2008
TAPE 5, Interview
We were talking about the second sound at Hamburg.
And the fact that it is this texture, and I was saying that I want to make sure that none of these sounds would go beyond the space, which wasn't easy because this space is cladded with walls maybe three meters high but the space was ten meters high so it was a real challenge to try and get both these things which are not necessarily it's one thing to get a click in a special place, it's another thing to get the big texture and stuff like that but it
And these were only things you heard when you were in each thing?
Well, the entrance is not drawn no I made a very narrow break for a door in the center of the wall that went right across the front of these spaces, so you walk to this narrow break, there was this notice in the form of a label - the same form as the labels of the show - saying when certain kinds of sound are very soft et cetera, and then you were in it, but - it was kind of strange because a year later Harry Szeemann called me up in panic, he said Max I've got some piece that makes a sound here but it's like all over the place and I said yeah, of course, and he said but tell me how to do it and I said Harry it ain't easy! Well, you can't.
He was building another show it was a work that had sound in it and he didn't want it in the whole exhibition but he thought that I just did something that eveybody knew like I did the sound location thing - where's the sound location button, Max? And it took me about fifteen minutes to convince him. It's also in a way it's one of my dilemmas I mean I was brought up as a virtuoso and the key in being a virtuoso is to make something very, very hard look easy. But the problem with sound is that since nobody knows anything about it they don't realize how hard it is.
The two immediately following works are also Like Space works, and what's interesting about them is that the rooms aren't separated by something else in between but they communicate either with having the wall or having two together but I think a lot of that is
I'd like to come to a more radical work which is the second documenta piece
You want to jump there or go straight, you really want to jump
Turin was really next in concept I think.
Say something about the invitation for those two Like Spaces.
Well, I went up to Torino in the summer of '89 so this was even before my invitation for the Deichtorhallen came in something like August and it had to happen fast, so I'd already been to Torino and agreed to do a work for Giorgio and knew about the similarity of these rooms, so to speak, and I think it was then in my mind perhaps that could have been the first Like Space work and then Deichtorhallen came in and bang and then yes right after making the Deichtorhallen work I went to make the piece in Dallas and went even further with the idea
There you chose a room or were given a room.
Yes, exactly, I chose a room. I had some alternatives. and I had thought about doing two rooms but then this idea since you know I had worked this thing already kind of in a way to really go to the extreme of making two sounds which sounded the same but created different feeling completely inside them even though you couldn't tell the difference between the sounds even
This is where it all gets very difficult to understand, and also I think you probably have trouble explaining it to yourself in some cases.
No, no, I knew. I really had to work on it ... what I am doing is comparing sounds and the closer I'm getting to the sound I want the more similar these sounds become and so at one point I realized I had two sounds that I could barely tell the difference of but something else was happening in these but I already established that it would be the same room with this divider - I had them build the divider before I arrived and it was set up since there was an exhibition in this room at the time that I built the piece we had to take it down and put it up every day that I worked.
How high was it?
It was normal room height, three meters or something. And it had part of a division in it, to block it off from doors in the back, so I just added a line dividing the room in half with another thing.
You must have seen this as a continuation of what you were undertaking in Hamburg.
I was fascinated with this idea of how far I could go with this idea and then bingo when this thing happened with the two sounds
You took it to the limit, as you said before, so it's a question of
I don't know, I might find a way to go further (expand)
The limit of the Hamburg idea - the creation of two different feelings in spaces that are identical just by the addition of sound - but instead of having the difference of sound obvious
as in Hamburg
on the contrary, not obvious
indistinguishable - it was also a challenge, I was very happy with myself
But then Turin is immediately after Dallas
But before Dallas was turned on
But in terms of working, the idea was even before Hamburg - in terms of working you come to Turin having worked with pairs of spaces - now you have three.
One interesting point is that both in Hamburg and in Dallas they're mirror images of themselves - right is left and left is right - but you don't notice that consciously. Because the building was symmetrical of course - although the spaces in Hamburg were symmetrical themselves, but in Dallas of course this entrance was on the opposite side in each one
But is that also true of the extreme rooms in Turin
These rooms are really quite the same, this one is a little smaller.
It's as drawn. I think that's important because of the visual element involved in the work; you don't pay attention to it but you are aware of the fact that in Hamburg and Dallas these are symmetrical
And really mirror images of each other in each case, and in Turin they are just three similar spaces, two of them not being mirror images at all, just being alike - the same high ceiling, same dimensions, two doors connecting them. And so it was, yes, this idea and this idea of the way of executing it was again ... another extreme of the same room because it was making three spaces out of two sounds; it's another way of going further - one's two sounds which sounded exactly the same, and then to make three different spaces out of only two sounds, this building one sound each for the two extreme rooms and combining those sounds - building them in such a way that when they combine, when I put both of them into the middle room we had a third room, I mean we had a third sound - indistinguishable - you didn't hear the extreme rooms in the center room, you heard a completely different room. Using the same components juxtaposed creating something else.
Was the making of the work in Turin finding the two sounds for the extreme rooms
Don't remember how I did it, or which I found first, or whether even I came in with that concept, but at one point it clicked. But this thinking about it and thinking about what it is, this idea of changing the meaning of a sound in some way while still having it there, like I was saying that the entrance into the center room you can't find the line even though it is an acoustic line because you still had the ear of one of the extreme your ear still has the sound of one of the extreme rooms in it, but at one point you enter into both sounds and that's when this formation, this combination is evoked. It's also a lot going on in your own head; they're indicators for your imagination, and that's what makes it.
Does going into the middle room, does that experience somehow draw you into the last room?
I think so, yeah. Of course, if that happens to you ... But, actually, the most common route is into the middle room first. The entrance to the gallery goes into a hall which goes into the middle room and then it goes to another room and then there's a doorway into one of the extreme rooms and the only way you can get to the smaller of the rooms is through the middle room; you can't go there first.
But can you go into the other extreme room first?
Yes.
I suppose that is something you have to think about - is the most usual entrance.
Yes. So actually the experience I'm describing of going from the extreme to the other was after you'd been in the piece for a little while. You've got both sounds in the middle room and your ear is carrying both those sounds and it enters a new room with only one of those sounds, the fact that it's gone has to register at one point.
And what about the plausibility of the sounds? You described both the Hamburg and the Dallas sounds in terms of feeling
Dallas also had the diptych in the entrance to the space - because of putting this horizontal wall to match the horizontal wall at the other end of the space I had a little hallway and you walk in and then you either turned left into one side or turned right into the other side but to your side were these two things, but most people came in were confronted with two openings one on the right and one on the left and went for the opening so it was only after you'd been in the room and perhaps like nonplussed that you came out and you saw the image of the diptych or the text panel of the diptych. That was a beautiful way to use those things, not confronting them - read these before you go in - but go in, stretch, and then all of a sudden have this - no, it wasn't possible to get by yourself. The fact that you tried first
What about Turin, was there a diptych
Yeah, I made a diptych in the same way that
The first diptych
No it was Eric Franck
And this idea was to hang it in the office permanently while the work was there and the work also only arrived when the space was darkened, it didn't have to be as dark as - Giorgio reinstalled all the shutters which he'd taken out to make this very classic into a quote good space, so the rooms were kind of semi-dark, enough so that any visual work became secondary
I envisaged it as a permanent piece, and it is a permanent piece, so I had to deal with this idea that it was always going to have an exhibition in there
It wasn't so subtle, you didn't - because it had to be a deliberate act. To know about this piece, you have to ask Giorgio, Giorgio has to walk into the gallery and close all the windows and then you're there for a while and it appears. But it's not about trying to make a place with just a presence of sound; it a real healthy textures that you're hearing, you're immersed in.
In a way, Hamburg and Dallas form a pair
They're all different directions out of this idea - the fact that the rooms were mirrored that -
symmetrical spaces and trying to narrow the sound difference that gives the difference in feeling in the case of the Dallas work
It's not that the sounds weren't very, very different but that you didn't hear it - the way we hear something, I think the confusing thing about explaining this piece is that people don't understand how we hear, that we don't hear reality any more than we see reality. We build what we hear in our mind. And I'd found a way to have the mind build in its overt perception the same thing which in fact wasn't the same thing, and that was the key and that's the dilemma
Another thing that obviously differentiates Turin is the fact that there are the three, and that presented you with a problem of mixture
I was intrigued by the challenge of three instead of two. If I had been hooked on the idea of, if I was even thinking of the idea of series, which I wasn't - I was just fascinated with this idea of juxtaposition. If I was hooked on the idea of series I would have taken the rooms that were identical and made two identical rooms and left off the third room; that would have been the simplest solution. But this was on this step away in another vector, away from this central idea of juxtaposition.
The reason it's good to speak of all these as Like Spaces is the fact that Spaces are plural, in contrast to all previous works you're dealing with more than one space - whether those are two spaces or three is a new piece of exploration.
Some people thought they were getting two installations for the price of one, which was fine, but it really relates to a two panel work; one doesn't exist without the other. You could have a fine time just if you happened to go into one of those rooms at the Deichtorhallen or in the other one. Bordeaux then becomes a trio because those stairways are absolutely identical, they're not mirrored in any way; they are the same.
How did it happen?
After documenta Harry was building a show for Bordeaux but it's actually strange because the director came to see me before I even started working in Europe in my studio in New York and we talked and I took him to Times Square - it's strange, I remember what happend at the time - he was being very French and I had no idea what being very French was of course and he had to bring up the question of money - I can see what happened, I was completely mystified - so I'd taken him to Times Square and you know he said well then how much could possibly, should, would, might such a work of yours somewhere in the world cost, and so I took him at his words somewhere in the world and I was really fascinated, obsessed with raising the money for the siren project so I said you know I'm working on this siren project and it's got a budget of five hundred thousand dollars - he kept talking but left. I did the piece in Bern for fifteen thousand dollars and that would have been the price. My first lesson in the French conditional, which is not at all conditional.
He commissioned Laurie Anderson to steal one of my ideas. Max Neuhaus second hand, why not? She made a piece in this elevator that they had there which died thank God but was replaced by something worse...
He of course later realized that my works cost something else .. we didn't have any trouble getting five ... thousand francs out of him. Harry wanted to include me in this show that he was doing and I said no I'm not going to do any more works in an exhibition and he said but you have to be in this show and I said no way Jose and then he said OK I'll talk to Jean-Louis, so they talked and the whole connection of ten, fifteen years before pushed it through and I went down, spent a day choosing because these are the only symmetrical staircases there, there's a very interesting staircase though on the other side which is completely different, it's spiral and I was really torn between whether to do that stairway
The point here is that I'm not looking for a place to do another double thing; in fact I almost chose this other stairway, the single stairway.
These are more like Hamburg than any of the others in that they don't communicate
Exactly. It's about the same distance between them, about sixty meters, but they're strongly identical because the lower floor is dark because it's an old warehouse; and it doesn't really have any windows coming into the lower floor, so it's artificial light, but at the top of each of these stairways is a window with daylight and these vaulted ceilings - it's very - in a way we can go back there, they're not labyrinthical like Southwest Stairwell, but if you didn't know your way around the museum, which you don't because it's so huge, you could confuse one with the other because they're that identical. But the sounds here - one is really warm and rich, the other one is really cold and hard. One is soft and rich; the other is cold and hard - but both continuous textures but really extreme contrast but within the same form, whereas the contrast with Hamburg was fluid - these are both fluids but a completely different nature and Hamburg was fluid as opposed to activity over your head in terms of form, so it was a shape
They're continuous in that as you go up or down either of the stairs it doesn't differ
No
So was this in the show or not, Harry's show?
Yes, it was part - it was inaugurated with this exhibition and just stayed, and that's become a very good way to do it - because they aren't exhibitionable really, I mean, the real meaning of these works comes after you know them for a while and you have to get to know them. These are perfect in that you can walk through either space without hearing anything, and many people do, so they are ... exhibition, permanent collection, but completely discoverable
But also they're not like, say, the Karsten Greve in that - say you hadn't noticed when you were walking up one of the stairs that this thing was in it, when you come out of the sound work ...
If you haven't noticed it, then you don't notice the contrast, because it's not a preparation for anything; you have to focus before you build it for yourself.
Then of course if you have noticed it, when you leave it you'll know that you're not in it
Yes. I didn't want it to enter downstairs because that's the main exhibition space, but it wasn't hard because even though it's drawn as this there's a smaller arch where you enter the stairway so there was a confining thing at the bottom; at the top also a little smaller arch, so they were rooms kind of. But at the top it goes into kind of a utility hallway space that goes finally into this mezzanine, so spread wasn't important there. I had the architecture helping me confine it to these two places, but it's not about walking across a line as in Sound Line or Times Square. You enter the zone; it is sudden but I didn't use that, in a way, it's not how you find it. You find it by knowing that it might be there and going to look for one of these stairways and going in it and stopping for a second and then, bang, it comes
When you come out of either stairway at the bottom you're immediately in the exhibition space
Did it have a diptych?
No. Because it was 1993 and I was finishing the books, I made the diptych of course almost immediately and it came fairly quickly
But it was made for the books
As all of them, except Persano and - well, Eric Franck's - the one that's in the book is not the one I made for the gallery, because it was made at a time when I was trying not to draw myself and I had someone else to draw this room in a very strange way, very light, shading of yellow, shading the space into existence, but the text ... but it was a direction of drawing that I didn't like so I made this other drawing which works much better.
How was the drawing for Eric Franck made - was it a copy of yours? How did the person know what to do?
No, I just gave him the dimensions of the room and told him to take a very light yellow and not draw any lines but draw the room in three dimensions with just shading, so it's a very subtle drawing - yellow, illumination. I was in the midst of working with engineers and my idea was this one with the engineer - where I know enough to be able to direct an engineer but I find an engineer that knows something that I don't know, who's a specialist in something, and thereby extend my own knowledge by being able to direct him, and so I tried to apply this to the drawing. I even got the drawing back from Eric and was ready to photograph and I said, no, this is not this
This is a visual artist who did this for you?
Yeah, he was a student ...
Also, some of the early working drawings are made by a student in New York, not conceived by him - sketching together kind of an idea and then he would - the Fan Music drawing in the working drawings is one of his. It was the beginning of this idea of being able to make a drawing without making a drawing, to use the skill of someone else, apply the skill of someone else to do something. But I've really abandoned that now, partly because I've learned to draw, so it's not a distraction there ... I'm just busy really doing other pieces and there was no time to stop and learn to draw and I didn't want to make drawings that weren't drawings
-----------------
Now, Giorgio has a gallery in Milan.
He did have a gallery but he had to close it. But there was another space, and this elusive sources idea was no longer in Paris, and so I wanted to go on with it.
It was as a result of doing the Turin thing that he invited you to do the thing in Milan.
I don't know exactly how it came about. But a very much different kind of space than... It was a single space; I went in with the idea of elusive source.
How does it differ from the Paris work.
Well, it's so much more complex because the reflections are much more complex. So it's a square space but not as high as it is square; it's not a cube. Cement walls, ceiling; there was a light bar running along the front of the space where all the lighting for the space would come from, and I disguised the source on that bar because it was the only place and started working from there. Picking range, I even did that on the floor, because this source only focuses frequencies that are within its size range; the bigger it is, the more range it has. What happens is that you walk in the space and you don't - until you first hear this click-train - you don't hear it until you're in the center of the space and then clearly, bang, from either this wall or behind you depending on where you are - how much in the center of the space - you hear this clicking. In the Hussenot piece you heard the clicking no matter where you were in the space; it was either coming from one wall or the other wall, depending on which shadow you were standing under or which reflected beam you were in. Here the reflections are much more complex and because I really tightened the beam, so there was nothing leaking out of the beam, what happened was it developed this very complex terrain where although in the center of the room you could always hear this one of the other two - if you moved out of the circle there were places where the sound just stopped, the impression was that the sound stopped, but if you moved to another place it would start again but from another part of the room or if you walked over there it might come back but you could lose it completely
Were you tempted to go from the center toward the source, the apparent source of the sound?
Sure, and then of course other things can happen but it's impossible to say what would happen because ... The Hussenot was this very simple terrain. It was more like being in a forest. The Paris logic was very simple and very direct concentration, and this being much more complicated - in some places the clicks were softer and came from a completely different place, in some places they were louder and came from another place, in other places absolutely nothing, in this small room, very reflective - a strong contradiction to your sense of hearing because your organism knows that in a reflective space you're going to hear anything that's there, and you swear that it went off.
What exploration did the work tempt the perceiver to undertake?
Again this diptych was made and in the office and this putting a circle there - no matter how lost you got in this forest you could always find it again; you just go back to the center and you could start trying to go again. There's a point of orientation in this very diverse acoustic terrain.
So that was part of it, getting lost?
And getting back to maybe why these elusive source thing are places - they take you on a journey but it's a journey in a place; it's just that it's such a different way of defining a place than the texture - with all the other pieces we've put some walls around this idea of place even though it's a completely artificial use of the word, and this in a way stretches that definition which we've established for place in that it's a labyrinth.
I think the problem I have with labyrinth is that originally it was the place you got lost in and the minotaur killed you. It was a kind of maze - Ariadne's thread for Theseus was to help him get out of the labyrinth. He went in to kill the minotaur and he was able to get out because he could just roll the thread back up.
I may have heard that story but it certainly was never important to me.
More like getting lost in the woods, it sounds to me.
That piece, yeah. And whereas the Paris piece was a very strong contradiction within your sense of hearing - they're all about moving you into a new place; that's what art is about.
But instead of these being textures, they do it by sharply locatable sounds that you try to hunt.
Exactly
And you can't find them
You can't explain them. I think the confusing thing then we get to is that it's not the sound again in these sound works; it's sound as a vehicle for getting something to happen within yourself. And if you start chasing one of these elusive sources you enter another world, and that's exactly what I want to do. You enter another place.
But it would be hard to call it a topography.
I think so.
Or a very confusing topography
Well, the Paris piece was a very simple topography but completely confusing. Milan is a very complex topography. It's more than a topography like Five Russians where you chose a place to sit in the topography when you moved your chair around to sit in another place.
Drawing them into this journey of their own. The strongest confrontation is the fact that it disappears, but if you walk to another place it appears again, almost to the point where you think, well, something's sensing that I'm going to the center again, but then you can have someone stand in the center and he says, I hear it, and you say, I don't hear anything.
But it doesn't appear again the way your walking around the MoMA piece allows you to get the thing appear again.
Because in each of those very clear zones the zone was stable, it was a continuum. And this also is an infinite line - so this changing in pitch, changing in loudness - all this is going on and instead of being always there so you can ... you can step out of it between one of its clicks
In the elusive source pieces it's the clearest example that it's the sound work where the sound is not the work; it's what it gets you to do, what it evokes you to do
And do you see further possibilities of making elusive sources - you haven't exhausted the form.
No, I'm thinking about doing one next month. It's a good example. I'm at the point now where I know that I have conditions where I could make one; I've got a place for a source and a very difficult place to put a source, and I've got walls to reflect off of. But what I don't know is the first time I bounce something off this wall what's going to come back at me.
It's not a room, though.
No, it's a terrace with three walls.
Finally let's deal with Luzern. How did that come about?
The Swiss had this celebration for two hundred years of something, and each canton got a thing in Geneva - chose someone who chose me to be one of three artists - Richard Long, myself, and some local artist. Each canton was given an area around Lake Luzern, which has a network of paths through it, walking paths basically, the Swiss like to walk in the woods. So I went and started with this guy at the beginning of the Geneva path and near the end of the path turned down this hill and came into this large area of open pine trees, long trunks, canopy, and not much vegetation below because it took all the light, so it really was a canopied space - it wasn't like being the woods a lot of it - it was like walking into a big room but you were still in the woods. The sources of sound were in the ground but they are outside of the space. And by having a number of them - you couldn't find one source because you were hearing two all the time.
How many sound sources?
I'm not sure. Maybe eight but it really is technical; what it took to get it to work. It was vandalized continuously because there was one guy around who kept disconnecting - he wouldn't destroy the speaker, just disconnect every one that he found. So it was both there and not there a lot of the time. I never envisaged it as a permanent work.
It seems hard to make a permanent work outdoors.
Times Square.
That's because you can't get in the grating.
Kerguehennec was really their fault - there was a solution. Nobody would have walked in the water to find that speaker - the lake got deep fairly quickly. All it would have taken is nettles.
But what about Luzern?
If it was a permanent work I would have built the sources in the ground in a way that just made it very, very difficult to do anything with it, but we only buried the wires like a few inches under the ....
What was the idea of the work?
It's a texture, it's not a terrain. It's a sound field
So it's uniform on your walk?
Also there's a ...
You talk about a certain complexity in the text
The drawing is very subtle - I think a lot of people don't get the drawing. It's a contour map but it's more than a contour map because it's drawn in perspective; so it's a superimposition of perspective and contour. And where the work is, the color of the path and the color of the contour lines changes, so in a way it's a very nice reflection of in fact the borders of the piece too, because you can look at that and you say, well, there is a different green there but where does this green start? And there is a different brown there but where does it start?
So most people approached it from here which is the top of the hill and came down and this dome was here and there was a kind of path that didn't really go anywhere off the side which went into the center of the area, so you could either just walk through it and pass through this thing but if you went in there - there was a very nice place to sit, very nice woods. It's a steep hill and after this zone of pines there's a zone of leafy trees and so between the leaves of the trees you could see the lake but very far down.
What about the plausibility of the sound in the context?
It was a much more complex texture than Villa Celle or Promenades; it really was in density as dense as the textures of Three to One. It was plausible but it wasn't woodlike at all. It was totally foreign.
It was up in the summer so there would be summer sounds in the woods.
But there were also a lot of outside sounds because the lake was right there, the train running past, planes going overhead, boats on the lake, but very distant and very clear because you were up on the hill.
The sound you made took those into account.
They weren't so constant, so I didn't have to; they were just kind of interruptions and didn't disturb it. It was a beautiful texture; when you found it - people were told where it was and I didn't think of it as a permanent piece which would be always there - I didn't have to make an entrance - it was announced. In a space I can do it by the assumption of room sound - you expect a room sound in a room; if it's silent you get a shock. If a room is an anechoic chamber you may not notice the room sound but if you take it away again then it's there. But you expect it in an interior space; you don't expect it in an exterior space. But in a way this texture was like one that I would have built to be concealed in the expectation of a room sound, but it was outside. First constant sound zone, and then once you were in it finding movement and finding detail. It's also a way of not finding the source is to have things moving so that when you get attached to one source it's moving somewhere else but not as any kind of demarcation like documenta 6, more just a way of keeping it alive. It wasn't static, wasn't frozen.
You made this shortly before the second documenta - is there any relationship between the two?
No, I don't think so. Right after I made it I went to Kassel to find out how to get the sources in there. The richness of this texture was something I guess I was working on; I was focused on texture at that time.
One has the sense that the lakeside is a relatively quiet place - is this true?
Yes. It was woods and when there is a high canopy above it's like a cathedral in there - it's not like a cathedral but it has a big acoustic - but not that acoustic because there's no reflection in an outdoor space; that's one of the real differences. Open air is the maximum coefficient of absorption; that's the most you can get. And very few reflecting things; these things are soft.
It shows perfecting the means to work in any space
And this challenge, going in with this first step which is both practical - where I put these sources determines what I can do but it doesn't determine what I do. It's the first border around my possibilities.
We should go back to Three to One because one of the drawings in there is this idea - in the working drawings - volume two
I should have shown you these Three to One drawings, maybe we should look at them now, they're in a tube
passage of an outside sound, and this whole idea as in all my work of not trying to find an isolated acoustic space but taking the givens of a space acoustically and also its sound events as part of the work, and this strange thing that happened here - because these sounds were so finely formed and so precise that an interruption from the outside really changed your focus, it recolored - because sound is relative - what a sound sounds like changes depending very much on what you hear before and what you hear after - and this after-the-fact statement about the piece - because the same thing happens with color too - these are the same colors here and here but they look different because of this interruption, and in the same way this idea of sound having that same thing and not considering these interruptions interruptions but as things which pass through this space and reform what this - well, if you are to the point where it's a terrain, reform the terrain, refresh the terrain
You must have experienced this in making the thing - what were the outside sounds?
No, it was horrible. They were building this huge underground garage in the square right in front of the building, and so I had to ignore the sound because it wouldn't be there during the work. So I really could only work either when they stopped at 5 or for an hour during the day or on the weekends which was really torture. And then - they built this whole garage; it was done by the time documenta was done; when the drawing show was there last February I said, great, I can go back, nobody's in the building, I'll be able to hear it - they'd just started building another underground garage in the main square up there and - it seemed like they could never dig in front of my piece again, but of course the entrance to this garage was right in front of the AOK building, so all during the exhibition ...
You say that you have this here - isn't this in the show?
No, this is volume 2
But it's a working drawing for Three to One.
Yeah, but it's not a study, drawing study.
This is an important distinction.
No, the exhibition is all the two-panel drawings of volume 3, the circumscriptions of the place works, and the studies I used that are a result of making the images for those drawings, the visual images.
I misunderstood; I thought that studies meant working drawings.
Also, the exhibition for Rome for which we have to come up with some text about Three to One is a combination of both; it doesn't have the circumscription drawing for Three to One which is in the other show but it has drawing studies for that image, but it also has these divisions, this proposal that I had you send to Stuart about a classification of working drawings, that there are two kinds basically - working drawings for a sound work - and within that category there are the ones that I make that are tools for making the piece, and other ones which I make like the Spatial Interlock very deliberately afterwards, more than just to explain to myself or I would have just made a sketch. They're statements about how the piece works.
Is Stuart clarifying this sense of study or should you say a bit more? They are preliminary sketches to arrive at the final image that constituted part of the diptych.