Serial Drawing

Space, Time and the Art Object

Joe Graham

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Visual Arts
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781350166660
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Kunst
• Subtopic: Kunst Allgemein

Serial Drawing offers a timely and rigorous exploration of a relatively little-researched art form. Serial drawings – artworks that are presented as singular works but are made up of distributed parts – are studied in fresh, contemporary terms with a novel philosophical approach, emphasizing both the way in which this unique form of visual art exists in the world, and how it is encountered by the beholder. Inspired by the quadruple framework of Graham Harman's object-oriented ontology, Joe Graham explores a variety of serial drawings according to the idea that, in being serially arrayed, such artworks constitute a rather particular form of art object: one which is both unified yet pluralised, visible yet withdrawn. Examining works by artists such as Alexei Jawlensky, Ellsworth Kelly, Hanne Darboven, Jill Baroff and Stefana McClure, Graham interrogates the manner in which serial drawings are able to be appreciated by the viewer who beholds them in object-oriented terms. This task is carried out by paying attention to the manner in which three tensions – space, time and seriality –emerge for consideration within the beholders performative encounter with the work: an encounter which is 'seen serially', and which the medium of drawing specifically directs their attention towards.

1

A history of definitions

Mel Bochner

Mel Bochner’s The Serial Attitude provides perhaps the clearest expression of Bochner’s understanding of seriality, itself one of the most defining contributions to the subject within the context of visual art. While Bochner’s article does not explicitly describe itself as a definition of either seriality or serial art, it remains the site where Bochner decisively lays out the terms of his argument for defining how seriality ought to be understood within this context, whilst also providing a useful set of historical examples that illuminate how this understanding can be applied.

First published in Artforum in 1967, the remit of the piece is geared towards articulating what the title alludes to. As far as Bochner is concerned, the concept of seriality is fundamentally concerned with describing an attitude rather than a style – one which is concerned with articulating how order of a specific type is made manifest.¹ In making the strident claim that ‘serial order is a method, not a style’,² Bochner sets about distinguishing the kind of work which he considers to be examples of (strictly) serial art, over and above a superficially similar kind of work, namely that which is merely produced in series. As Bochner says, ‘many artists work “in series” … that is, they make different versions of a basic theme’.³ This kind of work is not what Bochner means by seriality, in the context of visual art or otherwise. Differentiation between the two groups is key to Bochner’s understanding of seriality, although it must be added that, in cancelling out the kind of work which is made ‘in series’, Bochner’s position differs quite radically from the majority of other theorists referred to here. In considering this difference, we are redirected towards the question of what Bochner does mean by seriality – if you take away the kind of work which is loosely described as being made ‘in series’, exactly what kind of serial artwork are you left with? This is where Bochner’s description of the serial attitude makes sense. Described in such terms, serial art for Bochner means work produced according to a strict and preordained serial methodology: one where ideas about structure, order, permutation and progression all take centre stage over concerns with either the material execution of the work or the question of what is pictured.

Bochner’s descriptions of the various serial methodologies used to develop serially produced artworks are all united by the fact that they produce fundamentally unified constructs. Considered as discrete entities, the works which Bochner takes to be paradigmatic examples of serial artworks are centred around being indivisible unities: they are singular works composed of parts, units or other elements. Most importantly from a methodological point of view, such works are considered to be fundamentally parsimonious and self-exhausting. Artworks that do not fit this bill are thus not considered by Bochner to be examples of serial art, nor are they considered to be representative of the serial attitude, at least as he understands it. Indeed, it is the fundamentally self-exhausting characteristic which distinguishes Bochner’s understanding of seriality from other, superficially similar definitions. Taken as such, this conception of seriality also discounts the kind of series which is composed of multiple variants of the same work – itself another understanding of seriality that commentators such as Coplans and Dyer are happy to include. To help explore these distinctions, Bochner provides the following three points for clarifying the specific type of separation that divides serially ordered works from those composed of multiple variants:

1. The derivation of the terms or interior divisions of the work is by means of a numerical or otherwise systematically predetermined process (permutation, progression, rotation, reversal).

2. The order takes precedence over the execution.

3. The completed work is fundamentally parsimonious and systematically self-exhausting.⁴

As an example of the kind of work which is being referring to, Bochner refers the reader to the example of Edward Muybridge’s photographs. These renowned early black and white images serialize time by using photography to capture various events involving the actions of individuals or animals. Muybridge’s photographic series presents us with sequences of static images that capture the sense of duration associated with various kinds of physical events: the act of a dog running, or groups of men performing gymnastic manoeuvres. In one of the most famous scenes, a sequence of black and white images shows a horse as it is galloping, photographed by Muybridge in order to settle a wager over whether or not all four hooves of the horse are ever simultaneously lifted off the ground while it is galloping (they are). As Bochner observes, Muybridge’s work is held to be paradigmatically serial on the basis each sequence subtracts ‘duration from event’,⁵ and hence serializes time. Here is the temporal aspect to seriality laid bare. Muybridge produced many of his better known serial photographs by utilizing the camera designed in 1890 by Dr Etienne Jules Marey. Marey was a French physiologist, who was himself influenced by Muybridge’s early work. The camera device was based upon a rotational mechanism similar to that found in Gatling’s machine gun, meaning it could take pictures in excess of 100 frames a second. Using such devices Muybridge could simultaneously photograph the same event from 180°, 90° and 45°, and then print the three sets of photographs horizontally. This process sets up what Bochner refers to as ‘alternative reading logics within a visually discontinuous sequence’, thus fragmenting the sense of perception which is normally associated with the observation of such events.⁶

In defining seriality as an attitude, Bochner makes the point that we ought not to confuse serial ideas with modular ideas. Although both are types of order, modular works are considered by Bochner to be simple repetitions of a basic or standardized unit, and hence are not considered to be sufficiently various to be associated with seriality proper. Bochner cites Carl Andre’s bricks and Warhol’s soup cans as paradigmatic examples of this kind of simple unit repetition, both of which produce the detrimental effect of not altering the basic form sufficiently enough – as Bochner states, ‘while the addition of identical units may modify simple gestalt viewing, this is a relatively uncomplex order form’.⁷ Indeed, the lack of complexity which Bochner attributes to modularity means such kinds of work do not produce the minimum conditions to meet the conceptual threshold for seriality which is being espoused. The same is not the case for the topic of serial logics, however. As Bochner says, ‘Logics which precede the work may be absurdly simple and available.’⁸ Bochner cites Jasper John’s number and alphabet paintings as a paradigmatic example of this kind of serial understanding. Both types of works are underpinned by types of logic that define the ordering of the numbers/letters which compose them. These conventions are in turn based on the prime sets of either the letters A–Z, or the numbers 0–9. While such conventions just ‘happened to be serial’, there is nevertheless a fundamentally parsimonious and self-exhausting element to John’s works that render them serial on Bochner’s account.⁹

Bochner also gives us Duchamp’s Nude Descending a Staircase of 1912 as an early example of seriality, based on the way in which Duchamp’s technique pictures the idea of simultaneity. Although this painting is physical singular in form, Duchamp’s division of the canvas into discrete time intervals provides for a serial understanding of the figure, wherein a sequence of movements of the figure are superimposed atop one another. Although not self-exhausting in the way that John’s work is, Bochner considers this work to be attitudinally concerned with seriality on the basis of how it seeks to serialize time. In this respect it is interesting to see Bochner refer to the fact that Duchamp was reportedly influenced by the photographic investigations of Marey, and the serialization of time enabled by Marey’s rotational camera. We also find in The Serial Attitude a brief, but all-important reference to music, beginning with a short quote belonging to the composer Arnold Schoenberg. Neither the serial technique of Schoenberg, nor the importance of twelve-note serial composition goes unnoticed by Bochner. On the contrary, the blend of creative and methodical thought which Reginald Smith Brindle notes as being key to the development of serial music is arguably echoed across the arts in general.¹⁰

Although Bochner does not state the compositional importance of the relationship between imagination and method with the same degree of emphasis that Brindle does, Bochner’s concern with serial methodologies works along roughly similar lines. Brindle’s Serial Composition (1966) constitutes a rather dense set text of musical theory rather than anything art related. It was published around the same time as Bochner’s initial investigations into seriality, when forays into the realm of seriality were very much all the rage. That being said, Bochner himself does not pick up on the Brindle link, perhaps in part because Brindle’s Serial Composition is designed first and foremost as being a pedagogical textbook for music students, with complex exercises designed for those with the requisite degree of knowledge. As Brindle states in regard to serial composition, ‘In serial music, the method itself is a powerful stimulus to the imagination, through the very fact that the creative mind can set to work without delay on already-prepared note-successions.’¹¹ While Brindle is considering this relationship in terms of the act of producing musical scores, where the importance of having a serial anchor to hold on to, as it were, enables the imagination to roam more freely over the compositional possibilities this creates, Bochner is more concerned with gauging the composers’ possibilities regarding the numerical permutations of sounds. This is evidenced in the attention which Bochner briefly gives to identifying the number of numerical permutations possible in American composer Milton Babbitt’s Three Compositions for Piano. However, music is not the focus of Bochner’s attention, and the section is merely given as a precursor for listing a number of key terms which underpin Bochner’s understanding of seriality in relation to visual art, coupled with offering the reader a brief definition of each. Some of the definitions are described by Bochner as being ‘standard’, while others are ‘derived from the above investigations, (while) the rest are tailored to specific problems of the work itself’.¹² We find these terms listed in strictly alphabetical order, with no apparent preference given by Bochner to any single one – instead, they are presented as a group, indicating that which is required for the discussion of serial art to be conducted in the manner which Bochner deems it ought:

Abstract system

Binary

Definite transition

Grammar

Isomorphism

Orthogonal

Permutation

Probability

Progression

Rotation

Reversal

Set

Sequence

Series

Simultaneity

From this list we can select a few terms of interest, to see how the definitions which Bochner allots them might be applied in the context of the current discussion. Appended to the term Grammar, for example, we find the following note: ‘that aspect of the system that governs the permitted combinations of elements belonging to that system’.¹³ We can infer from this description that something like serial drawing could be interpreted in grammatical terms, provided of course that our interpretation posited the materiality of drawing as the ‘aspect of the system’ under discussion, rather than merely a particular instance of drawing. Permutation is also an interesting term to see appearing in this context, defined by Bochner as representing ‘any of the total number of changes in order which are possible within a set of elements’.¹⁴ Unlike Dyer’s focus upon the idea of serial iteration in order to define seriality, Bochner’s permutation does not in itself suggest any form of ongoing (iterative) change: it refers instead to the number of modifications which any current configuration makes possible, which is not quite the same thing. Had Bochner seen fit to try and employ the idea of serial permutation however, the situation could have looked rather different. Progression, on the other hand, is definitely defined in relation to the ongoing change associated with seriality (but not in iterative terms), although the movement associated with it is implied, rather than explicitly described. Progression for Bochner means, ‘a discrete series that has a first but not necessarily a last element in which every intermediate element is related by a uniform law to the others’.¹⁵ Finally there is Series. As with several other commentators who have elected to reflect upon the topic of serial art, Bochner finds a way to provide his own spin on this overarching concept, interpreting it according to his own requirements whilst maintaining a basic integrity with the core understanding shared by all. Accordingly, for Bochner series is defined as meaning:

A set of sequentially ordered elements, each related to the preceding in specifiable way by the logical conditions of a finite progression, i.e., there is a first and last member, every member except the first has a single immediate predecessor from which it is derived and every member except the last a single immediate successor.¹⁶

This definition of series as requiring a first and last member is by no means universally shared – as we shall see, Coplans presents us with a rather different interpretation, one inspired by the precise mathematics of Dedekind-Cantor’s theory of serial order. Nevertheless, with the above list of terms in place, Bochner then proceeds to use them to identify further examples of seriality in the visual arts, taken from across the spectrum of painting, sculpture and performance. We find here a mention of Alan Kaprow’s 18 Happenings in 6 Parts, which Bochner describes as an ‘odd “free” utilization of series’.¹⁷ To produce this work Kaprow picked a selection of seemingly disjointed elements: ‘seven smiles, three crumpled papers and nineteen lunch box sounds’, according to Bochner. However, although this choice of elements might appear odd, what stands out the most for Bochner is the element of freedom itself, indicated by the way in which Bochner places the term ‘free’ into quotation marks. We can infer from this decision that this work does not perhaps operate according to the particular definition of seriality which Bochner has subscribed to, wherein the concept of freedom is, like all the other elements, made manifest only in an orderly and proscribed fashion.

Although Bochner provides us with a few more examples of serial artworks in this piece, such as Larry Poons’s early paintings, Donald Judd’s galvanized iron pieces and Sol LeWitt’s floor pieces, there is another, similar article which Bochner wrote at around the same time, but which provides us with a more in-depth account of how this understanding of seriality can be applied. Published in Arts Magazine in the summer of 1967 when public interest in both minimalism and seriality was still at its peak, Bochner’s examines the sculptural work of three key artists, Carl Andre, Dan Flavin and Sol LeWitt, from a serial perspective. Interesting from our object-oriented approach is the way in which Bochner begins this article by focusing on the thingly nature of art objects, and by questioning the manner in which our knowledge about such objects is gained via their appearance to us as viewers.¹⁸ The close interest that Bochner takes in Husserlian phenomenology is strongly in evidence here, where Bochner speaks of a desire to ‘bracket-out all questions which, due to the nature of language, are undiscussable’ in order to focus on the manner in which (art) objects appear to us.¹⁹ This phenomenologically informed preamble provides Bochner with an opportunity to sensibly frame his altogether descriptive mode of critique. Indeed, Bochner’s choice in this regard stands somewhat to one side of the prevailing approaches to art criticism at that time, given it places a decided emphasis on describing the perceptible and material individuality of the artwork in thingly terms – a philosophically informed approach in keeping with Husserl’s appe...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle Page
• Title Page
• Contents 
• List of Figures
• Introduction
• 1 A history of definitions
• 2 An object-oriented approach
• 3 Serial drawing
• Conclusion: Seeing serially
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index
• Imprint