University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Contingent practice: contemporary methods in art process dependent on architecture of the exhibition space

(USC Thesis Other)

Contingent practice: contemporary methods in art process dependent on architecture of the exhibition space

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Contingent Practice:
Contemporary Methods in Art Process
Dependent on Architecture of the Exhibition Space

Seymour Polatin

________________________________________

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSKI SCHOOL OF ART AND DESIGN
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ART AND CURATORIAL PRACTICES IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Seymour Polatin

1
Table of Contents

Contingent Practice 2

Appendix with Figures 39

Bibliography 60

2
Contingent Practice

The ideal gallery subtracts from the artwork all cues that interfere with the fact that it is
"art." The work is isolated from everything that would detract from its own evaluation of
itself. This gives the space a presence possessed by other spaces where conventions are
preserved through the repetition of a closed system of values.
1
—Brian O’Doherty

Alienation is a key factor to Modernism in art.
2
This sentiment has led to the creation and
the proliferation of the white cube model of exhibition, essentially making it the standard form of
exhibition beginning in the 1930s and continuing to the present because of a false sense of
neutrality in its form. Brian O’Doherty, an early critic of the white cube model describes its
features in Inside the White Cube: Notes on the Gallery Space in his three-part Artforum essay:
“The outside world must not come in, so windows are usually sealed off. Walls are painted
white. The ceiling becomes the source of light. The wooden floor is polished so that you click
along clinically, or carpeted so that you pad soundlessly, resting the feet while the eyes have at
the wall. The art is free, as the saying used to go, ‘to take on its own life.’”
3
The modern art
object is said to call attention to art and this self-reflective method is the rationale for the
standardization of the white cube exhibition space. As artistic practice developed through the
20th century and into the 21st century, the subject of art deviated from the predominate ideas that
art should reference its own making. In many ways, the white cube exhibition model determines
the status of art through the supposed evacuation of specific context to the point where placing
works, objects, or events inside the white cube deems its reception as art. This created a limited
view of the potential context and exhibition of artworks.

1
Brian O'Doherty, Inside the White Cube. The Ideology of the Gallery Space (Santa Monica: Lapis Press, 1986) 14.
2
Renato Poggioli, The Theory of the Avant-Garde (Cambridge, Mass. : Belknap Press, 1997), 127.
3
O'Doherty, Inside, 7.

3
The white cube exhibition model creates a one-sided relationship to the architecture in
which it is applied. By placing works inside the white cube, the artwork is validated in its public
reception as art —in effect, the white cube is a tautological space. Key to this process is that the
white cube removes the essential features of its architectural form. Within this white cube
exhibition model, it is no longer acknowledged as architecture, but as a sort of non-place that
relies on artwork for validation as a place. There is a history of artists who leave––or never
enter–– the white cube exhibition model, but in the art world, it has become so ubiquitous that to
work outside of its structure is an intentional decision and an oppositional position. In this
history, artists, in a broad sense, choose to make site-specific works or interact with the outside
environment with the intention that the viewer will gain more from experiencing the entire effect
that the artist has constructed. In this method, artists are able to tightly control the viewing
experience and incorporate specific elements of the environment into the artwork itself.
In order for an artwork to be experienced by a viewer, it needs to be exhibited in some
capacity. This is a widely known fact, but is important to consider when analyzing the impact of
an artwork. There are limited ways of engaging with the traditional elements of the white cube
exhibition space. These primarily consist of presenting works on a wall, pedestal, or on the floor.
The benefit of this model is the ability for works to have the same impact in many different
settings because each of these galleries would have a similar layout and available wall space. The
works that fit this method of exhibition are generally known and thought of as autonomous art
objects.
Beyond these opposing methods of working, there is another historically developed
process influential in the way some contemporary artists conceive of and produce work. This
process incorporates elements of the white cube / autonomous object exhibition model along

4
with tendencies associated with site-specific artwork, but ultimately do not comfortably fit into
either category. These are artworks that are presented within a white cube exhibition model, but
incorporate specific architectural elements into the conception of the work. Unlike site-specific
work, these works are not specific to the individual space in which it is shown. Rather they are
contingent with the architecture of the exhibition space and are produced to be adaptable to each
space’s unique architecture. In this thesis I will refer to this these works as Contingent Practice.
For the majority of the history of this process of working, the most prominent
predecessors have been widely categorized as fitting within the boundaries of Institutional
Critique. The intended result was to comment on the function of the art world system, including
the ideological limits of display techniques such as the white cube, in which the artwork exists.
4

In the history of artists working in Institutional Critique, I believe that this was one of the
intended results, but I also believe that there is a broader effect of this method of working that
has a far reaching impact on the way in which artists conceive of and produce artworks. In this
thesis, I will argue that artists working in Contingent Practice allow the exhibition space to exist
as architecture by making works intentionally adaptable to the specific architecture of each
exhibition context. In addition, I will argue that contemporary artists working in Contingent
Practice are making works that are not directly intended to comment on art world systems in
which the artwork is existing within; rather, these artists are making works that address topics
outside art world systems and incorporate Institutional Critique as an effect rather than a cause.
A compelling place to begin exploring the lineage of Contingent Practice is with the work
of Daniel Buren, who has spent the majority of his practice analyzing the relationship between
artworks and their exhibition locations. Consistently referring to this relationship in his own

4
Kirsi Peltomäki, “Affect and Spectatorial Agency: Viewing Institutional Critique in the 1970s,” Art Journal 66,
no. 4 (2007): 39.

5
practice “in situ,” for Buren, there is no separation between the reception of the artwork and the
site or location of exhibition. Most of Buren’s works employ a similar formal structure of
painting—the 8.7 centimeter wide vertical stripe—to explore the relationship between artwork,
architecture, and exhibition. For Buren, the recurring formal structure of the stripe subverts the
traditional role of directing attention in painting. Instead, he believes it creates a painting that is
produced to be viewed as the primary objective.
5
In making distinctions in the variety of ways
that Buren works with architecture, the stripes become a mediating factor of content that is
generally applied to his different approaches in somewhat similar ways. This means that
according to Buren, content is not a major factor in analyzing the artist’s various approaches.
One of the most prominent methods that Buren uses to explore the relationship between
artwork, architecture, and exhibition is through the use of site-specific artworks that are
inseparable from their site of exhibition. For his first exhibition in 1968 at Apollinaire Gallery in
Milan, he applied alternating green and white stripes to the gallery’s front door (fig. #1).
6
This
made the door unusable in a traditional sense, but it opened a new perspective by incorporating
the entrance way as the site where exhibitions begin and end, while exploring the physical space
of the doorway as the context for exhibition. In some ways, it can be difficult to distinguish the
particular method of site-specific object when discussing an artist who does not see a distinction
between artwork and architecture,
7
but this distinction of method in which Buren carries out his
work becomes crucial to the understanding of how Contingent Practice has developed.

5
Daniel Buren, “Beware!” (“Mise en garde!”), in Konzeption/Conception, translated by Charles Harrison and Peter
Townsend (Leverkusen: Stadtischer Museum, 1969)
6
Daniel Buren, Papiers collés blanc et vert, White and green pasted up papers, 1968, Work in situ in “Daniel
Buren,” October 1968, galleria Apollinaire. Solo exhibition. Alternating white and green vertical striped paper, each
stripe 8.7 cm wide, paste. Milan, Italy. For more information please visit “Catalogue raisonné 1967-1972,” Daniel
Buren, http://www.catalogueraisonne.danielburen.com/exhibits/view/29
7
Alexander Alberro and Nora M. Alter, “Staging the Political: Repetition, Difference, and Daniel Buren's ‘Cabanes
Éclatées,’” Grey Room, No. 40 (Summer 2010) 6-23

6
The site-specific object in Buren’s practice takes many different forms with different
implications. His 1968 exhibition at Apollinaire Gallery is a direct engagement with the viewer
and the architecture of the gallery. The implications from this piece, which denies access to the
traditionally used exhibition space, directly questions the space of the gallery. It is worth noting
that Buren is commonly contextualized as an artist associated with Institutional Critique, or art
that functions as a counterargument to generally accepted institutional practices. This 1968
exhibition directly engages with the institution of the gallery and the necessity of the front door
in its operation, but there is also another element: the architectural contingency of the work. In
this exhibition Buren complicated ideas of site-specificity and architecturally contingent works.
For his next exhibition in 1969 at Wide White Space in Antwerp, Buren takes a less
confrontational approach by inviting viewers into the gallery space with an alternating green and
white stripe work that begins on the outside of the gallery wall no higher than a couple feet from
the ground and continues on the door and into the exhibition space (fig. #2). Once again, Buren
engages in the discussion of the how viewers access artworks, the role of the gallery in
contextualizing works, and architectural interventions, though this exhibition is notably less site
specific, it still remains architecturally contingent. This assessment is both derived from the
height of the stripes, which do not appear to be directly related to the specific architecture of the
gallery, but also to the subsequent iterations of this exhibition occurring in the following years,
in the same gallery. From 1969 to 1975, this exhibition was reinstated four times, each time with
a different color alternating with white (fig. #3).
8

The importance of the subsequent iterations comes with the fact that the gallery space is
physically changing through this time, most notably the windows within the gallery are extracted

8
The dates of installations are January 17 - February 6, 1969; May 11 - June 5, 1971; June 2 to 15 1972; June 1973;
and April 1974. The final exhibition coincided with a change in the location of the gallery.

7
from the white wall that covered them by the 1974 exhibition. These windows are visible from
the outside of the gallery and Buren’s stripes sit below them. In the previous exhibitions these
windows had been masked by a white wall, in line with the white cube exhibition model which
promotes removing signs of the outside world from within the space. If Buren had not taken into
consideration the existence of the windows on the outside when working inside, this piece could
not be properly reformulated with the revealing of the windows in 1974. Although similar, each
of these iterations are all different works and exhibitions.
I would like to call attention to the similarities between this initial exhibition and the
subsequent iterations. Other than the alternating color changes and the alterations of the physical
traits of the gallery space, all other elements of the installation of these works are the same,
which gives an interesting insight into how Buren views the architectural contingency and the
site-specificity of how this exhibition exists in time and space. Buren considers all these different
exhibitions separate works—and indeed they are— but it is also important to consider the
implications that these exhibitions had on how viewers interact with a work with similar formal
qualities over time. It is also worth noting that in 2013 at Petzel Gallery, in an exhibition of
works in situ, Buren created a piece that closely resembles the Wide White Space exhibitions and
even references it in the title, Skirt, Work In Situ 2013 (Ref. Wide White Space Gallery,
Antwerpen January 1969) (1969/2013) (fig. #4).
9
It is possible that this re-creation of this
historic series of exhibitions is a commercial ploy to gain profit from historic works, but I would
argue that this reiteration of the work contributes to the architectural contingency of the original
intention of the piece, and in addition lends itself to a broader interpretation of site-specificity
when regarding the impact of the original exhibitions. The broader view of site-specificity and

9
Daniel Buren, ELECTRICITY PAPER VINYL... Works in Situ & Situated Works From 1968 to 2013 (Dedicated to
Michael Asher), January 10 – February 16, 2013, Petzel Gallery, New York, NY.

8
the architectural contingency of the piece has a major impact on works that would become
Contingent Practice.
Buren explained "every place radically imbues (formally, architecturally, sociologically,
politically) with its meaning the object (work/ creation) shown there, . . . the object presented and
its place of display must dialectically imply one another."
10
After he wrote this in 1975, Buren
began working on pieces that he calls cabane éclatées (exploding cabins or pavilions)–– self-
contained structures with doorways and windows, commonly accompanied with stripes, that are
situated in a gallery space. When invited to the Städtisches Museum in Mönchengladbach,
Germany that same year, Buren made a work to specifically fit a particular gallery, but not long
before the opening, the museum changed the location in which his work would be exhibited.
This posed a clear dilemma for an artist that does not see a clear distinction between the art
object and the space of exhibition. Rather than applying the original work to the new room,
Buren created a smaller scale model version of the original room in the second room that
included doorways and windows (fig. #5). In this way, he was able to keep the originally planned
work, but this also created a new circumstance. In working with both the appropriated
architecture in the model while constructing the work within it, Buren externalized the
relationship between artwork and architecture. This results in a further distancing between the
site-specific and the architecturally contingent object that was firmly established in the 1968
exhibition at Apollinaire Gallery, while maintaining a direct correlation to the artwork and the
space of exhibition. While each cabane éclatée is site-specific, there is also a sense of a
freestanding structure (i.e. autonomous art object) because of the indirect relationship of the

10
Daniel Buren, 'Notes on Work in Connection with the Place Where it is Installed, Taken between 1967–1975',
Studio International, 190 (1975), p.124.

9
work to the architecture. This ambiguity is the foundation of Contingent Practice and is a thread
that many artists who work in this way today, also employ in their larger practice.
One of the key reasons for defining this method is to develop a term that can be used
when analyzing when these qualities are found in works and to widen viewers’ ability to
interpret, analyze, and retain the complexities of the form. I do not intend to define Contingent
Practice as an umbrella term for artists’ entire practice, a generational movement, or an aesthetic.
As I will illustrate in the forthcoming discussion of contemporary artists, Contingent Practice
cannot be applied to the entirety of their methods of working. This fact strengthens my analysis
that these contemporary artists do not primarily intend to make works of Institutional Critique,
but have incorporated an aftereffect of the result of it and can make works that sit on both sides
of the autonomous object and site-specific spectrum.
A prime example of this Contingent Practice method is Chadwick Rantanen’s Telescopic
Pole series from 2011 to the present (fig. #6), which consist of adjustable telescopic poles with
walker balls (pre-drilled tennis balls meant for the bottom of walkers) on each end, installed from
floor to ceiling in the gallery space. The poles are aestheticized according to the colors and
patterns of the walker balls, which come in a wide variety of different options.
11
The most
immediate feature of these works is their architectural contingency, which is seamlessly
adaptable to most gallery’s dimensions due to the wide span of the poles’ possible dimensions.
The Telescopic Pole works intentionally interact directly with the architecture in each site in
which it is installed. This method of working incorporates dialogue about works and the spaces
in which they are installed within the same piece, but there is another element of the work that
sits in the foreground which consists of the choices behind working with walker balls. This

11
Jonathan Griffin, “Chadwick Rantanen,” Mousse Magazine no. 33, April-May 2012.

10
choice seems at one time overtly functional while also questionable. Walker balls, which are
only manufactured in the United States, function as a convenient measure rather than a technical
invention in healthcare consumer culture. The variety of colors and patterns allows the consumer
to be an individual in modifying their walker. In addition, the manufacturing of the walker balls,
which consists of drilling holes into tennis balls, began in small-scale production before being
co-opted by mass manufacturers.
The choice to correlate the content of the poles to the walker balls reinforces the presence
and importance of the walker balls to the work. In analyzing this work, there are many elements
to consider and the aspects of installation and the architectural contingency become one among
many concerns to investigate while viewing this piece. It would not make sense to call this a site-
specific work because if it were, it would immediately have to be followed up with mentioning
that it is site-specific every time it is installed. In addition, it would not make sense to call this an
autonomous object, because this piece does not exist without the support of the architecture that
exhibits it. It can only be categorized as Contingent Practice because of its inherent architectural
contingency within the white cube model.
I believe that this method of practice is both influenced by the history of Institutional
Critique while not fitting within those same dimensions. Rantanen’s practice is rooted in
exploring and analyzing elements of manufacturing and their impacts on labor, class, and design.
These avenues for investigation are distinct in the variety of works that Rantanen produces. In
some cases, the works fit within the parameters of Contingent Practice, but in some cases they do
not.
In contrast to historical works that have directly related adaptable architecturally
contingent artworks to the concerns of Institutional Critique, Rantanen has both been influenced

11
by this history and diverged from this process of making.
12
In this way, Contingent Practice does
not relate to the specific content or message of the artwork, but to a method of production that is
both dependent on and adaptable to the architecture of the exhibition space. In using this method,
a critique of traditional methods of exhibition is an inevitable result of Contingent Practice, but it
is important to distinguish this critique as a result because the causes for the artists who employ
this method span a variety of broader concerns outside of the exhibition space itself.
A fitting example of how Chadwick Rantanen uses both Contingent Practice alongside
other methods of working is his exhibition Concerned, Interested and Wanting to Help (2014)
shown at Standard (Oslo) in Oslo, Norway.
13
This exhibition featured three bodies of work by
Rantanen that each functioned with various levels of architectural contingency. One of the three
series of works, Fluorescent Fitting (2013) (fig. #7) is the only direct example of Contingent
Practice in the exhibition. This body of work consists of a series of adaptors that Rantanen
constructed to fit between the fluorescent light bulb and the socket––the works lower one side of
the bulb to form an angle with the other unaltered side that remains in the socket.
This is the first appearance of Fluorescent Fittings in Rantanen’s work and he would
continue to develop the design elements of this body of work, but in Concerned, Interested and
Wanting to Help, the design consisted of straight lined and S shaped Fluorescent Fittings using
clear tubes that exposed the wires they contained. These works are handcrafted by the artist, but
because of their functionality and appearance, seem as though they could have been
manufactured, or a combination of different electrical hardware.
This leads to an idea that Rantanen is interested in and works with which he has deemed
“late design,” when a product has been effectively designed, but companies insist on minor

12
Chadwick Rantanen, Interview with author, October 18, 2018.
13
Chadwick Rantanen Concerned, Interested and Wanting to Help, January 10, 2014 – February 15, 2014, Standard
(Oslo), Oslo, Norway

12
redesigns that end up leaving no product compatibility between different companies.
14
(See:
Late-Capitalism)
15
A good example of a product that exemplifies these qualities is plastic storage
containers, which have previously been effectively designed, but nonetheless are frequently
redesigned. Rantanen has used plastic storage containers in his work to explore these qualities
about them. Fluorescent Fittings exemplify Contingent Practice because they are contingent
upon being activated by the architecture of the space in which they are exhibited. There is
prerequisite for the exhibition space to have fluorescent lights, a common feature of
contemporary art galleries. This in turn naturally makes the Fluorescent Fittings a difficult work
to sell because in order to install it in a house, the collector would have to either have fluorescent
lighting, or install fluorescent lighting. This low-cost form of lighting is not commonly found in
domestic settings except in basements and garages where art is less commonly installed. Similar
to the Telescopic Pole series, Fluorescent Fittings incorporate elements of Institutional Critique
in the making process, but these works and the subsequent versions do not function primarily as
a critique of exhibition spaces. Instead, they in some ways glorify the architectural trope of the
contemporary art gallery, but more significantly they rely on the architecture of the space to
become artworks. Without the architecture–– and more specifically the fluorescent lighting of an
exhibition space––Fluorescent Fittings are not complete works, but fragments of work. Later
versions of Fluorescent Fittings adopted a common plastic shape with a hollow interior,
aesthetically similar to plastic toy design. These vary in color and the content that is applied to
them. This newer design has a much more significant amount of surface space compared to the
plastic tubes. The content, which often includes stylized depictions of animals or insects, is based
on imagery from toys that Rantanen observed in 99¢ stores and he often incorporates the

14
Ibid.
15
Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Durham: Duke University Press,
1991)

13
dimensions of the Fluorescent Fitting into the image itself, using the shape to justify the design.
This development of design both separates the Fluorescent Fittings from direct methods of
Institutional Critique, while reinforcing Rantanen’s analysis of economical manufacturing and
consuming practices.
The exploration of economical manufacturing processes is at the forefront of another
series in Concerned, Interested and Wanting to Help. These works incorporate ceramic mugs
that have a design printed on them, but due to the higher cost of production, replace the design
that would appear under the handle, on to the handle itself. These works are all untitled, but
parenthetically refer to the particular pattern on each mug, making the design the primary way of
distinguishing the works, for example Untitled (Zebra) (2013) (fig. #8). In this series of works,
Rantanen continues his exploration of manufacturing practices by seeking out these mugs
specifically for the solution that manufactures came to in order to keep production costs low and
sell a less expensive product. Similar to the found imagery of the later Fluorescent Fittings
series, these ceramic mugs were purchased at 99¢ stores. These connections highlight a broader
intention of Rantanen’s work that do not place Institutional Critique of the art world in the
forefront of interpreting his work.
Untitled series places these found ceramic mugs in groups of two or more into aluminum
clamps. In Concerned, Interested and Wanting to Help, these clamps were hung from window
guards in the exhibition space, though when they were documented, placed on the ground. While
not a signifier of Contingent Practice, this openness to location of exhibition, in a broad sense,
calls attention to Rantanen’s understanding and attention to the relationship between artwork and
exhibition. What Untitled series does more prominently is highlight Rantanen’s focus on
economical manufacturing in direct relation to the Fluorescent Fittings series. This exhibition

14
shows that while Rantanen is making works that are contingent to the architecture of the
exhibition space, there is a broader socio-economic concern in effect when viewing the entire
exhibition.
An acute example of the history of architecturally contingent work used as Institutional
Critique is John Knight’s One Inch to a Foot (1971) (fig. #9). Knight, like Buren, draws a
codependent relationship to artwork and the architecture of exhibition. One Inch to a Foot
consists of an overhead projector placed about fifteen feet from a wall with the phrase that serves
as the title of the work printed in one-inch high letters on the plate. The result of the distance
from the projector to the wall is the same phrase “one inch to a foot” projected with the height of
the letters measuring one foot tall, thus realizing the intended imagination needed for the scale to
be successfully read. The architectural requirements for this piece to function are quite low,
consisting of an exhibition space that has a (white) wall and about fifteen feet of space in front in
order for the projection to function, which is easily achievable by most white cube gallery
standards. The installation of this work though, is directly contingent on the architecture of the
space and cannot be viewed without architecture to support it. Just in the way that Chadwick
Rantanen’s Telescopic Pole series and Fluorescent Fittings series are pieces of an architectural
system, the projector in One Inch to a Foot, while being the only tangible object in the work, is
only a fragment of the work.
The major difference between One Inch to a Foot and works that employ the method of
Contingent Practice is the causation of the work. One Inch to a Foot is a clear reference to scale
modeling, a commonly used technique in both architectural practice and exhibition-making. The
intended result can be seen as a contrast of the literal figures of architectural planning. A model
is used to imagine a realized construction. In this work, the projection functions as the realization

15
of the intention of the language displayed on the overhead projector and thus the wall. There is a
direct relationship to the title of the piece, the aesthetics it is comprised of, and its installation
creating a didactic cycle in viewing this piece. The concerns that Knight’s projection represents
is in the process of making an exhibition, the artwork’s implementation in exhibition, and the
intended result of a work. If there is poetry in this piece, it is in the simplicity and directness of
the message and content, though the concerns in making and implication of this work all lead to
a critique of artwork, exhibition, and institutional concerns, which is why this work is viewed as
Institutional Critique. This distinction of intention is crucial to viewing and defining Contingent
Practice
A work by contemporary artist Ghislaine Leung is a great example of a work that fits the
definition for Contingent Practice, while retaining some relationship to the strategies used by
Knight in One Inch to a Foot. This comparison serves to highlight the sometimes-subtle
indications of Contingent Practice. I have not included the title of this piece yet because this
work does not have a steady title, dimensions, or uniformed aesthetic. The title derives from two
measurements; the first being the minimum domestic ceiling height for country of exhibition,
which is marked with aluminum tape on the wall and the second the floor plan dimensions from
a playhouse that is purchased in the country of exhibition, which is included in the work. Some
examples of titles for this work have been 155 : 230 / 135 (2018) and 58 : 96 / 49 (2018) (fig.
10) and although different titles typically indicate different works, I would protest to say that
Leung, who is also a writer, is taking into account the didactic information as an opportunity to
include the visually referenced written dimensions into the piece itself. At a glance, this has

16
many indicators as a work of Institutional Critique, but upon further scrutiny, the concerns are
not directed at the art institution.
16

The connection between the minimum domestic ceiling height of the country of
exhibition and a playhouse from the country of exhibition connects the world that children
inhabit, a formally constructed fantasy, with the world that adults inhabit, a seemingly serious
society. When reading the title and viewing the work, the viewer sees a portrait through a
specific scope of the building laws and toy manufacturing design of the country of exhibition.
This choice of materials for the work brings the interest outside of the exhibition space to these
two examples of national identity. In this way, the work is not only architecturally contingent
because the aluminum tape is hung at the minimum domestic ceiling height of the country it is
in, but societally contingent because of the laws that are generally created and accepted by the
exhibiting country. The playhouse abstracts these specific measurements by incorporating the
aspect of national identity and culture. Societies place their values onto children to reinforce
them and ensure their continuity, for example gendering of the colors blue and pink. In this
reading of the playhouse, the societal value is owning a home and the aesthetics of the home
differ for the different countries in which this work is exhibited. These concerns are at the front
of viewing this piece and do not lead the viewer to directly critique the institutional space itself,
rather the society at large. This brings this work into the method of Contingent Practice.
Another work by Ghislaine Leung that fits within the parameters of Contingent Practice
is her work Shrooms (2016) (fig. #11), which consists of mushroom shaped nightlights with plug
adaptors occupying every open outlet in the exhibition space. This work deals with architectural
contingency in a completely different way than the previous examples mentioned. In this work,

16
This type of of titling was also used by Michael Asher in his 1969 San Francisco Art Institute exhibition 18'6" x
6'9" x 11'2 ½" x 47' x 11 3/16 " x 29' 8½" X 31 '9 3/16" in San Francisco, California. The title of the exhibition is the
dimensions of the exhibition space.

17
Leung utilizes the large role of electricity within architecture and the unplanned and unexpected
physical location of sources of electricity within the exhibition space. While the white cube
model of exhibition space is an attempt to be neutral in its perception of architecture, the
placement of outlets is typically different in each architectural construction. This leads to each
exhibition space having a unique layout in regard to the electrical outlets in which Leung
explicitly incorporates into this work.
In calling attention to the placement of the outlets within the architecture, Leung also
brings expression and fantasy into this work. Rather than the subject matter being directly about
electricity, this work directs the attention away from an Institutional Critique and opens up
interpretation to societal, cultural, and ecological concerns. The title, Shrooms is most likely a
reference to one type mushroom in particular, psilocybin mushrooms, notable for its psychedelic
properties when ingested. In addition, mushrooms have been used in fantasy stories, most
notably Alice's Adventures in Wonderland originally written by Lewis Carroll. These are just two
examples of cultural references outside the fine art world that could possibly come to mind when
considering the potential meanings of this work. Shrooms also has an interesting possible
implication which connects the representation of fungi, that get a majority of their nutrients from
eating dead plant and animal organisms, to a major source of electricity, burning coal; coal being
made up of dead plant and animal organisms. A reading of this work that privileged this
information would highlight its societal critique, as Leung draws attention to the unassuming
implications of the abundance of electricity that comprises everyday life within architecture
which is both represented and masked by the outlet. All of these possible implications draw away
from a direct form of art world Institutional Critique and to larger societal concerns which firmly
places this work within Contingent Practice.

18
In recognizing the properties of Contingent Practice, poetic and expressionistic values are
very important to this method of working. Incorporating these properties into the work is the
distinction between works that solely seek to analyze a system of engagement and works that can
produce emotional value and societal critique while resulting in an analysis of engagement. In
my analysis of these works I am deeming Contingent Practice, I am making a careful distinction
between Institutional Critique and Contingent Practice. Institutional Critique can take many
forms, but the examples that I am mentioning focus on the relationship between an artwork and
the place of exhibition. As previously noted, I believe that artists such as Buren and Knight have
a much wider view of their work that extends beyond a straightforward critique of art world
institutions. I also believe that these developments have been largely ignored in analysis of their
work in favor for the simplified term of Institutional Critique. This term provides an overly-
simplified designation of both concept and implication onto the artists that it categorizes. In
Contingent Practice, I find that the artists working in this method are not only interested in the
larger implications of Institutional Critique, but have embodied these ideas into their process of
working, similar to how they have embodied the methods of autonomous art object and site-
specific works in many cases. In this usage, Contingent Practice is not isolated, but an embodied
ideology being enacted which sits among other practicing methods as part of the process of
conception of these works. This description is meant to highlight the indications and implications
found in this method of working.
It is clear that artists working in Contingent Practice are both aware and influenced by
Institutional Critique artists based on their citation of them as influences, and their subsequent
works that build off ideas that are explored by these historical artists. A very potent example of
an artist that expresses a deep understanding of the function of the white cube exhibition model,

19
site-specificity, and Contingent Practice is Lena Henke. In many ways Henke’s practice
exemplifies the process in which art interacts with its space of exhibition while encompassing
expressionistic and poetic values that range from ideas of family, history, gender among others to
create a wide spanning perspective of works that cover the spectrum of autonomous art objects to
site-specific works.
In analyzing the work of Lena Henke, an appealing place to begin is her exhibition My
History of Flow at S.A.L.T.S. (2016) in Basel, Switzerland (fig. #12).
17
This exhibition
demonstrates how Henke considers all elements of exhibition in regard to the works, their
placement in space, and the exhibition space itself. Although this exhibition does not necessarily
incorporate elements of Contingent Practice, it is important to see how Henke’s concepts of
exhibition shape her practice that later include works of Contingent Practice. For My History of
Flow, Henke used every element of the exhibition space as her medium. S.A.L.T.S., which
overarchingly functions as a white cube exhibition space, is completely transformed where every
surface is altered aesthetically and conceptually by Henke. On the roof, is a full-sized water tank
based on the iconic water tanks of New York City. Inside the space, the walls and floor were
altered by Henke to slope and angle in a way which allows water sourced from a nearby river to
disperse from the water tank down the walls and form a stream out of the gallery’s doors outside.
This exhibition is meant to be viewed from both the outside and inside of this space,
incorporating and critiquing the white cube exhibition space into the concept of the exhibition
itself. In addition, there are conversations and histories of architecture, urban planning, and
methods of art exhibition. Within the space there are works that function more along the lines of
autonomous art objects which are ceramic lily pads that hang on the wall titled After Roberto

17
Lena Henke, My History of Flow, Curated by Anna Goetz, June 16 - August 28, 2016, S.A.L.T.S., Birsfelden,
Switzerland

20
Burle Marx (a reference to the Brazilian landscape architect), tree trunk slices and newspaper
bundle works scattered on the floor, and a pink ceramic model-sized sculpture of Pier Francesco
Orsini’s Leaning House (1552) from the Garden of Bomarzo in Italy titled Mulberry House after
Orsini. Paradoxically, this architectural sculpture work is the only work inside the space that is
straight and level.
18

My History of Flow actively considers the physical presence of being in architecture by
altering the viewer’s perception and realigning it with the irony of Mulberry House after Orsini.
This gesture in some ways resembles John Knight’s 1969 work Levels (fig. #13), which consists
of six commercial levels placed on the ground of the exhibition space, by asking the viewer to
analyze the architectural structure or levelness of the space surrounding them. This work does
not only address the site of exhibition, it is aesthetically shaped by it, using the same tools
needed to construct the architecture to critique it. This direct method of approach mirrors One
Inch to a Foot (1971) and is characteristic of Knight’s approach to addressing the relationship of
art to its site of exhibition. As with One Inch to a Foot (1971), in Levels (1969), poetic and
expressionistic value is secondary to the direct message of architectural engagement and
functions as Institutional Critique. It is worth noting that for Skulptur Projekte in 2017, Knight
manufactured a twelve-foot sized level to place on the side of the facade of LWL-Museum für
Kunst und Kultur in Münster, Germany titled A Work in situ (2017), likely a reference to the
vocabulary which Daniel Buren employs in his work. This case, along with Buren’s recreation
and re-exhibition of Skirt, Work In Situ 2013 (Ref. Wide White Space Gallery, Antwerpen
January 1969) (1969/2013) illustrates how these artists who are associated with Institutional
Critique are reconsidering how their historical works fit into different contemporary institutional

18
“SI: Visions | Lena Henke on Autocartography.” Swiss Institute / Contemporary Art New York. December 19,
2016. Video, 5:30. https://www.swissinstitute.net/press/si-visions-lena-henke-on-autocartography.

21
contexts. This development occurs concurrent with artists who employ Contingent Practice,
incorporating this methodology into their making process.
The interest and attention that Henke pays to the history of architecture, sculpture, and
urban planning is highlighted in her treatment of the architecture of the exhibition space. It is
clear that Henke does not simply accept the traditions of the white cube model of exhibition,
rather she sees her work as an active consideration of the exhibition space. This ideology is the
energy and motivation behind the method of Contingent Practice. Henke is interested in and
identifies with the architecture of the environment that surrounds her to the extent that she
constructed a bronze sculpture of model-sized places that have influenced her, which includes
the Manhattan skyline and Orsini’s Leaning House titled City Lights (Dead horse Bay) (2016),
which she considers a self-portrait.
19
This work was part of the solo exhibition Available Light at
Kunstverein Braunschweig, Germany in 2017.
20
Another work in that exhibition After Hang
Harder (2016) (fig. #14) is a prime example of Contingent Practice with a background that
highlights the development of this work.
After Hang Harder consists of large, circular black tarpaper and epoxy resin-covered
wooden disk panels leaning against and largely blocking the windows of the exhibition space on
wooden chairs. This work is architecturally contingent due to its reliance on the windows for
placement and support. In addition this work shapes the amount of natural light in the exhibition,
which is considered an element of architecture. This intention is seen referenced in the
exhibition’s title, Available Light. After Hang Harder is based on an earlier exhibition by Henke

19
Penny Rafferty, “Fantasy // Private as Public: An Interview with Lena Henk,” Berlin Art l
Link, last modified March 21, 2017, https://www.berlinartlink.com/2017/03/22/fantasy-private-as-public-an-
interview-with-lena-henke/.
20
Lena Henke, Available Light, December 2, 2016 – February 12, 2017, Kunstverein Braunschweig, Braunschweig,
Germany

22
from 2012, Hang Harder at Neuer Aachener Kunstverein in Aachen, Germany (fig. #15).
21
In
this exhibition there were clear similarities with works in the show consisting of rectangular
black tarpaper and epoxy resin-covered wooden panels leaning against a majority of the
exhibition space, this time on metal folding chairs. In addition, there are pieces with similarly
treated wooden panels that are placed in one corner directly on the floor and the wall, giving the
viewer the sense of a piece of a black box theater.
This progression of works is very interesting because of the clear similarities and the few
differences across Henke’s work. Of course, each installation responds to the differences in the
architecture of the corresponding exhibition space. The 2012 exhibition at Neuer Aachener
Kunstverein, which exemplifies the white cube model of exhibition, uses an ubiquitous metal
folding chair as a pedestal for the panels and seems to directly reference the white cube by
creating a visual black box in the corner. Kunstverein Braunschweig, where Available Light was
exhibited in 2016, is an early 1800s villa that was converted into an art exhibition space in 1946.
Although there are elements of the white cube model, there are many features intrinsic to the
architectural design that do not comply with the model. This creates a unique perspective to view
how Henke views the relationship between these architecturally contingent works exhibited in
different contexts. The wooden chairs that Henke uses to lean the disk panels fit closer to the
architectural elements of the exhibition space and the panels become circular. This implies a
sense of design choice that correlates the work to the architecture of the exhibition space.
It can be argued that these are different works, but the similarities in the materials and
titles lead me to believe that this is, in fact, one work of Contingent Practice that is aesthetically
shaped by the place of exhibition. To support this position, in 2018 Henke re-exhibited After
Hang Harder (2016) in the group show Citrus North at Easy!upstream in Munich, Germany (fig.

21
Lena Henke, Hang Harder, February 5 – April 22 2012, Neuer Aachener Kunstverein, Aachen, Germany

23
#16).
22
In this presentation, the title and year stayed the same as in Available Light, but the chairs
changed to a more highly designed chair, which fit the design of the floor to ceiling windows
which the wooden disk panels were leaning upon. These three exhibitions highlight the ability
for Contingent Practice to be able to interact with the architecture of the exhibition space in
interesting ways that highlight how the exhibition is shaped by the architecture that houses it. In
addition, Hang Harder and After Hang Harder are expressionistic in their form and concept and
alter these qualities based on the context of exhibition.
In Henke’s view of the exhibition space, the entire architecture becomes content to shape
how the viewer interacts with the exhibition. My History of Flow fully embodies this view, but
this concept is also visible in her works that function in a more site-specific manner. In Hang
Harder, Henke uses both elements of Contingent Practice as well as site-specific elements with
the treatment of the corner with the tarpaper covered panels. It is important to reiterate that artists
working with Contingent Practice do not do so exclusively, but it is one method among others
available to integrate the artist’s work into the exhibition space context. It is not surprising that
the artists that employ Contingent Practice do so along with both site-specific works and
autonomous objects. Contingent Practice is both fully engaged with the adapting architectural
elements of the exhibition space, while not primarily critiquing it. This is a recent development
in the artistic process, but is rooted in histories of artists exploring the exhibition space as a
primary focal point.
One of the most prominent examples of artists exploring the exhibition space as content
is Michael Asher. Inspired by Daniel Buren’s method of working in situ, Asher sought to expand
viewer’s engagement with exhibition spaces. In this exploration he would make mostly site-
specific work that directly engaged with and often altered the architecture of the exhibition

22
Citrus North, October 20 – November 16 2018, Easy!upstream, Munich, Germany

24
space. In his treatment of these exhibitions, Asher would lay the groundwork to view the
exhibition space itself as both content and concept.
23
Although it can be argued that Buren and
Knight historically made works that are closer to today’s Contingent Practice, Asher plays a
major role in how the exhibition space is thought of in contemporary art.
The way in which Asher was able to dramatically shift the viewer’s ability to view the
exhibition space as the content itself is through the revelation that exhibition spaces, including
white cube models, are social spaces that embody structures of knowledge. It is through
analyzing this structure that Asher is able to shift the viewer’s perception of the exhibition space.
For his contribution to Documenta 5 in 1972,
24
Asher constructed an architectural container
inside Museum Fridericianum Kassel in West Germany (fig. #17). The room was split down the
center with the entire left side of the installation painted black from the floor to ceiling, while the
right was painted white. Light was only let in from the ceiling of the white side. Viewers were
able to enter this space and were visually disoriented by this stark contrast of light. In this work,
Asher seems to be addressing the exhibition space viewing formats of white cubes and black
boxes and combining these models to expose the inherently disorienting nature of these spaces.
In this example, Asher is constructing architecture in order to comment on the ubiquity of
exhibition space formats. There is a certain similarity to the effect that Lena Henke created in
Hang Harder in the corner with the treatment of epoxy and tarpaper covered panels. This
element is not Contingent Practice, but a more site-specific element of this exhibition. There are
of course major differences as well, for example in Asher’s work, the entire space is constructed
and treated without any objects. A key factor in regard to the presence of Contingent Practice in
Henke’s exhibition is the use of epoxy and tarpaper as the primary medium in which to portray

23
Anne Rorimer, “Michael Asher: Context as Content,” InterReview, 2004. (Originally printed “Michael Asher:
Kontext als Inhalt,” Texte zur Kunst 1990.)
24
Documenta 5: Questioning Reality – Pictorial Worlds Today, June 30 – October 8, 1972, Kassel, Germany

25
these black areas of the exhibition space. This material choice can be viewed as both a method of
expression and as referencing the treatment of architecture inside the walls. Tarpaper is a
common material in weatherproofing architecture and is used in between the building materials
and the dry walls. It could be argued that Henke is referencing the inside of the walls like people
refer to their inner emotions. The use of chairs as a support for the leaning tarpaper covered
panels furthers this line of thought because chairs are designed for and most commonly occupied
by people. In this reading of the exhibition, the furniture, as a surrogate for people, are
supporting the architecture, thereby exposing the notion that architecture is designed to house
social interactions. Although the white cube is designed to negate this idea, it persists as a
primary system of engagement with architecture.
Asher’s work for Documenta 5, while insightful, lacks any emotional perspective in its
engagement. This was Asher’s intent, who was interested in ensuring that his work would not
have a style or recognizable authorship (think of Buren’s ubiquitous stripes). The intention is to
make an argument without the possible complications of emotion or personality entering the
work, which follows in the minimalist tradition of removing any overt signs of authorship. In this
line of thought, the viewer is able to see that it is their social engagement with the exhibition that
is, in fact, the work. Asher found that while Buren was working to analyze how artwork relates
to the exhibition space and the social function of the exhibition space, his stripes went from
being a “neutral” painting rationale, to a signature style. For Asher, this becomes an issue to
avoid when developing his own body of work. It is out of this thought process that he decides to
focus on the exhibition space itself as the sole content for work.

26
Two years after Documenta 5 in 1974, Asher constructed an exhibition at the Claire
Copley Gallery in Los Angeles (fig. #18).
25
The installation consisted of an empty gallery, with
Asher making an important intervention: the removal of the dividing wall that separated the
gallerist desk and artwork storage from the exhibition space. The result was that the operations of
the gallery were on full display. It was described as being an uncomfortable interaction because
some viewers were unsure if the exhibition was taking place, or if it was not.
26
In addition, the
gallerist, who is usually hidden behind the wall, is now on public view for the gallery viewers to
acknowledge, and perhaps confront the functions of a gallery. In regard to the result of this
exhibition, one of the major impacts is the confrontation of the white cube as an essentially
singular engagement. Prior to this exhibition, the white cube was able to live secondary to the
primary exhibition of artwork. Any contending with the white cube as a method of exhibition is
seen as a secondary concern to the primary function of displaying art objects. This exhibition,
rather than adding artwork to an exhibition space, removes the wall that hides the function of the
space. In this realized exhibition, the function of the gallery is the content and any other possible
cues are removed. In addition, the removal of the wall examines how the architecture of the
exhibition space is a function of the social engagement that takes place within it. The result
questions the spatiality of the white cube via the absence of the “traditional” objects of art
(sculptures, paintings, drawings, etc.).
Asher’s engagement with the architecture and the function of the white cube exhibition
model is crucial to developing a notion of Contingent Practice. His exhibition at Claire Copley
Gallery functions to highlight the gallery as a place in itself, while also challenging the gallery as
a kind of “non-place.” The term derives from the French Historian Michel de Certeau and is

25
Michael Asher, September 21-October 12, 1974, Claire Copley Gallery, Los Angeles, CA
26
Kirsi Peltomäki, Situation Aesthetics: The Work of Michael Asher (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010), 39.

27
written about in the French anthropologist Marc Auge’s book Non-Places.
27
Auge defines the
non-place by stipulating: “If a place can be defined as relational, historical and concerned with
identity, then a space which cannot be defined as relational, or historical, or concerned with
identity will be a nonplace”
28
This term was created in response to the effect that modern
technologies have on people’s sense of place. Through expedited travel, communication, and
information, modern technologies have negated traditional notions of place. “The hypothesis
advanced here is that super-modernity produces non-places, meaning spaces which are not
themselves anthropological places and which, unlike Baudelairean modernity, do not integrate
earlier places: instead these are listed, classified, promoted to the status of ‘places of memory’,
and assigned to a circumscribed and specific position.”
29

The concept of non-place is useful in considering the causes and effects of the white cube
exhibition model, because it is specifically designed to embody the definition of a non-place in
order to have a “neutral” approach to the artwork shown. The white cube is not intended to
reference past or future exhibitions, nor acknowledge a history of the architecture that houses it.
Architecture, which is defined by its ability to house social structures, can never achieve a
“neutral” form and is forced to contend with its surrounding environment. While the examples of
non-places vary based on individuals’ engagement with places, the white cube model widely fits
this description. If there is no art being exhibited in the white cube model, there is very little
reason to inhabit the space, nonetheless the architecture of the white cube model houses a social
function. In Asher’s Claire Copley Gallery exhibition, these points become the work, stripping

27
Peter Osborne, Anywhere Or Not at All: Philosophy of Contemporary Art (New York: Verso Books, 2013), 136.
28
Marc Augé, Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity (New York: Verso Books, 1995), 77-78.
29
Ibid.

28
away any other form of distraction from these methods of engagement. In this exhibition, the
viewer’s interaction with the gallery becomes the work.
30

Asher’s analysis of the white cube model is profound in its simplicity. The ideas
circulating in his Claire Copley Gallery exhibition express the function of the white cube model
at its most basic form; and does much to “interrupt” the logic that undergirds it. Unlike the works
by Buren and Knight that have been reused or recreated, this idea has not and likely will not be
recreated because of its form, historical impact, and site-specificity. In many ways, this
exhibition lives as an idea, as a method of thinking about the exhibition space as a culturally-
constructed and charged place. In addition, the traditional white cube format, often an urban
storefront with blocked off windows and a dividing wall to the office has been co-opted to the
point where any location can be adapted to a white cube model by painting the walls white and
emptying out the space. This interpretation of the white cube model carries the same effects as a
non-place and reinforces the original intentions of the white cube model. In some cases, the more
nontraditional the space that utilizes the white cube model, the more disturbing the detachment is
from its surroundings and architectural identity. For example, in present day Downtown Los
Angeles, there are many white cube model galleries that are utilizing industrial warehouse
spaces. The outside architecture blends in with its surroundings as an area of industrialization
and working-class socioeconomic status, while the inside architecture is constructed to adhere to
the white cube model, detached from its location, architecture, and time. This detachment that
exists between their outside environment and inside treatment creates a kind of void that the
work exhibited in these spaces exists in.

30
Peltomäki, Situation, 39.

29
Contingent Practice seeks to work against this carefully constructed detachment by
incorporating the architecture of the exhibition space directly into the work itself, and in
addition, not be limited by the pitfalls of site-specificity, which risks limiting the spatial
consideration to a particular place and time. Works that are made with Contingent Practice
acknowledge the global art environment and the prevalence of the many different forms that
exhibition spaces take and seek to be adaptable to be able to properly function in many different
architectural structures.
It is important to consider the social function of architecture when considering
Contingent Practice. As noted by Asher, within the white cube, there is a social interaction that it
houses. Asher exposes and constructs the social interaction that the viewer encounters in a white
cube exhibition space by deconstructing the architecture and isolating it. The social interactions
that take place within architecture cannot be separated from the architecture itself. This element
of the exhibition space is another dimension that is available to artists who work in Contingent
Practice.
Building on ideas of the viewer’s engagement with the architecture of the exhibition
space, Dora Budor creates work that expresses the social, emotional, and systematic structures of
the architecture of the exhibition space. Her work explores the social function of fiction within
society and its effects on the human body. She often incorporates special effects props that were
built and used in the making of Hollywood science fiction movies to highlight the emotional
effects that architecture has on the body. The incorporation of props that were originally intended
for the camera’s perspective changes the viewer’s relationship to these objects. Movies are
intended to transport the viewer out of their location, time, and identity, which is very similar to
the intentions surrounding the white cube exhibition space. The architecture of the movie theater

30
is also a kind of black box, which bears similarity to both the vocabulary and the reproducible
architectural nature of the white cube model. Budor works to translate the emotions produced
from the cinema to the architecture of the exhibition space, drawing attention to architecture’s
emotional effects in both of these mediums.
Budor creates site-specific works, autonomous objects, and artworks that might fit within
the Contingent Practice paradigm as I’m describing it. While the forms these works take are
contingent with the architecture of the exhibition space and adaptable to different spaces, it is
arguable that the social function Budor employs is the most prominent appearance of Contingent
Practice in her work. Her works are often activated by motion and sound sensors to incorporate
the viewer’s social interaction with the exhibition space into the work itself. If there are no
viewers in the exhibition space, then the works are not complete works, but fragments of the
architecture of the space, similar to Chadwick Rantanen’s Fluorescent Fittings, which without
their installation in fluorescent lights in the space, are not complete works.
An appropriate place to begin a discussion of Budor’s relation to the hallmarks of
Contingent Practice is with her immersive architectural installation, Adaptation of an Instrument
(2016) (fig. #19), created for the exhibition Dreamlands: Immersive Cinema and Art, 1905–2016
at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York, NY.
31
In this work, Budor created a rusty
steel rectangular architectural structure that viewers were able to enter and exit from doors on
either end. Inside the dark constructed space, the walls were covered with vein-like lighting
embedded in the wall that respond to the viewers with motion sensors, which were also used in
the ceiling with lighting triggered to reveal the silhouette of motionless frogs in the ceiling lights.
These frogs were props that were used in the 1999 movie Magnolia; featured in a climactic scene

31
Dreamlands: Immersive Cinema and Art, 1905–2016, October 28, 2016 – February 5, 2017, Whitney Museum of
American Art, New York, NY

31
wherein thousands of frogs fall from the sky—a kind of physicalized embodiment of the nervous
and anxious social relationships that occur throughout the film. Budor is interested in how the
frogs functioned in the plot of the movie as both an unexplained chaotic event to progress the
narrative as well as the afterlife of these objects when the movie is completed.
32
These objects
cannot be divorced from the narrative of the movie that they were created to appear in, and so
they potentially continue to have an emotional and narrative effect on the viewer beyond the
limits of the screen. By incorporating these props into the constructed architecture, Budor is able
to transfer the emotional value of these objects conceived of in the movie to the activated
installation, highlighting the social and emotional value of architecture.
This form of constructing architectural structures within the white cube exhibition space
has been utilized by both Daniel Buren with his Cabane éclatée and Michael Asher with his
work for Documenta 5, but the content dramatically shifts from these earlier examples in
Adaptation of an Instrument. In addition, this structural form in itself does not fit within the
confines of Contingent Practice, but it reveals Budor’s interest in emotion, architecture, and
exhibition space. Interestingly, Adaptation of an Instrument consists of a series of works in
which the other works do fit within the boundaries of Contingent Practice. These works, titled
Allargando, Estinto, Rinforzando, and Strepitoso (all 2017) (fig. #20) are modified ceiling light
fixtures that also house the special effect frog props from Magnolia and also include motion
sensors that flicker when activated by the viewer in the exhibition space. These works fit with
Contingent Practice due to their ability to be adaptable to different exhibitions spaces while
remaining contingent with the architecture of the exhibition space. These works succeed based
on the fact that lighting fixtures are architectural elements, but these works carry emotional and

32
Alex Bennett, “Slender Intrusion, Persuasive Corrosion: A Conversation with Dora Budor,” Novembre Magazine,
Dec 2016, http://novembremagazine.com/dora-budor-by-alex-bennett

32
architectural contingency that separate them into the category of Contingent Practice. In order for
these works to be complete, it requires the activation of the viewer to be physically moving in the
exhibition space, which acknowledges and relies upon the social function of the architecture. The
revealing of the frog props within the lights produces an emotional response in the viewer that
centers the focus of this work on emotional value and a broader societal critique. The titles of
these individual works all derive from music composition, which is a time-based media. It is
possible that there is a connection being made between the emotional elements that viewers
experience within these works with the cinematic origin of the materials. Music scores are often
employed by movies in order to draw emotion from the viewers and progress the narrative. In
titling the work in this way, Budor is acknowledging the original intention of these props and
placing the viewer’s interaction with these works as the subjects of the work.
Budor’s work Year Without a Summer continues to develop her exploration of the
emotional effects, social function, and architectural contingency within the exhibition space. This
work consists of a modified confetti dispenser filled with special effect volcanic ash that
activates with a sound sensor to disperse the ash onto historically significant items of furniture,
typically chairs and benches. There have been a number of these works produced and each work
is defined by the designer of the furniture. The works thus far have been Year Without a Summer
(Archizoom), which used Archizoom’s Superonda (1967), Year Without a Summer (Mourgue),
which used Olivier Mourgue’s chaise longue Whist (1968), Year Without a Summer (Judd),
which used Donald Judd’s Wintergarden Bench 16 (1980), and Year Without a Summer
(Panton’s Diversion), which used Verner Panton’s Landscaped Interior (Wohnlandschaft)
(produced by Alfred Kill) (1965) (fig. #21). In each of these different exhibitions the sound
sensor in the modified confetti dispenser reacts to the sound of the viewers in the exhibition

33
space and dispense special effects ash onto the piece of furniture as well as the ground, forming
piles that are tallest in the center and expand outwards to the space, surrounding these
historically significant designs. In line with the unpredictable nature of the special effect ash, this
work does not have set dimensions and often will spread in a way that is interacting with other
works in the space.
33
Similar to the Adaptation of an Instrument series, Year Without a Summer
places physical objects that embody the emotional effects of movies directly onto the
architecture and requires the viewer to participate in its activation. On the contrary, Year Without
a Summer has broadened the specific reference of the frogs produced for Magnolia to a more
general special effect of the volcanic ash, indicating a similar chaotic event without a specific
narrative. In addition, the specific reference is being diverted to the individual choices of the
furniture chosen to be the ash covered subject. Each of the items of furniture chosen for this
work have been indicative of a larger concept of an idealistic, class-based, futuristic, or
fantastical prescription of living through furniture design. In this work, Budor is acknowledging
the architectural function of furniture as a means of inhabiting space. In addition, she is both
commending and expelling the ideals that are placed onto this furniture.
Using the shared title, Year Without a Summer, these different iterations can be argued to
be variations of one work of Contingent Practice. Each time this work has been exhibited, it has
utilized a different piece of historical furniture. As mentioned earlier, these are specific examples
of the idealistic nature of the concept of furniture design as it particularly relates to Budor’s
practice. For example, Olivier Mourgue created furniture that was used in 2001: A Space
Odyssey (1968),
34
which is in line with Budor’s exploration of the objects that comprise science

33
Cat Kron, “Critics’ Picks ‘A Few Open Systems,’” Artforum, June 21, 2017, https://www.artforum.com/picks/a-
few-open-systems-69053.
34
“Djinn Chaise Longue, 1964-65,” Olivier Mourgue, MOMA, last modified April 17, 2017,
https://www.moma.org/collection/works/3358

34
fiction movies and very pertinent to her exploration of the emotional effects of movies existing
within architecture. Each time it is presented though, a different piece of furniture is added to the
aesthetic and conceptual framework of the current iteration, as well as past iterations. Budor
actively recognizes the exhibition space when producing this work and uses these opportunities
to broaden the conception of this work. Even if Budor were to use the same piece of furniture in
two different exhibitions, this work is already inherently using Contingent Practice because of its
architectural contingency and its relationship to materializing the social and emotional effects of
architecture into the piece.
* * *
It is worth noting that while I am introducing the term Contingent Practice and analyzing
these four contemporary artists as practitioners of this method of working, these are not the only
artists that use Contingent Practice. It is also worth reiterating Contingent Practice does not have
a singular aesthetic. The artists that I have decided to include in this thesis continuously express
knowledge and intention of Contingent Practice in their work, though they all also make works
that do not fit in this category. This method has been developed by the recognition of the limits
of both autonomous art objects and site-specific works and the deep understanding of the impacts
that architecture has on exhibiting works. These considerations have been internalized into the
art making process to the point where architectural considerations in work no longer constitute
Institutional Critique, but a much broader societal view of concepts that include but are not
limited to socio-economic design and consumption, the role of fiction and fantasy in society, and
the emotional effect of laws. The lack of a consistent subject matter in works of Contingent
Practice is indicative of the fact that artists that use this method incorporate it as one strategy
amongst many within their broader practice.

35
Although I am proposing the term Contingent Practice to describe the method that these
contemporary artists are using, I am certainly not the first person to be connecting different
varieties of these artists together. I believe that this is because of their careful consideration of
the white cube exhibition model as an architectural space, not necessarily because the works
have direct similarities in subject matter. Chadwick Rantanen and Ghislaine Leung are both
represented by the same gallery in New York City (Essex Street) and there have been numerous
group exhibitions that have featured different varieties of these artists.
35
These exhibitions have
contributed to a broader understanding of the relationship between artworks and their place of
exhibition and have placed these artists I have written about in conversation with each other.
In proposing the term Contingent Practice to describe this method of working, there are
drawbacks as well as benefits attached to creating a term. Unlike many art movements described
through recent art history, Contingent Practice is not an aesthetic or a singular group of artists
forming an idea. In describing this process of working, an interesting development was my
research into the connections between artists who were associated with Institutional Critique and
contemporary artists who employ Contingent Practice. The majority of the contemporary artists I
have written about have cited either Buren, Asher, or Knight as influences. It is not my intention
to intimate a strictly linear sense of art history where contemporary artists are directly (and only)
influenced by historical works. What is more important for Contingent Practice is that it
represents a direct engagement with architecture as a pre-existing condition of the work. It is not
for me to decide how large of a specific impact Institutional Critique artists had on the
contemporary works I discussed. What is most important is how this current generation of artists

35
National Gallery 2: Empire, September 26, 2015 – January 8, 2016, CHEWDAY’S, London, England
A Few Open Systems, curated by Noah Barker, June 3 – July 8, 2017, And Now, Dallas, TX
Vertical Gardens, April 09 - May 30, 2017, Antenna Space, Shanghai, China

36
views their works in the context of the exhibition space. This can be shaped by any number and
most likely from many different sources that are both inside and outside of the art world.
The purported benefit of developing the term Contingent Practice is to begin a thread of
scholarship on this method of working— incorporating the architecture of the exhibition space
into the work while highlighting emotional or societal concerns. All of the contemporary artists I
have discussed have been making works of Contingent Practice within the past ten years and
have been actively developing this idea in their work continuing into the present. In developing
the parameters for Contingent Practice, I found that there are many examples of artists who
incorporate specific architectural elements in their work, but ended up being too site-specific to
fit in this category.
36

In creating the term Contingent Practice, I am mindful of other categorical titles given to
methods of working including in situ (associated with Buren),
37
situational aesthetics (associated
with Asher),
38
and relational aesthetics (developed by Nicolas Bourriaud),
39
all of which have
elements related to, but are not the same as Contingent Practice.
It becomes useful to develop a term to be able to evaluate and reanalyze recent
developments within the field of art, even when these created terms become criticized.
40
Without
the vocabulary, it becomes each writer’s job to propose the baseline ideas in order to critique
them. This leads to the clear question as to why Contingent Practice is important.

36
This is proof that more scholarship is needed to be able to fully identify a larger scope of how contemporary
artists working in the present contend with architecture. Examples of artists that actively incorporate the architecture
of the exhibition space, but do not necessarily work in Contingent Practice are Tom Burr, Michael E. Smith, and
Ben Schumacher.
37
A Latin term defined as “in the original place,” that Buren has used in his work since 1968.
38
“Situational aesthetics here being defined as an aesthetic system that juxtaposes predetermined elements occurring
within the institutional framework, that are recognizable and identifiable to the public because they are drawn from
the institutional context itself.”
Michael Asher, Writings 1973-1983 on Works 1969-1979, ed. Benjamin H. D. Buchloh (Halifax and Los Angeles:
The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design and the Museum of Contemporary Art, 1983), 209.
39
Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetic (Paris: Les Presses du réel, 2002) Originally printed in French, Nicolas
Bourriaud, Esthétique relationnelle (Paris: Les Presses du réel, 1998)
40
Joe Scanlan, “Traffic Control,” Artforum, June 2005, 123.

37
Contingent Practice as a strategy in contemporary art making developed not long after the
popularization of contemporary art blogs that exhibit documentation of mostly white cube
exhibition spaces. Notable in this category is Contemporary Art Daily, which first went online in
2008. This is concurrent with galleries’ documentation becoming a primary source to view and
buy work. It is in this time that these white cube spaces have been slowly devolving from the
storefront archetypes that Brian O'Doherty described, to essentially any empty architectural
space with white painted walls. This openness of interpretation of the white cube model carries
the original intentions of the white cube as being a space outside of time, location, and identity.
In addition, once the documentation becomes a featured source of experience, both the work and
the architecture are lost. Works that use Contingent Practice are intended to be viewed in person
due to their direct relationship with the exhibition space and require the viewer to engage in an
embodied relationship with the architecture. I think it is conceivable to take this into
consideration when evaluating the practitioners of Contingent Practice and their reasoning for
developing and working with this method. In addition to the essence of “presence” in viewing
the art, the documentation of these works is also forced to contend with the architecture,
acknowledging the exhibition space architecture as both the frame and as part of the work.
Another element to consider is that each work of Contingent Practice I’ve described here
takes the form of an object in exhibition. More importantly, the artwork is located within the
object’s relationship to the exhibition architecture. Regardless of the conceptual dimensions of
the work, the architecture of the exhibition is activated while becoming an object. This is the key
to how the artists working in Contingent Practice extract the white cube model form an
intentional background to a foreground. Although works like Dora Budor’s Adaptation of an
Instrument and Year Without a Summer rely on the physical presence of viewers for activation,

38
the relationship is shared with the physical objects themselves incorporating the very specific
object of the prop frogs from Magnolia and the specified furniture design. Unlike the social
relationship described in Relational Aesthetics by Nicolas Bourriaud where the artwork is
located in the social interaction, Contingent Practice focuses on objects’ relationship to
architecture. The viewer becomes a performer in far less of a capacity by only being required to
physically enter the exhibition space.
It could be argued that traditional paintings on canvas that hang on the white walls of the
exhibition space are contingent with the architecture. In some ways this is correct, but only to a
small degree because the painting on canvas plays a passive role in its architectural contingency.
The white cube exhibition model was designed for this passive interaction and for the
architecture to be consumed, obstructed, and overtaken by the works that hang on its walls.
Contingent Practice refuses this passive engagement in favor of an active engagement with not
only one exhibition space, but a sense of the universality of the white cube exhibition space. In a
time when art fairs are quite literally taking the ideals of the white cube in the most direct
possible interpretation, the attention to specific architectural engagement as a base for production
is an increasingly important necessity to acknowledging the time, location, and identity of the
architecture of the exhibition space so that we might reaffirm or question the materials used and
the space of art. Using this as a foundation, making works that are both poetic and address
concerns outside the art world is crucial to a productive contemporary critical discourse. It is
through Contingent Practice that artists are able to both incorporate ideas developed through
Institutional Critique as well as reject direct art world critiques and produce works that
continuously contend with the architecture of the exhibition space and resonate within a larger
society.

39
Appendix with Figures

Figure 1

Daniel Buren, Photo-souvenir: Daniel Buren & Guido Le Nocci in front of the / vor der Galerie
Apollinaire, Milano, October 1968. (Copyright: Daniel Buren)

40

Figure 2

Daniel Buren, photo-souvenir: (SANS TITRE), travail in situ (extérieur), Wide White Space
Gallery, Anvers, January 1969, detail. (Copyright: Daniel Buren)

41

Figure 3

Daniel Buren, Photo-souvenir: (Sans Titre), January 1969, May 1971, June 1972, June 1973,
March-April 1974, Work In Situ, Wide White Space Gallery, Anvers. (Copyright: Daniel Buren)

42

Figure 4

Daniel Buren, Skirt, Work In Situ 2013 (Ref. Wide White Space Gallery, Antwerpen January
1969) (1969/2013).

43

Figure 5

Daniel Buren, À partir de lá, 1975. As installed in the Städtisches Museum Abteiberg,
Mönchengladbach, November 1975.

44

Figure 6

Chadwick Rantanen, Telescopic Pole [Green Camouflage], 2012, Anodized sandblasted
aluminium, walker balls, Telescopic dimensions: 86 to 269 inches.

Left (Detail), Right (Installation view)

45

Figure 7

Top: Chadwick Rantanen, Fluorescent Fitting, 2013,
Copper, wire, urethane plastic, acrylic tube, stickers.

Bottom: Chadwick Rantanen, Concerned, Interested and Wanting to Help
(Installation view), 2014.

46

Figure 8

Chadwick Rantanen, Untitled (Zebra), 2013, Ceramic mugs, aluminum clamp.

47

Figure 9

John Knight, One Inch to a Foot, 1971,
Overhead projector, photo-negative glass plate.

48

Figure 10

Ghislaine Leung, 58 : 96 / 49, 2018,
Plastic, aluminum tape, dye, glue, children's playhouse, metal, Dimensions and title variable.

Playhouse purchased in country of exhibition.
Tape at minimum ceiling height for country of exhibition.

49

Figure 11

Ghislaine Leung, Shrooms, 2016, Nightlights, plug adapters, Dimensions Variable.

Every visible unused socket within an exhibition to be filled with a
mushroom nightlight and plug adapter.

50

Figure 12

Lena Henke, My History of Flow, 2016, S.A.L.T.S., Birsfelden, Switzerland.
Top (Outside installation view), Bottom (Inside installation view).

51

Figure 13

John Knight, Levels, 1969, Six levels arranged on ground,
Installation view, Artist’s studio, Inglewood, Los Angeles, 1969.

52

Figure 14

Lena Henke, After Hang Harder, 2016, Wooden panels, tarpaper, epoxy resin, chairs

(Installation view in Available Light, 2016, Kunstverein Braunschweig, Braunschweig,
Germany)

53

Figure 15

Lena Henke, Hang Harder (Installation views), 2012,
Wooden panels, tarpaper, epoxy resin, chairs,

(Installation view in Hang Harder, 2012, Neuer Aachener Kunstverein, Aachen, Germany)

54

Figure 16

Lena Henke, After Hang Harder, 2016, Wooden panels, tarpaper, epoxy resin, chairs

(Installation view in Citrus North, 2018, Easy!upstream, Munich, Germany)

55

Figure 17

Michael Asher, Untitled, 1972, Installation view at Documenta 5, Kassel, 1972.

56

Figure 18

Michael Asher, Untitled (Installation view), 1974, Claire Copley Gallery, Los Angeles, CA

57

Figure 19

Dora Budor, Adaptation of an Instrument (Installation views), 2016, Dreamlands: Immersive
Cinema and Art, 1905–2016, Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, NY

58

Figure 20

Top left: Dora Budor, Strepitoso, 2017, Modified parabolic lamp fixture, LEDs, motion-sensitive
Arduino system, metal hardware, 3d printed enclosures, polyurethane foam inserts, urethane
resin, dye, amphibian props used in the film Magnolia (1999)

Top right: Dora Budor, Rinforzando, 2017, Modified parabolic lamp fixture, LEDs, motion-
sensitive Arduino system, metal hardware, 3d printed enclosures, polyurethane foam inserts,
urethane resin, dye, amphibian props used in the film Magnolia (1999)

Bottom: Dora Budor, Allargando, 2017, Modified parabolic lamp fixture, LEDs, motion-
sensitive Arduino system, metal hardware, 3d printed enclosures, polyurethane foam inserts,
urethane resin, dye, amphibian props used in the film Magnolia (1999)

59

Figure 21

Left: Dora Budor, Year Without a Summer (Archizoom), 2017, Movie grade sfx volcanic ash,
modified confetti disperser, powder coating paint, Archizoom’s Superonda (1967)

Right: Dora Budor, Year Without a Summer (Mourgue), 2017, Artificial ash, modified confetti
disperser, sound sensor, powder-coating paint, Olivier Mourgue’s chaise longue “Whist” (1968)

60
Bibliography

Alberro, Alexander, and Nora M. Alter. "Staging the Political: Repetition, Difference, and
Daniel Buren's ‘Cabanes Éclatées’." Grey Room no. 40 (2010): 6-23.

Asher, Michael, Buchloh, Benjamin H. D. ed. “Michael Asher: Writings 1973 - 1983 on Works
1969 - 1979." Halifax; Los Angeles: The Press of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design &
The Museum of Contemporary Art, 1983.

Buchloh, Benjamin H. D. "Michael Asher and the Conclusion of Modernist Sculpture." Art
Institute of Chicago Museum Studies 10 (1983): 277-95.

Bennett, Alex. “Slender Intrusion, Persuasive Corrosion: A Conversation with Dora Budor.”
Novembre Magazine No. 11, December, 2016. Accessed February 1, 2019.
http://novembremagazine.com/dora-budor-by-alex-bennett.

Buren, Daniel. “Five Texts.” New York; London: The John Weber Gallery & The Jack Wendler
Gallery, 1973.

Buren, Daniel. “Notes on Work in Connection with the Places Where It Is Installed. Taken
between 1967–1975. Some of Which Are Specially Summarized Here for the September/October
1975 Edition of Studio International,” Studio International 190 (Spring 1975): 124.

Buren, Daniel. “Reboundings.” Brussels: Daled & Gevaert, 1977.

“Cancellations: Ghislaine Leung and Noah Barker in Conversation.” Mousse Magazine 64,
(Summer 2018): 54-59.

Gintz, Claude, and Judith Aminoff. "Michael Asher and the Transformation of "Situational
Aesthetics"." October 66 (1993): 113-31.

Griffin, Jonathan. “Chadwick Rantanen.” Frieze 187, (May 2017): 194–195.

Haskins, Casey. "Kant and the Autonomy of Art." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
47, no. 1 (1989): 43-54.

Kron, Cat. “Critics’Picks ‘A Few Open Systems,’” Artforum, June 21, 2017. Accessed February
1, 2019. https://www.artforum.com/picks/a-few-open-systems-69053.

Kwon, Miwon. "One Place after Another: Notes on Site Specificity." October 80 (1997): 85-110.

Louisiana Channel. “Dora Budor: Acting Things.” Dora Budor interviewed by Roxanne
Bagheshirin Lærkesen at her studio in Brooklyn, New York City in July 2017. Video, 8:57.
https://channel.louisiana.dk/video/dora-budor-acting-things.

61

Noble, Kathy. “Dora Budor - The way they have sex is to cuddle, then this strange ectoplasm
liquid comes out of different parts of their bodies.” Mousse Magazine. No 49 (June 2015): 52-59.

O'Doherty, Brian. “Inside the White Cube: The Ideology of the Gallery Space.” Santa Monica:
Lapis Press, 1986.

Osborne, Peter. “Anywhere or not at all: philosophy of contemporary art.” London; Brooklyn,
NY: Verso Books, 2013.

Peltomäki, Kirsi. “Affect and Spectatorial Agency: Viewing Institutional Critique in the 1970s.”
Art Journal, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Winter, 2007): 36-51.

Peltomäki, Kirsi. “Situation Aesthetics: Selected Writings by Michael Asher” Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2010.

Poggioli, Renato. “The Theory of the Avant-Garde.” Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, 1968.

Rafferty, Penny. “Fantasy // Private as Public: An Interview with Lena Henke.” Berlin Art Link,
March 21, 2017. Accessed February 1, 2019. https://www.berlinartlink.com/2017/03/22/fantasy-
private-as-public-an-interview-with-lena-henke.

Rorimer, Anne. “Daniel Buren: From Painting to Architecture.” Parkett 66, (2003): 62-68.

Rorimer, Anne. “Michael Asher: Context as Content.” InterReview, 2004. (Originally printed
“Michael Asher: Kontext als Inhalt,” Texte zur Kunst 1990.)

Rottmann, André, ed. “John Knight.” Cambridge: MIT Press. October File No.16, 2014.

Scanlan, Joe. “Traffic Control,” Artforum (Summer 2005): 123.

Swiss Institute / Contemporary Art New York. “SI: Visions | Dora Budor on the Anatomy of Sci-
fi Cinema.” Last modified February 22, 2016. Video, 6:23.
https://www.swissinstitute.net/vision/dora-budor-on-the-anatomy-of-sci-fi-cinema.

Swiss Institute / Contemporary Art New York. “SI: Visions | Lena Henke on Autocartography.”
Last modified December 19, 2016. Video, 5:30. https://www.swissinstitute.net/press/si-visions-
lena-henke-on-autocartography.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The globalization of contemporary Chinese art: biennales, large-scale exhibitions, and the transnational work of Cai Guo-Qiang

PDF

Totality: theory, practice, and pedagogy in Qiu Zhijie’s “Total Art”

PDF

Prospering in resistance: the performance art of Zhang Huan from the 1990s to 2000s

PDF

Subverting madness: on translating the mental illness memoir into a curatorial practice

PDF

Explorer-at-large: artist-led inquiry and the rise of the museum as athenaeum

PDF

Performing excess: the politics of identity in La Chica Boom

PDF

Museum programming and the educational turn

PDF

The trouble with Radical Women: anti-Blackness, Latinidad, and contemporary curating

PDF

The Museum of Modern Art’s Cineprobe program and Essential Cinema at Anthology Film Archives: curating underground film

PDF

Ableism in the U.S. art context: curators, art museums, and the non-normative body

PDF

The art of staying: Theaster Gates and the Rebuild Foundation

PDF

Sustainability through participation: public art projects by Fritz Haeg, Futurefarmers, and Fallen Fruit

PDF

Evaluating art for social change: the Anti-Eviction Mapping Project and the Los Angeles Poverty Department in relationship to Tania Bruguera’s concept of Arte Útil; Evaluating art for social cha...

PDF

LatinX excess: from the Baroque to rasquachismo, tracing a culture of extravagance

PDF

Cao Fei: rethinking spatial dynamics discourse

PDF

Art collaborations in fashion brand spaces

PDF

SpaceTime travelers: on riding a bike in the city

PDF

Teaching freedom: the power of autonomous temporary institutions and informal pedagogy in the work of Tania Bruguera and Suzanne Lacy

PDF

ALT LA: alternative art spaces that shaped Los Angeles, 1964-1978

PDF

Blackness and belonging: the impact of Brockman Gallery and the Underground Museum on Los Angeles Art and Culture

Asset Metadata

Creator Polatin, Seymour (author)

Core Title Contingent practice: contemporary methods in art process dependent on architecture of the exhibition space

School Roski School of Art and Design

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Curatorial Practices and the Public Sphere

Publication Date 05/01/2019

Defense Date 05/01/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Architecture,art,art process,contemporary art,contingent practice,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Campbell, Andy (committee chair), Moss, Karen (committee member), Shea, Brendan (committee member)

Creator Email polatin@usc.edu,seymourmaxpolatin@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-163569

Unique identifier UC11660429

Identifier etd-PolatinSey-7382.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-163569 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PolatinSey-7382.pdf

Dmrecord 163569

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Polatin, Seymour

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA