Research Paper
I am interested in the metamorphosis of the every day object. How does it affect us?
What connections do we have with it? How important is the material that it is made of?
How can an artistic manipulation of the object be achieved and why is there a need for such a
transfiguration? What is the transformative power of art?
"...there literally
is art in every artifact, and vice versa, in every work of art there lies the shadow of an artifact or tool.”
George Kubler, The Shape of Time (Pasztory, 2005:1)
Introduction
My aim in this essay is to indicate the relationship between the artists who use the everyday
object as a medium for expressing their ideas, and the form of their artistic sculptural piece which
is influenced and even formulated by these objects. I am interested in how artists transform and use
the everyday object, whether they want to express ideas about consumerism, the notion of the
sublime, or are concerned with the object itself and how it is being used and manipulated through time.
I have always been fascinated by objects, the way they are made, the way they function, the way
they relate with ourselves and the material that they are made of. They are three-dimensional, thus
they seem to have the same relationship with space as human beings do. They accompany us in
many different stages of our lives and somehow define our presence and our relationship with others.
I have strong connections with many everyday objects that I use or that are laying around in my
domestic space. They somehow define this space, thus I gain a familiarity with it through these
objects. Their presence is evident and at the same time hidden or seems absent. I am constantly
surrounded by objects which define my space but are mostly noticeable when I need them.
Daniel Miller as cited by Richmond & Tsutsumi suggests:
that objects are important, not because they are evident and physically constrain or enable, but quite the opposite. It is often precisely because we do not see them. The less we are aware of them, the more powerfully they can determine our expectations, by setting the scene and ensuring appropriate behaviour… They determine what takes place to the extent that we are unconscious of their capacity to do so (Richmond & Tsutsumi, 2011).
It is interesting when an object retains all or some of its properties and at the same time
serves a different purpose by its presence. Entering the art world the object is installed in a different
context thus it receives different meanings but at the same time it keeps its own identity carrying all
the interpretations that can be made by its appearance. Bruno Latour claims “considering humans
necessarily involves the consideration of things.” (Brown 2009 quoted in Richmond & Tsutsumi, 2011).
Richard Wentworth taking photographs for his project “making do and getting by” realised that
“The way that people use objects and materials is revealing of all the different ways in which people
behave towards each other” (Making do and getting by, 1985). Karen Richmond and Maiko Tsutsumi
in their essay “Thingness” observe that “there is a continuous, invisible exchange taking place
between us, our objects and our environment” (Richmond & Tsutsumi, 2011).
Artistic object in West’s conception
Western art-Primitive art
Esther Pasztory tries to define when an object can be read as an art piece from Western
societies:
The term ‘art’ is routinely invoked by current authors for all ornamented or figurative images of all people in all times, and thus has become a universal. Anthropology survey books have chapters on art as they do on kinship. Art is either not defined or very difficult to define. Theoretically, we all know what it is, but in fact we have no idea what we are talking about.” (Pasztory, 2005:7).
I do not intent to explore or explain what art is or how and why something can be read as an
artistic object. It could be assumed though, that it is vital to realize that people’s approach in this
matter depends on their background and on many other circumstances.
Pasztory explains how the West’s conception of art has been changed through different periods of
time:
In the sixteenth century, outlander items were inserted into different categories: treasures such as precious metals and gems desired for their monetary value, strange objects desired for their curiosity value, utilitarian objects largely not desired and images interpreted as heathen idols usually hated and destroyed (Pasztory, 2005:7).
She continues that “many of the curios came to light in the nineteenth century in trunks in attics and
are now in museums as ‘art’ “ (ibid: 2005). She concludes that “by the eighteenth century
what were ‘heathen idols’ had become art. Europe was more secular and Mexico was less afraid of
native religious revivals.” (Pasztory, 2005:8). When the non functional object is related to certain
beliefs or religious practices it is obvious that It is not easy to be recognised and respected by
outsiders. Such an object could be received as threatening for a community for a certain period of
time, especially in periods where religious thoughts overwhelm rational ones.
Pasztory explains that:
Our decision of what is art is not necessarily based on its appearance or function, but rather on a complex designation given usually by the West or Asia as to what
continues aesthetic creativity at a given level of culture or context. Tourist art is not art because it is inauthentic and made for sale to undiscriminating outside buyers. Native groups from the Inuit (Eskimo) to the Australian Aborigines have been lured to make “art” to produce cash (Pasztory, 2005:9,10).
In the documentary “Cannibal Tours” by Dennis O’ Rourke the tribe are creating handicrafts
exclusively for selling them to tourists (Cannibal Tours, 1986). The natives have lost their
connection with the past, thus they allow the tourists to enter their sacred house called “spirit house”
so that they receive money from them (ibid: 1986). A native describes how the Germans, the English
and the Australians took their sacred idols and also states that “the missionaries destroyed all the
most powerful symbols kept in the spirit-house” (ibid: 1986). He adds that the missionaries threw the
idols out declaring that they are “work of the Devil” (ibid. 1986). As a result “nothing sacred is left” in
the sacred house (ibid: 1986). The “spirit-house” is no more an “avaton”, it is no more for the initiated.
It has been transformed to a place where the village earns profit from, by revealing its appearance to
the unknown visitors (ibid.1986). The natives do not create handicrafts to practice their cult but to
earn money from the tourists, so that they can buy things they like from the “big cities” (ibid: 1986).
Consequently the object which used to be a spiritual artefact for the tribe in the past has now been
transformed into a commercial merchandise.
In the work “The Chapman Family Collection” the Chapman Brothers installed many wooden idols
similar to African tribal ones in a dim room (Hall, 2005:9).The viewers of the work could think that they
are surrounded by original African tribal figures only until they realise that all of the figures bear the
McDonalds logo (ibid: 2005). As has been suggested:
By playing on the illusion of an actual collection of artefacts assembled during the early twentieth century – such as those built up by modern artists including Pablo Picasso – it highlights the fact that the history of modern art and Modernism is based on the 'consumption' of foreign cultures, misread and designated as 'primitive'. (Tate Liverpool, author unknown: 2002).
Pasztory claims that the West’s conception of primitive art is based on how well the object
is crafted whereas “crudeness” is allowed in current art (Pasztory, 2005:9).
So, it could be assumed that for the West, concept is not accepted as a means of creating
an object by the primitive people. It seems like the so-called primitive art is not very thoroughly
interpreted by the Western world.
Tony Cragg
Thoughts about material and objects
Functional-non functional objects
Tony Cragg uses everyday objects to create installations by assembling them in such a way
that they create a new form. Cragg believes that the way that things are perceived around us is
through material (Tony Cragg, 2006). The objects are usually recognisable by realising the material
that they are made of. It is expected for certain things to be made out of specific materials. For
example how can a car be considered as being made out of rubber or wax rather than being made of
aluminium? It is obvious that the car wouldn’t be able to move, thus it wouldn’t be functional any more
and the fact that its functional use makes it what it is, it wouldn’t be considered as a car anymore. But
its shape would still resemble the form of a car.
Cragg adds: “I believe that my self and everything around me, everything you see or feel is
material and the history of material, what material is, is the key to understand reality” (ibid. 2006).
We do connect events that happen in our past or the present through objects and shapes. The
material and shape of these objects is what makes us categorize them and place them in our memories.
Cragg continues: “Of course the material is so important, why shouldn’t we spent time looking at
it, doing things with it, trying to find out what one can express with it, open up new doors, new
meanings use it as metaphors” (ibid. 2006). How can the material and the things around us perceive
different meanings from the intended ones? Cragg states that all the objects around us are familiar to
us, their shape is very similar and so we have seen them in alternative shapes. The brushes, the
tables and the chairs, the houses and the cars they all have familiar shapes (ibid. 2006).
He concludes that through these objects what we perceive as reality is based on usefulness (ibid: 2006).
The objects and things that surround us are made for a specific reason, to use them for our
needs whether they are everyday activities, habits or even for emotional or religious needs.
The materials are being used for purposes which are mainly connected with function. They are
provided by nature, thus firstly we need to find them, secondly to excavate them and thirdly to find
ways to manipulate them. The scientists explore the material doing experiments with it, finding a
formula so that it can be manipulated and used by humans for their own benefits. Then these
materials can be used by the artists and manipulated in a different way than the intended one (for
example the cement is made to be used mainly for architecture and not for art).
But why is there a need for such an action? Why do we need to manipulate and transform the
everyday objects, why do we need them to be non functional ones? Is it possible for an object to be
functional and at the same time be accepted as an artwork from western societies? According to
Cragg there is a dire necessity for objects-sculptures which resemble the mass produced objects but
do not retain their functionality (ibid.2006). Pasztory argues that “western thinking has been unable to
relate functionality and aesthetics in a satisfying manner: It has to be either one or the other.” (Paztory
2005:11). It could be assumed that Cragg does not accept an object to be functional and at
the same time hold aesthetical values which can connect it to the art world.
But why does he need to create forms that are inspired by the mass produced functional objects?
Cragg declares that “the reality that we see is entirely dictated by utility and background, so what
about all the forms and things that could be and should be but don’t exist because there is no function
for them?” (Tony Cragg, 2006).
So, do the functional objects exist before the non functional artistic objects?
Are the functional objects the ones that inspire the artists or do the artificial works of the artists
inspire the every day mass produced functional objects that we use? Is there a need for
transforming the objects and the materials into non functional ones? Can this process make us
realise our existence and our relationship with the world that surround us? Do the objects we use,
whether they are domestic or not, have only one meaning in our lives? Can their shape, colour or
even their specific functional use have another interpretation? Is this interpretation invented or has
this metaphrasis already been there waiting patiently to be picked up and analyzed? In other words
since the objects we constantly use are mostly made by humans for a specific functional reason,
what is the need for a further manipulation? Do the objects beg us to be included in this game of
meaning and interpretation, since they already take a significant part in our lives and we have
already created a relationship with them? Of course there is a history behind each object which we
can not deny. New objects reference older ones. New meanings follow older ones depending on the
contemporary circumstances.
James Elkins in his book “On the strange place of religion in contemporary art” is
comparing normal furniture to religious altars (Elkins, 2004:88). He suggests that thinking of more
conventional domestic areas can blend more the religious notion of “altarlike” furniture (ibid: 2004).
Ordinary furniture can also have a non direct reference to religion (ibid: 2004). He explains: “I might
suppose the desk in my office is like an altar, only if I think about it” (ibid: 2004). He observes that his
computer is in a central position and he notices some balance to the things around it (ibid: 2004). He
concludes that “the arrangement is only ‘altarlike’ if I deliberately imagine it that way and otherwise
the thought never crosses my mind” (ibid: 2004). Elkins also explains how a work is seen depending
on the space that is installed into (ibid: 2004). A contemporary sculpture shaped as an altarpiece can
not be honoured as an original altarpiece because such an action could be blasphemous (ibid: 2004).
In an art gallery the same piece will be respected in such a way that can be related to admiration or
even ‘worship’ (Elkins, 2004:90).
Sachiko Osaki states that “Donald Judd firmly refused to let his work imply anything other than
the work itself and demanded that the meaning of his work be limited to and specific of the work itself”
(Osaki, 1999 :94). Antony Gormley argues that it is unlikely to create “something that is only itself”
(Blazwick, 2001:146). He explains that “Judd makes boxes and boxes are like rooms and rooms are
like caves and wombs” (ibid, 2001). He believes that his concept of the “specific object” is only an
“ideal” because “no work makes sense divorced from life” (Blazwick,2001:146,147).
It is obvious that there is an unspoken collaboration between the functional everyday objects
and the non functional artistic objects. Artworks have inspired the design of the functional objects
and at the same time sculptures have been inspired by the everyday objects. It could be assumed
that Cragg is mostly interested in the form of his sculptures and that he includes the everyday object
so that his work can be connected with the contemporary art world. The objects have their
functionality and their shapes are formed by their utilitarian usage. At the same time their
functionality or their form can be used in an artwork to reference other interpretations or to create
allegories and ideas that the artist intend to transfer to the spectator. Cragg in his work “Tools”
enlarges functional tools and by doing that, he gives them the appearance and stature of figures in a
landscape. In this way he elevates the everyday object, rather than condemns it.
As it is mentioned above, according to Judd his work can only reference itself and nothing else
(Osaki, 1999 :94). This could be true from the artist’s perception but it is not possible to exclude the
spectator’s point of view. An object (whether it is a work of art or an everyday object) can be itself and
at the same time it can resemble images of relevant shapes and forms. It could be assumed that a
work of art is completed with the spectator’s participation when he is taking part in the process of It’s
interpretation.
Tony Cragg
Tools 1986
Sandstone 1 x 3.2 x 3.5 m
Ideas about consumerism in the work of Michael Landy
Michael Landy’s work deals with consumerism and with people’s obsession with everyday
objects. It takes great courage to be disconnected from everyday objects whether they are
personal ones connected with memories, value, intimate people or simply functional objects
associated with western society. Michael Landy made this big step in his life by destroying all his
possessions in his 2001 work “Breakdown” (The man who destroyed everything, 2002).
It is very hard to imagine not having these objects that somehow make life easier in Western
societies. Most of the things are associated with others, dealing with everyday needs in the so-
called developed countries. Personal objects somehow define people and their actions are taking
place by using these objects. Landy explains that he made this piece of work to avoid being
“possessed” by his “possessions” (ibid: 2002).
People are dependent on the things they own and this dependence can sometimes create
unwanted effects. Either psychologically or practically people are attached to their objects. As a result
most of people’s possessions accompany them until their death. Michael Landy claims: “it’s like my
own funeral, but I’m alive to watch it.” (Wood quoted in Nesbitt 2004: 12).
John Landy the father of Michael Landy could hardly dispose any of his possessions (Nesbitt
2004:18). Judith Nesbitt explains that “like many DIY enthusiasts, he is convinced that since
everything can serve a purpose, nothing should be junked.” (ibid: 2004).
Talking about “Breakdown” Landy claims that his objects were alike everybody else’s which as a
result “made it personal for anyone who looked at the stuff going round and round in the store.”
(Lingwood 2008:106). As James Lingwood suggests: “there was this powerful tension
between the possessions which had economic value and those which had sentimental
value” (Lingwood 2008:107). Landy adds that most people could accept to abandon some of these
objects such as the TV screen, the DVD and other equipment but wouldn’t easily discard personal
items such as photos and letters (ibid: 2008). He explains that the reason for this is that people who
can afford it, can replace these objects but certainly not the personal items ( ibid: 2008).
In the DVD “The man who destroyed everything” Michael Landy after destroying all of his
things for the project “Breakdown” he finds himself back in the same position of dealing with his
everyday needs. As a result he is attempting to solve them by being once again a consumer (The
man who Destroyed Everything 2002). He can not bring back personal items connected with moments
of the past that have emotional value to him (such as photographs) but he can purchase all of the
other objects he destroyed, such as clothes keys, television set, DVD player and so on (ibid: 2002).
Since it is not possible to live without everyday objects, especially in a western country, it seems
like the whole project was utopian. What is the point of destroying something that you will later
purchase? Is it the shock that is caused to the spectators the reason for such an action?
If this shock is purposely intended and caused to gain attention in the art world so that the artist
becomes successful, it is as though an exchange is taking place: destroying personal objects to
gain recognition thus becoming a successful artist who receives commercial success.
This would be contradictory with the artist’s intentions to be critical against the art market (ibid:
2002). Would Landy carry out such an action in a private space away from people’s
eyes? Of course this action occurred in the field of art and art is a communicative process so it would
probably make no sense to execute the project in an isolated place. But at the same time this is a
radical act which can be performed by a person who doesn’t have to be associated with the art
scene. It doesn’t necessarily have to be performed by an artist; it could also be performed by
anyone opposing himself to capitalistic consumerism.
Did he intend this work to be didactic? Landy would have to start all over again by reconsidering
his relationship with similar objects that have the same or similar functions. He says: “I never
pretended I could escape consumerism because we live in a developed country, it’s unavoidable”
(ibid: 2002). Although his work could be assumed as critical against consumerism, eventually he
has to return to his previous state of being once again a consumer.
Michael Landy
Breakdown
Manipulation of the everyday objects by Robert Gober
Robert Gober plays with metaphors in his work. In the introduction of his interview with Robert
Gober, Craig Gholson claims:
Robert Gober’s sculptures call everyday objects into question. And what he discovers in calling the common into question is the disquieting, the disarming, the unnerving and the disconcerting. Taking objects –a bed, a crib, a door, the accoutrements of a pet-which, while anonymous are also universal, he plays with the tension between the neutered forms and the strong emotional and physical connotations we attach to them. In the alchemy of transforming these objects, Gober transforms a viewer’s emotional and physical reality; the common made uncommon (Gober & Gholson, 1989: 88).
Gholson claims that the process of Gober’s work can be described as “Banal objects as art objects”
and mentions the metaphorical aspects of Gober’s work which are “basic forms deformed; the
intimate personal thing that looks mass-produced ; the cradle as grave;” (Gober & Gholson,1989: 89).
We are all surrounded by similar objects and mostly use them in the same way. It is interesting
how the interpretation of the same object can reference various meanings, by transforming it or
simply by placing it in a different context. Does the object carry all these meanings beforehand or is it
artificially manipulated by the artist to do so? Is the artist the only person authorized to show this
different aspect of the object or can everyone be part of this manipulation? An interesting quote by
Pablo Picasso regarding his work ‘Head of a Bull’ includes everyone in the game of the object’s
manipulation:
One day I took a bicycle saddle and handlebars, put one on top of the other and had a bull’s head. That was fine. But what should have happened then was that I should have thrown out the bull’s head, out in the street, into a stream, anywhere, but just thrown it out. Then a workman would have come by and picked it up. And he’d think that maybe with this bull’s head, he could make a bicycle saddle and handle bars, and then do it… that would have been really wonderful. That’s the gift of metamorphosis.” (Picasso, the objects/Edward Quinn, 2004:7).
As Simon Groom says, Richard Wentworth believes that “all we ever do is convert the stuff of
the world into other things” (Groom, 2005:74). His work “Making do and getting by” is consisted of
photographs of everyday scenes focusing on the way people use objects and adapt them for their
particular practical needs (Making do and getting by, 1985).
Wentworth notes that:
Although people may subvert the original purpose or character of something, they seem more often or not to use it in an extraordinary sympathetic kind of way and that sympathy isn’t a product of long consideration or foresight, its getting on doing what has to be done but in some way recognising all the characteristics of the thing that’s being used. What I take photographs of, is really the adaptability of people in any circumstances.” (ibid: 1985).
We could say that the connection of the object with the world is already there, the manipulation
of the object is a natural process in people’s ability to create different usage of it and the
artist is only pointing it. But then again because of the personal connection we all have with these
objects, the way we read their meaning can be too personal. Gholson believes that Gober’s work
“has a narrative to it” (Gober & Gholson,1989: 90). He identifies a history behind each item,
recognizes an emotional object in his work and finally asks him if this narrative is a personal one. The
artist replies that his intention is “to place it into a larger consciousness” probably in “an historical
perspective” but concludes that “it is always a personal narrative” (ibid: 1989).
They both agree that Gober’s work is very “psychologically charged” and also “almost anonymous”
because of the objects that he uses, for example a sink ,a urinal or a bed (Gober & Gholson,1989:92).
Craig says that “it’s a depiction of a kind of universal individuality” that “could be a definition of
spirituality” (ibid: 1989).
The emotional aspect of the object we are related to
can recall thoughts about memory, even our own childhood, events of the past,
actions and places that had a significant part in our lives and in the way we grew up.
These objects can be similar most of the times so in a way our experiences can be connected even with people who live in a completely different environment, people that we have never met.
Gholson notices that, the sinks that the artist uses are similar to tombstones and notes that the work
“Two Partially Buried Sinks” is reminiscent to a grave (Gober & Gholson, 1989:93). He adds that the
"doorway pieces are essentially passages from one room to another,
which could be read as from life to death." (ibid: 1989).
Gober claims that mostly the items that he uses are symbols of metamorphosis.
He adds that they are things that we "complete" with our body and possible "objects that transform us".
"Like the sink, form dirty to clean; the beds, from conscious to unconscious" (ibid: 1989).
Robert Gober
Installation 2005
ALLAN MC COLLUM
Another artist who uses the object as a medium to express his ideas is Allan Mc Collum.
According to Nicolas Bourriaud “Mc Collum belongs to the line of American painters of the ‘sublime’
from Barnett Newman to Robert Ryman, and his inquiry goes largely beyond his contemporaries’
fascination with the object.” (Bourriaud, 1988). Mc Collum looks for the archetypal aura, the “sublime”
of art unreachable nowadays “in the era of its technical reproductibility.” (ibid.1988). Mc Collum
attempts to reconstruct a connotation of “transcendence” using all the aspects which are antithetical
to it (ibid.1988). The plethora of goods, the fact that they are obtainable and the automatic recreation,
are not against the atmosphere of the artwork (ibid: 1988). They develop into the mandatory medium
to recreate a fresh charming effect, more near to our every day lives and to the way we see things
from our perspective (ibid: 1988).
Antoni Tapies rejects the “clean, polished appearance of machine-made objects” (Catoir, 1991:80).
He believes that “the products of industry, of design, have lost all the spiritual functions which are
essential to human life” (ibid: 1991). He adds: “Designers only think of the material uses of
things: if they are making a chair, for example, the only question that interests them is whether its
comfortable to sit on, ignoring the fact that it also has a spiritual function to fulfil” (ibid: 1991).
Mc Collum doesn’t accept the separation between the human artefacts and the machine-made ones
(Selma Klein Essink ,1989). He thinks that most of our actions are constant cyclical and mechanical,
although we have a tendency of banning them from what we believe that it is human (ibid: 1989).
He connects the psychosis with the continual act which most mental illness is asserted to (ibid: 1989).
According to Mc Collum not being able to manage our repetitive behaviour and actions is actually our
description of psychological sickness (ibid: 1989). He believes though that it is important to realise
that our everyday actions particularly the ones that are connected with enjoyment are also defined by
“constant repetition; eating, sleeping and making love.” (ibid: 1989).
Mc Collum’s way of associating the man-made artefacts and the industrialized ones is interesting
but at the same time quite ambiguous. Human’s actions may be repetitive but this repetition varies
from one movement to the other, whereas machines perform exactly the same movements creating
exact replicas of the same object. Therefore machine made objects can not be unique while man-made
handicrafts can be one of a kind.
Allan Mc Collum inspects the association of humans to items and reciprocates with his artwork to
the emotional reaction which people have for objects (ibid:1989). He is interested in the way that
people are attracted by objects and if they have a meaning for them (ibid: 1989). Humans hold
objects and therefore authorize these objects to have a symbolic meaning and express themselves
through them (ibid: 1989). The same objects can be valuable or non valuable to each person
regarding their emotional association with them (ibid: 1989). Although the fact that some of these
objects are valuable to someone, gives a different meaning to the eyes of another person (ibid:1989).
Catoir claims “It is the relativity of meaning embodied by an object that interests Mc Collum, and the way
a thing’s lack of meaning for one person is experienced as an index for its meaning to another.” (ibid: 1989).
Allan Mc Collum
Individual Works 1987/88
Conclusion
The mass produced object has been constantly used, manipulated or installed in
different contexts by contemporary artists. Whether people’s approach to everyday objects is
criticized or the object itself is elevated by the artist, the fact is, that it is difficult to separate it from
people’s activities and even social behaviour.
At a later stage I would like to expand my thesis, to include environmental issues, and
explore different aspects of the relationship between people and the everyday object.
Some of the objects we consume or use accompany us for the rest of our lives, others take less
significant roles in our mundane reality. Everything we use or consume creates a mass which
absorbs a massive volume in space. Most of these objects take a lot of years to decompose in
a landfill site. Environmental precautions haven’t decreased our greediness when dealing with the
objects we consume or use.
Ideas regarding human’s connection with everyday objects are inexhaustible.
What seems to be certain though is that this connection with mass produced objects will
keep on concerning us in the future.
Bibliography
Barbara Catoir (1991) Conversations with Antoni Tapies, Prestel, Munich
Blazwick (2001) ‘Interview’ in Antony Gormley Some of the Facts, Tate St Ives, Cornwall
Edward Quinn (2004) Picasso the objects, New York: Assouline
Esther Pasztory (2005) Thinking with Things, Austin: University of Texas Press
James Elkins (2004) On the Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art, New York: Routledge
James Hall (2005) ‘The Chapman Family Collection’ in Jake and Dinos Chapman
Hell Sixty-Five Million Years BC
Sex Death Insult to Injury.The Chapman Family Collection, Germany, Kunsthaus Bregenz
James Lingwood (2008), ‘A conversation between Michael Landy and James Lingwood’ in
Michael Landy Everything must Go! , Ridinghouse, London
Judith Nesbitt (2004) ‘Everything must go’ in Michael Landy Semi-detached, Tate, London
Robert Gober & Craig Gholson (1989) ‘Robert Gober Craig Gholson’ selected interviews in
Bomb speak art! Edited by Betsy Sussler (1997) New York: G+B Arts International imprint
Sachiko Osaki (1999) ‘Where Should a Work of Art Belong?- On the installations by Donald Judd’
in Donald Judd selected works 1960-1991, The Museum of Modern Art, Saitama/Shiga,Japan
Simon Groom (2005) ‘In Medias Res’ in Richard Wentworth (2005), Tate Liverpool
DVD
Cannibal Tours (1987)
Directed by Dennis O'Rourke, Produced in association with The Institute of Papua New Guinea Studies and in association with Channel 4 [Video DVD]
Making do and getting by
(1985) Produced by Michael Archer London: Richard Wentworth Whitechapel Art Gallery [Video DVD]
The Man who Destroyed Everything (2002) Directed by Nadia Haggar London: BBC [Video DVD]
Tony Cragg (2006) Produced by Tom Hawksley et al London: Illuminations [Video DVD]
Internet
Allan Mc Collum (1987/88) Individual Works [online image]
Available at: http://www.allanmccollum.net/allanmcnyc/Bourriaud.html
Accessed 28th April 2011
Allan Mc Collum: The Function, Meaning and Value of an Artwork (1989)
Originally published in ALLAN McCOLLUM Stedelijk Van Abbemuseum Eindhoven, Holland; 1989
Selma Klein Essink
Available at: http://www.allanmccollum.net/allanmcnyc/vanabbe/essink.html
Accessed 14th April 2011
McCollum’s Aura (October/November, 1988) Nicolas Bourriaud
Available at: http://www.allanmccollum.net/allanmcnyc/Bourriaud.html
Accessed 14th April 2011
Michael Landy (2010) Breakdown [online image]
Available at: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/88/michael-landy.html
Accessed 21th July 2011
Robert Gober (2005) Installation [online image]
Available at: http://artcritical.com/REVIEWPANEL/RP5/RP5.htm
Accessed 28th April 2011
The Chapman Family Collection (2002), Tate Britain, author unknown
Accessed 11th July 2011
Thingness (2011) essay by Karen Richmond and Maiko Tsutsumi
Including quotations from Daniel Miller and Bill Brown
Accessed 10th July 2011
Tony Cragg (1986) Tools [online image]
Available at: http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/images/conway/115c11fe.html
Accessed 19th July 2011
