Page 22 - Studio International - June 1971

as effective as possible, thereby hoping to avoid the exhibition. Buren assured me of his good time for the opening on February 1) which he
the usual clutter and confusion typical of most intentions and said that he was willing to drafted, to read as follows :
group shows which evidence little or no proceed knowing of my reservations. I might A number of participating artists in the Guggenheim
consideration for the needs of the work. I add that every artist but Buren executing work International Exhibition felt that their work was
therefore devised a rough breakdown of the specificially for the International provided a compromised and endangered by the presence of
museum space into something resembling a working drawing or plan for consideration; my work in the exhibition. They exerted pressure on
plausible scheme, which was promptly upset by Buren was reluctant to provide details for his the Museum to remove my piece with the threat
several artists who either preferred a different proposal. Between October and mid-December, of withdrawing their own work.
space or changed their minds about how they when I received a letter from Buren (asking Because of this fact, and because my work, which
should be represented. whether he could use the museum space as we was executed for the exhibition, partially obscured
This is of course not a radically different had discussed it), there ensued a number of the works of a number of other participants in the
procedure from that obtaining in any exhibition: transatlantic telephone calls in which I exhibition from certain viewpoints in the Museum
the curator and the artists invariably repeatedly expressed my hesitation about the space, the Museum's decision was to give me the
`compromise' to a certain extent, but only in indoor part of his project. As late as December opportunity to show my work outside the context
the best interests of the exhibition. The 20, Buren wrote saying that he could not proceed of the Guggenheim International Exhibition.
responsibility for his work rests with the artist; with his indoor project unless he had floor plans To give the public an opportunity to understand
the responsibility for the presentation of that of the museum. Transatlantic discussions the conflict, the work will be on view for one week
works rests with the curator; given the continued without any resolution of the problem, after the Guggenheim International closes.
differences of approach between artist and but having no wish to prejudge a project which Shortly after the opening Buren decided
curator on the one hand and the curator's I had not seen and for which no specific against showing at all; he subsequently returned
obligation to consider restrictions in museum dimensions existed, I agreed to send him the to Europe. q
policy and practices on the other, it is a very floor plans. At no time, however, did I give DIANE WALDMAN
strenuous exercise at best. The problems Buren an unqualified commitment to show his
accelerate when the curator is no longer dealing banner since it remained to be seen in
with just the work at hand, i.e., when an artist conjunction with the other work in the The cancellation of Haacke's exhibition:
is no longer alive, but with the work and the exhibition. Buren delayed his arrival to New York Thomas M. Messer's 'misgivings'
artist, and becomes even more aggravated until just prior to the opening of the exhibition. The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum
when the work has yet to be created. In addition, The Buren banner, installed the day before 1071 Fifth Avenue, New York City 10028
to these problems, the spiral structure of the the exhibition was scheduled to open, was in March 19, 1971
museum is such that one change invariably direct conflict with the work of the other artists
affects another and in this particular instance in the exhibition and this factor alone prompted Dear Hans Haacke:
threatened to trigger a chain reaction down the the removal of his work. This issue was one of You asked me to write to you about my
ramp. For example, Richard Long changed his incompatibility: there was simply no way of misgivings concerning your implementation of
plan (and location) three times, the third time reconciling Buren's project with the other work the planned Haacke show at the Guggenheim
arriving at this successful solution for the top in the exhibition. The unity of the exhibition, as Museum. Let me therefore review the whole
ramp. Several artists were asked to move to well as the singular identity of each work was, as matter:
accommodate other artists : Sol LeWitt and I have stated before, a well-considered aspect of When we began our joint exhibition project,
Dan Flavin moved out of the High Gallery to the Guggenheim International. It was this you outlined a three-fold investigation and
allow for Michael Heizer's projection; in all unity that Buren disrupted by placing the proposed to devote separate exhibits to
instances, the exhibition took shape in a far banner in such a way (and of such dimensions) physical, biological, and social systems. From
more satisfying way than originally planned as to obscure the visibility of numerous works subsequent detailed outlines, it appeared that
(Flavin and LeWitt subsequently stated this). in the exhibition. The banner made it literally the social category would include a real-estate
For this reason I agreed to the changes. I should impossible to see Long, Flavin, Merz, De Maria, survey pointing through word and picture to
add that participation by an artist in a group etc., etc. in their totality. Buren's insistence that alleged social malpractices. You would name,
show would seem to imply accommodation with he was the injured party was actually refuted by and thereby publicly expose, individuals and
the other artists in the show and this proved to LeWitt, Merz, Long and Darboven the evening companies whom you consider to be at fault.
be the case for all concerned, with the before the exhibition was scheduled to open After consultation with the Foundation's
unfortunate exception of Daniel Buren. When when they told Buren that it was his work that president and with advice from our legal
he first spoke to me in October of 197o in New was comprising their own. Although a number counsel, I must inform you that we cannot go
York, he indicated his wish to use the centre of the artists signed a statement which Buren along with such an exhibition outline.
well of the museum as one part of a two-part actively solicited, saying in effect that he should From a legal point of view it appears very
plan (the other part was to be suspended between be in the show, none of them withdrew from the doubtful that your findings could be so verified
two buildings outside the museum). I expressed exhibition (with the•exception of Carl Andre, as to be unassailable if a libel suit were directed
great reservations that the indoor part would who arrived from India well after the against The Solomon R. Guggenheim
interfere with the work of the other artists in the exhibition had opened, and who withdrew largely Foundation. Verification of your charge would
show and made specific reference to the Merz because he was dissatisfied with his work in be beyond our capacity while, on the other hand,
spiral which would run around the interior the show) although there was some pressure on unchecked acceptance of your allegations could
balustrade of the museum. Buren claimed shortly them to do so. No one, least of all myself, have consequences that we are not prepared to
thereafter to have checked with Merz and said wished to exclude Buren from the exhibition, risk.
that Merz had expressed no objection; at that and I offered to hang just the outdoor part of the Considered from the vantage point of the
point, since the exhibition was in the embryonic two-part plan, or to assist him in executing Museum's purpose and function, a muckraking
stage and so many of the artists had not yet another work for the exhibition; he refused both venture under the auspices of The Solomon R.
determined what they would finally do, it was suggestions. LeWitt then proposed that Buren Guggenheim Foundation also raises serious
impossible for me to give carte blanche to Buren. have a week by himself at the end of the show, questions. We have held consistently that under
In fact I had great reservations about the piece or show with the group during the last two our Charter we are pursuing esthetic and
and informed Buren that I would not be able to weeks. Buren decided to show alone and educational objectives that are self-sufficient
accept it if it interfered with any other work in requested that the museum post a statement (in and without ulterior motive. On those grounds,

248