Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1966-68
Mounted photographic enlargement of the
dictionary definition of "definition"
Dimensions: 57 x 57" (144.8 x 144.8 cm)
Kosuth has said that art is making meaning, and in his work he
investigates the ways in which art-making is tied to language. This
work is part of a series based on definitions clipped from dictionary
entries for words including art, chair, meaning, or, in this
reflexive example, definition. Kosuth considers the work of art to be
the definition of the given word, but for the purpose of presentation he
asks that his original cut-out dictionary entry be photographically
enlarged to a specific dimension each time the work is exhibited. This
Photostat is the first realization of this work, fabricated in 1968, and as
such it is shown here as a historical document.
this work is square. the background is
entirely black. the middle horizontal
third features a definition, in golden-ish
lettering, formatted in the typical style
of a dictionary entry, complete with a
syllabic
breakdown,
international
phonetic alphabet pronunciation key,
part of speech indicated, linguisitic
origin indicated. the definition is of the
word "definition." it reads: 1. a defining
or being defined. 2. a statement of what
a thing is. 3. a statement or explanation
of what a word or phrase means or has
meant. 4. a putting or being in clear,
sharp outline. 5. the power of a lens to
show (an object) in clear, sharp outline.
6. the degree of distinctness of a
photograph, etc. 7. in radio & television,
but,
like
what
first, the question is not ignorant, although it can be asked in
ignorance. it can be asked in prelude to a search for an answer within
the very box the work intends to challenge. in fact, it is the inability to
answer this question within the scope of that box (without relying on
an illusory stability of definitions and an unjustified appeal to received,
prescriptive norms) that constitutes the challenge to and demonstrates
the untenability of its borders. this point also speaks to the error
committed by more conservative thinkers in their attempts to define
art so as to exclude whatever offends their oh-so-refined sensibilities.
moreover, the site of that error is (on the interpretation presented
here) made evident and addressed by Kosuth's piece. the error is this:
they seek to apply to art a method of conceptual (oh, the irony)
analysis that proceeds by considering paradigm examples, searching
for what they have in common most essentially. such an enterprise,
however, is doomed from the start, for it seeks the stable, static,
unchanging heart of a cultural practice that is always taking place at
the porous borders, at the periphery, at the frontline of culture, society,
meaning, history, thought. but borders are by definition always
contested, at best maintained by a sort of detante, and frontlines are
by definition sites of conflict and battle, not stasis. their quest for
definition is a quest for death, a quest to murder art, change, progress,
and, in finding a self-contained stable definition, to remove it, art, from
the realm of the living, where it can serve as a challenge to the statusquo favored by those in power, to a Platonic realm of eternal ideas
that is, ideas divorced from the critical task of interrogation and
questioninga realm of settled, and stable meanings.
it is unsurprising then that this conservative impulse, which amounts
to an attempt to install one set of ideas as dominant while checking all
but,
like,
why does it
have
to
mean
it's actually not the worst answer. in fact, it doesn't mean anything
at least not in itself, not in its own isolated, self-referential vacuum. it
can only mean in context, and that's the point, as argued above. in
fact, the questionwhat does it meanis itself created by context,
based on an assumption, presumably justified by the art-viewer's
encounter with the work in a museum's exhibition hall, that the work, if
it doesn't represent illustratively, nonetheless represents semantically,
has cognitive content; that is, if the work does not justify its occupation
of wall-space aesthetically, then it must justify it some other way, for
example, by being a puzzle to be solved by interpretation.
Date:1939
(there is no label, so I am writing my own)
Although in mind here is the entire Museum of Modern Art structure at
11 W53rd as it exists today, the building designed by Goodwin and
Stone and completed in 1939as the MoMA's first permanent home
is named above, for it was the seed for all that grew from it in the form
of renovations and extensions. "As the headquarters of a truly
revolutionary cultural institution, the Goodwin-Stone building bore a
special burden: it had to meet the challenge of the newly established
Museum, to accommodate its innovative program, and to symbolize its
ideological aims."5 The building was designed largely in the
International Style, characterized by a committment to three principles
1) "a new conception of architecture as volume rather than as mass",
2) "regularity rather than symmetry as a means of ordering design",
and 3) a lack of ornamentation6 exemplified in 1) the facade's white
planar simplicity, it's two dark upper-floor strip windows, the
translucent glass above the entrance, stretching the entire area of the
lower half of the facade, and the structure's cantilevered roof
punctuated by a row of portholes, 2) the regularity of the portholes,
and the grid of the windowpanes, tempered by the (originally) offcenter entrance placement, and 3) the minimalism of the design as far
as added, or applied, adornment. The interior exhibition space was
"indeterminate and neutral."7 While loftlike, the Streamline Moderneinfluenced interior was more domestic and residential-scaled than the
grand museum interiors to which many visitors would have been
accustomed. Unlike the dominant practice of showing art on clothcovered walls, the MoMa featured white walls. The urban structure was
also distinctive for a museum in the vertical (as opposed to horizontal)
flow its multi-storied construction accomodated and its lack of any
expansive public area. Paul Goldberger, a respected critic, wrote that
"the odd mix of avante-garde [Streamline Moderne developed in the
1930's as a late offshoot of the Art Deco style, characteristic of the
then-recently constructed Rockefeller Center just across from the
museum site] and establishment temperments" of the Museum's
founders," with a "devotion to the new on the one hand and
connections to the city's established lines of power on the other
[Nelson Rockefeller, a great fan of the Art Deco style, was involved in
the project]" contributed to a "dilution" of the International Style
evident in the buildings design.8 Indeed, as it was in 1939, "the
museum was an aesthetic measure of the social forces that shaped the
institution over the previous ten years." Perhaps it was its radical-butnot-too-radical moderism that brought the design critical praise. 9
Since 1939 the building has undergone renovation and extension. In
1953 the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Sculpture Garden, designed by Philip
Johnson, was dedicated. In 1964 the Museum opened an east wing, a
garden wing, and enlarged the sculpture garden. 1980 saw
construction begin on the west wing and Museum Tower. When Cesar
Pelli was selected to design the Museum's vastly expanded west wing,
film theater, and two floors of offices (opened in 1984), he commented
that the Museum sought to be "respectful of its own past." "The
Goodwin-Stone building will continue being the symbol of the Museum
of Modern Art and will maintain its now-historical relationship with the
rest of the block as a white medallion on a dark background." 10 That
project also saw the completion of four-story, glass-enclosed hall
overlooking the sculpture gardenrecalling the vast window of the
facade. Indeed, when, in 2013, it was announced that the 12-year-old
home of the American Folk Art Museumitself a notable work of
architecture, designed by Tod Williams and Billie Tsienwould be
demolished for a MoMA expansion, Museum officials said that "the
building's design did not their plans because the opaque facade is not
in keeping with the glass aesthetic of the rest of the museum." 11 The
MoMA has reconsidered the demolition at the prompting of
architectural firm Diller Scofidio + Renfro, now involved in the project.
The 2014 Vision Statement states that the designers will seek "to build
upon the sequence of galleries created by Yoshio Taniguchi in 2004
without replicating themto maximize the variety of spaces for
presenting our collection; and to ensure that the Museum is more
directly woven into the dynamic urban fabric of midtown Manhattan."12
"but, like, what does it mean?"
as stated above, the questionwhat does it mean?is contextbound, and grounded in an assumption. encountering Kosuth's piece in
a museum or gallery, the viewer expects it to justify its occupation of
space: is it a work of aesthetic beauty? does it have a meaning? the
expection makes sense, too, for if there is anything, anything at all,
that distinguishes art from not-art, then that distinction will fall within
one of the dimensions of the human cognitive range: 1) maybe it's
phenomenally, sensorily exceptional in some way, perhaps in its
beautythis dimension pertains to our sensibility, our capacity to be
affected by the world; 2) perhaps it's emotionally movingthis
dimension pertains to our affective states and is related but not
identical to sensibility; 3) maybe it has cognitive content, maybe it
Grindr
Medium:iPhone App