Mail Art Periodicals - MoMA

No 17 (April 1986). Photocopy and Mixed Media. 8 1/2"x7". (32
pages). "The editorial policy is this: photoSTATIC will accept for publication any
artwork or writing which is xerographically produced and reproducible, and
especially those artworks/writings which are xerographic in nature, that is, use
the peculiarities of the process as an integral part of the form and/or content of
the work...'photoSTATIC's first issue came out in August 1983, and the fact that
it is still going is due in large part to fact that here are people (such as, perhaps,
yourself) who are willing to support the project by either taking out subscriptions
or sending in the work, or both. The first 40 copies of this issue have an original
stampwork by Jacqueline de Parjure affixed here." Contributions by Dazar
(USA), the editor, et al. "Mail Review."
No. 18 (May 1986). Photocopy. 8 1/2"x7". (pages 516-546).
Contributions by Dazar (USA), Gerard Barbot (USA), Sue Fishbein (USA), Minoy
(USA), Serse Luigetti (USA), Jürgen Oblbrich (West Germany), Jorge Caraballo
(USA), the editor, et al. "Mail Review: photoSTATIC's editor review recent mail."
No. 19 (July 1986). Photocopy. 8 1/2"x7". (pages 548-574). "This
issue of PhotoSTATIC has a specific referent in mind, and this is Walter
Benjamin's 1935 article 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.'
although the article deals most specifically with motion pictures, it seems
apparent that it could easily be extended to deal with (the title implies this)
machine-based arts generally, such as xerography, photography, video, and
computer-related imaging systems." The text of "The Work of Art in the Age of
Mechanical Reproduction and the Ontology of the Xerographic Image," by the
editor, runs throughout the periodical. "Mail Review."
No. 19 1/2 (August 1986). Photocopy. 8 1/2"x7". (pages 576-602).
"This issue, entitled '1913', is intended to reflect upon the heritage of
experimentation that has been acquired by the postmodern artist, as symbolized
by the Armory Show, which was held in new York in that year. An interesting
paradox is the Tradition of the New that weighs upon all of us when we do our
work. To a certain extent, this would indicate that our sense of the New is
illusory. Perhaps Duchamp was correct in proclaiming the death f art and
refusing to do it anymore. And perhaps not." contributions by Musicmaster
(USA), Richard Bruno (France), Serse Liugetti (Italy), Luc Fierens (Belgium),
Crag Hill (USA), Ruggero Maggi (Italy), Fernand Barbot (USA), Hazel Jones
(England), Arturo G. Fallico (USA), Joel Lipman (USA), John Pyros (USA),
Patrick T. (USA), et al. "Mail Review." Supplement #19 1/2a inserted for
additional contributions by Art Nahpro (England), Thomas Hibbard (USA), and
Bern Porter (USA).
No. 19-1 (July 1986). Photocopy. 8 1/2"x7". (16 pages). "originally
appeared in pS#14 'The Persistence of Vision' October 1985. This revised
version from July 1986." Contribution by Warren Ong (USA).