{"@context":{"@language":"en","Affiliation":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","AggregatedSourceRepository":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","Campus":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeCampus","Creator":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","DateAvailable":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","DateIssued":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","Degree":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#relatedDegree","DegreeGrantor":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeGrantor","Description":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description","DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","FullText":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","Genre":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","GraduationDate":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#dateIssued","IsShownAt":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","Language":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","Program":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeDiscipline","Provider":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","Publisher":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","Rights":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","RightsURI":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#rightsURI","ScholarlyLevel":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel","Title":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","Type":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","URI":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI","SortDate":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date"},"Affiliation":[{"@value":"Arts, Faculty of","@language":"en"},{"@value":"Art History, Visual Art and Theory, Department of","@language":"en"}],"AggregatedSourceRepository":[{"@value":"DSpace","@language":"en"}],"Campus":[{"@value":"UBCV","@language":"en"}],"Creator":[{"@value":"Jackson, Katherine","@language":"en"}],"DateAvailable":[{"@value":"2024-04-30T07:00:00Z","@language":"en"}],"DateIssued":[{"@value":"2020","@language":"en"}],"Degree":[{"@value":"Doctor of Philosophy - PhD","@language":"en"}],"DegreeGrantor":[{"@value":"University of British Columbia","@language":"en"}],"Description":[{"@value":"This dissertation examines the Artist Placement Group\u2019s (APG) artist placements within industry and government in the U.K. and Western Europe from 1969-1976 and brings to light correspondence letters, corporate contracts, proposals and artist statements that have not been previously published. I consider the APG\u2019s placements as prototypes that sought to juxtapose and critically question what they perceived as artificial divisions within society. These included art versus society, left versus right political affiliations, the working class versus management, perceptions of use versus uselessness in capitalist production and the organization versus the individual. I specifically examine Garth Evans\u2019s placement with the British Steel Corporation (1968), Stuart Brisley\u2019s placement with Hille & Co (1971), John Latham\u2019s placement with the Scottish Office (1974) and the APG group exhibition titled, inn7o: Art and Economics (1972). These case studies form chapters that investigate the specific socio-political conditions of each placement\u2019s organization, artist and the artwork produced under the umbrella of the APG mission. I adopt a localized social art history approach that considers these placements within the divisions of the British Marxist Left and the changes in the U.K.\u2019s economic and labor policy that occurred against a backdrop of paradigm shifting events, such as the U.K.\u2019s acceptance into the EEC (the predecessor to the EU). Within this politically sensitive and complex context, I argue that the APG\u2019s refusal of political party and class affiliations was representative of a complete disavowal of their contemporary political options; a political position that for artistic practice meant foregoing class and political loyalties in favor of focusing on art\u2019s relationship to ideology itself. Exploring themes of class, labor, time and the political potential of a work of art, I argue for the broader importance of the APG within histories of art and interdisciplinary practice, and propose an alternative perspective of the relationship between art and politics during the 1960s and 70s.","@language":"en"}],"DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":[{"@value":"https:\/\/circle.library.ubc.ca\/rest\/handle\/2429\/74316?expand=metadata","@language":"en"}],"FullText":[{"@value":"\t Total Economy: The Artist Placement Group (1969-1976)  by  KATHERINE JACKSON   A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY   in    THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES  (Art History and Theory)    THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)    May 2020   \u00a9 Katherine Jackson, 2020          ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled:  Total Economy: The Artist Placement Group (1966-1976)  submitted by Katherine Jackson   in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy  in Art History and Theory  Examining Committee: Dr. Jaleh Mansoor, Professor, Art History and Theory, UBC Supervisor  Dr. Charlotte Townsend-Gault, Professor, Art History and Theory, UBC Supervisory Committee Member  Dr. T\u2019ai Smith, Professor, Art History and Theory, UBC  Supervisory Committee Member Scott Watson, Professor, Art History and Theory, UBC University Examiner Dr. Miguel Mota, Professor, English Language and Literatures , UBC University Examiner   Additional Supervisory Committee Members: Dr. Joy Sleeman, Professor, Art History, Slade School of Fine Art (London, U.K.) Supervisory Committee Member       iii Abstract   This dissertation examines the Artist Placement Group\u2019s (APG) artist placements within industry and government in the U.K. and Western Europe from 1969-1976 and brings to light correspondence letters, corporate contracts, proposals and artist statements that have not been previously published. I consider the APG\u2019s placements as prototypes that sought to juxtapose and critically question what they perceived as artificial divisions within society. These included art versus society, left versus right political affiliations, the working class versus management, perceptions of use versus uselessness in capitalist production and the organization versus the individual. I specifically examine Garth Evans\u2019s placement with the British Steel Corporation (1968), Stuart Brisley\u2019s placement with Hille & Co (1971), John Latham\u2019s placement with the Scottish Office (1974) and the APG group exhibition titled, inn7o: Art and Economics (1972). These case studies form chapters that investigate the specific socio-political conditions of each placement\u2019s organization, artist and the artwork produced under the umbrella of the APG mission. I adopt a localized social art history approach that considers these placements within the divisions of the British Marxist Left and the changes in the U.K.\u2019s economic and labor policy that occurred against a backdrop of paradigm shifting events, such as the U.K.\u2019s acceptance into the EEC (the predecessor to the EU). Within this politically sensitive and complex context, I argue that the APG\u2019s refusal of political party and class affiliations was representative of a complete disavowal of their contemporary political options; a political position that for artistic practice meant foregoing class and political loyalties in favor of focusing on art\u2019s relationship to ideology itself. Exploring themes of class, labor, time and the political potential of a work of art, I argue for the broader importance of the APG within histories of art and interdisciplinary practice, and propose an alternative perspective of the relationship between art and politics during the 1960s and 70s.                             iv Lay Summary  This dissertation examines the Artist Placement Group\u2019s (APG) artist placements within industry and government in the U.K. and Western Europe from 1969-1976 and brings to light correspondence letters, corporate contracts, proposals and artist statements that have not been previously published. I specifically examine Garth Evans\u2019s placement with the British Steel Corporation (1968), Stuart Brisley\u2019s placement with Hille & Co (1971), John Latham\u2019s placement with the Scottish Office (1974) and the APG\u2019s group exhibition titled, inn7o: Art and Economics (1972). These chapters act as case studies that investigate the specific socio-political conditions of each placement\u2019s organization, artist and the artwork produced under the umbrella of the APG mission. Exploring themes of class, labor, time and the political potential of a work of art, I argue for the broader importance of the APG within histories of art, interdisciplinary practice and propose an alternative perspective of the relationship between art and politics during the 1960s and 70s.                                    v Preface   This dissertation is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, K. Jackson.                                            Table of Contents  Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iii             Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................. iv                          Preface ..............................................................................................................................................v                          Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi                          List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii                          Acknowledgements  ....................................................................................................................... xi   Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... xii  Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1  Out of the Shadows ...........................................................................................................1  An Origins Story ................................................................................................................4 Prototype ............................................................................................................................5 Literature Review ..............................................................................................................9 A Lack of Representation ................................................................................................16   Why is it so Impossible That the World Should Add up to One? ...................................21  A Question of Mediation  ................................................................................................26 Compositional Coding  ....................................................................................................30 Chapter SummarY ...........................................................................................................33                          Chapter One: The Problem with Steel:  Garth Evans\u2019s Placement with the British Steel Corporation (1969-1971) ...................................37  The Appeal of Steel .........................................................................................................38  The Steel Problem ...........................................................................................................49  The Steel Crisis ................................................................................................................54  A Question of Class .........................................................................................................56  Breakdown .......................................................................................................................66                     Chapter Two: The Morbid Symptoms of Capitalist Culture: Stuart Brisley's Placement with Hille & Co. Furniture Factory (1970-73) ...................................70  Why not a chair of paper\u2026Why not a chair of foam? ....................................................71 The Composition of Class ...............................................................................................75 Requiem for 1968 ............................................................................................................79 The Factory  .....................................................................................................................81 Unofficial Actions ...........................................................................................................88  Three Dimensional ..........................................................................................................89 The Morbid Symptoms of Capitalist Culture ..................................................................92 Not Achieved ...................................................................................................................95 A Lack of Representation ................................................................................................96   Chapter Three: The Failure of Two Systems:   inn7o: Art and Economics Exhibition at the Hayward Gallery (1971-72) .................................100                       The Catalogue ................................................................................................................101 The Sculpture  ................................................................................................................106 I hope you will not mind my going on about this\u2014but as you are who you are\u2026 ......109 The Poverty of Theory ...................................................................................................114 The Failure of Two Systems ..........................................................................................116 The Incidental Person ....................................................................................................119  Chapter Four: The Interior of Sculpture: John Latham's Placement with the Scottish Office (1974-76) .....................................................126                          Point Zero ......................................................................................................................127 Time-Based Spectrum ...................................................................................................132 The Incidental Person ....................................................................................................134 A Devolutionary Scheme ..............................................................................................136 The View from Above  ..................................................................................................138  Cultural Clocks ..............................................................................................................143  A Psychology of Hope ...................................................................................................146 Where Have We Come from, What Are We and Where Are We Going? ....................150  Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................152                          Pieces of Sea Fall Through the Stars .............................................................................152 I Create My Own Rank: Binaries, Autonomy and Authorship .....................................153 I Did Feel the Obligation to Make Something: Medium as Shared Subjectivity ..........158 The Void of Sea and Sky: Art and Ideology .................................................................162  Figures..........................................................................................................................................167                          Bibliography ................................................................................................................................188                           List of Figures  Figure 1 John Latham, Skoob Tower, 1966, on the grounds of the British Museum. Flat Time House Archive .......................................................................................................1  Figure 2 Yoko Ono's Shadow Piece, 1966, Notting Hill Adventure Playground. Image shows Yoko Ono tracing Barbara Steveni. Tate Archive ...............................................1  Figure 3 Barbara Steveni's Untitled Assemblage, early 1960s. Photo taken in 2018, Barbara Steveni's Home\/Archive ....................................................................................4  Figure 4 Artist Placement Group. \"Industrial Negative Symposium Questionnaire.\" 1968, Tate Archive, London ............................................................................................6  Figure 5 The Artist Placement Group Delta, 1965. Flat Time House Archive .............................8  Figure 6 Anthony Caro, 24 hours, painted steel sculpture, 1960, Tate Britain ...........................42  Figure 7 Anthony Caro, Early One Morning, painted steel sculpture, 1962, Tate Britain ..........44  Figure 8 William Tucker, Cats Cradle, raw steel, 1971 and Beulah, raw steel, 1971 ................46 Figure 9 Garth Evans, contact sheet from Some Steel, 1971. Henry Moore Foundation ............50  Figure 10  Eugene Atget's Petit \u00e9talage de poissons, Coin de la rue Daubenton et de la rue Mouffetard 1910, Paris ............................................................................................50  Figure 11 Garth Evans, Breakdown, raw steel, 1971. Hayward Gallery London..........................66  Figure 12 Robin Day, Polyprop \"Q-stak\" chair, 1963 and VC Aircraft Interior design, 1967, by Robin and Lucienne Day. Copyright Robin and Lucienne Day Foundation .....................................................................................................................73   Figure 13 Polypropylene Chair Mark II and Polypropylene Armchair, 1964, 1967. Copyright Third Photographers Name ..........................................................................75  Figure 14 Stuart Brisley, Hille Placement Poly Wheel and Painted Machines. Copyright Stuart Brisley .................................................................................................................83  Figure 15 Eric Consemuller, Untitled (Woman (Lis Beyer or Ise Gropius) in B3 club chair by Marcel Breuer wearing a mask by Oskar Schlemmer and a dress in fabric designed by Beyer) 1926, gelatin silver print. Private collection .......................85  Figure 16 Arman, Le Murex\/The Nautilus, Acummulation Renault No. 103, car fenders, 1967. Musee d'Art Modern de la Ville de Paris ............................................................90  Figure 17 Preparation for Celebration for Institutional Consumption, event, Brighton Festival, 1970. Copyright Stuart Brisley .......................................................................93  Figure 18 You know it makes sense, performance, Birmingham: Ikon Gallery, 1972. Copyright Stuart Brisley ................................................................................................93  Figure 19 Stuart Brisley, ZL656395C, performance, Gallery House, 1972. Copyright London Collection Tate .................................................................................................96  Figure 20 inn7o: Art and Economics (1971-72), cover of exhibition catalogue, London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971. Copyright Barbara Steveni Archive ...........................102  Figure 21 inn7o: Art and Economics (1971-72), cover of exhibition catalogue for inn7o: Art and Economics (1971-72), London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971. Copyright Barbara Steveni Archive ............................................................................102  Figure 22 Artist Placement Group, \"APG noit Arrangements,\" in inn7o: Art and Economics. London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971, 18. Copyright Barbara Steveni Archive ...........................................................................................................102  Figure 23 Artist Placement Group, \"Delta,\" in inn7o: Art and Economics, London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971, 20. Copyright Barbara Steveni Archive .....................103  Figure 24 Artist Placement Group. \"United Kingdom Corporation Consolidated Statement of Condition,\" in inn7o: Art and Economics, London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971,  Copyright: Barbara Steveni Archive .........................................105  Figure 25 Garth Evans, \"British Steel,\" installation, inn7o: Art and Economics. London: Hayward Gallery, 1971-2. Copyright Tate Museum Archive .....................................106  Figure 26 The Sculpture, 1971, Hayward Gallery, London. Photo Credit: Artist Placement Group, Copyright Barbara Steveni Archive ..............................................108  Figure 27 Artist Placement Group, \"Science Report,\" in inn7o: Art and Economics, London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971, 19. Copyright Barbara Steveni Archive .......124  Figure 28 John Latham, One Second Drawing 5:1, 1972 ...........................................................126  Figure 29 John Latham, Art and Culture, 1966 ...........................................................................131  Figure 30 John Latham, Time-Based Roller, 1975 ......................................................................132  Figure 31 John Latham, Offer for Sale Pg. 1, 1972 .....................................................................134  Figure 32 John Latham, Erth, film still, 1971 .............................................................................138  Figure 33 Robert Smithson, Bingham Copper Mine Plan, 1973 .................................................140  Figure 34 Letter from the John Latham Archive and image of Five Sisters Bing, 1976 .............143  Figure 35 Aerial photo of Niddrie Bing with description, 1976, Flat Time House Archive .......143  Figure 36 Map drawn by John Latham during the 1970s of Niddrie Woman, labeled as a dismembered body. Flat Time House ..........................................................................143  Figure 37 John Latham Derelict Land Art: Five Sisters, 1976, constructed by Richard Hamilton and photographs by Rita Donagh. Flat Time House ...................................147  Figure 38 Rust in Peace, image, Journal & Gazette, Linlithgow ed.,Oct. 8 1976, 10. Photography by Katherine Jackson .............................................................................147  Figure 39 John Latham walking through Niddrie Woman in the 1990s. Flat Time House .........152        xi Acknowledgements  I would like to acknowledge the support of my University of British Columbia committee members, Dr. Jaleh Mansoor, Dr. Charlotte Townsend-Gault and Dr. T\u2019ai Smith, for their mentoring and academic counsel. I would also like to acknowledge committee member Dr. Joy Sleeman and the Slade School of Fine Art for their support, research resources and mentorship. The research in this dissertation would also not have been possible without the support of Barbara Steveni, The John Latham Foundation, Flat Time House, Garth Evans, George Levantis and Stuart Brisley.                                          xii Dedication  I would like to dedicate this endeavor to my parents for their unwavering love and support throughout this arduous process. I would also like to dedicate this research in memory of Barbara Steveni for her inspiration, invaluable mentorship and friendship.       1  Introduction Out of the Shadows On a cool night in September of 1966, a small group gathered on the grounds of the British Museum. In the darkness, a spotlight revealed a tower made from books, copies of the Laws of England, that reached a height of around eight feet. As the crowd grew impatient, artist John Latham emerged from the gathered and kneeled to ignite the base of the tower. The flames took hold and the group watched as the tower of books burned to the ground. The burning of the rudimentary monument was part of a series of performative sculptures by Latham, titled Skoob Tower1 (see fig. 1).  That same month, across town, artist Barbara Steveni waited patiently. Lying on a cloth spread across an uneven ground, she observed the piles of debris around her. Stuffed into the corners of the residential block were pieces of carpet, plastic household items and construction materials. Heavily bombed during WWII, the now vacant space was named the Notting Hill Free\/Adventure playground. On the ground of this post-apocalyptic play space, artist Yoko Ono traced the outline of Steveni\u2019s body. Steveni was one of twenty participants whose silhouettes composed Ono\u2019s performance, Shadow Piece (1966).  Ono described the performance as an accumulation; history, she said, \u201cis forever increasing its volume\u201d (see fig. 2).2                                                   1 John Latham, Skoob Tower, 1966. Also see: Walker, John, John Latham: The Incidental Person\u2014His Art and Ideas (London: Middlesex University Press, 1995), 79-80. 2 Yoko Ono, Imagine Yoko (Lund, Sweden: Bakhall, 2005), 101. See Figure 2, Shadow Piece, 1966. Also see: Whitney, Frank, \u201cInstructions for Destruction: Yoko Ono\u2019s Performance Art.\u201d intersections 10, no. 1 (2009): 589.       2 John Latham\u2019s Skoob Tower 3 and Yoko Ono\u2019s Shadow Piece were part of a series of performances and panel discussions that formed the Destruction in Art Symposium. Commonly referred to as DIAS, the symposium took place at recognized public landmarks throughout London, during September of 1966. DIAS was intended, by its creator artist Gustav Metzger, to be a platform for the theme of destruction in art practice and to examine the relationship between these destructive tendencies and greater society. DIAS\u2019 participants were made up of both global and local members of the avant-garde and included a panel discussion by the Viennese Actionists, a performance by Valie Export and films by experimental British artist Marc Boyle.4   I begin with DIAS, an event often considered periphery to the history of the Fluxus and Conceptual art movements, to re-consider what I argue to be a pivotal point of change in the narrative of the avant-garde in Britain and globally. An epistemological shift that created a new reality for art production, art historian Kristine Stiles, in \u201cSurvival Ethos and Destruction Art,\u201d has described it as \u201can altered sense of self.\u201d5 However,  while Stiles\u2019 identifies DIAS\u2019 \u201caltered sense of self\u201d as a form of creative survival in the gruesome context of post-WWII and the Vietnam war era, I propose instead that the importance of DIAS was its optimism in de-composition and, subsequently, re-composition; the re-composition of the relationship between material, art and historical memory. For, embodied in Ono\u2019s traced silhouettes and monumentalized in Latham\u2019s book burnings was not only the potential to create from the wreckage, but a critical questioning of how                                                 3 John Latham did a series of Skoob Tower (Skoob is Books spelled backwards) burnings throughout the late 1960s. Locations included: The River Thames, The British Library and Notting Hill Free Playground.  4 For more information on DIAS, see: Stiles, Kristine, \u201cSurvival Ethos and Destruction Art,\u201d Discourse 14, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 74-102. 5 Stiles, \u201cSurvival Ethos and Destruction Art,\u201d 76.       3 we receive inherited hierarchies of knowledge and how we construct history. DIAS, viewed through this lens, did not seek to destroy works of art, but rather sought to reclaim their form and, consequentially, their political potential from the clutches of inherited social and political ideology. From this perspective, DIAS can be considered both a formal and epistemological point of starting over for the British avant-garde that created a network of like-minded artists and inspired many future artist collaborations.  The same year as DIAS, Barbara Steveni, Barry Flanagan, David Hall, John Latham, Anna Ridley and Jeffrey Shaw created the Artist Placement Group (APG): a coalition of artists founded on the principle of expanding art\u2019s role within industry and later government bodies. In the spirit of DIAS, the APG saw an opportunity to recompose epistemological frameworks by deconstructing what they perceived as problematic binaries inherent to art and society. These binaries included use vs. useless, material vs. concept, left vs. right political bodies, art vs. the institution, and the individual vs. the collective. The artwork, the APG argued, should be regarded as a unifier of these dichotomies through it temporal capacity. Referring to the artwork as a time capsule, the APG considered art to have the capacity to embody and unify layers of disparate events. The Group further argued, the artwork seen through this temporal lens held political potential. The potential to bring together diverse histories and subsequently re-shape political and economic priorities; to achieve what the APG referred to as a more \u201ctotal economy.\u201d However, like many artists during the 1970s that attempted to expand art\u2019s role in society, their ambitions led to a challenging era of art production that struggled to inhabit a grey zone between art and ideology. The problems and opportunities that inevitably came with occupying this unchartered space would come to define not only the APG\u2019s practice, but the greater dilemmas of the avant-garde at the time.       4 An Origins Story  A fire hose is twisted into a knot and pinned against a painted orange canvas. Titled Untitled Assemblage 6(see fig. 3), the work is one of many assemblages that the APG\u2019s conceptual creator and co-founder Barbara Steveni made in the early 1960s. Greatly influenced by Robert Rauschenberg\u2019s assemblages at this time7, Steveni describes the object and composition choices in these works as intuitive, akin to a Dada game of chance. As the 1960s progressed, Steveni was further inspired by artists such as Joseph Beuys and often participated in Fluxus happenings. Steveni\u2019s experience as a participant in these experimental events motivated her to increasingly incorporate her assemblages into performances, creating a hybrid-practice, often in collaboration with her then-partner, John Latham. What distinguishes these early assemblages and performance work from Steveni\u2019s contemporaries, and is subsequently key to the development of the APG\u2019s practice, are her compositional and material choices. For example, Untitled Assemblage\u2019s fire hose is specifically a Jute fire hose, an object central to the history of the women\u2019s labor movement in the U.K. Ethnographically pinned to the canvas, the fire hose can be viewed as a catalyst linking a conceptual network of people and materials that are specific to their environments; a mode of practice that would come to full fruition in the work of the APG.  A routine of Steveni\u2019s pre-APG art practice was rummaging through industrial waste yards collecting materials for herself, Latham and fellow Fluxus artists, such as Daniel Spoerri and Robert Filliou. On one of these outings, Steveni had what she describes as her \u201ceureka moment.\u201d In this moment, she decided that she and her collaborators would not just gather                                                 6 Barbara Steveni, Untitled Assemblage, early 1960s.  7 see Robert Rauschenberg\u2019s First Landing Jump, 1961.       5 industrial materials for assemblage or performance, but they should form a coalition of artists to enter industry itself. In 1965, Steveni devoted her entire art practice to the formation and execution of the APG.  It is important to acknowledge that up until recently, Steveni\u2019s and other women\u2019s roles within the APG (Anna Ridley, among others) have been neglected or reduced solely to administrative labor. In recent years, Steveni\u2019s role has been better recognized. She has incorporated the APG\u2019s legacy into her own practice, regarding herself as a \u201cliving\u201d archive.8 However, within this dissertation the works that Steveni produced, before and after her dedication to the APG, are viewed as key conceptual shifts that frame the beginning and end of the APG\u2019s practice. Furthermore, Steveni\u2019s negotiations and the vast \u201cpaper work\u201d accumulated throughout the placements should not be considered isolated administrative labor, but instead, as part of her larger art practice. From the assemblages described above to her later banners discussed in the conclusion, this dissertation establishes Steveni\u2019s role not as an administrator within the APG, but as an artist whose practice sought to renegotiate the relationship between people, institutions, objects, and language.   Prototype   While the founding connections and conceptions of the APG were made at DIAS, it was not until 1968, at the Industrial Negative Symposium held at London\u2019s Mermaid Theatre, that the APG announced its agenda. To a crowd of artists, industrialists and politicians, the APG compared the state of art and industry to the negative and positive qualities of a photographic print: a dialectical relationship composed of two conflicting contexts that were nonetheless part                                                 8 Barbara Steveni, \u201cBarbara Steveni and the Artist Placement Group (APG)\u201d http:\/\/flattimeho.org.uk\/apg\/.        6 of a greater totality. Adopting the slogan, \u201ccontext is half the work,\u201d the APG described its intention to insert art, \u201cthe other,\u201d or as the conference title suggests, \u201cthe negative,\u201d directly into the modes of capitalist production9 (see fig. 4).   Historically, the APG belong to a long lineage of artists engaged with industry that in Britain dated back to John Ruskin, William Morris, and the Arts and Crafts movement. However, at the time of the APG\u2019s conception, there was also a global resurgence in pursuing the intersection of art with many different disciplines, including science and anthropology. Examples in the United States and Western Europe that were also founded during the late 1960s\/early 1970s included Robert Rauschenberg and Billy Kluver\u2019s Experiments in Art and Technology (E.A.T.), based in New York; Maurice Tuchman\u2019s Art and Technology at LACMA; and France\u2019s Groupe de Recherch\u00e9 d\u2019Arte Visuel. While the APG shared many conceptual overlaps with these groups and even initially collaborated with E.A.T.,10 it is unique because of the theoretical complexity of its mission, the importance of its conceptual vision to its art production and its direct confrontation of the relationship between art and the aesthetic and political conditions of its making.  The APG members proposed themselves as negotiators between the artists they selected (many of whom were core members of the group) and the organizations and individuals they approached. The structure of the APG was loosely as follows: Barbara Steveni was the coordinator and in charge of negotiations with industry; the \u201cNoit\u201d artist panel, which included                                                 9 Artist Placement Group, \u201cIndustrial Negative Symposium Questionnaire,\u201d 1968. Tate Archive, London, U.K. See Figure 4.   10 E.A.T. attended the Industrial Negative Symposium in 1968. However, the two groups parted ways over a difference in vision. Steveni claims the key difference was APG\u2019s commitment to a non pre-determined outcome. At that time, there was also a loose affiliation with Central Saint Martin\u2019s, but this would be discontinued a year later.       7 John Latham, Stuart Brisley, Barry Flanagan, David Hall, Leonard Hessing, Andrew Dipper, Jeffrey Shaw and Ian Munro; and a rotating Board of Trustees, which included Nancy Balfour, Frank Martin, Jurgen Harten, Nicholas Tresilian and Christopher Patey.11 \u201cNoit\u201d was a term created by John Latham based on the suffix \u201ction.\u201d \u201cTion\u201d is reversed by Latham to become Noit, a play on words that seeks to challenge pre-conceived hierarchies of knowledge. Do you in fact \u201cNo (know) it\u201d? The Noit artist panel was the creative \u201cthink tank\u201d for the APG and held regular meetings throughout the 1970s. Each APG placement was negotiated through an \u201cOpen Brief\u201d that outlined the expectations for the artist and the organization. The key to the \u201cOpen Brief,\u201d as its name indicates, was the APG\u2019s attempt to secure artistic autonomy. The artist would be paid, but there was no predetermined outcome for the placement. In fact, there could be no outcome at all.12 The placement would ideally occur in two phases: a feasibility study, lasting one or two months, followed by a longer engagement, which constituted the placement itself.13  From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, the APG initiated over fifteen of these   placements in the U.K. and Western Europe, collaborating with high profile companies such as Esso Petroleum and National Health Service, and individuals such as U.K. Minster of Technology, Tony Benn, and Secretary of State for Employment, Barbara Castle. The APG members regarded these placements as \u201cprototypes,\u201d and later in their practice attempted to officially expand the role of the artist by replacing the term \u201cartist\u201d with \u201cIncidental Person.\u201d As referred to above, through these prototypes, the APG\u2019s incidental people were encouraged to                                                 11 Artist Placement Group, \u201cGroup Policy,\u201d 1965, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.  12 The average amount paid to the artist over the course of the placement was about \u00a32,000. 13 Artist Placement Group, \u201cEconomic Proposal,\u201d 1965, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.        8 juxtapose and critically question what they perceived as artificial divisions within society. These binaries included: perceptions of use versus uselessness in capitalist production, left versus right political affiliations and the organization versus the individual.14  The APG argued that the innovative use of language (e.g. Open Brief, Incidental Person) allowed for the confrontation of these binaries within the artwork. Through confronting these binaries, the APG hoped to create space in the public\u2019s imagination for a new vision of the world economy; an economy where these differences co-existed, but where they took part in a more productive totality\u2014in APG\u2019s words, to achieve a \u201cTotal Economy.\u201d  The phrase \u201cTotal Economy\u201d is visualized through the APG\u2019s group symbol of the Delta; a classical symbol signifying the potential for change15 (see fig. 5).  Importantly, the APG believed the dialectical nature of their \u201cTotal Economy\u201d could not be conveyed through the artist, but had to be revealed through the artwork itself. However, in order for the artwork to achieve this political potential it had to be re-conceptualized in terms of time. In later group proposals from the 1970s, Latham, whose own personal practice prioritized time, stated \u201cart is like any other manifestation: what went on to get it there, and what it is doing.  We see in the object now a kind of instant history.\u201d16 Latham described the work of art as being similar to a \u201ctime capsule,\u201d a cache of the different conditions that make up a moment in history. Therefore, the artwork\u2019s political potential to communicate a more \u201cTotal Economy\u201d relied on the temporal capacity of the                                                 14 Artist Placement Group, \u201cBritish Industry and the Purpose of the APG,\u201d n.d., John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.  15 Artist Placement Group. \u201cDelta and relevance to the economy,\u201d in inn7o: Art and Economics. (London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971), 20. See Figure 5. 16 John Latham, \u201cInstant History and the Incidental Person,\u201d in Programme for Four Lectures, n.d. (1970s), John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.,         9 artwork, its capacity to reflect layers of capitalist production and subsequently layers of history.17   This dissertation examines how, and in what context, APG\u2019s utopic, yet contradictory and ultimately dialectical vision, manifests in the artwork of Garth Evans, Stuart Brisley, John Latham and the APG\u2019s group exhibition titled inn7o: Art & Economics. These specific case studies were chosen because the placements present significant points of change in each artist\u2019s practice and periods of structural change within the sites of the placements themselves.   From over six years of archival research, three years working as John Latham\u2019s archive specialist at Flat Time House, four years collaborating with Barbara Steveni and my role as a visiting PhD researcher at the University College London\u2019s Slade School of Fine Art, my dissertation brings to light correspondence letters, corporate contracts, proposals and artist statements that have not been previously examined. I use these documents to contribute to a much needed critical history of the APG and as evidence to challenge the limited existing discourse on the group.   Literature Review The APG\u2019s practice has thus far largely been recorded by the Group\u2019s artists themselves through reports, diary entries, and artist statements. In addition to the great detail recorded in these artists\u2019 personal archives, there have also been ground breaking exhibitions on the Group, namely, curator Anthony Hudek\u2019s \u201cThe Individual and Organization\u201d at Raven Row Gallery (London, 2010), and curators Naomi Hennig and Ulrike Jordan\u2019s \u201cContext is Half the Work: A Partial History of the Artist Placement Group\u201d at Kunstraum Kreuzberg\/Bethanien (Berlin, 2016).                                                  17 John Latham, \u201cNiddrie Woman as Process Sculpture,\u201d 1975\/6, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.       10 However, at present there is no comprehensive text on the APG\u2019s work. This represents a void in scholarship that is surprising given the recent popularity of relevant themes such as labor, class and materiality in modern and contemporary art discourse. This surprising lack of existing scholarship is both an opportunity and a challenge in terms of which scholars I have chosen to engage with and why. However, in order to acknowledge and situate my dissertation within these current art historical discourses, I have intentionally chosen to engage with authors that are not limited to British art. I have done this in order to introduce the APG to new audiences who would not typically engage with British art, and establish the importance of the Group\u2019s role in larger conversations around labor and class. I will next summarize some of the main contributors to these contemporary discourses. This summary will be followed by a more detailed discussion of the limited scholarship that specifically references the APG\u2019s practice and placements.   The relationship between post-war artists and the proletariat in the United States has been discussed in detail in Julia Bryan-Wilson\u2019s Art Workers (2009). In Art Workers, Bryan-Wilson argues that artists such as Carl Andre and Robert Morris, who took on the identity of or performed the role of an \u201cart worker\u201d during this period, created a hypocritical and problematic alliance between artists and the working class; a relationship that more directly connected art to concepts of labor yet at the same time distanced artists from the reality of social class structures.18 More recently in the Western European context, Jaleh Mansoor\u2019s Marshall Plan Modernism (2016) has shifted the conversation of class and labor in post-war art production from the class position of the artist to the role of the artwork as a point of economic, social and political intersection. Examining the influence of the United States\u2019 Marshall Plan (1948) initiative in Italy and Western Europe, Mansoor argues that the evolution of the artwork should                                                 18 Julia Bryan-Wilson, Art Workers, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2009).       11 be viewed as part of a crisis of post-WWII capitalist accumulation. 19 Also of relevance to this dissertation are current discussions surrounding the relationship between administration, labor and time. Questioning the relationship between administration and art, Rachel Haidu\u2019s The Absence of Work (2010) and Jasper Quentin Bernes\u2019 The Work of Art in the Age of Deindustrialization (2017) discuss the influence that aesthetic production and administrative work in Conceptual art had on each other.20 Within the realm of feminism and labor, Marina Vishmidt\u2019s \u201cThe Two Reproductions in (Feminist) Art and Theory since the 1970s\u201d (2017) argues for art to be regarded as iterative within the contexts of Feminist reproduction and the Marxist conditions of production.21 Finally, given the importance of time within the APG\u2019s practice, this dissertation challenges the work of scholars such as Pamela Lee\u2019s Chronophobia: On Time in the Art of the 1960s (2004) that addresses the relationship between artists and time from this period. In Chronophobia, Lee argues medium in the 1960s can be considered a form of communication; a precursor to new communication sciences such as cybernetics. However, Lee concludes that the reception to this convergence of art and technological progress was one of anxiety, creating a portrait of an era torn between a modern art tradition and artists pushing the boundaries of artistic medium. While this summary is cursory and does not do these authors justice, this brief survey is meant to show the broader contemporary discourse within which this dissertation will be situated, and to which it will contribute.                                                  19 Jaleh Mansoor, Marshall Plan Modernism: Italian Postwar Abstraction and the Beginnings of Autonomia, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016).  20 Jasper Quentin Bernes, The Work of Art in the Age of Deindustrialization (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2017). See also Benjamin H. D Buchloh, \u201cConceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the critique of Institutions,\u201d October 55 (Winter 1990): 119. 21 Marina Vishmidt, \u201cThe Two Reproductions in (Feminist) Art and Theory since the 1970s,\u201d Third Text 31, no.1 (2017): 49-66.        12 What have specifically been published on the APG are references to their practice within Group members\u2019 monographs and within larger thematic art historical publications. For example, John Walker\u2019s John Latham: The Incidental Person\u2014His art and Ideas (1995) offers an overview of the APG\u2019s practice as part of his mapping of Latham\u2019s oeuvre; Craig Richardson\u2019s Scottish Art Since 1960 (2011) contextualizes Latham\u2019s placement with the Scottish Office within the larger trajectory of Scottish modern art; and David Hulk\u2019s Garth Evans\u2019s Sculpture Beneath the Skin (2013) briefly recounts the APG\u2019s practice as part of his discussion of Garth Evans\u2019s placement with the British Steel Corporation. However, chapters and articles dedicated to the APG\u2019s practice, as a whole, are few. The two most influential are, arguably, Claire Bishop\u2019s chapter, \u201cIncidental People and Community Arts,\u201d in Artificial Hells: Participatory Arts and the Politics of Spectatorship (2012) and Antony Hudek\u2019s article, \u201cStaging Dissonance: Artist Placement Group\u2019s Performative (Non-) Exhibitions\u201d.   Bishop\u2019s chapter, considers the APG and the Community Arts movement as two different manifestations of a post-1968 climate of art production in the U.K. Within this context, Bishop frames the APG\u2019s practice as an attempt to re-envision the role of the artist within society through a \u201cfacilitation of creativity amongst everyday people.\u201d 22  Bishop\u2019s discussion of the APG\u2019s practice is generally an overview, but it references Stuart Brisley\u2019s Hille & Co. and Peterlee placements, Ian Breakwell\u2019s placement with the Department of Health and the APG\u2019s Inno70 Arts and Economic exhibition. Bishop uses these placements as examples to support her overarching argument that the APG\u2019s project is vital to the historic lineage of participation in contemporary art and as a precursor to governments\u2019 utilization of artists during the 2000\u2019s so-                                                22 Claire Bishop. Artificial Hells: Participatory Arts and the Politics of Spectatorship, (London: Verso, 2012), 163-193.        13 called \u201cCreative Economy.\u201d23     In support of her argument, Bishop describes the APG\u2019s strategies of participation as part of a multifaceted approach to art-making. Bishop states:  APG\u2019s status as an art historical object is\u2026extremely complex, since it requires that we confront multiple authorships in specific contexts: first, the theoretical frame of Latham and Steveni; second the factions and inclinations of the artists they placed, and third the character of the businesses and organizations in which these placements were held, each one a constellation of individuals more or less open to collaboration.24    Bishop\u2019s description importantly identifies the complex layers of APG\u2019s art production. However, she acutely prioritizes the dimension of collaboration. She continues, \u201cAs such, the Incidental Person seems to presage the job description of many contemporary artists who undertake projects in the social sphere and are required to deploy a broad range of social skills that go beyond the production of object for visual consumption.\u201d 25  Bishop concludes:  APG could be said to have pre-empted the use of artist by management consultancies and to have ushered in the growth of the creative industries as a dialogue between art and business in the wake of heavy industry not to mention the centrality of artist residency schemes to the regeneration of inner cities. The challenge then is to identify the specifically artistic achievements of APG. Despite the highly administrative character of its practice and the quasi corporate grayness in which all documentation surrounding the project seems to be saturated its achievements were primarily discursive and theoretical.26    Bishop\u2019s interpretation of the APG\u2019s practice importantly describes the negotiation process, the complexity of its art production and the strength of its seemingly political abstinence in an era before the widespread government instrumentalization of artists. However, in crafting her history of participatory art, the foundation of Bishop\u2019s analysis places the importance of the APG\u2019s                                                 23 Claire Bishop. Artificial Hells: Participatory Arts and the Politics of Spectatorship, (London: Verso, 2012), 163-193.  24 Bishop, Artificial Hells, 165. 25 Bishop, Artificial Hells, 165.  26 Bishop, Artificial Hells, 175.        14 practice on the prioritization of collaboration over works of art and as a result overlooks the radicalism of the APG\u2019s approach to artistic medium that acted to redefine the artwork\u2019s political potential. In Bishop\u2019s words, \u201c\u2026artists can serve society\u2014not by making works of art, but through their verbal interactions in the context of institutions and organizations.\u201d27 Bishop re-iterates this argument specifically in her reference to Brisley\u2019s Hille placement, when she states that \u201cthe main task was social (earning trust) rather than realizing a sculptural object.\u201d28 As a result, Bishop\u2019s chapter does not examine in detail the work produced in each placement, the specific contexts of each placement, or the APG\u2019s approach to the art object. In contrast, Antony Hudek\u2019s \u201cStaging Dissonance: Artist Placement Group\u2019s Performative (Non-) Exhibitions\u201d focuses predominantly on the APG\u2019s exhibition, inn7o: Art and Economics (1971-72) and specifically on the performance work, The Sculpture. Hudek favours this period of APG\u2019s production because, in his words, this was when the Group\u2019s political ideology was at its best, what Hudek describes as a form of \u201ccollective public debate.\u201d29 A debate, which Hudek argues, aimed to expose the limitations and administrative nature of the very institutions they were held in. In the case of The Sculpture, the APG revealed the intersection of representatives from industry, politicians and cultural workers within the context of The Hayward Gallery where the work was performed. Hudek states,  If APG is significant as conceptual art, it is because it understood the role of art exhibitions as contextual devices to reveal not only social institutions from which the \u2018logic administration emanates in the first place\u2019 (Buchloh 1990: 143) but also the embodied and ambivalent roles played by artists\u2019 sponsors and viewers within these very institutions.30                                                   27 Bishop, Artificial Hells, 167.   28 Bishop, Artificial Hells, 173.  29 Antony Hudek, \u201cStaging Dissonance: Artist Placement Group\u2019s Performative (Non-) Exhibitions,\u201d Journal of Curatorial Studies 2, no. 3 (2013): 302-328. 30 Hudek, \u201cStaging Dissonance,\u201d 305.        15 Hudek\u2019s account of The Sculpture concludes that the APG\u2019s practice of revealing the roles played by institutions, and how we act within them, was a performance of contradictions set against a backdrop of changing working conditions; namely the shift from a Fordist to post-Fordist global service economy.31 He states,  What APG was performing, through the artists\u2019 placements, was the challenge of holding onto such terms as \u2018artist\u2019, \u2018art\u2019 and \u2018artwork\u2019 when labour and politics had begun to collapse in the unified cognitive and linguistic games characterizing the post-Fordist experience\u2026APG\u2019s keen awareness of the shift from Fordism (and its left\/right, worker\/manager dichotomies) to post-Fordism (with its emphasis on communication and sociability)\u2026 32  In this statement, Hudek importantly draws attention to the shifting working conditions of the time and, significantly, acknowledges that these shifts in labor challenged how the APG operated within their placements and their attempts to navigate unstable dichotomies. However, despite Hudek\u2019s signaling of the APG\u2019s changing working conditions and their attempt to redevelop their vocabulary in response, he does not pursue these leads, making these declarations cursory and nonspecific. Instead, the text focuses primarily on the progressive curatorial strategies used within the inn7o: Art and Economics (1971-72) exhibition and excludes any further discussion of the exhibition or the placements\u2019 political context. In summary, there have been very few texts that reference the APG and far fewer that discuss its practice in depth. Bishop and Hudek have garnered the most attention. These authors broadly argue that the APG provided a platform for discussion and participation, re-thinking value and expectations in the exhibition space. In terms of historical context, Bishop helpfully positions the APG as a precursor to the instrumentalization of artists by the U.K. government\u2019s so- called Creative Economy, and Hudek further attributes to the APG a keen intuition of the                                                 31 Hudek, \u201cStaging Dissonance,\u201d 325. 32 Hudek, 310.        16 shift from a Fordist to a post-Fordist service economy.  However, within both authors\u2019 accounts, the role of participation in the APG\u2019s practice is often inflated, to the exclusion of some of the APG\u2019s most innovative practices, which this dissertation aims to bring to light. As a result, this dissertation can be considered a critique of the APG\u2019s inclusion in narratives of participatory and socially engaged art practice. And further, while these authors helpfully contextualize the APG\u2019s work within larger generalized political and economic frameworks, this dissertation aims to bridge the micro socio-political conditions of each placement with the macro political landscape of the U.K. My methodology subsequently acts as a counter weight to more generalized observations about APG\u2019s context and attempts to bridge individual conditions to collective experience within the U.K. However, most importantly, while comprehensive exhibitions have been ground-breaking in conveying the APG\u2019s work, what is missing from this discourse is a retrospective text for the APG\u2019s practice that critically considers the scope and importance of the APG\u2019s role in the larger narrative of art\u2019s relationship to the politics of labor, class and aesthetic, and political ideology. As a result, thorough work is overdue.  A Lack of Representation  In contrast to existing scholarship, this dissertation develops detailed accounts of Garth Evans\u2019s placement with the British Steel Corporation, Stuart Brisley\u2019s placement with Hille Furniture Co, John Latham\u2019s placement with the Scottish Office (Scottish Derelict Land Agency) and the inn7o: Art and Economics exhibition as case studies that examine the artwork produced during these placements, including the APG\u2019s \u201cpaperwork\u201d and creation of its own vocabulary. In order to better understand the changes in each artist\u2019s art production and the evolution of the APG\u2019s mission that occurred in each placement, I regard The British Steel Corporation, Hille &       17 Co. and the Scottish Office (Scottish Derelict Land Agency) as sites of change themselves. For example, managerial re-structuring, rebranding and expansion within these organizations are investigated and regarded as symptoms of larger economic changes happening in the U.K.\u2014what Hudek briefly refers to as the global transition from Fordist to post-Fordist capitalist production.  However, in contrast to Hudek\u2019s cursory allusion to the effects of the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism in the U.K., I argue the global generalizations of this discourse fail to capture the contradictory conditions of the period. As a result, these broad, sweeping terms are abandoned in favor of a localized approach that examines the changes in the U.K.\u2019s economy and labor policy against a backdrop of paradigm shifting events, such as the U.K.\u2019s acceptance into the EEC (the predecessor to the EU) and the Opec Oil crisis (1973). These policy changes and events would not only change the landscape of industrial and international policy, but also the perceptions and configurations of class structures within the U.K. and beyond.  The shifting political and economic conditions of the APG\u2019s placements was largely formed by a post-WWII economic and labor policy that was a product of the expansion of the U.K.\u2019s welfare state. The seminal Beveridge Report (1942) had promised full employment and a substantially increased standard of living for all.33 The Report\u2019s promise was to be fulfilled through the increased accessibility to luxury consumer goods and the expansion of comprehensive education.  Thus, welfare expansion was defined by an aggressive stance on the advancement of upward social mobility. As a result, the 1950s\u2019 and 60s\u2019 consumer market in the U.K. was flooded with mass-produced modern products and, at the same time, the mass                                                 33 William Beveridge, The Beveridge Report (originally titled Social Insurance and Allied Services) (City: Government Division, 1942). See discussion by John Kirk, Class, Culture and Social Change: On the Trail of the Working Class, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 1.       18 production of secondary schools. Often referred to as the \u201cComprehensive Revolution,\u201d34 the expansion in education introduced a more comprehensive humanities curriculum that gave many people from working class backgrounds, including members of the APG, exposure to art and art history. The cultural confidence in the ability of these policies to facilitate upward social mobility combined with new forms of mass commercially-driven modes of communication caused many scholars to believe that traditional working-class values were on the brink of disappearance. This belief motivated the popularity of cultural studies historians, such as Richard Hoggart and E.P. Thompson to document the \u201cdisappearing\u201d working class and\/or how mass commercial culture was changing working-class values.35 Historian Stuart Hall has described this movement towards cultural studies as a dedication of academic study to a working class \u201cways of life\u201d and an examination of cultural change that often manifested in an anxiety over the degradation of mass commercial culture on working-class values.36 This anxiety is best described by Hoggart when he states, \u201cwe are moving towards the creation of a mass culture\u2026and that the new mass culture is in some ways less healthy than the often crude culture it is replacing.\u201d37  However, according to other historians at the time such as Raymond Williams, the relationship between mass culture and the working class within these studies was often over inflated and the relationship between working class culture and mass consumer culture was often                                                 34 See Roy Lowe, Education in the Post-War Years: A Social History, (UK: Routledge, 2012). 35 E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, (U.K. University of Leeds, 1963). Raymond Williams\u2019s \u2018Working-Class Culture\u2019 in The Uses of Literacy Symposium, Universities and Left Review I, 2 (1957) pp. 29-32. And Richard Hoggart\u2019s The Uses of Literacy, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1958).  36 Hall, Stuart. \u201cRichard Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy and the Cultural Turn.\u201d International Journal of Cultural Studies 10, no. 1 (March 2007) 43. 37 Hogart, 24.       19 a misrepresentation.38  Williams\u2019s sentiment is shared by more recent historians, such as John Kirk, who argue the working class at this time did not actually disappear or become ethically polluted, but rather changed shape in the cultural imagination.39 The changing image of the working class, at this time, according to Kirk, characterized a cultural climate that held both a highly romanticized and yet alienated relationship to working class heritage. My approach to class within this dissertation considers these changes in perceptions of working class culture by examining APG artists, many of whom benefited from social upward mobility, and their negotiation of their own class position within the context of the broader changes to working class experience they encountered during their placements.  For, as APG members entered industry for the first time, they were forced to reconcile their preconceptions of class with the reality of the working class; an experience framed by the decline in older industries such as steel, the discovery of North Sea oil and the tumultuous labor policies executed by the U.K. government between 1968 and 1979.  The period from 1968-1979 in the U.K.\u2019s socio-economic history has been largely defined by historians as the failure of the government to successfully achieve cooperation between Unions and Management. In 1968, the U.K. Government\u2019s \u201cDonovan Report\u201d broadly identified the breakdown of cooperation into two existing systems of industrial relations: the formal, led by national industry-wide agreements, and the informal, that referred to locally- negotiated agreements between the shop floor and management. The Donovan Report argued that the reason for the rising unrest within industry at the time was the conflict that occurred between these two systems, in the report\u2019s words, \u201cthe breakdown in systems of collective                                                 38 Raymond \u2018Working-Class Culture\u2019 in The Uses of Literacy Symposium, 30. 39 Kirk, Class, Culture and Social Change, 14.       20 bargaining.\u201d Largely based on the findings of this report, the Department of Economic Affairs was completely restructured and reshaped into a greater, nationalized Ministry of Labour and, subsequently, gained the potential for an increased capacity for government intervention. However, contrary to their intention, this restructuring created increased confusion as to what the government\u2019s role would and should be in terms of industrial relations.40  As a result, following the Donovan Report were a series of failed industrial relations initiatives and acts. These included In Place of Strife (1969), The Industrial Relations Act (1971), the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act (1974) and the most significant of these initiatives, the \u201csocial contract\u201d (1974-79).  The \u201csocial contract\u201d was a failed compromise facilitated by the Labour MP Harold Wilson\u2019s government between Unions and Industrial Management that was based on a voluntary wage restraint. The failure of this initiative to achieve any compromise led to three-day work weeks, rising inflation and a divisive political atmosphere. Management claimed that wage increases were occurring at a time of economic recession and restricted them from hiring new employees, while Trade Unions felt that workers were not getting paid enough to compete with the increased standard of living that they had been promised. The increasing hostility between these two factions erupted in what is historically referred to as the \u201cWinter of Discontent\u201d (1979), a chaotic period of strikes that brought industry to a standstill; an industrial crisis that ultimately motivated the public to vote for a drastic change in government policy, with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher that same year.41      In summary, the period from 1968 to 1979 represented a socio-economic moment in the                                                 40 \u201cThe Donovan Report on British Industrial Relations Reform,\u201d Monthly Labour Review 91, no. 8 (1968), 44-50.  41 Chris Wrigley, A History of British Industrial Relations: 1939-1979, (Sussex: Harvester Press, 1996).       21 U.K.\u2019s history that was woven from equal strands of optimism and failure: Post-WWII expansion of the Welfare State advocating for an increased government role and spending in hopes of achieving the promise of a better life for all; the economic and social weight of these promises, specifically within industry, continually leading to the failure to achieve any sort of political compromise. The late 1960s and 70s in the U.K. can therefore be understood as conveying a shared sentiment that neither the workers nor industry were being represented. Why is it so Impossible That the World Should Add up to One?   The feeling of general disillusionment with political policy and parties sets the tone of this dissertation\u2019s theoretical frame work: the 1970s\u2019s failure to achieve political compromise led to a broader skepticism within the U.K. concerning how information is curated and distributed within academia and the media. However, vehicles for the formation of cultural knowledge, such as language, were scapegoated even earlier by British cultural theorists across disciplines as contributing to detrimental divisions within society.  The widespread belief in detrimental divisions defining an individual\u2019s perspective of the world is reflected in a concern over disciplinary segregation and the popular use of the word fragmentation by intellectual communities during the late 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. For example, as early as 1959, British cultural theorists such as C.P. Snow, argued for greater interdisciplinary exchange foreseeing the negative effects of divided disciplines. In his famous lecture, titled The Two Cultures (1959) given at Cambridge University, Snow states,  \u201cThere seems then to be no place where the cultures meet\u2026The clashing point of two subjects, two disciplines, two cultures-of two galaxies, so far as that goes-ought to produce creative chances.\u201d42  In science, one of                                                 42 C.P. Snow, \u201cThe Two Cultures,\u201d The Rede Lecture, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 9.       22 APG\u2019s major influences, David Bohm, further focused this anxiety over division on the detrimental effects on the individual. In his lectures given in London, during the 1960s, Bohm argued, \u201cFragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual.\u201d43 As Bohm succinctly describes, the repercussions of the perceived political, academic and social divisions of the 1960s and early 1970s were viewed almost as a metaphorical splitting of the individual that not only fragmented their social totality but also their perceptions of themselves.  It was a phenomenon akin to what influential psychiatrist and frequent APG collaborator R.D. Laing described in 1965 as schizoid. Laing, in the Divided Self, stated: \u201cThe term schizoid refers to an individual [in whom] the totality of whole experience is split in two main ways; in the first place, there is a rent in his relation with his world and in the second, there is a disruption of his relation with himself.\u201d 44  In response to this anxiety over division though out the late 1950s and 1960s, the early 1970s can be viewed as a project in interdisciplinary optimism that advocated for considering intellectual knowledge, society, and capitalism in their full totality. In 1971, another key influence on the APG, Noam Chomsky, described the promise of an era marked by greater interdisciplinary achievement. In his Russell Lectures given at Cambridge University, Chomsky states, \u201cThere are signs that the rather artificial separation of disciplines may be coming to an end. It is no longer a point of honor for each to demonstrate its absolute independence of the others.\"45    However, as the 1970s progressed, the disappointing results over a failure to politically                                                 43 David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, (New York: Routledge, 1980), 2. 44 R.D. Laing, The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness Volume I (London: Tavistock Publications, 1964), 15.  45 Noam Chomsky, Problems of Knowledge and Freedom. 1st ed. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1971), 24.       23 compromise shifted the cultural focus from collaborative optimism to a concern over how to achieve a more holistic view of working class experience under capitalism. The conflicts within developing this approach can be most acutely seen in the divisions within the Marxist intellectual left at this time. Perry Anderson, in his text, Arguments within English Marxism (1980), summarizes these theoretical divisions and specifically identifies E.P. Thompson\u2019s critique of Marx and Louis Althusser\u2019s interpretation of Marx as the main division within British Marxism, during the 1960s and 70s.46 Anderson states: \u201cThe lack of empirical controls which Thompson rightly perceives in Althusser\u2019s work in fact forms part of a wider pattern within Western Marxism\u2026from whose speculative slide only Gramsci escaped. The period of that long proclivity is passing today as a sounder and more inquisitive socialist culture has started to emerge in the 1970s.\u201d47 Anderson goes on to meticulously outline E.P. Thompson\u2019s text, \u201cThe Poverty of Theory\u201d (1978), 48 in which Thompson argues that Marx\u2019s categories, such as base and superstructure, are reductive and therefore detrimental to envisioning what composes total experience under capitalism. Althusser, Thompson further argues, magnified Marx\u2019s \u201cmistakes,\u201d seeking \u201cto thrust historical materialism back into the prison of Political economy\u2026\u201d and in doing so detrimentally project Capital\u2019s modes of production onto the social formations of the subject and collective.49  Thompson proposed instead \u201ca materialist reconstruction of the full history of humanity as a unitary social process\u201d50 that was predicated on conveying a total \u201chuman experience.\u201d                                                   46 See Perry Anderson, Arguments within English Marxism (London: Verso Editions, 1980) and Hamilton, Scott, The Crisis of Theory: EP Thompson, the New Left and Postwar British Politics, (New NY: Manchester University Press, 2011), Chapter 7. 47 Anderson, Arguments within English Marxism, 15.  48 Thompson, E.P. The Poverty of Theory: or an Ornery of Errors (London: Merlin Press, 1978). 49 Thompson, The Poverty of Theory. 50 Anderson, Arguments within English Marxism, 15-16.       24 Within the \u201cPoverty of Theory,\u201d human experience is loosely defined by Thompson as collapsing categories of superstructure and base, in an attempt to localize and embody issues of class and, subsequently, moral conflict.51  Thus, throughout Thompson\u2019s pursuit of \u201chuman experience,\u201d he champions morality and ethics as the solution to improving working conditions\u2014an argument that is particularly British and can be historically traced to John Ruskin, William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement\u2019s appeal to moralism as a promoter of positive change within the context of the Industrial Revolution.52  Within the following chapters, I consider the APG\u2019s mission as symptomatic of a renaissance of late 19th century British Marxism that occurred in 1970s cultural theory. While the APG did not address concerns of labor directly, its vision for a more \u201ctotal economy\u201d belongs to this narrative, echoing the earlier Arts and Crafts movement and contemporary E.P. Thompson\u2019s search for a more holistic view of experience under capitalism.  However, their similarities also exposed them to the same criticisms. Namely, that they were detrimentally idealistic and their practice was a direct reflection of a politically compromised ideology.  Specifically targeted by critics was the APG\u2019s ambiguous political allegiance, which did not directly align itself with a political body. At the Industrial Negative Symposium (1968), APG members\u2019 peers, including Gustav Metzger, argued that the APG\u2019s unclear politics was inherently serving managerial agendas.53 Similarly, in response to the APG\u2019s inn7o Art and Economics exhibition, art critic Peter Fuller claimed the APG\u2019s practice directly reflected a                                                 51 Thompson, The Poverty of Theory.  52 See Oscar Lovell Triggs, Chapters in the History of the Arts and Crafts Movement, (Chicago: The Bohemia Guild of the Industrial League, 1902). 53 Gustav Metzger, \u201cA Critical Look at Artist Placement Group.\u201d Studio International (January 1972), 4\u20135.       25 politically compromised ideology. 54 These criticisms were also expressed within the APG itself, when Stuart Brisley argued that the APG\u2019s lack of clear political direction inevitably led to a maintenance of the status quo. Brisley\u2019s critique would create an internal pressure within the APG that resulted in a persistent questioning of John Latham and Barbara Steveni\u2019s leadership.55  It is the prerogative of the following chapters to argue against or, at the very least, complicate these criticisms. I propose that the APG\u2019s political abstinence was not intended for compromise, but rather, was representative of a complete disavowal of its contemporary political options; a choice of refusal that can perhaps best be described by Viennese Actionist Hermann Nitch\u2019s writings at DIAS when he eloquently argued, \u201cIntensity protests automatically. In my heart any political thinking should die. ... We have enough to fight when we struggle for a deep life and persist in that in our work without ideology. The vivacity of life realizes itself there, like a plant that grows well.\u201d56 While APG\u2019s political point of view differed greatly from the Viennese Actionists and other members of DIAS, Nitch\u2019s statement reveals a political position for artistic practice that foregoes political loyalties by attempting to create art without ideology. However, by framing practice this way, art\u2019s relationship to ideology, itself, comes under greater scrutiny. For, to struggle for a \u201cdeep life and persist in that in our work without ideology\u201d does not suggest an approach based in anarchy or compromise, but rather establishes the very negotiation between art and inherited ideology as the foundation for artistic composition.                                                   54 Peter Fuller, \u201cinn7o: The Artist Placement Group,\u201d Art Review (23, no. 25. Dec. 1971): 772. 55 Stuart Brisley, \u201cHille Fellowship-Factory and Artist: The Industrial Context.\u201d 1970, Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K. 56 Kristine Stiles, \u201cThe Story of the Destruction in Art Symposium and the \u201cDIAS affect,\u201d in Gustav Metzger. Geschichte Geschichte, ed. Sabina Breitwieser (Vienna & Ostfildern-Ruit: Generali Foundation and Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2005), 47.        26 A Question of Mediation  These definitions and relationships between ideology and formal composition are equally as important to the methodology of this dissertation as they are problematic. The parameters of this often ambiguous relationship have been usefully defined by Janet Wolff in The Social Production of Art (1981), in which she positions the relationship between art and ideology at the heart of Marxist social art history.  Wolff argues that the relationship between art and ideology is made up of the multifaceted conditions of production for the artist.  These \u201cimprint of ideas\u201d on the work of art, Wolff describes, hover between the socio-political conditions of the individual producer and their relationship to larger socio-economic conditions. Wolff states: \u201cThe cultural producer has his or her own location in the social structure, potentially generating its own ideological form; but at the same time, the society as a whole will be characterized by general ideological forms arising out of the general economic conditions and the mode of production of that society.\u201d57 However, the micro and macro impact of social conditions are further filtered, Wolff concludes, through the context of aesthetic production. She states: \u201cThe ideological nature of art, then is mediated by the aesthetic level in two ways: through the material and social conditions of production of works of art, and through the existing aesthetic codes and conventions in which they are constructed.\u201d58  Therefore, when producing a work of art, the historical and current influence of aesthetic trends are equally weighted with the larger socio-political conditions of the object\u2019s making. As a result, both factors entangle the artist\u2019s intention within surrounding ideologies that operate within layered contexts.                                                  57 Wolff, The Social Production of Art, 52. 58 Wolff, The Social Production of Art, 66.       27 As a result, the pursuit of art\u2019s relationship to ideology has the impossible task of maneuvering through these differing scales of influence as they play out within the act of composing a work of art; a task that is complicated further by the assertion, by Wolff and others, that their relationship is more nuanced then a direct reflection of one in the other.59 As Wolff states, \u201cIdeology is not expressed in its pure form in the work, the latter acting as a passive carrier. Rather the work of art itself, re-works that ideology in aesthetic form, in accordance with the rules and conventions of contemporary artistic production.\u201d60 In other words, the ideological conditions of aesthetic and socio-political context of the object\u2019s making are not directly illustrated by the work of art. However, if the system of social and aesthetic conditions or codes, the ideology of its making, should not be regarded as directly reflected in the work, this assertion further pressures the problem of how to consider their relationship within the work of art and, specifically, how we define the process of composition.   As a result, the problem of considering the relationship between art and ideology in the work of the APG is embedded in defining or redefining composition. In other words, how these layers of influence manifest in the material parts of the work of art produced during the APG placements. However, the definition of composition within social art history, like the relationship between art and ideology, has proven ambiguous and is more often commonly asserted by establishing what it is not. For example, T.J. Clark\u2019s Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution (1999) famously argued that the politics of a given moment do not dictate artistic form. Yet, while form and context may not directly reflect each other, in his analysis of the shifting political allegiances and conflicting identities of Courbet and the French countryside,                                                 59 Wolff, The Social Production of Art, 55. 60 Wolff, The Social Production of Art, 65.       28 art\u2019s composition is nonetheless entangled in their relationship. In Clark\u2019s words, \u201cEven if one distrusts the notions of reflection of historical background, of analogy between artistic form and social ideology one cannot avoid the problems they suggest.\u201d61  This is a sentiment Clark poetically reiterates in reference to Courbet\u2019s negotiation of his relationship to his socio-political context when he states: \u201cBecause a certain world pressed in on him and gave him (made him) a different subject\u2026.Moments when a certain world seems to dictate its own terms, and the painter steps out of his or her circle of understanding\u2014that the question of art and politics will not go away.\u201d 62  If according to Clark\u2019s discussion of Courbet, \u201ca certain world pressed in and gave him (made him) a different subject,\u201d the problem of composition evolves into something similar to Wolff\u2019s discussion of the relationship between art and ideology:  a performance within the work of art of the intentions of the artist, the codes of aesthetic form and the different scales of socio-political context. Clark further elaborates on this relationship, \u201c a work of art may have ideology (in other words those ideas, images and values which are generally accepted as dominant) as its material, but it works that material; it gives it a new form and at certain moments that new form is in itself a subversion of ideology.\u201d63  Within this statement, Clark importantly identifies two key characteristics of art\u2019s relationship to ideology: its ability to work ideology into a new form and through this process activates the potential to subvert it.    Art\u2019s act of remaking ideology and the potential for political agency is what Wolff and others have referred to as mediation. Gail Day, in Dialectical Passions (2010), has more recently                                                 61 T.J. Clark, Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 12. 62 Clark, Image of the People, 8. 63 Clark, Image of the People, 9.       29 revisited the concept of mediation, defining the fluid term as the inherent tensions between subject, context and form that occur within the composition of the art object. 64  Day further helpfully identifies that Clark influentially referred to these tensions as contradictions or acts of negation within the artwork\u2019s composition. However, what these acts of contradiction or negation politically represent differ according to the agenda of each art historian. In other words, mediating between context and form, how one interprets the points of tension of negation within the act of composition, becomes a signifier of each authors\u2019 priorities. For example in Clark\u2019s case, the failure of signs within an artwork\u2019s composition becomes the entry point to discuss the repressed contradictions within society\u2019s larger class structure that are revealed by art\u2019s working over of ideology.65  As a result, if the inherent tensions of composition are largely formed by art historians\u2019 perspectival biases, before I approach composition within the APG\u2019s practice in the following chapters, I must therefore establish my own: If the artwork is embroiled in the tension between the micro and macro socio-political conditions of its making, and subsequently further articulated by the pre-determined aesthetic codes of art production at the time, in other words it\u2019s                                                 64 Gail Day, Dialectical Passions: Negation in Postwar Art Theory, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), 25-28. 65 In contrast, Art historian Benjamin Buchloh\u2019s body of work has argued the force of negation within composition derives less from a repressed class consciousness and more from the relationship between art and commodification. Influenced by cultural theorist Adorno\u2019s \u201cNegative Dialectic,\u201d Buchloh argues works of art manifest in their non-use. As a result, for Buchloh the contradictions of aesthetic choices within an artwork\u2019s composition are intricately tied to methods of production. It is only in their radical affirmation, in the case of Andy Warhol, or extreme negation, in the case of Marcel Broodthaers, that they are able to open up abstract political possibilities. For if art is used for political purpose or mimics reality too directly (as in the case of Factography), Buchloh argues the dialectic collapses into ideology. See: Benjamin Buchloh, \u201cFaktura to Factography.\u201d October 42 (Autumn 1984), 82-119; Benjamin Buchloh, \u201cOpen Letter, Industrial Poems.\u201d October 42 (Autumn 1987), 67-100; Benjamin Buchloh, \u201cAndy Warhol\u2019s One-Dimensional Man,\u201d in Andy Warhol, ed. Annette Michelson. (U.S.A: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001), 1-48.        30 context, where does that leave the relationship between works of art and the material parts of their composition? By material parts, I am referring to both the very materials that make up the different sculptural outcomes of the APG\u2019s placements and the very real and changing material conditions of labor within the context of each placement.  Compositional Coding The art production involved in the APG placements discussed in this dissertation addresses concerns of sculpture but in an expanded form, encompassing industrial materials, language in administrative \u201cpaper work,\u201d and the recognition of pre-existing forms in the industrial landscape. These varied interpretations of sculptural making, I argue, reflect the uneasy aesthetic conditions of sculpture and, more broadly, medium specificity at the time. As introduced by DIAS above, the broader conditions of art\u2019s composition are manifested in the balance between deconstructing and re-forming art movements both in Britain and globally. While leftist circles in Britain were investigating how to re-code culture in order to achieve a more holistic view of life under capitalism in their art practice, American sculptors at that time were similarly interested in developing the aesthetic codes to construct an experience of capitalism out of the material residue of industrial change. This approach represented a larger trend in both Britain and the United States that eroded compositional boundaries in favor of unit-to-unit relationships to create sculptural spaces out of industrial materials. In the most literal example, American sculptor Carl Andre stacked units of wood and steel, and made brick sculptures throughout the 1960s.66  Although what had a perhaps even greater impact on British sculpture during the late 1960s and 70s was the influence of earlier American sculptor David Smith\u2019s forged steel                                                 66 For example, see Carl Andre\u2019s Lever, made from firebricks, 1966.         31 sculptures from the mid 1950s and painter Kenneth Noland\u2019s circular 1960s\u2019 Color Field paintings on the work of British sculptor Anthony Caro. These two influences on Caro\u2019s work and his style of teaching would re-define the sculptural priorities of British art schools in the 1950s and 60s, specifically at Saint Martin\u2019s School of Art\u2019s Sculpture Department. While teaching at Saint Martin\u2019s, Caro re-oriented Smith\u2019s totemic sculptures by creating horizontal steel structures that connected what would become the hallmark of Minimalism\u2019s interest in the unitized construction of space to abstract painterly composition. A mixture that can be seen in the influence of Caro on his students who would later become teachers themselves, most notably in the steel sculpture made by William Tucker throughout the 1960s. 67   However, the act of DIAS and other experimental \u201chappenings\u2019 that occurred in London at this time indicate that the compositional coding for the APG was not only beholden to the changing conditions of sculpture, but also to the conceptual shifts of the European avant-garde. Influenced by Western European artists such as the Viennese Actionists, members of fluxus, such as Daniel Spoerri and Robert Filliou, and later the work of Joseph Beuys, the APG\u2019s location in London became a significant meeting point between the American and Western European avant-garde. For, if movements such as Fluxus believed that all experience was homogenized under capital,68 DIAS would, once and for all, performatively destroy not only the artificial boundaries of sculpture as medium but artistic regionalism in order to re-organize them. Retaining only an emphasis on the event, DIAS brought together these diverse members of the avant-garde in hopes of re-thinking how we distribute information, re-craft cultural history and resurrect language by turning the tools of capitalism on itself. How this ambitious mission played                                                 67  See Anthony Caro, Early One Mourning (Fig. 7), painted steel sculpture, 1962, amongst others  68 Krauss and Foster, Art Since 1900, 530.       32 out in the APG\u2019s approach to composition would identify the set of challenges that would come to define the placements of the APG\u2019s multi-generational artists. My approach, then, to the problem of art\u2019s relationship to ideology, specifically how to mediate between the aesthetic and the socio-political conditions of the time and the art object like the APG mission itself, accepts the un-steadiness of this aesthetic context and the fluidity of art movements\u2019 coding of composition at this time. Thus, the role of composition, re-conceptualized as navigating the rejection of political, social and aesthetic binaries, occupies the spaces in-between: in-between material and concept; in-between art and ideology; in-between art and the institution; in-between political context and aesthetic form; in-between individual and collective subjectivity; and, lastly, in-between the cultural positions of Western Europe and the United States that locate the U.K. in the cultural crisscrossing of the global art landscape.  In navigating the spaces in-between, this dissertation deconstructs these binaries through prioritizing what the APG prioritized itself, the artwork and the temporal, and more specifically, the definition of a work of art as a time capsule. Time and event are subsequently viewed within this dissertation as a potential unifier for these positions in-between, and subsequently, acts to shift perspectives of what constitutes artistic composition. In E.P. Thompson\u2019s words, \u201cAll these distinct histories must be convened within the same real historical time, the time within which process eventuates.\u201d69 In other words, the capacity of time within a work of art allows for a perspective shift, a re-making of ideology, subverting and shifting what constitutes the experience of collective subjectivity under capitalism.  However, while encapsulating composition within a time capsule allows for the fluidity of mediating the different micro and macro scales of ideology, the remaking of ideology or the                                                 69 Thomas, The Poverty of Theory.        33 political potential of the APG\u2019s artwork, assumes the perspective that the artwork is made up of layers of events that take on almost material properties. Therefore, the APG\u2019s often-detached language of events is weighted with the plastic concerns of Formalism, which in turn, within the context of the APG\u2019s placements, take on very grounded concerns of the relationship between raw materials, the commodity and working conditions of labor. This line of thinking centers the question I asked above, \u201cWhat is the relationship between works of art and the material parts of their composition\u201d at the heart of the APG\u2019s relationship to ideology? From Chapter One\u2019s interest in the materiality of steel to the final Chapter\u2019s discussion of the industrial landscape, this dissertation is entangled with mediating between context and form, and subsequently, the political role of the art object in the construction of historical memory. Chapter Summary  Following this Introduction, Chapter One examines the first industrial placement negotiated by the APG, that of Garth Evans\u2019s with the British Steel Corporation (1968-71), and his sculpture completed shortly after, titled Breakdown. Evans\u2019s placement is considered a transitional point within his practice, informed by the specific socio-political pressures and anxiety he experienced. However, the shift in Evans\u2019s practice is also reflective of a larger transition for many artists in the late 1960s, who often felt their work existed between the polarities of material concerns and concept. It is from this in-between state that this chapter extracts the formal concerns of sculptors working in steel against a background of a declining steel industry. Chapter One asks: How does the artwork aesthetically navigate Evans\u2019s internal conflict within the context of the legacy of modern sculpture, the material of steel and class experience on the factory floor?  Chapter Two continues this trajectory, but expands in scale, investigating the intersection       34 of art, design and mass production in Stuart Brisley\u2019s placement with Hille & Co Furniture Factory (1970-2). Brisley\u2019s sculpture, Poly Wheel, produced during his placement, is situated within his larger body of work and contextualized within Britain\u2019s post-WWII expansion of mass consumerism. It is argued that Brisley\u2019s work introduces an alternative narrative to the aesthetic ramifications of 1960s mass production that is crafted from the relationship between the mass-produced object and working class collective identity.  Chapter Two asks: How does the relationship between the mass-produced object, the individual and the collective re-shape aesthetic composition?  The subject of Chapter Three is not a placement, but an exhibition, the APG group exhibition inno70: Art and Economics at the Hayward Gallery in London (1971). From a discussion of the exhibition and catalogue, this Chapter more broadly examines the role of language within the APG\u2019s practice and subsequently provides an alternative narrative to artists\u2019 engagement with administrative language during the 1970s. It argues that APG\u2019s use of administrative language served to dismantle corporate styles of negotiation and also challenged the art world\u2019s perception of what constitutes an exhibition. Chapter Three asks: How does language as a site of negotiation re-define expectations of results both within the art world and greater economic policy? Chapter Four considers John Latham\u2019s placement with the Scottish Office (1974-76) within the context of his larger practice and through the concept prioritized by Latham himself, time. Through the framework of the APG\u2019s mission, this chapter explores the relationship between the temporal capacity of art and industrial land renewal. This discussion not only provides an alternative narrative to defining the role of time within artists\u2019 practice of the 1960s and 1970s, but uses this new narrative to critically shed light on the economy and politics of Scotland at the time, specifically the discovery of North Sea Oil. This chapter argues that the       35 transition between Latham\u2019s time-based thinking and its political practicality is facilitated not by direct action by the artist, but through the exploration of what constitutes a work of art in the industrial landscape. The beginning and end of this dissertation act as industrial and conceptual book ends. The socio-economic transition in Chapter One\u2019s consideration of the declining steel industry concludes with Chapter Four\u2019s economic optimism and the political stakes of the discovery of North Sea Oil.  These shifts within industry are further mirrored in the conceptual shifts within this dissertation. Chapter One begins with questions of composition. Chapter Four concludes with what constitutes a work of art. From the factory floor to the industrial landscape, all of these chapters seek to consider the APG\u2019s artwork as a culmination of events; time capsules that bring together the material and labor histories of the U.K.  Through this temporal lens, what emerged from DIAS is re-conceptualized as a moment of de-composition and re-composition. Within the APG\u2019s work, this opportunity is recognized in the relationship between art as a form of collective subjectivity; specifically, in the proposition of the artwork as a time capsule. The time capsule, what the APG referred to as a manifestation of \u201cinstant history,\u201d acts not only to revise what constitutes making a sculpture, but also how we create and interpret collective memory. A task and perspective that I argue is particularly urgent to our given moment: urgent to examining the role of the artwork in times of shifting economies; urgent to examining the role of the artist and artwork when all political factions seem to fail; finally, in a contemporary context that assumes the instrumentalization of artistic practice, urgent to our understanding of how this has reshaped our expectations of artists\u2019 engagement with society, both in our interpretation of the past and the present.         36 Chapter One  The Problem with Steel:  Garth Evans\u2019s Placement with the British Steel Corporation (1969-1971) The artist is someone who has been unable to accept or come to terms with existing realities. He is engaged in proposing and making a reality of his own.   -Artist Placement Group Proposal, 1970.70    In 1970, London based sculptor Garth Evans paced back and forth through bits of steel strewn on the floor of his studio. Daily, he arranged and re-arranged the pieces of steel, yet he was unhappy with his compositions. A year of Evans\u2019s artist placement with the British Steel Corporation had passed and he still had not made a sculpture.71 The placement with British Steel was Evans\u2019s first direct exposure to factory life and his first time working with steel as a sculptural material. Evans found the atmosphere and the material intimidating. The British Steel Corporation was restructuring, and labor conditions on the factory floor were changing. Evans\u2019s anxiety was further compounded by a competitive modern-art scene saturated with the steel sculpture of Anthony Caro and his New Generation of sculptors out of Saint Martin\u2019s School of Art\u2019s Sculpture Department. Evans\u2019s anxiety became so crippling that he did not produce a sculpture in steel until a year after his placement. He titled the sculpture Breakdown (1972).  This chapter considers Evans\u2019s placement with the British Steel Corporation and his sculpture Breakdown as a point of transition in his art practice that ultimately led to the establishing some of the key problems the Artist Placement Group would face in their work. A                                                 70 Barbara Steveni and the Artist Placement Group, \u201cArtist Placement Group Proposal for Milton Keynes.\u201d 1970, Barbara Steveni Archive, London, U.K. 71 Garth Evans, \u201cWork in the Studio.\u201d Notes by the Artist. 1970, Tate Archive, Tate Museum, London, U.K.       37 transition that was formed by the specific pressures of Evans\u2019s placement, but also reflective of a larger transition for many artists in the late 1960s, which existed within in the gaps between concept and material. It is from this in-between state that this chapter extracts the formal concerns of sculptors working in steel, to begin to formulate an overarching aim of this dissertation, which is to dislodge APG\u2019s practice from a conceptual\/participatory narrative and ground it in the material concerns of sculpture from the period. This chapter asks, how do material, labor and class experience construct and re-construct subjectivity and subsequently art production on the factory floor?  The Appeal of Steel   In 1967, APG\u2019s Barbara Steveni approached Lord Melchett, Chairman of the British Steel Corporation (BSC) and Director of Publicity, Chris Patey, to renegotiate the terms of BSC\u2019s existing artist fellowship, which they had recently advertised. Reflecting the APG\u2019s mission, Steveni proposed the replacement of their existing fellowship with the APG\u2019s revised contract, what would later be dubbed by the APG as an \u201cOpen Brief.\u201d In contrast to BSC\u2019s fellowship, the APG\u2019s \u201cOpen Brief\u201d was an open-ended contract that advocated the importance of an artist\u2019s perspective within industry rather than the traditional relationship of patronage. 72  Garth Evans, a sculptor and teacher at Saint Martin\u2019s School of Art, was given an application by the head of Saint Martin\u2019s Sculpture Department, Frank Martin, for the position and was ultimately chosen by BSC. In 1968, Evans accepted, initiating the APG\u2019s first industrial placement.73                                                  72 Barbara Steveni and the Artist Placement Group. \u201cSculpture Fellowship British Steel Corporation Statement\u201d June 26, 1969, Tate Archive, London, U.K.  73 David Hulks, \u201cBreakdown: Analysis of a Crisis in the Work of Garth Evans,\u201d in Garth Evans Sculpture Beneath the Skin, ed. Anne Compton (London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2013), 60; and, Barbara Steveni and the Artist Placement Group, \u201cSculpture Fellowship British Steel       38 The APG\u2019s contract gave Evans a studio, access to materials and the professional services of engineers for (initially) one year. Evans later extended this to two years. If Evans produced any work from the placement, it was required to be publicly exhibited as part of a future APG group exhibition at the Hayward Gallery in London. The contract committed BSC to pay for materials, the cost of exhibiting the work at the Hayward Gallery, publicity and a 10% commission to the APG.74 Despite the expectation of a contribution to a later exhibition if work was produced, the framework of the APG\u2019s \u201cOpen Brief\u201d simultaneously guaranteed that there was no pre-determined outcome from the artist. In fact, there could be no outcome at all.75 While the APG would sharpen contract negotiations as the practice progressed, its first contract established the priority of securing the artists\u2019 \u201ctime\u201d rather than a work of art\u2014a concept that is preeminent of post-Fordism\u2019s value placed on immaterial labor. However, the \u201cOpen Brief\u201d did not outline how artists\u2019 time should be spent. The immaterial labor was, therefore, importantly undefined, rendering the traditional definition of a contract null and void.  In addition to what can be identified as strategies of negation within the language of the \u201cOpen Brief\u201d itself, the pairing of Evans and BSC was also strategic. Steveni recounts: \u201cEvans was not primarily nominated for his material portfolio but for his line of questioning.\u201d In correspondence from the period, Evans argued that the artist\u2019s independence in the context of                                                 Corporation Statement.\u201d The proposal would in some variations be supported collaboratively by E.A.T. Although this joint effort seems to have soured only a year later, with APG arguing E.A.T. did not accurately reflect APG\u2019s principals namely their concept of the \u201copen brief,\u201d as a result E.A.T. would not work collaboratively on placements. 74 Barbara Steveni and the Artist Placement Group, \u201cSculpture Fellowship British Steel Corporation Statement.\u201d 75 See Introduction chapter for full discussion of \u201cOpen Brief.\u201d        39 BSC was not a \u201cpersonal anxiety\u201d but a necessity to the success of the proposal. 76  The APG and Evans\u2019s concerns over artistic autonomy were seemingly met with a mutual understanding by BSC. An excerpt from an article written the following year (1969) in the British Steel Journal, titled \u201cSculpture in Steel,\u201d states: \u201cIt seems reasonable to suggest that  (APG placement) may offer one of the most fruitful ways for industry to supplement state patronage and bring about a closer understanding of the arts and artists as they are and not as industry might wish them to be.\u201d77   The British Steel Journal\u2019s statement can be read as an invitation, but it should be recognized as an invitation to enlist artists\u2019 perspectives into the corporate apparatus. For, despite the APG\u2019s attempt to preserve artistic autonomy within the \u201cOpen Brief,\u201d Evans\u2019s acceptance of this invitation would inevitably blur the line between corporate ideology and artistic autonomy. To enter BSC\u2019s context was to enter a precarious grey zone whose conditions were defined by the steel industry.  During the 1960s and 70s, the steel industry not only represented the health of the U.K.\u2019s industrial economy, but was globally symbolic of an older industry facing a post-war decline. A Mark Abrams poll in 1968 showed that the majority of the public thought \u201calmost anything was more modern than steel,\u201d a lackluster public opinion that BSC for their own survival hoped they could change. The same year as the start of Evans\u2019s placement, the BSC launched an advertisement campaign titled \u201cSteel Appeal\u201d to re-imagine steel\u2019s image. The \u201cSteel Appeal\u201d campaign took on a variety of forms, from the comical advert of a woman modeling a dress made out of steel to the more functional proposals for furniture design. If steel was perceived as                                                 76 Garth Evans, \u201cNotes by the Artist\u201d 1968, Tate Archive, Tate Museum, London, U.K. 77 British Steel Corporation, \u201cSculpture in Steel,\u201d British Steel Journal (April 1968): 34.       40 innovative, it was good for business.78  The potential for Evans\u2019s placement to contribute to this campaign is further reflected in the placement proposal (1968). BSC states:  Sculptors working in steel have so far confined their attentions mainly to simple shapes and structures and little work has so far been done in this country on exploring the possibilities of using steel in advanced techniques, fully exploiting its potential in the field of creative art. The interaction between the artist and the industry will, it is felt, be of benefit to both. As a part of its effort to promote widespread awareness of the merits of steel as a material, the corporation has recently embarked on a large national advertising campaign. The sculpture fellowship represents another way in which the corporation wishes to draw attention to the versatility and variety of the material it produces.79  To understand artists as they are, to \u201cbe of benefit to both,\u201d created the potential for the aging steel corporation to salvage its reputation. Technological innovation could increase sales, but perhaps more importantly, it was the potential for an innovative re-branding that could be extracted from the imagination of the artist.  While Evans was not economically invested in the advertisement of steel, he was interested in the innovative potential of the material. In Evans\u2019s own words from the first year of the placement, \u201cThe focus of my activity has been the material product of the industry.\u201d 80 Prior to the placement, Evans primarily made sculpture out of fiber glass, participating in many prominent shows at the Rowan Gallery throughout the late 1960s. He had made a career teaching at Saint Martin\u2019s Sculpture Department, developing a sculptural process he described as formulating problems and solving them. In correspondence from the late 1960s, Evans describes what the placement could mean for his own art practice, stating that \u201c\u2026accepting the placement                                                 78 Lord Melchett. \u201cIntroduction to the British Steel Journal.\u201d The British Steel Journal. (April 1968): 2. 79 Barbara Steveni and the Artist Placement Group and the British Steel Corporation. \u201cSculpture Fellowship British Steel Corporation Proposal,\u201d June 26, 1969, Tate Archive, London, U.K. 80 Garth Evans, \u201cGarth Evans\u2014Report,\u201d 1969, Tate Archive, Tate Museum, London, U.K.       41 presented a new series of problems.\u201d 81 Evans had never used steel. In fact, he had actively avoided it. When BSC launched its \u201cSteel Appeal\u201d campaign, steel was already the most popular material being used by contemporary sculptors in Britain and specifically at Saint Martin\u2019s School of Art. Various authors have discussed the influence of the Saint Martin\u2019s School of Art\u2019s art scene on Evans preceding his placement.82 Most notably, David Hulks\u2019 \u201cBreakdown: An analysis of Crisis in the Work of Garth Evans\u201d gives a useful overview of Evans\u2019s relationship to Saint Martin\u2019s Sculpture Department and specifically comments on Evans\u2019s apprenticeship with sculptor Robert Adams and friendship with sculptor William Tucker, as well as Evans\u2019s shows before the placement at the Rowan Gallery. Through these relationships, Hulks signals a merger of Constructivist and Minimalist tendencies in Evans\u2019s work during the 1960s that would influence his practice during his placement.83 However, within Hulks\u2019 discussion, there is little analysis of Evans\u2019s transition to steel and the popularity of the material at the time. This line of inquiry deserves greater consideration.  In the early 1960s, Saint Martin\u2019s Sculpture Department and instructors such as Anthony Caro popularized the use of steel as a material and went on to monopolize the sculptural production within the school and the larger art market. The popularity of steel within Caro\u2019s work and, subsequently, the Saint Martin\u2019s Sculpture Department was largely inspired by the American David Smith\u2019s scrap-yard sculpture being made and shown at the time84 (see fig. 6). As Hulks states, \u201cCaro was attempting to inject a new sense of optimism into sculpture, part of a                                                 81 Garth Evans, \u201cGarth Evans\u2014Report,\u201d 1969, Tate Archive, Tate Museum, London, U.K. 82 Hulks, \u201cBreakdown,\u201d53, 54. 83 Hulks, \u201cBreakdown,\u201d 53. 84 Anthony Caro, 24 hours (Fig.6), painted steel sculpture, 1960, Tate Britain.       42 conscious attempt to depart from \u201cthe geometry of fear\u201d to seek instead inspiration from the general economic upturn of the 1960s much of which derived from America.\u201d85 However, and significantly, this inspiration would materially manifest in the choice of steel as these two artists\u2019 sculptural material.   While Smith\u2019s use of steel as a material would greatly influence a generation of British sculptors, his Voltri series in 1962 is of particular relevance to Evans. The series was made during Smith\u2019s trip to Voltri, Italy for the project Sculptures in the City and is recognized for the unprecedented scale of Smith\u2019s production: the legendary twenty-seven sculptures in thirty days.86 However, significantly, the sculptures were made from discarded industrial material gathered from abandoned factories that had recently closed, signaling, much like Evans, the choice of steel at a moment of the industry\u2019s economic decline.87 Smith\u2019s influence can therefore be viewed formally, as I will now discuss in the work of Caro, but equally contextually site-specific, motivating a multifaceted interest in steel that played out within British art schools, but specifically at Saint Martin\u2019s.   While Smith greatly influenced Caro formally, he distinguished himself from Smith by turning Smith\u2019s verticality on its side, fusing the steel configurations on the ground and often painting them. Paul Moorhouse\u2019s text, Anthony Caro, describes Caro\u2019s process as working in extremely close proximity to his materials. To Moorhouse, Caro\u2019s process was significantly more aligned with American abstract painters such as Jackson Pollock rather than other sculptors                                                 85 Hulks, \u201cBreakdown,\u201d 53, 54. 86 Exh. Cat., Cambridge, Ma., Fogg Art Museum. David Smith 1906-1965: A Retrospective Exhibition. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), 80.  87 An interest in industrial materials that reflected his work with Studebaker cars in 1925 and later his studio at the Iron Works terminal in Brooklyn in 1933. Exh. Cat., Cambridge, Ma., Fogg Art Museum. David Smith 1906-1965: A Retrospective Exhibition, 80.       43 at the time. Moorehouse states: \u201c\u2026the small scale of the studio prevented Caro from envisioning each part to the whole instead, it is possible to see an unpremeditated relationship with the evolving work from within, \u2026parallels with Jackson Pollock\u2019s assertion that while working he was \u201cin the painting.\u201d 88 In discussing the problems of sculpture, Evans would similarly assert in a much later interview with Job Wood, \u201cThe problem was to make it so that it didn\u2019t invite the viewer to see some hierarchy or pattern within it, and find some way of making sense of it. In a sense it was like an all-over painting and that\u2019s where it connected with American painting, in some way which interested me.\u201d89  Caro\u2019s concept of building a \u201csculptural experience\u201d was like American Abstract Expressionism, largely defined by American critic, Clement Greenberg\u2019s, assertion that sculpture existed separately from life.  An autonomous experience that for Caro simulated a musical score, envisioning steel as multiple units working together to create a cohesive sculpture.90 Caro\u2019s 24 hours (1960) (see fig. 6) and other early sculptures made from steel are heavy and mechanized, their gravity amplified by black and earthy hues.  Reminiscent of Jean Tinguely\u2019s \u201cmachines,\u201d91 24 hours is simultaneously mechanical and monumental. However, only two years later works such as Early One Morning 92 (1962) (see fig. 7) show Caro\u2019s mechanical monumentality had shifted from heavy machinery to airy and bright colored collections of steel structures. Caro\u2019s compositions, like his process, more and more closely resembled abstract painting rather than traditional sculpture.                                                  88 Paul Moorehouse, Anthony Caro. (London: Tate, 2005), 21.  89 Jon Wood, \u201cJon Wood in Conversation with the Artist,\u201d in Garth Evans Sculpture Beneath the Skin, ed. Anne Compton (London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2013), 29. 90 Moorehouse, Anthony Caro, 21-22.  91 See Laurence Sillars, Joyous Machines: Michael Landy and Jean Tinguely. (London: Tate Liverpool, 2009). 92 Anthony Caro, Early One Mourning, painted steel sculpture, 1962, Copyright Tate Britain.        44 From the early 1960s onward, Caro dictated to his students a formal agenda of raw industrial materials and a Greenbergian painterly philosophy of autonomy. Sam Cornish, in his text Stockwell Depot, constructs the history of this \u201cNew Generation\u201d of sculptors. Of particular interest is his discussion of prominent students of Caro\u2019s such as Phillip King, David Annesley and William Tucker who, like Caro, chose steel as their material and did not use plinths. Making and showing their sculptures on the floor of industrial warehouses, Cornish identifies their formal agenda as industrial horizontality, what sculptor Elizabeth Baker called a \u201cpersistent physicality;\u201d93 a \u201cpersistent physicality\u201d that attempted to combine abstract painterly composition with raw industry. However, the rawness in their work is ultimately tamed and contained, resembling brightly painted pieces composed by the sculptor.  While teaching at Saint Martin\u2019s, Evans considered Caro and the New Generation sculptors daunting. In interviews, Evans states that he found Caro\u2019s presence in the art world intimidating, and that Caro was one of the primary reasons he had avoided working with steel until the placement. 94  However, at the time of Evans\u2019s teaching, a shift was occurring within Saint Martin\u2019s Sculpture Department that is described by Cornish as occupying an awkward position  between the subsumption of artistic practice into concept and the preservation of the sculptural experience.95  In 1971, during the last year of Evans placement, Saint Martin\u2019s Sculpture Department responded to these two modes of sculptural experimenting by dividing their sculpture course into  the experimental A course, conceived and instructed by Garth Evans, Peter Kardia (ne Atkins), Gareth Jones and Peter Harvey, and the more \u201ctraditional\u201d material based B course taught by                                                 93 Sam Cornish, Stockwell Depot 1967-1979. (London: Ridinghouse, 2015), 17.  94 Wood, \u201cJon Wood in Conversation with the Artist,\u201d 28. 95 Cornish, Stockwell Depot, 16.       45 William Tucker.96 However, it is important to point out that experimental art production within Saint Martin\u2019s and the broader sculptural scene in Britain did not exist in parallel autonomy with more traditional material-based sculpture. Artists and themes straddled both trajectories.   William Tucker, part of the New Generation of sculptors, modeled his B course on many of Caro\u2019s philosophies and considered the agenda of the course to be a direct negation to the A course. Joy Sleeman, in her text The Sculpture of William Tucker, comments that like Caro, Tucker regarded sculpture as units composed to create an autonomous experience, what Tucker identified as \u201csculptural intelligence.\u201d97 However, Sleeman argues, one difference between Tucker and Caro was Tucker\u2019s concern for the phenomenology of the body. Inspired by the philosopher Hannah Arendt, Tucker, Sleeman argues, re-investigated the body through the material of steel.98  Tucker\u2019s 1971 works, Cats Cradle and Beulah 99 (see fig. 8) showcase this shift; the horizontal steel sculptures of Caro become elongated, gestural, and bodily. In a period that favored abstraction over figuration in sculpture, steel became the material to recover the body.  In contrast, the A Course was in many ways designed as an experimental and critical response to Saint Martin\u2019s own sculptural legacy, and can be considered a uniquely self-reflexive moment for an art school.100 As Malcom Le Grice, in Radical Art and the Academy (2010), has usefully noted, the main initiative of the A course was to deprogram students to combat what                                                 96 A.J. Sleeman, The Sculpture of William Tucker: British Sculptors and Sculpture. (London: Lund Humphries and the Henry Moore Foundation, 2007); and Cornish, Stockwell Depot.   97 Sleeman, The Sculpture of William Tucker, 12. 98 Sleeman, The Sculpture of William Tucker. 99 William Tucker, Cats Cradle (Fig. 8.1), raw steel, 1971 and Beulah (Fig. 8.2), raw steel, 1971. 100 Many scholars have emphasized the A course\u2019s lean towards conceptual art practice to the detriment of leaving out the course\u2019s concept, the material concerns and process driven instruction. See John Walker\u2019s Left Shift (2001) and Lynda Morris\u2019 Genuine Conceptualism (2014).        46 they perceived as their complete alienated condition under capitalism.101 This psychological deprogramming was further combined with strict material instructions. Evans\u2019s student, Richard Deacon, in an essay titled \u201cLocalized Changes of Conditions,\u201d describes the role of materials in his A course experience: \u201c\u2026the students were given no teaching instructions. But their studio times and materials, were strictly monitored. For example, each student was only given polystyrene, craft paper, string, plaster and water, and a stopwatch wrapped in brown paper.\u201d102  From Deacon\u2019s account, the A course can be considered as much psychologically as it was materially engaged, striving to first awaken students to their alienated condition under capitalism and then to encourage them to de-program themselves to ultimately achieve more freedom in their material practice. From Deacon\u2019s description, Evans\u2019s specific approach to the A course can be described as restrictive and largely structured around specific materials.  Evans\u2019s teaching approach, like his own practice, bypassed divisions between material and concept by framing his inquiries around questions and restrictions. The students were encouraged to pursue an artistic process within these parameters that was not actively judged or critiqued by their instructors.  Significantly, The British Steel Journal similarly describes Evans\u2019s process from the beginning of the placement, stating that \u201cEvans explores the relationship between certain shapes\u2026imposes on himself an extreme set of rules \u2026and has a very clear concept of what he can and cannot do with them.\u201d103                                                  101 Malcom Le Grice, \u201cRadical Art and the Academy,\u201d in From Floor to Sky: The Experience of the Art School Studio (London: A & C Black, 2010), 155. Also discussed by Hulks, \u201cBreakdown,\u201d 58. 102 Richard Deacon, \u201cLocalized Changes of Conditions,\u201d in Garth Evans Sculpture Beneath the Skin, ed. Anne Compton. (London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2013), 36. 103 British Steel Corporation, \u201cSculpture in Steel,\u201d 34.       47 Following this approach, Evans wanted to know the limitations of his material. He wanted to know the shapes, quality and finish produced by the steel mills and collected samples, filling the floor of his studio with bits of steel. 104 Daily, Evans moved the pieces around the floor, positioning them in different configurations. Like Caro\u2019s \u201cworking inside the sculpture,\u201d Evans, too, physically worked inside his composition, testing different relationships. 105 Evans states: \u201cThe collection of a rich variety of forms appeared to be ready-made sculpture\u2026my arranging and spacing activity is seen as an endeavor to find a suitable presentation for the existent sculpture.\u201d106   Evans perceived steel as already existing in a finished state. However, unlike Duchamp\u2019s ready-made, Evans did not find satirical opportunity, but increased difficulty and was unable to negotiate steel\u2019s radiating connotations. 107 Further, Evans had trouble separating himself from the material. He described his process as a never-ending dance; the pieces of steel activating a tension between his ready-made materials and the process of sculptural composition. No matter how many times he re-arranged them he was unable to commit to a composition. Evans\u2019s practice faced a crisis suspended in the very real composition of daily factory life. If formulating a problem was the first step to his sculptural process, his problem would be what to do with steel?  In a later artist statement from 1978, Evans describes his relationship to the material during the placement; he states that, \u201cIn the end, when the materials are assembled and laid out at your feet, the various components positioned with all the care and concentration of a penultimate chess move, intense contemplation hangs in the air of a silent studio\u2026You look pleadingly at the                                                 104 Evans, \u201cWork in the Studio.\u201d 105 Evans, \u201cWork in the Studio.\u201d 106 Evans, \u201cWork in the Studio.\u201d 107 See Adina Kamien-Kazdhdan, Remaking the Readymade: Duchamp, Man Ray, and the Conundrum of the Replica, (New York: Routledge, 2018).        48 materials: \u2018Tell me what to do. Silence.\u201d108  The Steel Problem  A year of Evans\u2019s placement passed and he had still not made a sculpture.  Evans\u2019s frustration with his studio practice led to more time spent touring and photographing the corporation\u2019s processing factories. Thirty-six of these photographs were published by the BSC in 1971, in a small book titled Some Steel. The photographs in Some Steel are gray toned and small in scale. They feature stacked and scattered groups of a variety of steel shapes, close ups of single joints and simple constructions of one or two elements.  On one of these tours of Redpath Dorman Long Depot in East Greenwich, Evans saw something unusual: a haphazardly stacked pile of steel shapes and simple constructions on the floor of the stockyard. BSC management explained to Evans that these scraps were left over from their Apprentice Program.  During tutorials, apprentices learned techniques through experimenting with the material. After class, their creations were rendered useless by the corporation and abandoned in the stockyard. However, the objects appealed to Evans, and he later photographed them. While the photographed steel objects are formally similar, they are not identical. Evans described the material subjects of his photographs as \u201chaving been made freely within a given formula or set of rules\u2026.\u201d109 Evans\u2019s description of the making of these objects echoes his teaching methodology during the A course and his own practice; the objects are created with material restrictions and under a set of established rules. However, unlike Evans\u2019s self imposed rules, the apprentice objects were made by rules imposed by the Corporation.                                                   108 Garth Evans, \u201cArtist Statement 1978,\u201d in Garth Evans Sculpture Beneath the Skin, ed. Anne Compton (London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2013).  109 Evans, \u201cGarth Evans\u2014Report for Training Officer BSC Redpath Dorman Long Depot,\u201d 1970, Tate Archive, London, U.K.       49 Evans\u2019s photographic framing isolates these objects from human and mechanical activity110 (see fig. 9). Significantly, he chooses not to capture the unusual act of learning, albeit a reified learning experience within the corporation but, instead, its aftermath, its debris. Evans\u2019s choice of composition presents a ghostly portrayal of objects considered abandoned or not in use at a time of shifting priorities on the factory floor. A form of portraiture that draws many parallels with early surrealist photography\u2019s interest in \u201cemptiness\u201d and questions of use value at times of structural change.  For example, French photographer Eugene Atget\u2019s photographs of Paris taken at the turn of the 20th century share many similar characteristics to Evans\u2019s photographs, specifically, Atget\u2019s Petit Etalage de Poissons, Coin de la rue Daubenton et de la rue Mouffetard (1910) (see fig. 10),111 which captures a small vitrine littered with fish skeletons on a Parisian street corner. With no figure in sight, de Poissons is a portrait of consumption\u2019s aftermath. The image was part of a series that was famously described by Walter Benjamin in \u201cA Short History of Photography\u201d (1931, 1972) as \u201cremarkable for their emptiness,\u201d \u201cThe city in these pictures, \u201d Benjamin continues, \u201cis empty in the manner of a flat that has not yet found a new occupant.\u201d112 While Benjamin\u2019s essay was republished in 1972, roughly the same time as Evans\u2019s placement, there is no evidence to suggest that Evans was influenced by Benjamin\u2019s writing at this time. However, Benjamin\u2019s description of Atget\u2019s compositional choices mirrors similar themes found in Evans\u2019s photographs taken at British Steel. Specifically, Benjamin\u2019s description of \u201cemptiness\u201d importantly signals a composition that is defined not by negative space but by a                                                 110 Evans, Contact sheet, 1971, Henry Moore Foundation. 111 Eugene Atget, Petit \u00e9talage de poissons, Coin de la rue Daubenton et de la rue Mouffetard 1910, Paris. Copyright International Center of Photography. 112 Walter Benjamin, \u201cA Short History of Photography,\u201d in On Photography, ed. Esther Leslie, (London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 2015), 20.         50 missing subject. However, during Atget\u2019s time, the relationship between subject and commodity occupied a changing Parisian landscape; a cityscape that was being re-defined by Haussmann\u2019s late 19th and early 20th century renovation.113 Through what Atget chooses to leaves out of frame, de Poissons poignantly conveys not only what is lost in individual acts of consumption, but ultimately what Paris may be losing in its redistribution of people and spaces.  Considering de Poissons in relation to Evans\u2019s photographs, both compositions are strikingly defined by what is absent, but also more importantly establish a pre-occupation with what is considered not of use or use-less at times of social and economic change. While Atget\u2019s fish skeletons\u2019 fleshy detritus archeologically mines Paris\u2019 renovated streets, Evans\u2019s objects are misshapen cogs in what was globally considered an archaic line of steel production. Referring to the apprentice objects photographed, Evans\u2019s states that \u201cthey have an absence of any practical or obvious use which enables us quite easily to consider them aesthetically... they encapsulate the technique as an end to itself\u2026it is this end in itself that they exactly parallel works of art and it is this which is the focus of my interest in them.\u201d114 The objects, in Evans\u2019s eyes, had aesthetic value because they were no longer of use or value to the corporation, yet still occupied space on the factory floor. In the workers\u2019 absence, the objects embodied their dead labor; labor accumulated from its material extraction to the apprentices technical practice. They were essentially surplus; in Evans words, \u201c\u2026the only profit of these objects can be evaluated solely in the experience gained in their making.\u201d115 If Atget\u2019s empty Paris was a flat awaiting its new tenant, Evans objects awaited their new function, their                                                 113 Peter Sramek, Piercing Time: Paris After Marville and Atget, 1865-2012 (U.K.: Intellect Ltd, 2013). 114 Evans, \u201cGarth Evans\u2014Report for Training Officer.\u201d 115 Evans, \u201cGarth Evans\u2014Report for Training Officer.\u201d       51 new use-value. Existing on a tight rope between function, commodity and non-use, they were objects in transition\u2026 much like the conditions of the BSC factory floor itself. According to newspapers at the time, BSC\u2019s interest in renovating steel\u2019s image was not merely for innovation, but was politically strategic. The Times argued, that for BSC, the more spectacularized steel became the more it could distract from internal changes occurring in the corporation.  The Times, in 1970, states that \u201cthe ostentatious BSC publicity\u2026 has really been a desperate attempt to keep up appearances in public while behind the scenes the moles worked out a new product organization.\u201d116  The \u201cnew product organization\u201d that The Times refers to was a byproduct of the Nationalization Act of 1967. The Act advocated a grandiose vision for re-nationalizing the steel industry and a full scale re-organization, a restructuring that would take place throughout Evans\u2019s placement.117 As referred to by The Times, the company had historically been organized geographically, resulting in strong regional ties between site, employees and management. However, in 1969 two reports were produced (BSC Second and Third Reports on Organization) by Dr. H M Finiston, Deputy Chairman of British Steel and his committee, advocating for a shift from regional grouping to product grouping. The reports indicated that product grouping would more easily accommodate the increasing new technology being adopted by the corporation, most significantly the electric arc furnace. This mentality was also fueled by a broader corporate assumption, \u201cif we could get the structure down everything else would follow suit.\u201d118  However, the implementations of this plan had many ominous side effects. Eliminating                                                 116 Andrew Lumsden, \u201cWhy Steel is Appealing,\u201d The Times, July 15, 1970, 23. 117 Dudley, G.F. and J.J. Richardson, Politics and Steel in Britain 1967-88: The Life and Times of the British Steel Corporation (Hanover: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1990), 29. 118 Dudley and Richardson. Politics and Steel in Britain, 29.       52 regional organization weakened employees\u2019 sense of community, and technological modernization meant many plants would close, leaving many workers unemployed. Even more unpleasant was the fact that closures would not take effect until the mid-1970s, leaving employees at these plants in limbo.  They knew their plants would close and their tasks, up until that point, would become increasingly mundane.119  At the time, BSC\u2019s atmosphere was considered so fragile that in 1974 Secretary of State of Industry Tony Benn created a manifesto calling for a review of all proposed steelworks closures.120 However, according to political economy scholars Dudley and Richardson\u2019s Politics and Steel in Britain 1967-88: The Life and Times of the British Steel Corporation, despite knowledge of these structural repercussions, there was a prevailing corporate optimism at BSC that they could be handled painlessly.121 This sentiment is expressed by the corporation itself in the British Steel Journals 1968-1969, in which BSC prides itself on a history of surviving \u201cadversary politics,\u201d and claims that more than any other industry, steel\u2019s nationalization or denationalization depended on the party in power.122  The corporation and scholars further argue that this political manipulation of the steel industry could be viewed as a litmus test, not just of the financial state of steel, but symbolic of the greater health of British industry.  Therefore, the steel industry in British industrial history takes on a special status. If the perception of steel could be modernized, BSC and the Labour government hoped that this new image could symbolize a re-birth of British industrial prosperity.123                                                   119 Weidenfeld, John Valiey, The History of British Steel (U.K.: Wilmer Brother Limited, 1994). 120 Dudley and Richardson, Politics and Steel in Britain, 59. 121 Dudley and Richardson, Politics and Steel in Britain, 34. 122 Lord Melchett. \u201cIntroduction to the British Steel Journal,\u201d 2. 123 Dudley and Richardson, Politics and Steel in Britain, 1.       53 The Steel Crisis  Part of BSC\u2019s corporate optimism was a pre-emptive measure to assuage the negative impact the structural changes were having on their employees. Whether they were fearful of worker unrest or simply wanted to create better working relations as part of rebranding their identity, along with restructuring came a corporate and government mandate to seek out consultation to better express the concerns of their employees.124 This mandate no doubt aided in creating an atmosphere open to the very presence of Evans in the corporation. Further, as Evans\u2019s interest in labor practices at the corporation grew, program initiatives under this mandate shared many similarities to the conditions of his placement.   One BSC consulting initiative of particular relevance was the Employee Director Scheme. The scheme began at the same time as Evans\u2019s placement and ran until the late 1980s. The scheme involved a union worker, dubbed Worker Director, joining BSC management\u2019s committee meetings. The corporation hoped this initiative would generate greater worker inclusivity in the corporate decision making process.125 Here, it is important to identify the specific relationship between trade unions and BSC during Evans\u2019s placement.  While British steel workers had a less confrontational history than the more infamous coal miners, they also struggled to self-organize, thereby crippling any attempt at a united response to BSC\u2019s re-structuring of the company. According to steel unions at the time, the changing working conditions eroded workers\u2019 sense of identity and resulted in a weakened sense of community.126The weakening state of steel unions is reflected in the outcome of the Employee Director Scheme. While optimistic in theory, the scheme was highly problematic in practice and                                                 124 Dudley and Richardson, Politics and Steel in Britain, 46.  125 Dudley and Richardson, Politics and Steel in Britain, 46. 126 Dudley and Richardson, Politics and Steel in Britain, 47.       54 ultimately cancelled in 1983. Dudley and Richards quote Brennan, who describes the problems inherent in the scheme,   Worker directors of necessity enter worlds already established in both of formal roles and processes of custom and practice, of values and language. The social dynamics of those worlds strongly favor the encapsulation of worker directors within the pre-existing boardroom ethos and organization and within though in a limited way, the pre-existing organizational categories of information and analysis.127   From Brennan\u2019s account, one of the key problems of the Worker Directors was that they \u201cfelt mistrusted by their own union officials and colleagues at work\u201d.128 In an article from a 1968 edition of British Steel Journal titled \u201cThe Employee Director Idea,\u201d the BSC, an unusually reflective company, predicted this very problem. \u201cIndustrial democracy, in the sense of workers\u2019 participation in management, is one of those concepts which are widely applauded until the time comes to work out what they really mean\u2026How can workers participate in management without becoming identified with us?\u201d129  The plight of the Employee Director Scheme is significant because it shares many similarities with the difficulties of the APG placement and, most importantly, brings the issue of class to the forefront. Like the Worker Director, the structure of the APG placement actively sought to put Evans in a position that was both accessible to workers and management. Evans was attuned to the precariousness of this position and particularly concerned with management interference. In correspondence from 1968, Evans states that \u201cinterpretations of his actions should not be open to the idea that they are in accordance with (management) given instructions.\u201d130  However, despite Evans\u2019s awareness of potential problems, his free mobility                                                 127 Dudley and Richardson, Politics and Steel in Britain, 136, 46. 128 Dudley and Richardson, Politics and Steel in Britain, 46. 129 British Steel Corporation, \u201cThe Employee Director Idea,\u201d British Steel Journal (April 1968). 130 Evans, \u201cNotes by the Artist.\u201d       55 inevitably created a question of personal class alliance. The question asked of the Worker Director may appropriately be re-phrased: How can \u2018artists\u2019 participate in management without becoming identified with us?    A Question of Class    Prior to the placement with BSC, Evans\u2019s connection to the working class was crafted by his childhood spent in and around South Wales, listening to his grandfather and uncles\u2019 stories of working in the coal mines. In interviews, Evans elaborates, describing the influence of his uncle\u2019s stories about \u201clife underground,\u201d tragedies and strikes. Evans states:  My mother grew up in the small mining village of Pencoed and my grandfather and my mother\u2019s brothers were coal miners in the region. As a child, I spent summers in South Wales and I vividly remember listening to my uncles and other men talk of their lives underground, in the dark. I wanted to make something that I felt had a connection to the coal mining and steel making industries of South Wales.  I wanted to make something that I felt had a connection to the coal mining and steel making industries of South Wales....I found something grittily majestic in that world, particularly in the bonds forged between individuals. It was clear that a powerful sense of community existed between these men and their families, a sense of unity built through a long history of shared hardship.131  Evans\u2019s commitment to the working class and the role of sculpture in public art would come to greater fruition after his placement with British Steel. In 1972, Evans would construct a large public sculpture, Untitled, in The Hayes, Cardiff city center. The sculpture was one of sixteen public art sculptures within the Peter Stuyvesant City Sculpture Project and was displayed for six months. During the sculpture\u2019s display, Evans secretly recorded the conversations held around the sculpture. The collection of recordings was transcribed and formed the Cardiff Tapes Project.132 From Evans\u2019s description and his later public sculpture in Cardiff, we can arguably                                                 131 Jon Wood, The Cardiff Tapes 1972 Garth Evans (Chicago: Soberscove Press, 2015), 7.  132 Wood, The Cardiff Tapes.       56 discern an arm\u2019s length loyalty and often romanticized relationship to the working class; an appreciation of hard labor and a sense of community that initially deterred him from committing to work professionally as an artist. It was not until Evans was stationed in Hong Kong as part of the British Military that he was convinced to commit to art production and teaching.133 Evans\u2019s description of his military service and education includes him in a post-WWII generation of artists from working class backgrounds who were enabled by these experiences to pursue careers in the arts. However, as these individuals entered art school, and later became teachers, they increasingly expressed a loyalty to, or a desire to conceptually and aesthetically reconnect with their working class heritage.  Such a cultural trend has been theorized by American Fredric Jameson as a phenomenon of working class guilt. As Jameson states, this individual \u201cis forever suspended between classes, yet unable to disengage from class realities and functions, and from class guilt.\u201d134 In American sculpture, this trend has been the subject of art historian Julia Bryan-Wilson\u2019s Art Workers (2009) and Alex Potts\u2019 The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist (2000), which discuss the work sculptor Carl Andre who was active during the same time period as Evans.  Bryan-Wilson draws attention to the inherent hypocrisy of an artist in an \u201celite\u201d position posing as a blue collar worker; in contrast, Potts argues Andre\u2019s self professed working class identity was a product of nostalgia at a time of industrial change.135 Potts states: In hindsight, the world of industrial processes evoked by Andre\u2019s work has more to do with the aging rust belt than with the new world of consumer commodities and high technology industry. The materiality of his work with its evocations of                                                 133 Wood, The Cardiff Tapes, 7-8. 134 Frederic Jameson, Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (U.S.A: Duke University Press, 1991), 38. 135 Bryan-Wilson, Art Workers, 43, 69.       57 industrial grittiness might now even have a slightly nostalgic patina. The arrangement of the metal pieces too, suggests the need for the care and precision not of a machine but of a craftsman.136   Pott\u2019s argument importantly draws attention to the relationship between industrial change and subsequent shifts in artists\u2019 choices in form and process.137 However, the complexity of class identity within these larger industrial shifts in the U.K. is not easily cloaked in Jameson\u2019s guilt, Bryan-Wilson\u2019s hypocrisy or Potts\u2019 nostalgia and the broader question of changes to the intellectual and public perception of the working class remains.  Evans\u2019s trepidation about becoming an artist and his interest in factory life can be interpreted as a symptom of guilt concerning his own social upward mobility. However, unlike Andre, Evans\u2019s work does not directly align with working class identity or mimic industrial processes. While still feeling the kindred connection to his working class roots, Evans was negotiating his past from a position once removed. In Evans\u2019s own description from a recent interview, he references a 1962 film, The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, in which the main character purposefully loses the race to show his solidarity with his mates, an act that Evans suggests showcases a particular refusal of the intricacies of the class system in Britain.138 In other words, the film expresses a desire for, and almost romanticized view of solidarity that is predicated on acts of refusal and detachment. And it is perhaps this arms length relationship to industry and the embedded class structure that the photographs composing Some Steel convey. Evans is not a \u201cworker,\u201d but an observer within the context of industry. Re-iterating Evans\u2019s                                                 136 Alex Potts, The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist (U.S.A: Yale University Press, 2000), 231; see also Bryan-Wilson, Art Workers, 69. 137 An ideological parallel reminiscent of Benjamin\u2019s famous assertion in Arcades Project that at a moment of technological obsolescence and transition, the retraction of technology\u2019s functionality creates opportunities for changes in cultural production. See Walter Benjamin, The Arcades Project (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002 edition).   138 Morsch, Incidentally in Context, 129.       58 quote above, he found the coal miners\u2019 lives \u201cgrittily majestic\u201d and further described the materials photographed in Some Steel as having a \u201cmysterious symbolic quality\u2026.\u201d139 The people and material of the industrial world were perceived by Evans as both familiar and simultaneously other, muddled like the blurry backgrounds of the photographs.  Evans\u2019s dialectical relationship to his class position is reflected in the larger re-composition of the public\u2019s perception of class in post-WWII Britain. As discussed in Chapter One, Britain\u2019s post-war politics was defined by an aggressive upward social mobility plan, an optimism that was contingent on the promises of the U.K.\u2019s Welfare State to take care of their citizens. This promise was epitomized in the 1942 Beveridge Report\u2019s slogan, \u201cfrom the cradle to the grave we will look out for you,\u201d  a utopic vision that comprised policies of full employment and an increased standard of living through what was perceived as the material benefits of mass production.140   Along with the increased accessibility to consumer goods, a parallel initiative occurred in the mass production of secondary school education, the comprehensive revolution. The comprehensive revolution not only made education more accessible but it introduced students to a greater variety of subjects, including art.141Consequently, as consumer goods made their way into more households, so did greater options in education, creating opportunities for members of the working class to \u201cmove up\u201d in more ways than one. Evans\u2019s exposure to art and his ability to attend art school were direct results of these reforms.  The belief in the ability of these policies to create upward social mobility at the time was                                                 139 Evans, \u201cGarth Evans- Report for Training Officer.\u201d 140 William Beveridge, The Beveridge Report. See discussion by John Kirk, Class, Culture and Social Change: On the Trail of the Working Class (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 1. 141 Roy Lowe, Education in the Post-War Years: A Social History (New York: Routledge, 2012).       59 so extreme that it would fundamentally change approaches to and perceptions of working class character. British historian John Kirk\u2019s Class, Culture and Social Change: On the Trail of the Working Class observes that it was largely assumed by the intelligentsia that the post-war working class was on the brink of disappearance\u2014a myth, Kirk argues, that motivated E.P. Thompson and others to obsessively document working class culture in the 1950s and 60s.142  However, as Kirk recounts, the working class did not disappear, but instead changed shape in the public perception. In his seminal text, A Phenomenology of the Working Class Experience (2000), Simon Charlesworth describes this shift during the 1960s and 70s as \u201ca deep existential gulf between those reared in an industrial past and those for whom this culture now stands as some sort of folk-lore, a folklore that stands contrary to their existence in the present.\u201d143 He further states that, \u201cmutual respect and recognition structures of feeling produced through the processes and self-discipline of meaningful work are now replaced by individualistic performance and the display of commodity desire.\u201d144  If, according to Guy Debord and Theodor Adorno, post-WWII European high culture fell victim to mass culture, in Britain, cultural historians similarly lamented working class communities as victims of mass consumer individualism.145 The image of working class culture that Evans had constructed from his childhood had become corroded by consumption and individualism, and largely thought to have disappeared in Britain\u2019s social imagination. Evans was faced with the problem of rectifying his nostalgic narrative of his pre-war working class                                                 142 Kirk, Class, Culture and Social Change, 14, 103. 143 Simon Charlesworth, A Phenomenology of the Working Class Experience (U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 2. 144 Charlesworth, A Phenomenology, 283. 145 See Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle (New York: Bread and Circuses Publishing, 2012) and Adorno and Horkheimer, M. Dialectic of Enlightenment. (USA: Stanford University Press, 2002).        60 heritage with these changing post-war conditions and perceptions of his contemporary working class. These conflicting identities inevitably pressured Evans to negotiate his own class position and allegiances on the factory floor.  Despite the publication of Some Steel, Evans kept returning to his studio determined to work with steel. The photographs that compose Some Steel and the many others, such as the apprentice object photographs, were ultimately unable to embody the scale of his experience at BSC. This motivated Evans to reflect on his practice and cultivate a perspective that cultural theorists Benjamin, Brecht, Kracauer and Sternberg shared decades earlier when they argued that direct representations of factory life, such as photography, were inadequate. Brecht argued in his essays, On Film and Radio (1919-1956), that human socio-economic experience was now reified in its relationship to capitalism. As a result, the individual\u2019s experience was no longer readily available to capture. It was now fragmented and needed to be reconstructed.146 This suspicion of photography was re-iterated by Carl Andre in 1968 (during the early stages of Evans\u2019s placement) when he exclaimed, \u201cThe photograph is a lie\u2026this is anti art because art is a direct experience with something in the world, and photography is just a rumor\u2026.\u201d 147 In Evans\u2019s case, the photograph represented not a false representation, but a point of transition, a transition that allowed him to learn the hierarchy of material, to navigate levels of labor and, ultimately, introduced him to the problem of his placement: How to convey the material and subsequently the labor conditions of an individual working within capitalist modes                                                 146 For an expansion on this theme see Steve Giles, \u201cPhotography and Representation in Kracauer, Brecht and Benjamin\u201d in Verswisch die Spuren!: Bertolt Brecht\u2019s Work and Legacy. Amsterdamer Beitrage zur neueren Germanistik, Volume: 66. 2015, 115-125. And Brecht, \u2018Durch Fotografie Keine Einsicht,\u2019 in Brecht, Werke, Schriften 1, 443-44; Brecht on Film and Radio, 144.  147 Liza Bear and Willoughby Sharp. Interview with Carl Andre. Avalanche 1 (1970).       61 of production? In addition to taking photographs of the apprentice\u2019s objects, Evans proposed a project to work collaboratively with the apprentices. His request was ultimately denied by BSC.148 However, what Evans did  learn was that the apprentice program was largely in decline; working as an apprentice used to secure a job, but it was not the case anymore.149 From the archival material, it is unclear in how much detail Evans knew about the relationship between the lack of job security of the apprentices and the larger re-structuring of BSC. However, in letters to Kenneth Robinson, Director of Social Policy at BSC in 1971, Evans does express his concern over the negative implications of the corporation\u2019s changing social policy, specifically listing: boredom in the work place; the effect of mundane tasks on the worker\u2019s psyche; and the methods of education used within the factory. Evans states that, \u201c[industry] needs to be concerned with and allocate resources in a deliberate attempt to engage the interest of their participants\u2026 an industrial undertaking requires for its own efficiency to include in that description of its function, the idea that it exists to provide a meaningful experience of work.\u201d150  Evans concludes that the success and efficiency of industry rests on the quality of the work experience and the creative engagement of its employees. If industries fail to do this, Evans states, \u201cI believe that the industrial enterprise, taken as a whole will become increasingly unworkable, in that it has to give impossible financial substitutes for its failure to provide a                                                 148 There is some disputed evidence in the archive and interviews with Evans and other APG artists that suggest Evans may have gotten the apprentices to at least fill out surveys about their status and experience at the British Steel Corporation. However, in a recent interview with Carmen Morsch, Evans states he never spoke to them directly; Morsch, Incidentally in Context, 139. 149 Garth Evans, \u201cGarth Evans\u2014British Steel Report,\u201d 1970. Tate Archive, London. 150 Garth Evans, \u201cLetter to Kenneth Robinson, Director of Social Policy at British Steel.\u201d 1971, Tate Archive, Tate Museum, London, U.K.       62 meaningful experience of work, and to cope with ever more serious irrational and negative assertions of their importance by individual groups.\u201d151 In many ways, Evans\u2019s correspondence re-visits a very British argument towards industry dating back to the 19th century\u2014notably, in John Ruskin\u2019s \u201cStones of Venice,\u201d and William Morris\u2019 later Arts and Crafts movement\u2014a mixture of romanticism and Marxism valuing the creation of a more meaningful work experience, and the simultaneous threat of the consequences if industries do not comply.152  Dr. H. M. Finiston, Deputy Chairman of British Steel and responsible for the reports dictating the structural changes of the corporation, responded to Evans\u2019s concerns. Finiston argued that what Evans suggested was not new, and further, BSC was already making strides to combat boredom in the work place. Finiston states:  I would like to take time off to debate the major issue of job satisfaction in industry and particularly in industry, which is of a routine productive nature. The problem you pose is not unrecognized\u2026 What is more difficult is suggesting one (or more) solutions. \u2026 I do believe that advancement in technology increases the proportion of tedious work but reduces the number who have to undertake such tedious work.    My main concern is that, however the artist may work, (whether intuitively or otherwise) unless the method by which you hope to raise the level of interest for the worker within the industry is propounded in terms which they (the workers-management and men) feel they have an understanding of what you are after, your mission will fail.  It is in this respect that I found both your memos deficient. The intent is good, the mode of attack on the problem less satisfying.153    Finiston\u2019s response, echoes Bryan-Wilson\u2019s critique of Andre, suggesting that the artist\u2019s elite status or way of communicating makes any critique of worker\u2019s conditions problematic and, further, hypocritical.  Evans himself conceded these criticisms, claiming that he too felt some                                                 151 Garth Evans, \u201cLetter to Dr. H M Finiston Deputy Chairman of British Steel.\u201d 1971. Tate Archive, London, U.K. 152 See E.P. Thompson, William Morris Romantic to Revolutionary, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976). 153 H.M. Finiston, \u201cLetter from Dr. H. M. Finiston Deputy Chairman of British Steel to Garth Evans\u201d 1971. Tate Archive, Tate Museum, London, U.K.       63 lack of conviction in his proposition.  In response, however, Evans chose to focus his criticality on a more micro scale. He specifically advised adjustments to the work and safety films. Evans was shown a total of nine films from the corporation film library as part of his introduction to BSC.154 One of primary interest was a trainee film on electric arc furnaces (as mentioned earlier, electric arc furnaces were one of the main technological developments that caused small factories at BSC to close). Evans\u2019s primary concern with the film was its production. He argued BSC\u2019s production style disconnected hearing and seeing.  In recent interviews, Evans more specifically equates his experience with the BSC films with his time in the military. He states they both brought on a similar feeling of inefficient manipulation; that is, as Evans states, \u201cbeing manipulated in the sense of being put in a position where you are supposed to be drawn in and enlightened and made part of something but actually at the same time being separated from it.\u201d155 As a result,, according to Evans, not only was BSC\u2019s message lost on trainees, but instead of creating a sense of shared interests, the film felt isolating. Evans\u2019s focus on the trainee films therefore served to channel his criticality of BSC labor practices to a specific focus on communications. Evans states: \u201cIn my visits to steel works I have been fascinated by the means of obtaining and communicating information\u2026.The noise of the machinery makes oral communications.\u201d156  The role of communications in the factory later inspired Evans\u2019s proposal for the APG\u2019s exhibition (mentioned in the \u201cOpen Brief\u201d) documenting placements at the Hayward Gallery in 1972. For the exhibition, Evans\u2019s proposed that the communicative energy of the steel floor be                                                 154 Garth Evans, \u201cNotes on Trainee Films,\u201d 1971.Tate Archive, Tate Museum, London, U.K. 155 Morsch, Incidentally in Context, 96.  156 Evans, \u201cNotes on Trainee Films,\u201d 1971.        64 transmitted to the floor of the gallery, as well as a screening of the BSC training videos to invited BSC management. Evans requested closed circuit televisions, telephone links, cables to loudspeakers and computers with print outs to be placed throughout the gallery space.157 While the invited BSC representatives left early and his request to channel live sound from the BSC factory floor would be denied due to BSC\u2019s concerns over workers\u2019 language, what the plan and eventual form of installation shows us is the use of communication to draw a connection between material and labor. The \u201cnoise of the machine\u201d was its own form of communication amongst a background of workers and management voices. Caro\u2019s musical score of composing steel sculpture is thus redefined as a cacophony of material, mechanic and human voices that make up a factory floor.  Evans\u2019s intuitive concern with communications at BSC can be considered symptomatic of the waning optimism and subsequent erosion of productive communication within the corporation. The repercussions of BSC\u2019s restructuring were amplified by the U.K.\u2019s impending entry into the European Economic Community (1973), and by the mid-70s BSC\u2019s share of the domestic market significantly fell from 75% to 54%.158 Optimism turned to pessimism with the departure of the Publicity Director and head of \u201cSteel Appeal,\u201d Chris Patey. Patey left BSC to start working for the American oil company Mobile, a move that was especially symbolic, for at this time, Mobile was involved extensively in drilling for oil in Scotland\u2019s North Sea.159 Like Patey, the focus of Britain\u2019s economy had migrated from the steel industry to off-shore oil. No longer Britain\u2019s vessel for economic optimism, steel became a thorn in the government\u2019s side.                                                 157 Garth Evans, \u201cProposal for Hayward Gallery\u201d 1971, Tate Archive, London, U.K. 158 G.F. Dudley and J.J. Richardson. Steel Policy in the UK The Politics of Industrial decline. (Glasgow: Glasgow Department of Politics, University of Strathclyde, 1983), 50. 159 Chris Patey, interview by the author, 2016. Also can be found on Oil Depletion Analysis Centre About, organizational web page.       65 The steel problem became the steel crisis. The growing offshore oil industry would dictate politics while the steel industry remained dictated by politics, with its de-nationalization in 1979 by new Tory MP, Margaret Thatcher. Breakdown  In 1971, shortly after Evans completed his placement with BSC, he welded together the pieces of steel he had arranged and re-arranged throughout his placement. He made a sculpture. The large composition consisted of short linear units sprawled across the floor of his studio.  Like a web, the raw pieces intersect, creating abstract shapes with excess steel protruding into the air like metal tentacles. He titled the sculpture, Breakdown160 (see fig. 11). Like the work of Anthony Caro and some members of the New Generation, like William Tucker, Breakdown is large in scale and composed of unit to unit relationships that horizontally rest on the floor. However, the musical score of Caro is staccato and broken into jagged pieces; the sculptural body of Tucker is dismembered and flattened. Breakdown makes an aesthetic crime scene out of Saint Martin\u2019s sculptural legacy.  Significantly, Tucker would also participate in an industrial fellowship with Gregory in Leeds at roughly the same time as Evans\u2019s placement with BSC, a coincidence that Hulks credits to more and more artists turning to industrial fellowships as academic positions became more scarce. The prominent art publication at the time, Studio International, published a letter exchange between Tucker and Evans discussing the different approaches to their fellowships. Within his letter Evans\u2019s points to an important distinction between his work and Tucker\u2019s that Hulks summarizes:                                                   160 Garth Evans, Breakdown, raw steel, 1971 (Hayward Gallery, London). Copyright Garth Evans.         66 \u2026Tucker\u2019s mistake according to Evans was in thinking that a new kind of sculpture solely by virtue of its internal properties could force itself on the world in a new way. Evans thought this naive insisting instead what happens to sculpture is determined largely by factors outside of itself. Furthermore, the sculptor tricked into believing too strongly in artistic autonomy\u2026he has not yet except privately for himself gained any freedom to participate in the creation of new concepts of reality.161   Hulks largely credits the difference between Tucker and Evans\u2019s perception of a new reality for art making and, subsequently, the crisis culminating in Breakdown, to the personal pressure Evans felt to be more socially engaged with his practice. However, the factors of Evans\u2019s placement arguably crafted a new reality that was significantly different from his expectations. If, according to Hulks, Evans felt pressure to be more socially engaged, how did this new social role transpire and how did it effect composition?  During his placement, Evans encountered a context riddled with contradictions: materials that did not fit into the modes of production; a community that did not fit his image of the working class; and a shifting corporate policy that deemed these materials and people obsolete in a Welfare State that had promised full employment. This reality, I argue, he began to grapple with in his photographs of the apprentice objects and brings to some conclusion in Breakdown.  In interviews, Evans states that the title, Breakdown, referenced his inability to create a sculpture during his placement and reflected a general anxiety he felt about being a sculptor at that time. Evans\u2019s anxiety was so great that he recalls he sought psychological counseling at the time of his placement.162  Evans\u2019s conflicted state is metaphorically akin to what prominent Scottish psychiatrist and APG collaborator, R.D. Laing described as the \u201cdivided self,\u201d as                                                 161 Hulks, Breakdown, 61. 162 Wood, \u201cJon Wood in Conversation with the Artist,\u201d 29.       67 discussed in the Introduction.  To reiterate, in his text, The Divided Self (1960), Laing describes the feeling of this fractured mental state: \u201cTo an individual the totality of whole experience is split in two main ways; in the first place, there is a rent in his relation with his world and in the second, there is a disruption of his relation with himself.\u201d163 According to Evans, the \u201cdisruption\u201d of his relationship with himself came quite literally to occupy the materials of Breakdown. As he put it, \u201cBreakdown didn\u2019t offer itself as an object. This was because I couldn\u2019t objectify it, I couldn\u2019t get out of it, I was in it literally.\u201d164   In Image of the People (1999), T.J. Clark accounts for the radicalism of Gustav Courbet\u2019s \u201cA Burial at Ornans\u201d (1859-50) by suggesting, \u201c\u2026a certain world pressed in on him (Courbet) and gave him a different subject.\u201d Clark further describes Courbet\u2019s position as one, which although within a different set of socio-political conditions, is strikingly similar to Evans; a conflicted subject, one divided between his own class position and the shifting political conditions of the Bohemia intellectual community and the French countryside at the time.165  Fredric Jameson in The Political Unconscious (2002) further describes this phenomenon of the relationship between the artist\u2019s internal struggle and the contradictions of their context, arguing that the radicalism of the cultural object draws \u201cthe real into its own texture and \u2026its paradoxes.\u201d166 Like \u201cA Burial at Ornans,\u201d Breakdown is formed by drawing the outside with all its contradictions in. Evans himself arguably supports this sentiment when he describes the artist\u2019s ideal role during a placement: \u201cI have in mind someone who is not primarily concerned                                                 163 R.D. Laing, The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness Volume I (London: Tavistock Publications, 1964), 15.  164 Wood, \u201cJon Wood in Conversation with the Artist,\u201d 29. 165 T.J. Clark, Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 8.  166 Frederic Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. (London: Routledge, 2002), 66.       68 with producing things that are easily identifiable (as art) but one whose concern includes the conventions by which we classify experience, the social and conceptual framework through which our experience is received.\u201d167 To reiterate Evans\u2019s words, \u201cWhat happens to sculpture is largely determined by factors outside of itself.\u201d However, this is not solely credited to a greater social responsibility. When he refers to the naivet\u00e9 of Tucker\u2019s autonomy, Evans is not abandoning autonomy, but instead is re-defining the problem of composition from painterly abstraction to terms of mediation. Therefore, to be a more socially engaged artist can be described as navigating the contradictory strands of Evans\u2019s placement experience; or, perhaps more accurately, the failure of mediating these conditions and how this failure ultimately materialized in the broken totality of Breakdown\u2019s frayed steel grid. Unable to separate himself from the object, Breakdown ultimately embodies the struggle Evans experienced while navigating between the material of steel and aesthetic form, between the changing structure of BSC and the individual worker, and between his own conflicting relationships to class. Breakdown draws in the real so much that it is ultimately the breakdown of the artists\u2019 ability to negotiate between himself and the varying scales of capitalism. In a letter to curator Jasia Reichardt written in 1980, Evans reflects, \u201cI wished to stop making objects but I did not wish to stop being a sculptor\u2026.\u201d168                                                    167 Garth Evans, \u201cBSC fellowship Re: Film.\u201d 1968, Tate Archive, London, U.K. 168 Garth Evans, \u201cLetter to Jasia Reichardt written by Garth Evans,\u201d 1980, Tate Archive, Tate Museum, London, U.K.       69 Chapter Two  The Morbid Symptoms of Capitalist Culture: Stuart Brisley\u2019s Placement with Hille & Co Furniture Factory (1970-72)   To compose is to make use of what is known\u2026 to unite the parts of a whole.169    -Reyner Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, 1960.   In 1963, Robin Day designed the Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d chair for mass production.170 The chair was made for optimum functionality; an injection molded plastic shell supported by a tubular steel frame. \u201cQstak\u201d refers to one of the chair\u2019s most popular assets. They are stackable. Each chair slides perfectly into the next. The Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d chair was manufactured at the S. Hille & Co. Furniture Factory (Hille) in London throughout the 1960s and 70s. A single tool at the factory produced 4,000 chairs per week at a rate of 1.5 minutes per shell. Inspired by the prominent modernist architect Le Corbusier, the chair was described as a \u201cmachine for sitting in.\u201d171  In 1970, APG\u2019s Barbara Steveni negotiated a placement between Hille and artist Stuart Brisley. Brisley chose to observe and work on Hille\u2019s Haverhill Metal Polishing shop floor. During the placement, Brisley collaborated with workers to make a circular sculpture titled Poly Wheel (1970) (see fig. 14). Poly Wheel was made from 212 tubular steel Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d chair frames.                                                  169 Banham Reyner, Theory and Design in the first Machine Age, (Westport: Praeger Publishers Inc., 1960), 20. 170 Robin Day Polyprop \u201cQ-stak\u201d chair, 1963 and VC Aircraft Interior design, 1967 by Robin and Lucienne Day. Copyright Robin and Lucienne Day Foundation,. 171 Lyall, Sutherland. Hille: 75 Years of British Furniture. (London: Elron Press in association with the Victoria and Albert Museum, 1981), 53.       70 This chapter examines the intersection of art, design and mass production in Brisley\u2019s placement with Hille. Through the protagonist of the Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d chair, Brisley\u2019s Poly Wheel is situated within his larger body of work and contextualized within Britain\u2019s post-WWII political agenda that was defined by optimism, innovation, the expansion of mass production and the democratization of mass consumerism. It is argued that Brisley\u2019s work introduces an alternative narrative to the aesthetic ramifications of the mass production of the 1960s that is crafted from the relationship between the mass-produced object and working class identity.172 This chapter asks: How does the relationship between the mass-produced object, the individual, and the collective working class re-shape aesthetic composition? Why not a chair of paper\u2026Why not a chair of foam?  I agreed to work in a factory where they were completing various tasks, making chairs; some of them were very simple chairs, you know, stacking chairs, Robin Day stacking chairs, classic of its kind. Others, they were making other things like Breuer chairs, Marcel Breuer chairs, parts of Breuer chairs.173   -Stuart Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill,\u201d 1973  During the 1960s, the popularity of the Robin Day chair, often referred to as the \u201cQstak\u201d chair, established Hille as the leader of progressive mass-produced furniture design in Britain. The Robin Day chair was the apex of Hille\u2019s brand: an economically efficient design line crafted by the collaboration of Robin Day and Hille\u2019s owners, Rosamind and Leslie Julius.  Rosamind and Leslie Julius inherited Hille after WWII. They sought expansion, a                                                 172 For the established narrative on the effect of mass production on 1960s art production see Benjamin Buchloh, \u201cAndy Warhol\u2019s One-Dimensional Man,\u201d in Andy Warhol, ed. Annette Michelson. (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001) and Jaimey Hamilton, \u201cArman\u2019s System of Objects,\u201d Art Journal, 67, no. 1 (2008). 173 Stuart Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill,\u201d September 1970- May 1973, Tate Archive, London, U.K.        71 transition from pre-WWII individual craftsmanship to post-WWII mass production.  In an economic climate where many western European and, to some extent, British companies facilitated this transition by adopting the American Ford conveyor-belt method of mass-production, Hille considered itself different. Hille regarded its transition not as an American import, but as a continuation of Britain\u2019s design history that combined fine art and design for mass production. Hille declared itself the inheritor of the Arts and Crafts movement and heir of the British influence on German design movements such as the Bauhaus.174  The success of Hille\u2019s post-WWII image was largely formed by the Julius\u2019 relationships with many avant-garde artists and theorists who were making work and writing in London at the time. These included Richard Hamilton, Reyner Banham and Eduoardo Paolozzi, to name a few.175  The Julius\u2019 presence within London\u2019s art scene made Hille an obvious candidate to be approached to host an APG artist.176  At the time of Brisley\u2019s placement, designer Robin Day had complete creative control over branding and product design at Hille (with the exception of special commissions).177 After seeing Day\u2019s work at MOMA Design Competition (1948), Hille offered Day a unique contract; he was not considered an employee but an autonomous visionary. 178 As a result, Hille\u2019s designs largely reflected Day\u2019s own design vision for mass production, a vision that Day largely crafted by what he referred to as \u201cpre-forming specifications,\u201d itself a design methodology popularized                                                 174 Lyall, Hille, 39. 175 Lyall, Hille, 39. 176 Barbara Steveni, \u201cLetter to Sir Paul Reilly,\u201d 1967 Tate Archive, London, U.K. 177 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d  178 Lyall, Hille, 40.       72 by WWII innovation in the aircraft industry179 (see fig. 12). \u201cPre-forming specifications\u201d emphasized the efficiency of plane interior design and was dependent on the newly invented material of plastic. Day agreed to work for Hille on the condition that the company would support this type of mass produced design. Hille\u2019s contract thus allowed Day the freedom to translate \u201cpre-forming specifications\u201d from the airplane industry to mass produced furniture; military innovation re-purposed for post-war optimism. Throughout the 1960s, the Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d chair and similar models increased in popularity, cultivating the chair as symbol of post-WWII Britain\u2019s progress in the cultural imagination. Variations of the Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d chair were featured in influential exhibitions throughout the 1950s and 60s. The Festival of Britain (1951) included an early plywood version of Day\u2019s chair. Day also designed the seating for The Festival\u2019s auditorium.180 The Festival, often considered a watershed exhibition in British design history, reflected the U.K. Council of Industrial Design\u2019s ambitions for a new type of postwar designer, one adept in new technologies and able to appeal to a growing mass-consumer market. Still, it was not until a much later exhibition, in 1969 and titled \u201cThe Design Centre comes to Newcastle,\u201d that the chair and designer\u2019s name became synonymous with post-WWII progress.  At the Newcastle exhibition, Director of the Council of Industrial Design, Sir Paul Reilly, invited consumers to consider: \u201cWhy not a chair of paper\u2026Why not a chair of foam?\u201d Robin Day\u2019s polypropylene chair was featured along with Fredrick Scott\u2019s foam seating, David                                                 179 Robin Day and his partner Lucienne Day also designed VC10 Aircraft interiors in 1967, in their role for the British Overseas Airways Corporation. Lesley Jackson, Robin and Lucienne Day: Pioneers of Contemporary Design (City: Princeton Architectural Press, 2001).  180 Robin Day Chair at the Festival of Britain,1951 was a 700 lounge chair, a development of a lounge chair he designed for the Royal Festival Hall. Made from molded plywood with walnut veneer interior and sycamore exterior.       73 Vartlett\u2019s slot-together paper chair and Quasar Khanh\u2019s clear plastic inflatable chair, to name a few. The often gimmicky design was marketed as chairs that were \u201cthrow away,\u201d yet at the same time sleek and stylish.181 The chair was technically innovative and at the same time economically accessible.  As the 1960s came to a close, however, the Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d chair was marketed increasingly for corporate use. Hille, like many design companies at the time, was greatly influenced by Systems Furniture Theory, or Systems Theory. Systems Theory, also known as \u201cOffice Landscape,\u201d was an early form of open plan office spacing that became popular in Germany during the 1950s under the name Burolandschaft.182 Each unit was expected to be standardized and easily disassembled and re-assembled based on the activity needs of the office space. According to the Systems approach, \u201c\u2026the real function of mass production is not to make large numbers of a variety of objects which have finite uses but to make large numbers of a relatively limited repertoire of items which are capable of being used together in an infinite variety of combinations.\u201d183 Systems Theory further organized office spaces in reference to activities, rather than gridded rows, re-defining the corporation as a series of spatial networks that composed a landscape. As a result, employees\u2019 individual preferences were predicated on a distinctly institutionalized social sphere.  Systems Theory\u2019s influence shifted Hille\u2019s concept design from a compatible line of furniture to viewing its product as an aesthetic system of furniture units. The shift to Systems design can be seen in a Hille advertisement from 1967. In the advert a variety of Robin Day chairs is presented on white platforms of varying heights. The molded shells are red and black                                                 181 Cheryl Buckley, Designing Modern Britain, (London: Reaktion Books, 2007), 146. 182 See Nikil Saval, Cubed: The Secret History of the Workplace, (USA: Anchor, 2015)  183 Lyall, Hille, 40.       74 neutrals with differing style steel bases. Four of the six chairs face the camera. The other two face each other almost as if in conversation184 (see fig. 13).   The Composition of Class  Unlike those developments of the past, which left the objects of daily life, the hierarchy of the family and the structure of seeable intercourse almost untouched, the technical revolution of our own time strikes us with infinitely greater force because the small things of life have been visibly and audibly revolutionized as well.185         -Reyner Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, 1960     Hille\u2019s successful mass production of the Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d chair was indicative of a larger shift in consumer culture after WWII.186 The broadening of the post-war consumer market was predicated on technological innovation, namely, the advancement of cheap and accessible material such as plastic. However, it was also dependent on the expectation of social progress; specifically, the upward mobility of the working class. Post-WWII policy in Britain promised an increased standard of living through increased education and full employment. However, social upward mobility was largely predicated on the greater accessibility of mass produced goods.187  Simon Charlesworth\u2019s seminal text, The Phenomenology of the Working Class Experience, describes this shift during the 1960s and 70s in Britain; he states, \u201c\u2026mutual respect and                                                 184 \u201cAlthough the Polypropylene Chair was originally developed in 1963, it was the Mark II version, launched the following year, which was adopted as the standard design. Manufactured with an array of different bases, the tub-shaped Polypropylene Armchair was added in 1967.\u201d http:\/\/www.robinandluciennedayfoundation.org\/lives-and-designs\/1960s\/polypropylene-chair-mark-ii-and-polypropylene-armchair 185 Banham, Theory and Design, 9.  186 Rosalind H. Williams, Dream Worlds: Mass Consumption in Late Nineteenth Century France (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 67, quoted in Simon Frith and Howard Horne, Art into Pop (New York and London: Methuen, 1987), 12. These two waves of mass production are also famously mentioned in Buchloh, \u201cAndy Warhol\u2019s One-Dimensional Man\u201d, 2. 187 John Kirk, Class, Culture and Social Change, 14.       75 recognition of structures of feeling produced through the processes and self-discipline of meaningful work are now replaced by individualistic performance and the display of commodity desire.\u201d188 Richard Hoggart in The Uses of Literacy (1958) makes a similar argument in his attempt to describe the \u201cquality of working class life\u201d in relation to mass culture. Hoggart states, \u201cwe are moving towards a mass culture\u2026and that new mass culture is in some important ways less healthy than the often crude culture it is replacing.\u201d189 Mass production was thus interpreted in the British cultural sphere of the late 1950s and 60s as essential to the upward mobility of the working class and, at the same time, as contributing to the erosion of working class collectivity and culture.  However, this was not the first time in British history that the democratization of mass production was charged with having detrimental effects on the working class. In the late 19th century, the Industrial Revolution was famously rebuked by the Arts and Crafts Movement. The Arts and Crafts Movement, led by designer William Morris, formed as a critical response to the Industrial Revolution\u2019s mass production of \u201ccheap\u201d low-quality goods marketed towards the working class. The movement made a direct correlation between design, mass production and the working class, which was founded on a distinctly British socialist commitment to reconnect art with labor that began with the writer and poet, John Ruskin. Ruskin in many ways personifies the now romanticized narrative of British artists\u2019 transition from artist to socialist activist at the end of the 19th century. Oscar Lovell Trigg\u2019s Chapters in the History of the Art and Crafts Movement describes Ruskin\u2019s political vision of re-inserting creativity into industrialized production. He states that, \u201cRuskin\u2019s mission was on the one hand to correct a system that had abstracted an                                                 188 Charlesworth, Phenomenology, 2. 189 Hoggart, 324.       76 \u2018economic man\u2019 and set him to produce things, and on the other hand to expand the area of economy by including activities that do not lead directly to marketable production.\u201d190 In the new mass produced economy of the Industrial Revolution, Ruskin\u2019s \u201ceconomic man\u201d was colonized by the same system as his possessions. His identity and labor were abstracted, fragmenting the individual\u2019s sense of self as well as the collective identity of the working class.  Ruskin\u2019s successor, poet, designer and activist, William Morris, argued that the solution to the negative impact of mass consumption\u2019s expansion to the working class was to be found through reconnecting art and labor in design, and later in political action. E.P Thompson\u2019s famous text, William Morris: Romantic to Revolutionary, narrates Morris\u2019 transition from designer to full-fledged revolutionary. Although conveyed from a highly romantic and often contested Marxist perspective, certain passages point to the political underpinnings of the Arts and Crafts movement that directly connect the conditions of the working class to design and mass production. In Thompson\u2019s examination of Morris\u2019 notes from 1883, he finds this passage copied from Karl Marx\u2019s Chapter XIV of the First Volume of Capital, \u201cDivisions of Labour and Manufacture:\u201d  It is not only the labor that is divided, subdivided and portioned out betwixt diverse men: it is the man himself who is cut up, and metamorphosized into the automatic spring of an exclusive operation.\u2026They mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work, and turn it into a hated toil. 191   Morris, through Marx, more clearly articulates Ruskin\u2019s abstracted man, a divided man, separated according to task, and ultimately alienated from the product of his making.  However, the problem of division and individualism was not clearly articulated in the Arts and Crafts                                                 190 Triggs, Chapters in the History, 20.  191 Thompson, William Morris Romantic to Revolutionary. Morris\u2019 notes cite Karl Marx Chapter XIV of the First Volume of Marx\u2019s Capital. \u201cDivisions of Labour and Manufacture,\u201d 101.        77 movement until Morris\u2019 successor, Charles Robert Ashbee, established the Essex Guild (1888). Ashbee\u2019s Essex Guild was a reconstructed workshop that ideally functioned as a state, a school and a factory.  C.R. Ashbee\u2019s A Few Chapters in Workshop Reconstruction and Citizenship (1894) defines the political mission of the Essex Guild: to reconnect workers to their product and, further, to reconnect the individual worker to a collective identity. Ashbee proposes the solution to alienated labor lies in the re-negotiation of the relationship between the individual and the collective. Ashbee states:  Our vast mechanical system of Industry and individualism we have missed sight of. Individualism has lost us individuality. Individuality has gone out of industry but it must be brought back again. The system has destroyed the things created and in destroying the productions we destroy the producers. Lower the standard of the work and you lower the standard of the man. But given individualism how shall sovereign individuals be united in a community? The \u201cworkshop\u201d gives the solution to this question...here once again is the unit; we come back to that. It is the unit\u2026the individual that we have got to touch.192    In response to the Industrial Revolution, the Arts and Crafts movement sought \u201cthe modern evolution of individuality,\u201d a cooperative individualism that raised standards of labor and the quality of the product within mass production. \u201cDesign,\u201d  Ashbee says, \u201cis the element in any art and craft by which the whole hangs together, first constructively and then aesthetically\u201d193 thus zeroing in on the relationship between art and labor, the individual and the working class. In other words, the solution to the perils of mass production was the negotiation of the individual in relation to the collective working class; the composition of the relationship of the individual to the working collective at the site of production.  However, the second wave of post-WWII mass production not only mourned the loss of                                                 192 Ashbee cited in Triggs, Chapters in the History, 145. 193 Triggs, Chapters in the History, 146.        78 the individual\u2019s relationship to the collective, but also the loss of the working class\u2019 collective identity. To reiterate the words of Charlesworth, collective \u201cmeaningful work\u201d was now replaced by \u201cindividualistic performance and the display of commodity desire.\u201d The power of the working class was no longer predicated on the individuals\u2019 cooperation, but instead on the re-definition of what constitutes collectivity itself.  Requiem for 1968  On May 28, 1968, Stuart Brisley, an artist and part-time instructor, sat on the floor of the Hornsey College of Art with fellow faculty and students. What is now commonly referred to as the Hornsey Sit In was a protest that took the form of a \u201cteach in\u201d or \u201cwork in,\u201d occupying the space of the Art College. The protest embodied a local and global desire for radical education reform and inspired a flurry of protests throughout U.K. art colleges. However, at the end of six weeks the students\u2019 demands for financial and curriculum reform failed to be fulfilled and Hornsey College of Art was repossessed by local authorities.194 In later interviews, Brisley describes the Hornsey Sit In as a pivotal moment culturally, and for him personally. Brisley states that, \u201c\u2026after 1966 there was still the hope of a new start a new way of being a collective but as the 70s progressed this idea became harder, difficult and ultimately had to change altogether.\u201d The capacity for real collective change had, in Brisley\u2019s view, ended in 1968.195  While the Hornsey Sit In failed to achieve decisive change, it succeeded in introducing younger artists like Brisley to an older generation of artists, most significantly John Latham, who invited Brisley to join the APG. In the aftermath of 1968, Brisley saw the APG as an opportunity                                                 194 Stuart Brisley, Hornsey College of Art. \u201cTo the Authorities whoever they are,\u201d 1968, Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.  195 Melanie Roberts, interview with Stuart Brisley. National Life Stories Artists\u2019 Lives, (London: British Library, 2015).       79 for a new type of collective working. However, if the capacity for \u201creal\u201d collective change had ended, the focus of collective work, he thought, must also change. From the beginning of Brisley\u2019s involvement with the APG, he adopted an antagonistic approach to the collective. His views differed significantly from Latham and became increasingly at odds with the Group\u2019s mission. Brisley was specifically against a clause in the APG contract that states, \u201cThat I will not knowingly do anything which might prejudice the company\u2019s interests.\u201d196 From Brisley\u2019s perspective this clause committed \u201cthe artist to an implicit support of the company\u2019s interest at board room level.\u201d In other words, Brisley argued that this clause committed the APG to perpetually side with management. Brisley\u2019s perception of the APG\u2019s commitment to management was ethically against his practice; he claimed that the APG\u2019s refusal to acknowledge the history of class struggle between workers and management inevitably led to the Group mission working against itself.197  Brisley\u2019s political perspective on class conflict informed a post-Hornsey Sit In\/1968 approach to art making whose objective was no longer the pursuit of collective change, but instead, an internal investigation of the class politics of that collective. Brisley\u2019s antagonistic relationship to the APG crafted a performative approach that ultimately tested the strength of the APG collective and its principles. In 1970, Brisley had the opportunity to take his approach to the factory floor itself when he accepted an APG placement negotiated by Barbara Steveni with S. Hille & Co. Furniture.                                                  196 Artist Placement Group. \u201cAn APG Draft Contract,\u201d 1970, Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K. 197 Stuart Brisley, \u201cHille Fellowship-Factory and Artist: The Industrial Context,\u201d 1970, Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.         80 The Factory  Brisley began his placement by visiting Hille\u2019s factory at Watford, just north of London. In notes, Brisley describes his first impression of Hille:  I went to the factory with some na\u00efve concepts based on visits to other factories. Hille was surprising in that the production procedures seemed to be geared to the odd or one-off situation, i.e. there are no rigid mass production procedures but rather a number of possibilities in terms of current and previous designs or unique commissions which the production procedures are designed to accommodate.198  Brisley\u2019s description reflects the image of Hille described earlier, a flexible creative workshop. Brisley further elaborates:   I was intrigued to see that the organic fluid system not only operated in terms of wide production, machinery had been modified, changed and some had actually been built from scratch to overcome technical problems of production\u2026a group of people who\u2026were capable of using their ingenuity in solving any particular problems arising in the factory\u2026[this] poses APG with a difficult set of decisions.199  From Brisley\u2019s observations, the role of the artist as a facilitator of factory innovation and cohesion was in question. What role, if any, could be found on a factory floor that already seemed to be flexible, interdisciplinary and collaborative? A question that more or less identifies the APG project: What role, if any, does the artist serve when placed in an unknown context? This question, however, is largely defined by the personal interests of each artist in the context of each placement. In a 1971 placement report, Brisley declared his focus: \u201cI chose the metal polishing floor because I believed that was where the workers had the least amount of choice.\u201d200 Reflecting his personal politics, Brisley chose to locate himself on the factory floor in the context of the working class.                                                 198 Stuart Brisley, \u201cReport,\u201d n.d., Tate Archive, London, U.K. 199 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d 200 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d       81 The Haverhill metal polishing floor was part of the larger factory that opened the same year that Brisley started his placement (1970). The opening of the new factory was to accommodate Hille\u2019s expansion to international mass production. Starting that year, a third of its product was now internationally exported.201 In his placement notes, Brisley describes the conditions of the new shop floor: just at the point that I arrived they doubled the work force, and there were all kinds of problems in relation to the quality control, the quality control manager had been able to hold in his head where everything was but suddenly it had all doubled and he couldn't find it. He had a sort of breakdown because, you know like, because the old system didn't work anymore. So they were in the process of real change and they built part of this new factory, or a new part of the factory, and they put in the polishing part of it, and I chose to work in that place because it was the least, it was where people had the least choice in terms of what they did.202   Despite Hille\u2019s progressive, innovative and flexible approach to production, the floor of the new metal factory was experiencing the negative effects of rapid expansion. Managers that used to oversee small artisan work teams now struggled to manage rapid job growth and factory additions.  Brisley observed that the ramifications of this expansion crystallized into an \u201canarchic\u201d environment on the metal polishing floor; an ill equipped management was overwhelmed by change.203  Brisley viewed these problems of expansion as an opportunity, a tear in the fabric of production in which he could start his work. In his text that is undated but indicated by Brisley to be written sometime during the 1970s,  Fine Art and Prejudice, he states: \u201cThe questioning of Art practices which are so inextricably inter-related to commercial practices either in actuality or potentially through the venal ambitions of the artist must take into consideration the nature of the                                                 201 Lyall, Hille, 39. 202 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d 203 Roberts, Interview with Stuart Brisley.       82 total process, and reveal the inherent contradictions of that process.\u201d204 Brisley thus began his work by seeking to better understand these contradictory conditions through the perspective of the shop floor workers. In order to gain direct insight into the workers\u2019 concerns, Brisley sought to \u201cgain the worker\u2019s trust.\u201d205 To do this, Brisley facilitated the painting of the metal polishing machines according to the operators\u2019 favorite football team colors. In many cases, the workers helped paint the machines206 (see fig. 14).  While the interest in this activity was short-lived, Brisley learned that the workers\u2019 primary concern was their lack of communication with management. The workers\u2019 exclusion or difficulty in conversing with management had created a general atmosphere of distrust. Brisley\u2019s notes indicate that this lack of trust led to various suspicions. For example, problematic architectural details of the factory space were interpreted as oppression tactics by management. Why were the windows placed so high on the factory floor? According to the workers, it was because \u201cthey don\u2019t want us to be able to see outside.\u201d207 While the accounts are often highly embellished, through the painting of the machines Brisley had found what he wanted to find, the inherent conflict between workers and management that framed his personal politics. In his placement report, Brisley describes his approach to this conflict,   I was conscious it was my responsibility to be open and informative both to those on the shop floor and to management. It is no secret at the time that there were clear divisions between managements and the labor forces across British industry, and that features of the British class system were at work together with the characteristics of the basic education system at the time. It was my intention to speak to all this and to formulate methods to extend communication between the various aspects of shop floor working and then to institute places and facilities                                                 204 Brisley, \u201cFine Art and Prejudice.\u201d 1970s, Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K. This document is undated but described by the Brisley as written some time during the 1970s.    205 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d 206 Hille Placement Poly Wheel and Painted Machines. Copyright Stuart Brisley http:\/\/www.stuartbrisley.com\/pages\/27\/70s\/Works\/Hille_Fellowship\/page:4 207 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d       83 where the shop floor\/and management could communicate with each other largely through text.208   Brisley placed notice boards strategically throughout the factory floor in an attempt to formulate a method of communication that could be used by all levels of labor. The notice boards were meant to be used for any type of announcements, from sports to social grievances. However, it is important to point out that Brisley did not view his intervention as fulfilling the mediating role between management and the workers. In a 1973 placement report titled \u201cReport on APG Project at Haverhill Sept. 1970-1973,\u201d Brisley more clearly articulates his intention, \u201cI thought that the really most important part about this was to get people to start to think for themselves and to represent themselves\u2026.So they wouldn't think that I had actually in some sense assisted them.\u201d209  Brisley\u2019s choice to use the format of the notice board provided the opportunity for exchange through text. But it also left it up to the workers and management to choose what that text would be. Subsequently, Brisley did not see his role within Hille as an instigator of \u201crevolution\u201d against management; in his words, he \u201cmerely pointed out that the work force had far more creativity collectively than management had given them credit for.\u201d210 However, the longer Brisley spent on the Haverhill shop floor, the more his focus began to shift from the disconnect between workers and management to an inherently larger problem, the disconnect between workers and what they were making. In a later interview, Brisley recounts: \u201cI found for example that people were machining and cleaning bits of metal who knew nothing about Marcel Breuer, nothing about what they were doing, absolutely hadn\u2019t a clue what they were doing.\u201d211                                                  208 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d 209 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d 210 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d 211 Roberts, Interview with Stuart Brisley.       84 Brisley\u2019s ambitions of facilitation changed to a preoccupation with the process of commodity production. From the chair to systems design, Hille\u2019s furniture from the 1950s to the 1970s was almost exclusively defined by the Robin Day chair. However, Brisley references a notable exception, the commission for replicas of Bauhaus designer Marcel Breuer\u2019s chair model B33, for the UNESCO building in Paris, and Skidmore Owings and Merrill\u2019s furniture for the Istanbul Hilton (1970). Hille\u2019s re-production of Breuer\u2019s designs was felt to be an appropriate fit for the company that considered itself to be carrying on the Bauhaus legacy in its approach to British design.212  Originally manufactured in 1926, the Marcel Breuer chair can in many ways be considered the predecessor for the Robin Day chair. The Breuer chair was similarly made from a tubular steel frame. The chair was also ergonomically efficient and infinitely compatible within the larger Bauhaus \u201csteel system\u201d of mass produced furniture.213 However, for the German Bauhaus\u2019 experimental design school and workshop (1919-1933), Breuer\u2019s chair was not only a unit of a functional future, but a vehicle for the representation of future political change. The importance of Breuer\u2019s chair to the Bauhaus\u2019 imagery and political thought is most directly seen in the popularly referenced, Erich Consemuller\u2019s, \u201cUntitled. Woman in B3 club chair\u201d 1926 print214 (see fig. 15). The black and white image features a woman sitting in a Marcel Breuer club chair in the center of a nondescript space. The figure and the chair are the two major elements of the photograph\u2019s composition; the only light source pierces the figure\u2019s                                                 212 Lyall, Hille, 56. 213  Girard Xavier, Bauhaus. (New York: Perseus Distribution Services, 2003), 4. 214 Eric Consemuller, Untitled (Woman (Lis Beyer or Ise Gropius) in B3 club chair by Marcel Breuer wearing a mask by Oskar Schlemmer and a dress in fabric designed by Beyer), 1926. Gelatin silver print. Copyright Private collection.       85 chest. The figure is wearing a mask made by Oskar Schlemmer and a dress in fabric designed by Lis Beyer. The gender of the individual is suggested as female by her attire but the mask she wears covers the entirety of her head. The mask is unadorned and the face is only suggested through abstracted geometric shapes. The face is un-gendered, unspecified and unidentifiable.  The figure\u2019s \u201cfacelessness\u201d in Consemuller\u2019s image has been a popular and controversial topic for Bauhaus art historians. Leah Dickerman, in her text \u201cBauhaus Fundamentals,\u201d has argued that the \u201cfacelessness\u201d of the figure\u2019s mask represents anonymity, but also a lack of identity. This lack of identity, she argues, is symbolic of the Bauhaus\u2019 greater political vision: the ability of design to unify artistic mediums is inextricably linked to a vision of the future that is classless.215 This view has been challenged by art historians such as Robin Schuldenfrei who recognized the luxury status of Bauhaus design and argued that unlike its political intention it did not reach a mass public. However, whether successful or not, Dickerman\u2019s interpretation is significant in the context of Hille because it places Breuer\u2019s chair in \u201cUntitled. Woman in B3 club chair\u201d at the center of a political agenda. A Bauhaus political agenda that according to Dickerman sought to collapse the hierarchy of medium specificity within their photography in order to mirror their political ambitions. A political agenda that Dickerman has argued equated the democratization of design elements with the unity of class divisions. The Bauhaus\u2019s vision, as seen in the photography by Consemuller, was according to Dickerman the fulfillment of bringing this dual aesthetic and political vision to the general public.216   Hille\u2019s workers manufacturing replicas of Breuer\u2019s chair some forty years later without                                                 215 Leah Dickerman, \u201cBauhaus Fundaments\u201d in Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity, ed. Barry Bergdoll and Leah Dickerman. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2009), 24. 216 For an alternative perspective on the Bauhaus workshops see Robin Schuldenfrei\u2019s   Luxury and Modernism: Architecture and the Object in Germany 1900-1933, 2018.        86 knowledge of this history is not only ironic but culturally symbolic. The Breuer\u2019s chair\u2019s detachment from its original radicalism reflects the gloomy afterlife of politically charged commodities. Reduced to a free floating image, they become part of a premature postmodern pastiche far from the Bauhaus\u2019 utopic vision of the future. The fate of Breuer\u2019s chair represents the macro scale of post-war mass production\u2019s alienation of labor and its subsequent erasure of the cultural object\u2019s relationship to working class identity. At Hille, Brisley argued that the workers\u2019 alienation was created by the conditions of their process of mass production. On the metal polishing floor, production was centered around steel frames coming off the conveyor belt.  As Brisley observed this process, he noticed that if the steel frames came directly off the conveyor belt and were left unmoved, they would continue in the form of a circle, an uninterrupted circle of chairs. Brisley described the factory belt as going \u201cround on itself,\u201d the stackable design of the Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d chair facilitated each chair stacking seamlessly into the next. In Brisley\u2019s notes, he describes the circle of chairs produced by the conveyor belt as resembling the conveyor belt itself. The objects of production were made into the same shape as that of the process of their production.  Brisley further observed that the drudgery of the shop floor\u2019s mundane labor reflected the cyclical nature of the conveyor belt. Each day, each task, was like the chairs, each one fitting seamlessly into the next. At the end of his placement with Hille, Brisley made a sculpture titled Poly Wheel (1970) with the aid of workers from the metal shop floor.  Poly Wheel is a circular sculpture made out of 212 Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d chair frames.217                                                      217 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d        87 Unofficial Actions On March 5, 1968, Stuart Brisley and fellow artist, Peter Sedgley, attended an event at what was then referred to as the Tate Gallery,218 featuring a performance by Nouveau R\u00e9aliste artist, Cesar. During the performance, Cesar poured liquid polyurethane into pools on the ground outside the museum. The liquid plastic expanded and solidified into large foam blobs. After the performance, audience members were invited to break off parts of the foam sculpture for Cesar to sign and take home as their own. As the story goes, Brisley and Sedgley broke bits off the sculpture, but instead of taking home their signed pieces of art they secured the pieces to the iron rail of the Tate\u2019s front gate. They then convinced an observer to strike a match and set the pieces aflame. The material proved to be so flammable that the fire brigade had to be called in.  Irate Tate employees closed the event and shocked audience members went home.219  The relatively few accounts of this performance interpret Brisley\u2019s action as an act of \u201cantagonism\u201d toward the Tate institution or as a critique of Cesar\u2019s technological radicalism in favor of a more destructive radicality towards the institution. However, the medium of plastic is significant. In the words of Nouveau R\u00e9aliste critic, Pierre Restany, \u201cThe formally dressed audience gasped at this demonstration of chemical magic....\u201d220  Like the Robin Day chair\u2019s plastic seat, the plastic used in Cesar\u2019s performance was developed after WWII, a symbol of technological progress, but also the most economically accessible and popular material used for mass production. Brisley\u2019s burning of Cesar\u2019s plastic at the Tate links institutional corrosion with the spectacle of mass consumed innovation. Three years earlier at the Destruction in Art Symposium (1965) in London, Gustav Metzger famously destroyed the artwork. Brisley took                                                 218 The Tate Gallery would be re-named the Tate Britain after the opening of the Tate Modern.  219 Brisley, Stuart. \u201cUnofficial Action at Tate.\u201d March 5, 1985. Tate Archive  220 Brisley, \u201cUnofficial Action at Tate.\u201d        88 one step further, creating an anarchic performance that worked to critique the larger super structure by first destroying its material remnants.  Three Dimensional  The 212 Robin Day chair frames that make up Poly Wheel are identical. The steel legs of the chairs feather out like a wreath. The center is hollow. The circle gives the illusion of seamlessness; each gap between each chair is the same. The Robin Day chair frames are structured in the sculpture like they are produced on the conveyor belt, in sequence, with their seriality composed by Hille\u2019s process of mass production. Art historian Benjamin Buchloh, in his seminal essay Andy Warhol\u2019s One Dimensional Art, defines seriality as one of the major visual tropes in artists\u2019 response to the conditions of 1960s mass production. Buchloh states: \u201cThat sense of composing depicted objects and arranging display surfaces in a serially structured grid emerges after all from the serial condition that constitutes the very \u2018nature\u2019 of the commodity in all its aspects: its object status, its design, and its display.\u201d221  However, artists\u2019 strategy of seriality from this period manifests in distinctly different ways. From Warhol\u2019s embrace of a factory line aesthetic to Cesar\u2019s fellow Nouveau R\u00e9aliste, Arman, who went into the factory himself, situating Brisley\u2019s work requires greater specificity.  Surveying the period, it is Arman that shares the most striking situational and aesthetic similarities to Brisley\u2019s placement at Hille and Poly Wheel. During the same time period as Brisley\u2019s placement, Arman collaborated in a type of residency scheme with the Renault car manufacturing plant in France. Like Brisley, he spent time observing the manufacturing process at the factory and photographs show Arman performatively wearing a worker\u2019s jump suit on the car production line. During his time at Renault, Arman made a series of sculptures, called the                                                 221 Buchloh, \u201cAndy Warhol\u2019s One-Dimensional Man,\u201d 10.        89 Accumulation series (1967-1974) from products he observed being made at the factory. For example, a sculpture tilted Le Murex (1967) or the nautilus, is made from the smooth stacking of white Renault car fenders. The composition is serial and futurist in its aesthetic; Arman\u2019s method of stacking mimics the shape of a smooth compressed nautilus\u2019 shell 222 (see fig. 16).  Art historically, Arman has been famously accused of being a corporate artist during his time at the Renault factory.223 And it is difficult to look at Le Murex (1967) without getting seduced by technological progress; the clean white shiny car parts naturalized in shape by its mimicry of the nautilus\u2019 shell. To summarize art critic Pierre Restany\u2019s description of Arman\u2019s work, it was a manifestation of contemporary technological society.224 While interpretations of Accumulations such as Le Murex are more often than not confined to the glamorization of modern technology, Jaimey Hamilton in his text \u201cArman\u2019s system of Objects\u201d (2008) re-considers Arman\u2019s relevancy, re-framing his work around the question of abundance and individualism. Referring to Arman\u2019s accumulations, Hamilton states: \u201cIn their accumulation, it did not matter what the electric razors were for, so much as how they amassed as an image and evoked a generalized idea of plentitude, surplus and affluence. Sameness overrules the mystique or aura any individual thing may have within the strata of an Accumulation.\u201d225  While Arman\u2019s Le Murex in many ways seems to celebrate industrial innovation, it does so by overriding \u201cthe mystique of individualism\u201d through its mere abundance. With its erasure of individuality, Arman\u2019s work creates an essential shift in the line of questioning for artists working in response to mass production, a shift from considering the serial phenomena of mass                                                 222 Arman Le Murex\/The Nautilus, Acummulation Renault No. 103. 1967 car fenders. Musee d\u2019art modern de la ville de Paris. Copyright Renault.   223 Jaimey Hamilton, \u201cArman\u2019s System of Objects,\u201d Art Journal 67, no. 1, (2008): 56. 224 Hamilton, \u201cArman\u2019s System of Objects,\u201d 55.  225 Hamilton, \u201cArman\u2019s System of Objects,\u201d 61.       90 production to examining the relationship between individual objects and the commodity, and, more abstractly, between the individual and a working collective.  It is through this lens that we return to Poly Wheel\u2019s serial composition. However, Poly Wheel does not belong in Arman\u2019s shop window or beside Andy Warhol\u2019s soup cans in the grocery store aisle. Poly Wheel does not glamorize the commodity. The 212 chairs are unfinished. They are bare steel frames without the plastic shell. They are a frame without a function. The Robin Day \u201cQstak\u201d frames are commodities that are frozen at a particular point in production. In Brisley\u2019s words, \u201cI got very much involved in the process of the work being its own subject\u2014the work should actually reveal through its process the way in which it was made.\u201d226  Here, \u201cwork\u201d refers to the work being done on the Haverhill metal polishing floor: the collective labor of polishing steel chair frames by the workers on the shop floor.  Poly Wheel is serial in the formal sense of the proliferation of mass produced objects, the Robin Day chair. But it is also serial in terms of labor collectivity.  In Brisley\u2019s view \u201cthe work\u201d was its own subject.  It is a view of seriality that is more closely aligned to Benedict Anderson\u2019s seminal text Spectre of Comparisons\u2019s (1998) unbound seriality than the seriality of Arman\u2019s proliferation of stuff or Warhol\u2019s simulation of mass production.227 In the context of Brisley\u2019s placement, the serial nature of mass production is unbound, \u201ca self-identified collective body.\u201d Poly Wheel\u2019s unfinished commodities are entangled with the dynamic conditions of its creation.228 If Arman\u2019s                                                 226 Roberts, Interview with Stuart Brisley. 227 Unbounded seriality is identified by Anderson as a self-identified collective body. One of his primary examples is the working class. Benedict Anderson, The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the World. (London: Verso, 1998), 29 and  Chatterjee, Partha, \u201cAnderson\u2019s Utopia,\u201d Diacritics 29, no. 4 (Winter 1999): 128.  228 Brisley, \u201cHille Fellowship-Factory and Artist: The Industrial Context,\u201d 1970. Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.       91 Accumulations worked to erase individuality, Poly Wheel aims to restore not each individual, but to recognize the unbounded collective that facilitates the modes of production. Each individual chair of Poly Wheel, like each individual worker on the shop floor, are directed by the cycles of the conveyor belt.   However, while the seamless design of the stacked Robin Day chair frames suggests the smoothness of production, Brisley knew from his experience on the shop floor that this was a fa\u00e7ade. The divisions of labor marked each individual\u2019s relationship to the collective process of production. Brisley describes his work\u2019s intention: \u201cThe individual in relation to groups of people and also in relation to social division is what I am very conscious of in all that I do.\u201d229  The social divisions Brisley refers to are the divisions of class, the class hierarchy of Britain\u2019s social body.  However, like the individual chairs that make up Poly Wheel, Brisley does not interpret the class structure as solidified bodies. Rather, like his role within APG and Hille, his exploration of the collectivity of class is an investigation rooted in antagonism. An antagonism between the individual and class collectivity, but perhaps more significantly the antagonism within the individual; the body\u2019s split attention between itself and the potential for collective power. The Morbid Symptoms of Capitalist Culture   The same year as the start of his placement with Hille, Brisley performed at the Brighton Festival a work titled \u201cCelebration for Institutional Consumption\u201d (1970).  The performance simulated a dinner party, featuring a white table, white chairs and Caucasian guests in a vacant industrial space. However, above the table, suspended by a metal frame, was a metal cage in which a \u201cfigure\u201d was contained. Throughout the duration of the \u201cdinner party\u201d a \u201ccontroller\u201d                                                 229 Roberts, Interview with Stuart Brisley.       92 entered the cage and cut away part of the figure. In Brisley\u2019s words, the \u201cindividual disintegrates.\u201d  The interactions between the \u201ccontroller\u201d and \u201cfigure\u201d grow increasingly absurd while dinner guests eat and read from a script without noticing what is occurring above them230 (see fig. 17). In the performance proposal from 1971, Brisley states, \u201c\u2026the people eating, talking, singing and dancing represent the imperfect state of human life. The disintegrating figure above demonstrates active destructive forces at work, but eventually the disintegration is carried far enough to reveal the only complete human being present. This figure represents a full human potential.\u201d231 The performance was intended to expose that the diners, like most individuals in their daily lives, did not recognize the convention they were operating in, in the case of this performance, the convention of the dinner party. The cutting away of the figure suspended above physically and symbolically performed the disintegrating potential inherent in each individual to be freed from the de-politicization of institutionalized collective behavior. Brisley\u2019s \u201cfull human\u201d was not a vision for a utopic future, but rather the collected limbs of Ruskin\u2019s abstracted man. Two years later, in a performance titled \u201cYou know it makes sense\u201d (1972) at the Ikon Gallery in Birmingham, the dinner party\u2019s gluttony of private consumption was replaced with the public political consumption of the body politic232 (see fig. 18). \u201cYou know it makes sense\u201d is composed of multiple scenes featuring figures and objects entangled in precarious positions. One of these scenarios presents a raised wheel chair half submerged into the gallery wall. At its feet is                                                 230 Stuart Brisley, \u201cCelebration for Institutional Consumption Script 1970,\u201d Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.  231 Stuart Brisley, \u201cProposal for \u2018Celebration for Institutional Consumption,\u201d 1970, Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.  232 Stuart Brisley, You know it makes sense, 1972, Performance Ikon Gallery Birmingham. Copyright Stuart Brisley.       93 a figure bound with wire and splashed with white paint. Surrounding the scene are scattered pieces of paper.  These performative vignettes were intended to reference the contemporary accusations of torture made by the Irish Times (1972) against the British army under Prime Minister Edward Heath. Playing upon the word accusation, Brisley made the installation a psychological environment, an atmosphere where torture was not physically carried out, but the relationship created between objects and figures suggest the possibility. The work uses anticipation and expectation to critically question how crimes against humanity are processed in the media and subsequently sold as a commodity to our social imaginations. The title \u201cYou know it makes sense\u201d refers to a political slogan used by Harold Wilsons\u2019 Labour Party government, 1964-70. Brisley states that the title, like most political slogans, should be viewed as an advertisement and\/or a \u201ccommercial sell.\u201d233  By linking the political commodity to the possibility of actual acts of political violence, the repressed repercussions of the reality of torture come to light. Brisley inextricably entangles the state of the physical body with the consumption of the body politic.      Brisley describes his performance work from the early 1970s as tackling the \u201cmorbid symptoms of capitalist culture.\u201d234 In these performances, the violent manipulation of the body is direct and confrontational. The visceral body flows in and out of the paint, paper and objects surrounding it. In interviews, Brisley often describes his formal process as considering the other participants, objects and materials as equal players in building a Constructivist vision of a total environment.235 However within this environment, Brisley considered the different mediums of                                                 233 Stuart Brisley, \u201cYou Know it Makes Sense- Press release 1972.\u201d Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.  234 Brisley, \u201cFine Art and Prejudice.\u201d  235 Roberts, \u201cInterview with Stuart Brisley.\u201d       94 his performances as constructing and exploiting the points of tension within political, social and economic unity: a vision for performance that saw the antagonism of the individual within the class system, within the body politic, as not just a conceptual division of the self but as a violent fragmentation of the body.  As Brisley stated, \u201cIt wasn\u2019t a protest against bureaucracy as such, it was really much more a protest against conspicuous individualism, which is another kind of conformity, which is more difficult to combat and totalitarian in its effect. I thought of the use of my own body as being like a figure, a human figure but not necessarily a specific person.\u201d236  Not Achieved  \u2026to compose it to make use of what is known\u2026 it is to unite the parts of a whole.237    -Reyner Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, 1960  One year after Brisley\u2019s placement with Hille, he performed his first solo work, titled, ZL 65 6395 C, at Gallery House, London (April- May 1972). The title was Brisley\u2019s social insurance number. As part of the performance, Brisley legally changed his name to this number for seventeen days and nights. ZL 65 6395 C required two rooms, one for Brisley\u2019s performance and one for the audience. The audience occupied a medical waiting area that featured a slot to view Brisley\u2019s performance.  However, the partial view was further obstructed by a monitor that displayed a video of a beating heart. Above the slot was written \u201cNo Reason.\u201d Throughout the performance Brisley used a wheelchair, water, black paint and flour to change the aesthetics of his room. He slept in the room to give the illusion that he was always working. However, one hour before the work was intended to end, Brisley knocked down the wall that separated him from the audience. Brisley said he considered the work to be a failure. He wrote on the wall of                                                 236 Roberts, Interview with Stuart Brisley. 237 Banham, Theory and Design, 20.       95 his room \u201cNot Achieved\u201d238 (see fig. 19).   ZL 65 6395 C, Brisley\u2019s first solo performance, addressed the problem of an artist trying to critically question individualism through a medium that is defined by individual ego. As with his previous performances, Brisley states that he wanted to \u201creduce his personality to create a situation where all the materials (including himself) used in making the work were given the same value.\u201d239 The reduction of personality was taken to the extreme in ZL 65 6395 C when Brisley chose to legally replace his name with his social security number. In Brisley\u2019s words, \u201cI thought of the use of my own body as being like a figure, a human figure but not necessarily a specific person.\u201d240 By replacing his name with a government number, Brisley abstracts his own identity to a state of anonymity; an abstraction that relegates his figure to nothing more than another element of composition: a unit in a collective effort to create.  However, unlike the Bauhaus\u2019 coming together of different mediums, the decision to use his social security number indicates that Brisley is not freed by anonymity, but instead mitigated by larger institutional structures. The social security number, ZL 65 6395 C, can just as easily be read as a product number; the individual like the commodity\u2019s identity is abstracted to the point of political neutrality. ZL 65 6395 C\u2019s compositional fate, like the fate of collective agency, is determined by the writing on the wall\u2026 \u201cNot Achieved\u201d.  A Lack of Representation  After the Hornsey Sit In (1968), Brisley gave up on collective agency. That same year, he destroyed the material spectacle of mass production through the burning of Cesar\u2019s foam                                                 238 Stuart Brisley, ZL 65 6395 C, The Tate Gallery 1980-82. Illustrated Catalogue of Acquisitions, London, 1984. See Figure 19.     239 Brisley, ZL 65 6395 C, The Tate Gallery 1980-82. 240 Roberts, Interview with Stuart Brisley.       96 sculpture at the Tate. These two separately occurring events, considered together, elicit the connection between mass production and the role of individualism in the failure of collective protest. From the ashes of the commodity, Brisley\u2019s early performances present the \u201cmorbid symptoms of capitalist culture\u201d by making visible the often internalized violence of individualism on the visceral body. However, after his placement at Hille, Brisley\u2019s works changed. Poly Wheel, like ZL 65 6395 C, addresses the perils of individualism; however, the approach is not through violent spectacle but rather through the subtler violence of the abstraction of individual identity.  This larger transition in Brisley\u2019s work is more nuanced when examining the micro shifts in his approach to art making during his placement with Hille. Brisley first collaborated with Hille workers to make message boards for better communication between them and management. This initial project was seen by Brisley as an opportunity to establish a relationship with the workers. Brisley utilized this relationship to collaborate to make 212 steel Robin \u201cQstak\u201d Day Chair frames into the sculpture Poly Wheel later in the placement. The transition from the message boards to Poly Wheel refocused Brisley\u2019s attention from issues of communication between workers and management to the relationship between workers and the object of their labor.  However, in examining this relationship Poly Wheel is made to look as though it was made without the workers\u2019 labor. If left untouched, Brisley claimed, the conveyor belt alone could create this same circle. If Brisley and the workers\u2019 labor simulate the conveyor belts\u2019 method of production, the individual chair frames, unit by unit, create a metonymy of their collectivity. However, frozen in their unfinished state, the chair frames are simultaneously alienated from the workers who made them and alternatively an unsellable product; stuck in the process of production, they are collectively a vacant referent.         97 Brisley states that he pursued the Hille placement in order to examine the relationship between the individual and the working class, or, perhaps more importantly, to find the individual within the working class. This mission was rooted in a particularly British understanding of the relationship between design and socialism dating back to the Arts and Crafts movement\u2019s response to the Industrial Revolution. A relationship I have examined through Ashbee\u2019s cooperative individualism of the late 19th century that sought to re-insert creative and ethical ways of working as a collective. However, the problems of mass production addressed by Ruskin and Morris and put into action in Ashbee\u2019s workshop had changed. Post-WWII design, such as Systems Theory, had not only commoditized the cultural object, but expanded to systems of objects. The Robin Day chair was no longer a singular cultural symbol of progress, but part of a collective of corporate spatial efficiency. In other words, it was no longer the singular commodity but a commoditized collective of cultural objects that defined corporate life.   In the aftermath of post-war consumption, Brisley\u2019s work is not interested in rescuing collective agency through the Arts and Crafts movement\u2019s cooperative individualism. Instead, he seeks to reveal the failure of cooperative individualism and the very commodification of the collective itself. In a document titled, \u201cFactory and Artist: The Industrial context\u201d (1970), Brisley addresses Hille workers\u2019 perspective towards their own collective identity. He describes their attitude as one of \u201cprotectionism.\u201d The Hille employees argued that the unions were responsible for securing fair rewards for labor completed.  However, the workers also lamented that their loyalty towards Unions had recently become strained. The Unions\u2019 trust in the Labour party was met with accusations of mishandling industry. Government documents, such as \u201cIn Place of Strife\u201d (1969), created a growing demand by workers to disaffiliate the Union from the Labour       98 party. Brisley describes worker morale as a disenchantment with both bodies of political representation, a disillusionment Brisley describes as an overall \u201cfeeling of a lack of representation.\u201d241 Brisley concludes: \u201cIn Britain at that time, there were more human references rather than the body present.\u201d242                                                     241 Brisley, \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill.\u201d  242 Roberts, Interview with Stuart Brisley.       99 Chapter Three   The Failure of Two Systems:   inn7o: Art and Economics Exhibition at the Hayward Gallery, (1971-72)   \u201cMore for less\u201d an appropriation of disputed territory known to exist between art and economics.    -Artist Placement Group inn7o: Art and Economics exhibition catalogue, 1971.     Dismissed by critics as na\u00efve and subsumed by ideology, the APG\u2019s exhibition, inn7o: Art and Economics (1971-72), was considered one of the most unsuccessful shows in the history of London\u2019s Hayward Gallery.243 Advertised as an \u201cexhibition in time,\u201d inn7o was an opportunity for the APG to document the progress of their ambitious project to negotiate placements for artists within industrial corporations. The exhibition presented documentation, sculpture and film from artist placements with high profile companies such as the British Steel Corporation, Esso Petroleum and ICI Fibres.244 Central to APG\u2019s negotiation of placements and, subsequently, the exhibition\u2019s text was the creation of their own vocabulary: a glossary of terms that appropriated business language and graphic design to form hybrids of corporate terms within their own art practice. APG\u2019s lexicon was composed from practical adaptations made through the process of negotiation with industry and through extensive theoretical discussions held between group members.                                                  243 For reviews of inn7o: Art and Economics see Peter Fuller, \u201cinn7o: The Artist Placement Group,\u201d Art Review 23, no. 25 (Dec. 1971): 772 and Philip Oaks, \u201cArt Clocks In,\u201d Sunday Times. Nov. 28, 1971.  244 Artist Placement Group. inn7o: Art and Economics (Exhibition Catalogue), (London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971).       100 The following chapter examines the role of language within the APG\u2019s practice and, in this endeavor, provides an alternative narrative to artists\u2019 engagement with administrative language during the 1960s that has been argued in relation to other artists by art historians such as Benjamin Buchloh and Rachel Haidu. However, why the APG felt that they needed to create their own terms, and the political factors that motivated them to render language as both a site of political crises and a medium of infinite potential are the central concerns here. This chapter considers the APG\u2019s mining and manipulation of administrative language as key to responding to what they perceived as the divisive nature of contemporary language, and further identifies this critique as the foundation of the APG\u2019s crafting of their own political vision\u2014to achieve a more \u201ctotal economy.\u201d The argument here is that the APG\u2019s choice of language as the site of negotiation can be viewed as a critique of their Marxist contemporaries, and proposes a perspective that viewed contemporary political language as failing: failing to describe the artwork, failing to describe experience under capital, and failing to achieve any practical political compromise. This chapter asks: What are the aesthetic and political choices at stake when artists choose to define their own language in an attempt to redefine what are considered results within the art world and greater economic policy? The Catalogue  The catalogue for the APG\u2019s inn7o: Art and Economics is an 8\u201d x 10\u201d booklet. The cover is composed of narrow columns of numbers in small black print. Like computer data, the numbers scroll down the page. However, occasionally the data is interrupted by blank white rectangles. The gaps in the text are sporadic, like missing puzzle pieces of negative space. The title of the exhibition is printed in large red text and pasted directly on top of the numerical background. It reads, \u201cinn7o Records of an exhibition located in the period 1970-1971 and       101 culminating at the Hayward Gallery,\u201d (see fig. 20 and 21). 245  The inside pages of the booklet mimic the typology and design format of The Times Financial News, including narrow columns of text with large block headlines and images that line the top of the page. The content of the catalogue is a pastiche, featuring short texts written by the APG and other writers\/theorists connected to the Group. The texts are given headlines such as, \u201cA national coalition of the iron and steel communities\u2014GE\u201d and \u201cAn independent TV Company\u2014DH.\u201d  The titles refer to the individual placements represented in the exhibition and the initials for the artist who participated; thus, GE stands for Garth Evans and DH for David Hall. The short texts describe the progress and\/or outcome of each placement.  In addition to texts describing the placements, there are also theoretical articles that convey the larger APG project, its internal divisions, symbol and mission.  One short text, titled \u201cAPG Noit Arrangements,\u201d describes the three parts of the Group: a research division (the original artist placement group), an industrial liaison division (the APG limited company) and an artists\u2019 division (APG NOIT). The term Noit was created by APG, specifically John Latham, as a critical commentary on the suffix \u201ction,\u201d a suffix he identified as the primary base term for words that describe our perception of the world246 (see fig. 22).  In contrast, the APG\u2019s reversal of the suffix to \u201cNo-it\u201d acts as an intervention motivating us to question how we receive and construct knowledge. This type of intervention was central to Latham\u2019s personal practice that sought to deconstruct the inherent biases that make up our individual and societal perspectives; a personal philosophy that largely impacted APG\u2019s over all practice.                                                  245 Artist Placement Group, inn7o: Art and Economics (Exhibition Catalogue), (London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971) Copyright Barbara Steveni Archive.   246Artist Placement Group, \u201cAPG noit Arrangements,\u201d in inn7o: Art and Economics (London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971), 18.       102 The APG\u2019s creations of new terms such as Noit were accompanied visually by the APG symbol of the Delta, a triangle tipped on its side247 (see fig. 23). The APG\u2019s Delta was featured on paper work, contracts, banners, during APG events (most significantly the Between 6 Kunsthalle Dusseldorf 1970) and was defined in the inn7o: Art and Economics catalogue as well as on posters in the exhibition space. The source of the Delta Group symbol can be found in theoretical notes and correspondence letters between Latham and The Gallery, London (1974). Within this correspondence, Latham identifies the APG Delta symbol as adapted from the contemporary Allied Polymer Group. The initial design used by the Polymer Group was the shape of an upright triangle, the symbol of the Greek letter Delta. The Greek Delta is broadly defined as the capacity to change. However, in Latham\u2019s view, to his critique of the suffix \u201ction;\u201d the Allied Polymer Group\u2019s use of the letter was a misrepresentation of what the symbol or suffix was intended to mean. In contrast to its choice of corporate branding, Latham argued, the Polymer Group did not advocate change but, rather, contributed to the maintenance of the industrial status quo; a hypocrisy that the APG saw not only within this specific corporation, but within greater industry itself. For its own symbol, the APG did not directly replicate the Polymer Group\u2019s Delta symbol; instead, as a visual form of critique, it chose to turn the Delta triangle on its side.248  The \u201ctipping\u201d of the Delta gave APG the freedom to redefine the symbol according to its own theoretical perspective, yet to retain connotations of change, language and corporate branding. In the inn7o: Art and Economics catalogue, the APG describes its use of the Delta as a                                                 247Artist Placement Group, \u201cDelta,\u201d in inn7o: Art and Economics. (London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971), 20. 248 John Latham, \u201cCorrespondence with The Gallery\u201d 1974, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.        103 representation of a holistic system that included industry but also addressed the overarching structure of (in the APG\u2019s view) an inherently failed economic and socio-political structure. The APG describes the three points of the triangle as two points representing the two-party political system and the third point, the APG approach. The symbol, visualized through the three points, was meant to equally challenge current societal structure and propose an alternative perspective: a different, third political position than what they defined as the two given options.249  It is important to point out, though, that the two-party political system APG refers to is a rather fluid concept throughout their theory. They refer to the two-party system in reference to what they perceived as inefficient and detrimental divisions in society: The Labour and Tory political parties; left versus right political views; and the division between art and industry, to name just a few. The APG\u2019s proposed third political position is equally nebulous, and is generally articulated as a utopic call for a more inclusive vision of value and economic productivity, one that the current binary based system did not allow, and what the Group refers to as a \u201ctotal economy.\u201d  Arguably, the opacity of APG\u2019s political position can be more clearly understood in their approach to language, rather than in what their language actually states. John Latham, in an artist statement from Nigel Greenwood Gallery in 1970, printed during the time of inn7o: Art and Economics planning, elucidates his own perspective on language at the time and, subsequently, his approach to language within APG\u2019s practice: \u201cIt comes down to language used as a means of maintaining the status quo, to language used as a means of \u2018inserting a change-of state\u2019, (language) may use the same marks, the same noises, the same syntax or not\u2026the distinguishing                                                 249 Artist Placement Group, \u201cDelta and relevance to the economy,\u201d in inn7o: Art and Economics. (London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971), 20.       104 feature may be discovered only in the context in which either appears.\u201d250  The term \u201ccontext,\u201d as used by Latham and the APG is also nebulous and often errors on general relativity; when it is considered within the catalogue and within the pages\u2019 specific formatting, however, a certain methodological approach to language starts to emerge. For example, the page titled, \u201cUnited Kingdom Corporation Consolidated Statement of Condition April 1, 1971\u201d251 (see fig. 24), is a fictional consolidation of financial statements of the U.K. government\u2019s industrial policy.  Printed on the page are the title, date and two columns. In the left column is a list of what the APG argues is the total economic losses currently unacknowledged by the U.K. government\u2019s policy. These losses include the \u201ccost of misunderstanding between management and work forces in companies,\u201d the cost of \u201cboredom and inertia, work force (e.g. absentee strike) withdrawal\u201d and the cost of \u201cerrors of judgment by authorities due to adoption of retrospective priority systems.\u201d The immaterial factors APG points to are largely social problems that are usually not accounted for in a monetary industrial budget. The adjacent column lists the number of pounds lost by each of these factors. The monetary amount for each identified \u201closs\u201d is consistently zero \u00a3.252  APG\u2019s mock \u201cStatement of Condition\u201d suggests that, while the listed economic losses are typically not assigned a monetary value by an industrial policy perspective or even considered important, they nonetheless negatively impact and translate to long term losses for the U.K.\u2019s economy. In catalogue pages like \u201cStatement of Condition,\u201d the APG\u2019s critical formal approach to language is inextricably tied to its critique of economic policy and, subsequently, links uses of                                                 250 John Latham, \u201cArtist Statement,\u201d (London: Nigel Greenwood Gallery Press, 1970)  251 Artist Placement Group, \u201cUnited Kingdom Corporation Consolidated Statement of Condition April 1, 1971,\u201d in inn7o: Art and Economics (London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971). 252 Artist Placement Group. \u201cUnited Kingdom Corporation,\u201d 23.       105 language to what is given value and what is not within conventional economic policy. The Sculpture  The APG\u2019s approach to language was also represented throughout the exhibition space of inn7o: Art and Economics by triptych presentation boards. The most prominent featured text and diagrams describing the APG\u2019s symbol of the Delta, discussed above. In addition to the presentation boards, inn7o\u2019s exhibition included documentation of all the placements that were finished or currently in progress. These included Garth Evans and the British Steel Corporation, Stuart Brisley and Hille Furniture Co, Leonard Hessing and ICI Fibres, Andrew Dipper and Esso Petroleum and John Latham\u2019s placement with Clare Hall Hospital. The exhibition was considered a \u201cworking demonstration.\u201d The APG, members declared, is concerned with the artist\u2019s capacity to be an engineer of conceptual material.   The artist or \u201cengineer\u2019s\u201d conceptual material took on varied forms.253 Garth Evans transported pieces of steel from the British Steel Corporation onto the gallery floor space and showed a film of him exploring the stockyards254 (see fig. 25). Andrew Dipper presented documentation of his time on the \u201cBernicia\u201d oil tanker headed from the Indian Ocean to Africa, part of his placement with Esso Petroleum. Other works, such as those from John Latham\u2019s placement with Clare Hall Hospital, were more visceral. Latham exhibited a record of his recovery from a near fatal car accident that occurred months before the exhibition. The work Hospital was composed of x-rays that showed Latham\u2019s seven broken ribs and lung damage, the remains of the crashed automobile and photographs of nurses and doctors.255 However, the common language of the presentation boards and the catalogue held the exhibition\u2019s sheer                                                 253 Artist Placement Group, inn7o: Art and Economics, 18-19. 254 Photograph of Garth Evans \u201cBritish Steel\u201d installation at inn7o: Art and Economics, 1971-2. 255 Fuller, inn7o, 772.       106 diversity in its hybridist approaches to materials and documentation together.  In addition to the importance of printed language, the APG also appropriated spoken language and corporate ritual, creating a replica of a boardroom. The \u201cboardroom\u201d featured a large table with chairs, where meetings between artists and members of industry, business, education and the government took place, live, throughout the entirety of the exhibition. The APG considered these meetings an artwork in itself and the rationale for its title, The Sculpture. 256  However, the meetings were not intended to invite audience participation. In order for the APG and guests to hear one another speak, the space was separated from the rest of the gallery by transparent plastic. This strategy allowed visitors to observe the live discussions, but not distract from \u201cbusiness.\u201d The Sculpture thus took the form of a semi-private perpetual business meeting.257  The conversations were filmed and projected onto monitors throughout the exhibition space. Participants included industrial representative, Peter Baron, from ICI Fibres; Derek Dalton, the principal of Fine Arts at Newcastle; and members of the APG\u2014Barbara Steveni, John Latham, Garth Evans, David Hall and Leonard Hessing. In video recordings of the event, Steveni describes The Sculpture: \u201cIt was an opportunity for the people we had been approaching to come to us.\u201d258 The topics of their discussions included the experience of artists during their placements; the possible benefits of industries taking on artists; and industry\u2019s anxiety over what industry and the APG perceived as a growing alienation of the working                                                 256 Antony Hudek, \u201cStaging Dissonance,\u201d 303-328. 257 The Sculpture at the Hayward was a recreation of an event held a year earlier during the exhibition Between 6 at Kunsthalle Dusseldorf in Germany. 258 Artist Placement Group. \u201cThe Sculpture.\u201d 1972, Film from Barbara Steveni Archive, London, U.K.       107 class259 (see fig. 26).  inn7o: Art and Economics opened to predominantly negative reviews. Art Review\u2019s critic Peter Fuller lamented: \u201cThe weakness which one constantly faces in his work [John Latham and\/or APG] is his na\u00efve belief that class differentiation and the separate motivations of workers and management can be fused into one simply by changing the language.\u201d260 Fuller\u2019s review goes on to argue that the APG\u2019s central paradox was its \u201cmock economics,\u201d the attempt to intervene or change corporate terminology, while at the same time co-operating with, and therefore upholding, the existing corporate management structure. Fuller\u2019s review concludes by stating that despite idealistic intentions, inn7o: Art and Economics was a futile exercise that resulted in the complicity of art with management culture.261  In retrospect, Fuller\u2019s review arguably assumes a binary position that dictates two choices: to ethically align oneself with either the working class, or management. In regards to language, this translated to adopting the language of bureaucracy, or not. The binary framing of these choices ultimately came to define not only APG\u2019s practice, but historic narratives of the broader Conceptual Art movement, a movement that, like the ideological apparatus of the corporation, the APG had one foot in and one foot out of throughout the entirety of its practice.                                                     259 My description of The Sculpture is informed by interviews with Barbara Steveni and her personal photographs and film footage from the exhibition. Barbara Steveni Archive, London, U.K. 260 Fuller, \u201cinn7o\u201d, 772. 261 A critique that is strikingly similar to Fuller\u2019s is a later more general observation made by art historian Benjamin Buchloh: \u201cConceptual Art came to displace\u2026the mass-produced object and its aestheticized forms in Pop Art, replacing an aesthetic of industrial production and consumption with an aesthetic of administrative and legal organization and institutional validation. Benjamin H. D. Buchloh, \u201cConceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of Institutions,\u201d October 55 (Winter 1990): 119.        108 I hope you will not mind my going on about this\u2014but as you are who you are\u2026   inn7o: Art and Economics (1971-72) was exhibited during a period of art production that has been broadly identified by art historians, such as Benjamin Buchloh\u2019s seminal text, Conceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of Institutions (1990) and, more recently, Rachel Haidu\u2019s The Absence of Work (2013), as a paradigm shift in Conceptual Art practice. From Art & Language\u2019s Index 01, exhibited at Documenta 5 (1972), to Marcel Broodthaers\u2019 small mock booklet, titled Museum for Sale on Account of Bankruptcy, (1970-71), these artists and authors have defined the narrative of Conceptual Art as a movement that adopted administrative language and ritual as their artistic medium.  However, while the APG took its subject matter from industrial corporate administration, in contrast, Conceptual Art\u2019s turn towards administration was largely characterized by artists\u2019 administering their own context, namely the art world, the museum and the philosophical discourse surrounding the artwork. In other words, while the APG used corporate terminology, often against itself, Conceptual Art used the tactics of corporate bureaucracy on itself, most directly through its administration of artists\u2019 thought and production.  Conceptual Art\u2019s administrative turn has largely been defined by Art & Language\u2019s prioritization of language and its administrative presentation, as seen in its most famous work, Index 01, exhibited in 1972 at Documenta 5 in Kassel, Germany and, also significantly, at the Hayward Gallery\u2019s The New Art exhibition in the same space as inn7o: Art and Economics and that same year. Index 01 was composed of a catalogue of Art & Language\u2019s writings that recorded discussions surrounding the Group\u2019s art practice. The work exhibited the collection of papers in eight filing cabinets that were presented on four plinths. The title Index 01 has a dual reference: index refers to a material trace (i.e., the documents of the Group\u2019s on-going       109 conversations around the artwork) and, also, to the systematic organization of these documents in an administrative fashion.262  While Art & Language chose to turn their administrative lens inwards, that same year, Marcel Broodthaers chose to turn outwards. Broodthaers\u2019 work, Museum of Modern Art, was a conceptual museum series that was shown in various locations from 1968-1972.263 Similar to the APG\u2019s inn7o: Art and Economics, Broodthaers\u2019 fictional museum produced invitations, flyers and press releases that co-opted design, format and language. However, instead of APG\u2019s co-option of corporate language, design and ritual, Broodthaers borrowed from the art museum, critically questioning the role of museum administration. For example, at the Cologne Art Fair in 1971, Broodthaers made a flyer in the form of a book jacket that announced the \u201cMuseum of Moderne Art for sale on account of bankruptcy.\u201d Broodthaers\u2019 adoption of the medium of the flyer and institutional graphic design not only used language to blur the line between reality and fiction, but also to turn his fictional museum into a commodity.264  The work of Art & Language and Marcel Broodthaers are often argued to establish two polarities in Conceptual Art: the subsumption of artistic practice into administration on the one hand, and the relegation of administration to the realm of fictionalized failure on the other. This dichotomy is used by Buchloh to bolster the seminal argument of \u201cConceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to the Critique of Institutions:\u201d that Conceptual Art\u2019s use of administrative process and language as its artistic medium resulted in an \u201cirreparable sense of loss\u201d of aesthetic form. Buchloh further correlates this aesthetic loss to the socio-political context                                                 262 Charles Harrison, Essays on Art and Language (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), 62. Also discussed in Rachel Haidu, The Absence of Work, 92. 263 Haidu, The Absence of Work, 130 and Buchloh, \u201cConceptual Art,\u201d 142-43. 264 Kristin Erickson, \u201cMarcel Broodthaers,\u201d in The Museum as Muse Museum of Modern Art. (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1999), 62-64.       110 of the time when he states,  the rights and rationale of a newly established postwar middle class, one which came fully into its own in the 1960s, could assume their aesthetic identity in the very model of the tautology and its accompanying aesthetic of administration. For this aesthetic identity is structured much the way this class's social identity is, namely, as one of merely administering labor and production (rather than producing) and of the distribution of commodities.\u201d265    To summarize Buchloh, \u201caesthetic identity\u201d and \u201cclass social identity\u201d were both composed not of the actual making of things, but rather of administering things, the organization of paperwork, and the bureaucracy of labor. Buchloh concludes that this aesthetic mimicry of class formation resulted in an irreparable sense of loss:266 a sense of loss in the degradation of form within art practice, and a socio-political loss in the shift from working class loyalties to a post-WWII era centralization of management power. More recently, Rachel Haidu\u2019s The Absence of Work takes Buchloh\u2019s analysis of Conceptual Art\u2019s \u201caesthetics of administration\u201d as her foundation in order to focus on how language is in fact used by these artists during this shift. Haidu states: Throughout the experiments with language that were pursued in the 1960s especially but not exclusively by conceptual artists, language became sculptural through reflections on its materiality, analytic in its reduction to discourse and bureaucratic in its relation to the problem of work\u2026.But its continual functionalization as an alternative to the obdurate conditions of art\u2019s objecthood meant that regardless of these other implications language also presented a kind of escape hatch for artists. Especially as artists sought to change the status of the artist in society and to democratize the experience of art, language would be seen as little more than an instrument.267    In sum, Haidu argues that Conceptual Art\u2019s movement towards administration positioned language as an \u201cescape hatch\u201d for artists to cope with the changing working conditions at the                                                 265 Buchloh, \u201cConceptual Art,\u201d 128.  266 Buchloh, \u201cConceptual Art,\u201d 143. 267 Haidu, The Absence of Work, 95.        111 time; namely, the shift to centralized management and greater administrative control described by Buchloh above. In response to these changes, language, according to Haidu, was thus instrumentalized by artists in an attempt to change their position, their work\u2019s position or the viewer\u2019s position in relation to art and society. Haidu comes to a similar conclusion as Buchloh, that the shift of Conceptual artists like Art & Language\u2019s towards the aesthetics of administration largely served as a tool of assimilation rather than a new status for the artist, object or art viewer.268  However, in contrast to Art & Language and their peers, Broodthaers\u2019 fictional museum, according to these authors, narrowly escapes this fate.   Buchloh and Haidu argue that key to the success of Broodthaers\u2019 work, specifically his museum series, is the fictionalization of the real and the opacity of his own position within it. According to Haidu, \u201c\u2026it is Broodthaers\u2019 refusal to take a position within the debate either inside or outside the museum that transforms melancholia with a certain form of agency\u2026to picture bureaucratization itself as a process of failing and to make these failures a fiction: neither work nor an institution but without any exculpating claims either.\u201d269 Therefore, for Buchloh and Haidu, it is Broodthaer\u2019s abstinence from the real in terms of place and political stance that allowed his work to evade the collapse into the ideology of other Conceptual artists such as Art & Language.270  Returning to the APG, it similarly obscures its own political position. Within the catalogue and exhibition, the APG proposes the need for a new approach, but does not define it within existing political parameters. However, in order to maintain their political abstinence, the artists do not administer their own practice nor do they transport industry into the realm of                                                 268 Haidu, The Absence of Work, 95-97. 269 Haidu, The Absence of Work, 130. 270 Haidu, The Absence of Work, 130 and Buchloh, \u201cConceptual Art,\u201d 142-43.       112 fiction. Instead, they look to industry as a platform to obfuscate its own language. For example, in contrast to Broodthaers\u2019 \u201cMuseum of Moderne Art for sale on account of bankruptcy\u201d flyer, the APG\u2019s mock condition report in the inn7o: Art and Economics catalogue does not refer to a fictional U.K. policy but references and uses the language of industry itself. APG mines existing language within the context of the real in order to render it valueless; the conditions listed on the condition report have no measured economic value. APG does not use language as an escapist crutch to try and reposition itself in society, but rather uses language as a tool to self-destruct existing societal code. This approach, I argue, is largely what sets the APG apart from the dominant narrative of Conceptual Art and creates the foundation for an alternative political position from the late 1960s.  In 1970, one year before inn7o: Art and Economics, art critic Rosetta Brooks considered John Latham\u2019s practice and, ultimately, APG\u2019s use of language, from a more nuanced perspective. Brooks states: \u201cBy treating forms of painting (or Language as he does in his later work) in such a way as to reveal their inert valueness\u2026Latham\u2019s works are tools but not ordinary tools because they operate through their own self-destruction.\u201d271 In her review, Brooks interprets Latham\u2019s and, to a large extent, the APG\u2019s political act as the creation of tools that serve only to deconstruct themselves. In the case of inn7o: Art and Economics, the APG created its own \u2018tools\u2019 through new terminology and new phrases borrowed from the administrative realm of the corporation. However, the APG\u2019s intention was arguably not to change the system through this new terminology, but rather to draw attention to the negotiation of that language; to examine its ambiguity, loop holes and, ultimately, to negate or critically question their meaning.                                                  271 Rosetta Brooks, Structure and Function in Time: John Latham, John Stezker, John Blake, Peter Dial, John Hilliard (Sunderland: Sunderland Arts Centre, 1975), 11.       113 Perhaps what is most important is why the APG members felt the need to create their own terms in the first place. In their view, administrative language was not culturally dictating class structure or art production but, in contrast, had culturally failed to achieve anything. According to the APG, contemporary language had failed to describe artist practice, economic policy and, more broadly, failed to put into words the changing class conditions of the time.  In APG\u2019s words, \u201cThis problem is a matter of pictures\u2014the difference between the pictures we have of who we are and the context of this who and those of a reality viewed from a meta-historical position is a reliable measure of dis-placement, dis-ease\u2026events are structured but not in terms currently used.\u201d272 The Poverty of Theory   The failure of contemporary language to capture a holistic view of society was a common theme that was referenced across disciplines throughout the 1960s. The desire for a perspective that presented a more inclusive vision of society was rooted in the post-WWII\u2019s splintering of the British political left. The fragmentation of Britain\u2019s left has been eloquently described by historian Perry Anderson as a Diaspora of socialist and anarchist thinkers who were specifically interested in what they termed \u201cfull social process.\u201d While \u201cfull social process\u201d is often used as an umbrella term for a variety of topics, it can be loosely defined as the desire to convey the individual\u2019s relationship to greater society in all its social, economic and political totality.  A re-visiting of Marx\u2019s historical materialism and a critique of Althusserian Marxism fueled the diversification of Leftist views at this time. 273  Central to this critique was prominent                                                 272 Artist Placement Group. \u201cBritish Industry and Purpose of the APG,\u201d Date Unknown, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.  273 See Anderson, Arguments within English Marxism and Hamilton, The Crisis of Theory, Ch. 7.        114 British historian and class theorist E.P. Thompson\u2019s text, \u201cThe Poverty of Theory\u201d (1978).274 In his text, Arguments within English Marxism (1980), Anderson succinctly summarizes Thompson\u2019s analysis of Marx: \u201cMarx was guilty in Thompson\u2019s eyes of the extrapolation of the purely economic categories of capital from the full social process.\u201d 275  In other words, that Marxism at this time, most notably Althusserian Marxism, had abstracted individual and collective \u201cexperience\u201d to the point where they could no longer transcend economic and societal categories. While Thompson\u2019s perspective was and still is highly criticized, his sentiment was evident in many parallel movements, including mass education protests that sought to eliminate what students considered to be detrimental discipline divisions within curriculum. For example, the Sit In at the Hornsey College of Art (1968), at which prominent individual APG members Stuart Brisley, John Latham and Barbara Steveni came together to demand financial reform and an increased interdisciplinary curriculum.276  While the APG purposefully refrained from directly aligning itself with a known political faction, its members\u2019 informal participation in collective action such as the Hornsey Sit In facilitated an epistemological suspicion in the categorization and the fragmentation of societal experience\u2014a critique of their contemporary Marxists that became the foundation of APG\u2019s crafting of its own political position: to achieve a more \u201ctotal economy\u201d. However, key to crafting APG\u2019s \u201ctotal economy\u201d was to respond to one particular problem, the divisive nature of language.277                                                  274 Thompson, The Poverty of Theory.  275 Anderson, Arguments Within English Marxism, 98. Also quoted by Hamilton, The Crisis of Theory, Ch. 7.  276 Stuart Brisley, \u201cHornsey College of Art, to the authorities whoever they are,\u201d 1968, Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.  277 Artist Placement Group. \u201cLanguage as a Dividing Medium,\u201d 1983, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.        115 Within APG\u2019s theoretical notes (the members were opposed to creating a group manifesto), this argument is supported by John Latham\u2019s frequent references to quantum physicist David Bohm. A disillusioned communist, Bohm modeled a philosophy that addressed the problem of comprehending a world framework through the inherently divisive nature of language. He most famously conveyed this position in his text, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (1980). In the chapter, Wholeness versus Fragmentation, Bohm states: \u201cFragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual.\u201d278  He adds: \u201cBeing guided by a fragmentary self-world view, man then acts in such a way as to try to break himself and the world up, so that all seems to correspond to his way of thinking.\u201d279  In Bohm\u2019s philosophy, APG found a contemporary kindred spirit in re-imagining the possibility of perceiving society as an indivisible whole. However, perhaps most influential was Bohm\u2019s belief that the primary catalyst of our fragmented perception of society was language.280 And it was specifically the association of language with detrimental divisions in society that brought the divisiveness of language to the forefront of the politics of APG\u2019s practice The Failure of Two Systems  Within the inn7o: Art and Economics exhibition catalogue and Group statements, the APG argued that language not only failed in its attempts to describe art, the economy and the relationships between different parts of society, but that it was also inherently a politically divisive medium.281 These accusations were reflected in Leftist media\u2019s critiques of U.K.\u2019s economic policy at the time, such as The New Left Review. As the 1960s came to a close, the                                                 278 Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 2. 279 Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 3. 280 Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 36. 281 Artist Placement Group. \u201cLanguage as a Dividing Medium.\u201d         116 \u201cstop-go\u201d policy of the imposition of wage controls by the Labour government under Prime Minister Harold Wilson defined the cultural context of APG\u2019s practice as a period of extreme division and skepticism in the political party system. The Labour Party itself was considered a conglomeration of contradictions: a party that advocated long-term socialist reform yet implemented short-term wage controls. These contradictions led to a broader public belief that there was a contemporary absence of a radical or alternative socialist policy put forward by any major political party. As a result, increasing pressure was placed on the role of Trade Unions to fill this political void. However, the increased pressure led to hostility, creating a divisive culture between Unions and Management that played out in the news media.282 The media\u2019s coverage of this divided cultural and political climate was most famously critiqued by the New Left Review\u2019s 1968 publication, The Incompatibles. Essays such as Philip Toynbee\u2019s \u201cThe Inequality of Language\u201d argued that, through their choices in language, media outlets, such as The Times, not only sowed division but upheld the belief that Unions and Management were incapable of coming together for the \u201ccommon good\u201d of the economy. Specific phrases used within these publications, such as \u201cThe Country cannot afford,\u201d were, according to Toynbee, a constant \u201cevolving self-justification;\u201d283 a justification that promoted the maintenance and acceptance of the existing unequal economic system. Toynbee concludes: \u201cThis language is to be found in its most polished and accomplished form on the leader-pages of all those newspapers which defend the existing social system. The British in particular are a                                                 282 Bob Rowthorn, \u201cUnions and the Economy,\u201d in The Incompatibles: Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus, ed. Robin Blackbyrn and Alexander Cockburn, (London: New Left Review, 1967), 210-227. 283 Philip Toynbee, \u201cThe Language of Inequality,\u201d in The Incompatibles: Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus, ed. Robin Blackbyrn and Alexander Cockburn, (London: New Left Review, 1967), 97.       117 moralizing nation, and it is by scarcely disguised moral arguments that we are constantly urged to accept the present structure of our society.\u201d284   The essays included in The Incompatibles do not, however, limit their critiques to the news media, but further level these same accusations at the use of language in industrial contracts themselves. For example, changes to the language in collective bargaining contracts from the late 1960s onward would monumentally change the U.K.\u2019s future economic policy. Tony Topham, in \u201cNew Types of Bargaining,\u201d describes this shift in his case study of Fawley Oil Refinery, part of Esso Petroleum, a British division of American Standard Oil (the same fraction of the corporation that hosted Andrew Dipper\u2019s Artist Placement that is displayed at inn7o: Art and Economics). In his essay, Topham argues that Esso used \u201chigh-toned language\u201d in an attempt to describe an \u201cenlightened labor policy\u201d that was ideally executed by a paternalistic management. Topham observes that, in actuality, the contract used language to hide the commercial motive of \u201ca drastic intensification of work.\u201d Therefore, Esso\u2019s language attempted to shift moral responsibility to management but simultaneously gave management more power at often detrimental costs to the labor force.285  The essays in The Incompatibles describe the use of divisive, optimistic or paternalistic language to create often destructive divisions, and to deceptively change the scope of collective bargaining to prioritize management\u2019s control over the labor force.  The inequality built into the language of these smaller contracts played out on the national stage through a series of unsuccessful government negotiations between management and unions: \u201cIn Place of Strife\u201d                                                 284 Toynbee, \u201cThe Language of Inequality,\u201d 95.  285 Tony Topham, \u201cNew Types of Bargaining,\u201d in The Incompatibles: Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus, ed. Robin Blackbyrn and Alexander Cockburn, (London: New Left Review, 1967), 149.       118 (1969), and the subsequent reforms of the 1970s, The Industrial Relations Act (1971), Trade Unions and Labour Relations Act (1974) and the \u201cSocial Contract\u201d (1974-79).  As a result, the policy that defined an era was, in the public\u2019s eye, ultimately unable to find the language to understand or facilitate cooperation between differing factions of society. This general assumption ultimately tied the absence or failure of politically progressive language to the absence or failure of a radically political body. This sentiment is reflected in the APG\u2019s notes from the period, which state that \u201cthe current state of the global zeitgeist in \u2018every aspect\u2019 is the polarization into \u2018free enterprise\u2019 and \u2018socialist ideological\u2019 frameworks. Both systems at present fail.\u201d286  The presumed failure of language and, subsequently, representation ultimately created an opening for APG\u2019s practice. The contract, the boardroom and print media for the APG became sites to negate political divisions while at the same time maintaining its artistic autonomy. Within this ambiguity, inn7o: Art and Economics does not replicate the ideological problems of its political context but, rather, creates new terminology that ultimately dismantles itself by showing where the \u201clogic of language\u201d ceases to hold. 287  The Incidental Person  After abandoning the art gallery to pursue industrial contexts, the APG returned to document its progress in inn7o: Art and Economics. According to Steveni, inn7o: Art and Economics returned to the gallery in order to free language from a certain meaning,288 a position poignantly addressed by Haidu when she observes, \u201cThe question of communication between                                                 286 Artist Placement Group. \u201cAspects of a Single Problem,\u201d 1970s, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. 287 Artist Placement Group, \u201cAspects of a Single Problem.\u201d 288 Barbara Steveni, \u2018Barbara Steveni and the Artist Placement Group (APG)\u2019, http:\/\/flattimeho.org.uk\/apg\/.        119 artist and the public becomes an extension of the problematic lodged in the issue of whether speech can be as many of the important movements of the 68 era argued free.\u201d289 In the aftermath of 1968\u2019s protests, such as the Hornsey Sit In, the APG\u2019s inn7o: Art and Economics largely assumed that language could not be free without an intervention into the very structure of words and phrases themselves. However, as indicated by Fuller\u2019s review, inn7o: Art and Economics\u2019 attempt to \u201cfree language\u201d was poorly received and generally misunderstood by the media and art world.  The perceived failure of the exhibition led one of the APG\u2019s biggest benefactors, the U.K. Arts Council, to cut its funding. The Arts Council claimed that the APG did not show sufficient results and was more interested in \u201csocial engineering\u201d than art production.290 The APG interpreted this negative reception as a misunderstanding of its project that was tied to the inherent biases within corporate language and political policy they were trying to challenge. In Steveni\u2019s words, \u201cthe left and the right had gone to bed together.\u201d291 Coupled with a decline in the economy, the very existence and, subsequently, the success of APG, its members argued, could not be measured by existing perceptions of value.292  The \u201cfailure\u201d of inn7o: Art and Economics also intensified existing divisions within the APG. While John Latham\u2019s philosophy dominates most of the Group\u2019s theoretical texts\u2014 specifically, concepts such as the Delta and Noit\u2014conflicting perceptions of the APG\u2019s politics, from members such as Stuart Brisley, came to the forefront.293 The increasingly polarized                                                 289 Haidu, The Absence of Work, 141. 290 Artist Placement Group. \u201cThe Arts Council,\u201d 1972, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. 291 Barbara Steveni statement in conversation with author, 2019. 292 Artist Placement Group, \u201cThe Arts Council.\u201d 293 Stuart Brisley, \u201cFine Art and Prejudice,\u201d 1970s, Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.        120 political positions within APG often directly mirrored the broader political divisions analyzed by The Incompatibles above. For example, was the APG complicit with management or did it favor the workers; further, what was the APG\u2019s relationship to trade unions?294 As a result, inn7o: Art and Economics and its aftermath in many ways forced the APG\u2019s political hand; political abstinence had led to an identity crisis forcing the APG to reconsider what its mission was and who it represented.  In 1972, shortly after inn7o: Art and Economics, Barbara Steveni negotiated the British Civil Service Department Memorandum in Whitehall, a memorandum that opened the door to artist placements within a number of U.K. government organizations, including the Department of Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security.295 In the years directly following this negotiation, the APG created the term \u201cIncidental Person\u201d to replace \u201cartist\u201d in the majority of its literature and contracts. 296  While the APG documents\u2019 present various definitions, the Incidental Person\u2019s (IP) primary task was to raise physical awareness of what was prioritized and how priorities were established throughout an organization. The IP could take on a variety of approaches to materials and structures within the wider society. However, most significantly, this individual has an interest in the structure of an organization. From this perspective, the IP has the opportunity to cross disciplinary and institutional divisions: horizontally in terms of different departments; vertically in terms of hierarchical status. While the IP\u2019s objective will always begin as undefined, the APG\u2019s intention was to critically question and prioritize long-term benefits over short-term                                                 294 Brisley, \u201cFine Art and Prejudice\u201d. 295 Barbara Steveni, British Civil Service Department Memorandum, 1972, Barbara Steveni Archive, London, U.K.  296 Artist Placement Group, \u201cThe Incidental Person\u2019s Approach to Government,\u201d 1972, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.       121 gain for the betterment of society as a whole and to achieve a more \u201ctotal economy\u201d.297   According to Steveni, the decision to pursue government placements and the shift in terminology to IP was not intended to discontinue their work in industry, but to expand it. The decision was greatly influenced by the many government workers who attended inn7o: Art and Economics and participated in The Sculpture, as well as APG\u2019s growing friendship with British parliament member, Tony Benn. The APG\u2019s relationship with Benn put the Group in touch with Barbara Castle, who at the time was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services (1974-76), and was previously the Secretary of State for Employment (1968-70). Through Castle, the APG, specifically Steveni, convinced the Arts Council to write a letter to the Civil Service Department advocating for APG placements within government. From this exchange, the Civil Service, or Whitehall Memorandum was born.298  The APG\u2019s shift to government placements and its relationship with Benn re-defined the political direction of the Group. Benn was an especially influential parliament member, serving as Secretary of State of Industry and Energy in 1974. Significantly, Benn held government positions at moments of great economic and political change. Namely, industry was transitioning to a more centralized management structure, and older industries, such as coal and shale, were being replaced due to the discovery of North Sea oil. Benn\u2019s political navigation of these changes was executed through policies such as, The Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974; efforts to nationalize industries such as Scottish oil; investing in what were considered dying industries, such as ship building; and a platform that argued against joining the EEC (the                                                 297 This summary was composed by the author from sentences from many archive documents. However, the predominant source is: Artist Placement Group. \u201cThe Incidental Person\u2019s Approach to Government,\u201d 1972, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. 298 Barbara Steveni, \u201cBarbara Steveni and the Artist Placement Group (APG).\u201d       122 predecessor to the EU). All of these initiatives are still very relevant today in the BREXIT political climate.299 Similar to the arguments of The Incompatibles, Benn\u2019s most comprehensive publication, Common Sense (1991), articulates a perspective of the period that emphasizes the divisions between Trade Unions and Management, the scapegoating of the Trade Unions for these divisions, and the subsequent shift in the U.K. governments\u2019 political direction. Benn states: Trade unionists by the 70s became the scapegoat for the recurrent failures of capitalism and it was alleged against the workers that restrictive practices and exorbitant wage claims were checking Britain\u2019s capacity to re-equip and modernize\u2026.It was against this background that the conservatives, led by Thatcher, were able to present themselves as the liberators who would break the chains of bureaucracy, high taxation and corporatism, and free the people to participate more independently in the economic miracle that was promised: Interventionist government was to be banished from the land and the magic hand of the market, we were told, would distribute resources more flexibly, more quickly and more skillfully to meet our needs and modernize government and industry.300   Benn\u2019s characterization of the politics of the period and political policy are very similar to the APG\u2019s political perspective. Both share an interventionist policy sympathetic to the working class and rooted in saving older industries such as steel and coal. The APG\u2019s early placements, such as The British Steel Corporation and The National Coal Board, took place in these very industries. However, it is unclear whether the APG\u2019s choice to pursue government placements foresaw the political shift away from interventionist policy towards a new era of Thatcherism. In its friendship with Benn, the APG arguably shed the political opacity of its earlier position. It was now aligned with, and faced with the challenges of, a failing fraction of Britain\u2019s socialist-leaning left.                                                   299 Tony Benn and Andrew Hood, Common Sense: A New Constitution for Britain, (New York: Random House Publishing, 1993).  300 Benn and Hood, Common Sense, Ch. 1.        123 In the aftermath of inn7o: Art and Economics, the APG believed that the shift to government placements expanded the Group\u2019s potential. However, while the core priorities remained the same\u2014refusing pre-determined outcomes and traditional patronage, and critically questioning what defines results\u2014the nebulous \u201cresults\u201d of inn7o: Art and Economics that played out in hybrids of text diagrams, objects and documents were, after the exhibition, arguably solidified into the pure \u201cpotential\u201d of the artist. The term IP was thus intended to redefine the role of the artist; in practice, it largely stalled language as a critical site of negotiation.  The APG\u2019s prioritization of the IP in many ways marked a parallel cultural shift from the scapegoating of language as a divisive medium, to a general loss of faith in the capacity of language to achieve political compromise. To counteract this growing lack of faith, the APG turned to a greater reification of the role of the artist in their introduction of the term Incidental Person. In their adoption of the IP, the role of language as a site of negotiation and subsequently composition moved from deconstructing corporate administrative paperwork within contracts and exhibition catalogues to deconstructing expectations of the artist by industry and the art world itself. Simply by introducing new terminology, this shift in priorities is foreshadowed in excerpts from the inn7o: Art and Economics catalogue when the APG states: \u201cVision (of the artist) as its own form of influence should come to replace methods of the day,\u201d and \u201cMotivation and structure have become one and the same\u201d301 (see fig. 27). As a result, the development of the term IP brought a new dependence on the APG\u2019s own glossary to specify the role of the artist.                                                 301 The first quote is from Artist Placement Group. \u201c\u201cNotes on the Incidental Person,\u201d 1974, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. and the second from Artist Placement Group. \u201cScience Report\u201d In inn7o: Art and Economics (London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971) 19. See Artist Placement Group. \u201cScience Report\u201d In inn7o: Art and Economics. London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971,19. Copyright: Barbara Steveni Archive, London, U.K.       124 How they would negotiate the tension between this newly placed importance on describing the expanded role of the artist and the political potential of the artwork as a time capsule would come to fruition in 1974 with John Latham\u2019s placement with the Scottish Office.                                                 125 Chapter Four   The Interior of Sculpture:  John Latham\u2019s Placement with the Scottish Office (1974-1976)   In 1975, peering from his car window, John Latham saw emerge from the wind and rain what looked like small mountains in the Scottish landscape. These mountains, termed by locals as \u201cBings,\u201d are still visible today. They are the result of industrial debris accumulated from shale oil extraction; a process used in Scotland since its discovery by Paraffin Young in 1848.302 Latham first encountered the Bings through aerial photographs during his government placement with the Scottish Development Agency\u2019s Derelict Land Unit (1974-75). Latham became captivated by the Bings, and his interest in the photographs led to site visits. In Latham\u2019s view, the Bings were important because they made visible and material the many contexts and events involved in their making: the natural landscape, the history of labor policy, capitalist resource extraction, and the effects of industrial debris on surrounding communities.303 The Bings\u2019 value in visually and metaphorically conveying these diverse histories compelled Latham to declare them works of art and argue for their protection as such for the remainder of his life.  This chapter examines Latham\u2019s APG placement with the Scottish Office within the context of his larger practice and the economy and politics of Scotland at the time. In order to understand how Latham arrives at declaring the Bings works of art, this chapter navigates his expansive body of work by tracing Latham\u2019s interest in time and medium. However, Latham\u2019s                                                 302 H.M. Cadell, Grant Wilson, J.S. Caldwell, and D.R. Stuart, The Oil Shales of the Lothians, (Glasgow: James Hedderwick & Sons, 1906). 303 John Latham, \u201cNiddrie Woman as Process Sculpture,\u201d 1975\/6, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.        126 attraction to the Bings, through aerial photographs, motivates this chapter to not merely trace Latham\u2019s interest in time through his art process, but also to re-consider the art historical relationship of Land art to time by situating Latham\u2019s Bings\u2019 proposal within the broader theoretical and artistic trends of geological time in the 1960s and 70s. Through considering all of these factors, this chapter is ultimately concerned with the transition from Latham\u2019s time-based practice to the political practicality of the APG\u2019s mission, a shift that transpires when Latham declares that the Bings are \u201ctime capsules\u201d and should be protected as works of art. This conceptual transition is key to understanding the central challenge of the APG\u2019s work, as well as this dissertation\u2019s methodology: How to mediate between aesthetic concept, form and socio-political context\u2014a problem that would ultimately lead Latham to redefine artistic medium itself within the industrial landscape.  Point Zero  Latham\u2019s proposal to the Scottish Office to preserve and protect the Bings as works of art is rooted in an interest in time and medium that spanned his entire practice. The relationship between aesthetic form and time in Latham\u2019s practice has been addressed by Hester Westley within the context of Saint Martin\u2019s School of Art, and eloquently recounted in John Walker\u2019s John Latham: The Incidental Person\u2014His Art and Ideas (1995). Currently the only monograph on the artist, I will refer predominantly to Walker\u2019s text. Within Walker\u2019s text and within Latham\u2019s own writing, Latham\u2019s interest in time is credited to the influence of Clive Gregory, an astronomer, and Anita Kohsen, a psychologist, who founded the Institute for the Study of Mental Images (ISMI) during the 1950s.304 Disillusioned with what they perceived as detrimental                                                 304 John Walker, John Latham: The Incidental Person\u2014His Art and Ideas, (London: Middlesex University Press, 1995), 29.        127 divisions in society, Gregory and Kohsen, in conjunction with ISMI, proposed a cosmology that sought to identify commonalities between different bodies of knowledge.305  Gregory and Kohsen proposed that in order to achieve greater exchange between disciplines, individuals must shift their perspective from the prioritization of spatial relationships to recognizing the present as a composition of temporal events. Their approach is best summarized in their publications, O-Structure: An Introduction to Psychophysical Cosmology (1959), and the journal, Cosmos (1954-66). An excerpt from O-Structure reads: \u201cWe have abandoned the language of objects for the language of events\u2026. We have introduced event-language because we have discovered that it is easier to use events as building bricks than particles, waves, fields, sensations, images or ideas.\u201d 306  By adopting an \u201cevent-language,\u201d Gregory and Kohsen concluded that divisions in society could eventually be deconstructed, thereby allowing for a greater phenomenological understanding of the individual\u2019s relationship to their surroundings. Latham\u2019s friendship with these two scientists would greatly influence his thinking about time and consequentially his art practice. Specifically, the concept of deconstructing inherited knowledge and the potential to reconstruct it through the perspective of events formed the foundation for Latham\u2019s own time-based art practice and philosophy that would come to fruition in the 1960s. The year 1954 was an especially pivotal year in Latham\u2019s practice when as he was asked to make a mural for Gregory and Kohsen. During the process of making the mural, the act of                                                 305 Walker, John Latham, 20. ISMI can be viewed as part of a larger cultural trend that was guided by political historians such as Noam Chomsky and influential novelists like C.P. Snow who perceived the divisions in academic disciplines as increasingly detrimental to society. 306 Clive Gregory and Anita Kohsen, eds., Cosmos: A Journal of Psychophysical Cosmology 3, no. 22-31 (1963). Also see Letter from Anita Kohsen and Clive Gregory to John Latham August 31, 1960, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London.       128 spraying paint on a white wall became symbolic for Latham. The immediate action of the spray paint embodied what Latham termed \u201cthe least event\u201d 307 (see fig. 28). In Latham\u2019s view, the act of spraying marked a moment of time and a \u201cquantum of human action,\u201d cementing the relationship between the object and the event.308  Latham considered his initial spray mark and his later painting series, One Second Drawings, as referencing a historic event that coincided with new developments in science at that time, such as game theory and developments in quantum theory. Latham considered these trends in art and science as similarly experiencing significant paradigm shifts.309 For the rest of his career, Latham would refer to the initial spray paint mural event as the convergence of a pivotal period in art and science. He declared it \u201cPoint Zero.\u201d310 Latham considered his spray paintings in the same lineage as Robert Rauschenberg\u2019s White Painting (1951).  Significantly Rauschenberg, like Latham, also considered his White Painting to hold temporal qualities. In an interview with San Francisco\u2019s MOMA, Rauschenberg refers to them as \u201cclocks.\u201d Contemporary composer John Cage further commented on the temporal quality of Rauschenberg\u2019s White Painting when he described it\u2019s components  as \u201clanding strips\u201d for shadows and events.311 Latham\u2019s reference to the White Paintings therefore signaled a conceptual pathway for an alternative perspective of measuring depth that subverted                                                 307 Walker, John Latham, 29. John Latham, One Second Drawing 5:1, 1972. 308 Walker, John Latham, 29. 309 John Latham, \u201cStructure in Events: In the Context of the ART Tradition,\u201d April 1972, TS, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.  Rauschenberg significantly influenced Latham\u2019s later methods of assemblage. 310 John Latham, \u201c20 C Trajectories,\u201d undated, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. 311 Menil Collection curator Walter Hopps and SFMOMA Director David A. Ross SFMOMA interview Robert Rauschenberg, Transcript, May 6, 1999. https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/sfmomamedia\/media\/uploads\/documents\/research\/rrp_sfmoma_rauschenberg_interview_may_6_1999.pdf       129 the tropes of modernism as one dimensional, and minimalism as reductionist. In notes from the period, Latham states, \u201cThe measure of the stature of the artist was coming to depend on how much he was saying and for how minimal effort\u2026.\u201d312 While Latham\u2019s observation is ironically reductionist, his rhetoric sought to characterize a movement that prioritized not reduction, but the creation of depth specifically in terms of the relationship between spatial environments and time. To summarize from Walker\u2019s monograph, as opposed to the expansive large scale paintings of the abstract expressionists, for Latham, the temporal dimension of mark making and the accumulation of events would allow him to propose the potential for indeterminate amounts of depth.313  Latham\u2019s approach can therefore be considered partially a reaction against prominent critics, such as Clement Greenberg\u2019s championing of surface and two-dimensional depth in American painting at the time. More than a decade after \u201cPoint Zero,\u201d Latham more confidently assumed this contrary position by directly critiquing Greenberg in a performance work titled after the critic\u2019s seminal text. The performance, Art and Culture (1966), also known as \u201cSpit and Chew,\u201d took place at Latham\u2019s home in collaboration with fellow APG artist Barry Flanagan and students from his classes at Saint Martin\u2019s School of Art. During the performance, each guest took a page from a library copy of Art and Culture, chewed it in their mouth and spit it into a flask. The pages were then soaked in an acid until the solution was converted to a form of sugar. This solution was then neutralized by the addition of sodium bicarbonate, distilled and injected into a glass phial in the shape of a drop of water. Latham labeled the phial \u201cthe essence of Greenberg\u201d and returned it to the library where, not surprisingly, it was not accepted314 (see fig.                                                 312 Walker, John Latham, 53.  313 Walker, John Latham, 53.  314 Walker, John Latham, 84.  John Latham Art and Culture, 1966.       130 29).  Art and Culture can be considered a satirical response to an earlier statement, in 1965, made by Greenberg when the critic proclaimed, British art was in \u201ctoo good taste.\u201d In a play on words, Latham\u2019s performance asks, did Greenberg in fact \u201ctaste good?\u201d 315Additionally, the piece may have been a personal response to Greenberg\u2019s critique of Latham\u2019s own work. In a 1963 postcard exchange between the two, Greenberg comments, \u201cI still see your book reliefs as cubist\u2026your work pleases but does not challenge me\u2026you might be right about the factor of time\u2026but I am still unable to relate that as a conception, an irreducible unit of discourse.\u201d 316  While Latham\u2019s Art and Culture may have been partially motivated by a personal grudge, the performance can be viewed as having broader significance. In their chewing and spitting out of Greenberg\u2019s text, Latham and his guests perform a kind of cultural digestion of Modernism\u2019s dominant philosophy. A process of consumption that, through Latham\u2019s distillation of the chewed up pages, renders Greenberg\u2019s text both chemically and culturally neutral.  This act of consumption, rejection and ultimate neutrality in many ways mirrors Latham\u2019s own position; his practice was often caught between American modernism and a specifically British tradition. However, like his performance, Latham\u2019s practice chooses to occupy this in-between position by refusing both. As a result, Latham\u2019s work has often been overlooked by the canon of art history. In his rejection, Latham consequentially defined his                                                 315 Walker, John Latham, 84.  316 \u201cPostcard from Clement Greenberg to John Latham.\u201d June 1963. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. It is important to note that despite Greenberg\u2019s disinterest in Latham\u2019s work, Greenberg himself, had made a comment referring to a third possible dimension in his own earlier writing. Greenberg in Modernist Painting (1960) states,  \u201cThe first mark made on a canvas destroys its literal and utter flatness, and the result of the marks made on it by an artist like Mondrian is still a kind of illusion that suggests a kind of third dimension.\" Clement Greenberg, from \"Modernist Painting,\"1960.        131 practice outside of parallel art movements, depending on his consistent interest in time to provide a cohesive narrative for the legacy of his work that encompassed a variety of mediums and genres.  Time-Based Spectrum  Around 1970, Latham began developing his philosophy of time in writing, incorporating into his practice an evolving glossary of descriptive terms such as Event Structure and Flat Time. However, it is important to note that what is often referred to in Latham\u2019s practice as Flat Time Theory was not actually regarded as a theory, but rather a set of often contradictory assertions that he considered part of his art practice. Latham\u2019s son, philosopher Noa Latham, has alternatively described his father\u2019s artworks and writing as coming together to create a picture, what has often been referred to as Latham\u2019s \u201cWorld View.\u201d317 This \u201cWorld View,\u201d like the act of spraying a canvas, is a world composed of singular and repeating events. Like a musical score, Latham\u2019s world can be perceived as an event-score: each event building off of the next.318    Latham\u2019s Time-Base Roller (1975)319 (see fig. 30), one of many roller works made by the artist during the 1970s, most directly attempts to provide a \u201cpicture\u201d of what Latham came to refer to as his Time-Base Spectrum, later referred to as Flat Time. The Time-Base Spectrum is visualized in Time-Base Roller through three rolled pieces of canvas. The canvases can be rolled up or down with the flip of an electric switch on the adjacent wall. The center canvas has vertical dyed black lines while the other two are not dyed. On the not-dyed canvas, Latham used a red marker to indicate vertical bands. Within these bands, Latham had his son stencil black letters.                                                 317 Noa Latham, \u201cReflections,\u201d in Noit 4 (London: Flat Time House Publishing, 2018), 67.  318 John Latham, \u201cThe Basic (T) Diagram,\u201d 1990s, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. And John Latham, \u201cTime-Base Roller.\u201d 1970s, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. 319 John Latham Time-Based Roller, 1975.       132 The choice of the letters aimed to reflect childlike intuition; they may reference words, but they are largely a forum for free association.  The number of 36 bands is also arbitrary; however, their marks on the canvas were used to establish a progression of building events. At the beginning of the spectrum is what Latham refers to as the \u201cThe Least Event,\u201d a concept taken from his early spray paintings. Each of the 36 bands builds off of this event. The greatest time-base is at the end of the spectrum. However, the value of what Latham refers to as the \u201cwhole event\u201d is left purposefully undetermined. It represents potential rather than determinism.320  In summary, the rolled canvases of the Time Base Spectrum were intended to show three aspects of time: the passing of time by the movement of the canvas on the roller; the 36 bands showing progression from shortest on the left to the longest on the right; and, when the canvas is rolled out completely, the entirety of the time-scale is flattened onto a two-dimensional surface. In Noa Latham\u2019s words, \u201cAs all phenomena can be represented using just a temporal dimension and the two spatial dimensions of a sheet of canvas, John came to call this view \u2018flat time\u2019. (Perhaps it was also a further response to Clement Greenberg.)\u201d  321  As Noa Latham indicates, Flat Time is in some ways an ironic play on Greenberg\u2019s preferred flat surface of abstract painting. However, it is more importantly the re-framing of how we perceive artistic medium from spatial relationships to temporal relationships. Latham\u2019s prioritization of time re-defines medium as marrying material depth with temporal depth. For example, when the canvas of Time-Base Roller is rolled out flat, like Rauschenberg\u2019s white canvases, it still contains and represents for Latham the complexity of event layers that went into its making. In other words, while the canvas may be flat in spatial relationships within time-                                                320 Noa Latham, \u201cReflections,\u201d 68.  321 Noa Latham, \u201cReflections,\u201d 67.       133 based thinking, it is multi-layered with temporal dimension.   The Incidental Person  Despite the many texts written by Latham outlining the Time-Based Spectrum, or Flat Time, like the letters stenciled onto the canvas of the Time Base Roller, they are intuitive and are often confusing without the aid of visual forms. As a result, within Latham\u2019s work there is often a contradictory, almost resentful relationship to language, for it is necessary to use language to convey time-based thinking.  However, at the same time, Latham is critical of language as failing to have the capacity to articulate time-based ideas. As a result, within his practice, Latham argues more generally that language is a problematic vehicle to disseminate knowledge, mainly due to the separation of the word from what it is trying to describe.322 Consequently, Latham, throughout his practice, would attempt to develop a vocabulary that could re-attach language to form, or in his words, to \u201cread form.\u201d  While Latham\u2019s phrase \u201creading form\u201d is conceptually abstract, his time-based practice sought to utilize this new vocabulary to open up practical possibilities. For example, in conceptual text works such as Offer For Sale (1971)323 (see fig. 31) and the later Report of a Surveyor (1988), Latham simultaneously objectifies and reconstructs language in his advancement of time-based thinking. Within the didactic paragraphs of Offer for Sale and the booklet of Report of a Surveyor, Latham describes the need to redirect people\u2019s view of the world through redistributing what he describes as their units of attention. By re-directing units of attention to prioritize longer time spans, Latham believed the very definition of value in our                                                 322 Noa Latham, in \u201cReflections,\u201d poetically describes what John Latham meant as language whose meanings are revealed by their form\u2026 \u201cfor example, marks that resembled the shape of the objects they depict.\u201d Noa concludes, \u201cHe came to see dots as referring to minimal events, and agglomerations of books as referring to people or belief systems.\u201d   323 John Latham Offer for Sale, 1972, 1.       134 society could be transformed; short term solutions for financial gain would be replaced by long-term strategies that could better benefit all of society.324  The ability of the artist to adopt this long term temporal perspective was essential, in Latham\u2019s view, to the APG mission, so much so that his philosophy of time was largely responsible for the replacement of the term \u201cartist\u201d within the APG\u2019s practice to \u201cIncidental Person\u201d (IP). Defined and discussed in Chapter Three, the IP fulfilled the role of yet another of Latham\u2019s terms, the \u201cDistant Observer.\u201d The \u201cDistant Observer\u201d is a term that helps to better articulate the role of the individual in carrying out more practical aspects of Latham\u2019s time-based perspective that were later adopted by the IP. The \u201cDistant Observer\u201d is defined as a person who has the ability, \u201cfrom a distance,\u201d to critically question and value long-term solutions to aspects of organizations that individuals immersed in\ttheir everyday routine might not always recognize. To critically question from a \u201cdistance\u201d was also inextricably linked to the IP\u2019s capacity to be pure of sectional interests, a point that is central to time-based inclusivity.325  The IP and the Distant Observer, can be viewed as relying largely on the APG\u2019s expanded and often romanticized role of the artist. However, it is important to clarify that within the APG\u2019s and, specifically, Latham\u2019s \u201cpaperwork\u201d there is ample evidence that the ability to convey the shift to a temporal perspective was not through the word of the artist, but through the artwork. Key to this balance between artwork and artist was finding a suitable medium that could embody the importance of time-based thinking and the practicalities of the APG\u2019s mission; a medium that depended on the placement\u2019s context. In Latham\u2019s words, \u201cA key preoccupation                                                 324 John Latham, and Artist Placement Group. \u201cThe Incidental Person Approach to Government-Artist Placement Group (APG).\u201d 1970s, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. 325 John Latham, \u201cInstant History and the Incidental Person\u201d from Programme for Four Lectures undated (1970s), John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. This is also discussed by Noa Latham in \u201cReflections,\u201d 72.       135 has come to be with the nature of time. Taken as context for art. The categories of the various arts have disappeared at this level. A second consideration that fills the void left by that is the notion of context itself. Context has become in terms of structure \u201chalf the work.\u201d326  A Devolutionary Scheme  In 1975, APG\u2019s Barbara Steveni coordinated an \u2018Open Brief\u2019 with the Scottish Office. Latham was placed in the newly established Scottish Development Agency (1975). Following the APG\u2019s methodology, Latham began his placement with a feasibility study that proposed for him to work with three departments: Urban Renewal, Derelict Land Improvement and the Graphics Department. The proposals included plans for artist participation in the urban renewal of Glasgow and the development of fish farming in the region of Little Cumbrea. However, his proposal for the Derelict Land Department, that oil shale heaps\u2014\u201cBings\u201d\u2014should be regarded and protected as a works of art, would consume his placement and art practice for the remainder of his life.327  As discussed above, \u201cBings\u201d was a local term referring to shale oil refuse tips, a byproduct from shale oil extraction that began in Scotland in the late 19th century. The extraction of oil from shale was a labor-intensive and an inefficient process; breaking up and distilling produced vast amounts of \u201cspent shale\u201d that were considered valueless. By the truck loads, companies disposed of spent shale, forming large piles near the oil works. Over time, these piles became so large in scale that at the time of Latham\u2019s placement they resembled red mountains in the landscape. When Latham began his placement, the shale oil industry had been inactive for about a                                                 326 John Latham, \u201cStructure in Events: In the Context of the ART Tradition,\u201d April 1972. 327 John Latham, and Artist Placement Group, \u201cSummary of Feasibility Study for Scottish Office,\u201d 1975\/6, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.       136 decade. The decline of the industry reflected a larger economic transition in Scotland. Scottish politician Donald Dewar\u2019s text, \u201cDevolution and Local Government Reform\u201d (1970), describes this transition,   \u201cThe old heavy industrial structure of Scotland has declined in shipbuilding, in coal mining, and on the rails\u2026.The process of contradiction has left the debris of Victorian industry sprawled across the country.\u201d328 Like the relics of Victorian industry, the Bings were left littered across Scotland\u2019s landscape. In their obsolescence, the Bings served as reminders, to the public and the U.K.\u2019s government, of Scotland\u2019s struggle to modernize. Their looming presence over nearby towns became symbolic of the impoverished living conditions of the working class at the time.  However, the problem of derelict land only became a priority when catastrophes, such as the Aberfan mudslide in 1966, and publications from the period, most notably John Barr\u2019s 1969 publication Derelict Britain, motivated the public to demand that the government take action to remove and\/or repurpose derelict land. As a result, derelict land joined a number of policies centered on raising the living standard for the working class. Specifically, in Scotland, these included the demolishing of \u201cslum\u201d housing from \u201covercrowded\u201d Glasgow, and encouraging working class communities to move to \u201cNew Towns.\u201d \u201cNew Towns,\u201d originally fabricated as solutions to WWII housing schemes, were as their name indicates, new developments.  They were also removed from local authority control and placed under the supervision of a development corporation. Significantly these included Livingston, developed in 1962, located next to Five Sisters Bing.329                                                   328 Donald Dewar, \u201cDevolution and Local Government Reform,\u201d in The Scottish Debate, ed. N. MacCormick, (London: Oxford University Press 1970), 65. 329 Hamilton, 12. APG artist Stuart Brisley had a placement with new town Peterlee in 1976. The premise of the placement was to reconstruct the New Town\u2019s \u201cmemory.\u201d See Stuart Brisley\u2019s Peterlee Report: http:\/\/www.stuartbrisley.com\/pages\/29\/70s\/Text\/Peterlee_Report\/page:25       137 As the U.K. government\u2019s efforts to re-generate Scotland progressed, they were increasingly centered less on the geographic re-location of people and more on re-distributing industry away from an increasingly London centric economy. One result of this devolutionary agenda was expanding the capacity of the Scottish Office to encompass greater industrial agency.330 A significant part of this expansion was the creation of the site of Latham\u2019s placement, the Scottish Development Agency, referred to as the SDA. One of the main objectives of the SDA was to find a solution to the derelict land problem. The question on the mind of the SDA during Latham\u2019s placement was: What do with the Bings? 331 The View from Above    Latham first encountered the Bings through the Graphic Department\u2019s aerial photos of derelict land in the West Lothian region.332 The ability to first view a site from above allowed for an abstracted consideration of the site\u2019s aesthetic form. The importance of the aerial perspective was already present in Latham\u2019s practice and can be seen in his earlier film, Erth (1971) 333 (see fig. 32), funded by the National Coal Board. Erth is made up of a composite of aerial images of the moon and earth. During the film, the moon and earth come in and out of focus and their images are interspersed with long periods of black. The aerial view and manipulation of planetary scale suggests long spans of time, while the gaps of \u2018nothing\u2019 play with the viewer\u2019s expectation of temporal progression. Erth, arguably, visually conveys the perspective of Latham\u2019s \u2018Distant Observer\u2019 and references his earlier time-based roller works. Like the flat                                                 330 James Mitchell, Governing Scotland and the Invention of Administrative Devolution. (U.K. Department of Government, University of Strathclyde, 2003), 209.  331 Jim Philips, The Industrial Politics of Devolution: Scotland in the 1960s and 70s (U.K.: Manchester Press, 2008), 7.  332 John Latham and Artist Placement Group, \u201cSummary of Feasibility Study for Scottish Office,\u201d 1975\/6. 333 John Latham, Erth, Film Still, 1971.       138 rolled out canvas, the two dimensionality of Erth\u2019s aerial film imagery suggests an expansive indeterminate temporal universe. However, it was not until Latham encountered the aerial photograph of the Bings that he felt he had found a suitable artistic medium for his philosophy of time.  Two Bings in particular held formal resonance for Latham: The Five Sisters and Niddrie Castle. Latham found out early in his placement that The Five Sisters was going to be protected as an industrial heritage site. However, Niddrie Castle Bing was still at risk of removal, compelling Latham to develop a more in depth and poetic argument for why the Bing should be preserved as, not just a heritage site, but as an artwork.334 While looking at the aerial photographs, Latham was aesthetically captivated by the Niddrie Castle Bing. He described it as taking the form of a fragmented body. Latham went so far as to re-name the Bing, Niddrie Woman, mythologizing and gendering the body onto the landscape.335 Significantly, between 1973 and 1975, roughly the same time span as Latham\u2019s placement, the artist writings and projects of Robert Morris and Robert Smithson were similarly captivated by the aerial perspective. Morris famously described the lines of Nazca as a \u201clabyrinth,\u201d i.e., its complex natural, social and economic context could only begin to be understood through the holistic perspective of the aerial. In Morris\u2019 words, \u201cA labyrinth is comprehensible only when seen from above, in plain view, when it has been reduced to flatness and we are outside its spatial coil.\u201d336                                                  334 John Latham and Artist Placement Group, \u201cSummary of Feasibility Study for Scottish Office,\u201d 1975\/6.  335  John Latham, \u201cNiddrie Woman as Process Sculpture,\u201d 1975\/6. While the gendering of the body of the Bings as female is hugely problematic, this will not be discussed here. I am hopeful another scholar will address this issue soon.  336 Robert Morris, \u201cAligned with Nazca,\u201d Art Forum (October 1975): 31.       139 Smithson, only one year before Latham\u2019s placement with the Scottish Office, proposed a strikingly similar project to the Kennecott Copper Corporation, to preserve the inactive Bingham Mine as part of an earthworks project titled, Bingham Copper Mining Pit\u2014Utah Reclamation Project (1973) 337 (see fig. 33). While Smithson\u2019s project was never completed, a preliminary Photostat plan shows an aerial view of the mine with a plastic overlay on which Smithson drew his additions. Smithson\u2019s marks indicate some structural changes to the base of the site and exaggerate the natural spiral of the mine\u2019s descent into the earth.  Smithson\u2019s Bingham Project and Latham\u2019s proposal to preserve the Bings can be viewed as representative of a larger trend from this time period, to preserve sites of capitalist extraction largely considered by the public as eyesores, as parks or earthworks.338 However, what is striking is the importance of the aerial perspective to these artist proposals. Within Latham, Smithson and, to some degree, Morris\u2019 proposals, the flatness of the aerial can be considered akin to the stature of modernism\u2019s flat picture plane or Latham\u2019s view of Rauschenberg\u2019s white canvases. Aerial flatness was seen as having infinite potential. For, while modernism\u2019s medium specificity may have largely dissolved into the earth, the two dimensional surface of the aerial maintained the capacity to embody multiple perspectives, facilitating a holistic phenomenological approach to landscape that hinged greatly on conceptions of time. The aerial allowed for the consideration of longer temporal spans; memory acquired depth, and became entangled with the physicality of site.  Numerous art historians have referenced the importance of geological time to Smithson\u2019s Bingham Project and larger practice. Timothy D. Martin, in \u201cRobert Smithson and the American-                                                337 Robert Smithson, Bingham Copper Mine Plan, 1973. Copyright Estate of Robert Smithson.    338 See John Barr\u2019s 1969 publication Derelict Britain for specific accounts of the preservation of industrial ruins within Scotland\u2019s social context.        140 Anglo Picture,\u201d  discusses Smithson\u2019s relationship to time through the artist\u2019s text, \u201cFrederick Law Olmstead and the Dialectical Landscape.\u201d339 Within his text, Martin traces Smithson\u2019s interest in time to the artist\u2019s research into the British picturesque. Martin states:  For Smithson, the picturesque was the historical antecedent of land art (both were politically democratic and philosophical materialist) and like its predecessor land art would use different temporal modes to produce glimpses of a shared communal material existence\u2026the task of land art is to create a garden\u2014a place where democracy can look back upon itself can catch sight of the material site in a way that induces a sense of pre-narrative solid time. Things in this garden are markers of time.340    Martin concludes that the Bingham Project brought together Smithson\u2019s interest in markers of time with the entropy of capitalist extraction.  Ron Graziani, in Robert Smithson and the American Landscape (2004) also examines Smithson\u2019s interest in time in the Bingham Project, but further articulates its political potential in a period of increasingly ecologically centered political polarization in the United States.  Graziani states: \u201cIn the artist\u2019s terms, \u2018On one side you have the idealistic ecologist and on the other side you have the profit desiring miner\u2026you have a stalemate\u2026in accepting this entropic condition rather than try and reverse it\u2019\u2026both the industrialist and citizen groups presented hurdles for Smithson\u2019s initial attempts.\u201d341  In Graziani\u2019s view, Smithson attempted to occupy a space between political polarities by embracing entropy within the industrial landscape. In the case of the Bingham Mine, this meant utilizing the importance of geological time as an argument for preservation. Graziani concludes:                                                 339 Robert Smithson, \u201cFrederick Law Olmsted and the Dialectical Landscape\u201d Artforum (Feb. 1973): 65. 340 Timothy D. Martin, \u201cRobert Smithson and the American-Anglo Picture,\u201d in Anglo-American Exchange in Postwar Sculpture, 1945-1975, ed. Rebecca Peabody (Los Angeles: Paul Getty Trust, 2011), 168. 341 Robert Graziani, Robert Smithson and the American Landscape (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 156-157.         141 \u201cSmithson\u2019s economic view did not under theorize natural processes\u2026more often than not he over-theorized it by naturalizing the infrasystem of industrial processes through the long drawn out time scale of entropic geophysical change.\u201d 342 While Graziani does not directly point to the ecological politicization of time, the author does create the foundation to view Smithson\u2019s proposal for political compromise between land reclamation and ecological activism as predicated on the importance of geological time. From this perspective, the role of time within earthworks can be utilized as part of a political platform.  I have labored on Smithson\u2019s Bingham Project to draw out the political potential of time within his project and to show a broader movement of artists\u2019 engagement with time and the industrial landscape during the 1970s. However, an important distinction between Latham and Smithson needs to be made. While Smithson\u2019s Bingham Project was the remains of the penetration of capitalist extraction, Niddrie Woman was the accumulation of industrial waste. The difference between descent and accumulation is crucial. For while the Bingham mine for Smithson was an entropic descent into geological time, for Latham, following the trajectory of his earlier time-based spectrum, the piles of shale debris were considered additive. As a result, Latham referred to the Bings not as entropic but as \u201ca manifestation of instant history,\u201d a composition of disparate events. 343 Latham further equated the composing or building of these events within the Bings to the process of making a sculpture. Niddrie Woman Bing, according to                                                 342 Graziani, Robert Smithson, 157. Also see Smithson\u2019s earlier Artforum text, \u201cEntropy and the New Monument\u201d (June, 1966, p. 26) that closely tied his definition of entropy to time. According to Smithson entropy was as an indeterminate and all encompassing term, that allowed for \u201clong spaces of centuries\u201d within socio-geography. 343 Five Sisters Bing (1976) and Derelict Land Art: Five Sisters (1976) were purchased by the Tate in 1976. Descriptions of these works can be found in the John Latham Archive at Flat Time House. Alternatively, for full descriptions of these and other Latham works please see: Walker, John Latham.        142 Latham, was an \u201cObjet Trouve;\u201d its formal and temporal importance warranted its status as an artistic medium344 (see fig. 34, 35, 36, and 37).  Cultural Clocks   The relationship between medium and time during the 1960s and 1970s has largely been defined by Pamela Lee\u2019s Chronophobia (2006). Within her text, Lee defines medium as a form of communication.345 Referencing Gyorg Kepes\u2019  Sign, Image, Symbol (1966), Lee further correlates artists\u2019 interest in systems of communication to the development of cybernetics and Systems Theory during the 1960s.  Art production, she argues, became a system of signs, a self- generating form that defined its own temporal boundaries.346 However, Lee concludes that the reception of this work during this period, most significantly Michael Fried\u2019s seminal essay \u201cArt and Objecthood\u201d in  Art Forum (1967), was one of anxiety\u2014a response Lee identifies as chronophobic, citing a chronophobia that she credits to the technological changes of the period.347 From my discussion of Latham, Smithson and others\u2019 engagement with art, time and the industrial landscape, however, their work cannot be argued to be systems of signs or networks of communication. For, while Lee\u2019s systems of signs generate their own temporal structure, Latham argues for the reverse, a medium that acquires time almost as material depth.  In order to further develop this alternative perspective, I will briefly revisit one of Lee\u2019s                                                 344 John Latham, \u201cBings as Sculpture\/Monuments.\u201d 1975, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. See Figures 34, 35, 36, and 37.  345 Rosalind Krauss\u2019 Voyage on the North Sea, through the film maker Stanley Cavell, argues that Conceptual art\u2019s use of artistic medium can be described as, \u201ca structure that is some of the elements which will produce the rules that generate the structure itself\u2026The recursive structure is something made, rather than something given.\u201d For example, Marcel Broodthaers\u2019s work creates its own temporal framework, defining and redefining its own spatial and temporal boundaries. 346 Pamela Lee, Chronophobia: On Time in the Art of the 1960s, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006), 51. 347 Lee, Chronophobia, 51.       143 primary sources in Chronophobia, namely, George Kubler\u2019s Shape of Time (1962). Lee interprets Kubler\u2019s description of art as a recursive system of signs, specifically referencing Kubler\u2019s comparison of an art work to a star. Like a star, Kubler states, an artwork emits a signal.  A signal, Lee equates this signal to a sign that echoes and rebounds within its context.348 However, a re-reading of Kubler\u2019s text takes us out of the constellations and back to earth.  Within the same text Kubler states, \u201cThe cultural clock \u2026runs mainly upon ruined fragments of matter recovered from refuse heaps and graveyards from abandoned cities and buried villages\u2026.We depend for our extended knowledge of the human past mainly upon the visible products of man\u2019s industry.\u201d 349 Kubler further suggests that these industrial relics are important because they occupy a \u201cdifferent sense of time then living things.\u201d Kubler describes this different sense of time, \u201cin biology the intervals of time between events are disregarded, while in historical time the web of happening that laces throughout the intervals between existences attracts our interest.\u201d350 Kubler\u2019s historical time identifies a perspective of artifacts, specifically industrial artifacts that take on contextual layers of events.351 From this re-reading of Kubler\u2019s text, we can then discern an attention to the relationship between time and the industrial landscape, specifically, in Kubler\u2019s proposal that industrial relics occupy a different sense of time that can potentially shift our perspective of the present. Latham\u2019s work can thus be more appropriately viewed as \u201ccultural clocks,\u201d rather than as systems of signs. For the work does not appropriate Systems Theory, but arguably taps into a broader growth in industrial archaeology in Britain at the time, for example, the founding of the                                                 348 Lee, Chronophobia, 52. 349 George Kubler, The Shape of Time, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), 14. 350 Kubler, The Shape of Time, 14. 351 Kubler, The Shape of Time, 13.       144 Association for Industrial Archaeology in 1973, just one year before the beginning of Latham\u2019s placement.352 However, it is the combination of industrial residue with geologic and cultural time that Kubler argues activates an artwork\u2019s political potential, which is therefore largely based on perspective\u2014a sentiment re-iterated by Latham, when he states that artistic medium are only dependent on \u201cdifference,\u201d353 a difference of perspective.  It was a perspective that Latham had trouble conveying to the Scottish Office. In the words of Chief Planner, Derek Lyddon, Latham was unable to effectively communicate time-based philosophy to the departments.  From the perspective of the Scottish Office, Latham\u2019s proposals were not economically efficient, and his proposal to preserve the Bings as artworks was out of the jurisdiction of the SDA.354 In response, Latham sought to strengthen his proposal by providing supporting documentation and strategies he considered more economically viable. These included: institutional letters of support from the Director of the Tate Gallery, Norman Reid;  proposals to the Scottish Tourist Board suggesting that the area be designated as a sculpture park featuring large scale book sculptures by Latham; and, finally, requests to international oil companies, such as B.P. and Shell, suggesting that the Bings be preserved as monuments to the industrial worker and the Scottish oil industry.355                                                  352 The relationship between the interest in Industrial Archaeology and Land Art is discussed in the introduction of Uncommon Ground: Land Art in Britain 1966-1979 by Nicholas Alfrey, Caroline Douglas, Joy Sleeman, Ben Tufnell (London: Hayward Gallery Publishing, 2013).  353 John Latham, \u201cStructure in Events: In the Context of the ART Tradition,\u201d April 1972. 354 Letter from Derek Lyddon to John Latham. 1977, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. In a later 1977 correspondence letter to Latham, Lyddon states:  \u201cYour (Latham) feasibility commission in the Scottish Office gave you access to Central Government thinking and information and you came out with certain proposals for action. Some of these actions appeared feasible enough but they were not of the type which the Scottish Office Departments could undertake at their own hand.\u201d 355 John Latham, \u201cOil Industry\u2019s Greatest Monuments.\u201d 1975\/6, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.        145 Ultimately, the government considered all of Latham\u2019s proposals, in the social and political context of 1975 Scotland, to conflict with both government agendas and public interests. In the words of West Lothian District\u2019s Director of Physical Planning, George A. McNeill,  We have been aware for some years now of Mr. Latham\u2019s \u201cNiddrie Woman\u201d interpretation of the site. Unfortunately as far as I am aware there is not statutory procedure for recognizing the site as a \u2018work of art\u2019 or \u2018cultural monument\u2019\u2026As I have remarked to Mr. Latham on a number of occasions, until some person or organization is prepared to come forward with adequate resources to purchase or at least take responsibility for these shale deposits, their future cannot be guaranteed.356   A Psychology of Hope The West Lothian Region\u2019s reasons for declining Latham\u2019s proposal were amplified by a public opinion that did not look favorably on the Bings. The local attitude toward derelict land is described by Latham\u2019s report and the SDA as one of \u201cshame.\u201d This attitude is reflected in Robert Waterhouse\u2019s \u201cSpecial Report on Derelict Land\u201d (1974 The Guardian) when he states that, \u201cwhere ever the opinion of the people is sought, dereliction invariably appears as the main social sore.\u201d357  While national papers focused on general perceptions towards derelict land, the Bings themselves occupied the headlines of local newspapers. In 1976, The Linlithgow Gazette featured an article titled, \u201cThe Red Menace! Region makes a move in a bid to beat the shale spillage problem,\u201d a playful comparison between the difficulty to remove the Bings and the Cold War. 358 Another Linlithgow Gazette article from the same year shows an image of a burnt out                                                 356 The West Lothian District\u2019s Director of Physical Planning, George A. McNeill in correspondence with John Latham. 1981, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London. 357 Robert Waterhouse, \u201cGuardian Special Report on Land Reclamation,\u201d The Guardian, June 28 1974), 20.   358 Ken Robertson, \u201cThe Red Menace! Region Makes a Move in a Bid to Beat the Shale Spillage Problem,\u201d Journal & Gazette, Linlithgow ed., Oct. 8 1976, 5.       146 car on top of Winchburg Bing. The caption reads, \u201cRust in Peace\u2014a once proud motor car lies burnt out in her grave on top of a Winchburgh shale Bing\u2026she had exhausted her usefulness and her owner had to silence her once and for all\u201d359 (see fig. 38 and 39). The Bings, politicized and gendered, had become sites of negative projection for the local media. However, having been forced to deal with the public pressure to remove derelict land, the SDA began to see the Bings as economic opportunities.360 In their 1975 annual review, the SDA dedicates a passage addressed to the economic potential of land reclamation. The removal provided jobs and the material itself was increasingly valuable as infill for road construction. As car ownership and roadway production in the U.K. sky rocketed during the 1970s, the \u201cspent shale\u201d of the Bings had transitioned from valueless to valuable.361 The value of the reclaimed shale became a painful reality to Latham, when Niddrie Woman\u2019s \u201cheart\u201d was later partially removed and sold as road infill.362 While the Bings\u2019 shale was being mined for profit, offshore drilling in Scotland had just begun (Argyll and Duncan oil fields, 1975), signaling a rebirth of the Scottish oil industry. The renewal in Scottish oil had come at an opportune time. The Opec Oil crisis (1973) made the discovery economically and politically urgent. However, the battle over who would profit from Scotland\u2019s oil, Scotland or the U.K. government, would define the period\u2019s politics.363                                                  359 \u201cRust in Peace,\u201d image, Journal & Gazette, Linlithgow ed., Oct. 8, 1976, 10.  360 Robert Waterhouse, \u201cNorth: Countries Find Common Cause,\u201d The Guardian, June 28, 1974, 21. 361 F.X. Kirwan, \u201cThe Scottish development Agency Structure and Functions,\u201d Studies in Public Policy, no. 81, (Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, 1981). 362 John Latham, Untitled 1975\/6, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. 363 Ian Fulton, \u201cEconomic Future of Britain lies off the Ocean Beds of the World,\u201d Political Quarterly 45, no. 3 (July-September, 1974). It is important to mention that the same year, due to unfair tariffs for British agricultural farming, the U.K. government had called the EEC referendum of 1975. The vote resulted in an overwhelming 67% remain signaling an economic unity with Europe but not necessarily within the U.K. itself.        147  Craig Richardson\u2019s Scottish Art Since 1960 has discussed the influence of the discovery of oil and changing political conditions on the Scottish art scene at this time, and specifically mentions Latham\u2019s work in relation to Scottish political identity. Richardson states: \u201cHis placement was an effective repositioning of context in the meaning of the ensuing negotiated artwork. The effect of culture on Scottish national and political change at this crucial time has been partially observed, although it was more readily associated with Scottish poets and their effective revalidation of the various Scottish languages as well as an emotive and a growing desire for devolved power.\u201d364 In order to focus on time and medium, the intricacies of this relationship deserve greater attention.  The same year as the beginning of Latham\u2019s placement with the Scottish Office, upon the invitation of prominent gallerist Richard Demarco, conceptual artist Joseph Beuys spoke at the Black and White Oil Conference (1974). The conference was conceived by Demarco under the guise of the Edinburgh festival and featured speakers such as Buckminster Fuller, who tackled topics such as renewable energy sources. Notes from the conference indicate an initiative by Beuys to draw attention to the effects of the changing economic and political conditions of Scotland on the individual. 365 While Latham was not directly involved with the conference, he                                                 364 Craig Richardson, Scottish Art since 1960, (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2011), 55-60. 365 Richard Demarco, \u201cBlack and White Oil\u201d (Conference Pamphlet), 1974 (Edinburgh: Richard Demarco Archive). The conference is one of many events Beuys participated in the late 1960s and 70s in Scotland. While they did not directly collaborate on artworks, Latham and Beuys produced work during the same time period and participated in the same art scene in Scotland. They also greatly influenced each other, co-hosting events at Documenta VI (1979) Kassel and Beuys\u2019 \u201cFree University\u201d (1979) conference in Bonn, Germany. Beuys also directly addressed the impact of oil on Scotland in his later print, \u201cNew Beginnings are in the Offing\u201d 1981. The print is a photograph of Beuys taken in 1974 holding a newspaper with the headline. \u201cThe First of the Giants\u201d while standing in front of a bronze statue of a dog.  Ironic and humorous. Beuys challenged the newspaper headline, which referred to the first of the gigantic deep sea oil platforms then being erected in the North Sea, by asserting that not they but the dog was in fact       148 often collaborated with both Beuys and Demarco and was aware that they were producing work in a period of political uncertainty that would significantly re-define Scotland\u2019s political landscape.  Offshore drilling and derelict land\u2019s economic profit greatly divided the Scottish public. Labour moved towards a more devolutionary style politics and the increasingly popular Scottish National Party (SNP) utilized the discovery as financial backing for independence, epitomized in the SNP\u2019s slogan, \u201cIts Scotland\u2019s oil,\u201d from 1973-74. The SNP argued the macro-economic and London centric policy of the U.K. neglected Scotland and was robbing them of oil profits.366  The popularity of the SNP was strengthened by the Scottish working class\u2019 increasing alienation from the U.K. government\u2019s labor policy during the 1970s. The U.K. government\u2019s initial refusal in the later 1960s\/early 1970s to bail out ship building and other older industries disillusioned and frustrated many of the Scottish working class.  Strengthening the SNP\u2019s case even more was the redistribution of people to New Towns, such as Livingston, discussed above. This relocation scheme fractured Glasgow as a center for labor politics and left many feeling increasingly disconnected from the Labour party and Union representation. This feeling of alienation towards their previous political allegiances motivated many to join the independence movement. Scotland\u2019s problems of lagging industrial disparity had thus become a problem of representation that would manifest in a nationalist movement. The discovery of oil and the phenomenal rise of the SNP had created what John S. Gibson, in The                                                 the first of giants. The statue erected in Edinburgh in 1873 commemorates the loyalty of a pet dog, a Skye terrier called Greyfriars Bobby, which faithfully guarded the grave of its dead master until its own death fourteen years later. 366 Milton J. Esman, \u201cScottish Nationalism North Sea Oil and the British Response,\u201d Occasional Papers 6, series 1, The Waverly Papers (April 1975).       149 Thistle and the Crown, described as a much needed \u201cpsychology of hope.\u201d367  Where have we come from, what are we and where are we going?  When Latham began his placement with the Scottish Office, Five Sisters and Niddrie Woman Bings were no longer active refuse sites. In their obsolescence, they had become industrial relics, Kubler\u2019s \u201ccultural clocks,\u201d existing in an industrial and politically fragmented Scottish landscape:368 a landscape in economic transition from older industries to an offshore drilling economy, torn politically between a nationalist and Labour agenda, and with a population geographically dispersed to New Towns. Latham arguably personified this state in his description of Niddrie Woman as a \u201cdismembered body representing the current fractured \u201cstate of humanity.\u201d369 However, Latham did not simply project Scotland\u2019s politics onto the landscape but, rather, saw the re-defining of what constitutes a sculpture as the re-envisioning of what \u201ccollective memory\u201d could be. The Bings were considered art because of their temporal capacity. When considered time capsules, they were not monuments in the shape of conceptual art but a sculpture in the shape of shared subjectivity.  During my research for this chapter, I had a conversation with historian Kate Simpson, who grew up in Livingston beside the Five Sisters Bings during the 1990s. At that time, the red shale had turned green, supporting a new and unusual ecosystem. I asked Kate how she felt about the Five Sisters Bings. She replied, \u201cI thought of them as my park. It is where we climbed and rode our bikes.\u201d Far from eyesores, the Bings had come to represent, for her, a place of childhood nostalgia. My conversation with Kate reminded me of the famous painting by Paul                                                 367 John S. Gibson, The Thistle and the Crown: A History of the Scottish Office (Edinburgh: Her Majesty\u2019s Stationery Office, 1985), 172.  368 See Figures 36, 37, 39. 369 John Latham, \u201cNiddrie Woman as Process Sculpture,\u201d 1975\/6.        150 Gauguin (1897), titled, Where have we come from, what are we and where are we going, a painting that appears multiple times in the archival notes of John Latham during his time with the Scottish Office. The questions the painting poses, both formally and conceptually, were a guiding light for Latham in his vision for the Bings, time capsules that collapsed the past, present and future.                                            151 Conclusion  Today a great blow has been struck me. A construction that I have been working on for some time has disappeared. I had kept it in the crew bar as a point of support as a talking point to interact and today I am told amid laughter and guff that it was last seen on a barge going to Trincomalee that is the place we have just left. I am pretty pissed off\u2026. I have just read this back through and it sounds mad. I know, but it\u2019s all just the way it has happened. It has something to do with the time point in the voyage. If you could only be here and perceive and feel the atmosphere I tell you all, no tape or film could possibly put over the sense data that is going down here.370   -George Levantis, Indian Ocean Journey with Ocean Fleets, June 3rd, 1975   Pieces of Sea Fall Through the Stars   During 1974 and 1975, artist George Levantis made three trips with the Ocean Fleets of Liverpool Corporation. For the duration of his APG placement, Levantis acted as the \u201cartist on board,\u201d travelling as part of the ships\u2019 crews to Japan, Africa and South East Asia. Levantis\u2019 time at sea is documented through letters, surviving constructions he made from salt water and canvas, and a publication titled, Pieces of Sea Fall Through the Stars: Three Voyages 1974-75 371 (see fig. 40).  In his letters, Levantis poetically recounts his experience at sea, the cycles of the day, his often-tumultuous relationship with the crew, and the grueling isolation he sometimes felt over the course of his placement. Perhaps his most gripping account is the emotional betrayal of the crew, when Levantis discovers his sculpture has been \u201clost at sea.\u201d    Levantis\u2019 letters are written in the first person and emote an almost memoir perspective. However, their honesty and tangible quality re-introduce the challenges that each APG artist                                                 370 George Levantis, \u201cIndian Ocean Journey with Ocean Fleets,\u201d June 3, 1975. Artist Placement Group Archive, Tate Archive, London U.K.   371 George Levantis, Pieces of Sea Fall through the Stars: three voyages 1974-75, Artist Placement Group Archive, Tate Archive, London U.K. And Photograph from 9th Bienal do Mercosul Brazil (2013) based on the 1976 installation by George Levantis from his placement with Ocean Fleets three voyages Japan, Africa, South East Asia, 1974-5. The 2013 installation was reconstructed with materials from Brazil.       152 faced during their placements and subsequently the challenges faced methodologically in each Chapter. Specifically, each Chapter\u2019s attempt to navigate between the aesthetic and political binaries of the time, the fluidity of the term medium in relation to sculpture, and the multiple scales of political and aesthetic context traversed in the APG\u2019s work. These seemingly disparate trajectories were brought together in each Chapter through an analysis of composition and the central role of materials in the sculpture produced during each placement, i.e. steel, the frame of the Robyn Day Chair, language and the industrial landscape. Therefore, the materials that composed each sculpture in each placement became a focal point, with lines of inquiry radiating from their centers.  As a result, similar to the layering of events in the APG\u2019s definition of art as a time capsule, composition is thought of as a unifier that allows for a variety of contextual scales to operate simultaneously within the work of art. I argue composition viewed through this lens dislodges sculpture from the problem of mediating between the polarities of social context and form, discussed in the Introduction, and instead allows new associations to be made throughout the pre-ceding chapters. The following sub-sections will summarize how these new associations contributed to forging the broader importance of the APG within histories of art and interdisciplinary practice.  I Create My Own Rank: Binaries, Autonomy and Authorship  As the artist I created my own rank\u2026On a ship it is only the bosom who has this degree of mobility between both levels of hierarchy, so my self-created rank was not insignificant.372   -George Levantis, Pieces of Sea Fall Through the Stars: Three Voyages 1974-75.                                                   372 Levantis, Pieces of Sea Fall through the Stars.       153 During his placement with Ocean Fleets, Levantis declared that he created his own rank, a class position that allowed him to engage with all aspects of the crew. Levantis\u2019 class mobility can be seen in his daily activities, which consisted of lending a hand on deck during the day and staying on the bridge at night to keep watch with the captain and officers. Like the transition between day and night, Levantis felt he occupied a fluid position that could move freely within the ship\u2019s class structures. In his letters, Levantis recounts that he went so far as to stitch his own epaulette with two paint brushes to signify his unique rank.373  While seemingly trivial, Levantis\u2019 act of defying traditional hierarchies of rank represents a central aspect of the APG\u2019s practice - the belief that the artist, later termed Incidental Person (IP), could avoid the restrictions of society\u2019s class structures. The division of the working class versus management is one of many politically and aesthetically constructed binaries (material vs. concept, art vs. the institution, political context vs. aesthetic form, individual vs. collective subjectivity, and the geographic location of the U.K. between North America and Western Europe) that have been discussed in the previous chapters. However, the attempt to locate themselves in between these oppositions left the APG vulnerable to many criticisms. Criticisms discussed in this dissertation included Gustav Metzger\u2019s and Stuart Brisley\u2019s accusation that by not choosing a side, the APG, by default, sided with management, and Peter Fuller\u2019s critique that the mere idea of occupying a position not bound by class was impossible and naive.374 While these authors\u2019 perspectives provide different angles of analysis, it has been my objective to take the APG\u2019s elusive class position as a platform that goes beyond the dichotomy of whose side you                                                 373 Levantis, Pieces of Sea Fall through the Stars. 374 Gustav Metzger, \u201cA Critical Look at Artist Placement Group,\u201d Studio International (January 1972): 4\u20135 and Stuart Brisley, \u201cHille Fellowship-Factory and Artist: The Industrial Context,\u201d 1970, Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K. and Fuller, \u201cinn7o,\u201d 772.       154 are on. And in contrast, sought to open up questions and themes that provide a more holistic view of the artist\u2019s position within these conflicting interests within the context of each placement. I will now summarize how this nuanced position ultimately challenged concepts of artistic autonomy and authorship within the preceding chapters.   Epitomized in Levantis\u2019 hand-made epaulette and the \u201cOpen Brief\u201d contract, the binary of \u201cthe workers\u201d versus management greatly influenced the APG\u2019s initial approach to art- making. Predominantly discussed in Chapters One and Two, the APG\u2019s \u201cOpen Brief\u201d was a placement contract that proposed no pre-determined outcome and importantly granted the artist a status that was not aligned with management or workers.375 This specific contract clause, I have argued, projected connotations of the necessity of autonomy typically associated with a work of art, onto the artist themselves. The problems with this re-negotiation of autonomy simultaneously bolstered and undermined ideas around authorship and the agency of the individual in relation to the layered context of their conditions of production - their class position, the influence of their peers, art schools, conditions of labor during the placement and the larger socio-political landscape.  In Chapter One, upon entering the British Steel Corporation, Garth Evans confronted his working class heritage with his profession as an artist. Subsequently, his position within the factory hovered between a childhood formed by working class community culture and the elitist position of the artist granted by the APG\u2019s contract.  The APG\u2019s later description of the IP, as an individual occupying an in-between psychological class position, in this case, seems accurate and relevant to many artists of Evans\u2019s generation. However, embodying this enigmatic position on                                                 375 Artist Placement Group. \u201cGroup Policy,\u201d 1965, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.        155 the factory floor not only made Evans\u2019s own class position become more unclear as his placement progressed, but his expectation of the working class formed by his youth looked significantly different from the reality of the British Steel\u2019s factory floor.  As a result, Evans\u2019s balancing act of expectations and reality positioned him and his work at the intersection of the macro cultural perceptions of class at the time and the micro conditions of British Steel workers in the factory.  Chapter One\u2019s discussion of this internal negotiation has been equated throughout this dissertation to the individual holding a fragmented perspective of their place within the larger modes of capitalist production. A description of individual perception that in the 1960s and 70s\u2019 was proposed by C.P. Snow, David Bohm, R.D. Laing and others as a source of cultural anxiety. More recently, Fredric Jameson\u2019s Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1992) similarly identifies the phenomenon of fragmentation as a symptom of the increased alienation of the individual under the stress of global capitalism. Jameson argues this increase in alienation creates a \u201cwaning effect\u201d that inhibits an individual\u2019s ability to comprehend a holistic view of their experience within a now global capitalist economy.376 While Jameson\u2019s description of a fragmented subject is predicated on the effects of a more global economy in the 1990s, his analysis is in many ways identical to these earlier authors\u2019 anxiety over changes to individual and cultural perception occurring during the 1960s and 70s.  However, an important difference is that while Jameson considers the fragmentation of the individual\u2019s perception of self as \u201cthe death of the subject,\u201d377 this \u201cdeath,\u201d like the destructive nature of DIAS discussed in the Introduction, has been reconsidered here as a                                                  377 Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991; 1992).       156 potential moment for re-composition. For, as Evans \u201cdraws in the real\u201d of his placement, the resulting splintered fragments are unified through the compositional structure of Breakdown. Breakdown\u2019s frayed steel grid, therefore, occupies the space between conflicting scales of cultural experience held by the individual and collective consciousness.  Chapter Two adjusts the scale of this dissertation from the internal negotiation of the self to the struggle between the individual and the collective by examining the perceived failure of collective agency in a post-1968 context of mass production and consumption. From a discussion of the Robyn Day chair and furniture design, Chapter Two traces the shift from the rise of post- war star designers and products to the commodification of collections of objects and the office space itself. However, Stuart Brisley\u2019s Poly Wheel and larger oeuvre do not equate the failure of collective agency with the commodification of design collections; rather, they draw attention to the lack of faith in union and political party representation on all sides. The fragmented individual of Chapter One is thus further faced with an absence of collective representation. From this perspective, the split status of the artist\u2019s class position between management and the working class is mute. All factions felt equally without a voice.  The attempt of both these chapters to navigate and ultimately dismantle the challenge of the APG artist working within the class divisions of the factory was inherently tied to the tension between intentionality, authorship and context. Within each placement authorship was viewed as specific to one person- i.e., the artwork produced in each placement by Evans, Brisley and Latham. However, at the same time, materials and political context largely dominate the narrative of each chapter. Context is subsequently viewed as a conscious and unconscious force chipping away at the artist\u2019s intention as they operate within each placement. This tension re-framed the questions of APG authorship in the Introduction\u2019s Literature Review from an interest       157 in collaborative making to questions of autonomy and mediation. How can we re-think sculpture at a time when there was felt to be a lack of collective representation? And further, how is the artwork able to traverse the social and aesthetic binaries that motivated the creation of the APG in the first place?  I Did Feel the Obligation to Make Something: Medium as Shared Subjectivity As an artist aboard I did feel an obligation to make something tangible, something that could be looked at, touched, talked about and questioned\u2026Just to walk about with a camera was not enough, my presence demanded more. It had to involve my subjective responses while at the same time offering an invitation to others to extend this subjectivity beyond my personal motivation\u2026the construction was a way\u2026intended to deal with a shared subjectivity\u2026378   -George Levantis, Pieces of Sea Fall Through the Stars: Three Voyages 1974-75.    Levantis\u2019 reflections from his time at sea re-inscribe the unwavering desire of the artist to make something - to make something that has the capacity to reach beyond individual contemplation and create a form of shared experience, in Levantis\u2019 words, to create a \u201cshared subjectivity.\u201d The ambition to create a sense of \u201cshared subjectivity,\u201d I argue, embodies the expanded form of sculpture defined as a time capsule in the APG\u2019s practice. A revised definition of sculpture that has been developed through the preceding chapters and reaches its apex in Latham\u2019s declaration of the Bings as a sculpture already present in the industrial landscape. The view of sculpture as a time capsule is one of the most innovative contributions of the APG\u2019s practice. However, how to define \u201cshared subjectivity\u201d and its relationship to the many manifestations of sculpture as time capsules in the APG\u2019s placements deserves some clarification in these concluding remarks.  The phrase \u201cshared subjectivity\u201d is undeniably similar to collective subjectivity, a term proposed by Marx that sought to bridge the gap between the individual subject and the collective                                                 378 Levantis, Pieces of Sea Fall through the Stars.       158 within the modes of production. As Marx famously described, this gap was caused by alienation; that is, the objectification of the individual and the subsequent tarnishing of any social relationships formed within production. Influenced by the work of Rousseau, Marx further argued that this manifested a sort of schizophrenic division of the self; namely, a self-identified in relation to a political collective, and a self-manufactured by the conditions of capitalism.379  However, as referenced above, the 1970s\u2019 \u201creturn of grand theory\u201d in Britain attempted to re-unify this split, or de-centered subject, through a more holistic view of class experience under capitalism. E.P. Thompson, David Bohm, and others all proposed a version of this theory that has been discussed throughout these chapters. Yet, the changing nature of the subject within these theories is arguably best summarized by R. Bodei, in \"Strategic di Individuazione,\" when he states:  Marx displaced the \"human subject\" from a non-existent centre of history, and Freud brought out the decentred character of the individual subject. Others prefer to locate this changing nature of subjectivity within a more recent period: the constitution of individual and collective subjects - the state and the classes - and even, in some cases, their relative decomposition, prompted a questioning of that centred subjectivity.380   Bodei\u2019s commentary importantly summarizes the question asked by all of these \u201cgrand theories:\u201d How do we expand Marx\u2019s concepts of social relations and notions of the subject in seeking a more holistic view of life under capitalism? Most importantly, Bodei brings specific attention to how this question manifests in the relationship between a \u201cdecentred\u201d or fragmented subject,                                                 379 Bodie, R. \"Strategic di Individuazione,\" Aut-Aut 32 (1985): 93-109. Bodie further states in reference to Marx, \u201cNonetheless, when carving out his more general and universal categories as for the problematic of the interchange between human species and the natural world, Marx partially returned to a narrower conceptualization of social relations. This occurred in his early as well as in his later writings. In the analytical section of Capital on the process of production in general \u2013which does not refer to the work of process of a historical social formation and advances only some analytical categories for the approach to any particular situation,\u201d 93. 380 Bodei, 98.       159 referred to in my discussion of class above, and a collective or shared subjectivity, that I have proposed in relation to sculpture. This relationship informs the conditions of composition in each APG placement and therefore the varied interpretations of what constitutes sculpture as a time capsule within the APG\u2019s practice. I will now summarize over the course of the dissertation how the sculpture acting as a time capsule has acted as a unifying medium, as a bridge between context and aesthetic form and individual experience and shared subjectivity.   In Chapter One, the medium of sculpture is not physically but metaphorically pushed to its limits.381 Within the context of the British Steel Corporation, the sculpture authored by the artist, was forced to adapt to the conceptual collision of labor and form. To re-iterate Evans\u2019s words, he felt he was \u201cin the sculpture,\u201d signifying that Breakdown came to mean, quite literally, the breakdown of mediation between the individual (artist), context (factory floor) and the material (steel).  In the APG\u2019s words, \u201cmedium has dispersed into the entire available totality.\u201d382 It is, therefore, appropriate that the APG referred to medium in the beginning of its practice as emptied out into the artist\u2019s surroundings; or, perhaps more definitively, that the artwork is composed of the conditions of its making. For example, in early documents the APG suggests that industry itself was the material for its art practice, a view that was the inspiration for the APG catch phrase, \u201ccontext is half the work\u201d.383  In the case of Evans\u2019s Breakdown, however, it is not the spilling out of medium into context; rather, it is the apex of Evans\u2019s struggle to bring together all these elements to make a                                                 381 Moorehouse, 21. 382 Artist Placement Group. \u201cGroup Description.\u201d 1965, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. 383 Artist Placement Group. \u201cBritish Industry and the Purpose of the APG.\u201d Date unknown, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.       160 sculpture. T.J. Clark identifies this struggle as inherent to the practice of modern art when he states, \u201cmodernist practice is extraordinary and desperate: it presents itself as a work in terminable and absolute decomposition\u2026a work which is always pushing medium to its limits, too its attending. To the point where it breaks or evaporates or turns back into mere worked material. That is a form in which medium is retrieved or reinvented the fact of art in modernism is the fact of negation.\u201d384 Clark\u2019s account considers the modernist notion of pushing medium to its limits, to a point where the artwork actually turns in on itself and begins to re-define its very nature. From this perspective, Breakdown can be seen as pushing the limits of modernist sculpture to the point of turning in on itself, to a point of decomposition.  If Breakdown in a sense embodies the breakdown of sculptural composition, the concept of sculpture as a time capsule in the APG\u2019s practice is not fully re-composed until Chapter Four. For as the APG\u2019s practice progressed, the importance of context was increasingly translated into the temporal, specifically the layering of events. When Latham encountered the Bings of West Lothian, he considered them works of art because of their temporal capacity. The Bings should be considered sculptures because, in his words, they were a \u201cmanifestation of instant history,\u201d a \u201ctime capsule.\u201d385 Time was thus regarded by Latham as holding an almost material property. From this perspective, all artworks become sculptural because they are made by the accumulation or through the historical construction of layers of events. By re-framing one\u2019s perspective from the spatial to the temporal, the \u201cbreakdown\u201d of mediation in Chapter One, and, medium specificity in general, becomes insignificant; materials, people and the landscape                                                 384 T.J. Clark, Author\u2019s note, 1984, \u201cClement Greenberg\u2019s Theory of Art,\u201d in Pollock and After: The Critical Debate, ed. Francis Frascina (London: Harper and Row, 1985) 59. 385 John Latham, \u201cNiddrie Woman as Process Sculpture.\u201d 1975\/6, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.       161 become intertwined in the language of events.386 To regard the artwork and specifically sculpture as a time capsule is, therefore, to remake medium in the APG\u2019s own image\u2014one of, if not the most, important contributions of their practice.  For if the artwork is considered a time capsule, the prioritization of event over spatial orientation contains political potential: the capacity to unify disparate contexts and subsequently re-build and re-interpret collective memory. This is most clearly seen when Latham claimed that Niddrie Woman Bing\u2019s fragmented body was an artwork because it embodied the fractured state of humanity\u2019s past and present memory.387 From the fractured state of the individual\u2019s psyche in Chapter One to the fractured state of humanity in Chapter Four, artistic medium within the APG\u2019s practice acts thus acts to expose the construction of collective memory in order to rebuild a new form of \u201cshared subjectivity.\u201d Therefore, despite the increased rhetoric around the role of the artist embodied in the term Incidental Person, works of art seen through this temporal lens, not the artist, were thought to hold political agency.388  The Void of Sea and Sky: Art and Ideology You can go for twenty to thirty days or more without any break in routine. Of course you cannot get off and go home. The void of sea and sky can become the enemy of men\u2019s minds. Only light and dark define edges of time from coastline to coastline.389   -George Levantis, Pieces of Sea Fall Through the Stars: Three Voyages 1974-75.   In 1993, Barbara Steveni was invited by the Artists Union of Saint Petersburg to                                                 386 John Latham, \u201cNiddrie Woman as Process Sculpture.\u201d 387 John Latham, \u201cNiddrie Woman as Process Sculpture.\u201d 388 For according to Bodie, \u201cThe final direction of that culmination brought about by the unintended consequences of their action may be quite heterogeneous and perhaps conflicting. Nonetheless this does not signify the ineffectively of these movements on the contrary such heterogeneity may represent within certain limits and given certain conditions, an advantage.\u201d 389 Levantis, Pieces of Sea Fall through the Stars.       162 participate in an exhibition titled, Borscht; named after the richly colored beet soup. It was an exhibition about consumption. In response to the invitation, Steveni re-visited the APG Civil Service Memorandum (1972) document that proposed the expansion of the APG to government placements. She selected and copied pages from the Memorandum and adhered them to a cloth banner. The pages are neatly arranged side by side in a single row and using the red color of the Borscht soup, Steveni highlighted phrases from the document. The phrases she chose to highlight describe the potential role for an artist within government. Next to the highlighted passages Steveni hand wrote the word for recipe in Russian. In this much later work, Steveni essentially equates the role of the artist within government to the act of consumption. The Civil Service Memorandum can thus be considered the same as an ingredients list in a recipe. However, instead of a recipe listing culinary ingredients, the recipe dictates the artist\u2019s actions that can be utilized and consumed by the government. No longer upholding the ambiguous language of the APG\u2019s earlier work, Steveni\u2019s banner directly acknowledges the potential for the misappropriation of the APG\u2019s practice and legacy. In the years following the initial APG placements, this fear would be realized. Both in the U.K. and globally, numerous unaffiliated community and government artist initiatives sought to instrumentalize any possible engagement between artists and institutions.390 This strategy, often referred to as \u201cthe artist as social worker,\u201d has now become common practice.391                                                  390 John Latham embarked on a crusade against the Arts Council of England, accusing them of misappropriating intellectual property from the APG. In 1977, the Arts Council advertised for an Art Placement Officer, one of many future initiatives by the U.K. government that mirrored global trends of instrumentalizing the artist for government gains. Latham\u2019s account of his and APG\u2019s relationship with the Arts Council is in \u201cRecord of an Association\u201d part of the work Report of a Surveyor (1984).   391 Steveni, \u201cBarbara Steveni and the Artist Placement Group (APG)\u201d http:\/\/flattimeho.org.uk\/apg\/        163 The precarious aftermath of the APG\u2019s legacy has led to the Group\u2019s methodology or \u201cRecipe\u201d to be described as a failed initiative taken on by \u201cna\u00efve\u201d artists. From this perspective, the APG\u2019s mission has been thought of at best as a proponent of collaboration and at worst a collusion with managerial forces. This narrative has restricted the existing discourse on the APG, discussed in the Introduction, to a focus on collaboration; their practice viewed as a precursor of socially engaged art, or as a broader experiment in compromise; a reflection of Harold Macmillan\u2019s \u201cThird Way\u201d politics.392 However, these categorizations have problematically emphasized participation and collaboration over the socio-political issues of class, labor, material and form. And, as a result, they have under-valued the APG\u2019s importance to the history of post-war sculpture and avant-garde art movements.  In contrast, I have argued throughout this dissertation that the APG was not a collaborative compromise between the various binaries of art and industry, or capitalism and socialism, but, rather, a refusal. The APG\u2019s declaration, \u201cBoth systems at present fail,\u201d393 is a phrase that defines the core of my narrative.  It represents the motivation behind the the APG\u2019s formation, and, more broadly, it is fundamental to re-interpreting the relationship between art and politics from the 1960s and 70s that has to date been defined by the very binaries the APG attempted to refuse: class divisions, concept and material and left versus right political parties. For, if Steveni\u2019s words, \u201cthe left and the right had gone to bed together\u201d394 are correct, where                                                 392 Summarized in Harold Macmillan\u2019s book The Middle Way: A Compromise Between Socialism and a Capitalist Driven Economy (1938) that would later become the political platform for MP Tony Blaire (1997-2007). 393 Artist Placement Group, \u201cAspects of a Single Problem,\u201d 1970s, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K. 394 Artist Placement Group, \u201cThe Arts Council,\u201d 1972, John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.        164 does that leave us?  What the APG and, subsequently, this dissertation has tried to achieve is an exploration of what manifests between these polarities when artists refuse them and begin to think of ways of unification. The artwork as a time capsule is arguably the most convincing of their propositions. Through re-thinking how we view sculpture as a composition of disparate layers of context, this dissertation has aimed to open up the discourse of art\u2019s relationship to politics from its current stalemate of abstinence versus compromise.     In terms of research, the contribution of this dissertation has been the utilization of new primary archival sources; the majority of archival documents used here have never been referenced or published previously. By bringing these documents to light, the specificities of the APG\u2019s placements were recorded and contextualized, contributing new information to the art history canon and repositioning the importance of the Group in the larger art history narrative. However, the significance of the research of this dissertation goes beyond the discipline of art history. The larger themes of class, labor and political policies make the example of the APG important to all interdisciplinary research by fundamentally asking: What role, if any, does the artist or artwork play in greater society?  Acknowledging the APG\u2019s influence, it should be noted that this dissertation\u2019s focus on singular placements and\/or exhibitions belies the breadth of the Group\u2019s work, which included including over fifteen placements with industrial and government bodies from the late 1960s until the early 1980s. Some, but not all of these other placements, include: David Hall with British European Airways (1970); Leonard Hessing with ICI Fibres Ltd. (1970); Ian Breakwell with British Rail (1970); Andrew Dipper with Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. (1971), Roger Coward with the Department of the Environment in Birmingham (1975); Jeffrey Shaw with the National       165 Bus Company (1975); Stuart Brisley with Peterlee Development Corporation (1975). In addition, in 1989, Barbara Steveni and John Latham established the continuation of the APG\u2019s mission in a new collective, titled Organization and Imagination (O+I). O+I branded itself as an artist consultancy and research body that also included Rita Donagh, Carlyle Reedy and David Carr. Opposed to the APG\u2019s focus on government and industry, O+I pursued the role of contemporary art in relation to education curriculum, as seen in the Education Research Project by the Inner London Education Authority and the London Borough of Southwark.  The sheer multitude of placements and the evolution of the APG into O+I suggest many avenues for potential research. This dissertation should be regarded as a contribution and acknowledgement of the future research required to fill this important void in scholarship.                                 166 Figures  Fig. 1.  John Latham, Skoob Tower, 1966, on the grounds of the British Museum. Flat Time House Archive, London, U.K. Copyright and courtesy John Latham Estate.           167 Figure 2. Figure 2 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph depicts artist Yoko One tracing the outline of Barbara\u2019s Steveni\u2019s body on the ground of the Notting Hill free playground. http:\/\/www2.tate.org.uk\/artistplacementgroup\/chronology.htm Original Source: Yoko Ono\u2019s Shadow Piece, 1966, Notting Hill Gate, London. Tate Archive, London, U.K. Copyright APG\/Tate Archive.  Figure 3. Barbara Steveni\u2019s Untitled Assemblage, early 1960s, photo taken by author in 2018 at artist\u2019s home. Barbara Steveni Archive, London, U.K. Copyright and courtesy of the  Barbara Steveni Archive.                      168 Figure 4. Artist Placement Group, \u201cIndustrial Negative Symposium Questionnaire,\u201d 1968. Flat Time House, London, U.K. Copyright and courtesy of the John Latham Foundation.                      169  Figure 5. The Artist Placement Group Delta,1965. Flat Time House Archive, London, U.K. Copyright and courtesy of the John Latham Estate.       Figure 6. Figure 6 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows a steel sculpture that is made up of a triangle shape, a large circle and silver rectangle.  https:\/\/www.tate.org.uk\/art\/artworks\/caro-twenty-four-hours-t01987 Original Source: Anthony Caro, 24 hours, painted steel sculpture, 1960. Copyright of Barford Sculpture. Ltd  Figure 7. Figure 7 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows a steel sculpture that is painted red and placed on the floor. The sculpture is made up of steel squares and rectangles. https:\/\/www.tate.org.uk\/art\/artworks\/caro-early-one-morning-t00805 Original Source: Anthony Caro, Early One Morning, painted steel sculpture, 1962. Copyright Tate  Britain.   Figure 8.1. Figure 8.1 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows a black steel sculpture made up of narrow black rectangles. Original Source: William Tucker, Cat\u2019s Cradle, raw steel, 1971. Copyright Tate Britain.   Figure 8.2. Figure 8.2 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows a curved steel sculpture placed on the floor. https:\/\/www.tate.org.uk\/art\/artworks\/tucker-beulah-i-t01818 Original Source: William Tucker, Beulah i, raw steel, 1971. Copyright William Tucker.               170 Figure 9.1 and 9.2. Figures 9.1. and 9.2 have been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photographs show contact sheets of photographs taken by Evans of steel pieces and structures on the grounds of the British Steel Factory.  https:\/\/www.henry-moore.org\/archives-and-library\/archive-of-sculptors-papers\/archive-collections\/garth-evans Original Source: Garth Evans, contact sheets, 1971. Copyright David Cotton and Garth Evans.    Figure 10. Figure 10 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows a small vitrine littered with fish skeletons on a Parisian street corner. https:\/\/www.icp.org\/browse\/archive\/objects\/petit-%C3%A9talage-de-poissons-coin-de-la-rue-daubenton-et-de-la-rue-mouffetard Original Source: Eugene Atget, Petit \u00e9talage de poissons, Coin de la rue Daubenton et de la rue Mouffetard, 1910, Paris. Copyright International Center of Photography.   Figure 11. Garth Evans, Breakdown, raw steel, 1971. Hayward Gallery, London. Copyright and courtesy of Garth Evans.       Figure 12.1. Figure 12.1 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows four gray stacked \u201cQ-stak\u201dchairs on the left. On the right,  is a single red chair facing forward. Original Source: Robin Day, Polyprop \u201cQ-stak\u201d chair, 1963. Copyright Robin and Lucienne Day Foundation.   Figure 12.2. Figure 12.2 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows Robin Day working on his \u201cQ-Stak\u201d chair.  https:\/\/www.robinandluciennedayfoundation.org\/lives-and-designs\/1960s\/polypropylene-chairs-and-armchairs-robin-day Original Source: Robin Day with the \u201cQ-Stak\u201d chair, 1953. Copyright Robin and Lucienne Day Foundation.        171 Figure 12.3. Figure 12.3 was removed due to copyright restrictions. The image was a watercolor painting of the interior of an aircraft designed by Robin Day.  https:\/\/www.robinandluciennedayfoundation.org\/lives-and-designs\/1960s\/gouache-design-of-vc10-aircraft-interior-robin-day Original Source: Robin and Lucienne Day, VC Aircraft Interior design, 1967. Copyright Robin and Lucienne Day Foundation.   Figure 13. Figure 13 was removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows brown, navy, and white chairs facing each other and the camera. https:\/\/www.robinandluciennedayfoundation.org\/lives-and-designs\/1960s\/polypropylene-chairs-and-armchairs-robin-day. Original Source: Polypropylene Chair Mark II and Polypropylene Armchair, 1964, 1967. Copyright Third Photographers Name.  Figure 14. Figure 14 was removed due to copy right restrictions. The photographs show Poly Wheel and the painted machines on display on the British Steel factory floor. http:\/\/www.stuartbrisley.com\/pages\/27\/70s\/Works\/Hille_Fellowship\/page:4 Orginal Source: Stuart Brisley, Hille Placement Poly Wheel and Painted Machines, 1970s. Copyright Stuart Brisley.  Figure 15. Figure 15 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph by Eric Consemuller shows a woman in a B3 club chair wearing a mask. https:\/\/www.bauhaus100.com\/the-bauhaus\/works\/photography\/bauhaus-scene-dessau\/ Original Source; Eric Consemuller, Untitled (Woman (Lis Beyer or Ise Gropius) in B3 club chair by Marcel Breuer wearing a mask by Oskar Schlemmer and a dress in fabric designed by Beyer), 1926, Gelatin silver print. Copyright Private collection.  Figure 16. Figure 16 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows Arman\u2019s sculpture made of white car fenders stacked in the shape of a nautilus.   http:\/\/www.arman-studio.com\/RawFiles\/001469.html Original Source: Arman, Le Murex\/The Nautilus, Accummulation Renault No. 103, 1967, car fenders. Musee d\u2019Art Modern de la Ville de Paris. Copyright Renault.    Figure 17. Figure 17 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows  a metal frame structure in a warehouse with a figure dressed in white seated at an all white   dining table with chairs. http:\/\/www.stuartbrisley.com\/pages\/27\/70s\/Works\/Celebration_for_Institutional_Consumption\/page:2 Original Source: Stuart Brisley, Preparation for Celebration for Institutional  Consumption, 1970, Brighton Festival. Copyright Stuart Brisley.  Figure 18. Figure 18 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows a wheel chair coming out of the gallery wall and a figure bound beside it lying on the floor. http:\/\/www.stuartbrisley.com\/pages\/27\/70s\/Works\/You_Know_It_Makes_Sense__with_reference_to_allegations_made_against_the_British_Army_in_Ulster_concerning_torture_\/page:8 Original Source: Stuart Brisley, You know it makes sense, 1972, Performance,  Ikon Gallery Birmingham. Copyright Stuart Brisley.       172 Figure 19. Figure 19 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows an empty wheel chair in a dark room surrounded by a pool of water. http:\/\/www.stuartbrisley.com\/pages\/27\/70s\/Works\/ZL656395C\/page:13 Original Source: ZL656395C, Performance, 1972, Gallery House, Copyright London Collection Tate.  Figure 20.  inn7o: Art and Economics (1971-72), exhibition, cover of Catalogue, London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971. Copyright and courtesy of the Barbara Steveni Archive.       Figure 21. for inn7o: Art and Economics (1971-72), exhibition, cover of Catalogue, London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971. Copyright and courtesy of the Barbara Steveni Archive.              173 Figure 22. Artist Placement Group, \u201cAPG noit Arrangements,\u201d in inn7o: Art and Economics,  Catalogue, London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971, 18. Copyright and courtesy of the Barbara Steveni Archive.                       174 Figure 23. Artist Placement Group, \u201cDelta,\u201d in inn7o: Art and Economics (Catalogue), London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971, 20. Copyright and courtesy of the Barbara Steveni Archive.                            175 Figure 24. Artist Placement Group, \u201cUnited Kingdom Corporation Consolidated Statement of  Condition\u201d in inn7o: Art and Economics (Catalogue), London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971, 23. Copyright and courtesy of the Barbara Steveni Archive.            176 Figure 25. Figure 25 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph is a photograph of Gath Evans\u2019s installation that shows pieces of steel organized on the floor of the gallery. http:\/\/jillrandall.co.uk\/tate-project\/2012\/11\/20\/monday-november-19th\/ Original source: Garth Evans, \u201cBritish Steel\u201d Installation, inn7o: Art and Economics, 1971-2. London: Hayward Gallery. Copyright Tate Archive.    Figure 26. The Sculpture, 1971. London: Hayward Gallery. Photo Credit: Artist Placement  Group. Copyright and courtesy of the Barbara Steveni Archive.                  177 Figure 27.  Artist Placement Group, \u201cScience Report,\u201d in inn7o: Art and Economics (Catalogue), London: Hayward Gallery Press, 1971, 19. Copyright and courtesy Barbara Steveni Archive.                              178 Figure 28.  John Latham, One Second Drawing 5:1, 1972. Copyright and courtesy of the John Latham Estate.    Figure 29. John Latham, Art and Culture, 1966. Copyright and courtesy of the John Latham Estate.         179 Figure 30. John Latham, Time-Based Roller, 1975. Copyright and courtesy of the John Latham Estate.                            180 Figure 31. John Latham, Offer for Sale, 1972. Flat Time House Archive, London, U.K. Copyright John Latham Foundation.                        181 Figure 32. John Latham, Erth, film still, 1971. Copyright and courtesy of the John Latham Estate.     Figure 33. Figure 33 has been removed due to copyright. The image is of a preliminary Photostat plan that shows an aerial view of the mine with a plastic overlay on which Smithson drew his additions. Smithson\u2019s marks indicate some structural changes to the base of the site and exaggerate the natural spiral of the mine\u2019s descent into the earth. https:\/\/curiator.com\/art\/robert-smithson\/bingham-copper-mining-pit-utah-reclamation-project Original Source: Robert Smithson, Bingham Copper Mine Plan, 1973. Copyright Estate of Robert Smithson.                       182 Figure 34.1 Letter from the John Latham Archive, 1976. Flat Time House Archive, London U.K. Copyright and courtesy of John Latham Estate.                     183 Figure 34.2 Photograph by John Latham of Five Sisters Bing, 1976. Flat Time House Archive, London U.K. Copyright and courtesy of John Latham Estate.                             ,      184 Figure 35.1. Aerial photo of Niddrie Bing with description, 1976. Flat Time House Archive,  London U.K. Copyright and courtesy of John Latham Estate.              The image part with relationship ID rId49 was not found in the file.      185 Figure 35.2 Map drawn by John Latham during the 1970s of Niddrie Woman, labeled as a  dismembered body. Flat Time House Archive, London, U.K. Copyright and Courtesy of John Latham Estate.         The image part with relationship ID rId49 was not found in the file.      186 Figure 37. John Latham, Derelict Land Art: Five Sisters, 1976. Constructed by Richard Hamilton  and photographs by Rita Donagh. Copyright and Courtesy of the John Latham Estate.    Figure 38. Figure 38 has been removed due to copyright restrictions. The photograph shows a burnt out car on top of a Bing. \u201cRust in Peace,\u201d image, Journal & Gazette, Linlithgow ed., Oct. 8  1976, 10. Linlithgow Public Library, Scotland, U.K.                        The image part with relationship ID rId49 was not found in the file.      187 Figure 39. John Latham, walking through Niddrie Woman in the 1990s. Copyright and courtesy of the John Latham Estate.                        The image part with relationship ID rId49 was not found in the file.      188 Bibliography      Secondary Sources   Adorno, Theodor W. Negative Dialectics. London: Routledge, 2004.    Allen, Victor. \u201cThe Paradox of Militancy.\u201d In The Incompatibles: Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus, 241-263. Edited by Robin Blackbyrn and Alexander Cockburn. London: New Left Review, 1967.   Alloway, Lawrence. Theo Crosby: Sculpture; Peter Blake: Objects, London: Institute of  Contemporary Art, 1960.  Anderson, Benedict. The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the World. London: Verso, 1998.  Anderson, Perry. \u201cThe Limits and Possibilities of Trade Union Action.\u201d In The Incompatibles:    Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus, 263-281. Edited by Robin Blackbyrn and Alexander Cockburn. London: New Left Review, 1967.   Anderson, Perry. Arguments within English Marxism. London: Verso Editions, 1980.   Artist Placement Group. inn7o: Art and Economics (Exhibition Catalogue). London: Hayward      Gallery Press, 1971.    Banham, Reyner. Theory and Design in the first Machine Age. Westport: Praeger Publishers, Inc., 1960.  Bear, Liza and Willoughby Sharp. Interview with Carl Andre. Avalanche 1 (1970): 18-27.   Benjamin, Walter. \u201cA Short History of Photography,\u201d in On Photography. Edited by Esther Leslie. London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 2015.      Benn, Tony and Andrew Hood. Common Sense: A New Constitution for Britain. New York:       Random House Publishing, 1993.   Bennedict, Anderson. The Spectre of Comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia, and the World.    London: Verso, 1998.   Bergdoll, Barry. \u201cBauhaus Multiplied: Paradoxes of Architecture and Design in and After the  Bauhaus.\u201d In Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity, 40-62. Edited by Barry Bergdoll and Leah Dickerman. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2009.   Beveridge, William. The Beveridge Report (originally titled Social Insurance and Allied  Services, 1942) New York: Agathon Press, 1969.         189 Bishop, Claire. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London:         Verso, 2012.  Bodie, R. \"Strategic di Individuazione,\" Aut-Aut 32 (1985): 93-109.  Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. New York: Routledge, 1980.  Breakwell, Ian. Ian Breakwell\u2019s diary, 1964-1985. London: Pluto Press, 1986.   Breuer, Gerda, Magdalena Droste, Jorn Etzold and Philipp Oswalt. Bauhaus Conflicts 1919- 2009: Controversies and Counterparts. Berlin: Hatje Cantz, 2009.  Brisley, Stuart.  ZL 65 6395 C. In Illustrated Catalogue of Acquisitions, 1980-82. London: The Tate Gallery, 1984.       British Steel Corporation. \u201cSculpture in Steel.\u201d British Steel Journal (April 1968): 34.       British Steel Corporation. \u201cThe Employee Director Idea.\u201d British Steel Journal (April 1968): 45-50.    Brooks, Rosetta. Structure and Function in Time: John Latham, John Stezker, John Blake, Peter        Dial, John Hilliard. Sunderland: Sunderland Arts Centre, 1975.  Bryan-Wilson, Julia. Art Workers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.  Buchloh, Benjamin. \u201cFaktura to Factography.\u201d October 42, (Autumn 1984): 82-119.   Buchloh, Benjamin. \u201cOpen Letter, Industrial Poems.\u201d October 42, (Autumn 1987): 67-100.  Buchloh, Benjamin. \u201cConceptual Art 1962-1969: From the Aesthetic of Administration to          the critique of Institutions.\u201d October 55, (Winter 1990): 105-143.  Buchloh, Benjamin. \u201cAndy Warhol\u2019s One-Dimensional Man.\u201d In Andy Warhol (1-48). Edited by Annette Michelson. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001.   Buckley, Cheryl. Designing Modern Britain. London: Reaktion Books, 2007.  Bureau of Labor Statistics. \u201cThe Donovan Report on British Industrial Relations Reform.\" Monthly Labor Review 91, no. 8 (1968): 44-50. http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/41837392.  Cadell, H.M., Grant Wilson, J.S. Caldwell, and D.R. Stuart. The Oil Shales of the Lothians.       Glasgow: James Hedderwick & Sons, 1906.  Charlesworth, Simon. A Phenomenology of the Working Class Experience. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2000.       190 Chatterjee, Partha. \u201cAnderson\u2019s Utopia.\u201d Diacritics 29, no. 4 (Winter 1999): 128-134.  Chomsky, Noam. Problems of Knowledge and Freedom. 1st ed. New York: Pantheon Books,  1971.   Clark, T.J. \u201cOlympia\u2019s Choice.\u201d In The Painting of Modern Life, 79-146. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.  Clark, T.J. \u201cClement Greenberg\u2019s Theory of Art.\u201d In Pollock and After: The       Critical Debate, 18. Edited by Francis Frascina. London: Harper and Row, 1985.  Clark, T.J. Image of the People: Gustave Courbet and the 1848 Revolution. Berkeley:       University of California Press, 1999.  Cornish, Sam. Stockwell Depot 1967-1979. London: Ridinghouse, 2015.   Day, Gail. Dialectical Passions: Negation in Postwar Art Theory. New York: Columbia  University Press, 2010.   Deacon, Richard. \u201cLocalized Changes of Conditions.\u201d Garth Evans Sculpture Beneath the Skin, 36-52. Edited by Anne Compton. London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2013.   Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. Translated by Fredy Perlman and Jon Supak. Detroit: Black & Red, 1977. Library.nothingness.org.  Demarco, Richard. \u201cBlack and White Oil\u201d (Conference Pamphlet). Edinburgh: Richard Demarco Archive, 1974.  Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1967   Dewar, Donald. \u201cDevolution and Local Government Reform.\u201d In The Scottish Debate, Edited by N. MacCormick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970.  Dickerman, Leah. \u201cBauhaus Fundaments.\u201d In Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity, 14-40. Edited by Barry Bergdoll and Leah Dickerman. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2009.   Dudley, G.F. and J.J. Richardson. Politics and Steel in Britain 1967-88: The Life and Times of the British Steel Corporation. Dartmouth: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1990.   Dudley, G.F. and J.J. Richardson. Steel Policy in the UK: The Politics of Industrial decline.      Glasgow: Glasgow Department of Politics, University of Strathclyde, 1983.   Edgar Kaufmann, Prize Designs for Modern Furniture from the International      Competition for Low-Cost Furniture Design. NY: Museum of Modern Art, 1949.        191 Erickson, Kristin. \u201cMarcel Broodthaers.\u201d In The Museum as Muse: Artists Reflect, 62-64. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1999.  Esman, Milton J. \u201cScottish Nationalism North Sea Oil and the British Response.\u201d Occasional       Papers 6, series 1, The Waverly Papers (April 1975): 38-39.  Evans, Garth. \u201cArtist Statement 1978.\u201d Garth Evans Sculpture Beneath the Skin, 178. Edited by Anne Compton. London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2013.    Evans, Garth. Some Steel. London: British Steel Corporation and Garth Evans, 1971.  Frank, Whitney. \u201cInstructions for Destruction: Yoko Ono\u2019s Performance Art.\u201d Intersections 10,       no. 1 (2009): 571-607.   Friedewald, Boris. Bauhaus: Living Art. New York: Prestel, 2016.   Fuller, Peter. \u201cinn7o: The Artist Placement Group.\u201d Art Review 23, no. 25 (Dec. 1971): 772-774.  Fulton, Ian. \u201cEconomic Future of Britain lies off the Ocean Beds of the World.\u201d Political       Quarterly 45, no. 3 (July-September 1974): 310-322.  Gibson, John S. The Thistle and the Crown: A History of the Scottish Office. Edinburgh: Her       Majesty\u2019s Stationery Office, 1985.   Graziani, Robert. Robert Smithson and the American Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge  University Press, 2004.  Gregory, Clive and Anita Kohsen, eds. Cosmos: A Journal of Psychophysical Cosmology 3, no. 22-31(1963).   Haidu, Rachel. The Absence of Work: Marcel Broodthaers, 1964-1976. Cambridge,         MA: MIT Press, 2010.  Hamilton, Adrian. North Sea Impact: Off-shore Oil and the British Economy. New York:  International Institute for Economic Research, 1978.   Hamilton, Jaimey. \u201cArman\u2019s System of Objects.\u201d Art Journal, 67, no. 1 (2008): 54-67.  Hamilton, Scott. The Crisis of Theory: EP Thompson, the New Left and Postwar British      Politics. New York: Manchester University Press, 2011.  Harrison, Charles. Essays on Art and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003.  Hiesinger, Kathryn B. and George H. Marcus, (Eds.). Design Since 1945. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1983. Hillmore, Peter. \u201cBritain Stakes Claim to Sea Oil Profits.\u201d The Guardian (July 12, 1974): 6.       192 Hoggart, Richard. The Uses of Literacy, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1958.   Hopps, Walter and David A.  Interview with Robert Rauschenberg, May 6, 1999 (Transcript).  https:\/\/s3uswest2.amazonaws.com\/sfmomamedia\/media\/uploads\/documents\/research\/rrp_sfmoma_rauschenberg_interview_may_6_1999.pdf.  Hudek, Antony. \u201cArtist Placement Group Chronology.\u201d In The Individual and the Organisation: Artist Placement Group 1966\u201379, London: Raven Row Gallery, 2012.  http:\/\/www.ravenrow.org\/texts\/43\/.    Hudek, Antony. \u201cStaging Dissonance: Artist Placement Group\u2019s Performative (Non-       Exhibitions).\u201d Journal of Curatorial Studies 2, no. 3 (2013): 302-328.  Hulks, David. \u201cBreakdown: Analysis of a crisis in the work of Garth Evans.\u201d In Garth Evans  Sculpture Beneath the Skin, 52-70. Edited by Anne Compton. London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2013.   Isles, Chrissie.  John Latham: Art After Physics. Oxford: Museum of Modern Art Oxford, 1992.  Jackson, Lesley. The New Look: Design in the Fifties. London: Thames & Hudson, 1991.  Jackson, Lesley. Robin and Lucienne Day: Pioneers of Contemporary Design. London: Mitchell Beazley, 2001.  Jameson, Frederic: The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. London:      Routledge, 2002.   Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke      University Press, 1992.  Kane, Billy. \u201cThe Five Sisters Bings.\u201d Addiewell Heritage. June 24, 2012. http:\/\/www.addiwellheritage.org.uk\/pages\/FiveSisters.  Kirk, John. Class, Culture and Social Change: On the Trail of the Working Class, Basingstoke:      Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.  Kirwan, F.X. \u201cThe Scottish Development Agency Structure and Functions.\u201d Studies in Public      Policy, no. 81. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, 1981.  Krauss, Rosalind. A Voyage on the North Sea. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1999.  Krauss, Rosalind and Hal Foster. Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmoderism. 3rd  ed (revised). London: Thames & Hudson, 2001.  Kubler, George. The Shape of Time. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962.        193 Laing, R.D. The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. Vol. I. London:      Tavistock Publications, 1964.  Latham, Noa. \u201cReflections.\u201d In Noit 4. London: Flat Time House Publishing, 2018.  Lee, Pamela. Chronophobia: On Time in the Art of the 1960s. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006.  Le Grice, Malcom. \u201cRadical Art and the Academy.\u201d In From Floor to Sky: The Experience of the        Art School Studio, 134-160. London: A & C Black, 2010.  Levantis, George.  Pieces of Sea Fall Through the Stars: Three Voyages 1974-75. London: Artist Placement Group, 1978.    Lippard, Lucy. Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972. Berkeley:       University of California Press, 1973.  Lord Melchett. \u201cIntroduction to the British Steel Journal.\u201d The British Steel Journal 2 (April 1968): 1-2.  Lowe, Roy. Education in the Post-War Years: A Social History. London: Routledge, 2012.  Lumsden, Andrew. \u201cWhy Steel is Appealing.\u201d The Times (Wednesday July 15, 1970): 23.  Lyall, Sutherland. Hille: 75 Years of British Furniture. London: Elron Press in association with       the Victoria and Albert Museum, 1981.  MacCarthy, Fiona. A History of British Design, 1830-1970. London: Allen & Unwin, 1979.  Mandel, Ernst. Marxist Economic Theory. Vol. 2. Translated by Brian Pearce. London: Merlin Press, 1968.    Mansoor, Jaleh. Marshall Plan Modernism: Italian Postwar Abstraction and the Beginnings of         Autonomia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016.   Martin, D. Timothy. \u201cRobert Smithson and the American-Anglo Picture.\u201d In Anglo-American  Exchange in Postwar Sculpture, 1945-1975. Edited by Rebecca Peabody, 164-175. Los Angeles: Paul Getty Trust, 2011.  Metzger, Gustav. \u2018A Critical Look at Artist Placement Group.\u2019 Studio International (January       1972): 4\u20135.  Mitchell, James. Governing Scotland and the Invention of Administrative Devolution.  Strathclyde: U.K. Department of Government, University of Strathclyde, 2003.  Moorehouse, Paul. Anthony Caro. London: Tate, 2005. Morris, Robert. \u201cAligned with Nazca.\u201d Art Forum, (October 1975): 31.       194 Morsch, Carmen. Incidentally in Context. Kopaed: Verlag Munchen, 2019.  Oaks, Philip. \u201cArt Clocks In.\u201d Sunday Times (Nov. 28, 1971).   Oil Depletion Analysis Centre. \u201cAbout\u201d (organizational web page).       https:\/\/www.odac-info.org\/.  Ono, Yoko. Imagine Yoko. Lund: Bakhall, 2005.  Philips, Jim. The Industrial Politics of Devolution: Scotland in the 1960s and 70s. Manchester:      Manchester Press, 2008.   Potts, Alex. The Sculptural Imagination: Figurative, Modernist, Minimalist. New Haven: Yale      University Press, 2000.  Quentin Bernes, Jasper. The Work of Art in the Age of Deindustrialization. Stanford: Stanford      University Press, 2017. \tRainbird, Sean. Joseph Beuys and the Celtic World: Scotland, Ireland and England. New York:  Harry N. Abrams, 2005.   Richardson, Craig. Scottish Art since 1960. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2011.  Roberts, Melanie. Interview with Stuart Brisley. National Life Stories: Artists\u2019 Lives. London:       British Library, 2015.   Robertson, Ken. \u201cThe Red Menace! Region Makes a Move in a Bid to Beat the Shale Spillage      Problem.\u201d Journal & Gazette. Linlithgow ed. (Friday Oct. 8 1976): 5.   Robertson, Lewis. \u201cThe Scottish Development Agency.\u201d In Scottish Government Year      Books, 21-31. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1976-92.  Rowthorn, Bob. \u201cUnions and the Economy.\u201d In The Incompatibles: Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus, 210-227. Edited by Robin Blackbyrn and Alexander Cockburn. London: New Left Review, 1967.  Sillars, Laurence. Joyous Machines: Michael Landy and Jean Tinguely. London: Tate Liverpool, 2009.   Sleeman, A. J. The Sculpture of William Tucker: British Sculptors and Sculpture. London: Lund     Humphries and the Henry Moore Foundation, 2007.  Sleeman, Joy. Five Sites for Five Sculptures: Roelof Louw and British Sculpture since the 1960s.      London: Ridinghouse, 2016.          195 Smithson, Robert. \u201cFrederick Law Olmsted and the Dialectical Landscape.\u201d Artforum, (Feb.      1973): 65.  Sramek, Peter. Piercing Time: Paris After Marville and Atget, 1865-2012. London: Intellect Ltd,      2013.  Steveni, Barbara. \u201cBarbara Steveni and the Artist Placement Group (APG).\u201d      http:\/\/flattimeho.org.uk\/apg\/.  Stiles, Kristine. \u201cSurvival Ethos and Destruction Art.\u201d Discourse 14, no. 2 (Spring 1992): 74-102.   Stiles, Kristine. \u201cThe Story of the Destruction in Art Symposium and the \u2018DIAS affect\u2019.\u201d  In Gustav Metzger. Geschichte Geschichte, 41-65. Edited by Sabina Breitwieser. Vienna & Ostfildern-Ruit: Generali Foundation and Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2005.  Thompson, E.P. The Making of the English Working Class. Leeds: University of Leeds, 1963.  Thompson, E.P. William Morris Romantic to Revolutionary. New York: Pantheon Books, 1976.  Thompson, E.P. The Poverty of Theory: Or an Ornery of Errors. London: Merlin Press, 1978.  Thorp, David. Stuart Brisley: Black. London: South London Gallery, 1996.  Tisdall, Caroline. Bits & Pieces. Edinburgh: Richard Demarco Gallery, 1987.  Toynbee, Philip. \u201cThe Language of Inequality.\u201d In The Incompatibles: Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus, 95-102. Edited by Robin Blackbyrn and Alexander Cockburn. London: New Left Review, 1967.   Topham, Tony. \u201cNew Types of Bargaining.\u201d In The Incompatibles: Trade Union Militancy and the Consensus, 133-159. Edited by Robin Blackbyrn and Alexander Cockburn. London: New Left Review, 1967.   Triggs, Oscar Lovell. Chapters in the History of the Arts and Crafts Movement. Chicago: The       Bohemia Guild of the Industrial League, 1902.  Vishmidt, Marina. \u201cThe Two Reproductions in (Feminist) Art and Theory since the 1970s.\u201d       Third Text 31, no.1 (2017): 49-66.   Walker, John. John Latham: The Incidental Person\u2014His Art and Ideas. London: Middlesex       University Press, 1995.   Waterhouse, Robert. \u201cGuardian Special Report on land reclamation.\u201d The Guardian (June 28       1974): 20. Waterhouse, Robert. \u201cNorth Countries find common cause.\u201d The Guardian (June 28 1974).       196 Weidenfeld, John Valiey. The History of British Steel. London: Wilmer Brother Limited, 1994. Whitechapel Art Gallery. Modern Chairs 1918\u20131970. London: Whitechapel Art Gallery, 1970. Wilk, Christopher. \u201cMarcel Breuer and Gunta Stolzl African Chair 1921.\u201d In Bauhaus 1919- 1933: Workshops for Modernity, 100-110. Edited by Barry Bergdoll and Leah Dickerman. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 2009.    Williams, Raymond. \u2018Working-Class Culture\u2019 in The Uses of Literacy Symposium, Universities  and Left Review (I, 2 1957): 29-32.   Williams, Rosalind H. Dream Worlds: Mass Consumption in Late Nineteenth Century France. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.  Wolff, Janet. The Social Production of Art. New York: New York University Press, 1984.   Wood, Jon. \u201cJon Wood in Conversation with the Artist.\u201d In Garth Evans Sculpture Beneath the      Skin, 16-36. Edited by Anne Compton. London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2013.   Wood, Jon. The Cardiff Tapes 1972 Garth Evans. Chicago: Soberscove Press, 2015.   Wrigley, Chris. A History of British Industrial Relations: 1939-1979. Herfordshire: Harvester Press, 1996.  Xavier, Girard.  Bauhaus. New York: Perseus Distribution Services, 2003.    Archival Sources    Artist Placement Group. \u201cAn APG Draft Contract.\u201d 1970. Stuart Brisley Archive, Flat Time      House, London, U.K.   Artist Placement Group. \u201cAspects of a Single Problem.\u201d 1970s. John Latham Archive, Flat Time      House, London, U.K.   Artist Placement Group. \u201cBritish Industry and the Purpose of the APG.\u201d n.d. John      Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.   Artist Placement Group. \u201cEconomic Proposal.\u201d 1965. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House,      London, U.K.   Artist Placement Group. \u201cGroup Description.\u201d 1965. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House,      London, U.K.        197 Artist Placement Group. \u201cGroup Policy.\u201d 1965. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London,      U.K.  Artist Placement Group. \u201cIndustrial Negative Symposium Questionnaire.\u201d 1968. Tate Archive,     London, U.K.  Artist Placement Group. \u201cLanguage as a Dividing Medium.\u201d 1983. John Latham Archive, Flat     Time House, London, U.K.  Artist Placement Group. \u201cNotes on the Incidental Person.\u201d 1974. John Latham Archive, Flat       Time House, London.  Artist Placement Group. \u201cSample Contract.\u201d 1968. Tate Archive, London, U.K.  Artist Placement Group. \u201cThe Arts Council,\u201d 1972. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House,      London, U.K.  Artist Placement Group. \u201cThe Incidental Person\u2019s Approach to Government.\u201d 1972. TS, John      Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.  Artist Placement Group. \u201cThe Sculpture.\u201d 1972. Film from Barbara Steveni Archive, London,      U.K.  Brisley, Stuart. \u201cCelebration for Institutional Consumption Script.\u201d 1970. Stuart Brisley Archive,      London, U.K.   Brisley, Stuart. \u201cFine Art and Prejudice.\u201d 1970s. Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.   Brisley, Stuart. \u201cHille Fellowship-Factory and Artist: The Industrial Context.\u201d 1970. Stuart       Brisley Archive, London, U.K.  Brisley, Stuart. \u201cProposal for \u2018Celebration for Institutional Consumption\u2019.\u201d 1970. Stuart Brisley       Archive, London, U.K.   Brisley, Stuart. \u201cReport on APG project at Haverhill commencing September 1970-May 1971.\u201d       Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.  Brisley, Stuart. \u201cReport.\u201d Date Unknown. Tate Archive, London, U.K.   Brisley, Stuart. \u201cYou Know It Makes Sense.\u201d- Press release. 1972. Stuart Brisley Archive,         London, U.K.   Brisley, Stuart. Hornsey College of Art. \u201cTo the Authorities whoever they are.\u201d      1968. Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.         198 Evans, Garth. \u201cGarth Evans\u2014British Steel Report\u201d 1970. Tate Archive, London, U.K.  Evans, Garth. \u201cGarth Evans\u2014Report for Training Officer BSC Redpath Dorman Long Depot.\u201d      1970. Tate Archive, London, U.K.  Evans, Garth. \u201cGarth Evans- Report.\u201d 1969. Tate Archive, London, U.K.  Evans, Garth. \u201cLetter to Dr. H M Finiston Deputy Chairman of British Steel\u201d 1971. Tate Archive, London, U.K.  Evans, Garth. \u201cLetter to Jasiah Richard written by Garth Evans.\u201d 1980. Tate Archive, London,         U.K.  Evans, Garth. \u201cNotes on Trainee Films\u201d 1971. Tate Archive, London, U.K.  Evans, Garth. \u201cProposal for Hayward Gallery\u201d 1971. Tate Archive, London, U.K.  Evans, Garth. \u201cWork in the Studio.\u201d Notes by the Artist. 1970. Tate Archive, London, U.K.  Finiston, H. M. \u201cLetter from Dr. H M Finiston Deputy Chairman of British Steel to Garth Evans\u201d         1971. Tate Archive, London, U.K.  Latham, John and Artist Placement Group. \u201cThe Incidental Person Approach to Government-Artist Placement Group (APG).\u201d 1970s. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.   Latham, John. \u201c20C Trajectories,\u201d undated. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London.  Latham, John. \u201cArtist Statement.\u201d London: Nigel Greenwood Gallery Press, 1970.   Latham, John. \u201cBings as Sculpture\/Monuments.\u201d 1975. John Latham Archive, Flat Time      House, London, U.K.  Latham, John. \u201cCorrespondence with The Gallery\u201d 1974. John Latham Archive, Flat Time      House, London, U.K.   Latham, John. \u201cInstant History and the Incidental Person.\u201d In Programme for Four Lectures     n.d. (1970s). John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.  Latham, John. \u201cNiddrie Woman as Process Sculpture.\u201d 1975\/6. John Latham Archive, Flat Time      House, London, U.K.  Latham, John. \u201cNiddrie Woman as Process Sculpture.\u201d 1975\/6. John Latham Archive, Flat        Time House, London, U.K.        199 Latham, John. \u201cNiddrie Woman as Process Sculpture.\u201d 1975\/6. John Latham Archive, Flat         Time House, London, U.K.  Latham, John. \u201cOil Industry\u2019s Greatest Monuments.\u201d 1975\/6. John Latham Archive, Flat       Time House, London, U.K.   Latham, John. \u201cParticular Importance of the NIDDRIE WOMAN as a monument.\u201d 1980.       John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.  Latham, John. \u201cStructure in Events: In the Context of the ART Tradition,\u201d April 1972, John       Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.  Latham, John. \u201cThe Basic (T) Diagram,\u201d 1990s. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House,       London, U.K.  Latham, John. \u201cTime-Base Roller.\u201d 1970s. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London,       U.K.  Latham, John. 1975\/6. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.  Latham, John and Artist Placement Group. \u201cSummary of Feasibility Study for Scottish Office.\u201d       1975\/6. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.   Latham, John. and Artist Placement Group. \u201cThe Incidental Person Approach to Government-      Artist Placement Group (APG).\u201d 1970s. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London,        U.K.  Latham, John. and Artist Placement Group. \u201cThe Mental Furniture Industry: A Case of Chronic         Dereliction.\u201d 1970s. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.   Letter from Anita Kohsen and Clive Gregory to John Latham, August 31, 1960. John Latham       Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.  Letter from Derek Lyddon to John Latham. 1977. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House,      London.  Levantis, George. \u201cIndian Ocean Journey with Ocean Fleets.\u201d June 3, 1975.      Tate Archive, London U.K.   Lyddon, Derek. \u201cAPG Feasibility Study.\u201d1975\/6. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House,       London, U.K.   Postcard from Clement Greenberg to John Latham, June 1963, John Latham Archive, Flat Time       House, London, U.K.        200 Steveni, Barbara and the Artist Placement Group and the British Steel Corporation. \u201cSculpture   Fellowship British Steel Corporation Proposal.\u201d June 26, 1969. Tate Archive, London, U.K.   Steveni, Barbara and the Artist Placement Group. \u201cArtist Placement Group Proposal for Milton      Keynes.\u201d 1970. Barbara Steveni Archive, London, U.K.   Steveni, Barbara and the Artist Placement Group. \u201cSculpture Fellowship British Steel       Corporation Statement.\u201d June 26, 1969. Tate Archive, London, U.K.   Steveni, Barbara. \u201cLetter between Barbara Latham and Leslie Julius regarding Hille.\u201d 1970.      Stuart Brisley Archive, London, U.K.  Steveni, Barbara. \u201cLetter to Sir Paul Reilly.\u201d 1967. Tate Archive, London, U.K.   Steveni, Barbara. British Civil Service Department Memorandum. 1972.TS. Barbara Steveni       Archive, London, U.K.   The West Lothian District\u2019s Director of Physical Planning, George A. McNeill in  correspondence with John Latham. 1981. John Latham Archive, Flat Time House, London, U.K.    ","@language":"en"}],"Genre":[{"@value":"Thesis\/Dissertation","@language":"en"}],"GraduationDate":[{"@value":"2020-05","@language":"en"}],"IsShownAt":[{"@value":"10.14288\/1.0390300","@language":"en"}],"Language":[{"@value":"eng","@language":"en"}],"Program":[{"@value":"Art History","@language":"en"}],"Provider":[{"@value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","@language":"en"}],"Publisher":[{"@value":"University of British Columbia","@language":"en"}],"Rights":[{"@value":"Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International","@language":"*"}],"RightsURI":[{"@value":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/","@language":"*"}],"ScholarlyLevel":[{"@value":"Graduate","@language":"en"}],"Title":[{"@value":"Total economy : the Artist Placement Group (1969-1976)","@language":"en"}],"Type":[{"@value":"Text","@language":"en"}],"URI":[{"@value":"http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2429\/74316","@language":"en"}],"SortDate":[{"@value":"2020-12-31 AD","@language":"en"}],"@id":"doi:10.14288\/1.0390300"}