Conceptual Art: A Critical Anthology - uncopy

196
In the context of visual art what could the term “de-materialization”mean? I find that it
contains an essential contradiction which renders it useless as an idea. The inherent weakness
is revealed when the derivation of the term is examined. Tracing the origin of the idea leads
one back to the basic confusion in the notion of “abstraction.”All “abstract art”is premised
on the belief in a first-level reality composed of constituent and separate qualities. In order to
arrive at a truer “reality,”the abstract artist must take apart this composite structure. The act
of disjointure was to result in an intensification of the abstracted quality (color, shape, texture,
etc.). This then became the material for further manipulation. The entire substructure of this
concept is flawed. It simply is not possible to break things down into classifiable components,
at least not without destroying the essential unity that is their existence. The blue of my typewriter
is inseparable from its smooth surface. The blue-smooth surface was not created by
combining a blue with a “smooth.”Abstraction is an analytical method and not a reversible
equation. One further step along this same line of reasoning yields “de-materialization.”If all
qualities are taken away, you have de(no)-materialization (components). But given the evidence
that abstraction itself is without credible grounds, can one derive from it a second level . . . a
completely non-ontological art? My disagreement with de-materialization goes beyond a
squabble with terms. There is no art which does not bear some burden of physicality. To deny
it is to descend to irony. Words set up circumstances for understanding, and this particular one
only perpetuates old confusions. It is misleading to the intentions of artists finding different
ways for art to come into being...andboth how and how long it stays there.
This text was published in Artforum, 8:9 (May 1970), pp. 70–73.