What do you think?
Rate this book
Individuals: Post-Movement Art in America
Book by Walter Abish, Laurie Anderson, David Askevold, Vito Acconci, Robert Horvitz, Nancy Wilson Kitchel, Alvin Lucier, Bernadette Mayer, Adrian Piper
316 pages, Paperback
First published January 17, 1977
1 person is currently reading
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 7, 2008
This is yet another bk I probably read shortly after it came out. It's interesting that its focus stresses individuals independent of movements. I like being both involved in movements & separate from them. Sometimes I suspect that some of the more independent creative people get ignored from historification b/c they coexisted in the same time & place as a movement w/o being part of it & have been, thusly, somewhat written off as not being 'w/ it' or whatever. SO, I like Sondeim's editorial focus here ALTHOUGH it took place during the so-called "me decade" that ruling elites created to try to quell radical political movements in the USA.
The people represented are: Walter Abish (writer), Vito Acconci (writer, body artist, conceptual artist, performer, installation maker, video maker, sculptor), Laurie Anderson (performer, musician, video maker), David Askevold (writer?, photographer?), Alice Aycock (earthworks/architectural sculptor), Robert Horvitz (draughtsman), Nancy Wilson Kitchel (photographer), Alvin Lucier (composer/performer), Bernadette Mayer (writer), Rosemary Mayer (sculptor), Mike Metz (model maker), Ree Morton (installation artist), Dennis Oppenheim (earthworks, sculptor, video maker), Adrian Piper (artist, social observor, conceptual artist), Charles Simonds (miniature earthworks architect/sculptor).
Some very strong work is presented here. This was back in the day when Laurie Anderson, eg, was just getting to be known, before Warner Brothers made her famous, when she was very fresh. Just combining performers & a composer & sculptors & writers, etc, in one bk under one umbrella seems like an excellent idea to me. Why always seperate them into disciplines? I've been all of the above & more & find it ridiculous when people try to pigeonhole me as being only a "filmmaker" eg.
On the downside, this is basically a bk of people represented by galleries or publishers. In other words, a typical NYC art bk in that respect - mostly New Yawkers. A bk like this today wd probably be criticized as respresenting mainly 'white' people (whatever that means) w/ Adrian Piper as the token academic black. Oh well. Maybe some of the other above folks aren't 'white' & I just don't know that. It's possible. Regardless of such a lack of diversity in some respects, this bk still represents a remarkable diversity in others.
The people represented are: Walter Abish (writer), Vito Acconci (writer, body artist, conceptual artist, performer, installation maker, video maker, sculptor), Laurie Anderson (performer, musician, video maker), David Askevold (writer?, photographer?), Alice Aycock (earthworks/architectural sculptor), Robert Horvitz (draughtsman), Nancy Wilson Kitchel (photographer), Alvin Lucier (composer/performer), Bernadette Mayer (writer), Rosemary Mayer (sculptor), Mike Metz (model maker), Ree Morton (installation artist), Dennis Oppenheim (earthworks, sculptor, video maker), Adrian Piper (artist, social observor, conceptual artist), Charles Simonds (miniature earthworks architect/sculptor).
Some very strong work is presented here. This was back in the day when Laurie Anderson, eg, was just getting to be known, before Warner Brothers made her famous, when she was very fresh. Just combining performers & a composer & sculptors & writers, etc, in one bk under one umbrella seems like an excellent idea to me. Why always seperate them into disciplines? I've been all of the above & more & find it ridiculous when people try to pigeonhole me as being only a "filmmaker" eg.
On the downside, this is basically a bk of people represented by galleries or publishers. In other words, a typical NYC art bk in that respect - mostly New Yawkers. A bk like this today wd probably be criticized as respresenting mainly 'white' people (whatever that means) w/ Adrian Piper as the token academic black. Oh well. Maybe some of the other above folks aren't 'white' & I just don't know that. It's possible. Regardless of such a lack of diversity in some respects, this bk still represents a remarkable diversity in others.
Displaying 1 of 1 review