ci

~

u

:cu

-'

.:;;

c
~

oQ.
E

'"

C
o
u

a

E
::>

~

~

c:

a'"

SYSTEMS ESTHETICSJACK BURNHAM

30

A polarity is presently developing between thefinite, unique work of high art, i.e., painting or
sculpture, and conceptions which can loosely betermed "unobjects," these being either environments or artifacts which resist prevailing criticalanalysis. This includes works by some primary
sculptors (though some may reject the charge ofcreating environments), some gallery kinetic andluminous art, some outdoor works, happenings,
and mixed media presentations. Looming below
the surface of this dichotomy is a sense of radical
evolution which seems to run counter to the waning revolution of abstract and non-objective art.
The evolution embraces a series of absolutely logical and incremental changes, wholly devoid of
the fevered iconoclasm which accompanied theheroic period from 1907 to 1925. As yet the evolving esthetic has no cri tical vocabulary so necessary for its defense, nor for that matter a name or
explicit cause.
In a way this situation might be likened tothe "morphological development" of a prime
scientific concept-as described by Thomas Kuhn
in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962).
Kuhn sees science at any given period dominatedby a single "major paradigm"; that is, a scientificconception of the natural order so pervasive andintellectually powerful that it dominates all ensuing scientific discovery. Inconsistent facts arising through experimentation are invariably labeled as bogus or trivial - until the emergence ofa new and more encompassing general theory.
Transition between major paradigms may best
express the state of present art. Reasons for it lie
in the nature of current technological shifts.
The economist, J. K. Galbraith, has rightly insisted that until recently the needs of. the modern
industrial state were never served by complete
expression of the esthetic impulse. Power andexpansion were its primary aims.
Special attention should be paid to Galbraith'sobservation. As an arbiter of impending sociotechnical changes his position is pivotal. For theLeft he represents America's most articulate apologist for Monopoly Capitalism; for the Right he is
the socialist eminence grise of the Democratic
Party. In The New Industrial State (1967) he challenges both Marxist orthodoxies and American
mythologies premised upon laissez-faire Capitalism. For them he substitutes an incipient technocracy shaped by the evolving technostructure. Sucha drift away from ideology has been anticipated
for at least fifty years. Already in California thinktanks and in the central planning committees ofeach soviet, futurologists are concentrating on therole of the technocracy, i.e., its decision-making
autonomy, how it handles the central storage of
information, and the techniques used for smoothly implementing social change. In the automatedstate power resides less in the control of the traditional symbols of wealth than in information.
In the emergent "superscientific culture" long-range decision making and its implementation become more difficult and more necessary. Judgment demands precise socio-technical models.
Earlier the industrial state evolved by filling consumer needs on a piecemeal basis. The kind of
product design that once produced "better living"precipitates vast crises in human ecology in the
1960s. A striking parallel exists between the"new" car of the automobile stylist and the syndrome of formalist invention in art, where "discoveries" are made through visual manipulation.
Increasingly "products" - either in art or life become irrelevant and a different set of needs
arise: these revolve around such concerns as maintaining the biological livability of the Earth, producing more accurate models of social interaction,
understanding the growing symbiosis in manmachine relationships, establishing priorities forthe usage and conservation of natural resources,and defining alternate patterns of education, productivity, and leisure. In the past our technologically-conceived artifacts structured living patterns.
We are now in transition from an object-oriented
to a systems-oriented culture. Here change emanates, not from things, but from the way things

are done.
The priorities of the present age revolve aroundthe problems of organization. A systems viewpoint
is focused on the creation of stable, on-going relationships between organic and non-organic systems, be these neighborhoods, industrial complexes, farms, transportation systems, information
centers, recreation centers, or any of the othermatrixes of human activity. All living situations
must be treated in the context of a systems hierarchy of values. Intuitively many artists have already grasped these relatively recent distinctions,and if their "environments" are on the unsophisticated side, this will change with time and experience.
The major tool for professi9nally defining theseconcerns is systems analysis. This is best known
through its usage by the .Pentagon and has more
to do with the expense and complexity of modern
warfare, than with any innate relation between
the two. Systems analysts are not cold-blooded
logicians; the best have an ever-expanding graspof human needs and limitations. One of the pioneers of systems applications, E. S. Quade, hasstated that "Systems analysis, particularly the typerequired for military decisions, is still largely aform of art. Art can be taught in part, but not by
the means of fixed rules ... "1 Thus "The Further
Dimensions"2 elaborated upon by Galbraith in his
book are esthetic criteria. Where for some these
become the means for tidying up a derelict technology, for Galbraith esthetic decision-making becomes an integral part of any future technocracy.
As yet few governments fully appreciate that thealternative is biological self-destruction.
Situated between aggressive electronic media
and two hundred years of industrial vandalism,
the long held idea that a tiny output of art objects

could somehow "beautify" or even significantly
modify the environment was naive. A parallel illusion existed in that artistic influence prevails by apsychic osmosis given off by such objects. Accordingly lip service to public beauty remains theprovince of well-guarded museums. Through theearly stages of industrialism it remained possiblefor decorative media, including painting andsculpture, to embody the esthetic impulse; but astechnology progresses this impulse must identify
itself with the means of research and production.
Obviously nothing could be less true for the present situation. In a society thus estranged only thedidactic function of art continues to have meaning. The artist operates as a quasi political provocateur, though in no concrete sense is he an ideologist or a moralist. 'Tart pour I'art" and a century's resistance to the vulgarities of moral uplift
have insured that.

The specific function of modern didactic art
has been to show that art does not reside in material entities, but in relations between people andbetween people and the components of theirenvironment. This accounts for the radicality of
Duchamp and his enduring influence. It throws
light on Picasso's lesser position as a seminal
force. As with all succeeding formalist art, Cubism
followed the tradition of circumscribing art value
wholly within finite objects.

In an advanced technological culture the mostimportant artist best succeeds by liquidating his
position as artist vis-a.-vis society. Artistic nihilism
established itself through this condition. At theoutset the artist refused to participate in idealism
through craft. "Craft-fetishism,"3 as termed by thecritic Christopher Caudwell, remains the basis ofmodern formalism. Instead the significant artist
strives to reduce the technical and psychical distance between his artistic output and the productive means of society. Duchamp, Warhol, andRobert Morris are similarly directed in this respect.
Gradually this strategy transforms artistic andtechnological decision-making into a single activity - at least it presents that alternative in inescapable terms. Scientists and technicians are notconverted into "artists," rather the artist becomesa symptom of the schism between art and technics. Progressively the need to make ultrasensitive judgments as to the uses of technology andscientific information becomes "art" in the mostliteral sense.
As yet the implication that art contains survival
value is nearly as suspect as attaching any moral
significance 'to it. Though with the demise of literary content, the theory that art is a form of psychic preparedness has gain.ed articulate supporters.
Art, as an adaptive mechanism, is reinforcementof the ability to be aware of the disparity between
behavioral pattern and the demands consequent
upon the interaction with the environment. Art isrehearsal for those real situations in which it isvital for our survival to endure cognitive tension,
to refuse the comforts of validation by affective

congruence when such validation is inappropriate
because too vital interests are at stake ... 4

*

*

*

The post-formalist sensibility naturally responds
to stimuli both within and outside the proposedart format. To this extent some of it does begin
to resemble "theater," as imputed by MichaelFried. More likely though, the label of "theatricality" is a red herring disguising the real natureof the shift in priorities. In respect to Mr. Fried'sargument,s the theater was never a purist medium,but a conglomerate of arts. In itself this never prevented the theater from achieving "high art." Forclearer reading, rather than maintaining Mr. Fried's
adjectives, "theatrical" or "literalist" art, or thephrase used until now i.n this essay, "post-formalist esthetic," the term systems esthetic seems toencompass the present situation more fully.
The systems approach goes beyond a concern
with staged environments and happenings; it deals
in a revolutionary fashion with the larger problem of boundary concepts. In systems perspective
there are no contrived confines such as the theater proscenium or picture frame. Conceptual
focus rather than material limits define the system.
Thus any situation, either in or outside the context of art, may be designed and judged as asystem. Inasmuch as a system may contain people, ideas, messages, atmospheric conditions,power sources, etc., a system is, to quote thesystems biologist, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a "complex of components in interaction," 6 comprisedof material, energy, and information in various
degrees of organization. In evaluating systems
the artist is a perspectivist considering goals,
boundaries, structure, input, output, and related
activity inside and outside the system. Where theobject almost always has a fixed shape and boundaries, the consistency of a system may be alteredin time and space, its behavior determined bothby external conditions and its mechanisms ofcontrol.
In his book, The New Vision, Moholy-Nagy described fabricating a set of enamel on metal paintings. These were executed by telephoning precise
instructions to a manufacturer. An elaboration ofthis was projected recently by the director of theMuseum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, Jan vander Marck, in a tentative exhibition, "Art by Telephone." In this instance the recorded conversation between artist and manufacturer was tobecome part of the displayed work of art. For
systems, information, in whatever form conveyed,
becomes a viable esthetic consideration.
Fifteen years ago Victor Vasarely suggested massart as a legitimate function of industrial society.
For angry critics there existed the fear of undermining art's fetish aura, of shattering the mystique of craft and private creation. If some forays
have been made into serially produced art, theseremain on the periphery of the industrial system.
Yet the entire phenomenon of reproducing an art

object ad infinitum is absurd; rather than making
quality available to a large number of people, it
signals the end of concrete objects embodying
visual metaphor. Such demythification is the Kantian Imperative applied esthetically. On the other
hand, a systems esthetic is literal in that all phasesof the life cycle of a system are relevant. Thereis no end product which is primarily visual, nordoes such an esthetic rely on a "visual" syntax.
It resists functioning as an applied esthetic, but isrevealed in the principles underlying the progressive reorganization of the natural environment.
Various postures implicit in formalist art wereconsistently attacked in the later writings of Ad
Reinhardt. His black paintings were hardly rhetorical devices (nor were his writings) masking Zen
obscurities; rather they were the means of discarding formalist mannerism and all the latentillusionism connected with post-realistic art. His
own contribution he described as:
The one work for the fine artist, the one painting, is the painting of the one-sized canvas . . .
The single theme, one formal device, one colormonochrome, one linear division in each direction, one symmetry, one texture, one free-handbrushing, one rhythm, one working everything into
dissolution and one indivisibility, each painting
into one overall uniformity and nonirregularity.7
Even before the emergence of the anti-formalist"specific object" there appeared an oblique typeof criticism, resisting emotive and literary associations. Pioneered between 1962 and 1965 in thewritings of Donald Judd, it resembles what a computer programmer would call an entity's "liststructure," or all the enumerated properties
needed to physically rebuild an object. Earlier
the phenomenologist, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, asserted the impossibility of conceptually reconstructing an object from such a procedure. Modified to include a number of perceptual insights
not included in a "list structure," such a technique has been used to real advantage by theanti-novelist, Alain Robbe-Grillet. A web of sensorial descriptions is spun around the central
images of a plot. The point is not to internalize
scrutiny in the Freudian sense, but to infer the
essence of a situation through detailed examination of surface effects. Similar attitudes wereadopted by Judd for the purpose of critical examination. More than simply an art object's list structure, Judd included phenomenal qualities which
would have never shown up in a fabricator's plans,
but which proved necessary for the "seeing" ofthe object. This cleared the air of much criticism
centered around meaning and private intention.
It would be misleading to interpret Judd's concept of "specific objects" as the embodiment ofa systems esthetic. Rather object art has becomea stage towards further rationalization of theesthetic process in general both by reducing
the iconic content of art objects and by Judd's
candidness about their conceptual origins. However, even in 1965 he gave indications of look-ing beyond these finite limits.
A few of the more general aspects may persist, such as the work's being like an object oreven being specific, but other characteristics arebound to develop. Since its range is wide, threedimensional work will probably divide into a number of forms. At any rate, it will be larger thanpainting and much larger than sculpture, which,compared to painting, is fairly particular.... Because the nature of three dimension isn't set,
given beforehand, something credible can bemade, almost anything. 8
In the 1966 "68th American Show" at the Chicago Art Institute, the sculptor, Robert Morris,
was represented by two large, L-shaped forms
which were shown the previous year in New
York. Morris sent plans of the pieces to the carpenters at the Chicago museum where they wereassembled for less than the cost of shipping theoriginals from New York. In the context of a systems esthetic possession of a privately fabricatedwork is no longer important. Accurate information
takes priority over history and geographical location.
Morris was the first essayist to precisely describe the relation between sculpture style andthe progressively more sophisticated use of industry by artists. He has lately focused upon materialforming techniques and the arrangement of theseresults so that they no longer form specific objects
but remain un composed. In such handling of materials the idea of process takes precedence overend results: "Disengagement with preconceived
enduring forms and orders of things is a positive
assertion." 9 Such loose assemblies of materials encompass concerns that resemble the cycles of industrial processing. Here the traditional priority ofend results over technique breaks down; in a sys(ems context both may share equal importance,
remaining essential parts of the esthetic.
Already Morris has proposed systems whichmove beyond the confines of the minimal object.
One work proposed to the City of New York last
fall was later included in Willoughby Sharp's "AirArt" show in a Y.M.H.A. gallery in Philadelphia. In
its first state Morris's piece involved capturing
steam from the pipes in the city streets, projecting this from nozzles on a platform. In Philadelphia such a system took its energy from the steam
bath room. Since 1966 Morris's interests have included designs for low relief earth sculptures consisting of abutments, hedges, and sodded mounds,
visible from the air and not unlike Indian burial
mounds. "Transporting" one of these would be amatter of cutting and filling earth and resodding.
Morris is presently at work on one such projectand unlike past sculptural concerns, it i:wolves
precise information from surveyors, landscapegardeners, civil engineering contractors, and geologists. In the older context, such as Isamu Noguchi's sunken garden at Yale University's Rare Book
Library, sculpture defined the environment, withLes Levine, The Clean Mach
As instailed in the Fischbach

32

33

Robert Morris, drts.

eral aspects may per,ing like an object or
her characteristics arerange is wide, threebly divide into a numit will be larger thanhan sculpture, which,
rly particular. . . . Bedimension isn't set,ng credible can be:an Show" at the Chir1ptor, Robert Morris,arge, L-shaped forms
revious year in New
he pieces to the careum where they were
cost of shipping thethe context of a sysa privately fabricatedAccurate informationand geographical /0-

Iyist to precisely deI sculpture style andsticated use of indus)cused upon materia/arrangement of these. form specific objects
such handling of maIkes precedence overIt with preconceived)f things is a positive
lblies of materials enlb/e the cycles of intraditional priority ofreaks down; ina sys'e equal importance,le esthetic.
Jsed systems which
f the minimal object.
:ity of New York lastloughby Sharp's "Airry in Philadelphia. In, involved capturingcity streets, projectdatform. In Phi lade/lergy from the steam
s's interests have inearth sculptures conand sodded mounds,
unlike Indian burialof these would be aearth and resodding.
m one such project
oncerns, it i:wolves
urveyors, landscapemtractors, and geoluch as Isamu Noguliversity's Rare Book
~ environment, with

Allan Kaprow, Fluid", a Happening. The Happening consisled of ice being delivered
to 14 sites in Pasadena, California; in 3 days 14 rectangular structures were buill
without windows, doors, or roofs. The structures were left to melt. (October, 1967.)

les Levine, The Clean Machine, uvex, each unit 4 x 6', 56 units.
As instailed in the Fischbach Gallery, New York .

32

33

Robert Morris, drawing for Earth Project, Evanston, Illinois.

" ...the most important artist
best succeeds by liquidating his
position as artist vis-a-vis society."

Lake!ill addition to Northwestern University Campus. Lower outer peninsula isthe site for the earth sculpture by Robert Morris.

sess no intrinsic sigr
utility, It is difficull
extraneous qual ities,
to be appropriated fneeds. The lights arsymbolic transcend,
added values presen

Hans Haacke, Photo-Electric Viewer-Programmed Coordinate System. (Spectator
interrupts infra-red light beams positioned as a regular, right-angled grid in theroom. Lighted bulbs determine the movements of spectator in room.)Morris's approach the environment defines what is
sculptural.
More radical for the gallery are the constructions of Carl Andre. His assemblies of modular,
unattached forms stand out from the works ofartists who have comprised unit assembly withthe totality of fixed objects. The mundane origins
of Andre's units are not "hidden" within the art
work as in the technique of collage. Andre's floor
reliefs are architectural modifications though
they are not subliminal since they visually disengage from their surroundings. One of Andre's
subtler shows took place in New York last year.
The viewer was encouraged to walk stockingfooted across three areas, each 12 by 12 feet andcomposed of 144 one-foot-square metal plates.
One was not only invited to see each of these"rugs" as a grid arrangement in various metals,
but each metal grid's thermal conductivity was
registered through the soles of the feet. Sight analysis diminishes in importance for some of thebest new work; the other senses and especiallykinesthesis makes "viewing" a more integrated experience.
The scope of a systems esthetic presumes thatproblems cannot be solved by a single technicalsolution, but must be attacked on a multileveled,interdisciplinary basis. Consequently some of themore aware sculptors no longer think like sculptors, but they assume a span of problems morenatural to architects, urban planners, civil engineers, electronic technicians, and cultural anthropologists. This is not as pretentious as some critics
have insisted. It is a legitimate extension of
McLuhan's rema'rk about Pop art when he said
that it was an announcement that the entire environment was ready to become a work of art.
As a direct descendant of the "found object,"
Robert Smithson's identifying mammoth engi-

Les Levine, Electric Shock, installation view in Douglas Gallery, Vancouver.

neering projects as works of art ("Site-Selections")10 makes eminent sense. Refocusing theesthetic away from the preciousness of the workof art is in the present age no less than a survival
mechanism. If Smithson's "Site-Selections" aredidactic exercises, they show a desperate needfor environmental sensibility on a larger than room
scale. Sigfried Giedion pointed to specific engineering feats as objets d'art thirty years ago.
Smithson has transcended this by putting engineering works into their natural settings and treating the whole as a time-bound web of mannature interactions.
Methodologically Les Levine is pos!5ibly themost consistent exponent of a systems esthetic.
His environments of vacuum-formed, modular
plastic units are never static; by means of an experience's ambulation through them, thte"y consistently alter their own degree of space-surface
penetrability. Levine's Clean Machine has no ideal
vantage points, no "pieces" to recognize, as are
implicit in formalist art. One is processed as indriving through the Holland Tunnel. Certainly thisechoes Michael Fried's reference to Tony Smith'snight-time drive along the uncompleted New Jersey Turnpike. ll Yet if this is theater, as Fried insists, it is not the stage concerned with focusedupon events. That has more to do with the boundary definitions which have traditionally circumscribed classical and post-classical art. In a recent environment by Levine rows of live electric
wires emitted small shocks to passersby. ';ere behavior is controlled in an esthetic situa~ion withno primary reference to visual circumstances. As
Levine insists, "What I am after here is physicalreaction, not visual concern." 12This brings to mind some of the origini<ll intentions of the "Group de Recherches d'Art Visuel"in the early 1960s. The Paris-based group had

sought to engage viewers kinesthetically, triggering involuntary responses through ambient-propelled "surprises." Levine's emphasis on visual
disengagement is much more assured and iconoclastic; unlike the labyrinths of the G.R.A.V., hispossesses no individual work of art deflecting attention from the environment as a concerted
experience.
Questions have been raised concerning the implicit anti-art position connected with Levine's
disposable and infinite ·series. These hardly qualify as anti-art as Jonn Perrault has pointed out.
Besides emphasizing that the context of art is
fluid, they are a reductio ad absurdum of the entire market mechanism which controls art throughthe fiction of "high art." They do not deny art,
they deny scarcity as a legitimate correlative ofart.
The components of systems - whether these
are artistic or functional - have no higher meaning or value. Systems components derive theirvalue solely through their assigned context. Therefore it would be impossible to regard a fragmentof an art system as a work of art in itself - assay, one might treasure a fragment of one of theParthenon friezes. This became evident in December 1967 when Dan Flavin designed six wallswith the same alternate pattern of "rose" and"gold" 8-foot fluorescent lamps. This "Broad
Bright Gaudy Vulgar System," as Flavin called it,
was installed in the new Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago. The catalog accompanying
the exhibition scrupulously resolves some of theimportant esthetic implications for modular systems.
The components of a particular exhibition upon
its termination are replaced in another situation.
Perhaps put into non-art as part of a different
whole in a different future. Individual units pos-

34

3S

Flavin's work ha
years from light so
to compositions in
directly on walls anities such as his 0
While the majority
tinued to fabricate'ture were the prim.
neered articulated
spaces,By the fact thatsome way dynamic
the more radical ali
malist esthetic. Yet
The best publicizet
modification of sta
sition. In most inst:
ed bonus of motie
Calder, Bury, and F
output managed
Rather than visualdifferent concern v
This is the periph
movement in a sp
often gallery kinet
graspable aspect 0
nalized and exper
There are a fe~
above. These incl
Ballets" (1958-196:
mocks and inforr
Japan's Gutai grou
Breer's first show (man's laser show
cently, Boyd Meffe
Formalist art em
relations between
ments. But sincehas depended up'
systems. In a syst€
ible parts, shareseen. Thus air, wa
major elements ir
has precipitated ia number of you
Haacke's efforts
These include his
terns of water; 5
by hundreds ofweather balloon I
large-scale nylon
to remain in balaHaacke's syster
experience, thoulinsists that the nhis work functiorsess no intrinsic significance beyond their concrete
utility. It is difficult either to project into themextraneous qualities, a spurious insight, or for them
to be appropriated for fulfillment or personal innerneeds. The lights are untransformed. There are no
symbolic transcendental redeeming or monitary
added values present. 13'er.

inesthetically, trigger:hrough ambient-proemphasis on visualre assured and icons of the C.RAV., his
k of art deflecting atlent as a concerted
d concerning the imlected with Levine's'5. These hardly qualIUlt has pointed out.
le context of art isabsurdum of the en1 controls art throughley do not deny art,
itimate correlative of

ns whether theselave no higher meanponents derive theirigned context. Thereto regard a fragmentof art in itself - as.gment of one of theame evident in Dein designed six walls
ttern of "rose" andlamps. This "Broad" as Flavin called it,seum of ContemporItalog accompanying'esolves some of the'ns for modular sys-ular exhibition uponin another situation.
part of a different
ndividual units pos-

34

35

Flavin's work has progressed in the past six
years from light sources mounted on flat reliefs,
to compositions in fluorescent fixtures mounted
directly on walls and floors, and recently to totalities such as his Chicago "walk-in" environment.
While the majority of other light artists have continued to fabricate "light sculpture" - as if sculpture were the primary concern - Flavin has pioneered articulated illumination systems for given
spaces.
By the fact that most systems move or are insome way dynamic, kinetic art should be one of
the more radical alternatives to the prevailing formalist esthetic. Yet this has hardly been the case.
The best publicized kinetic sculpture is mainly amodification of static formalist sculpture composition. In most instances these have only the added bonus of motion, as in the case of Tinguely,
Calder, Bury, and Rickey. Only Duchamp's kinetic
output managed to reach beyond formalism.
Rather than visual appearance there is an entirely
different concern which makes kinetic art unique.
This is the peripheral perception of sound andmovement in a space filled with activity. All too
often gallery kinetic art has trivialized the more
graspable aspect of motion: this is motion internalized and experienced kinesthetically.
There are a few important exceptions to theabove. These include Otto Pi ene's early "Light
Ballets" (1958-1962), the early (1956) water hammocks and informal on-going environments ofJapan's Gutai group, some works by Len Lye, Bob
Breer's first show of "Floats" (1965), Robert Whitman's laser show "Dark" (1967), and most recently, Boyd Mefferd's "Strobe-Light Floor" (1968).
Formalist art embodies the idea of deterministic
relations between a composition's visible elements. But since the early 1960s Hans Haacke
has depended upon the invisible components ofsystems. In a systems context, invisibility, or invisible parts, share equal importance with things
seen. Thus air, water, steam and ice have become
major elements in his work. On both coast, thishas precipitated interest in "invisible art" among
a number of young artists. Some of the best of
Haacke's efforts are shown outside the gallery.
These include his Rain Tree, a tree dripping patterns of water; Sky Line, a nylon line kept aloftby hundreds of helium filled white balloons; aweather balloon balanced over a jet of air; and alarge-scale nylon tent with air pockets designed
to remain in balance one foot off the ground.
Haacke's systems have a limited life as an art
experience, though some are quite durable. He
insists that the need for empathy does not makehis work function as with older art. Systems exist

as on-going independent entities away from theviewer. In the systems hierarchy of control, inte~­
action and autonomy become desirable values.
In this respect Haacke's Photo-Electric Viewer Programmed Coordinate System is probably one ofth:e most elegant responsive environments madeto date by an artist (certainly more sophisticatedones have been conceived for scientific and technical purposes). Boundary situations are central
to his thinking.
A "sculpture" that physically reacts to its environment is no longer to be regarded as an
object. The range of outside factors affecting it,
as well as its own radius of action, reach beyond
the space it materially occupies. It thus merges
with the environment in a relationship that isbetter understood as a "system" of interdependent
processes. These processes evolve without theviewer's empathy. He becomes a witness. A system is not imagined, it is real. 14

Tangential to this systems approach is Allan
Kaprow's very unique concept of the Happening.
In the past ten years Kaprow has moved the Happening from a rather self-conscious and stagy
event to a strict and elegant procedure. The Happening now has a sense of internal logic which
was lacking before. It seems to arise naturally
from those same considerations which have crystalized the systems approach to environmental
situations. As described by their chief inventor,
the Happenings establish an indivisibility between
themselves and everyday affairs; they consciously
avoid materials and procedures identified with art;
they allow for geographical expansiveness andmobility; they include experience and durationas part of their esthetic format; and they emphasize practical activities as the most meaningfulmode of procedure. ls As structured events theHappenings are usually reversible. Alterations in
the environment may be "erased" after the Happening, or as a part of the Happening's conclusion. While they may involve large areas of space,
the format of the Happening is kept relatively
simple, with the emphasis on establishing a participatory esthetic.
The emergence of a "post-formalist esthetic"
may seem to some to embody a kind of absolutephilosophy, something which, through the natureof its concerns cannot be transcended. Yet it ismore likely that a "systems esthetic" will become
the dominant approach to a maze of socio-technical conditions rooted only in the present. New
circumstances will with time generate other major
paradigms for the arts.
For some readers these pages will echo feelingsof the past. It may be remembered that in thefall of 1920 an ideological schism ruptured two
factions of the Moscow Constructivists. The radical Marxists, led by Vladimir Tatlin, proclaimed
their rejection of art's false idealisms. Establishingthemselves as "Productivists," one of their slogans became: "Down with guarding the traditionsof art. Long live the constructivist technician." 16

As a group dedicated to historical materialism andthe scientific ethos, most of its members werequickly subsumed by the technological needs ofSoviet Russia. As artists they ceased to exist. While
the Productivist program might have had somebasis as a utilitarian esthetic, it was crushed amid
the Stalinist anti-intellectualism that followed.
The reasons are almost self-apparent. Industrially underdeveloped, food and heavy industry
remained the prime needs of the Soviet Union
for the next forty years. Conditions and structuralinterdependencies which naturally develop in anadvanced industrial state were then only latent. In
retrospect it is doubtful if any group of artists
had either the knowledge or political strength tomeaningfully affect Soviet industrial policies. Whatemerged was another vein of formalist innovation
based on scientific idealism; this manifested itself
in the West under the leadership of the Constructivist emigres, Cabo and Pevsner.
But for our time the emerging major paradigm
in art is neither an ism nor a collection of styles.
Rather than a novel way of rearranging surfaces
and spaces, it is fundamentally concerned with
the implementation of the art impulse in an advanced technological society. As a culture producer, man has traditionally claimed the title,
Homo Faber: man the maker (of tools andimages). With continued advances in the industrial revolution, he assumes a new and more critical function. As Homo Arbiter Formae his primerole becomes that of man the maker of esthetic
whether they aredecisions. These decisions control the quality
made concertedly or not of all future life on the Earth. Moreover these arevalue judgments dictating the direction of technological endeavor. Quite plainly such a vision extends beyond political realities of the present.
This cannot remain the case for long. 1. Quade, E. S. (November 1964) "Methods and Procedures" inAnalysis lor Military Decisions (Santa Monica: The Rand Corp.)
p. 153.
2. Galbraith, John Kenneth (1967) The New Industrial State (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.) pp. 343-3S3.
3. Caudwell, Christopher (pseud.) (1937) Illusion and Reality: A
Study 01 the Sources 01 Poetry (London: MacMillan and Co.)
p. 111.
4. Peckham, Morse (1965) Man's Rage for Chaos: Biology, Behavior & the Arts (New York: Schocken Books. 1967) p. 314.
S. Fried, Michael (Summer, 1967) "Art and Objecthood" Artforum, p. 1S.
6. Bertalanlly. Ludwig von (1967) Robots, Men and Minds (NewYork: George Braziller Inc.) p. 69.
7. Anonymous (September 1. 1967) "Ad Reinhardt. Painter, Is
Dead, Reduced Color 10 Bare Minimum" in The New YorkTimes p. 33.
8. Judd, Donald (1965) "Specific Objects" in Contemporary
Scufpture (New York: The Arts Digest, Inc.) p. 78.
9. Morris, Robert (April 1968) "Anti Form," Art/Drum, p. 35.
10. Smithson, Robert (Summer 1967) "Towards the Development
01 an Air Terminal Site" Artforum, pp. 3640.
11. Fried, op cit., p. 19.
12. Jacobs. Jay (March 1968) "More Les" the ART gallery (Ivory·
ton, Connecticut: Hollycralt Press) p. 27.
13. Flavin, Dan (with introduction by) (December 1967) Dan
Flavin: Pink and Gold, exhibition catalog, (Chicago: The
Museum of Contemporary Art).
14. Haacke, Hans (with statement by) Uanuary 1968) Hans Haacke,
exhibition catalog (New York: Howard Wise Gallery).
15. Kaprow. Allen (March 1966) "The Happenings are DeadLong Live Happenings" Art/Drum, pp. 36·39.
16. Gabo, Naum (19S7) Gabo: Constructions, Sculptures. Paintings, Drawings, EngraVings (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press) p. 153.