirely.In so doing it demonstrates the
independence of all deductiveor logical systemsfrom the processof observation.
In Gablik's view theachievementof abstractartis itsfreedomfromthedemandsof
perceptual realityand its amibition to demonstratewhat Piaget has termedthe
"formal-operationalstage" of human thinking.
This raised a problem which I firstsolved in thefollowingway. I had
say sixteenstones,fourin each of myfourpocketsthesebeing thetwo
pocketsof my trousersand the two pocketsof my greatcoat.Taking a
stone from the right pocket of my greatcoat,and putting it in my
mouth,I replacedit in therightpocketofmygreatcoatbya stonefrom
therightpocketof mytrousers,which I replacedbya stonefromtheleft
pocket of my trousers,which I replaced by a stonefromtheleftpocket
of mygreatcoat,which I replacedbythestonewhich was in mymouth,
as soon as I had finishedsucking it.

It is not surprisingthatLeWitt'sdefenderswould findmuch to admirein the

thesisof Progress in Art. For an argumentthat draws a directparallel between
5. Suzi Gablik, Progress in Art, New York, Rizzoli, p. 147.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LeWitt in Progress 51

Piaget's "genetic epistemology" and the course of several millenia of aesthetic

endeavor necessarily places artists of LeWitt's generation at the "formal-
operational stage" of development,as manipulatorsof a propositional logic far
"in advance" of anythingthathas come beforeit. Indeed, Lucy Lippard, in her
essay for the Museum of Modern Artcatalogue on LeWitt,claims thatGablik's
descriptionof this typeof thinkingapplies mostsecurelyto theworkof thisartist.
abstraction,"' Lippard maintains, "that fullyfits
"It is only LeWitt's 'reflective
into these theories,only his work that can be said to articulate'the momentin
artisticthinkingwhen a structureopens to questioning and reorganizesitself
according to a new meaning which is neverthelessthe meaning of the same
structure,but taken to a new level of complexity.'"6
Thus therewere still four stones in each of my fourpockets,but not
quite the same stones. And when the desire to suck took hold of me
again, I drew again on therightpocketof mygreatcoat,certainof not
taking the same stone as the last time. And while I sucked it I
rearrangedtheotherstonesin theway I have just described.And so on.
In speaking of Lippard and Kuspit as defendersof LeWitt's work I do not
mean to imply that anyone who disputes their view of it is automatically a
detractor.Rather I am focusing on a particular type of defense.It is one that
undoubtedlyfindsits rhetoricalforceand psychologicalenergyin reactionto the
hostilitythat is generallydirectedat work like LeWitt's. This hostilityis rather
mutedinside theself-immured space of theartworld,whereLeWittis considereda
contemporary master,but outsidethosewalls it is extremelypronounced.LeWitt's
white lattices, serially disposed or not, are viewed by the audience of a wider
culture as bafflingand meaningless. For afterall, what could they possible
represent?To which the answercomes,as outlinedabove: theyare representations
of Mind. Freed at last frommaking picturesof thingsin the world, the artistis
depictingthe cognitivemomentas such.
But thissolution did not satisfyme fully.For it did not escape me that,
by an extraordinaryhazard, the four stones circulating thus might
always be the same four. In which case, far fromsucking the sixteen
stones turnand turnabout, I was reallyonly suckingfour,always the
same, turnand turnabout.
For these writersthe cognitive moment has a particular form,assumes a
particularshape. From the referencesto Descartesand theallusions to Euclidean
diagrams,it is obvious thattheformit takesis a kindofcenteringof thought-the
discoveryof a rootprinciple,an axiom bywhich all thevariablesofa givensystem
mightbe accountedfor.It is themomentofgraspingtheidea or theoremthatboth
generatesthesystemand also explains it. Seen as being interiorto thesystem,and
constitutingthe veryground of its unity,the centeris also visualized as being
6. Lucy Lippard, in Sol LeWitt, New York, The Museum of Modern Art, p. 27.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52 OCTOBER

above or outside it. Hence Kuspit's wish to link the idea of pure intelligibility,
which he sees as the goal of LeWitt's art,with the notion of transcendence.
For no matterhow I caused thestoneto circulate,I alwaysran thesame
risk. It was obvious thatby increasingthenumberof mypocketsI was
bound to increase my chances of enjoying my stones in the way I
planned, that is to say one afterthe other until their number was
exhausted.Had I had eightpockets,forexample, insteadof thefourI
did have, then even the most diabolical hazard could not have pre-
ventedme fromsucking at least eight of my sixteenstones,turnand
turnabout. The truthis I should have needed sixteenpocketsin order
to be quite easy in my mind.

But in statingthe conditionsby which abstractart mightbe freedfromthe

obligation to picturetheworld,thiskindofcriticalargumentmerelysubstitutesa

::::::::::::::::
:iii;;i;;iiii:i-_iii:ii;ri:i::l--ii:-:
._.:.::: :: : :
:::ii?:i:::i:
'-'''''''':':''
''-:---'--::I':--
-'-:~i::j::-:-l
'.:.-i:-:------i
?.::--:::-:-i
....i-:ll:i:i~:
.. i:~
:. i;iii:i;:iili-_i, iiiiiiii
i.i-i.iiii-i__ iii-i.::.. i:ii:iiii-ii
iii~ii:i-::- i :::::i:::
,;.;i:,:;.:;:: i-i
ii-i
::::_:~,8,-~,~-~:_-aS,,k-?:~:.:.??~E:;.:-;~iiii
i-.:r;:-
i:i--ii:
i-:-fi--l-ii_----_i:
:i_?;:ii:-::ilii-i:
:::I:_- ~~~~~__
~M/::::---_::::::i:::.:;:;::::
_:__I:::I~_:/:::.
::::__:_:i:?s?:::::-:-j::-:::
~iiiii:iiii.iiiiiii._::::.i--::I..
:. :::.-:: .:-:?:?:
i::l::::::::.
.::-:-:_:
_:::_-:-:
:::I: ?-.-------:-:-i---:-??:---::::_::_--:_?_
:::::. i:::-----:.:i
-:---:-
--:-----
::.:....
-::-:::':::::
--i-ii-ii:--i
:-:-:. j : iiI-i---:
~i-:i,:iii_::i::iii:
:i:i-i.:i:i-::i
.:.:iii
iii-ii:i:i:_iii:i;i
i:i_,,: ::i:i:
i-ii-:-ii:
i?i:
i-i:
....:i-i:ii-i~__-:
_
-;___i:_:i--:iii_
: __
~'i':~"i~'l'~l:i?:-----:i~; i::-

--i-l::::
-.-.-. : I
::: ::
:i:i-li-i:--is---i--:-:
-i:-i-:-
. ii-l------i:: -:I-.:_:_-
i
: i:ii?i;iiii:i~,ii
:
iiiii:ciiiiiiiiilii
iiiiii:
::iiii-:ii
iii:
i_:--:i:ii--:----:iii::ii
:--
::-

I
ii:,ii:i-ii:i-:i
..-i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-i
i:i: i:::_:-
ii
:I:s;,--:::
iiiii-i--iiii:iii---iiili:i:::i:
i::-i:

?-_?-~1.1~-~?:-_ ~._---_I_-I--
::-_:--::
-::
I ::i:: ?
:-i:a:i~l:i_-:iiiiii:
:::::::
:::::::-
: :
iii:i:--i---i::
:i-i:i-ii---:i:-. ,;iii:iii~i
i..':
ii~iiiGiiiiiiiii~iii
::-:-
i:-:-:--:l-:--::-:::::
: ~i:i:ii::-:iiiiiiii--ii- I-:
::.Z.:
:i:
--:-:
-
i:_
.ii-:
:--i-i : ..::-iiil
.:i-
c-----::
---i::--::-'i:::::----l-l-i:
:liiii:i-i-i--i~iiii:i:iiiii~lii~-ii-
::-:
:-:--::--::_-i__-:
:_:;
:_:::_:_::::::::-:: B--i-liii-:-i-i:~:i':-l:lil::i-i:iil_::i
:-:
:i-
::-:::iiii~iil~:i:i:-i;j:j:l~;i~ijj~i~ii
~:i:-;i:-i-:;:i
-:i:-li,
i:i-i::-i-i
-:i
i:-i-::_:i:l:~
i-i
-. . -i--
gi:i~c-
::::::i:-::::
:::::::::

:::::::::
.....::: i:ilill:':'ll'l-i'-iiiili?i
:-:-
.- -I:
I:::::: .:._i_-:-:::
-.:
_. :::
::: :-:_
_:::
::::
?ili

i:::i:_-::_-::::::..;-:-
-
:: -ii

Il~s------

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LeWitt in Progress 53

new obligation. Abstractart is no longer testedby the faithfulnessby which it

transcribesappearances; it is now to be testedby its transparencyto a different
model. Visual realityno longerhas a privilegedstatuswithrelationto theworkof
art, no longer formsthe textwhich the art is to illustrate.Now it is logic that
constitutesthe "text"; and thespace onto which theartis now to open, themodel
it is to "picture" and by which it is to be testedis Mind.
LeWitt's art would, of course,fail this test.His math is fartoo simple; his
solutions are far too inelegant; the formalconditions of his work are far too
scatteredand obsessional to produce anythinglike thediagramof human reason
thesewritersseem to call for.
And fora long timeI could see no otherconclusionthanthis,thatshort
of having sixteenpockets,each with its stone,I could neverreach the
goal I had set myself,shortofan extraordinary
hazard.And ifat a pitch
I could double thenumberof mypockets,wereit onlybydividingeach

:::::
:'`:::;:::::
:::
::?:
:::-:i:::i:i:::i::
::::
::-j:-:::
::::
:-::
::.:
::.:
i:iii-iii:i.iii:iii:i:::i:i:;iii
-:i::::::::i:-::
:::: ?::??
:::::::::::::::::::::
:i:i::::::::::::::::::
:?: :?:::::
i:: :-:-::::
::::
::::
:::
::i:i:i:::-::::_::i:i::::i::::-i:i:-iii:i:iii:iiiii:iiiii
::::::-::::::::i:.::-:::::i::_:_::i:_::-:j-:i(_:::-:-:-
ij:::::::
:.:.: :_:_:::-
: ::-::-:::-
:::i::::::::~:j:::::.::_:_:_:-::::__::_i
::;::::::;
"'i'l'iiiL,,-i-a:i:~-i:iii-i
.r..: :::::: :::-:
i:-: :::-:--
::-~
-:;-::::::::::_:i::-----::-i:_-_-i?_?:-:
-ii:;-liii.i:i-.''::':::::-::-":-~
:i?;:~.:li~:i:,jj::j-i-''' :':'-'''iiE:i~ili'iiisi.ii::-::::-:--_i
:?:::::::::::-::~:::
:::
:i:::;:::r:?:
'::~j:ll:-~l~~~~~i-,:-;-_::::::-:i-=i'::
:-'::j:i::~:::'
~:::; :-:_-_:---:::::::
::: :;:::j:_:::::~ll:j:_:::-:
::::
-::..
-~~~::;::~?:-~ ;-:~~:-:?:i--:i~~:~;:~i?::?:::r::~:,~~-: ::.-::::::::::::::
:~~;~i91`':Q:a.-i~i:'.:.;:-;::~-:;i~::~
lii:::::i~ii p_:::::::::
:
x::::::i-:,:i-:iiii-:-,ili,;i:::-:::_:::i:
:::::::::
:iiali?li--iic-iiiii-i--l:?ai::i
:/:/:j:/:::::/:/:j:/::::
::?:::.:
::.::::::.
:::::::::::::::::_:_.::
:i:::::::::
:::-:::::::-:-:?:
:'::::::
::::4:-
:::. :
:::::::::
-:---:-::
:.:.-:.
~iii-~~

;-:-:::::-:::?

;--??'-

:i-i--: ~:,

::::::
:
~8i
D~~:s
----:_-
_-
: :-:_:j:j::~:::::
:--:-::::::-

'".".""

::i'-::':?:i:l?~:iii
::...:.
. ::
:lil'iilil
,:iliiiiiii-j-i-jij-i:i:___i-____::
:-:
::
::::
:.:.." iiiiiiii'i':ii
:-::
::::i::::i:::
:::i-i:i:i-i:i-
::I
:?::::::i-i-i:k:-::-:i::-:i:i::::::::
~ii

`:--::: ::-::

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54 OCTOBER

pocketin two,withthehelp ofa fewsafety-pins let us say,to quadruple

them seemed to be more than I could manage. And I did not feel
inclined to takeall thattroublefora half-measure.For I was beginning
to lose all sense of measure,afterall thiswrestlingand wrangling,and
to say,All or nothing.

Like mostof LeWitt'swork,VariationsofIncompleteOpen Cubes provides

one with an experiencethat is obsessional in kind. On the vast platform,too
splayed to be taken in at a glance, the 122 neat little fragmentedframes,all
meticulouslypainted white,sit in regimentedbut meaninglesslines, thedemon-
strationof a kind of mad obstinacy.Quite unlike the diagramsin Euclid, where
the axiomatic relationships are stated but once and the varietyof possible
applications leftto thereader;or unlike thealgebraicexpressionof theexpansion

:::::

:::::-::-
:-!
- :
:-
ii~~iiii~iiiiiiii
.......

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LeWitt in Progress 55

of a given series,wheretheformulaicis used preciselyto foreclosetheworkingout

of every term in the series, LeWitt's work insistentlyapplies its generative
principle in each of its possible cases. The experienceof the work goes exactly
counterto "the look ofthought,"particularlyifthoughtis understoodas classical
expressionsof logic. For such expressions,whetherdiagramaticor symbolic,are
preciselyabout thecapacityto abbreviate,to adumbrate,to condense,to be able to
implyan expansion with only thefirsttwo or threeterms,to covervastarithmetic
spaceswitha fewellipsis points,to use, in short,thenotionof etcetera.The babble
of a LeWitt serial expansion has nothingof theeconomyof themathematician's
language. It has theloquaciousness of thespeechof childrenor oftheveryold, in
that its refusalto summarize,to use the single example thatwould imply the
whole, is like those feverishaccounts of eventscomposed of a stringof almost
identicaldetails,connectedby "and."

~~lgiBi~ii_
~BiiSiii'iiii iiiiiiiiii:
~:iiii~iiiliiiiiiii
i-
i:..
:i:i
:i:ii~:i
li:iiiiii:i:i;
I~-:i:~ii:ili~:
i~-i:i-ii
:iii:ii,~:::::;;`
~~~~I

- I ~i-ii:i
:i-- I ~i!-i-i
~iiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiii

ilii-i:ii&::li-:---i-i?l
-ii
i-

I -~~~iiii

ii?' ~i-i-l:_i:::::ii:::::::.-i

~~ii~ii~~~ii~

i-i
i~~:?i-i-i:i-i-i.i
i:l:
ii-ii
iiiiiii'iiiii
iiijiji:iiiiijii
iii?i
i:iiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiliiiiiii::-i-iiiii~ii~iiiliiiiiiiiii
ii--iiiiii~iiiiiiii
:ii
ii:i%
::1-~:::

i-i-i-i-i
i-r
iii~-ii~i
iii
i

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 OCTOBER

And while I gazed thus at my stones,revolvinginterminablemartin-

gales all equally defective,and crushinghandfullsof sand, so thatthe
sand ran throughmyfingersand fellback on thestrand,yes,while thus
I lulled my mind and partof mybody,one day suddenlyit dawned on
the former,dimly,that I might perhaps achieve my purpose without
increasingthe number of my pockets,or reducingthe numberof my
stones,but simplyby sacrificingthe principle of trim.
But it is not entirelylike those examples. For garrulousness,babble, the
spasmodic hiccup of repetitiousdetail,have about thema quality ofrandomness,
disorganization,a lack of system.And LeWitt'soutpouringof example,his piling
up of instance, is riddled with system,shot throughwith order. There is, in
VariationsofIncomplete Open Cubes, as theysay,a methodin thismadness.For
what we findis the "system" of compulsion, of the obsessional's unwavering
ritual,with its precision,its neatness,itsfinicky exactitude,coveringoveran abyss
of irrationality.It is in that sense design withoutreason, design spinning out of
control.The obsessional's solutions to problemsstrikeus as mad, not because the
solutions are wrong, but because in the settingof the problem itselfthereis a
strangeshort-circuit in the lines of necessity.
Now I am willing to believe, indeed I firmlybelieve, that other
solutions to thisproblemmighthave been found,and indeed may still
be found,no less sound, but much more elegant,than the one I shall
now describe,if I can. And I believe too thathad I been a littlemore
insistent,a littlemoreresistant,I could have foundthemmyself.But I
was tired,but I was tired,and I contentedmyselfingloriouslywith the
firstsolution that was a solution, to this problem.
LeWitt once explained, "If I do a wall drawing, I have to have the plan
writtenon thewall or label because it aids theunderstandingof theidea. If I just
had lines on thewall, no one would know thatthereare tenthousandlines within
a certainspace, so I have two kindsof form-the lines, and theexplanationof the
lines. Then there is the idea, which is always unstated."'7The lines are raw
phenomena forwhich thelabel is not an explanationin thesenseofa reasonor an
interpretation,but an explanation in the sense of a documentarynarrativeor
commentary,like a guide's tellinghis listenerhow high thisparticularredwood
is, or how many yearsit took the Colorado River to cut the Grand Canyon. The
label is the document of persistence,of inventiondancing over the pit of non-
necessity.And then, as LeWitt was fond of saying, "thereis the idea, which is
always unstated."
Sometimes,however,LeWittdid statethe"idea." For instancein 1969he was
to have an exhibition in Nova Scotia, and for this occasion he mailed the

7. Lippard, p. 24.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LeWitt in Progress 57

directionsforthework,along with the kind of articulationthatneverappears on

the wall-label: "A work that uses the idea of error,a work thatuses the idea of
a work thatis subversive,a work thatis not original.... 8 These "ideas"
infinity;
exist on an entirelydifferentorderthan thatof the mathematical,the deductive,
the axiomatic. If one uses the "idea of error"to generatea work,one has done
somethingquite different fromillustratingan orderthatis ideated or Ideal, the
order LeWitt's criticskeep insisting on associating with his art.
But not to go over the heartbreakingstages throughwhich I passed
beforeI came to it, here it is, in all its hideousness.All (all!) thatwas
necessarywas to put forexample, to begin with,six stonesin theright
pocketof mygreatcoat,or supply-pocket,fivein therightpocketof my
trousers,and fivein the leftpocket of my trousers,thatmakes the lot,
twicefiveten plus six sixteen,and none, fornone remained,in theleft
pocket of my greatcoat,which for the time being remained empty,
empty of stones that is, for its usual contentsremained,as well as
occasional objects. For where do you thinkI had my vegetableknife,
my silver,my horn and the other things that I have not yetnamed,
perhaps shall never name.
LeWittdid indeed writeabout ideas and how he wished to relatethemto his
work,when he declaredthat"the idea becomesa Machine thatmakes theart."9 He
also seemed to be addressinghimselfto an ordersuperior to the merelyvisual
when he used the word "conceptual" to characterizehis work in two manifesto-
like pronouncementshe published in thelate 1960s.And once thetermwas put in
play, "conceptual art" was like a ball that the art-worldimmediatelyran with,
drivingdeep into the territoryofIdealism. No Pythagoreandreamwas too exalted
for this art not to be able to reflectit as visual metaphor, as diagramatic
manifestationsof the Real.
But LeWitt's "ideas" are not generallyto be found in thathigh place. The
kind of idea he inevitablyuses is subversive,addressingitselfto thepurposeless-
ness of purpose, to the spinning gears of a machine disconnectedfromreason.
Robert Smithson spoke of this when he wrote, "LeWitt is concerned with
ennervating'concepts'of paradox. EverythingLeWitt thinks,writes,or has made
is inconsistentand contradictory. The 'original idea' of his artis lost in a mess of
drawings,figurings, and otherideas. Nothingis whereit seemsto be. His concepts
are prisonsdevoid of reason."'0 LeWittspoke ofit also when he wrote,"Irrational
thoughts should be followed absolutely and logically."" The consequence of
obeyingthisdirection,and LeWitt's artdoes obey it, is to arriveat theopposite of
8. Ibid.
9. Sol LeWitt, "Paragraphs on Conceptual Art," Artforum,V (June 1967), 80.
10. Robert Smithson,"A Museum of Language in the Vicinityof Art,"ArtInternational,March
1968, 21.
11. Sol LeWitt, "Sentences on Conceptual Art," Art-Language,no. 1 (May 1969), 11.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 OCTOBER

Idealism. It is to achieve an absurd Nominalism-as we saw in Variations of

Incomplete Open Cubes.

Good. Now I can begin to suck. Watch me closely.I takea stonefrom

the rightpocket of my greatcoat,suck it, stop sucking it, put it in the
leftpocket of my greatcoat,the emptyone (of stones). I take a second
stone fromthe rightpocket of my greatcoat,suck it, put it in the left
pocket of my greatcoat. And so on until the right pocket of my
greatcoatis empty(apartfromitsusual and casual contents)and thesix
stonesI have just sucked,one aftertheother,are all in theleftpocketof
my greatcoat.
The aestheticmanipulations of an absurdistnominalism are hardly new
with LeWitt.They appear everywhere throughouttheproductionof Minimalism,
beginning in the veryearly '60s, and are of course to be found in the literature
most veneratedby that group of sculptors and painters: the literatureof the
nouveau roman and of Samuel Beckett.To speak of what LeWitt sharesexpres-
sivelywith his generationis not to diminishhis art;ratherit is to help locate the
real territory of its meaning.
It is an absurdistNominalism,forinstance,thatflattensthenarrator'svoice
in Jealousy,as we are told of a groveof bannana treesthroughthe painstaking,
persistent,sadistic descriptionof its individual rows. The effectis of course to
driveattentionaway fromthe groveof treesand back to thevoice and itsobsession
to count.
Pausing then, and concentrating,so as not to make a balls of it, I
transferto therightpocketofmygreatcoat,in which thereare no stones
left,thefivestonesin therightpocketof mytrousers,which I replaceby
the fivestonesin the leftpocket of my trousers,which I replace by the
six stonesin the leftpocket of my greatcoat.At thisstage thentheleft
pocketof mygreatcoatis again emptyof stones,while therightpocket
of my greatcoatis again supplied, and in the rightway, thatis to say
with otherstones than those I have just sucked. These otherstonesI
then begin to suck, one aftertheother,and to transferas I go along to
the leftpocket of my greatcoat,being absolutelycertain,as faras one
can be in an affairof thiskind,thatI am not suckingthesame stonesas
a momentbefore,but others.
And the passage fromMolloy about the sucking stones is one of many
possible instancesfromBeckettin which the gears of rationcinationproceed to
spin in an extraordinaryperformanceof "thinking,"where it is clear that the
object of this "thought"is entirelycontainedwithinthebrillianceof theroutine.
It is like music-hallperformersdoing a spectacularturn,switchinghats fromone
head to the otherat lightningspeed. No one thinksof the hat as an idea: it is

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 COMEBY SAMUEL
SBE(KETT
Dramaticule
%oA
Drwing LeWit

John
Calder

characters

rI centerVside.
FLO Sitting

Lundeterminable FOVIa
RU.RU
Very
by
etside She t

facLtr FSUilence. Fuccessive

Si n.:FoRu
hands r:Yes. ExitRUrigh i positions

IATAApTCk
FLO:nYes. ExitVIright.io VIF
RU:LA
YIm
,VI: How youthink FloRu
do
V
o VC herT
OhT (Theylookateach VIputs F
RU:
I see little
change ear.Appalled.) other. Vi
(FLO toherlips.)DoesshenotknowF
finger
movestocenter
seat, 7!:Pa VidFlo

toherlips)
FLOpts herfinger front, turn
back resume
e Godnot. Maywenotspeak
ter V FLO d:
SEnter and oftheolddays?
turn backfront. pose.VI
resume Ofwhat
(Silence.)
sitslight.Silence. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\meafter
Shall
weholdhandsinthe
FLO,Just
sittoge oldway? Hands
IBMece.(Silence.)
wehused
thersas

RUOn hand, left

therlog.RUnright V,'s
FLOleft. Slet hand.Flo'sright
S FoseExitAheA
Silence. Aftera
moment
Rus left (Continued
handRwith oh
S MissWades above V'sleft
follows
Ru's right
arm
d:rei.

FLO:
of
Dreaming
..love.
Sol LeWitt. Come and Go. Drawing forplay by
Samuel Beckett,Harper's Bazaar, April 1969. Pen and
ink, 18 by22 1/4 inches.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 OCTOBER

simply a pretextfora display of skill-as is the "problem" of thestones.It is the

ironical presence of the false "problem" that gives to this outburstof skill its
special emotional tenor,its sense of its own absolute detachmentfroma world of
purpose and necessity,its sense of being suspendedbeforetheimmensespectacle
of the irrational.
For LeWitt's generationa false and pious rationalitywas seen uniformlyas
the enemyof art. Judd spoke of his own kind of orderas being "just one thing
afteranother." Morris and Smithson spoke of the joy of destruction.For this
generation the mode of expression became the deadpan, the fixed stare, the
uninflectedrepetitiousspeech. Or rather,the correlativesfor these modes were
inventedin theobject-worldof sculpture.It was an extraordinary decade in which
objects proliferatedin a seemingly endless and obsessional chain, each one
answeringthe other-a chain in which everythinglinked to everythingelse, but
nothing was referential.
To get inside the systemsof this work, whether LeWitt's or Judd's or
Morris's,is preciselyto entera world withouta center,a world of substitutions
and transpositionsnowhere legitimatedby the revelationsof a transcendental
subject. This is the strengthof this work, its seriousness,and its claim to
modernity.To give accounts of this kind of artthatmisconstrueits content,that
entirelymisplace the ground of its operations,is to inventa falsejustificationof
the work which traducesand betraysit. Aporia is a farmorelegitimatemodel for
LeWitt's art than Mind, if only because aporia is a dilemma ratherthan a thing.

This content downloaded from 143.107.252.102 on Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:31:43 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions