<strong>Conceptual</strong> <strong>Art</strong> <strong>1962</strong>- <strong>1969</strong> 137Haacke after 1966. In fact an institutional critique became <strong>the</strong> central focus <strong>of</strong> allthree artists' assaults on <strong>the</strong> false neutrality <strong>of</strong> vision that provides <strong>the</strong> underlyingrationale for those institutions.In 1965, Buren-like his American peers-<strong>to</strong>ok <strong>of</strong>f from a critical investigation<strong>of</strong> Minimalism. His early understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> Flavin, Ryman,and Stella rapidly enabled him <strong>to</strong> develop positions from within a strictlypainterly analysis that soon led <strong>to</strong> a reversal <strong>of</strong> painterly/sculptural concepts <strong>of</strong>visuality al<strong>to</strong>ge<strong>the</strong>r. Buren was engaged on <strong>the</strong> one hand with a critical review <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> legacy <strong>of</strong> advanced modernist (and postwar American) painting and on <strong>the</strong>o<strong>the</strong>r in an analysis <strong>of</strong> Duchamp's legacy, which he viewed critically as <strong>the</strong> utterlyunacceptable negation <strong>of</strong> painting. This particular version <strong>of</strong> reading Duchampand <strong>the</strong> readymade as acts <strong>of</strong> petit-bourgeois anarchist radicality-while notnecessarily complete and accurate-allowed Buren <strong>to</strong> construct a successfulcritique <strong>of</strong> both: modernist painting and Duchamp's readymade as its radicalhis<strong>to</strong>rical O<strong>the</strong>r. In his writings and his interventions from 1967 onwards,through his critique <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> specular order <strong>of</strong> painting and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> institutionalDaniel Buren. Installation at <strong>the</strong>Guggenheim International Exhibition.1971.
Buren, Mosset, Parmentier, Toroni.Manijestation Number Four, September1967, F$h Biennale de Paris, Mushd'art moderne de la Ville de Paris...,,..,"roro., yym -.l.,,,.l, 'I.,- I.11.) ' ' 'I"-a.. . . ...I..- .....-- - *....framework determining it, Buren singularly succeeded in displacing both <strong>the</strong>paradigms <strong>of</strong> painting and that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> readymade (even twenty years later thiscritique makes <strong>the</strong> naive continuation <strong>of</strong> object production in <strong>the</strong> Duchampianvein <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> readymade model appear utterly irrelevant).<strong>From</strong> <strong>the</strong> perspective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> present, it seems easier <strong>to</strong> see that Buren'sassault on Duchamp, especially in his crucial <strong>1969</strong> essay Limites Critiques, wasprimarily directed at <strong>the</strong> conventions <strong>of</strong> Duchamp reception operative and predominantthroughout <strong>the</strong> late 1950s and early '60s, ra<strong>the</strong>r than at <strong>the</strong> actualimplications <strong>of</strong> Duchamp's model itself. Buren's central <strong>the</strong>sis was that <strong>the</strong> fallacy<strong>of</strong> Duchamp's readymade was <strong>to</strong> obscure <strong>the</strong> very institutional and discursiveframing conditions that allowed <strong>the</strong> readymade <strong>to</strong> generate its shifts in <strong>the</strong>assignment <strong>of</strong> meaning and <strong>the</strong> experience <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> object in <strong>the</strong> first place. Yet,one could just as well argue, as Marcel Broodthaers would in fact suggest in hiscatalogue <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> exhibition The Eagle from <strong>the</strong> Oligocene <strong>to</strong> Today in Diisseldorf in1972, that <strong>the</strong> contextual definition and syntagmatic construction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong>art had obviously been initiated by Duchamp's readymade model first <strong>of</strong> all.In his systeinatic analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> constituting elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discourse <strong>of</strong>painting, Buren came <strong>to</strong> investigate all <strong>the</strong> parameters <strong>of</strong> artistic production andreception (an analysis that, incidentally, was similar <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> one performed byLawrence Weiner in arriving at his own "matrix" formula). Departing fromMinimalism's (especially Ryman's and Flavin's) literalist dismemberment <strong>of</strong> painting,Buren at first transformed <strong>the</strong> pic<strong>to</strong>rial in<strong>to</strong> yet ano<strong>the</strong>r model <strong>of</strong> opacityand objecthood. (This was accomplished by physically weaving figure and