Attrac­tors in Thought

Claude Armstrong, Donna Cohen

Plane 1

On a shelf of Don­ald Judd’s library at La Mansana de Chi­nati1 is a book by art his­to­ri­an George Kubler, The Shape of Time, Remarks on the His­to­ry of Things.2 A thin vol­ume, this work devel­ops an alter­na­tive frame­work for think­ing about and expe­ri­enc­ing the his­to­ry of art. Counter to the prac­tice of posi­tion­ing art with­in the time and cul­ture of the artists’ lives in search of mean­ing, Kubler advances the idea of sys­tem­at­ic obser­va­tion of the thing itself, not­ing inven­tion, repli­ca­tion and dis­con­tin­u­ance rel­a­tive to all things that are made, from tools to fash­ion. It’s a dis­as­sem­bly of cen­turies-old assump­tions of how to regard a work of art. Kubler’s the­sis is a rejec­tion of art his­to­ry based on bio­log­i­cal, bio­graph­i­cal and lit­er­ary method­olo­gies. Pub­lished in 1962, the work is also a poignant reminder of the unpre­dictabil­i­ty of a future the read­er exists with­in now – the glob­al­ized art­world mar­ket, vir­tu­al real­i­ty and the com­mod­i­fi­ca­tion of every­thing ever invent­ed into a con­sumer prod­uct or experience.

Kubler presents his remarks as a new men­tal mod­el for encoun­ter­ing arti­facts with new terms describ­ing art­works that address mor­pho­log­i­cal prob­lems of dura­tion in series and sequence.”3 The crux of his argu­ment lies in the expli­ca­tion of linked solu­tions over time and their appar­ent form-class. Appro­pri­at­ing con­cepts from math­e­mat­ics, anthro­pol­o­gy, lin­guis­tics and oth­er sci­ences, Kubler out­lines the nature of the emer­gence of for­mal sequences, their devel­op­ment and degra­da­tion – a his­tor­i­cal net­work of grad­u­al­ly altered rep­e­ti­tions of the same trait.”4

The authors of this essay, while work­ing togeth­er on an exhi­bi­tion of Judd’s archi­tec­ture, encounter Kubler’s writ­ings and his term Prime Object”; the term strikes the authors with the clear, res­o­nant ring of the bell of recog­ni­tion, a remark­able cor­re­spon­dence to Judd’s work in archi­tec­ture in the 1980’s- 1990’s. In Kubler’s words:

Peter Merian Haus Basel (Bahnhof Ost), Model
Basel Switzerland 1992-1994 (project completed in 2000)
Donald Judd façade (Concept and Design)
in collaboration with Zwimpfer Partners and Burgen Nissen Wenziaft
Peter Merian Haus Basel (Bahnhof Ost), Model
Basel Switzerland 1992-1994 (project completed in 2000)
Donald Judd façade (Concept and Design)
in collaboration with Zwimpfer Partners and Burgen Nissen Wenziaft
1

Peter Merian Haus Basel (Bahnhof Ost), Model
Basel Switzerland 1992-1994 (project completed in 2000)

Donald Judd façade (Concept and Design)
in collaboration with Zwimpfer Partners and Burgen Nissen Wenziaft

“…Prime Objects and Repli­ca­tions denote prin­ci­pal inven­tions and the entire sys­tem of repli­cas, repro­duc­tions, copies, reduc­tions, trans­fers, and deriva­tions, float­ing in the wake of an impor­tant work of art… Prime objects resem­ble the prime num­bers of math­e­mat­ics because no con­clu­sive rule is known to gov­ern the appear­ance of either… The two phe­nom­e­na now escape reg­u­la­tion. Prime num­bers have no divi­sors oth­er than them­selves and uni­ty; prime objects like­wise resist decom­po­si­tion in being orig­i­nal enti­ties. Their char­ac­ter as primes is not explained by their antecedents, and their order in his­to­ry is enig­mat­ic.”5

Kubler cites works of art as exam­ples of prime objects”, and also clas­si­fies a large por­tion of his­toric exam­ples of prime objects” as build­ings. He acknowl­edges the exis­tence of archi­tec­tur­al typol­o­gy, in his term, form-class­es. Judd like­ly encoun­tered Kubler’s writ­ings while a stu­dent of Phi­los­o­phy at Colum­bia University.

Judd went on to phys­i­cal­ly cre­ate a new spa­tial art. In the spir­it of Kubler he pro­posed an alter­na­tive under­stand­ing of the art object, at dif­fer­ent scales, includ­ing land­scape and archi­tec­ture. Judd’s Spe­cif­ic Objects essay from 1964, and oth­er writ­ings that com­ment on prob­lems of art his­to­ry, style labels and crit­i­cism, seem to take posi­tions rea­son­ably attrib­ut­able to Kubler as lever­age for his own body of writ­ings and con­struct­ed works.6

Plane 2

We use Kubler’s frame­work for Prime Objects and Repli­ca­tions” to con­sid­er the most com­plete work of archi­tec­ture by Don­ald Judd, the Peter Mer­ian Haus office build­ing in Basel, Switzer­land (for­mer­ly known, while Judd worked on it, as the Bahn­hof Ost”).7

How this urban inter­ven­tion came to be is not so inter­est­ing as its exis­tence among less­er con­tem­po­rary works. The con­fig­u­ra­tional and for­mal aspects of this struc­ture demon­strate the breadth of the artist’s think­ing con­cern­ing hab­it­able space, urban con­di­tions and the sen­sa­tion of sur­face effects. The build­ing has both the appear­ance of a mono­lith and an assem­blage of dis­creet vol­umes. Like many of Judd’s works of art, there is present dis­par­i­ty”8 with­in uni­ty. The sol­id and void of the mass­ing of the struc­ture gives the expres­sion of a closed series, with­in an over­all object that may be one of a devel­op­ment of fur­ther objects in an open sequence. The pre­dom­i­nant exten­sion of the build­ing is hor­i­zon­tal, but it’s also com­prised of sev­er­al ver­ti­cal­ly-ori­ent­ed spaces within.

Peter Mer­ian Haus is of a type, the mul­ti-ten­ant office cen­ter, but breaks with this type rad­i­cal­ly. First, it’s not pos­si­ble for a ten­ant to occu­py a floor ful­ly across the length of the build­ing. There are six ser­vice cores with sep­a­rate entrances, com­mon facil­i­ties and court­yard-like spaces that join some­what like a row­house. Sec­ond, the pub­lic can walk or ride a bicy­cle through the entire length of the build­ing over­look­ing the depressed rail yard and con­nect­ing to exist­ing streets. This hor­i­zon­tal space also con­nects to each entrance court to the six cores. Third, there are at each sixth part an inter­nal light court that pen­e­trates the floor plates under large sky­light-roofs. Fourth, there is no hier­ar­chy of forms based on the cen­ter, or front or back of the struc­ture; every­one can enter or leave the build­ing accord­ing to their needs at sev­er­al points.

All the exte­ri­or ver­ti­cal sur­faces are glazed with a sub­tly rip­pled blue-green tint­ed pan­el of vary­ing trans­paren­cy, depend­ing on its loca­tion, and off­set 5 cm out­board of the enclos­ing walls. The sys­tem is uni­form­ly mod­u­lar, but the effects are dynam­ic, atmos­pher­ic, chang­ing in real experience. 

Is Peter Mer­ian Haus a Prime Object as George Kubler might have seen it? It has cer­tain attrib­ut­es and aspects that con­vince, but con­tem­po­rary archi­tec­ture in an urban con­text is a com­pli­cat­ed propo­si­tion, with a mul­ti­plic­i­ty of func­tion­al and envi­ron­men­tal pres­sures that affect our men­tal con­cept of the work and expe­ri­ence of the place it has estab­lished in Basel.

The authors believe that as he devel­oped as an archi­tect Judd evolved in his think­ing of the object per se and its sur­round­ings. This is con­sis­tent with the evo­lu­tion of his cri­tiques of con­tem­po­rary, con­ven­tion­al rela­tions in space of art objects and envi­ron­ments. Judd avoid­ed the embell­ish­ment of tra­di­tion­al con­struc­tion tech­niques and avoid­ed the use of cut­ting-edge or exper­i­men­tal mate­ri­als most view­ers would have not seen. At Peter Mar­i­an Haus Judd’s choice and jux­ta­po­si­tion of famil­iar con­tem­po­rary mate­ri­als with­in a three-dimen­sion­al grid pre­sent­ed unique com­bi­na­tions that are dif­fi­cult to place in time.

Plane 3

The old­est sur­viv­ing craft­ed objects are flaked and pol­ished stones. There exist lacu­nae of hun­dreds of cen­turies in the known record of human-made objects. Col­lec­tions of stone tools evi­dence incre­men­tal refine­ments and adap­ta­tions over mil­len­nia. New sci­ences such as paleo-geol­o­gy, cli­ma­tol­ogy and genet­ics are reveal­ing rapid and ever-increas­ing knowl­edge of the con­text of human exis­tence and evo­lu­tion hard­ly imag­in­able by Kubler writ­ing in 1961. Kubler real­ized that the char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of West­ern civ­i­liza­tion as a process of peri­ods of peak human achieve­ment and progress had run its course. At the time of pub­li­ca­tion of The Shape of Time”, works of Abstract Expres­sion­ism were begin­ning to show signs of sat­u­ra­tion and exhaus­tion. Artists of Judd’s gen­er­a­tion were either explor­ing oth­er ways of pro­duc­ing imag­i­nary space and signs, or mak­ing real objects of inten­tion­al mate­r­i­al and actu­al space.

The evi­dence of time – the light of stars, organ­ic life and death, day and night – is Form, Form in move­ment, Form in light, Form in shad­ow. Kubler presents the visu­al clas­si­fi­ca­tion of made things, at dif­fer­ent scales, mark­ing time, as a men­tal con­cept. The men­tal con­cept of still Forms and Objects as marks of time over a much greater span of record­ed knowl­edge is of course, the sub­ject of pale­on­tol­ogy, arche­ol­o­gy and cosmology. 

Kubler points out that we have a reli­able record of the evo­lu­tion of objects and prod­ucts of human inven­tion expand­ing far beyond the two hun­dred year span of the nar­ra­tive of west­ern art his­to­ry, and that all objects made by humans are first and fore­most works of craft; in his view good artists under­stand this con­tin­u­um and the best art demon­strates these facts. The imposed lay­er­ing of mean­ing by recent art his­to­ri­ans is unnec­es­sary and only serves to dis­tract from the objects them­selves. The span of phys­i­cal evi­dence of human craft, for exam­ple, is on the order of 200 times the length of the span of the past 10,000 years, the span of civilizations. 

Kubler’s cri­tique of the bio­graph­i­cal approach to art his­to­ry, which tends to val­i­date con­cepts of genius and prophe­cy, con­trar­i­ly acknowl­edges the fact that some artists are suc­cess­ful and some not, regard­less of their tal­ent. By using the anal­o­gy of a rail­road sys­tem, Kubler asks us to regard the prod­ucts of an artist’s life, not so much sig­ni­fiers of cre­ative dom­i­nance, but as the result of a for­tu­itous and con­tin­gent entrance into the track sys­tem” of the art­world.9

Don­ald Judd had what Kubler would call a for­tu­itous entrance in time and place in New York. He was not the only one, but tem­pera­ment, tal­ent and posi­tion” con­verged to his remark­able advan­tage. Around 1965, Judd had estab­lished the con­cate­na­tion that will grow”10 in the fab­ri­ca­tion of series and sequences of box­es”, stacks” and pro­gres­sions.” These works coex­ist­ed dis­tinc­tive­ly, and still do, with­in the incred­i­ble eco­nom­ic plu­ral­ism, glob­al­iza­tion and den­si­fi­ca­tion of the art­world since that time.

To clar­i­fy the dis­tinc­tion between the bio­graph­i­cal and the mor­pho­log­i­cal approach to art his­to­ry, Kubler states his goal of visu­al­iz­ing time. The emer­gence and recur­rence of made things, their clas­si­fi­ca­tion, their devel­op­ment and their end, is his field of encounter. Indi­vid­ual lives, spe­cif­ic dates and human events can nev­er be com­plete­ly doc­u­ment­ed or explained, only the things that remain.

In what seems, at first read­ing, a dis­cur­sive spec­u­la­tion on the nature of time, we observe Kubler’s repo­si­tion­ing of his the­sis from the per­spec­tive of com­mon sen­so­ry expe­ri­ence. Essen­tial­ly, time seems to be noth­ing. We claim its exis­tence only through signs. The actu­al­i­ty of time is not gras­pable.11 Soci­ety con­structs instru­ments mea­sur­ing time, but time has no exis­tence in and of itself, con­scious­ly, onto­log­i­cal­ly. Judd con­scious­ly arranged for­mal sequences that avoid­ed con­tent such as a nar­ra­tive in time. Kubler set the frame­work for Judd’s exper­i­ment with the thing that could be a work of art and architecture.

Plane 4

In his ear­ly thir­ties, Don­ald Judd was search­ing for a way to make art that was not a copy or deriv­a­tive of the best art of his time. Whether or not it can be said he was aware of sat­u­ra­tion or sta­sis in the dom­i­nance of the paint­ings of Abstract Expres­sion­ism and to a less­er extent sculp­ture, Judd want­ed to make things that did not exist before. 

As both an art crit­ic and an artist, observ­ing his con­tem­po­raries and by his own exper­i­men­ta­tion, tri­al and error, Judd began to under­stand a paint­ing of his time as a three-dimen­sion­al object, weak but an object nonethe­less. A new kind of paint­ing could have a vis­i­ble spa­tial struc­ture with­in itself, not just the front sur­face, and a rela­tion­ship to oth­er sur­faces around it in real space, not illu­sion­is­tic space.

Judd was dis­sat­is­fied with the many con­di­tions of mak­ing art and the busi­ness of art and art crit­i­cism. He could not help but be ana­lyt­i­cal and dubi­ous of the a pri­ori assump­tions in the arc of West­ern cul­ture and art as they were pre­dom­i­nant­ly expressed. Judd knew that Pol­lock, New­man, and Rothko and oth­ers had made break­throughs, but, in addi­tion, they were mis­in­ter­pret­ed by the muse­ums and the crit­ics. Judd had plen­ty of expe­ri­ence look­ing at mod­ern and con­tem­po­rary art, being a review­er for art jour­nals for sev­er­al years.

His crit­i­cal eye brought him to respect­ful­ly con­sid­er works which evi­denced new qual­i­ties, some but not all using a new tech­nique. Judd dis­cov­ered that Form and sen­sa­tion could be unprece­dent­ed as a uni­ty, strong­ly present in some scale with the body, but not con­clu­sive or com­plete, rather tran­si­tion­al and open-end­ed as a series of objects.

Judd wrote that in the ear­ly process of mak­ing paint­ing more like three-dimen­sion­al works he had a rev­e­la­tion. He placed some of the works on the floor, and they seemed fine that way. He real­ized that walls, floors and ceil­ings were not mere back­grounds, but engaged envi­ron­ments.12

Two rein­ven­tions inher­ent in Judd’s works of art are worth describ­ing in rela­tion to Kubler’s def­i­n­i­tion of made things as poten­tial­ly Prime Objects and their Repli­ca­tions. One, Judd cre­at­ed both closed series and open sequences” with­in the body of the type (form-class). The one hun­dred alu­minum works at Mar­fa, Texas are an exam­ple of this. Two, Judd devel­oped sev­er­al types of three-dimen­sion­al objects that do not appear to show signs of evo­lu­tion­ary change or refine­ment. None of the series Judd pro­duced are more inter­est­ing than the pre­vi­ous iter­a­tions or the sub­se­quent ones, thus deny­ing the read­ing of them as devel­op­ments in time at all.

Plane 5

The Shape of Time did not rev­o­lu­tion­ize the writ­ing of art his­to­ry. But Kubler wrote oth­er high­ly-regard­ed works on spe­cif­ic works of archi­tec­ture that are con­sis­tent with the frame­work he estab­lished in the sub­ject text, and lec­tured into the 1980’s at Yale Uni­ver­si­ty.13 One of his for­mer stu­dents, David Sum­mers, wrote his own mag­nus opus of art his­to­ry, Real Spaces: World Art His­to­ry and the Rise of West­ern Mod­ernism, pub­lished in 2003.14 The work is an elab­o­rate, kalei­do­scop­ic vol­ume of almost 700 pages lay­ing out his revi­sion­ist the­o­ry. A recent schol­ar­ly review called it one of the most ambi­tious and com­pelling attempts to devel­op a new ana­lyt­ic frame­work for art-his­tor­i­cal analy­sis across geo­graph­ic and tem­po­ral bound­aries.”15 We can detect the influ­ence of Kubler in this more recent work by Sum­mers, in the empha­sis of key con­cepts, includ­ing the fun­da­men­tal impor­tance of the act of the mak­ing of things (fac­ture) and the shift nec­es­sary in our point of view from mere visu­al analy­sis to spa­tial analy­sis (his­tor­i­cal prac­tices). Where Kubler is pos­ing the object as evi­dence of real time, Sum­mer is expand­ing the frame­work to regard the object in real space.

We are tak­ing the lib­er­ty to expand the field of cor­re­spon­dences between Kubler’s and Judd’s thought beyond their life­times. The dis­course on the crit­i­cal read­ing of art and its his­to­ry, includ­ing archi­tec­ture his­to­ry, con­tin­ues, and the out­stand­ing works, when­ev­er their time of emer­gence, appear to be always new. We are also step­ping out of the trap of bio­graph­i­cal chronol­o­gy of cause and effect, influ­encer and the con­tem­po­rary influ­enced, by bridg­ing anoth­er set of cor­re­spon­dences with the help of Sum­mers. The fil­a­ments of thought and action con­nect­ing Kubler, Judd and Sum­mers are not bound by time since they con­cern ever-present exis­ten­tial ques­tions. The binders of these cor­re­spon­dences is archi­tec­tur­al space expressed essentially.

The Shape of Time is a philo­soph­i­cal work. Kubler is pre­sent­ing prob­lems that pose the ques­tion of what is real and what is illu­sion­ary. The lan­guage he uses to build his argu­ment affects our per­cep­tions. His con­cern is with the his­tor­i­cal and per­va­sive use of spe­cif­ic anal­o­gous frame­works in the writ­ing of art his­to­ry. Kubler’s alter­na­tive per­spec­tive extracts con­cepts from con­tem­po­rary sci­ence and phi­los­o­phy. He acknowl­edges that real­i­ty is ever-unfold­ing in the heuris­tics of the mak­ing of things. Kubler ends his essay at the cusp in his time of events of incred­i­ble diver­si­ty and tech­ni­cal com­plex­i­ty. The anal­o­gous frame­works that he employs ask the read­er to recon­sid­er what rela­tion to cur­rent knowl­edge have things been and are things being made. The Shape of Time is a primer for tak­ing the long, wide view of what endures phys­i­cal­ly and con­cep­tu­al­ly, as expressed in the exis­tence and qual­i­ty of objects, includ­ing buildings.

David Sum­mers con­se­quent work Real Spaces is explic­it in its ref­er­ences to con­tem­po­rary philoso­phers and presents a vast array of case stud­ies from all eras and diverse cul­tures. The rel­e­vant pur­pose of his project is to con­sid­er world art as man­i­fes­ta­tions of the reifi­ca­tion of mate­ri­als and space. His the­sis presents the his­tor­i­cal diver­gence of our per­cep­tu­al aware­ness of space per se as either real or vir­tu­al. Sum­mers empha­sizes the impor­tance of the body in the expe­ri­ence of real space and its engen­der­ing of the dis­cov­ery and appli­ca­tion of pla­nari­ty. Judd’s works are pre­dom­i­nant­ly planar.

Plane 6

“3 January 1976

For a long time I’ve considered time to be nothing. Any time that you think of is only the relation or sequence of events, how long a person lives, human biology, or how many times the earth goes around the sun. There is no other time than this. If you remove all of the events there is nothing. Space, also, is nothing. There are things in it, variously related. If you remove these and the means of measurement between them, their phenomena, most importantly light-years, there is nothing.”

Judd, in Donald Judd Writings,
page 283.

Don­ald Judd used cylin­ders in sev­er­al works of art and archi­tec­ture in a vari­ety of ways. Some of the ear­ly floor and wall-mount­ed art series incor­po­rat­ed seg­ments of cylin­dri­cal space both as pro­trud­ing and neg­a­tive forms.16 In every case, the cylin­der or cylin­dri­cal seg­ment is attached to a pla­nar sur­face. One of the ear­ly out­door works of art Judd had fab­ri­cat­ed in New Canaan, Con­necti­cut, is a thick ring of con­crete where the top sur­face is lev­el and the curved sur­faces of the low cylin­dri­cal shape vary accord­ing to the sloped ground. The cylin­dri­cal vol­ume of space is dif­fi­cult to men­tal­ly mea­sure rel­a­tive to oth­er shapes of space because the cen­tral gen­er­a­tor of curved form is in space and not expressed on the surface.

The sur­face-gen­er­at­ed plane of var­i­ous pro­por­tions is Judd’s pri­ma­ry form-class through­out his works. Walls, pan­els, floors, plat­forms and shelves of rec­tan­gu­lar shape and depth give order to the per­cep­tion and expe­ri­ence of a three-dimen­sion­al vol­ume. He avoid­ed, if pos­si­ble, the con­struc­tion of cubi­cal space because of its impli­ca­tions of per­fec­tion and stasis. 

Judd pro­posed the con­struc­tion of objects that con­tained space one could observe freely and direct­ly. The space could be imag­ined as acces­si­ble to a small­er ver­sion of one­self or actu­al­ly walked through. What is dis­tinc­tive in Judd’s work is that any nar­ra­tive, feel­ing, mean­ing or sign one might find while being in the space is in one’s head, and there is only bare mate­r­i­al and form con­fig­ured in scale to respect the pres­ence of a spa­tial con­cept with­in and around the object.

The twelve anodized alu­minum floor works, first installed in 1989 in Ger­many, are a set of exam­ples of Judd’s hol­low­ing out of time by an uncom­pli­cat­ed con­tain­ment of space. Though the con­struc­tion of the works is clear, nev­er hid­den, the effects are com­plex. Large alu­minum sheets are assem­bled as prisms only open at the top, with ele­ments in each prism of the same mate­r­i­al, some in dif­fer­ent anodized col­ors, or sheets of col­ored Plex­i­glas inter­ven­ing in var­i­ous ways with­in the over­all volume. 

The work also pro­pos­es Thin­ness. The con­tain­er and the divid­ing ele­ments seem to be as thin as pos­si­ble. The qual­i­ties that result – light­ness, sharp­ness and del­i­ca­cy all con­trast with the prisms’ scale. Thin­ness allows for the use of isotrop­ic mate­ri­als and qui­et junc­tures. Thin­ness is present in many of Judd’s works, notably the impos­si­bly thin ensem­ble of con­crete build­ings in Mar­fa. All Judd’s works are propo­si­tions in archi­tec­ture. Real­ized as art and build­ings in real spaces, they are con­tin­gent, hand-craft­ed, Prime Objects among all things beautifully-made.

  1. 1

    Also known as The Block, La Mansana de Chi­nati is Don­ald Judd’s liv­ing and work com­pound in Mar­fa, Texas, adapt­ed and recon­fig­ured from for­mer U.S. Army struc­tures, now curat­ed and con­served by Judd Foun­da­tion. The artist’s library con­tains approx­i­mate­ly 13,000 vol­umes in phi­los­o­phy, art his­to­ry, gen­er­al his­to­ry and science.

  2. 2

    Kubler, The Shape of Time, first edi­tion. The men­tion of this work was first seen by the authors as a pas­sage of ref­er­ence in Kirk Varnedoe’s Pic­tures of Noth­ing, Prince­ton, 2006.

  3. 3

    Kubler, page viii.

  4. 4

    Kubler, page 37.

  5. 5

    Kubler, page 39.

  6. 6

    Judd, Spe­cif­ic Objects, 1964, in Don­ald Judd Writ­ings, pages 134–145.

  7. 7

    Don­ald Judd has been insuf­fi­cient­ly cred­it­ed with propos­ing essen­tial aspects of the project in col­lab­o­ra­tion with Zwimpfer Archi­tects. Archival mate­ri­als at Judd Foun­da­tion sup­po­rat his pri­ma­ry role in the mass­ing and exte­ri­or of the struc­ture. Cer­tain inte­ri­or aspects are inar­guably the result of his rules of spa­tial clar­i­ty. See Peter Mer­ian Haus Basel, Basel, Birkhauser, 2002, page 23.

  8. 8

    Raskin, page 65.

  9. 9

    Kubler, page 6.

  10. 10

    Judd, Don­ald, Don­ald Judd Writ­ings, page 75.

  11. 11

    Raskin, page 65.

  12. 12

    Judd, Don­ald, Don­ald Judd Writ­ings, page 812.

  13. 13

    Kubler, George, The Art and Archi­tec­ture of Ancient Amer­i­ca – The Mex­i­can, Maya and Andean Peo­ples, New Haven, Yale Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1962; Build­ing the Esco­r­i­al, Prince­ton, Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1982.

  14. 14

    Sum­mers, Introduction.

  15. 15

    O’Donnell, page 21.

  16. 16

    Raskin, page 73.

Peter Mer­ian Haus Model

Cohen Sem­i­nar, School of Archi­tec­ture, Uni­ver­si­ty of Florida
Jamey Lind­sey, Pei-Fen Yeh, Jun Li, Jiali Wang, Thi­a­go Silvano
3D print, MDF, Bass­wood, Plexiglas

Pho­tog­ra­phy
Levi Wie­gand

Bibliography

Chi­nati Foun­da­tion, The Writ­ings of Don­ald Judd, Mar­fa, 2008.

Judd, Don­ald, Don­ald Judd – Architek­tur, Mun­ster, 1989.

Judd Foun­da­tion, Don­ald Judd Writ­ings, Flavin Judd and Caitlin Mur­ray eds. New York, 2016.

Kubler, George, The Shape of Time – Remarks on the His­to­ry of Things, New Haven, Yale Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1962 and lat­er editions.

O’Donnell, C. Oliv­er, Revis­it­ing David Sum­mers’ Real Spaces: a neo-prag­ma­tist inter­pre­ta­tion, World Art, Vol­ume 8, 2018–1, pages 21–38.

Raskin, David, Don­ald Judd, New Haven, Yale Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2010.

Sum­mers, David, Real Spaces: World Art His­to­ry and the Rise of West­ern Mod­ernism, New York, Phaidon, 2003.