From Prominence to Obscurity:

Keith Arnatt's Transition from Conceptual Art to Photography

MA, Bisera Ikanovi

MA, Lamija Hatibovi

University of Sussex Alumni

Currently residing in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina

University of Sarajevo Alumni

Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Abstract The article will show Arnatts transition from a

prominent conceptual artist to an unknown photographer. It will
analyze Keith Arnatts photographic work and put it in a context
of both his own artistic career and the artistic movements at the
time of their creation. Parallels between absurdism, paradox,
humor, originality, perversity and the painterly characteristic are
all words are shown in his works. Two exemplary photographic
series will be analyzed in order to reflect the former: Pictures
from the Rubbish Tip and Notes from Jo.
Keywords Keith Arnatt, conceptual art, photography,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. COMING TO THE IDEA

The art scene witnessed a great number of art movements
in the 20th century. Never before were there so many
distinctively different artistic creations in such a short time
span. Each of them negated the former movement and most of
them lasted for less than a decade. One of those movements is
Conceptual art. Perhaps it should not even be referred as a
movement, since the artists of this period were not considered
to be a group. Their styles and ideas greatly differed from one
another. However, for the lack of a better expression to address
this artistic style, the article will refer to it as a movement.

In the British art community, Keith Arnatt was considered

to be one of the most respected artists of modern British art.
Recently, the respect has started to encompass his photographic
career as well, although perhaps still not in the scope that one
might feel it deserves to. Arnatts photographic work is known
amongst the art scene, where his audience at the beginning
consisted mainly from photographic buffs, people who are
knowledgeable in photography and the history of photography
[1], with only a handful of art critics and artists alike that felt
confident enough to discuss the work and interpret it. The
possible reason for the publics unawareness of Arnatts
photographic work may lie in the rather small amount of
exhibitions of his work.

Up until a decade ago, not many people were familiar with

the term Conceptual art and even less with the basic principles
of the movement in question. It seemed to be lost in the sea of
numerous art movements of the 20th century. However, the
reason for its growing popularity, now almost fifty years later,
could be attributed to the changed understanding of its role.
Moving from a philosophy which associated art directly with
an object to a, philosophically, more abstract concept of
associating art with the idea for the artwork, not the object
itself. Putting painting and sculpture away from the limelight of
the art scene provided more space for other art forms to
develop. These new art forms refrained from the traditional
materials and instead used photographs, film, sound, light,
earth [and even] artists themselves [2].

Today, not many books are written about Keith Arnatt and
even less about his photography. Most of the information about
his work can be found in various catalogue articles and several
essays. Although the essays written in these catalogues shed
some light on his pre-photographic and touch upon some of his
photographic work, they are limited in information. Thankfully,
Arnatt was an artist who, even though he seemed to care little
about the success of his work, did not mind discussing his
work with others and when doing so, he was very clear about
his ideas and accomplishments, thus reducing the possibility of
others misinterpreting it. However, this is more applicable to
his early works than for his photographic work. Due to the fact
that at that time photography was not considered to be a form
of art or, at least, any form of serious art, artists that were
associated with it were usually quickly disregarded. In the
second half of the 20th century photography became a more
prominent medium, but it was usually used in combination
with other mediums, rarely on its own. So how did Arnatt go
from being a known Conceptual artist to an unknown
photographer?

Keith Arnatt was one of the pioneering conceptual artist,

not just in Britain, but a world-wide. He is considered to be one
of the first people who started to question the function and the
role of the artist. Art critics of the time connected this issue
with Barthes idea of the death of the author [3]. However,
one must keep in mind that Keith Arnatt was original in his
ideas, a characteristic defined by his personality which was
such that many describe him as a person that if anything is
popular then [he] would want to go the opposite way [4]. He
was not what some might consider a follower, but instead was
the one that created paths for other artists to follow. The fact
that he was a world-wide renowned conceptual artist is not
surprising. At the time, Britain was not the center of raising
artistic movements and it was even easier for him to establish
himself as a promising artist abroad. According to The New Art
catalogue, although people could read all about the artistic
novelties in popular art magazines of the time, most of them
coming from America, in reality people have seen very little
of it [5]. According to a letter written by Anne Seymour to

Keith Arnatt, Tate decided in 1972 to start the first stage of a

push to expand [their] collection somewhat in the direction of
the New Art [6].
Conceptual art was not what one might consider an
immediate success. In America it seemed to be progressing at a
faster pace and was appreciated by the members of the art
scene, but the movement did not find the same acceptance with
the everyday visitors. Many art gallery visitors seemed to be
unable to understand the concept of art-as-idea and demanded
to see more artistic, not intellectual, artifacts. In its essence,
Conceptual art was the art of intellect. Aesthetics was not a
priority to conceptual artists, as it was to their predecessors.
The idea and the explanation behind the artwork is what
mattered and what made the created piece - art. Evolving from
an object centered art to an idea centered art was a long
process. The reason why it was named Conceptual art is
because it explored what the concept of art and the concept of
artists were [7], basing itself on the idea, rather than style or
any specific aesthetic regime [8].
Keith Arnatt was considered to be an extremely intelligent
artist, with both profound and witty writings and philosophy.
What made Arnatt different, as David Hurn said, is that he was
able to put that into the pictures in a way that the general
public could understand [9], something that Conceptual art
lacked in general. He was one of those artists that could not
settle for one artistic medium and changed his artistic
tendencies and preferences a number of times in his career. He
was interested in all forms of art from paintings, sculptures,
photographs, performance art and language art. He began his
artistic career as a painter, where he attended the prestigious
Royal Academy in London, becoming a landscape painter [10].
His knowledge of fine arts is something that will be constantly
referred to in his later work, including in his photography. Not
finding satisfaction in painting by the mid-60s, he turned to
experimental art and unknowingly helped to form a new
movement. The basis of the movement already existed with the
works of leading conceptual artists in the UK such as Art &
Language, Victor Burgin, Michael Craig-Martin and John
Latham [11]. Today he is probably most known for his
performance art, with works such as the Self-Burial (1969) and
Trouser-Word Piece (1972).
The Self-Burial, occasionally known as The Disappearance
of the Artist [12], presents a perfect example of self-portraiture
combined with the use of photography. The work bluntly
expresses the idea of darkness and death, with the artist being
buried, but at the same time more subtly relates to the already
mentioned popular theory of the death of the artist. However,
when Arnatt was asked to describe this work, he simply
claimed that it was an advertisement for nothing [13]. The
performance has a certain dose of humor in it. An exhibition
souvenir of a sort is kept in the Tate archive and presents a
form of a flick book, which shows a sequence of images that,
when turning the pages fast enough, together show Arnatts
gradual burial [14]. However, seeing that it was done as a TV

project, it is particularly interesting that during the nine days

that the project was taking place, the TV program schedule was
printed on the back of each shot, or vice versa, depending on
ones stand and point of view. There are numerous accounts of
Arnatts Self-Burial, which vary in their claims relating to the
duration of the TV screening. Some reports claim that each
photograph was presented on television for two seconds [15],
while others claim that each photo was presented for four
seconds [16].
So, what would be the most appropriate description of these
photos? Ian Walker, for example, describes them as static
images, lugubriously deadpan in their very stillness, pretending
to be stills prom some probably very slow event [17].
Richard Cork considers the Self-Burial to be prophetic of its
makers subsequent development [18], referring to Arnatts
later disappearance from the art world. The latter mentioned
piece, Trouser-Word Piece, is considered to be the epitome of
Arnatts Conceptual creations. It was a work aided by a strong
philosophy, which was taking egocentricity as its subject
matter'' [19]. This artwork consisted of two parts: one was the
photography of the artist holding the Im a Real Artist sign, and
the other was the text taken from philosopher J. L. Austin's
Sense and Sensibilia, exposing the indeterminacy of the
meaning of the word real [20].
III. BECOMING A PHOTOGRAPHER
The change from being in front of the camera to being
behind the camera was not as sudden as it might seem. Even
during his period as a Conceptual artist, Arnatt would include
photographs in his artwork. However, in most cases, he was
not the one taking the pictures, but rather directed the camera
[21] while he was in front of it. The photos were usually taken
by friends or colleagues from college [22]. These photographs
were used only as records, not first-order works of art [23],
thus documenting his work and with it making the
documentation a part of the work. The first contact with
photography for Arnatt was a matter of necessity, given the fact
that he was doing things which were fixed to a location; the
only way [he] could show people what [he] was doing was to
photograph them [24]. His wish to document his work was
something learnt on his predecessors mistakes. In his
interview with Susan Butler, Arnatt stated that a tremendous
influence on his work was the work of Claes Oldenburg, whose
work Hole (1967) puzzled [him and left him] wondering had
it in fact been done [since at the time] there was no
reproduction, no film, no visual evidence [just] a report of an
action being performed [25]. So, at this point, photography
was just a necessity of his Conceptual art.
When describing the difference between his photography
and his Conceptual art, Arnatt stated:
A fundamental difference, I think, between the way that I
worked earlier and the way in which I work now is [] that
the idea was of central significance, that anything that was
made was made almost incidental to the idea. I dont think I

work that way at all now; things I do now are the result of []
discovering something in the process of working; I do
something and then reflect upon it. [26]
So, the difference lies in the change of his approach, where
the former has been described as intuitive, whilst the latter
stood for logical [and] pre-ordained procedures [27]. The
shift can be attributed to both personal reasons and to the
societys lack of understanding and appreciation of his
conceptual work. The personal reasons for the change could be
associated to Arnatts altered behavior and his change of
priorities. Critics attribute this change to an unfortunate
accident that Arnatt had suffered at his house in Tintern Abbey
in Wales. On one recorded occasion when Arnatt mentioned the
accident, he merely stated: It changed the way I feel about a
lot of things [making me] develop a terrific attachment to [Wye
Valley] [28]. The change in his personality Duncan
Wooldridge attributes to the accident where Arnatt fell from
the top of a ladder [] and was never the same [becoming]
quiet, evasive and introverted [29]. He believes that this fall
affected Arnatts artistic development and instigated the shift in
his artistic direction, which could be traced in his 2007
exhibition in the Photographers Gallery. However, the only
medical evidence that we have which could explain Arnatts
changed personality is the fact he had Alzheimers disease and
even then we do not know the severity of the disease.
Photography to Arnatt presented a new world filled with
unexplored subjects and ideas. Similar to his transition to
photography which was to be expected, his decline from the a
relatively known Conceptual artist to an unknown
photographer was gradual as well. According to his close
friend David Hurn, the sole reason that Arnatt became
prominent was that people and critics where interested in his
work at the time and that people came to him [30].
According to Charlotte Cotton it all went downhill after the
show in the Tate [31]. The show was held in 1972, where
Arnatt exhibited all 230 gallery staff photo cards [32]. In his
opinion the exhibit was a success, but in reality people
perceived it differently. According to Grafik, the personnel
removed their photos one at a time and that resulted in the
exhibit being closed before it was planned to. David Alan
Mellor mentions that Arnatt was far from affected by these
developing events, jokingly naming them the disappearing
act [33]. After the exhibit, and when he turned to photography,
the galleries seemed to have lost their patience with the
unpredictable artist. His 1980 series, on the other hand, were
not so known in the art world, but instead gained their fame in
the photography world which was still rather separate from
fine art [34].
IV. THE WORLD WHICH I SEE, THE WORLD OF THE RUBBISH
TIP

The camera is now incapable of photographing a tenement

or rubbish heap without beautifying it. It has succeeded in
turning abject poverty itself, by handling in a modish,

technically perfect way, into an object of enjoyment. Walter

Benjamin [35]
It took approximately a decade for Arnatt to find what he
was really interested in photography. With the Pictures from a
Rubbish Tip, he embraced the use of color and he put the
theme of abjection as the primary theme of his work. He
photographed seemingly irrelevant objects and played with the
concept of turning non-artistic items into artistic photographs,
or as Arnatt phrased it making pictures which are not chaotic
out of chaos [36]. The vivid colors and impeccable finesse of
advertising photography [37] in the Pictures from the Rubbish
Tip create an illusion of a painting, thus making the
photographs visually ambiguous and beautify the rubbish
presented in such an extent that the viewer forgets the negative
connotation of rubbish and sees it as something beautiful.
The idiosyncratic use of non-photographic colors [38]
was uncommon at the time, and it was one of Arnatts original
ideas. Colors range from sumptuous [with] the richly
autumnal tones to dramatic chiaroscuro. [39]. The scenes are
obviously staged, placing the selected rubbish in a carefully
selected background made out of plastic bags which
emphasized the beauty of the food presented and creating
psychedelic patterns [40], choosing the right objects and the
right light.
Fragments of rotting food are isolated from the greater
mass of refuse, turned thereby into abject still life by crumpled
polythene which recalls classical drapery [41].
David Hurn thinks that Arnatt is always referring back to
something in painting [42], more specifically, that he
references Samuel Palmer. This would mean that Arnatts
previous fine art background came through in his photography.
Another reference to this series, comes from Schwabsky who
compares Arnatts rotten food with the castoff clothes and
rotting fruit that connects to Atget, but the intensity of
attraction/repulsion embodied in these works seems very much
of its time, recalling contemporaneous work by Helen
Chadwick [43].
Two important photographic movements can be found in
Arnatts work. The ideas of the Pictorialist photographic
movement can be linked to the characteristic of his
photographs to appear painterly. The movement which
originated in the final decades of the 19th century, promoted
the idea of creating artistic photographs [44]. Photography
was a new medium at the time and it was not as highly
esteemed as painting was, primarily because it was seen to be
simply the mechanical means of reproducing reality [45].
Photographers, in order for their work to be appreciated, had
intervened with their photographs to blur their photographic
qualities and pronounce their painterly ones, such as
composition and structure. Similar classic still life composition
and structure is found in the Pictures from a Rubbish Tip,
except for the fact that Arnatt achieves the painterly

atmosphere not by denying the photographic qualities of his

work, but by embracing them and emphasizing them.
In this respect, Arnatts work is reminiscent of the second
photographic movement - Straight Photography. This
movement was based on showing the beauty of tone and detail
found in photographs and the ideas which could only be shown
with photography avoiding the classical fine art themes and
subjects. It appears that Arnatt possessed that subtle ability to
combine the two opposites in his work the pictorial quality
with the realistic one. However, he took it a step further by
introducing color to his photographs.
Some art critics mention the environmental issue when
discussing the Pictures from a Rubbish Tip. For example, Sara
Allen claims that the 1980s photograph makes the viewer
ponder mans impact of the environment and she even takes
it further by saying that the conclusions that the viewer might
make are those how man unthinkingly ruins natural spaces
with litter and so on [46]. This might be the opinion of some
viewers, but in truth the photographs do not send the message
rubbish is wrong and do not throw it around, but it seems to
send a rather opposite message of rubbish can be beautiful if
you look at it the right way. When we look at the photographs
we do not get the sudden urge to go and pick up garbage, but
rather prefer to admire the unexpected beauty found in the
seemingly unworthy objects. Even Arnatt himself stated in an
interview: The concentration on rubbish often leads people to
believe that Im concerned with ecological issues, that the point
of my pictures is to make some comic about the disastrous
effects of overconsumption and things like this. They are
essentially comics upon the nature of picture making in a
number of ways [47].
V. WHERE ARE MY WELLINGTONS YOU STUPID FART?
The weight of words. The shock of photos. [48]
Keith Arnatt might not have had the support of the art
world during his entire career, but the constant support that he
had was of his wife Jo. As David Hurn explains it: Keith had a
strange and loving relationship with his wife, who was a
remarkable lady [and] who tolerated his strangeness [59].
Arnatt previously experimented with using text as a form of art
in his conceptual work. So how exactly d Notes from Jo differ
from his earlier Conceptual work?
The first difference is that the notes were not written by
him. He had nothing to do with the creation of the notes, but
rather with photographing them and thus making it art. Turning
something so mundane and personal into art and including the
observer into their everyday life is an ingenious and a witty
idea. Since this was their daily ritual, there must have been
hundreds of these notes written during their life together. Arnatt
chose only the most poignant notes, and photographed
eighteen [50]. The viewer is both fascinated and amused by
the notes, but at the same time, skeptical of the tone of the
notes. The tone is not what one might call affectionate, at least
not at first glance. This was their way of expressing their

relationship. Proving how much Arnatt actually enjoyed these

notes, is the fact that he decided to document them, so they
would [not] disappear [51]. The idea of preserving the
ephemera, text which was created with no intention to be
preserved, creates a paradox. Just as he did with the Pictures
from a Rubbish Tip, Arnatt has given value to something
essentially transitory [52].
VI. CONCLUSION
In the end, we can say that Keith Arnatt was both an
original artist and an original photographer, although in his
own opinion the two should not be even considered to be
separate terms. He created series which were undeniably
unique and, on several accounts, ahead of their time. Decades
after his Pictures from a Rubbish Tip, during the great
environmental movement, photographers focused on rubbish as
their subject, possibly completely unaware that Arnatt had done
this years before, without the trendy movement as his
instigator. That was his original quality, regardless of his effort
to deny it: he managed to see beauty in everyday scenes and
people, in common rubbish and discarded items, in simple
notes left by his wife. Being unconventional might have not
brought him fame and recognition as a photographer, at least
not during his lifetime, but it was by no means because of the
lack of ideas or because of the poor quality of his work. It was
only three years ago that part of his photographic work was
displayed in the Photographers Gallery, with the help of his
friend David Hurn. Yet even today, many people are oblivious
of his later work. His photographic work is greatly appreciated
in the art scene, by professors, curators and art professionals
alike. However, the public should be better acquainted with his
work and join the elite in their knowledge and appreciation of
his work.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Arnatt, Oral History of British Photography, [Audio
Interview]. British Library. With Susan Butler, 1993.
[2] R. Campbell and N. Lynton, The New Art, London, Arts
Council of Great Britain, 1972, p. 5.
[3] R. Barthes, Image, Music, Text, New York, HarperCollins
Publishers, 1977.
[4] G. MacDonald, Keith Arnatt: Interview with A. Fox, C. Grafik,
D. Hurn, D. Mellor and P. Fraser, Photoworks, Spring/Summer,
2007, p. 46.
[5] R. Campbell and N. Lynton, The New Art, London, Arts
Council of Great Britain, 1972, p. 5.
[6] A. Seymour, Keith Arnatt 1972-1977 [Letters], The Tate
Gallery Archive, London, 1972.
[7] G. MacDonald, Keith Arnatt: Interview with A. Fox, C. Grafik,
D. Hurn, D. Mellor and P. Fraser, Photoworks, Spring/Summer,
2007, p. 48.
[8] D. Bate, Keith Arnatt: 1930-2008, Photoworks,
Spring/Summer, 2009, p.4
[9] D. Hurn. (April, 2008). I'm a real photographer. Available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV93rpWgv-U
[10] M. Caiger-Smith, Keith Arnatt: Transport to Another World
Creative Camer, No. 6, June, 1989, p. 25.

[11] C. Grafik, Keith Arnatt 1930-2008, Art Monthly, no. 323,

February, 2009, p. 21.
[12] W. Wood, The fish ceases to be a fish: a critical history of
English conceptual art, 1966-1972, University of Sussex,
Brighton, 1998, p. 80.
[13] M. Haworth-Booth, Keith Arnatt: One Foot has not yet
Reached the Next Street, London: The British Council, 1992.
[14] B. Reise, Keith Arnatt [Correspondence letters], The Tate
Gallery Archive, London, 1972.
[15] L. Lippard, Six years: the Dematerialization of the Art Object
from 1966 to 1972, University of California Press, Los
Angeles, 1973, p. 119.
[16] A. Seymour, Keith Arnatt 1972-1977 [Letters], The Tate
Gallery Archive, London, 1972.
[17] I. Walker, Between Seeing and Knowing. In Keith Arnatt:
Rubbish and Recollections, London: Oriel Mostyn,
Llandudlow and Photographers Gallery, 1989, p. 16.
[18] R. Cork, Introduction In Keith Arnatt: Rubbish and
Recollections, London: Oriel Mostyn, Llandudlow and
Photographers Gallery, 1989, p. 7.
[19] B. Reise, Keith Arnatt [Correspondence letters], The Tate
Gallery Archive, London, 1972.
[20] B. Schwabsky, Keith Arnatt: The Photographers' Gallery,
Artforum International, vol. 46, no. 3, November, 2007, p. 378.
[21] R. Cork, Introduction In Keith Arnatt: Rubbish and
Recollections, London: Oriel Mostyn, Llandudlow and
Photographers Gallery, 1989, p. 7.
[22] K. Arnatt, Oral History of British Photography, [Audio
Interview]. British Library. With Susan Butler, 1993.
[23] R. Cork, Introduction In Keith Arnatt: Rubbish and
Recollections, London: Oriel Mostyn, Llandudlow and
Photographers Gallery, 1989, p. 7.
[24] M. Caiger-Smith, Keith Arnatt: Transport to Another World
Creative Camer, No. 6, June, 1989, p. 20.
[25] K. Arnatt, Oral History of British Photography, [Audio
Interview]. British Library. With Susan Butler, 1993.
[26] K. Arnatt, Oral History of British Photography, [Audio
Interview]. British Library. With Susan Butler, 1993.
[27] M. Caiger-Smith, Keith Arnatt: Transport to Another World
Creative Camer, No. 6, June, 1989, p. 33.
[28] M. Caiger-Smith, Keith Arnatt: Transport to Another World
Creative Camer, No. 6, June, 1989, pp. 20-21.
[29] D. Wooldridge, (July, 2007). Keith Arnatt, Im a Real
Photographer. Untitled Magazine, no. 44. Available at:
http://www.duncanwooldridge.com/Keith%20Arnatt
%20Review.doc
[30] G. MacDonald, Keith Arnatt: Interview with A. Fox, C. Grafik,
D. Hurn, D. Mellor and P. Fraser, Photoworks, Spring/Summer,
2007, p. 51.
[31] C. Cotton, (28 June 2010). Keith Arnatt. [Interview with
Bisera Kljucanin].

[32] D. Hurn, and C. Grafik, Im a real photographer, London:

Chris Boot, 2007, p. 134.
[33] D. Mellor, (1 July 2010). Keith Arnatt. [Interview with Bisera
Kljucanin].
[34] I. Walker, (26 August 2010). Keith Arnatts Photographic
Career. [Interview with Bisera Kljucanin].
[35] S. Sontag, On Photography, London: Penguin Classics, 2008,
p. 107.
[36] D. Hurn. (April, 2008). I'm a real photographer. Available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV93rpWgv-U
[37] Rubbish and Recollections, Time Out (14-21 June), no. 982,
1989, p.6.
[38] C. Cotton, (28 June 2010). Keith Arnatt. [Interview with
Bisera Kljucanin].
[39] M. Herbert, Keith Arnatt: I'm a real photographer: Glynn
Vivian Art Gallery, March, no. 314.. Swansea Art Monthly,
2008, p. 28.
[40] C. Bonham-Carter, Review of I'm a Real Photographer.
Time Out. August, 2007, p. 40.
[41] M. Herbert, Keith Arnatt: I'm a real photographer: Glynn
Vivian Art Gallery, March, no. 314.. Swansea Art Monthly,
2008, p. 28.
[42] D. Hurn. (April, 2008). I'm a real photographer. Available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV93rpWgv-U
[43] B. Schwabsky, Keith Arnatt: The Photographers' Gallery,
Artforum International, vol. 46, no. 3, November, 2007, p. 378.
[44] F. Soulages, The Aesthetics of Photography [Esthtique de la
photographie], Paris: Armand Colin Publisher, 2005, p. 75.
[45] J. Szarkowski, (June 2009). Pictorialist and Straight
Photography. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=gL6rkKxFcaM
[46] S. Allen, (2007). Real Photographer' Keith Arnatt At The
Photographers' Gallery, London: Culture 24. Available at:
http://www.culture24.org.uk/art/photography+
%26+film/art48553
[47] D. Hurn. (April, 2008). I'm a real photographer. Available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV93rpWgv-U
[48] S. Sontag, On Photography, London: Penguin Classics, 2008,
p. 107.
[49] D. Hurn. (April, 2008). I'm a real photographer. Available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV93rpWgv-U
[50] M. Parr, Keith Arnatt In Keith Arnatt: Works 1968-1990,
London: Hurtwood Press Limited, 2009, p. 9.
[51] D. Hurn, and C. Grafik, Im a real photographer, London:
Chris Boot, 2007, p. 134.
[52] S. Arkette, (2007). Keith Arnatt: I'm a Real Photographer,
Studio International. Available at: http://www.studiointernational.co.uk/photo/arnatt.asp