Interactivity is a broad subject within art. All artwork requires some interaction between the viewer and the work, however there has been a large push towards more interaction within this relationship. Interaction now encompasses the use of scale, new media, community involvement, and senses beyond visual ones to experience works of art. Some of these works are done on monumental scales that call for complete interaction with the viewer and community at large to complete such as the work of Chirsto and Jean-Claude. Others, such as that of Tim Hawkinson, use mechanics and kenetics as a way to power their works beyond static sculptures, and involve the viewers through a series of alterations and abstractions. Both of these artists are at different ends of the spectrum in the art world, but both work on these different levels of interactivity which is important within their work.
Christo and Jean-Claude are an interesting couple who have worked for the past 40 years creating public art work on a monumental scale. The works involve a lot of time and effort on the part of the artists, but also of the community. They work heavily with government and state officials, professionals, workers, volunteers, the community, and finally all of the viewers. Some of their most prominent works have taken tens of years of work and thousands of others involved. This interaction between the artist and so many various people becomes the most important part of their work. What I find most fascinating about the artists work is that they dedicate themselves so heavily to the integrity of their work. The work is completely funded through Christo's original drawings, prints, and early work as a way to not allow influence by donors onto any of their works. This allows them to exist as these strong visual gestures in the natural landscape on their own, with only the artists attached. Their works are heavily involved in simply making beautiful monumental, temporary objects. The artists stress that they biggest concern for viewers is to simply go out and be a part of the work and experience it.
Tim Hawkinson is a sculpture/installation artist who deals with kinetics and other simplified mechanics. His work deals a lot with the body, but also with the body's relationship to the work. Almost all of his pieces that we looked at deal with a sort of manipulation of the body or the inner workings of the body. In his piece, Emotor, Hawkinson uses programming and light sensors to read light from a movie playing on a TV, which affects the facial expressions through motors and pulleys on a mechanical wall portrait. This process creates a work that involves the viewers interaction with a simple gesture of facial expression, but also with the mechanics behind the construction of this work. The work seems to interact within itself by reacting from the light of screen which controls each facial element. One of his major works, Uberorgan, is a series of enlarged balloons that act as a giant organ, allows specific sounds to be made at openings in the balloons by sensors that read tabbed music. The pieces involves large portions of the space that it inhabits, which causes the viewer to directly interact with the work. By having such a strong presence through physicality and sound within the rooms, it is able to relate to the viewers on more that one level. They are both attracted to the sound and where it is coming from, but also the mechanism that is creating the dialogue that the work is following. Many of Hawkinson's works are very similar to these two, in which they provide a subtle gesture that is enhanced by the mechanics and kinetics of the work.
Interaction is one of the largest categories within art, because it is such an integral part of the work itself. Interaction is the essence of the viewers participation both on a intellectual level with the work, but also on a physical level with it. Work that is interactive on these different levels allows for the viewer to be more connected to the work, and be able to have a closer relationship to it. By being able to have this relationship on a physical level, they are able to go further into the true meaning of the work. By involving other senses such as touch or sound, or things that seem to accomplish the impossible, artists today are going way beyond the canvas and are able to connect to a wider range of viewers and more interesting expression through the visual world.
Bibliography
http://www.christojeanneclaude.net
http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/hawkinson/index.html
http://www.oddmusic.com/gallery/om32290.html
http://www.acegallery.net/artistmenu.php?Artist=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christo_and_Jeanne-Claude
http://www.jca-online.com/christo.html
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Interactivity Research
In art, interactivity suggests an attempt to create something that is constantly in flux, offers different perspectives, or offers a chance to the audience or other external force to be an artist. An artist whose main consideration is interaction will most likely be working in several mediums, but may usually be considered sculptors. This method of creation can be an attempt to affect and offer reads from multiple senses, instead of just a visual stimulation. The process of interactive art is one in which the actual artist has less creative control, but sets up a set of parameters and then allows the work to take form.
As a new media artist who experiments with interactivity, Tim Hawkinson is concerned with movement, both the kinesthetic movement of the piece and that of the eye. His pieces “Emotor” and “Pentecost” are examples of this respectively. A play on words, the title, “Emotor” is an accurate self description; it emotes, using motors. The face, featuring a collage of Hawkinson’s features, responds to signals sent by a series of phototransistors attached to a television screen.
Christo and Jean-Claude are artists who do not exhibit the usual traits of interactivity artists. Their projects are not kinetically motivated, like Tim Hawkinson’s, instead, they are more based on reframing the audience’s perspective, much in the way that Richard Serra did with his large steel forms. The duo’s pieces usually involve a multi-decadal process, in which they plan and coordinate with the site owners to alter the space.
“The Gates” is perhaps one of their most recognizable works. This piece consisted of a series of orange steal frames with the same color of fabric hanging down from them. They were set up along the sidewalks of
Interactivity Research
In art, interactivity suggests an attempt to create something that is constantly in flux, offers different perspectives, or offers a chance to the audience or other external force to be an artist. An artist whose main consideration is interaction will most likely be working in several mediums, but may usually be considered sculptors. This method of creation can be an attempt to affect and offer reads from multiple senses, instead of just a visual stimulation(1). The process of interactive art is one in which the actual artist has less creative control, but sets up a set of parameters and then allows the work to take form.
As a new media artist who experiments with interactivity, Tim Hawkinson is concerned with movement, both the kinesthetic movement of the piece and that of the eye. His pieces “Emotor” and “Pentecost” are examples of this respectively. A play on words, the title, “Emotor” is an accurate self description; it emotes, using motors. The face, featuring a collage of Hawkinson’s features, responds to signals sent by a series of phototransistors attached to a television screen(2). This piece responds to how we as a culture view and react to television, and while it does not make any accusations, the piece suggests a sort of continuous reliance upon the media for one’s emotional state.
Hawkinson’s piece, “Pentecost” is another piece in which he is makes an interesting form of self portrait, and has heavy religious subject matter. Pentecost was when the disciples received the Holy Ghost and were able to communicate and understand all the tongues of the world. The twelve figures in the piece are meant to represent these twelve apostles, and the human community as a whole, because of their universal speech(3). These figures hit the tree they are connected to with different parts of their body, which I suppose suggests the fact that we are all one people, and aims to unite us. The line created by the tree that connects each “person” is erratic, and looks like a series of pipes in an unfinished building. This makes the eye travel around the expanse of the room, while also listening to the rhythm of the percussion.
Whereas Hawkinson’s sculptures interacted with themselves or kinetically motivated, Christo and Jean-Claude’s works do not seem to encapsulate usual traits of interactivity artists. They are more based on reframing the audience’s perspective (7), much in the way that Richard Serra did with his large steel forms. The duo’s pieces usually involve a multi-decadal process, in which they plan and coordinate with the site owners to alter the space (6).
“The Gates” is perhaps one of their most recognizable works. This piece consisted of a series of orange steal frames with the same color of fabric hanging down from them. They were set up along the sidewalks of
Looking at their website, at one of their latest undertakings, “Over the River” offers a unique look into their process. This may be the first time that they are able to display this kind of information on the web for the world to see. And while yes the internet has been around for years, this is the first one to begin while computers and internet access have been made pretty much every day commodities. The site has all sorts of information about timelines for construction and deconstruction, the materials that will be used, how the wildlife is going to be protected, how they will treat the environment before and after the installation, how traffic will be controlled, how they will deal with sanitation and garbage, and a projection of the costs. It is interesting that they are so open with all this information, the fact that they even offer this to be viewed by the public could be considered interaction in the process. While we do not shape the project during its creation, we are invited to view every detail during it.
(1) www.pbs.org/art21/artists/hawkinson/index.html
(2) www.thecityreview.com/thawkins.html
(3) www.artseensoho.com/Art/ACE/hawkinson99/h1.html
(4) http://christojeanneclaude.net/tg.shtml
(5) http://christojeanneclaude.net/otr.shtml
(6) www.ndoylefineart.com/christo.html
(7) www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2008-10/2008-10-28-voa1.cfm
Interactivity - Artist Research
Neal Stuckenschneider
2/25/09
ART 308
Research for Project 2: Interactivity
What marks the movement of “interactivity” artists is that they seek to reveal the interrelatedness in the elements of the world around them. They consider relationships such as that between the artist and the audience, the artwork and the audience, and even the artwork with itself. Artwork is not didactic, but rather inquisition. The artists are reluctant to trust themselves with the governance of the work. They surrender the work to do its own expression, or to the audience, or to natural elements. Even after the artwork has been constructed, it has not yet finished maturing into an entity that may surprise the artist and audience alike. Work such as this has been developing since the sixties, with artist reacting against the minimalist movement, such as Allan Kaprow and Wolf Vostell.
Many interactive art pieces began to emerge in the 60’s, lashing out against minimalistic art that was so popular at the time. Allan Kaprow was initially trained as a painter of landscapes, and through the influence of such artists as Pollock, his interests grew from the painting to the environment it created. With this concern of place and environment, Kaprow began working in the environment itself, calling his works Happenings. His happenings are described as “a non verbal, theatrical production that abandons the stage-audience structure as well as the usual plot or narrative line of traditional theatre. (1)” The Happening was something ever-changing with the action or involvement of the audience, making it an ever unable to be reproduced. I like to imagine it as an extemporaneous play, a sort of tangent to the day-to-day life that the participants followed. Kaprow established the venue and elements for the individuals to react to. Richard Schechner writes in one article that Kaprow was producing “a new theatre [that] combines associative variations on visual-aural themes, chance permutations, games and journeys.(1)” Kaprow chose New York city as a primary venue for these Happenings to take place because it as such a receptive environment, carrying these artworks into both intimately personal and public spaces. His Happening “Yard” was simply “a backyard filled with rubber auto tires heaped randomly for viewers to climb in and around.(1)”
Another aspect of Kaprow as an artist that fascinates me is his interest with words. This interest is evident in, but goes past the Happening he created in 1962, titled Words, wherein viewers entered into various rooms with words covering objects and walls, and had free reign to rearrange them in any way they pleased. In an interview, Kaprow stops to clarify the distinctions he makes in the words he uses to describe his art: performance and assemblage. Kaprow states: “What's called an installation today is the child of what used to be called, before the happenings, an environment. Now, I think that if you look at the words there, the shifts indicate something like a real change toward the installation compared to that of the environment, and the performance to that of the happening.(2)” Kaprow sees his artwork as an itself being in direct interaction with past and future movements, and continues to react to art as defined as art itself. He interacts with the concept of art as a fluid movement; the Happenings as he first saw them were extensions of the action seen in painting – the effort to connect with life. In the same interview mentioned above, Kaprow mentions seeing the consolidation of art and life studying the work and theories of Mondrian. Mondrian sought that after extended scrutiny of his work, the lines and distinctions would disappear. Of his work Kaprow states, “I was convinced that when he was talking about the mutual destruction of all parts of the work, which would produce some sort of transcendent unity at the end, he was dealing with the elimination of painting through itself.(2)” These sorts of concerns show that Kaprows work seems to be less about the objects, but how the react to conventions through the unique dynamic created by letting them guide themselves. Kaprow states he felt he was “following a scent” as he pursued his work.
An artist exhibiting similar tendencies to interactivity is Wolf Vostell. Vostell is a German artist born in 1932 who picked up on Kaprow’s Happenings and eventually created a few of his own. Unlike Kaprow, he was a member of the Fluxus group, the ranks of which many artists committed themselves to (3). Vostell employed concepts of Happenings very differently than Kaprow, in that he responded much more strongly to issues of popular and consumer culture than to art culture itself. As such, his material demanded much less of the audience, and used the products of the culture itself. Vostell was the first artist ever to use televisions in his art. He also coined the term Dé-collage, important in that it “stresses the aggressive, destructive aspect of found structures and visuals. (4)” His “Elektronischer De-coll/age Happening Raum (E.D.H.R.)” exhibits both these unique qualities well. In it six variously ornamented and equipped televisions set themselves to various motorized tasks: one with a scythe swinging in front, one with a shroud dipping in and soaking up red lipstick, one with a roller pushing the air right before a stack of dilapidated shoes, all to the sound of churning industrial engines (. Watching the machines altogether in action imbues them with a sort of anthropomorphism, mocking pithy human habits and tasks. This wouldn’t be true without the movement. Another piece that Vostell completed was a video collage titled “Sun in Your Head.” This piece shows broken up footage of people interacting, solitary faces, loves embracing, and a U.S. Air Force plane and pilot sailing through the sky. The way all these disparate elements interact in the spliced up footage is fascinating, as they all seem to be trapped within the same strange, disjointed narrative. The film was originally shown in conjunction with several other pieces for an audience moving from location to location. Of the process, one article writes: “The film transfers to the moving image Vostell’s principle of ‘Décollage’. While up to then Vostell had altered TV pictures as they were being broadcast, he was now able to compose the temporal sequence. Since no video equipment was available in 1963, Vostell instructed camera-man Edo Jansen to film distorted TV images off the TV screen. The film was re-edited and copied to video in 1967. (5)” Collage gains its impact predominately through the interaction of the objects chosen, and with television, a medium rarely questioned, this becomes even more jarring.
1) http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5422/kaprow.html
2) http://www.mailartist.com/johnheldjr/InterviewWithAlanKaprow.html
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Vostell
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Research for Project 2
Rebecca Horn
Rebecca Horn is a performance based artist who works with film, sculpture, spatial instillations, drawings, and photographs. Her work revolves around issues of the body and its relation to space. Avant-garde in multiple ways, each of Horn’s individual work is in dialogue with the next, creating a continuous stream of thought throughout her collective body of work. Her work stems from highly influential personal experiences that have allowed her to break the normative boundaries of the body and its environment(1). Specifically examining two of her performance based artworks, Spirit di Madreperia and Concert Riverse, the connection between body and space, time and environment will demonstrate how Horns work uses audience interaction to create a world all her own.
Sprirt de Madreperia is an outdoor instillation located in the Italian city square of the Piazza del Pelbiscito. The instillation is charged by magnetic energy. Light rings made of mother of pearl hover high above the square. Beneath the cobble stone ground, cast iron is buried, which creates a charged magnetic energy field. When the viewer walks through the instillation they instantly become a part of the magnetized environment, and the space becomes activated due to the human interaction(1). It has been stated when critiquing this artwork that “each single instillation is a step towards breaking down the boundaries of space and time- that it opens up a crevice to a universe, the existence of which we can only see.(1)” Horn is creating a charged space that becomes engaged when the audience interacts with it. It creates a visceral space where the senses of the body are charged within the world the Horn has created. Horn is not constructing a passive environment to look at but she is creating an actively charged environment for the audience to become submerged in. Interaction is the activator within this instillation. Without the audience directly entering the space the charged environment is not activated. That is not to say that it does not exist without the dependency of the audience, for it would still be a magnetically charged space with or without the audience, but it is to say that the work is directly affected by interaction.
It is interesting to take a pause for a moment and examine an aspect of Horns personal history in order to better understand her artistic creation. Horn, as a young art student, worked with fiberglass. Unaware of the safety precautions that working with fiberglass entails, Horn became ill because she spent too much time inhaling the shards of class. Horn was force to leave school and spend a year in a sanatorium(6). This time in quarantine made Horn very aware of her body’s frailty, and of what long term confinement can do to one’s mental state. Within a New York Times critic of Horns’ work it was stated that, Horn found herself thinking in terms of images of confinement and became obsessed with healing after her stay at the sanatorium(5). This experience occurred at the beginning of Horn’s artistic career and so it is an important element for consideration when examining the work that Horn creates.
Going back to the first artwork, Spiriti di Madreperia, it is interesting to explore how confinement and healing, as well as body and space, play a role within the interaction of the artwork. Horn has created a space removed from the world, a quarantined space in the middle of a city that allows for isolation from all that surrounds her. Yet at the same time, her space is in dialogue with the city; mimicking the “charged” city that the piece is within. Furthermore she invites the audience to directly engage with this contained space. There is a duality between removal and invitation, interaction and isolation, which creates an interesting tension within her piece(2). Without the audience interaction, Horns work would not be activated, yet it would still be active. Just like Horn in quarantine, she was not actively engaged with the world, but she was still active and existing. She was still within the world just in a different space. It is as if she creates a space much like the time she was quarantined, but within her created space the audience is asked to engage and directly enter, something that could not occur while she was in quarantine.
Another artwork that engages with the audience in a monumental way is Concert Reverse. Concert reverse is located in Germany in Der Zwinger, which is an ancient tower in Munster that has a long history of uses. First used as a shelter in WW1, it was then allocated to Hitler Youth. Later it was used by Gestapo for holding and torturing Russian and Polish prisoners. After the war it was boarded up and never used again, until Horn was introduced to it. Horn re-ignited the historically loaded sight. The sight begins at a center corridor, which was lit by kerosene lamps. The walkways echoed the noise of small steal hammers hitting the walls, and were also lit by the kerosene lamps. The different cells were treated the same. The central area was over run with vegetation, and the architecture had begun to break down and crumble. Located at the highest point of a tree within the central area was a glass funnel. The funnel dropped one drop of water, which fell on placid surface of water, located in a circular basin below the funnel. The final cell contained an egg pierced by needles and a cage perched on a table. The cage held a pair of snakes, which it has been made clear in all documentation, were feed weekly(6).
This artwork takes a historic environment, a space full of destruction and shames and brings it back to life(6). It pierces the veins of history which bleeds out the infected moments of humanity. It has been reported that the egg alludes to the killing of prime reason and that the snakes are the dark reason. Again, Horn is taking a space of isolation and quarantine, a removed place from society, and she is re-opening it for visitation. She is dualistically re-claiming the space while at the same time maintaining the history found within it. It is not that by re-engaging with this space that Horn is transforming it, but she is personally marking the space with her own artistic voice. Furthermore, she creates an environment for the viewer to interact with and travel through becoming completely submerged within the work and space(3). She is permitting a historical conversation between those who enter the space to become re-engaged. This tower, at one time injected with human life, suffering, and heritage, was castrated and removed from society. Yet, the people that this place affected have not been removed; they have not been boarded up and pushed aside. Horn creates a means to reenter that area, a back door into the historical perils of the time. Without the audience moving through the work, through the environment, there would be no connection, no direct interaction. The work is dependent on people to enter the building and explore its crevices; it encouraged the audience to become engulfed by the environment and everything that it stands for(4). It is within that element that her work creates enigmatic interaction between audience and work. Neither one element is dominated over the other, but both need each other to fully translate the conceptual idea that Horn has attempted to create.
Her work ranges from interactive to image based, but the commonality between all of them is undeniable. As an artist her conscious decision to make each work in dialogue with the next, to create a constant flow of ideas, allows for her conceptual ideas to take many shapes and forms(6). Her interactive work engages space and the audience, but at the same time creates an intriguing sense of isolation and removal.
Felix Gonzalez-Torres
Felix Gonzalez-Torres is a Cuban artist who was born in 1957 and died in 1996 of AIDS. He is represented by the Andrea Rosen Gallery and his works range from photography, video, sculpture, to interactive environment pieces. His works often asks for direct interaction with the audience and tends to be centered around the complex questions of public and private space(4). Torres, through his interactive pieces, broke many of the early traditions of museum and gallery etiquette. An artistic pioneer, Torres used his art to submerge the gallery environment with personal experiences and political issues(1). The infiltration of the personal into the public environment allows for the audience to have an intimate relationship with Torres’ work. Torres’ work, at times, directly engages with the audience by allowing the audience to take a part of the work with them. It has been written “that the artist becomes the goods offered of sale to be consumed by recipients”(1). Looking at two works, Untitled, 1991, Printed Billboard, and Untitled (Portrait of Ross in LA) 1991, 175 lb of fruit flasher candy, the duality between public and private, immortality and time, allows for the audience to have a heavy hand in the life and solidity of Torres’ work.
Torres had a grounded reality of his mortality that is much stronger then most of those in the world. He knew his death was imminent, he knew what would kill him, and he had witnessed death directly through the loss of his partner Ross(3). This is a crucial aspect when understanding some of the conceptual choices that Torres made within his work. It has been stated that “The nature of his work, in general, subtly yet emphatically intensifies ones own self-awareness, subjectivity, and sense of personal history-it sets up a conflation of public and private and the personal with the professional(3).” The two works selected allow for the two main dualities of his work, the pubic and private, and the immortality verses mortality, to be discussed.
The first work, Untitled 1991, consists of a printed billboard that depicts the top half of a white bed which is unmade. The sheets and pillows of the bed depict the imprints of two bodies that once laid in the bed. Displayed on a city street corner, this billboard pushes a physical symbol of the private life into the public sphere. It has no descriptive symbols to suggest who laid within the bed, but is simply the markings of an act, the physical blueprint of a moment. Furthermore, this artwork directly engages with the duality between public and private spheres of life(1). The highly intimate image is publically displayed for all to see; it takes the personal and pushes it out into the public. This work, which depicts such a generic image of an imprinted bed, allows for all who see it to connect with the work because each one of us can identify with the image(3). What is further interesting is that it creates an androgynous image, because there is no suggestion of specific genders. The bed is intimate, the lack of figures allows for any person to transplant themselves with the work, creating an intimate connection with the work.
The audience interacts with the work because it invades their space. By being a billboard, the artwork is transforming itself into a symbol of communication. If this image were in an art gallery the dependence on interaction would be drastically different. The audience would simply look at the image, interpret it, and move on. But, by blowing the image into enormous size and placing it in a public space, this artwork is interacting with the community that it invades. It pushes the public to view this image, which stems from the private domain, and it asks them to interact with the context of the image in their public life. In a sense, this is an image of absence; an image where a human interaction should occur, and yet there is no human visible.
The second artwork that will be examined is the Untitled (Portrait of Ross in La) which contains 175 lbs of Fruit Flasher Candy. This Piece consists of brightly wrapped candy which is compiled in a corner of the room in a mound on the floor. The audience members are encouraged to take pieces of the candy as they please. This artwork, and many others like it, completely interacts with the audience by allowing the audience to take a part of the artwork into the personal life of the audience(3). It is a sensory driven object; visually pleasing candy which can be touched, removed, held, eaten, smelt, and saved all by the audience. Both figuratively and literally, the work could be consumed by the audience without the artist having any say in the matter. It is an interesting analogy compared to the personal situation of Torres. AIDS was slowly eating away at Torres, just as the audience slowly eats away at his work. Furthermore, once Torres was finally gone from the world, his memories and influences within the art community are left in the hands of those still alive. Much like once the candy is gone, it is in the hands of the audience who interacted with the piece to chose how they wish to have the artwork integrated into their lives. Even pushing this further, one could argue that Torres is entering into the personal domain of each individual that takes the candy, because they are taking a piece of him with them. The interplay between personal and public is vast within the work of Torres.
On a more broad scope, the work pushed for a break in the museum mold by encouraging an unconventional use of gallery space(4). Not only is the artist encouraged to take the work with them, but the work is constantly in flux, moving and shrinking based on how much the audience chooses to interact with it. Without the audience interaction this piece would be a stagnate object, but because of the audience, it is an ever evolving work of art.
Torres’ work is vast in medium choice and conceptual ideas. It addresses a broad spectrum of issues, from AIDS awareness to the loss of a lover(2). But within the two specifically examined works there is a push for the audience to make artwork something more. What I mean by this is that Torres lays out an artwork, be it an image of a bed or a pile of candy, and then he asks the viewer to bring something more to the table. He encourages the viewer to take his work to the next level and allow it to invade their lives. Ether through walking to work and interacting with a billboard of ghost lovers, or by eating a piece of the artwork, he is pushing the responsibility of the audience within his work.
Bibliography of Rebecca Horn
1.) www.Rebecca-Horn.cle/pages/biography.html. Accessed Between February 22-25th.
2.) www.medienkunstnetz.de/artist/Horn/biography/. Accessed Between February 22-25th.
3.) www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ArtistWorks?Cgroupid=99999961&aristid.org . Accessed Between February 22-25th.
4.) Cooke, Lynne. “Rebecca Horn New York Guggenheim Museum.” The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 135, No 1086 (Sept 1993.)
5.) Hugher, Robert. “Mechanics Illustrated.” Time Magazine. Monday, September 13, 1993.
6.) Morgan, Stuart. Celant, Germano. Rebecca Horn. New York: Guggenheim Museum, 1995.
Biography of Felix Gonzalez-Torres
1.)www.Queerculturalcenter.org/pages/FelixGT/FelixIndex.html. Accessed Between February 22-25th.
2.) Storr, Robert. T. “Felix Gonzalez-Torres Interview” Art Press. January 1995, p24-32.
3.) Elger, Dietmar. Felix Gonzalez-Torres. Ostfildern-Ruit : Cantz ; New York, N.Y. : Distribution in the US, Distributed Art Publishers, c1997.
4.) www.Andrearosengallery.com/artist/felix-gonzalez-torres.com. Accessed Between February 22-25th.