Passive Environmentalism in
Allan Kaprow’s Yard
Shirley Au
.jpg)
Abstract
This essay analyzes and comments on the famous conceptual art created by Allan Kaprow in 1961: Yard.
Keywords
Allan Kaprow, Yard, conceptual art, passive environmentalism
Main Text
Since
1952, when Allan Kaprow pioneered the first participatory environments, Yard
had been one of his most re-invented works. First, as an action collage painter,
Kaprow had to establish his principles that transitioned his work from canvas
space to physical space. Second, he used junk objects, a by-product of growing
consumerist behaviors, to reconnect art to living surroundings and create life-like
art over art-like art. To help address the decaying urban environment, viewers interacted
with junk objects in physical space, which he called environment. Previous
scholarly works have analyzed three-dimensional elements, such as space, time,
objects, spectatorship, audience, patrons, and artists. Yet, the socio-economic
and political impacts and potentials of Yard remain less explored. I
will explore the entangled social and environmental relations as Kaprow theorized
the artistic practices of Jackson Pollock, John Cage, and Marcel Duchamp, as
well as influences by John Dewey, Harold Rosenberg, and others. What inspired
Kaprow reflected his interests in artists’ social positions between individuals
and collectives through visual communication and thus incubated the prototype
of collective environmentalism in the early 1960s.
In 1961, Martha
Jackson Gallery’s exhibition entitled Environments, Situations, Spaces presented environments that demanded “full
and active participation of viewers” in the physical space.[1]
After seeing indoor works by George Brecht, James Dine, Walter Gaudnek, Claes Oldenberg, and Robert Whitman, visitors
encountered numerous used tires piling
up at the Sculpture Garden. Robert R. McElroy and Ken Heyman’s
photo documentation and exhibition materials were the remaining evidence of Yard
because the waste tires were discarded after the exhibition. In one photograph [fig.
1], the tires almost reach the height of the waist of Kaprow, who is standing
at the back on the right-hand side of the entrance and chatting with Lucas
Samaras. The interior light behind the entrance implied that the exhibition
continued both inside and outside of the gallery space. The low angle indicates
the eye view of crawling participants, while the space largely occupied by the
tires invites them to move around energetically. These photographs were participatory
dialogues in Yard where participants were in the work.
William Kaizen compared the framing edges
to the concept of windows that reversed light and vision in Renaissance
paintings.[2] In an overhead view [fig.
2], the work sucked in the light above the head from physical reality. It could
be seen from inside the gallery upstairs. According to him, the space emblematic
of its infinite perspectives could no longer be contained on the canvas so it
was stretched out of the gallery walls towards the outdoors. Hence, the photograph
sees it as a three-dimensional space composed of massive objects overflowing the
gallery structure. The waste tires were multi-directional, facing the sky and
viewers, with cans scattered around. Some were stacked higher at the back,
particularly at the top-left corner, forming a mini landscape. In this way, it
was easier for viewers to enter the lower land at the entrance at the bottom
and “hike” up to the view at the back. The size of each tire was more or less
the same – the typical one for private vehicles. Their collage-like organization
brought a unidirectional sense. Or, in better words, it was fluid in the black
monotone of random order. We could not see any hope of light from these
destined wastes. As light symbolizes rationality and the absolute aesthetic in
Renaissance paintings, Yard’s reversed vision carried the irrational
psyche. The light, as divine power, was devoured, disrupting the singular
dynamics of spectatorship.
Yard released the spectator’s subject-object control as Kaprow
followed Pollock as the centralized figure in Abstract Expressionism. In 1947
and 1948, he studied Abstract Expressionist painting with Hans Hofmann and once
encountered Pollock during a part-time paint delivery job, getting a class from
Hofmann on the concept of space.[3]
He was inspired by the
spatial motif when he first saw Pollock’s drip paintings in the Betty Parsons
Gallery in 1948.[4] The all-over
drip carried the mass of the artist’s unconscious psyche and intensified
emotions. The artist took mechanical control because viewers’ bodies were like passive
rollers of a film reel or panorama, playing Pollock’s bodily action in color motions.
Until then, the art-like art had been dominated by painting-viewer relations:
the viewers were idle, standing still, and moving only their eyeballs. Its
influence on Yard was substantial. The waste vehicle tires were rotting
rubber but the focus was neither their deformation nor their elasticity. They
did not have much distinguishable detail. The size of one tire was incomparable
to that of human bodies. But the spectatorship was about the physical materiality
of the artist’s and viewers’ bodies. There was limitation in bodily shape,
form, and gesture but it could not hinder the bodily movement among the tires. Yard
detached from the rubber objects and rendered participants’ bodies the objects.
Positioning
spectatorship in socially progressive art history, the idled aristocratic or
bourgeois viewers were the problem of visual representation in European
tradition. In 1952, Kaprow earned a master's degree in art history from New
York University under Meyer Schapiro, who was notably interested in Pollock’s
works. Kaprow's artistic practice combined both art history philosophies and
painting because of Schapiro's encouragement during his studies and after
graduation.[5] This
paved the way for the working principles of action paintings in his article, The
Legacy of Jackson Pollock, in 1958, the year he coined the term
environment. He denounced the
part-to-part relationships throughout the art historical lineage: the idealized
world in the Renaissance, the order from Impressionism to Surrealism, the
composition from Cubism to Dadaism, and the succession from European to
American avant-garde art.[6] His idea of
stylistic continuity in art history was influenced by Schapiro’s Marxist approach: “a dialectic
between artistic freedom and socioeconomic constraints”.[7]
Pollock’s drip represented a disruptive artistic outcome shaped by the Great
Depression. His hyper-individuality encompassed indigenous cultures, poverty,
emotional turmoil, and alcoholism. Its participatory potential was realistic
and social. Kaprow should transform his tragedy into life appreciation to
reconstruct the identity of urban dwellers. In contrast, the social genre of avant-garde
paintings became historicized and patronized, and the painting medium remained alienated
from its immediate surroundings in the first half of the twentieth century.[8] He was also inspired by the “prototype”
in the literature of Italian Futurism and Russian Constructivism in
non-painterly disciplines.[9]
Hence, Kaprow named Pollock the American disruptive figure who liberated artistic
creation from linear history. He also relieved his centralized authorial
control that was restricted to canvas space and dispersed it among participants
from all walks of life.
This led to what came after the Great
Depression, as the previous paradigm was obsolete to comprehend social
circumstances in the 1950s and 1960s. I will delve into phenomenological experiences
and environmental contexts in Yard.
Kaprow’s environment extricated canvas space to real-life space after
delineating action painting by action and painting. Compared to deploying objects on a canvas, William C.
Seitz characterized the art of assemblage as an environment.[10] Kaprow was not the exact person who used the term because he highlighted
“environment is a process of interaction” in Dewey’s Art as Experience during
college.[11] Artistic objects should not be
separated from their surroundings for pervasive experiences. Space is perceived
as an embodied medium, both tangible and intangible. Despite
its bulky attempt, Yard's unpleasantly-looking waste tires had not
overwhelmed viewers like Jill Johnston, an art critic who stood back and
commented, "incomprehensible" and "not negotiable”.[12] Perhaps it was the absurd
and unfamiliar construction that challenged viewers’ pre-existing relations
with art-like art, compared to other artistically crafted works in the
exhibition. In a visiting photograph [fig. 3], several
permanent sculptures by Barbara Hepworth and Alberto Giacometti are protected
with black tar wraps on the top and lower left corners. A man in a paler suit
has already buried his legs halfway in the tires. Two ladies in elegant
metropolis gowns cannot do the same, so they walk cautiously on the tires. One
of them is holding a pair of high heels in her right hand and standing on her bare
foot, in need of support from the art, and is almost falling. Viewers
either responded to the constructed world by staying at a distance or
participating in the work clumsily.
Yard became
a social commentary because its deterioration evolved into relational
experiences in the city. But Kaprow himself might deny its intention and make
it frivolous against serious or unionizing meaning, according to Johnston.[13] The sources and effects of
waste tires were pluralistic, and the process became sarcastic in real life.
Beyond the exhibition space, the hygienic complaints from neighbors, visits
from police, firefighters and health workers, among other galleries and buildings,
weaved together the simultaneity of city environments.[14] Such participation engaged more than
its targeted viewers. The relational circumstances indeed exerted real
sentiments toward the hygienic concerns of its neighborhood. Viewers
were informed of some backgrounds, and the “serious meaning” was subconscious,
unlike the direct social critique by the avant-garde. In the exhibition catalogue,
Kaprow vaguely wrote, “Yard thus looks neither exactly I like a junk
pile nor any of the visual arts, nor even a fun-house... Yet Yard could
relate to any or all to them…dumps, and the shanty-hubs built by those strange
madmen who divide their world with rats…”[15] The environment encapsulated
waste issues into an urban microcosm of vehicles, junkyards, and poor outskirts,
with traces from all walks of life. The real junkyards, even though not part of
the exhibition, formed a massive invisible network that extended the connection
to the work indefinitely. The post-war economic boom in the 1950s resulted in a
disparity between private wealth and public poverty. Slums, overcrowded cities,
inadequate parks, detention, littered parks and water supply proliferated.[16] Yard’s all-over
quality represented the sprawling contamination under affluent suburban
expansion devoid of community support. Kaprow was also nostalgic about the tire
games from his childhood.[17] Climbing over the tires
might reenact the living experiences of grassroots and immigrant visitors who
grew up playing and having street adventures in the crowded neighborhood in the
early to middle twentieth century.[18] These anachronized encounters
activated viewers communally, from the gallery to its neighborhood, from the
city to the junkyard.
In the 1950s, automobile mass ownership was
one of the detrimental sources to the urban and natural environment. Rubber tires would not decompose until
after 50 years. They took up a lot of space in landfills, which were expanding.
Automobiles supported material comfort for the working class as the pursuable
commodity shifted urban identity away from freedom, leisure, and class and
toward function and efficiency.[19]
In the 1960s, such material fetish led to hyper-consumerist behaviors quickly
accumulating waste and contagious junkyards. In the city center, environmental
deterioration was highly neglected because a tremendous industrial effort was deployed
to keep the trash invisible and out of the public eye.[20]
Being unconscious was an allegory of the invisible because people were unaware
of their throwaway, which composed a large part of their living environment.
The meaning of art was void and alienating in an artificially built world, in
denial of the existence of junk. This specified the 1960s junk culture,
as proposed by Lawrence Alloway, which could only exist in an urban environment
encompassing obsolescent sources and histories of objects.[21] Like Yard, the
automobile and junk motive also appeared in Kaprow’s happening, household
(1964), in which participants licked the jam on a waste car body in the
municipal garbage dump of Ithaca. Individuals were caught up in being
productive and having material pleasure, and they eventually did not notice
they were destroying the environment. Both works collectively grappled against
the graving cost of a surging economy by bringing unconscious junk and
individual liability to the center of attention. Furthermore, Yard’s non-sellable
waste tires became the archetypal icon of the middle class, outnumbering the bourgeois
establishment. Excluding the formalistic car bodies that projected individual
owners’ “social standing”, Yard’s monotone appearance and exaggerated
quantity of waste tires entailed a polemic against the distinction of class.[22] The participants were psychologically
minimized and homogenized into junk objects in a repetitive and mechanical
manner. What provided a socio-economic backdrop to urban and class
identity was the tire iconography.
Its socio-political agenda could be inspired by Marcel
Duchamp’s nonsensical anti-art. Kaprow was inspired by Dada theories in Robert
Motherwell's 1951 book The Dada Painters and Poets.[23]
Neo-Dadaists' temporality and psychoanalysis devices were tools for
experiencing the possibility of life in a changing and contingent spectrum
under capitalism.[24]
Similar to Duchamp’s One Mile of String, in which strings hung from the
ceiling and formed massive webs at the entrance and between each display set
up, Yard’s anti-art motif palpated through immersive waste that was ready-made.
In both works, visitors crawled, bent down, and adjusted their vision to
question their viewing habits pre-conditioned by gallery space. Instead of
detaching the viewers from art-like art, Yard lifted the prohibition on
see-without-touch to abolish their visual fetish. In One Mile of String,
the eccentric strings allegorized the hidden connection between two continents:
the art-less social situation in Europe was neglected in America during World
War II. Yard also contested the under-exposed environmental deterioration
through an apocalyptic vision of the interconnected urban space. From visible strings to invisible inter-spatial
connections, both drew the viewers into participating
in their socio-political imaginaries.
The creation of Yard could stem from Cold War
anxiety, which connected different cityscapes invisibly during the 1950s and
1960s. Environmental
degradation was a symbol of both the atomic bomb and exploitative capitalism in
the survival milieu.[25] People
were afraid of the invisible, for example, the spreading radiation under the
skies of “Russian satellites”.[26] Alternative
attitudes and ways of relating arose because survival was rooted in the
environment. Cold War anxiety resulted in the popularity of
Zen beliefs as interpreted by D. T. Suzuki and his followers to establish a non-hierarchical
principle for dialogue between individuals, society, and government.[27] Kaprow’s contemporaries, Robert Delford Brown, Brecht, and Pauline
Oliveros, were kin practitioners in Zen. He always engaged in Zen
intellectually for its close appreciation of everyday life and paradoxical
practice of control and chance situations, which will be discussed later.[28] The inability to change
higher social orders was exacerbated after losing the artistic spirit of
Pollock. The Zen quality of his simplistic, direct, and
childlike personality could also
be a dissolution to identity crisis and a sense of death and urgency in an era
of American adventures.[29]
In the photo documentation in Yard [fig. 4], Kaprow in his pipe and his son, Anton, pulling a can, are facing the
overhead camera, implying an apocalyptic sense in the environmental disaster.
The father-and-son theme hinted at an education of environmental identity
through play. Jeff Kelley mentioned “play” frequently in Yard’s chapter
in Childplay: The Art of Allan Kaprow,
but it reduced the urban melancholy to personal dark humor - having fun and
getting into trouble. I would argue his Zen practice carried the symbols of
collective effort toward a self-less world. Thus, the invisible environment was
weaved in a Zen way to counter the anxiety of the Cold War.
The chance and control operation simulated
the declining environment in a sensational and psychological way. Kaprow had adopted
Zen artistically since 1956 and 1957, when he attended John Cage's musical
seminars at the New School for Social Research in New York to experiment with
music and chance operations along with George Brecht and Dick Higgins. Cage’s
notion of time in 4’33 did not involve any objects in the auditorium, but
its atmospheric silence connected his audience sensorily. With the motivation
that action painting “led not to more painting, but to more action”,[30] Kaprow had a brief
experiment with life objects, sounds, smells, and tastes at the seminars and ultimately
saw Zen as infinite possibilities that freed one from "customary
relationships”.[31]
He experimented with the rhythmic control in the chance operation. Yard
deviated from Cage by changing time into palpable and constant interaction with
junk objects. Allegorically, participants were unable to alter the uncontrollable
environmental outcome. They were staged as objects to affirm the indeterminacy
of their vain actions. While Cage investigated the durational resonance in the sonic
environment, Yard provoked participants to contemplate the innate and
spontaneous qualities of their bodily senses in relation to the tire landscape.
The participants were sitting, jumping,
and climbing between the tires. The dust, grease, rough texture, and rubber
stink triggered more than the visual and audio senses. Gernot Böhme stressed
the rudimentary concept of atmospheric aesthetics, in which participants’ sense
bodily in a molecular way and configure their evaporating being in the
concurrent environment.[32] In short, the use of the senses
to reify physical space and embody the junk identity. The immediate sensation
“spread” invisibly in the visible atmosphere without a trace.
Understanding
one’s subjective experience, Yard prompted philosophical and
psychological reasoning in the world of others. The effects on the participants
were mostly imaginative. In Yard, participants hold the unaccepting
belief that they should seek unknown forms as alternative solutions. Although they
could react distantly and choose not to engage, Kaprow defended the shock,
temporary attention, and instant movement as improvised primal experiences.[33] Their reactions were the
invisible work-in-progress, so the artist and most viewers shared such an individual
yet collective experience. Kaprow
interpreted it as a “balance” or “right” relationship by colliding sensual
materials, the actions of participants, and
physical spaces.[34]
Viewers were provoked to change
the relations between themselves and the outer world constantly and introspectively.
The artist’s presence acted as communication
with the unknown between viewers and society. The performance-like participation
revealed its embodied contexts and unified the industrial, artistic, and
participatory processes from manufacturing to consumption, from junkyard to studio
or creative production. Here, we return to
Dewey's concept of environment as interaction that rejoins the existing
domestic or geographical surroundings into artistic objects. Kaprow expanded the
adaptable reception of life-like art to include industrial, military, and
scientific supply chain processes.[35] Such information control was hierarchical and
industrially conditioned, so consumers could not see any consequences of their
actions at the near end of the chain. The artist’s presence, however, was
critical to bringing the unconscious behind the scenes to light. In one
photograph [fig. 5], Kaprow is throwing a tire during
the on-site preparation. It encouraged viewers to interact with
the work in order to gain a visceral understanding of the artist. In
another photograph [fig. 6], two gentlemen enthusiastically discuss
intellectual matters in the middle ground, while the one facing us points to
the sky as if seeking inspiration. From bodily motions to contemplative trajectories,
the visitors were assumed to simulate the artist’s bodily preparation and
interactions with tire objects. More importantly, the experiences led to
intellectual communication cross-referencing Kaprow’s writing and creative
development. Even the de-installation
was a transparent process, as the gallery took weeks to discard rotting and
dirty tires.[36] The
communication between the viewers and society rejoined various creative and
industrial productions in the environment.
The act of assemblage reminded viewers of
their ability to conceptualize dysfunctional social systems and structures to
re-connect to their worlds. Incompatible art-like and life-like forms were
symbolically operated until equilibrium. Another Kaprow’s influencer, Harold
Hosenberg, whose review “The American action painters” explained the
metaphysics of action, “The work, the act, translates the psychologically given
into the intentional, into a ‘world’ – and thus transcend it.”[37] The mediacy between bodily action and the represented
world was lifted. In Yard, highly concentrated waste triggered viewers’
bodily awareness in “a detached, closed arrangement of
time-space” in the
gallery.[38] It revealed
the oppressive effects of circulatory commodities and the psychological
embodiment of waste. And the intrinsic exhibition elements remained unchanged:
patrons and high-art artists were reduced to social members with collective
responsibilities for pollution. The junk environment became a tool to flatten
and humble the bourgeoisie, apart from the class iconography that it
represented. Social functions were incorporated into artistic practice, and the
patronage system formed an intricate relationship with economic causes and
environmental effects. The environment was considered a motif to subvert the
social hierarchy in the art industry.
But the act of environmental awareness was still passive
in nature. As mentioned, Kaprow rejected direct criticism of any social issues
but influenced his viewers unconsciously. Any socio-political organization might
have an aftereffect outside the gallery space. The artist’s control was
decentralized to communal formation, so the environment could potentially
involve multifarious participants. Kaprow’s students in his happenings were
examples of collaboration. Rosenberg provided an analogy for the plausibility of projecting
innate socio-political will onto the dissonance of public space. The ultimate life-like motif of tires
remained human-centric rather than environment-centric. Yard’s
human-environmental relationship was artificially built in city dwellings. It rudimentarily
aimed to overwhelm and reorganize consumerism and class structure from human
subjective perspectives. This could be attributed to the preference for quality
of life over environment and the insularity of environmentalism until environmentalist
movements in the late 1960s.[39] There was yet to be a move “from the
body to the body politic” until later artistic-social interaction.[40] The
junk identity was rather unconscious, as was the socio-political meaning-making
process. The conceptual theorization was yet to be the vernacular language for participants to approach the immediate environmental issues.
Life-like art has other
socio-political potentials. Since it connects the cause and effect of the whole
world,[41] it
has paved the way for Kaprow’s followers to invent different forms along with
media and technological advancement. For example, installation, performance,
and community engagement. They have departed from Kaprow’s conceptual language
and become more life-like in their interactions. One example would be his
student, Suzanna Lacy, who collaborated with Unique Holland and Julio Morales
on Code 33: Emergency Clear the Air! from 1997 to 1999. They arranged
over one hundred vehicles on the rooftop of Oakland’s City Center West Garage
with more than a thousand members, spontaneously roaming between vehicles while
discussing. With a similar spatial motive to Yard, the TV, vehicles, and
people created an immersive environment in an enclosed open space. The environment
played a more active role in re-establishing interpersonal relations and social
orders. Recruiting a large number of participants in the styles of community
campaigns moved from life-like art to socio-political participation.
All in all, Yard
manifested a unified narrative of socio-economics, art, and culture for both
individuals and collectives under thriving capitalism during the Cold War
period. The spatial participation that evolved from action paintings and the chance
operation was a life-like form of visual communication between viewers and
society. Kaprow's language and theorization were conceptual rather than
life-like in response to environmental issues. The entangled social commentaries,
artistic choices, and philosophies were critical to revising his passive stance
on environmentalism. Yard transformed the condemned individualized
responsibilities into a collective awareness that subverted the hierarchical
order of the visible through the invisible before the mature counter-movements
in the late 1960s.
(3783 words)
List of Illustrations
|
Fig. 1 |
Fig. 3 |
|
Fig. 2 |
Fig. 4 |
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Fig. 5 |
Fig. 6 |
.jpg)
.jpg)
1.
Yard, 1961,
overhead view, backyard sculpture garden, Martha Jackson Gallery, New York.
(Kelley, Childplay: the art of Allan Kaprow,
62, Photo: Robert R. McElroy © Robert R. McElroy/Licensed by Vaga, New York,
NY)
2.
Yard, 1961,
overhead view, backyard sculpture garden, Martha Jackson Gallery, New York.
(Kelley, Childplay: the art of Allan Kaprow,
173, Photo: Ken Heyman)
3.
Yard, 1961, Widewalls Editorial, “The Happening and Its Influence on
Contemporary Art,” Widewalls, October 27,
2016.
https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/happening-happenings-performance-art.
4.
Yard, 1961,
Kaprow and his son, Anton, backyard sculpture garden, Martha Jackson Gallery,
New York. (Kelley, Childplay: the art of
Allan Kaprow, 60, Photo: Ken Heyman)
https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/happening-happenings-performance-art.
5.
Yard, 1961,
Kaprow throwing in Yard, backyard sculpture garden, Martha Jackson
Gallery, New York. (Kelley, Childplay: the
art of Allan Kaprow, 61, Photo: Ken Heyman)
6.
Yard, 1961.
Downloaded from Sketchline. Courtesy
Allan Kaprow papers, 1940-1997, Research Library, Getty Research Institute, Los
Angeles (California, the USA).
Bibliography
Alberro, Alexander, and
Blake Stimson, eds. Institutional Critique: An Anthology of Artists’
Writings. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2009.
Allen,
C. “Experience, Chance and Change: Allan Kaprow and the Tension between Art and
Life, 1948-1976.” PhD thesis, Oxford University, 2015. Terms and Conditions of
Use for Oxford University Research Archive.
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:ecfdef44-0cdd-4913-aebe-7cda88030692/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=THESIS01&type_of_work=Thesis.
“ENVIRONMENT
- SITUATIONS - SPACES.” New York : Martha Jackson Gallery, May 25, 1961. Press
Release. Ie cdla.
Farzin,
Media. Review of Environments, Situations, Spaces, by Jill Johnston. E-Flux
Criticism, January 31, 2012. Originally published in Village Voice, 6 Jul.
1961, 13.
Gartman,
David. “Three Ages of the Automobile: The Cultural Logics of The Car.” Theory,
Culture & Society 21, no. 4–5 (October 2004): 169–95.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046066.
Hopkins,
David, and Anna Katharina Schaffner, eds. Neo-Avant-Garde. Avant Garde
Critical Studies 20. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006.
Kaizen,
William. “Framed Space: Allan Kaprow and the Spread of Painting.” Grey Room
13 (October 2003): 80–107. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638103322751074.
Kaprow,
Allan. Assemblage, Environments and Happenings. Abrams, 1965.
———.
“ENVIRONMENT - SITUATIONS - SPACES.” Exhibition Catalogue. New York : Martha
Jackson Gallery, 1961. Ie cdla.
Kaprow,
Allan, and Jeff Kelley. Essays on the Blurring of Art and Life. Expanded
pbk. ed. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2003.
Kaprow,
Allan, and Mimsy Lee. “On Happenings.” The Tulane Drama Review 10, 1966.
Kelley,
Jeff, and Allan Kaprow. Childsplay: The Art of Allan Kaprow. Berkeley,
Calif.: University of California Press, 2004.
Lacy,
Suzanne. “SUZANNE LACY.” ARTFORUM, 2006.
Mackintosh,
James Duncan. “Fetishism and the Culture of the Automobile,” n.d.
Melin,
Corinne. “Allan Kaprow, Yard 2017-1962,” 2017. https://doi.org/hal-01592438f.
Reiss,
Julie H. From Margin to Center: The Spaces of Installation Art.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.
Rogers,
Heather. “GARBAGE CAPITALISM’S GREEN COMMERCE,” n.d.
Rome,
Adam. “‘Give Earth a Chance’: The Environmental Movement and the Sixties.” Journal
of American History 90, no. 2 (September 1, 2003): 525.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3659443.
Rosenberg,
Harold. “The American Action Painters.” ARTnews, 1952.
Roth,
Moira, and Allan Kaprow. Oral History Interview with Allan Kaprow, 1981 Feb.
5-18. Sound cassettes. AAADCD_oh_211956, n.d. 750 9th St. NW, Washington,
D.C. 20001. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.
Sessa,
Marcello. “Art Is in the Air. The Public Dimension in Allan Kaprow’s Utopian
Un-Artistic Theory.” Aisthesis. Pratiche, Linguaggi e Saperi Dell’estetico
15, no. 1 (August 2, 2022): 69–79. https://doi.org/10.36253/Aisthesis-13712.
Whiteley,
Nigel. “Junk Art.” In Art and Pluralism, 171–74. Lawrence Alloway’s
Cultural Criticism. Liverpool University Press, 2012.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt5vj994.42.
Wridt,
Pamela J. “An Historical Analysis of Young People’s Use of Public Space, Parks
and Playgrounds in New York City.” Children, Youth and Environments 14,
no. 1 (2004): 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1353/cye.2004.0025.