Elemental constructions: women artists and sculpture in the expanded field

NOTES

• Rosalind E. Krauss, ‘Sculpture in the expanded field’, The Originality of the Avant-Garde and Other Modernist Myths, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985, pp.276–90.
   Google Scholar
• Lucy Lippard and John Chandler, ‘The dematerialization of art’, in Lucy R. Lippard, Changing: Essays in Art Criticism, New York: Dutton, 1971, pp.255–76; Paul Taylor (Ed.), Anything Goes: Art in Australia 1970–1980, Melbourne: Art & Text, 1984.
   Google Scholar
• See Craig Owens's discussion of Krauss's application of logical structure to history: Anders Stephanson, ‘Interview with Craig Owens’, Craig Owens, Beyond Recognition: Representation, Power and Culture, Scott Bryson, Barbara Kruger, Lynne Tillman, and Jane Weinstock (Eds), Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992, pp.299–300.
   Google Scholar
• See for example Julie Ewington, ‘In the wild: nature, culture, gender in installation art’, in Catriona Moore (Ed.), Dissonance: Feminism and the Arts 1970–90, Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1994 pp.228–8; and Christopher Chapman, ‘Carnivorous plants’, Art and Australia, vol.32, no.1, Spring 1994, pp.92–97.
   Google Scholar
• Stephanie Radock cited in Zoë Sofia, ‘Technoscientific poesis: Joan Brassil, Joyce Hinterding, Sarah Waterson’, Continuum, vol.8, no.1, 1994, p.365.
   Google Scholar
• Emmanuel Levinas, Totality and Infinity, Alphonso Lingis (trans.), Pittsbugh: Duquesne University Press, 1969, p.131.
   Google Scholar
• ibid, p.132.
   Google Scholar
• ibid, p.131.
   Google Scholar
• See Martin Heidegger, “The age of the world picture’, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, William Lovitt (trans.), New York: Harper and Row, 1977, p.132. He refers to the world picture as the modern mode of representing what ‘is’. To represent here means: ‘to set out before oneself and to set forth in relation to oneself’.
   Google Scholar
• Levinas, Totality and Infinity, p.132.
   Google Scholar
• ibid, p.142.
   Google Scholar
• Levinas describes egoistic self-absorption as like extreme hunger: ‘the famished stomach has no ears’ (ibid, p.118).
   Google Scholar
• ibid, p. 132.
   Google Scholar
• ibid, p.156.
   Google Scholar
• ibid, p.151.
   Google Scholar
• Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (trans.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993, pp.152–54.
   Google Scholar
• Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, Alphonso Lingis (trans.), Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1968, pp.139–40.
   Google Scholar
• See Plato, Timaeus and Critias, Desmond Lee (trans.), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965, pp.69–73. For further discussion of the complexities of chôra see Ann Bergren, ‘Architecture gender philosophy’, Strategies in Architectural Thinking, John Whiteman, Jeffrey Kipnis and Richard Burdett (eds), Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992, pp.21–27; and Elizabeth Grosz, ‘Women, chora, dwelling’, Architecture New York, no.4, Jan.-Feb. 1994, pp.22–27.
   Google Scholar
• For an analysis of this feminised, passive space see my ‘Sexualizing space’, in Elizabeth Grosz and Elspeth Probyn (eds), Sexy Bodies: The Strange Carnalities of Feminism, London/New York: Routledge, 1995, pp.181–94.
   Google Scholar
• Irigaray states that ‘the mother was immolated at the birth of our culture’ (Luce Irigaray, Sexes and Genealogies, Gillian C. Gill (trans.), New York: Columbia University Press, 1993, p.18).
   Google Scholar
• Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, p.131.
   Google Scholar
• ibid.
   Google Scholar
• ibid.
   Google Scholar
• ibid.
   Google Scholar
• ibid.
   Google Scholar
• ibid, p.133.
   Google Scholar
• ibid, p. 135.
   Google Scholar
• ibid, p.153.
   Google Scholar
• ibid, p. 147.
   Google Scholar
• ibid, pp.130–31.
   Google Scholar
• Excerpts from reviews in Simone Mangos and Terence Maloon, ‘Simone Mangos’, The Australian Bicentennial Perspecta, Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales, 14 October-29 November 1987, exhibition catalogue, p.58.
   Google Scholar
• Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (trans.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962, p.88. Heidegger states: ‘When concern holds back from any kind of producing, manipulating, and the like, it puts itself to what is now the sole remaining mode of Being-in, the mode of just tarrying alongside…’.
   Google Scholar
• Quotation from the artist's notes for Nuns’ Pool, collection of artist.
   Google Scholar
• See the chapter with this title, “The intertwining—the chiasm’, in Merleau-Ponty, The Visible and the Invisible, pp.130–62.
   Google Scholar
• Rhys Jones quoted in Museum of Sydney, Edge of the Trees, Sydney: Museum of Sydney, 1994, media release.
   Google Scholar
• Maurice Merleau-Ponty, ‘Eye and mind’, The Primacy of Perception, Carleton Dallery (trans.), Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1964, p.167.
   Google Scholar
• ibid.
   Google Scholar
• Joan Brassil, artist's statement, in Joan Brassil, The Resonant Image: A Retrospective Exhibition, Campbelltown: Campbelltown City Bicentennial Art Gallery, 26 June-5 August 1991, exhibition catalogue, unpaginated.
   Google Scholar
• Sally Couacaud, ‘Joan Brassil’, in Joan Brassil, The Resonant Image: A Retrospective Exhibition, unpaginated.
   Google Scholar
• Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, pp.1213.
   Google Scholar
• E.B. Uvarov and D.R. Chapman, A Dictionary of Science, (4th rev. Ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971, pp.121–22.
   Google Scholar